Hullabaloo

Monday, September 05, 2011

 
Turn it off!

by digby



More of these, here.


.
digby 9/05/2011 05:30:00 PM |

 
Meanwhile, in Bizarroworld

by digby

... also known as Forbes.com on "Obama, Hitler and exploding the biggest lie in history":

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?
[...]
On many issues the Nazis align quite agreeably with liberals. The Nazis enforced strict gun control, which made their agenda possible and highlights the necessity of an armed populace.

The Nazis separated church and state to marginalize religion’s influence. Hitler despised biblical morality and bourgeois (middle class) values. Crosses were ripped from the public square in favor of swastikas. Prayer in school was abolished and worship confined to churches. Church youth groups were forcibly absorbed into the Hitler Youth.

Hitler extolled public education, even banning private schools and instituting “a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program” controlled by Berlin. Similar to liberals’ cradle to career ideal, the Nazis established state administered early childhood development programs; “The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding.”

Foreshadowing Michelle Obama, “The State is to care for elevating national health.” Nanny State intrusions reflect that persons are not sovereign, but belong to the state. Hitler even sought to outlaw meat after the war; blaming Germany’s health problems on the capitalist (i.e. Jewish) food industry. The Nazis idealized public service and smothered private charity with public programs.

Hitler’s election platform included “an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.” Nazi propaganda proclaimed, “No one shall go hungry! No one shall be cold!” Germany had universal healthcare and demanded that “the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood.” Obama would relish such a “jobs” program.

Nazi Germany was the fullest culmination of Margaret Sanger’s eugenic vision. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which changed its name from the American Birth Control Society after the holocaust surfaced. Although Nazi eugenics clearly differed from liberals’ abortion arguments today, that wasn’t necessarily true for their progressive forbears.

Germany was first to enact environmentalist economic policies promoting sustainable development and regulating pollution. The Nazis bought into Rousseau’s romanticized primitive man fantasies. Living “authentically” in environs unspoiled by capitalist industry was almost as cherished as pure Aryan lineage.

National Socialist economics were socialist, obviously, imposing top-down economic planning and social engineering. It was predicated on volkisch populism combining a Malthusian struggle for existence with a fetish for the “organic.” Like most socialists, wealth was thought static and “the common good supersede[d] the private good” in a Darwinist search for “applied biology” to boost greater Germany.

The Nazis distrusted markets and abused property rights, even advocating “confiscation of war profits” and “nationalization of associated industries.” Their platform demanded, “Communalization of the great warehouses” (department stores) and presaging modern set aside quotas on account of race or politics, “utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State.”

Nazi Germany progressively dominated her economy. Although many businesses were nominally private, the state determined what was produced in what quantities and at what prices. First, they unleashed massive inflation to finance their prolific spending on public works, welfare and military rearmament. They then enforced price and wage controls to mask currency debasement’s harmful impact. This spawned shortages as it must, so Berlin imposed rationing. When that failed, Albert Speer assumed complete power over production schedules, distribution channels and allowable profits.

Working for personal ends instead of the collective was as criminal in Nazi Germany as Soviet Russia. Norman Thomas, quadrennial Socialist Party presidential candidate, saw the correlation clearly, “both the communist and fascist revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. In no way was Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini except that he was weaker.”

Mussolini recognized, “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.” Keynes saw the similarities too, admitting his theories, “can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-faire.” Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding, neither rejuvenated their economies.

FDR admired Mussolini because “the trains ran on time” and Stalin’s five year plans, but was jealous of Hitler whose economic tinkering appeared more successful than the New Deal. America wasn’t ready for FDR’s blatantly fascist Blue Eagle business model and the Supreme Court overturned several other socialist designs. The greatest dissimilarity between FDR and fascists was he enjoyed less success transforming society because the Constitution obstructed him.

Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as radically Left.

I'm too tired to explode the biggest lie about the biggest lie about the ... oh whatever.

If you need a refutation of this mess, read this. Otherwise, just have a drink.


.
digby 9/05/2011 04:00:00 PM |

 
One big union

by digby

Chris Hayes wrote a beautiful piece about solidarity a few years back that's well worth reading again today. It's long, but I'll just excerpt a little piece of it here:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "solidarity" as: "The fact or quality, on the part of communities ... of being perfectly united or at one in some respect, esp. in interests, sympathies, or aspirations." It comes from the same Latin root as "solid" and is adapted from the French solidarité, which by the 19th century, had supplanted the "fraternité" of the French Revolution as the social glue for the impending era of enlightened utopia. Whereas "brotherhood" relied on personal intimacy and a vestigial Christian conception of fellowship, solidarity was capacious enough to lasso together enormous clusters of strangers, perhaps even all of humanity. It soon became a buzzword. At the 1900 World's Fair, the French minister of trade announced solemnly, "Science reveals to us society's material and ethical secret, which may be summarized in one word--solidarity."

In the mid-19th century, solidarité crossed both the English Channel and the Atlantic. Sven-Eric Liedman, a professor of intellectual history at Sweden's Göteborg University, writes that Americans were skeptical of the French import: In 1844, one American complained of "the uncouth French word, solidarité, now coming in such use." While the word never quite gained the same cachet it had (and continues to have) in Europe, the American left quickly adopted it. Solidarity was the name of an early anarchist journal. Eugene Debs said solidarity was "a fact, cold and impassive as the granite foundations of a skyscraper." And, in 1915, Ralph Chaplin of the Industrial Workers of the World wrote the labor anthem "Solidarity Forever" to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Solidarity in the political vocabulary of the American left became class solidarity, workers' solidarity, the banding together of laborers against bosses. But it possessed more than rhetorical resonance, it was also the foundation of the labor movement's most potent tool: the strike. Only if workers stuck together under incredible pressures--violent intimidation from Pinkerton thugs and national guardsmen with rifles--could a strike be successful. In the 1880s and 1890s, as members of the Knights of Labor struck across the country for an eight-hour day, its motto was: "An injury to one is the concern of all."

