Things were really bad during the Bush years, with criminals and sociopaths in charge of the country. One consequence of this was that a lot of previously reasonable, moderately left people became radicalized, at least to some extent — deciding that if the country could invade two far-off countries for revenge, torture dozes if not hundreds of captives and hold many more without due process, spy on its own people, and treat the citizens of New Orleans like unwanted refugees, there must be something wrong at a fundamental level, at the root.
But most people didn’t become radicalized by Bush; plenty of people merely gritted their teeth for eight years and waited for a savior. Barack Obama, the anti-Bush, looked perfect for the job. He’s charismatic, extremely intelligent, a gifted orator; he used to be a community organizer, for Christ’s sakes, so he must be a good lefty. We hoped he would reverse the damage Bush had wrought, like Superman spinning the world backwards to save Lois Lane. If I had a nickle for every time I’ve heard some variation on “We’ll just have to wait for Obama to fix it” in the past year, I’d have a big ol’ pot of nickles.
And so far, he’s been better than Bush, I’ll grant you that. But I’d like to suggest that really, what we’ve got in Obama is really just a more competent imperial manager, representing somewhat different elite interests. He ran as a moderate, and so far he’s governing as a moderate. Should we expect anything different?
Consider:
- The Obama Justice Department is defending the Bush administration’s claim of “state secrets” protection — a position that would leave the executive branch essentially immune to court challenge on many issues. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls Obama’s position “worse than Bush’s.”
- As hinted in the presidential campaign, Obama wants to leave 35,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq as a “residual force.” That’s a full third of the current U.S. troop strength; it certainly doesn’t fit my understanding of the phrase “out of Iraq.”
- Obama is sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a country that’s not historically friendly to foreign intervention, to put it mildly. Is this merely the consequence of Bush-era “foreign policy Democrat” rhetoric that blamed the Iraq war for “losing” in Afghanistan, where the really important enemy is? Or is Obama just being a more efficient imperial manager?
- The administration is hinting it will compromise on auctions for cap-and-trade greenhouse emissions reduction. That would be dumb, as Obama knows.
- With massive job losses and millions of ordinary Americans suffering the effects of a severe recession, Obama and his Treasury Secretary are propping up zombie banks with a plan that benefits big investors at taxpayers’ expense.
No president is perfect, you say. Fine. But is this the best we can do? At what point do we admit that there’s something wrong with the system?
Here’s today’s Greenwald on Obama protecting the Bush Justice Dept. and the CIA from embarrassment under the guise of national security.
Regarding Obama’s handling of big banks and the economy, I wonder if the EMT’s (Obama, Geithner etc) know that the patient (the financial system) is too far gone, but they go through the steps of emergency resuscitation so that at the end of the day they can honestly say, “We did everything we could.” If so, it is an expensive gambit, but it might also be the best way to build common support for what will replace the failed system.
Rogan, your comment is a nice example of how liberals manage the cognitive dissonance that Obama is creating. “Maybe he’s a secret liberal. Maybe he really wants to do the right thing but political reality won’t let him. Maybe he has a plan to do the right thing later on.” On the issue of the banks, the Geither plan is so expensive that if it’s really just a stopgap meant to lay the political groundwork for nationalization, I don’t see how it’s worth it. Krugman has been very clear on this issue.
Dave, such a courageous post — I love it, as I’m sure you thought I might.
I’ve been kicking around the idea that what capitalism does better than any system is sustain itself through class-compromise; it did so with the selling of colonialism to the lower classes in Britain; it did so with The New Deal; it did so with the Great Society. But what troubles me with our current climate is that there is no speakable threat to capitalism, and that with no threat, there will be no need to make a class-compromise this time. This is why I suggest that everyone who thinks the system itself should be questioned should register with their local Socialist party.
We are rolling over for a moderate democrat, whose admittedly a billion times better than Bush, but that isn’t much to ask for.
In other news, the way the TARP drama is playing out with the major banks is endlessly fascinating!
But what troubles me with our current climate is that there is no speakable threat to capitalism, and that with no threat, there will be no need to make a class-compromise this time.
Isn’t this current crisis an affirmation that the greatest threat to capitalism is internal, i.e., unfettered greed? The assertion that a free market is efficient cannot stand at this historical moment. It’s too clear that capitalism needs government backing and infrastructure to support it when it overextends and threatens to collapse.
