EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Can Jeff Sachs Get Us Out of Afghanistan?
Could an Ivy League economist end the war in Afghanistan?
Maybe, if that economist is Jeffrey Sachs.
Sachs has "taken to the hustings" against President Obama's plans for cuts in domestic spending.
Sachs' alternative: do what the public wants. Raise taxes on corporations and the rich, cut military spending, get out of Afghanistan, cut excess profits from the insurance industry and healthcare with a public option.
Let's make a list of people of national prominence who are saying these things.
Jeff Sachs.
Anyone else?
There are certainly lots of folks trying to push back against the President's domestic austerity plans. And there are certainly lots of folks trying to push back against the endless war in Afghanistan.
But you don't see any prominent political force in the media putting this together as a package: tax the corporations, cut the military, end the war, control health care costs with a public option. In particular, other prominent folks who are talking about stopping cuts to domestic spending are not talking about ending the war in Afghanistan.
If we lived in Western Europe, we'd probably have a political party that would be pushing this agenda forward as a package.
Here in the U.S., we have the 80 member Congressional Progressive Caucus. They have put forward a "People's Budget," which would put America back to work, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and eliminate the deficit.
But most Americans probably aren't aware that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has put forward an alternative to domestic austerity that includes ending the wars, because the "lamestream" national media censors the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Does that mean no-one's interested? A piece by Sachs about the People's Budget on Huffington Post has been wildly popular.
If we want to force these proposals into the national debate against the determined opposition of the "lamestream" media to exclude them, we're going to need a big crowbar.
That's why Jeff Sachs should consider challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. Even the "lamestream" media cannot ignore the budget proposals put forward by a credible candidate for President. You think if the White House faced such a primary it would affect their decision about responding to the demand for a substantial drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan this year? You betcha.
Here is Sachs' "stump speech" (his rap starts at about 13:40.) Watch this video, and ask yourself: would I vote for this guy? Would I send his campaign $25? Would I make phone calls for his campaign in Iowa?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show Allumm, with all due respect, I'd rather donate $25 to a fund that sent Jeffrey Sachs to some distant corner of Russia or one of the other Eastern European countries he drove into financial ruin. I'm sure they'd give him a most hearty welcome.
Thank you for providing the needed context. We are too apt to forget that these "wise" commentators have histories of being, well, completely wrong about everything with disastrous effect for millions.
I'd rather fund Mickey Mouse for President than this phony liberal.
Damn straight I'd work for Sachs. I don't have anybody to vote for now. The Republicans all seem like sociopaths and I wouldn't vote for Obama for dogcatcher. Sachs is a guy who once promoted "austerity" and privatization and finally realized that both killed people and made the rich richer. Another thing we should push is a transaction tax on Wall Street. That would solve the so-called budget crisis immediately. Chellie Pingree from Maine has such a bill.
These economic policies proposed are sensible. The conclusion that their proponent should therefore run in the Democratic primaries is not. On what planet have you been residing, Mr. Naiman? The Democratic party, including Obama, is an essential part of the problem, for they are controlled by corporate oligarchs and Wall Street and their coffers. Obama could care less whether Sachs opposes him in primaries; he would bury him by lying and bullsh*ting as usual, then do whatever his corporate pimps tell him to do after the elections. More scary to Obama would be a credible 3rd party candidate who might actually throw the elections to the Republicans.
Everywhere one looks the systems are failing.
I just got a call from a group calling for legislation for independents to vote in primaries. In many states they are excluded from the primaries unless they declare a party and now the independents are a larger percentage than either of the two factions called parties. Thus the primaries are not representative of the people.
Our empire is collapsing. We have gotten so low to now blame teachers. Chris Hedges yesterday describes as Chris Hedges' article with the title "Why The US Is Destroying the Education System."
The Military, Security, Financial complex, with the corporations and the super rich like the Koch brothers and the corporate media are running the show. Our military with almost 1,000 bases around the world to product our corporations and financial institutions is the major drain on the economy.
I sure hope that Sachs can make a difference. The events in Wisconsin show the power of a uprising.
I wish that I had something to say other than the world is going to hell.
In the 2006 book "Dark Ages America: The Final Stages of Empire" Morris Berman says that when the empire is collapsing they choose leaders that accelerate the collapse. This was sure true of W Bush, but I didn't plan on Obama continuing his policies.
It's silly to campaign for independents to vote in primaries; it would be better to eliminate primaries, let the parties pay for their own nomination processes, as minor parties have to do.
The real reform is Instant Runoff Voting, which opens up the election by giving voters a backup vote: if your first choice doesn't make the cut, then your second choice is counted, and so on until someone gets a majority. No more spoilers, no more minority officeholders (remember Bush? Or Clinton, for that matter.) and no reason for primaries: make it easy to get on the ballot, let the voters sort it out. That's their job. It all happens in one election, so it saves money, too.
DON: Excellent post. I would add that between Earth Changes and prophecy, politics and economics constitute only PART of the total equation and ultimate play-out. Stay tuned...
Quick answer: No
"If we lived in Western Europe, we'd probably have a political party that would be pushing this agenda forward as a package."
But we do, except for the "public option," a half-assed substitute for real health care reform:
The Green Party, www.gp.org. All of the above, plus single payer and a great deal more.
If Sachs wants to run for our nomination, he'd be very welcome. I think Cynthia McKinney already is.
We all know who the Democratic nominee will be. They seem very happy with their right-wing, Wall St. president.
No.
This is just another,
"Let's save the democrats from themselves" stupid article.
Get a copy of "The Shock Doctrine" (Naomi Kline) from the library (free) and read up on Sachs and his destruction of the Russian and Polish economies.
He is a Chicago School Economist of the worst sort - worst because he will switch his allegiance and his philosophies at the drop of a hat.
Lately he has been putting together an economically warped "development" village in Kenya and starting a environmental studies program at Columbia (the alma mater of Obama). I'd be very wary of Sachs and his frequent appearances on Morning Joe and the the MSM Talk Circuit.
I'm surprised that Naimen is drinking the koolaid - he's actually a pretty decent scientist
I have to agree with most commentators here on CD that Sachs was once the poster boy for Milton Friedman economics. He created disasters in Bolivia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere with his insistence upon 'free markets' and the lure of foreign investment. But people change. Though it is very rare to see a true progressive liberal go to the other side, it is quite common for former right wingers to switch sides after a period of enlightenment. Sachs maybe one of those who has seen the light and has finally come to the conclusion that he was nothing more than a tool of the sociopaths who run this country.
Cynthia McKinney on the other hand has no 'star power' and therefore she will be conveniently ignored by the "lamestream" media in the next election. Sachs could give her a boost in media coverage, but it would be marginal at best. Once any potential politician abandons the corporate agenda, they are relegated to obscurity. Whether Jeffrey Sachs is going to make a legitimate run for the nomination of any party, his exposure to the general public will be muted.
Actually, most development professionals view Sachs as an opportunist. He may be the poster child for the UN and the World Bank and the even more opportunistic Gates and Clinton Foundations, Serious development and humanitarian relief groups have little use for Sachs.
The environmental movement is equally unimpressed with Sachs. He does however fit into the star studded heights of Harvard and Columbia. Keep in mind that Harvard just rehired Summers and much of their environmental work is carried out by secret panels at the Kennedy School,
Nonetheless, in a political system run by frauds and criminals, he might be a great alternative.
A random choice from a phone book in Anywhere USA would likely be better than most elected presidents I have observed.
Hasn't our experience with Obama taught us to look VERY carefully at the background and the associations of a possible candidate to make sure the words are sound?