Years later, the United Auto Workers, born of a series of dramatic sit-down strikes in the 1930s, named its headquarters Solidarity House, its publication Solidarity; at its 1970 convention Walter Reuther told the delegates: "We have taken on the most powerful corporations in the world and despite their power and their great wealth, we have always prevailed, because ... there is no power in the world that can stop the forward march of free men and women when they are joined in the solidarity of human brotherhood."

While in the United States, the word has been ghettoized in the labor movement, solidarity in Europe remains part of mainstream political vocabulary. The labor rights guaranteed in the European Union charter are collectively referred to as "rights to solidarity."

Of course, any word that packs a moral punch will soon find itself appropriated by political hucksters. To wit: For last year's State of the Union, Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) organized fellow Republicans in a display of "solidarity" with the Iraqis who had just voted in their first election in decades. "Congress Dons Purple Clothes, Ink, for Solidarity with Iraqis," read the AP headline. In addition to their ink-stained fingers, the article noted, "Several women, including newly appointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, traded their red suits for violet."

From workers' struggle to Condoleezza Rice's evening wear--what a long, strange trip it's been.

Indeed. Hayes wrote his piece in the first aftermath of the New York transit strike in 2005, over which the chattering classes all staged a hissy fit, but New York citizens took in stride --- and solidarity. Reading it again, brought to mind Rick Perlstein's marvelous article in the American Prospect called Solidarity Squandered about that amazing solidarity in the US after 9/11 --- and what happened to it. It's all good, but this piece of it captures the way it fell apart almost immediately in service of a dishonest and corrupt agenda:

Most memorably, Bush appealed for solidarity with Americans who came from Arab countries: “I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We’re in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.”

But the squandering had already begun, and precisely on the terms the president said he refused. The Justice Department had already started secretly detaining nationals from Islamic countries on minor immigration charges or no charges at all. In press conferences, Attorney General John Ashcroft called them “suspected terrorists.” More than 600 were tried in secret immigration proceedings closed even to members of Congress. When critics complained, Ashcroft responded (in his December 2001 testimony to Congress), “To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.”

Not a single one of the detainees would be convicted of a terror-related offense.

Orwellian language was suddenly everywhere—not least in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It was all about uniting America, don’t you see? Its tools were merely the appropriate ones. Disagree? Well, you must not be a USA patriot.

The president invited us to plant victory gardens of credit-card receipts. The day after the National Cathedral convocation, the president was asked “how much of a sacrifice ordinary Americans could be expected to make,” and he honored the warm courage of national unity by answering, “Our hope, of course, is that they make no sacrifice whatsoever.” Dick Cheney advised Americans to “stick their thumbs in the eye of the terrorists” by not allowing the national crusade against terror “in any way to throw off their normal level of economic activity.” Bush infamously told a gathering of aviation employees, “Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed.” Finally, this sacrifice, which he suggested on October 4: “We need for there to be more tax cuts.”

The war, too, would look far different from what those of us who had surrendered to trust believed we had signed on for. We had heard Bush when he declared, “we are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.” It turned out, however, that this was not the fight the Bushies were spoiling for. Ever since the Cold War, conservatives have been floundering without a garrison state. They had embraced the wisdom of Samuel Huntington’s Clinton-era volume, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, whose message, as legal scholar Stephen Holmes described it in The London Review of Books, was, “The secular optimism of those who believe that mankind is being drawn into peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation by the growth of global markets is not only misplaced: it is suicidal. … For self-definition and motivation, people need enemies.” Bloody fortunate we had one now.

The things that happen every time God’s chosen nation goes to war to save civilization happened again. We witnessed civil-liberties violations, knuckleheaded jingoism, attacks on internal enemies (and not just Arab Americans), and the almost systematic suspension of sound judgment by experts and mandarins, who sought monsters to slay. Michael Kelly, editor of The Atlantic, called the left “objectively pro-terrorist,” and blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote that “the decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts … may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.”

A little more than a year later, when the administration proposed to go to war in Iraq, it became clear that many still surrendered to trust. Representative Dick Gephardt explained that he had voted for the war because “an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington, and St. Louis … cannot happen.” The New Republic excoriated the “abject pacifism” and “intellectual incoherence of the liberal war critics.” New Yorker editor David Remnick wrote, “History will not easily excuse us if … we defer a reckoning with an aggressive totalitarian leader who intends not only to develop weapons of mass destruction but also to use them.” He concluded, “A return to a hollow pursuit of containment will be the most dangerous option of all.”

America had changed. Liberals, too many of us, had changed. We were not acting like guardians of solidarity. We were acting like suckers.

As he says, the Republicans were even worse. But then, why wouldn't they be? They have long led a concerted campaign to divide people along ideological fault lines that have always existed and only sometimes exploited.

I guess there's no way to truly measure what that destruction of trust did to our national psyche, coming as it did in the wake of an unprecedented attack that left us feeling uniquely vulnerable as a nation. But it was bad. In fact for people who came of age politically in that era, I think it was scarring on a very fundamental level and has made them wary of any belief in human folly that isn't grounded in corruption and deceit and determinedly cynical about the whole concept of solidarity.

But, there is a way back. Look at Wisconsin. People there have been radicalized, in that good, "solidarity" kind of way. Average people looking out for each other, having a stake in each other's survival is certainly possible. But it's going to take an effort on the part of the people to face down the plutocrats and the politicians who represent us. It's been done before.

As you think about all this stuff today, reading those fine pieces, listen to this song:




Howie writes:

This one's by Iowa rockers Matthew Grimm & the Red Smear. Adam from Traveling Light did the YouTube clip. I would have liked to have seen them up on stage in Detroit today with Aretha, Hilda Solis and Obama.

