I could not help myself.
Joe’s post below inspired a very long series of thoughts, so he encouraged me to simply post them here instead of in the comments. So here goes:
First, this issue of our economic decline has been very large on my radar for a long while. We’re so definitely heading for a deep recession, you can smell it. And I would not be the least bit surprised with a depression to dwarf The Big One. Though folks love to claim there are too many federal stopgaps in place to allow for that, I can only laugh; the Republicans have been about the business of dismantling those “protections” since before Reagan, but with a vengeance since then, and just flat out brazenly with Bush. Add to that the OUTRAGEOUS spending of these bushy idiots, and what you have is less a freefall than a nosedive eerily similar to one of those infamous defenestration spy ‘suicides’.
Second, I totally agree that the Dems are heading for a proverbial setup of trainwreck proportions if they don’t take this tiger by the tail. It would be to their great advantage to milk the situation for all it’s worth, using it as an opportunity for exposing the truth of our economic woes and for educating the public about what’s been behind this mudslide toward disaster that’s been sold as ‘trickle down economics’ for far too long, with all the requisite boogeymen of the ‘welfare state’ and ‘taxandspend Dems’. (Check out just as an example the current Repug candidates’ rhetoric on ‘tax and spend’ Dems without a shred of evidence to support the accusation, which is in point of fact a blatant falsehood if you actually look at the economic trends over the past 50 years; we prosper under Dem Presidents, and the economy slides with Repugs in office.)
And there are numerous points on which these issues could be hammered home successfully by any candidate with leadership courage. Edwards has started the movement by focusing on poverty, but he would do well to stress the fact that ALL of us – except the super rich – are flirting with poverty now. All of us have to work harder to achieve less financially than we did just over fifteen years ago when Bush’s father had sent us into a slightly tamer version of where we are now. And it’s such a vicious cycle, needing to work more and harder requires more of the gadgets and amenities that cost more, and so on. When a candidate is willing to show the courage it will take to address the unbridled consumer mentality that has contributed so much to our American zeitgeist, yet clearly now its demise, we’ll be looking at a true leader. (Carter really tried, but he was mercilessly derided by the ‘liberal’ media.)
Which brings us to that point in Joe's post. Yeah, the media, holding such vast and ruthless interest in maintaining this whole status-quo scenario will clearly kill any such virtuous messengers, pronto. The only good news on that front is that, right now at least, the public is pretty skeptical of the MSM and is looking anywhere - even in comedy shows! - to find the truths that they already know. Not to mention the power of the internet. The fact that a full 99% of the public response to the FCC’s 2003 attempt to roll back media ownership rules is a remarkable testament to just how savvy the public has become on this issue. I'm not suggesting that they’re immune to the powers of media persuasion, but currently there is a reasonable amount of skepticism. How else can we explain the stunning rejection of the war etc. despite all the media neutrality at best and support at its worst?
(Additional hope can be found in stats regarding the zeitgeist of the upcoming youth demographic, which shows the 18-29 year old crew trusting Dems more than Repugs on every surveyed issue, with even 40% of young Repugs favoring an Iraq withdrawal! I got these numbers from Matt Taibbi's article on The War Party; check it out.)
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Any candidate taking on this necessary leadership role – necessary for saving the democracy, in that FDR quote sense – will also need to get very aggressive with the cause of the problem, namely unbridled corporate power. Someone needs to stand up and remind the world that Adam Smith himself recognized the need for governmental constraints on the ‘free’ market, lest it unleash rampant greed (I’ll have to find that quote, but it’s in Wealth of Nations). Someone needs to stand up and drive home the fact that all the rhetoric and propaganda and fear-mongering about a ‘welfare state’ translates into the greed of the mega-wealthy. Someone needs to stand up and make this the fiery issue of the day, that corporate greed and corruption have ruined this country, and that this greed is inextricably linked to this godforsaken war, not to mention the godforsaken push to expand it to Iran and beyond.
