Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Trouble on Obama's Left
Over at Truthdig there are multiple grumblings about the president. First from Chris "American Fascists" Hedges:
The right-wing accusations against Barack Obama are true. He is a socialist, although he practices socialism for corporations. He is squandering the country's future with deficits that can never be repaid. He has retained and even bolstered our surveillance state to spy on Americans. He is forcing us to buy into a health care system that will enrich corporations and expand the abuse of our for-profit medical care. He will not stanch unemployment. He will not end our wars. He will not rebuild the nation. He is a tool of the corporate state.
Next up Robert "The Great American Stick-up" Scheer:
A president has only so much capital to expend, both in tax dollars and public tolerance, and Barack Obama is dangerously overdrawn. He has tried to have it all on three fronts, and his administration is in serious danger of going bankrupt. [...]
[W]hat is nerve-racking about Obama is that even though he campaigned against Bush's follies he has now embraced them. He hasn't yet managed to significantly reduce the U.S. obligation in Iraq and has committed to making a potentially costlier error by ratcheting up America's "nation-building" role in Afghanistan.
Just as he was burdened with the Afghanistan situation, Obama was saddled with a banking crisis he didn't cause, and the worst that can be said of his attempted solutions to the financial mess is that they were inherited from Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. But Obama, who raised questions before his election about the propriety of a plan that would rescue the banks but ignore the plight of ordinary folks, has adopted that very approach as president. He elevated Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, the two Democrats most closely aligned with Paulson's policy, to top positions in his government.
|9.16.09 @ 8:49AM|#
"he practices socialism for corporations. He is squandering the
country's future with deficits that can never be repaid. He has
retained and even bolstered our surveillance state to spy on
Americans" "He will not end our wars."
Could not the majority of what of Mr Hedges (a commentator of whom
I am unfamiliar) wrote in his article have very well come from the
pen of a Libertarian?
|9.16.09 @ 9:10AM|#
"The right-wing accusations against Barack Obama are true. He is
a socialist, although he practices socialism for corporations. He
is squandering the country's future with deficits that can never be
repaid. He has retained and even bolstered our surveillance state
to spy on Americans. He is forcing us to buy into a health care
system that will enrich corporations and expand the abuse of our
for-profit medical care. He will not stanch unemployment. He will
not end our wars. He will not rebuild the nation. He is a tool of
the corporate state."
I would imagine that I disagree with this guy on virtually
everything. But honestly, I can't argue with him here. That is
exactly right. Obama is a fraud.
ยข|9.16.09 @ 9:18AM|#
He is a socialist, although he practices socialism for
corporations.
What's with the "although?" There's no other kind of socialism.
|9.16.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Yes Ed. And the more your campaign is based on lies and bullshit, the harder it is to govern. Obama knew good and well that he wasn't going to touch that Patriot Act. He understands that there are reasons behind it and that Bush and Congress didn't pass it because they wanted to create a police state. Rather than being honest and proposing realistic reforms. He lied to his supporters and made them think he intended to change it.
|9.16.09 @ 9:27AM|#
You know, corporations are no more unified than the public in
general, so this corporate bogeyman nonsense is, well, nonsense. I
don't get the left on this issue. Unless all businesses march in
lockstep, the claim that a president is "serving corporate
interests" is foolish. Not to mention that the emphasis on the word
"corporation" misses a lot of other businesses that also wield
influence.
Sure, most politicians are vaguely pro-business, because any other
position would tank the economy, given the power the government has
to regulate and otherwise meddle in industry. But that doesn't mean
that they're all screwing the little guy for giant corporations run
by guys wearing top hats.
Fred Thompson|9.16.09 @ 9:30AM|#
In other words, it's easier to campaign than it is to
govern.
I'd say about the same.
|9.16.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Pro,
Big corporations, as opposed to small ones, are very connected.
They use their influence to rob the treasury and crush their
competition.
The reality is that leftist feel good regulations help big
corporations since they are better able to cope with them than
small business. What is funny is not that Leftists rage against big
corporations. It is that Leftists do big corporations bidding in
the name of helping the little guy.
|9.16.09 @ 9:31AM|#
You know, corporations are no more unified than the public
in general,
Was it Walter Karp who pointed out that one corporation is best
served by higher prices for X, but another is clearly served by
lower prices for it, and the govt sides with whichever corp would
then be more dependent on govt if it intervened?
|9.16.09 @ 9:36AM|#
If by corporations Hedges means incorporated unions, then he hits the nail on the head.
|9.16.09 @ 9:42AM|#
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/Indispensable_Enemy_IE.html
"... To avoid the suspicion of fundamental collusion, the party
oligarchs like to pretend, for example, that the Democrats favor
the trade unions while the Republicans favor the corporations.