By the way, Matthew Grimm gave me 3 autographed CDs, The Ghost of Rock'n'Roll, the album with "one Big Union." Contribute to one of the pro-working family candidates on this page today and you could win one of the CDs. We'll pick 3 winners in the morning.

In solidarity.

.
digby 9/05/2011 02:30:00 PM |

 
Stuck in the pink collar ghetto

by digby

TPM

Monday is Labor Day, a day off for most Americans who spend a good deal of their lives toiling at work. It's also a stark reminder to those who don't need reminding: the unemployed and the underemployed. But even those have a job are seeing less and less in returns from that job, says new data from Gallup released Monday. Nearly across the board employees are less satisfied with their health care benefits, their chances for a promotion, job security, and of course, wages.

NY Times:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available.

The authors said another factor explaining the weak performance for aggregate wages and salaries was the slow growth in weekly hours during the recovery. At the same time, worker productivity has grown just under 6 percent since the recovery began, helping to keep employment down while lifting corporate profits, the study said.

One of the more interesting things about reporting on the economy is how little anyone ever questions the effect of high unemployment on the employed. Since I'm old I've been through a few recessions in my working life. None of them were as bad as this one, but the early 80s Reagan recession was pretty devastating, and I recall what it was like to be employed in the pink collar ghetto as a low level office worker.

On the job it was murder -- in a sellers job market, the entry level worker has even less clout that usual. The whole relationship between staff and employer shifts in dozens of small ways as both parties know that any worker can be replaced without much fuss.I subsisted on low paid office jobs, each one abusive and exploitative in its own way, and finally decided to leave the country for a while. It was that bad.

During the 91 recession, which hit quite a bit later (and lasted longer)in California, I was no longer a grunt, but when we laid off a quarter of the workforce, I ended up taking up the slack. My workload became exhausting as I had to absorb several of my former staff's duties and much of the clerical work I'd left behind long before. (Notably, most of my surviving male colleagues managed to avoid that.) They called it "increased productivity" then too and I didn't get compensated for the increased duties and responsibilities, of course. Luckily, the boom hit not long after and I was able to go to greener pastures and make up for the several years of stagnant wages. If it hadn't, that would have been the end of the line for me, careerwise. (It matters where you are in your career arc when these things hit --- women have a particularly small window before they become unpromotable.)

I'm sure there are many such lucky duckies in this recession who are stuck in dead end jobs they hate and see no light at the end of the tunnel. Certainly the vast army of female office workers, who keep the corporate and government bureaucracies running, are even more stuck, looking at futures that dead-end in a cubical, watching their already slim chances of advancement slip away, hanging on for the health benefits if nothing else.

There is no quitting, there are no raises, there is no consideration of your personal dignity. You're in for the duration, hoping against hope that you can hang on, that the company doesn't fold, keeping your head down, just trying to ride it out. You certainly don't spend and eventually you stop dreaming. It's just too painful after a while. It's better than being unemployed, for sure. But it's not as if you aren't affected just the same.

High unemployment is bad for all workers.

Here's a hearty Happy Labor Day to all the workers in the pink collar ghetto (and every one else too.)You deserve the break.

.
digby 9/05/2011 01:00:00 PM |

 
Goldilocks hailed from Chicago

by digby

Here's your most vapid --- and insulting --- quote of the day. On labor day, no less:

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

I guess that makes him juuuust right.

Except, you know, it doesn't. Republicans do claim that all regulation is job-killing because they are greedy bastards who don't care much about their fellow man. But I don't know of even one "left-winger" who believes that regulations never kill jobs. Indeed, it's ridiculous. Some regulations kill jobs. Some regulations create jobs. Often, they do both. You'd have to bedead not to be aware of the costs to certain people in any change. At least the left gives a damn about what happens to people who lose their jobs for whatever reason and would offer them some kind of compensation. The right calls them freeloaders and moochers and tells them to get a job at McDonalds.

And anyway, the "silly" political argument in all this is the mind-boggling notion that compromising with these wingnuts and industrial polluters on a few discreet issues like the Clean Air rules is going to buy you another term. Talk about not having a place in a serious discussion ...

..
digby 9/05/2011 09:30:00 AM |

 
Basic economics
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

My fiancee is a graduate student at UC Santa Barbara in the Communication Department. Next quarter she is taking a class in economics. Her textbook is International Economics, 13th edition by Robert J. Carbaugh. A quick look at Dr. Carbaugh's CV shows a fairly balanced career with no direct evidence of wingnut ideological fervor. And yet, consider these passages from the first chapter:

International competition helps keep domestic producers on their toes and provides them with a strong incentive to improve the quality of their products. Also, international trade usually weakens monopolies.

I'm sure multinational conglomerates would be surprised to hear that.

As an economy opens up to international trade, domestic prices become more aligned with international prices; wages tend to increase for workers whose skills are more scarce internationally than at home and to decrease for workers who face increased competition from foreign workers...Increased competition also suggests that unless countries match the productivity gains of their competitors, the wages of their will deteriorate. It is no wonder that works in import-competing industries often lobby for restrictions on the importation of goods so as to neutralize the threat of foreign competition...

However, keep in mind that what is true for the part is not necessarily true for the whole. It is certainly true that imports of steel or automobiles can eliminate American jobs. But it is not true that imports decrease the total number of jobs in a nation. A large increase in U.S. imports will inevitably lead to a rise in U.S. exports or foreign investment in the United States.

Note that this is an article of faith among economists. No proof to back this up, nor any significant data. Simply an article of free-market faith.

In other words, if American suddenly wanted more European autos, eventually American exports would have to increase to pay for these products. The jobs lost in one industry are replaced by jobs gained in another industry. The long-run effect of trade barriers is thus not to increase total domestic employment, but at best to reallocate workers away from export industries and toward less efficient, import-competing industries. This reallocation leads to less efficient utilization of resources.