Someone needs to stand up and shout that this greed is NOT what America is about, that we have always been at our best when we recognize the radically LIBERAL concepts that we are only as strong as the weakest among us, and that we are only as good as our willingness to help even the weakest among us. And yes, that is a frank and open allusion to probably the most radically LIBERAL dude of all time, not ashamed to say, one Jesus of Nazareth. (You'd think that would shame them!) And that, my friends, is the ONLY trickle-down economy that makes any sense to me, that means anything to me, as an American and a human being (not necessarily in that order).
In my humble opinion, whosoever makes this the foundation of their political platform will win by an enormous landslide next year, beating out FDR's numbers. The message needs to focus specifically and relentlessly on this overarching point, and this point only: Every single woe we can speak to at this moment in our history comes down to one thing, expressed boldly in the inherently coupled issues of our invasion and occupation of Iraq and the devastation of our once strong economy, with all the intervening destruction of our diplomatic standing and relations in the world, of the environment, of the Constitution, and of our sense of national unity. There is just no getting around the fact that we can trace all of it back to the corrosive agenda of unbridled corporate power.
There are several very encouraging moves in play right now that give some reason for hope along these lines. Joe expressed his concern that CEOs will never give up their tax breaks or high salaries; with the Repugs dominating the rhetoric these days, I can understand why. However, that rhetoric rings exceedingly hollow in the ears of John Q. Public; more and more folks are staring that infamous welfare state right in the face, not their neighbors of color but themselves. The next step is the homelessness Joe also notes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make the obvious comparison of have’s and have not’s, and this crisis has already hit enough citizens to turn that old tide into a tsunami against the Repug propaganda machine. If we get a lock on Congress next year, we’ll be in a position to do what FDR did over 60 years ago, and impose laws that restrict runaway corporate profits and obscene CEO salaries at worker expense. The Repugs can cry socialism all they want, but there are enough experiments in social democracies, particularly in Scandinavian countries, to shut them up, especially when it comes to the health care nightmare we’re all suffering.
The more detailed comparisons to the Depression years are a bit harder to make to the uneducated public, but not impossible. I am dying to see someone do a bangup remake of Grapes of Wrath to drive the points home (what a courageous creation that was; more on it soon). Still, those comparisons are not impossible to make; try pithy points that simply list the parallels, because the disparity between wealthy and poor is not the only one. For starters, simply pointing out the outrageous exploitation of corporate power as the culprit; again, it all comes down to greed. Greed and fear.
Another source for these comparisons comes from two Naomi’s, Klein and Wolfe. These two gorgeous and brave women are coming at the same issues from only slightly different angles, angles that are parallel but importantly complimentary. Klein’s recognition of the historical evolution of the Shock Doctrine, a la Milton Friedman himself, exposes how the greedy and powerful have actively worked to keep economies (that would serve their plundering and looting agenda) under the control of the greedy and powerful, economies that now include our own. Her work in this area is sheer genius, and should not be missed.
Wolfe’s contribution looks directly at those comparisons with the thirties, but more directly at Germany’s devolution to fascism. Though we’ve made many of those comparisons before, if only in passing, she’s drawn out the parallels in disturbingly geometric precision, and it’s frightening. That someone out there we’re hoping will take up this banner with the necessary leadership and courage will also need to stop shying away from that F word; fascism is upon us, and it’s gaining ground at frightening speed. When will ANYONE mention the definition of fascism, which requires “a coalition of business with government, coupled with a belligerent nationalism.” Sounds all too familiar, eh?
However, there is one comparison we as a nation of citizens need to be very very careful about in addressing these comparisons and working toward a solution: the power of the executive.
Though it’s quite clear that FDR was a genius in crafting his political agenda and then implementing it to the desired effect (presumably of keeping him in office so none of it would be dismantled before it could prove itself as a desire for the good of the people), it required a great deal of executive power. This has long been the rallying cry of all those Repugs out there in blasting FDR and his policies; he had too much power. Why, all that power in the executive is un-American, it’s unconstitutional!! Nothing achieved with so much power should be allowed to stand! All that whining about all that power just makes you want to chuckle out loud, don’t it?