Actually both parties favor and protect both giant special
interests. That the corporations are more likely to finance the
Republican hierarchy and the trade unions the Democratic machine
signifies nothing except a fair splitting of the loot; neither
party organization stands to gain if the other party organization
is impoverished. Before the trade unions became wealthy on a
national scale, privileged trusts and banking interests had the
burden of financing both party syndicates."
ed|9.16.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Corporations, labor unions, "public interest" groups...they all wield a certain political influence, but in the end it's individual voters in our republic who determine the winners in the power game. A nation's politics is a reflection of its people's philosophy. That's what's so glorious and dangerous about our national "experiment."
Tricky Prickears|9.16.09 @ 9:48AM|#
It amazes me how both sides throw around the term "Fascist". Each side accuses the other with such relative ease. The term has taken on such a wide variety of meanings, it's difficult to even begin to nail down exactly what it stands for anymore. At one time it was relatively simple; Hitler, Mussolini. It is just a fear mongering term in the rich tradition of Sen. Joe McCarthy.
T|9.16.09 @ 9:57AM|#
The term has taken on such a wide variety of meanings, it's
difficult to even begin to nail down exactly what it stands for
anymore.
It stands for you, you fascist.
And I'm somewhat amused the hard left has taken this long to wake
up and realize Obama is Bush redux. WTF have they been doing for
the past 8 months?
|9.16.09 @ 10:01AM|#
But Obama, who raised questions before his election about
the propriety of a plan that would rescue the banks but ignore the
plight of ordinary folks, has adopted that very approach as
president. He elevated Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, the
two Democrats most closely aligned with Paulson's policy, to top
positions in his government.
The President lacks imagination, and any real substantive
understanding of what's going on? He's committed to the status
quo?
Shocked, I am.
|9.16.09 @ 10:05AM|#
I keep hearing about some movie exposing the monstrous evilness
of Teh Corporashunz.
I should watch it, some day. I am obviously in dire need of
re-education.
Tricky Prickears|9.16.09 @ 10:07AM|#
It stands for you, you fascist.
Then I shall wear it with honor.
|9.16.09 @ 10:17AM|#
Maybe it was Gabriel Kolko:
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/strombrg.html
What Gabriel Kolko shows in The Triumph of Conservatism and
Railroads and Regulation is that, contrary to popular belief, most
of the Progressive legislation regulating business activity was
promoted by Big Businessmen themselves in order: (1) to avoid
local, populistic regulation; and, (2) to "rationalize" (i.e.,
cartellize) the economy at the expense of smaller competitors and
the consumers. By examining the steel, telephone, oil, and other
industries, Kolko shows that at the turn of the century
decentralization and vigorous competition were the main trends in
the American economy and that the attempts by would-be monopolists
to gain a chokehold on the marketplace failed in the abortive
Merger Movement of 18971901.12 As competition persistently undercut
such private efforts to achieve stability and predictability (and
long-term profits), corporate "liberals" of Big Business sought
industry by industry federal laws to limit the subversive effects
of open competition.
Such an interpretation goes against the grain of much American
historiography, but Kolko points out that "(o)nly if we
mechanistically assume that government intervention in the economy,
and a departure from orthodox laissez-faire, automatically benefits
the general welfare can we say that government economic regulation
by its very nature is also progressive in the common meaning of
that term.''13 Only by investigating the intent and consequences of
regulatory laws can the historian assess the inner nature of
Progressivism and modern Liberalism. In these two respects, Kolko
writes that "the regulatory movements were usually initiated by the
dominant businesses to be regulated" and that the regulatory
commissions and bureaus were controlled by "leaders of the
regulated industries.''14 Thus, to take one example, the Meat
Inspection Act of 1906 turns out to have been initiated by large
meat packers who favored it because "it primarily affected their
innumerable small competitors."15 The result of such measures was
an economic "triumph of conservatism" by means of what Kolko calls
"political capitalism": the conscious use of the State to favor
established interests against the "irrationality" and "cutthroat
competition" of the unhampered marketplace.16
|9.16.09 @ 10:47AM|#
I would take the left's problems with Obama more seriously if they had been protesting him with us a year ago. For them to start complaining now. at this late date, makes anything they have to say suspect.