Simply put, international trade is just another kind of technology. Think of it as a machine that adds value to its inputs.

When these sorts of amazingly baldfaced lies aren't being pushed in the text, there is also the total lack of regard for basic human dignity, as when discussing the troubles of farmers in India due to free trade:

The simple solution to the problem of India's farmers would be to move them from growing cotton to weaving it in factories. But India's restrictive labor laws discourage industrial employment, and the lack of a safety net resulted in farmers clinging to their marginal plots of land.

Or this suggestion for how American workers might adapt to globalization:

The way to ease the fear of globalization is to help people to move to different jobs as comparative advantage shifts rapidly from one activity to the next. This process implies a more flexible labor market and a regulatory system that fosters investment. It implies an education system that provides people with the skills that make them mobile. It also implies removing health care and pensions from employment, so that when you move to a new job, you are not risking an awful lot besides. And for those who lose their jobs, it implies strengthening training policies to help them find work. Indeed, these activities are expensive, and they may take years to work. But an economy that finds its national income increasing because of globalization can more easily find the money for pay for it.

If this is the crap that is being fed to basic economics students, it's no wonder that the entire world's leaders have gone seemingly insane when it comes to economic policy. The entire economic profession has gone insane or been utterly corrupted.


.
thereisnospoon 9/05/2011 07:30:00 AM |

Sunday, September 04, 2011

 
Always and forever uncool

by digby

Tbogg:

If there is one thing that makes conservatives absolutely crazy (besides liberals and poor people and homosexuals and government and brown people and Social Security and Medicare and abortion and science and intellectuals with their so-called “knowledge” and clean air and clean water and good looking women who won’t sleep with them probably because they’re dykes, yeah, that’s it and foreigners with their weird not-english languages and. oh yeah, sarcasm thatalways seems to be directed at them and then there’s Hollywood and hip hop music and how Dateline and that snoopy busybody Chris Hansen have made it almost impossible to find a date online and also that Kenyan muslim President guy who is very annoying because … did I mention that he’s black?) it’s the fact that conservatives can’t pry the youth of America away from their tattoos and their texting and casual swapping of STD’s long enough to teach them about how awesome America is. But you know what kids like? They like mid-tempo fist-pumping patriotic rock music that middle-aged pot-bellied white guys in stretched out Tom Petty Damn the Torpedoes t-shirts practice on their slightly out-of-tune guitars in the garage on Saturday afternoons because, hey, fifty-three isn’t too old to be hailed as the future of rock and roll, is it?

Well, yeah it is.

But that hasn’t stop budding Don Kirchner-wannabe Richard Mgrdechian from putting together The Next Big Thing:

My company, Purple Eagle Entertainment is looking for an awesome rock vocalist (age 21 – 40) to be the front man and lead singer for a new pro-American rock band we formed to record an album of original compositions and begin a national tour later this year. The ideal person should be extremely passionate about patriotic causes and have an in-depth knowledge of politics. The band is made up of world class rock musicians. A long term contract and signing bonus is available. A $1,000 fee is available to the person who refers us to the singer we sign on for this.

Read on for the details and to listen to a sampling of this project's musical offerings. Or jab chopsticks in your ears for the same general effect.


I gotchya patriotic rock for yah, rightcheah:




.


digby 9/04/2011 06:30:00 PM |

 
Galts 1, Parasites 0

by digby

Shocking Labor Day factoid:

A new study reveals that 25 of the nation’s largest corporations paid more money to their CEOs last year than they did to the federal government in income taxes. Often using overseas tax havens, many of the corporations managed to make billions in profits but paid little to nothing in federal taxes. In many cases the companies received large tax rebates. The list includes some of the country’s best-known companies, such as Ford, Coca-Cola, Verizon, General Electric and eBay. The same study found that the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker in the United States jumped to 325-to-1 last year.

That sound you just heard was the sound of Randroids everywhere have a simultaneous orgasm.

.


digby 9/04/2011 05:14:00 PM |

 
Sarah Palin, Firebagger
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Sarah Palin's latest critique against career politicians is amusing in its total lack of self-awareness:

But in a 40-minute speech before a Tea Party rally here, which was one of her most expansive addresses since she accepted the Republican vice presidential nomination three years ago, she railed against “crony capitalism” in both parties. She suggested that the “permanent political class” — Republicans, too — needed to be rattled.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who has spent their life in as a permanent politician. Until she quit, of course.

But it's also deeply instructive. Check out the rhetorical assault Palin lays down on the Republican establishment:

“You know that it’s not enough to just change up the uniform,” Ms. Palin said. “If we don’t change the team and the game plan we won’t save our country...”

In her speech, Ms. Palin assailed the Washington establishment, directing most of her criticism at President Obama, but saving plenty for Republicans. The themes carried familiar strains from her time as governor of Alaska, when she was known for an independent streak that aggravated both parties.

“The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with,” Ms. Palin said, referring to her goal of making Mr. Obama a one-term president. She added, “America is at a tipping point. This is a systemic crisis due to failed policies and incompetent leadership.”

Wow. It sounds almost like the sort of commentary one might see from progressive bloggers about the Washington establishment.

Ms. Palin criticized career politicians. She did not mention any candidates by name, but her aides have quietly pushed back against the conventional wisdom that she was considering endorsing Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. She said that it was not enough simply to replace Mr. Obama with an ordinary Republican administration.

“You must vet a candidate’s record,” Ms. Palin said, delivering an admonition to a crowd that traveled here from Iowa and points across the country. “You must know their ability to successfully reform and actually fix problems that they are going to claim that they inherited.”