Yet, in the face of all that irony, we may get to chuckle at yet another example of this self-same irony, and at the expense of all those greedy and corrupt Repugs. (Sure, hope springs eternal, but why not? It happened before, didn't it?) The corrupt Repugs have crafted an executive with infinitely more power than FDR ever dreamed of, and they have abused it, relentlessly, at the express expense of the American people and to their own advantage. It will take just such a forceful hand to even begin to whip this mess back into shape again, as much as I hate to admit it.
So, with all the recent Repug rhetoric about the need for executive power, won’t it be a hoot to see it flung back in their faces by the Dems who recover power? (And this is no small aside, but while Joe's concerns about Romney or Paul winning in ’08 may be valid, but there is no getting around the fact that the Dems will win very large in Congress; good for a Dem prez, and very bad for a Repug prez, so that may tweek any predictions about blowback against the Dems in ’10 a bit.)
All this pointing yet again to the way in which the situation needs to be framed, hard and uncompromisingly; look at what the Repugs have done with their power, they exploited it for greed, nothing more, and in the process they have dismantled our economy, our good standing in the world, our Constitution, and our sense of ourselves as a people. OUR ONLY HOPE is to WORK TOGETHER to TAKE THAT POWER BACK!
Finally, just a few specific references to the Der Spiegel article Joe linked to below:
One, take note of its reporting, despite all the nightmare stories, that stock markets are doing well! In my humble opinion, the stock market is the epitome of corporate greed. It serves only to maintain all that money in the hands of the greedy rich. Billie was right; them that's got, gets! It’s glorified gambling, and should be noted for it’s remarkable abstraction away from the real commodities, not to mention the real people, being dealt with (or without, as layoffs and shutdowns suggest). All the easier for shareholders to demand the bottom line without having to confront the faces of all those workers whose jobs are cut and lives wrecked, not to mention the environments destroyed, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam….
Also, I’d really encourage readers to go to that link and wade through the details into the history of currency exchange rates. Pay close attention to when the shifts happen, under Repug admins with Nixon taking us off the gold standard in ’71 and Reagan’s thugs pulling god knows what in ’87 to stave off a dollar dive after that Black Monday stock market crash. Yet another point for a courageous leader to drive home in this campaign.
And with regard to that last incident, which has never been adequately analyzed by anyone for what are likely obvious (though hidden) reasons: I could not help but google that ’87 crash and found this point of particular interest:
The crash began in Far Eastern markets the morning of October 19. Later that morning, two U.S. warships shelled an Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf.So. Those comparisons just keep comin’ atchya, don’t they?
This quote from the Der Spiegel article also struck a nerve:
While Asia finances America's excessive consumer spending, the Americans buy Asia's cheap T-shirts, cars and flat-screen TVs. "Getting this much into debt while at the same time enjoying returns on long-term government bonds of less than 5 percent -- I'd call it the biggest free lunch in modern economic history," says Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, referring to the audacity with which the Americans take advantage of their privileges as holders of the world's reserve currency.As did the only mention of a Presidential candidate, here (also Edwards!!):
Presidential candidate John Edwards routinely condemns the "shipping out of American jobs.Likewise this quote about Ford:
In the days of Henry Ford, the prospects for Detroit's workers were decidedly better. The founder of the Ford Motor Company doubled his workers' wages to $5 a day. In 1914, Ford was quoted as saying that he wanted to turn his workers into car buyers. The Wall Street Journal wrote at the time that Ford's wage increase was "immoral," and that he was practicing Christian values "where they don't belong."Now if that ain’t rich (intentional pun, snark), as they say; defining a place where Christian values don’t belong!
And then this, which is – after all – the crux of the matter:
The Americans -- the citizens and government alike -- continue to live beyond their means. And economists agree that as long as this continues, the tendency will be for the dollar to lose value.That leadership we're desperately seeking needs to redefine what we mean by value, taking the dollar out of it and returning us to something more sustainable and simple, like the ideas of pulling together like good neighbors and recognizing that our biggest enemy is really just us. Um, just US.
To thoroughly corrupt an old Chinese curse in speaking to the current one:
It appears we live in way too interesting times.
