I still go there to this day, although not nearly as often, admittedly. But when I do go, there often are some really cool articles, like this one. It is an interesting article that examines a troubling trend that I also have noticed for quite some time now - politicians that seem to hold up certain ideals and such that inspire many people on the left - like Obama's "hope" and change"of 2008, that not only carried him to victory in the race for the White House, but seemed to inspire many millions of Americans, particularly youth and minorities. Indeed, many people seemed to feel that Obama represented a different spirit, and that this spirit would be translated into action, legislative and otherwise, once Obama actually got into the White House.
It has not quite happened that way, has it?
Sometimes, it is hard to quite categorize a presidency while it is happening. After all, historians suggest that we need a decade or two, to allow things to settle, and to see what kind of long-term impacts, beyond the days in office of the President in question, to make determinations and judgments about those years.
Yet, I think there actually are some immediate comparisons that come to mind with Obama.
The first is, sadly, his predecessor. Yes, I am aware that he is not George W. Bush, and has not made the same number or level of idiocies and mistakes. Yet, one of the things about George W. Bush's presidency was just how much happened behind the scenes. Things that eluded the headlines. As much as Iraq may have dominated the headlines, as well as moments where he seemed to be the highlight of all of those late night show monologues, time and time again, much of what Bush did that was most damaging went largely unnoticed by the American public. There was a reason that the Bush administration in particular emphasized secrecy.
As a candidate for President, Obama promised, among many, many other things, less secrecy, and more government transparency.
Yet, he signed the NDAA into law, and this hardly got any major headlines, or significant press coverage at all. Here was the President of the United States singing into law not only something that he had long claimed to be opposed to, but something that outright took away a constitutional right, at the discretion of the President. Are we supposed to take comfort in his seeming reluctance to sign it, in his apparent regret and possible opposition while he was actually, literally signing it?
I don't know about anyone else, but it hardly seemed comforting to me.
Same with the Monsanto Protection Act.
Same thing with all of the extra surveillance and spying that seem to be dominating the headlines all of a sudden recently.
That stuff all seems like it would have fit in with Bush's term in office, but not the man who inspired such hope for meaningful change as he rode a tidal wave of popular sentiment into the highest office.
There is someone else that Barack Obama also always reminded me of, and not surprisingly, it is another recent President - Bill Clinton. They are both great speech makers when they are at their best. Granted, I began to wonder, as many others did, about Obama's ability, following some debacles in recent years, most notably, perhaps, being the first debate in the last Presidential race.
Yet, there was the Barack Obama of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when he was the keynote speaker. There was the Obama of the 2008 election, when he literally inspired a nation. He reminded me of Bill Clinton, more than anyone else.
Clinton, perhaps more than Bush, is who Obama reminds me of. They both talk a certain idealistic talk, perhaps harkening back to an earlier, more idealistic age. in Clinton's case, he always reminded me of John F. Kennedy. In Obama's case, perhaps there were echoes of civil rights leaders of the past. But they both sounded great, and seemed to hint at a greater, more noble idealism in an age where this is desperately lacking, and where it seems like these could finally heal some of the wounds of our society. Obama suggested as much, when he claimed that the greatest deficit in America was not financial, but rather a lack of empathy.
Wow! Such words! They sound, indeed, like meaningful change.
But then, you look at his actions, and you are reminded that, despite his earlier image, and the seeming change that he represented, the fact of the matter is that he is simply a self-serving politician, like pretty much all of the major politicians out there. No more, no less. And ultimately, what he says needs to be judged with what he does. And what he has done so far in office simply is not in keeping with far too many of the words and ideals that he has expressed. He is, like Clinton before him, a living, breathing, walking, talking, cliche. A politician who speaks from both sides of his mouth. A politician who speaks nobly and in certain, highly idealistic tones, but then does not live up to the billing.
In that regard, perhaps Bush can be credited, as Obama and Clinton cannot, simply for being more honest about his intentions.
Kennedy inspired a nation that was at it's peak, and the nation that he represented was in many respects a reflection of him: young and seemingly idealistic, capable, inspired and inspiring, in many respects. Everything seemed to be ahead of them.
Similarly, Clinton and Obama (and Bush) are reflections of the nation, but that is where the comparisons end. The nation that they represent is far more cynical, far less idealistic, and far more greedy. This is reflected in the de facto corporate supremacy that all of these presidents (and quite a few that preceded them) have worked hard to maintain.
This article is an important one that addresses this faux idealism that appeals to so many on the left, then leaves so many disillusioned once "their man" is actually in office, and perhaps serves as a reminder that Presidents can be bad, no matter what party they belong to. It should also remind us to hold these self-serving politicians accountable, and not simply give them a free pass to do as they will, because we can identify more with them then the other guy, or perhaps because we consider ourselves loyal members of this party, rather than that one. Granting politicians carte blanche will always lead to trouble, and it is not what democracy is supposed to be about. These are, after all, public servants, and we should keep that in mind now more than ever, as we live in an age where we seem to be forced into the tighter and tighter grip of these tentacles of servitude.