Tricky Prickears|9.16.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Johnny Longtorso
Nice passage. Being a small business owner I can appreciate it. I
especially liked the part about "stability and predictability". I
can understand a business's desire for that, since, most likely,
there's an underlying business plan or model that needs to be
adhered to, but, what makes a good business is the ability to
foresee and adopt to changing economic conditions. So, in reality,
a well run business doesn't necessarily need stability in the
economy (within reason).
Tony|9.16.09 @ 11:13AM|#
I'm reserving judgment on the level of control industry has over
Obama until the health bill is passed. If it is a big christmas
present to the insurance industry, it will be disheartening. But
having them at the proverbial table isn't necessarily a bad thing:
if they're at the table they're not out running ads against him.
The sad truth is our government shares power with industry. Coming
into office with no intention of negotiating with the other powers
that control this country would very likely result in nothing
getting done at all.
That being said, thanks for acknowledging that the left isn't a
bunch of kool-aid drinking Obamabots. Since day one they've been
critical of Obama when appropriate.
economist|9.16.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Well put, SugarFree. I've seen too many leftists go from "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" too "YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC YOU'RE JUST BITTER OVER LOSING THE ELECTION SHUT UP AND JUST LET OBAMA DO HIS JOB, YOU RACIST ASSHOLEZ!"
Tricky Prickears|9.16.09 @ 11:28AM|#
...would very likely result in nothing getting done at
all.
And that's bad because...? If the government had done
nothing with regards to the banking crisis, instead of ending up
with an even greater consolidation of banks, we'd most likely have
stronger small and medium sized banks, loaning money with their
newly found, "cheap" assets. Sure, it would have been a horrendous
shock to the system, but if managed properly, it would have been
short lived and not be stretched out, leading to another bout with
stagflation (but that has yet to be seen).
T|9.16.09 @ 11:38AM|#
If the government had done nothing with regards to the
banking crisis, instead of ending up with an even greater
consolidation of banks, we'd most likely have stronger small and
medium sized banks, loaning money with their newly found, "cheap"
assets. Sure, it would have been a horrendous shock to the system,
but if managed properly, it would have been short lived and not be
stretched out, leading to another bout with stagflation (but that
has yet to be seen).
The other point I have tried to make, with varying degrees of
success, is that if our financial system is vulnerable to a cascade
stemming from the failure of a single institution, something is
dreadfully wrong. Propping up the vulnerable entities instead of
letting them fail is not doing anything to correct the systemic
problems. Let it fail, see how everything else reacts, and then
figure out to fix it.
Of course, avoiding moral hazard by refusing to subsidize the
losses would have a been a peachy side effect from doing nothing,
too.
Jonas|9.16.09 @ 11:41AM|#
I love the gist of Tony's post:
"Sure, once the health-care bill passes it might turn out that it's
just a big pay-off for health-care industry interests and does
nothing to help consumers. Better that, though, than nothing at
all!"
|9.16.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I'm reserving judgment on the level of control industry has
over Obama until the health bill is passed. If it is a big
christmas present to the insurance industry,
Tony, I would think that requiring everyone to buy insurance, with
big taxpayer subsidies for the poor, is about the biggest Christmas
present the insurance industry could hope for.
Tricky Prickears|9.16.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Of course, avoiding moral hazard by refusing to subsidize
the losses would have a been a peachy side effect from doing
nothing, too.
Well, if given a choice, I would say it better to
subsidize the losses (to a degree), and the resulting unemployed,
than giving out billions in direct subsidies to the financial
institutions, who most likely, as a result, have not learned their
lesson,and now have little or no fear of bankruptcy.
And there has been no talk of the recommendations of Sheila Bair
and the ICBA to break up the "too big to fail exist".
But government intervention into forcing companies to divest may
not sit well with Libertarians. I suppose it would be better to
just let the big ones fail, and remove some of the restrictions to
small banks and barriers to start ups.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 12:00PM|#
R C Dean,
I agree. That's why I favor medicare for all. Barring that, a foot
in the door with a public option. I won't hide my desire to see
medicare for all at some point.
Barry Loberfeld|9.16.09 @ 12:10PM|#
"The right-wing accusations against Barack Obama are true. He is
a socialist, although he practices socialism for
corporations."
From MODERN
LIBERALISM AT WIT'S END:
Recall how he spoke of an ideology that "resembles that of communism." Indeed: a crafted mythology as official history; government growth as a declared inevitability; administration of the masses economically (professedly to benefit the lower classes, really to establish a political elite); the use of the term socialization to denote usurpation by the State of the institutions of society; the invocation of "wrecker" saboteurs ("reactionaries" and "conservatives") to prove that statism never fails, but is only failed; militarism in the service of "pacification." Corporate socialism and Communist socialism are of course not twin totalitarianisms, but they are kindred Orwellianisms: Fantasy is Reality -- reality, fantasy.
|9.16.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Tony, I'm curious about your level of trust of government. Your
insurance company has wide latitude with respects to your health
data. A government plan for everyone means the government is the
holder of your medical information, CPTs, ICD9s, Labs, ect.