10 comments:
Cannonfire is fun because it's like NYC must have been in the 1930s and 1940s when there were a dozen full-bore daily newspapers flourishing, reporting and barking from about ten different perspectives ranging from the now-obsolete highly literate and civil to the horoscopically superstitious. World War 2 changed everything about how literate people think. What had before never been possible and only imagined as being impossible had become part of human history, including its destiny. Other total disorientations have happened in modern times: around 1600 when geocentricty was proved false; around 1860 when Higher Criticism and natural selection made for another loss of faith; and 1945 when nuclear weapons were used on populations and mass-produced human extermination technologies were revealed to the public.
I don't know if it bears repeating, but a lot of people still haven't got over the 1600 shock, and they still refuse to accept science as a valid system for guiding how we live. Those numerous people plus even more haven't got over the fact that many people over many centuries composed 'the Bible', contrary to what the Bible itself asserts; and in their bones they don't really believe that we're all part of the same animal life, that is, short-timers during Nature's stay here. Everyone here still argues against science and nature, and they form their politics around those arguments. Maybe it bears repeating that since 1945 a lot of people have dedicated themselves to trying to make sure nothing like nuclear bombs are used or anyone ever threatens to exterminate people again. It seems to have been a full-time job for a lot of people. For the rest of us, it's obviously too fucking terrifying to begin to worry about.
This blog's also fun because it resorts to eloquence, as with dr elsewhere's impassioned example here, to deny the undeniable: more people in 2000 and 2004 cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate than for Bush, and the results of their voting had been altered to change the outcome. It is always wrong to say the Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 or that Bush won, always.
It's fun here because dr elsewhere can narrow the focus crisply to the singular fact of "unbridled corporate power", a fine Jacobean turn of phrase that dr elsewhere had the good sense to borrow from the public domain, where Ralph Nader had bequeathed it very long ago, soon after the Supreme Court had ruled that a corporation is entitled to the same protections under the law as the individual person. Saying stuff like that made people pressure him to run because no one else was saying it, no one who had any clout, that is.
And it's fun because our host's political heart is with the John Edwards campaign even though John has been barred from posting here because he keeps hawking the same SIBPATS message.
aitchd, you are far too kind. but coming from you, i'll take it, as your input certainly keeps the discussion here elevated.
i can't speak to nyc in the pre- and war years, but i'm often reminded of berlin before the war, shades of cabaret and all that.
as for the 'unbridled corporate power' phrase, had honestly forgotten it was a nader gem. it really ought to enter the lexicon as a bona fide linked phrase, as it is so weighted with meaning.
was wondering, though if you were aware of thom hartmann's book, unequal protection? he actually unpacks the real history of that bizarre notion of 'corporations as persons', and it actually predates your listing, to the end of the 19th century. interesting story, as it was actually not at all real, so the whole idea has been hyped and leading us all around by the nose for over a century.
it's a concept whose time has come to die, methinks. nothing but nothing has visited more scourge on the planet - not just the country - than that idea. i say let's kill it!
I would just like to add to this discussion the premise, often cited by republicans, that the reason we have better economies and economic gains during Democratic administrations is because it takes X-10 years for the omniscient republican policies to bear their fruit, as I remember hearing quite clearly during Bush's first term and as an explanation for the relative prosperity during the Clinton years - ergo, "Of course the economy declined during Bush 2 and grew under Clinton - Reagan/Bush spend 12 years setting up the prosperity, and during his 8 years Clinton destroyed it! So now Bush inherits Clinton's debacle" - I mention this only as intellectual foresight as to the arguments that will be forthcoming yet again if a Democrat, much less a populist, anti-corporate-inclined Democrat gains the White House in '08 only to inherit the outcome of eight years of state-sponsored larceny at the expense of honest, working people, who will naturally bear the bulk of any burden the future may hold.