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/are-corporations-trying-distract-us-social-issues-while-they
Are Corporations Trying to Distract Us with Social Issues While They Take Control of Our Economy?
Politicians are winning liberal hearts and minds on social issues, while embracing a corporate political agenda.
I was having breakfast with a friend in North Carolina the day after that state voted against gay marriage, and after Barack Obama said on television that he now supported it. My friend knew I had supported the cause for a long time, so he asked me what I thought of Obama’s comments. I said "I think he’ll be tacking to the right economically once he’s re-elected."
I was right, but not because I have any special predictive gifts. History had provided the background for Obama’s changed views while Republicans had pioneered his tactics.
One key to Obama’s “evolution” can be found in Thomas Frank’s 2004 book, What’s the Matter with Kansas? In it, a frustrated Frank argued that conservatives had persuaded heartland Americans to vote against their own interests by using social issues like gay marriage and abortion. His arguments resonated with a lot of liberals. Many of my friends expressed anger, frustration, and even contempt for the way “values voters” (as Republicans called them) repeatedly undermined their own economic needs in the voting booth.
Is it their turn? Politicians are winning liberal hearts and minds on social issues, while at the same time embracing a corporate political agenda based on ever-greater wealth for the few and increasing austerity for the many.
Let’s be clear: The term “social issues” is not used dismissively. These are human rights issues which speak to our core values of personal freedom and social justice. But are these just causes being exploited by corporate-backed politicians?
The answer seems to be yes.
Politicians in the “liberal Kansas” school are increasingly outspoken on issues like reproductive choice and gay marriage, while at the same time continuing to promote their corporate economic agenda. Many, if not most, of them are so-called "centrist" Democrats from the Bill Clinton wing of the party. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat turned Republican, is also a prominent member of the “personally liberal, economically conservative” clique.
They’re not alone. I’ve known more than a few corporate leaders and Wall Street executives, and most of them were quite liberal on social issues too. It makes sense, when you think about it. When your goal is money, you’re not likely to care what people do with their bodies – as long you get their wallets.
That’s the “liberal Kansas” strategy in a nutshell.
Frank considered the “Kansas” phenomenon a liberal political failure, and he was certainly right about that. He also derided the centrist Democrats as “criminally stupid” for “pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues.”
That’s also correct, if the Democratic Party ever wants to win consistently and build a working majority. But it’s beginning to look as if, at least where its base is concerned, the Democratic “Kansas” strategy is working. It seems that most of party’s rank and file is happy to let this rightward economic shift continue, as long as its leaders say the right things about social issues.
Democrats campaigned on populist themes in 2012 campaign. But as soon as the election was over the party’s leaders returned to what Frank described in 2004 as “endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation, and the rest of it.”
Since his re-election, Barack Obama has proposed to cut Social Security, echoed the deficit hysteria of the right, continued to negotiate NAFTA-like trade deals in secret (hidden from Congress and the public but available to 600 “corporate advisors”), and continued to privatize the military/national security state. (He has also pursued the most aggressive anti-whistleblower presidential campaign in American history.)
And yet 85 percent of registered Democrats either “somewhat approve” or “strongly approve” of Obama’s performance, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll. While the level and intensity of Democratic support has dipped somewhat, these figures are still surprisingly robust for a President who moved to cut Democrats’ signature achievement – Social Security – and whose other economic policies are so out of line with his party’s base.
What’s more, both the party’s leadership and its rank and file appear enthusiastic about the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who as First Lady was part of the administration that cut welfare benefits (in a destructive and ultimately discredited “reform” process) and deregulated Wall Street in a way that directly contributed to the 2008 crisis. Since the talk about a 2016 run began, she has made no effort to distance herself from those policies or to stake out a different position on any significant economic issues.
How do right-leaning Democrats like Obama and the Clintons maintain the loyalty of the Democratic and liberal base?
They seem to have learned a thing or two from Republicans. While their social stance lacks the “anti-elite” aura of their conservative counterparts – something which might force them closer to genuinely populist positions – they have certainly learned how to use issues like gay marriage and reproductive rights to win liberal hearts and minds, while at the same time pursuing conservative economic policies.
Gay marriage had been somewhat problematic for these Dems. The political calculus of the last two decades, at least as they understood it, demanded that they distance themselves from the issue. It would have taken courage for a politician to support the idea 15, or 10, or even five years ago.
That courage was nowhere to be found in this crowd. Barack Obama said in 2004 that “I believe marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” while spokesman Robert Gibbs reaffirmed that “Barack Obama is opposed to gay marriage.” President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and advised John Kerry to outflank Republicans from the right by endorsing anti-gay marriage amendments in the 2004 election campaign. (Clinton recently denied that story, but the political consultant who first reported it reaffirmed its accuracy. Newsweek also reported the story at the time.)