Not having studied economics, I’m not really sure what you mean by “class-compromise” (and yes, I’ve jfgi’d and only found nearly incomprehensible high-level economics papers). Is it a compromise foisted on the working classes by the owners of the means of production? In our historical moment, I’d think that the political weakness of the working classes (after all, the auto workers’ contracts were essentially voided by Congress in proposing the bailout of the auto industry, while executives have generally kept their sweet deals) makes them non-players as anything but consumers. What is there left for the working classes to compromise on? Why would the threat have to be external? Or maybe I’m just really confused.
Anyway, all this is a major buzz kill, dude.
When I say class-compromise, I’m talking about a pressure release in the system to prevent the masses from overthrowing the (capitalist) government. So in the case of 19th C. British colonialism you can see Benjamin Disraeli’s push for expansion as a way not only to expand GB’s sphere of influence, but also as a way to create cultural (and to a degree economic) cohesion between the upper and lower classes – all Brits suddenly had a something in common: they were better (in every way) than the people that they collectively lorded over.
The case of The New Deal is a clearer example in which many feared that the US could potentially become a communist state. To prevent this from happening, FDR turned to Keynesian economic theory and concluded that the closer to 100% employment the US could approach, the stronger the economy and the safer the Constitution. So he put together huge public works programs and whatnot.
In laypersons’ terms, a class-compromise is the bosses throwing the masses a bone so we don’t storm their palaces with pitchforks and torches.
As for the threat to the system being internal, I agree, but no one in power seems comfortable questioning the system as a whole. They seem content on trying to save it. I understand that there will be more regulation placed on large banks, but these will be short-term encumbrances that will be shaken off with little trouble.
I have a sneaking suspicion Dave lives in the people’s republic of new york city. I haven’t heard anyone say “we’ll just have to wait for obama to fix it,” in 95% Democratic-voting D.C.
Stella, I heard that sentiment in DC last weekend!!!!
That’s because you were in DC last weekend. It was you saying it.
LP, you are infuriating.
LP, you are infuriating. And yet so delightful.
Thanks, Scotty, for the explanatory help. I guess I don’t see there not being an external threat to capitalism as the problem, but that the overlords are completely out of bones to throw to the masses. Attempts to halt the tidal wave of foreclosures seem to be falling very short. All they’ve got is more debt to throw around, to be paid off by the American public, of course. That dog won’t hunt (at least for very long).
(Apologies for mixed metaphors.)
infuriating s/b hilarious
“…the overlords are completely out of bones to throw to the masses.”
A class-compromise in this case could be universal healthcare, major works programs (as in the New Deal), guaranteed mortgages, etc… Essentially the kind of action that only the federal government could take.
Dave, such a courageous post — I hate it, as I’m sure you thought I might.
I have been in deep denial of these creeping suspicions for a few weeks now, despite the obvious evidence. I’ve chosen instead to remain elated by the Coup du Jour that arrives on the front page every day, each morning delivering a new liberal fantasy: Obama announces end date to Iraq war! ( I cheered, then ignored my nagging anxiety when twelve months became eighteen in a matter of hours on NPR). Obama opens up funding for stem-cell research! Obama closes Guantanamo! Obama legalizes gay marriage! (That happened already, right?) I’ve been cherishing my little utopia, but in the recesses of my subconscious, I’ve been waiting for the inevitable crumbling of the tower.
And so you pull out the first brick (and it’s a keystone on the bottom floor). I know I needed this, but it hurts. You are so right. Why are you always so right?
“You are so right. Why are you always so right?”
You mean “left,” right?
Tim, another class-compromise could be a giant joint, like the one in “Up In Smoke,” or “History of the World Part One.” Just so you know.
Okay, so Naomi Klein is a better writer than I am, but I was first. Here’s her take on Obama so far.
another class-compromise could be a giant joint
Dude, are you trying to tell me that 4-20 was organized by the FBI or something?
The “Smoking Man.”
I remain an Obama fan, despite the arguments Dave puts forth, for a host of reasons I don’t have time to go into. That said, he ain’t perfect. Here’s a visual explanation of how much he’s actually pledging to cut from the budget, proportionally, with his directive to cut $100 million in the next 90 days. (Via the Daily Dish.)