I am not signed up for Google/Blogger, and I know the history of trolling on this site and the moderation thereof, but I hope you see fit to allow my post.
anon 434, of course your very civilized comment made the grade! thanks for the input.
and you're right about the repug tendency to blame the dems for their economic strengths. that's precisely why i suggested that a dem candidate - any one of them - should take this bull by the horns and start shouting all those truths now, so none of it will be a surprise when it all hits the fan.
it'll be interesting to see not only who the dem candidate is, but where they take these issues next fall.
dr. elsewhere, we can't eliminate corporations without also shredding our Constitution, can we? I don't believe there's such a thing as "unbridled corporate power", but it's a perfect metaphor: if you love wild horses and civil liberty, you love things like unbridled corporate power; if you love breaking a horse's spirit and threatening it with a bit of a whiplash, and if you limit civil liberty to humans who qualify for it, then you also love things like unbridled corporate power. Nader's point is that corporations don't possess a conscience. If he had a Mac, he'd know there's a workaround for that socio/economic/political inconvenience, and that corporations can be required to run software that will flag every datum that corresponds to every (non-duplicated) consumer/citizen/official FAQ submission. And it will all be blogged and public. So, someone can write in: Dear Lee, How did you and Ford come up with the conclusion that it would be cheaper for Ford to pay the lawsuits from the deaths and disfiguring injuries from Ford Pintos that exploded apparently spontaneously because of where Ford placed the fuel tank than for Ford to redesign and retool its Ford Pinto? Did you rely on the information from the old files when Ford was advising and outfitting the Nazis, and running factories in the Fatherland?
Corporations can be cool but only if they're unbridled, which gives them power. There's nothing that says a bunch of like-minded persons can't form a corporation, unbridled and powerful. In politics they form parties, in education they form colleges, in sports they form teams, in love they form families, in business they form 'corporations'. We'll figure out a way to incorporate some abstract thing, maybe to buy up and own most of the Earth's fresh water, so that water is corporately owned, like it is now, but unlike now, it will be protected. And everyone will have the same access, including snakes and bottom-feeders, whether they're owners or freeloaders or Republicans and Libertarians. I mean, it's not likely that governments of sovereign nation-states can do anything about the fate of the Earth without going to war to win control of something or to keep it. We've tried telling people that plug-in room deodorizers are bad for the planet even if they're good for the economy and they mean jobs. It's hard to modify behavior. The sooner we figure out how to eliminate all national borders, the safer everyone will feel, and we'll all breathe a sigh of relief and easier. It will probably take unbridled corporate power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people who believe killing is always wrong.
Any good Democrat will do, so I'm hopeful. No one will save us, and I really don't want another FDR if it means we need another FDR, but, whatever. Any good Democrat will also try to make sure that the Democratic incumbents will prevail in 2010, and I'm hopeful (and willing to have my heart broken) that by 2010 the most serious issues are the only issues being addressed.
Just wanted to drop in to say you should read these two pieces, they might even wake up the Dem haters, who knows?
Very good IMO
http://tinyurl.com/yo4cxc
and
http://tinyurl.com/29okeg
Flo
Um, any new content expected any time soon? I'm "jonesing", so to speak.
Let's talk NIE, Joe...
Jamie in Boston
Sheez, aitchd, I honestly cannot get my head around your mindset, so riddled with contradictions it often seems.
Your analogies don’t work at all because your premise is completely unfounded. There is NOWHERE in our Constitution protection for ‘unbridled corporate power’!! Where did you ever get such a bizarre notion? There is NOWHERE in our Constitution protection for unbridled power for ANYONE!! Least of all corporations.
I don’t happen to love things unbridled; if horses are left to the wilds, fine, but even if I ride one unbridled, it must be tamed. The key piece here is that the horse and I are working together on the same plain, so to speak. Otherwise, the horse would just simply destroy me, end of story.
Which actually makes MY point. And in case you missed it, the dangers of unbridled corporate/capitalist power are even recognized by Adam Smith (still working on that quote; bear with me).
And NO!! – a loud and resounding NONONO!!! – corporations are NOT cool when unbridled!! All the evidence we need to the contrary is screeching at us right now from every corner of our existence! As I said, we can reduce every ill we encounter in the world right now – and over the past century – to unbridled corporate power. Go ahead; knock yourself out; I dare you to find a single solitary problem the world faces that would not reduce to abuse of corporate power.