This is the sort of rhetoric that has inspired the Tea Party and the entire Republican base. It has made mincemeat of John Boehner's and George W. Bush's reputation with the GOP base. But it has also served to significantly strengthen the Republicans' position, leading to the most conservative incoming House freshman crew in the nation's history. Sarah Palin's approach to politics has been wildly successful for the conservative movement, even as it no doubt harmed her personal popularity among moderates and her electability.

She herself will never set foot in the White House. But she has made it far more likely that a hardcore right winger will do so, even at the expense of the GOP establishment and its previously nearest and dearest leaders. By serving in that role, Sarah Palin has done more to help enact conservative policies than half of the Republicans actually elected to public office. Combined.

It's a lesson that Democrats who cringe at the slightest critique of President Obama from the left would do well to remember.


.
thereisnospoon 9/04/2011 03:00:00 PM |

 
Out of the mouths of drooling wingnuts

by digby


...sometimes spills what they truly think:

Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum is just going to come right out and say it: registering the poor to vote is un-American and "like handing out burglary tools to criminals."

"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote," Vadum, the author of a book published by World Net Daily that attacks the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, writes in a column for the American Thinker.

"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor," Vadum writes. "It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."

He isn't wrong about some of the Founding Fathers' thought on the subject. But it wasn't exactly about small government ideals:

Those who own the country ought to govern it. --- John Jay

The question is just who the "owners" are today and I would suggest that an awful lot of these Tea Partiers would be quite surprised to learn they aren't actually among them.


.
digby 9/04/2011 02:00:00 PM |

 
Oh no, it's completely different

by digby


Paging Pamela Atlas:

The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)

Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.

The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)

During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).

Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.

Recognizing the unique historical nature of Anti-Semitism doesn't preclude noting that those arguments are startlingly similar. States and localities are passing absurd legislation to ban Sharia Law in America, despite the fact that there is no threat of Sharia law in America. It's all part of the same great human tapestry of bigoted bullshit.

.


digby 9/04/2011 12:37:00 PM |

 
One from Column A, one from Column B

by digby


This doesn't even qualify as triangulation strategy. The administration seems to be under he impression that if they give all parties a portion of what they like along with a portion of what they hate, everyone will be happy. Unfortunately, the Republicans will throw what they hate to the floor, gobble up everything they like and then beat the hell out of the Democrats until they get more. Meanwhile, what the democrats like is lying on the floor, so they eat what they hate end up joining the Republican tantrum just to avoid getting pummeled.

It's not working:

President Obama’s controversial decision last week to suspend new anti-smog standards offered hints — but not the full road map — of how the White House will navigate politically explosive battles with congressional Republicans over which industry regulations to sacrifice and which ones to fight for this fall.

The Friday decision, which angered many environmental activists and won praise from business groups, represented the most high-profile case in a debate that carries deep implications for Obama’s reelection campaign as he tries to spur job creation, woo business donors and fire up his voting base. It came as the president prepares for a major address Thursday night to lay out a new employment strategy.

Most notable in the smog decision was that Obama made it himself — undercutting his own Environmental Protection Agency leadership and siding with industry officials who warned that stricter ozone standards risked further damage to a fragile economy.

And yet, as the administration signals that it will stand by other rules opposed by industry groups, advocates on both sides are left wondering what broader strategy may be guiding the White House as it reviews existing and proposed regulations.

“I do not have a sense of the administration’s philosophy here or where or how they determine to draw a line between economic impacts versus outside organizational pressures,” said R. Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents the nation’s businesses.

The Chamber heaped praise on the White House for its ozone decision. But Josten, who said he is in frequent contact with White House Chief of Staff William Daley and other top officials, said the administration “still has a heavy hand” with hundreds of regulations in the pipeline, from those affecting the environment to labor and capital markets.

Activists on the left, too, are curious. “Does Obama have an environmental bottom line?” asked Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, in an e-mail. “I cannot discern it.”

And since that was such a big success, they're apparently going for more of it:

President Barack Obama will release a detailed deficit-cutting plan soon after his jobs speech, the White House said Friday, answering Republican critics who demanded more specifics during the debt-limit debate but reopening old wounds with the Democratic base.

The drama surrounding Obama’s new jobs plan has eclipsed the other major item on the White House’s September agenda: to offer his most specific proposal yet for reshaping Medicare, Medicaid and the tax code.

In the speech Thursday, Obama will challenge the 12-member congressional supercommittee to exceed its $1.5 trillion goal for budget savings — setting a higher target that would allow the additional money to fund tax breaks and other stimulus spending. But the “very specific” deficit recommendations that Obama promised last month won’t come until after the speech, although the exact timing is unclear, White House officials said.

By separating the two plans, Obama wants to maximize political impact for the jobs message, which Democrats have been desperate for months to hear. But by following quickly with a politically unpalatable deficit proposal, Obama risks infuriating progressives who say he needs to focus on using the levers of government to spur job growth.

I don't know what to say about this strategy. It's so obviously born out of fear of Republican lunacy and the corrupt necessity to raise outrageous sums of money that it makes me feel depressed even thinking about it.

And frankly, I'm increasingly worried that it's going to end up in a bad result in November 2012. I wouldn't have thought that was possible considering the GOP offerings and the stakes, but it's hard to see a majority voting for this. It's mush.

Update: BTW, here's what the deficit plan reportedly looks like:

The deficit plan will be more specific than the framework the White House released in April. It is likely to include some unpopular measures that, until now, Obama backed only behind closed doors during the July talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), according to Democratic officials familiar with proposal.

Before the “grand bargain” fell apart over tax revenues, Obama and Boehner agreed on about $250 billion in proposed cuts to Medicare, including gradually raising the eligibility age to 67 and hiking co-pays and premiums for wealthier beneficiaries. They also agreed to change the inflation calculator for Social Security and other federal programs — which critics call a benefit cut.

Big electoral winner there.