Would you have a problem if the feds raided someone's house because
they told their doctor they smoke pot and the doc put a 405.xx
(Cannabis dependence) code for a diagnosis?
|9.16.09 @ 12:12PM|#
And how do you justify a national health insurance/medicare for
all system, in light of the past "successes" of government programs
and their efficiency and budgets?
How do you justify taking more of my ability to choose what I pay
for, than already is? How do you justify a top down mandate to
determine how much a person should be paid for their time and
services?
I could keep going, but I think that is enough to start.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 12:21PM|#
how do you justify a national health insurance/medicare for all system, in light of the past "successes" of government programs and their efficiency and budgets?
Medicare is more efficient than the private sector, and cheaper: it
doesn't have to spend money paying CEO bonuses, on advertising, and
bribing the government for favors. I realize government
inefficiency is a matter of faith here, but I believe it's only
inefficient when its custodians want it to be, to prove how
inefficient it is. Somehow, though, it manages to ensure your
access to safe food and water, roads, fire and police protection,
armed forces, healthcare for the poor and elderly, universal
education, among a host of other things. I'm sure inefficiencies
exist--but I don't see why inefficiency is a given.
How do you justify taking more of my ability to choose what I pay for, than already is? How do you justify a top down mandate to determine how much a person should be paid for their time and services?
It's a curious definition of freedom you have. What would you
rather have: freedom to possess a few dollars in would-be tax
money, or freedom from having to worry about whether an illness or
accident will bankrupt you?
deluded1|9.16.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Medicare is NOT cheaper than a private insurance. The costs are hidden in your taxes. But it does exercise price controls that pay much less than cost. The difference is eaten by private insurers, employers, or providers. If there are no private insurers or employers to absorb the costs (or just any one)you will quickly put providers out of business. Or enslave them to care for you. Or just limit what care is available. Thus basically crippling the industry from providing the necessary care. i.e. rationing.
deluded1|9.16.09 @ 12:33PM|#
In addition, private health care is MORE expensive than it would
be without Medicare/Medicaid due to the above reasons.
I didn't want to assume you'd draw that conclusion yourself.
deluded1|9.16.09 @ 12:35PM|#
As to Tony's question, I'd prefer to purchase my low cost health insurance from a private insurer that's forced into keeping his prices low and efficiency high because he's competing on an open market, and I can do a cost/benefit analysis myself by looking at the options.
|9.16.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Medicare is more efficient than the private sector, and
cheaper:
Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure. Many of the costs of
administering Medicare are off of Medicare's books because they are
handled by other government agencies, such as the IRS. Also,
Medicare imposes enormous costs on the system via the voluminous
and incomprehensible Medicare regulations.
alan|9.16.09 @ 12:40PM|#
The other point I have tried to make, with varying degrees
of success, is that if our financial system is vulnerable to a
cascade stemming from the failure of a single institution,
something is dreadfully wrong. Propping up the vulnerable entities
instead of letting them fail is not doing anything to correct the
systemic problems. Let it fail, see how everything else reacts, and
then figure out to fix it.
Absolutely. Events that we could not foresee may have prevented it
from happening as cleanly as we would like, but that would have
been the result in the long term.
What just kills me about this, is the bailout especially did not
make sense in liberal terms of argument, and the Democrats were on
board with it even before the Republicans were (recall it required
a second vote because the Republicans and some Democrats squashed
it in the House).
If the goal is a Night Watchman state where the state is the
guardian of equal access and there are no predetermined winners or
losers but everyone is guaranteed at least a minimum outcome, than
TARP flies into the face of all of that.
In the pragmatic since, even if unemployment would have climbed to
higher levels without TARP, (something I don't believe, but let us
take it as a given) it would have been far cheaper for the
government to cut more checks for unemployment and food stamps than
it would have been to pass TARP. Not to mention the insult to
injury Porkulus bill.
For the vast majority of these Republicrats, corporatism comes
before principle.
economist|9.16.09 @ 12:41PM|#
R C Dean,
Not to mention Medicare is subject to plenty of fraud and waste, in
part thanks to it's "lack" of administrative costs.
|9.16.09 @ 12:41PM|#
OMG Tony!!!! Are you channeling Chad AKA Brainy Smurf?