Being unbridled is NOT what gives corporations power. Sheez again, Seabiscuit’s power was hardly restricted because he was bridled. Being unbridled is how they abuse it. What you suggest as a ‘conscience’ correction in software (don’t EVEN get me started on the fallacy of a machine showing a conscience; you defy the very definition of the concept to try to force it into code!!) is precisely the BRIDLE I – and Adam Smith!! – are suggesting is absolutely necessary to keep the greed that inherently drives corporations from driving them – and the whole wide world with them – into a mindless sewage of hell.
What you suggest for “corporately owned” water, for instance, is what is more normally known as “cooperatively” owned. These two concepts are diametrically opposed, so please don’t confuse them! The cooperative idea is a very good one, and actually looms quite large in the notion of a democracy. In fact, our colonies became a union in defiance, not so much of the Crown (though in part, in truth, because the Crown owned controlling interest), but of the East India Company. Corporations are the furthest thing from a democracy on the planet, which is precisely why unbridled capitalism and democracy do NOT mix at all. Since when does “everyone…have the same access” in or to corporations??? The very notion of “unbridled corporate power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people” is a flaming oxymoron!! What you are describing is decidedly NOT a corporation, but instead a cooperative, which is …well, it’s Marxist, really; quite socialist, and well, the way you describe it is actually rather communist, in the strictest sense of the term.
I’m not so sure about eliminating borders as a means for peace. I can live quite peacefully with my local neighbors without involving us in a bizarre scene of any and everyone walking through any and all folks’ homes without question. What is required for world peace is for each individual to find peace within him or herself.
But you are absolutely right about one thing: it IS very hard to modify behavior. That is why this economic issue is so powerful, because it hits at what will force behavioral change. We won’t be able to survive much longer if we maintain the same behavior patterns. Period. Simplifying and eliminating wasteful consumerism to rid ourselves of the scourge of the corporate/capitalist drive will be required of us, as will peaceful coexistence, eventually. Though, again in agreement, not likely without a great deal of conflict first.
Sorry for the emotional response, but honestly, your comment just demanded it. You’ve a peregrinating mind, I’ll give you that, aitchd.
What can I say, dr. elsewhere, except what McLuhan said, that what you are saying is that my entire fallacy is wrong. But I still wonder how you can square the notion of outlawing corporations or incorporating with the First Amendment. Also, I find a lot of language in the Constitution that guarantees 'unbridled' rights in the sense of Congress being prohibited from infringing certain rights, or even abridging some. Hey, I wasn't the one who made 'unbridled' sound like 'abusive' -- it was probably Ralph Nader. And "power" can be neutral if you let it, although the way the Constitution uses the word "power" doesn't sound neutral to me ("The Senate shall have sole Power..."). Anyway, if I were the CEO of a corporation with "unbridled power" it wouldn't be abusive, and no one would be expected to work or contribute until they had eaten. You can't mean that you don't trust good people to be left alone to do good things because it's inevitable that they'll do bad things since that's so Republicanesque. You probably mean to say Radix malorum est cupiditas (The love of money is the root of all evil), the greed you worry about. Can we change the subject? No? Okay, I'm really grateful that you linked us to Naomi Wolf's presentation about how it's nearly too late to prevent fascist rule here. I saw her discuss her book on C-SPAN's Afterwords, when she was interviewed by a law professor who was one of the authors of the Patriot Act; more recently with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!; and I found her solo delivery (your link) the best by far. Let's hope you got a lot of readers to view that.
Corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution, and so are subject to less lofty laws.
The status of corporations as 'legal persons' comes from dicta (non-binding commentary) in a Supreme Court case, evidently inserted in error by a clerk.
Still, corporations as well as unions per se have been banned from making any political contributions since the '30s, showing how different they are from real persons. (That ban is the reason that corporate giving has to go through corporate PACs or soft money donations, which was not the huge loophole formerly that it has become in recent election cycles.)
What a Supreme Court case gave corporations by accidental dicta can surely be legislated away, and the sooner, the better for this country's prospects.
...sofla
Post a Comment