.
digby 9/04/2011 10:30:00 AM |

 
The Man in the Bottle
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

Old TV episodes can serve as valuable history lessons. Digby regaled everyone with an instructive reminiscence on Stagecoach last month. Today, I'd like to share one from The Twilight Zone. In particular, the 1960 episode The Man in the Bottle.

A poor elderly woman visits Arthur Castle, an unsuccessful pawnbroker, bringing a wine bottle she found in a trash can. It has no value, but he buys it for a small amount out of pity. The bottle proves to contain a genie, who offers to grant four wishes to Castle and his wife. They use their first wish to repair a broken glass cabinet, proving the genie's power, and then receive a million dollars in cash upon making their second wish. After they have given tens of thousands away to their friends, an IRS employee visits the shop and presents the Castles with a tax bill that leaves them with only $5 once they pay it.

The episode continues with the man's wish for power, after which he is predictably turned into Adolf Hitler, and ends with his wish to return things to the way they were. It's a classic morality tale in the style of the Monkey's Paw.

But the instructive part is this: the tax bill the Castles get from the IRS on their $1 million windfall from the genie is $907,000, plus $35,000 in state income tax. Why is that number familiar? Because in 1960 when the episode was made, the marginal tax rate was 91%.

Over the last 40 years, the U.S. federal tax system has undergone three striking changes, each of which seems to move the federal tax system in the direction of less progressivity. First, there has been a dramatic decline in top marginal individual income tax rates. In the early 1960s, the statutory individual income tax rate applied to the marginal dollar of the highest incomes was 91 percent.

Keep in mind that this tax rate would have been completely normal to a 1960 audience. Today it seems bizarre to us--so bizarre, in fact, that modern viewers refuse to even believe it. Check out this TV.com user review:

The "punch line" of this particular episode is that all of the wishes granted to Mr. Castle come with some terrible consequence. This begins with an IRS agent spoiling the Castle's wish for $1,000,000 with a $902,000 income tax bill. This is a rate of over 90%, a rate so high as to make the word "absurd" inadequate. At current rates, a married couple would owe approximately $322,000 of income tax on a $1,000,000 income, and, while rates were certainly different in 1960, they were not 300% higher...

Were the tax rate to be at 50% rather than 40, or 60% rather than 50, it could be forgiven. Viewers would take little notice of such an inflation. However, no person watching the program can fail to notice the absurdity of a 90% tax rate. The ordinary is no longer ordinary, shattering the very principle that made the show great. While the story is engaging enough to maintain the viewer's interest, the entire punch line (and second half of the episode) is based upon something transparently contrived and false, making what is ordinarily the magic of the Twilight Zone simply... ordinary.

No, my dear reviewer. It is you who are mistaken...about a great many things. That 90% tax rate on a million dollar windfall was as American as Mom and Apple Pie at the time. As American as the transparent villainy of that banker in Stagecoach, whose rightwing talking points so common today were seen back then for the garbage that they were.

Remember that America circa 1960 is the America the Tea Party crowd desperately wants to "take their country" back to, even as they wail about being overtaxed at modern rates . One wonders if they even remember what patriotism and being a real American even meant back then.

Watch the whole episode split into two sections below. The key scene occurs at the end of the first clip and the beginning of the second.



If I had four wishes from a genie, I might wish that the Tea Party's billionaire funders like Charles and David Koch really did get their country back. All the way back to that magical time in 1960 when they were taxed at the rates they owe, to the country that gave them the opportunity to have such massive wealth.

Update: As several commenters have pointed out, the tax rate would not be quite as high as the episode suggests, since that 91% is a marginal rate on every dollar over $400,000 filed jointly (see page 6 for the tax table.) That would amount to $569,000 on the $600,000 of income between $400,000 and $1 million, plus a somewhat lower but still hefty tax rate on the first $400,000. So while the total tax would not actually reach $907,000, it would come very close. And yes, then as now there were a number of loopholes that the wealthy would use to evade their obligations, lowering the effective rate. But that's part of why those high effective rates are so important: they keep the effective rates substantial even after all the loopholes are abused.


.
thereisnospoon 9/04/2011 07:30:00 AM |

Saturday, September 03, 2011

 
Saturday Night At the Movies

by digby

Lord I am so tired: Top 10 Labor Day films

By Dennis Hartley

Raise your glass to the hard working people

Lets drink to the uncounted heads

Lets think of the wavering millions

who need leaders but get gamblers instead

-from “Salt of the Earth”, by Mick Jagger & Keith Richard

Full disclosure (I am so ashamed). It had been so long since I actually stopped to contemplate the true meaning of Labor Day, I had to refresh myself with a web search. Like many of my fellow wage slaves, I usually anticipate it as just another one of the 7 annual paid holidays offered by my employer (table scraps, really…relative to the other 254 weekdays I’m required to spend chained to a desk, slipping ever closer to the Abyss).

I’m not getting you down, am I?

Anyway, back to the true meaning of Labor Day. According to the U.S.D.O.L. website:

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

Fair enough. OK, the nation as a whole has sort of fallen behind in the “strength, prosperity and well-being” part of that equation; but we’re working on that. Oh, and Labor Day isn’t the only “creation of the labor movement”. There’s also all that F.L.S.A. stuff about workplace rights and minimum wage and such on those posters in the break room that most of us don’t bother to read (even if we do all benefit from it). So I guess I shouldn’t be so flippant about my “table scraps”, eh? At any rate, I thought I would cobble together my Top 10 list of films that inspire, enlighten, or give food for thought in honor of this holiest of days for those who make an honest living (I know-we’re a dying breed). So put your feet up, pop in a DVD, and raise a glass to yourself. You’ve earned it.