Put your nose back in "It Takes a [Smurf] Village".
I truly cannot believe you, with a straight(gay) face, type this
drivel, much less believe it.
Slaver.
|9.16.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"""it doesn't have to spend money paying CEO bonuses, on
advertising, and bribing the government for favors."""
A government plan would most likely require you to enroll into a
3rd party managed care plan which would not give you much, if any
of the savings you're talking about. It would be a cash cow for
insurers.
economist|9.16.09 @ 12:43PM|#
The main reason our financial system is vulnerable to cascading collapse is fractional-reserve banking. Pretty much all banks are functionally insolvent. All a bank failure does is bring the fact to light.
economist|9.16.09 @ 12:47PM|#
"It's a curious definition of freedom you have. What would you
rather have: freedom to possess a few dollars in would-be tax
money, or freedom from having to worry about whether an illness or
accident will bankrupt you?"
I would prefer that my health insurance be based on a contract that
I enter into voluntarily, not one that is forced on me, and in
which the other party can change the terms when it suits them, as
national healthcare systems can, and often do. You're strawmanning
while simultaneously positing an Pollyanna view of the results of
your own proposal.
You, Tony, are the fucktard of the week.
economist|9.16.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Not too mention, if Medicare's so efficient, why is Barack Obama
claiming that he can save enough money not to raise taxes
significantly by cutting out "waste and fraud" in Medicare, without
reducing coverage?
Well, OK, it could be because Barack Obama is full of shit, but for
the sake of the argument...
|9.16.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Ah, so my definition of freedom is curious...Hah.
Thanks economist for your excellent rebuttal. I have no need to add
to it.
Tricky Prickears|9.16.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Actually, the way private insurance is run isn't all that
efficient, either. According to some reports, 33 cents of every
dollar spent goes to admin costs. And when dealing with individuals
and small businesses, that number jumps to 40 cents. I don't know
of too many industries that can tolerate that kind of overhead, and
still provide a quality, affordable product.
I'm sure an argument can be made that some of those admin costs go
towards dealing with regulations, but that argument would only go
so far. My former doctor had 3-4 administrators in his office, and
he was the only doctor.
|9.16.09 @ 1:33PM|#
How much of the money that gets put into any government run
programs budget, is pruned out before it even gets there? If you
compare the actual budgets of government run programs, with
private, you aren't including all of the costs on the government
side unless you include the costs incurred by the IRS, congress,
and the whole ridiculously inefficient governing system.
Additionally, private insurance inefficiencies are driven up by
government regulation, taxation, and especially, restrictions on
competition.
Which is why people like myself endorse getting as much government
out of the picture as we can manage. Allow us to purchase across
state borders, stop mandating coverage I don't want, stop
interfering in the process with bad, and entirely too expensive
taxation.
If you want to fix the health care system for those who can't
afford insurance, do the above, and encourage communities to open
up free or graduated cost clinics. Combine that with HSP's, and
reduced cost, HDHP's, and nearly everyone will be covered. At least
that want to be.
|9.16.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Obama ran on the Robin Hood platform. He convinced the poor he will take from the rich and give to them. Once it sinks in that he will be taxing them too, he'll have big trouble on the left. But I have a feeling that it's not going to sink in before it's too late.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#
The right-wing accusations against Barack Obama are true. He is a socialist, although he practices socialism for corporations.
There's another word for that. But it escapes me at the moment.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 2:30PM|#
I'm reserving judgment on the level of control industry has
over Obama until the health bill is passed.
Obama is enabling a 30% tariff on Chinese made tires. Which
industry do you think is behind that?
Obama and the Democrats, the undisputed president and party of
corporate welfare.
|9.16.09 @ 4:09PM|#
What would you rather have: freedom to possess a few dollars
in would-be tax money, or freedom from having to worry about
whether an illness or accident will bankrupt you?
Both, thanks. Lower taxes will enable to buy my own insurance.
M o n k e e |9.16.09 @ 4:22PM|#
"Obama and the Democrats, the undisputed president and party of
corporate welfare."
may I recommend "a new history of Leviathan"
|9.17.09 @ 1:42PM|#
"Sure, most politicians are vaguely pro-business, because any
other position would tank the economy, given the power the
government has to regulate and otherwise meddle in industry. But
that doesn't mean that they're all screwing the little guy for
giant corporations run by guys wearing top hats."
Never mind all those bailouts to banks (700 trillion TARP etc.).
What you think government is bailing out giant corporations? You
must be crazy ....
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245