Blue Collar-This is one of Paul Schrader’s better directorial efforts, which he also co-wrote (along with his brother Leonard). Richard Pryor, Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto play a trio of Motor City auto worker buddies who are tired of getting the short end of the stick from both their employer and their union. In a fit of drunken pique, they decide to pull an ill-advised ‘inside’ heist that gets them in very deep doo-doo with both parties, which ultimately puts friendship and loyalty to the test. Similar to Elia Kazan’s On The Waterfront (see below), Schrader is not afraid to paint over the standard black-and-white “union good guy, company bad guy” trope with shades of gray, reminding us that the road to Hell is frequently paved with good intentions (absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc.). I love the music score (by Jack Nitzsche and Ry Cooder), especially with the late great Captain Beefheart growling, “I’m jest a hard-woikin’, FUCKED-over man” over that compelling “ShhhOOMP ba-bom ba-bom” industrial blues riff in the opening credits.

El Norte-Gregory Nava’s highly effective portrait of two Guatemalan siblings who make their way to the U.S. after their father is killed by a government death squad will stay with you long after credits roll. The two leads give naturalistic, completely believable performances as the brother and sister whose optimism never falters, despite fate and circumstance thwarting them at every turn. Claustrophobic viewers should be warned: a harrowing scene featuring an encounter with a rat colony during an underground border crossing will give you nightmares. And don’t expect a Hollywood ending; this is an uncompromising look at the plight of undocumented workers and how they are exploited.

The Grapes of Wrath- I’m stymied for any hitherto unspoken superlatives to ladle onto John Ford’s masterful 1940 film (taken from John Steinbeck’s classic novel), so I won’t pretend to have any. Suffice it to say, this probably comes closest to nabbing the title as THE quintessential film about the struggle of America’s “salt of the earth” during the Great Depression. Perhaps we can take comfort in the possibility that no matter how bad things get over the next few months (years?), Henry Fonda’s unforgettable embodiment of Tom Joad will “be there…all around, in the dark.” Ford was on a roll; the very next year, he followed up with How Green Was My Valley, another classic about a working class family (this time set in a Welsh mining town) which snagged a ‘Best Picture’ Oscar.

Harlan County, USA-Barbara Kopple’s award-winning film is not only an extraordinary document about an acrimonious (and murderously violent) coal miner’s strike in Harlan County, Kentucky back in 1973, but easily rates as one of the best American documentaries of all time (I’d put it in the top 5…uh-oh, I smell a theme brewing for a future post). This has everything that you look for in, well, any great movie, documentary or otherwise: drama, conflict, suspense, even mystery. Kopple and her film crew are so thoroughly embedded in the milieu that you may find yourself ducking during the infamous and harrowing scene where a company-hired thug fires off a round directly toward the camera operator (it’s a wonder the filmmakers lived to tell the tale). Amazing.

Made in Dagenham-Even though it was on my “to do” list, I missed this one in theatres earlier this year (I can’t see ‘em all, folks) but managed to catch up with it on Starz just a few days ago (and got the inspiration for this post!). Based on a true story, it stars the delightful Sally Hawkins (who sparkled in Mike Leigh’s Happy Go Lucky, which I reviewed here) as Rita O’Grady, a working mum who was employed at the Dagenham, England Ford plant in 1968. She worked in a run-down, segregated section of the plant where 187 female machinists toiled away for a fraction of the pay scale enjoyed by the thousands of male employees (the company smoke-screened the inequity by classifying any female worker as “unskilled labor”). Encouraged by her kindly and empathetic shop steward (Bob Hoskins), the initially reticent Rita finds her “voice” and surprises family, co-workers and herself with a formidable ability to rally the troops and effect a change. An engaging ensemble piece (directed by Nigel Cole and written by William Ivory) with a standout supporting performance by Miranda Richardson as a government minister (she’s at her best when she’s playing ‘slyly subversive’). You know, we need to see more inspirational, progressive positive rabble-rousers like this opening at the local multiplex. So if it makes you feel like cheering, by all means, give in… because it is great therapy.

Matewan-It’s easy to forget that a lot of blood was spilled back in the day in order to lay the foundation for many of those labor laws we tend to take for granted in the modern workplace. John Sayles sets out to remind us about that in this well-acted and handsomely mounted drama. Based on a true story, it is set during the 1920s, in West Virginia coal country. Chris Cooper is excellent (as always) portraying an outsider labor organizer who becomes embroiled in a violent local conflict between coal company thugs and fed-up miners who are desperately trying to unionize. Like all of the historical dramas he has tackled, Sayles delivers a compellingly complex narrative, rich in characterizations and steeped in impeccable period detail (beautifully shot by one of the truly great cinematographers, Haskell Wexler). In addition to Cooper, you’ll recognize many Sayles “regulars” in this fine ensemble cast (like David Strathairn and Mary McDonnell). The film features a great “rootsy” folk-blues-traditional bluegrass soundtrack (by John Hammond, Hazel Dickens, Mason Daring and others) that rivals that of the wildly popular O Brother Where Art Thou (which this film pre-dates by 13 years).

Modern Times-Charlie Chaplin’s 1936 masterpiece about man vs. automation (among other things) has aged quite well. This probably has everything to do with his uncannily timeless embodiment of the Everyman (the technology around us may be constantly evolving, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we are). Although frequently referred to as his “last silent film”, it’s not 100% “silent”. There’s no dialogue, per se, but Chaplin does find ingenious ways to work a few lines in (via technological devices). His expert use of sound effects in this film is unparalleled, particularly in a classic sequence where Chaplin (a hapless assembly line worker) literally ends up “part of the machine”. Paulette Goddard (then Mrs. Chaplin) is on board for the pathos. Brilliant, prescient and hilarious.

Norma Rae-Martin Ritt’s 1979 film about a minimum-wage textile worker (Sally Field) turned union activist launched what I have dubbed the “Whistle-blowin’ Workin’ Mom” subgenre (Silkwood, Erin Brockovich, etc). Field gives an outstanding performance (and deservedly picked up a ‘Best Actress’ Oscar) as the title character, who gets fired up (in more ways than one) by a passionate labor organizer from NYC (Ron Leibman, in his best role). An inspiring film, bolstered by a fine screenplay (Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank, Jr.) and supporting cast (including Beau Bridges, Pat Hingle and Barbara Baxley).

On the Waterfront-“It wuz you, Chahlee.” Oh, the betrayal! And the pain. It’s all right there on Marlon Brando’s face as he delivers one of the most oft-quoted monologues in cinema history. Brando leads an exemplary cast that includes Rod Steiger, Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden and Eva Marie Saint in this absorbing portrait of a New York dock worker who takes a virtual one-man stand against a powerful and corrupt union official. The trifecta of Brando’s iconic performance, Elia Kazan’s direction, and Budd Schulberg’s well-constructed screenplay adds up to one of the best American dramas of the 1950s.

Roger and Me-While our favorite lib’rul agitprop documentarian has made several films addressing the travails of everyday wage slaves and the ever-appalling indifference of the corporate masters who grow fat off their labors (see Sicko and The Big One), Michael Moore’s low-budget 1989 classic remains his best (and falls within the top 25 in the list of highest-grossing docs of all time). First-time filmmaker Moore may have not been the the only resident of Flint, Michigan scratching his head over GM’s local plant shutdown right at the spike of record profits for the company, but he was the one with the chutzpah (and a camera crew) to make a beeline straight to the top to demand an explanation. His target? GM’s chairman, Roger Smith. Does he bag him? If you’ve seen it, you know the answer. If you haven’t, I hope I’ve intrigued you to see this insightful and fascinating cultural snapshot of Middle America that is at once hilarious, heartbreaking, and hopeful.

…and for your dining and dancing pleasure (ShhhOOMP ba-bom ba-bom)…

.

Dennis Hartley 9/03/2011 05:00:00 PM |

 
Technocracy: Missing the Forest for the Trees
by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

There is one nagging question that arises when looking at the Administration's somewhat surprising move to sue pretty much the entire financial sector: why sue the big banks on behalf of Fannie and Freddie, while at the same time sidelining Schneiderman to whitewash the robo-signing mess?

One potential answer, as Dave Dayen argues, would be that the FHFA is actingly independently of the Administration in a narrow capacity to protect the interest of taxpayers in getting money back for Fannie and Freddie. Rumors that Geither was looking to fire FHFA Director DeMarco won't help to quell the theory that the FHFA is acting contrary to the overall desires of Obama and Geithner.

Still, it's hard to believe that the Administration couldn't have quelled this move if it really wanted to. At worst, Geithner and company have acquiesced to the move; at best, they've helped to push it through. So let's give the Administration the benefit of the doubt.

The lawsuit is a big deal. The financial liability from the big banks arising from the suit is greater than the proposed robo-signing settlement. At best, the two actions send a contradictory message. Certainly, pursuing the legal action against the banks cuts strongly against the commonly held progressive theory of Barack Obama as corrupted pawn of the financial industry. But the desperate desire to let the banks off the hook makes a mockery of the view of the President as an even-handed defender of middle-class interests. So what's going on?

The answer may lie in the Obama Administration's "miss the forest for the trees" embrace of technocracy. In essence, its desire to discretely tackle policy problems one at a time leads to self-contradictory results that end up upsetting everyone while accomplishing none of the originally intended goals and vastly underestimating the scope of the problems as well as the resolve of the opposition.

When it comes to the robo-signing whitewash, the Administration's perspective was already expressed by Tim Geithner way back in March:

A comprehensive settlement between U.S. authorities and banks over alleged mortgage servicing abuses needs to be reached quickly to help the housing market heal, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Tuesday.

Geithner said such a settlement will help dispel legal uncertainty that has been plaguing mortgage lenders and clogging the foreclosure process.

"It is very important that we try to bring this to bed as quickly as we can," Geithner told the Senate Banking Committee. "I think all parties, not just the servicers, but the state AGs and the federal agencies have a strong stake in doing that."

As I have explained before, the Administration sees a discrete policy problem: the economy can't get better until the housing market improves; the housing market can't improve unless foreclosures are flushed out of the system; the foreclosures can't be flushed out until the robo-signing problem is neatly tucked away. Ergo, the robo-signing problem needs to hushed up and made to go away quietly with as little damage to the banks as possible.

Per this view, the Obama Administration would simply be doing what they see as the best thing for everyone in the long run, even if it means letting Bank of America and friends essentially get away with the biggest crime of the century.

On the other hand, pursuing a legal case against Goldman and friends to reimburse Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for close to $50 billion in losses is also a technocratic move to assist in housing market recovery, since funding Fannie and Freddie to make loans is clearly more useful to the mortgage market than is padding Goldman's bottom line profit.

In that context, the Obama Administration's contradictory decisions make sense in a bizarre sort of way. Each action is designed to solve a separate technocratic problem related to a (deeply misguided) attempt to reinflate the housing market.

What's the problem with that? Well, it's sort of obvious. While the Administration is tending to individual trees, the forest is burning down. Wall Street thinks the Administration is out to persecute them; the middle class and much of the Democratic Base think the Administration is a corrupted tool of Wall Street. The housing market isn't getting better. If the neoliberals and conservatives are right that the market just needs "confidence," the Administration certainly isn't providing that, either. The politics of these decisions lack any sort of clarity from which to derive a narrative. The whole thing is a total mess.

Barack Obama was supposed to be the "big picture" candidate with "big picture" messages. What we have instead is muddled technocracy that pleases no one and accomplishes little, precisely because it lacks the guiding light of political narrative and the firm grounding of ideological clarity.


.
thereisnospoon 9/03/2011 03:30:00 PM |