The 2008 financial crisis should have resulted in the final discrediting of the Clinton-era, DLC and “Third Way”-style politics. The deregulation bill which Clinton signed unleashed Wall Street greed, giving it the freedom to accelerate the destruction of the middle class – and ultimately, to nearly destroy the global economy.
This pseudo-centrist school calls itself “moderate” and “centrist,” despite the fact that poll after poll has affirmed that its economic policies – on Social Security, Medicare, Wall Street regulation, and taxing corporations and the wealthy – are far to the right of public opinion. In many cases polls show that their positions are to the right of Republican voter opinion.
But the corporate Dems caught two lucky breaks. First, in a sign of society’s often-underestimated capacity for change, public opinion shifted strongly toward support for gay marriage. Most Republicans are unwilling or unable to do to capitalize on that shift, since that would alienate their base. In a second lucky break, the Republicans have been increasingly extreme and barbaric in their stated positions about reproductive rights, women’s health, and women’s rights overall. (That is a shift. Few people remember that Republican President Gerald Ford supported the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, for example.)
These two developments gave corporate-friendly Democrats the opening they needed to protect their unpopular economic positions … by changing the subject. In Obama’s case, all it took was an eloquent statement of affirmation to give him the aura of a hero on the subject of gay rights. (Obama didn’t propose to take any specific actions when he announced his “evolution.”)
The same strategy was used by Michael Bloomberg – along with lots and lots of money – to win and retain the mayoralty in heavily Democratic New York City. Bloomberg’s liberalism on social issues repeatedly won over voters who otherwise might have rejected his economic platform. He was even seriously discussed as a third-party presidential candidate, despite holding fiscal views that are far to the right of the general electorate.
Any discussion of “social-issues corporatists” must also get into another very sensitive territory: identity politics. Yes, it’s an enormous social breakthrough when offices once restricted to white males are occupied by women, people of color, those of different (or no) faith, and people of all sexual orientations. No argument there.
But the “reverse Kansas” crowd is quite capable, consciously or otherwise, of using identity politics to push its pro-corporate agenda. We saw that in the exhilarating moment when Barack Obama won the presidency, only to tack to the right once in office; when Geraldine Ferraro was nominated for the vice-presidency; and in the many congressional and state offices now held by female, minority, gay, Muslim, atheist and other leaders.
But identity politics, like social issues, can be exploited to push a Wall Street agenda. There may be no better example of that than the New Jersey senatorial candidacy of Cory Booker, who is both African American and gay – and who is a former Wall Streeter who stridently defends even that community’s worst excesses. If Booker replaces Robert Menendez, as appears likely, he is far less likely to defend the public’s economic rights against corporate pillagers.
It didn’t have to be that way. There are many committed leaders who fit Cory Booker’s profile and have much more reasonable economic views.
There are also many talented women who could run for president. (Elizabeth Warren comes immediately to mind.) But today Hillary Clinton’s 2016 nomination is considered a sure thing, should she choose to run, despite the fact that she has not stated her positions on key economic issues and is closely associated with the economically disastrous actions of the Clinton administration.
Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton: Each of these politicians has expressed pro-corporate economic views that are both unpopular politically and deeply inconsistent with core progressive beliefs.
It’s time to ask the question: What’s the matter with Liberal Land? Why do they continue to support politicians who frequently work against their economic self-interest? Are social issues being used on liberals the same way they’ve been used on Thomas Frank’s Kansas voters? What Frank wrote about conservatism in 2004 could easily be said about mainstream Democratic liberalism today: “The movement's basic premise is that culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern—that Values Matter Most …”
But economics is a matter of values, too – values like fairness, equal opportunity, equal justice before the law, and the preservation of our social contract. And there shouldn’t be a gap between “social” issues and “economic” ones, since they both affect all of us. Women suffer disproportionately during times of economic hardship. Wealth inequity strikes minorities especially hard. People continue to suffer from rising poverty and the death of the middle class, regardless of their sexual orientation.
And when one person is not free, personally or economically, we are all less free.
It was a beautiful moment for gay Americans when the President of the United States expressed support for the right to marry. It was an affirmation of their right to exist as full citizens of this country. It’s good that, whatever their motives, these corporate-friendly politicians have “evolved.” Now it’s time for their supporters to do the same, and demand leaders who represent them in every dimension of public policy.
None of this is meant to condemn liberals who support corporate-backed politicians. We all want safety and security, and that includes the sense that we have leaders we can trust. But there’s a difference between being led and being had. It’s time to demand leaders who understand that economic justice is an essential part of our national fabric, and that you can’t achieve full equality without it.
RJ Eskow is a writer, business person, and songwriter/musician. He has worked as a consultant in public policy, technology, and finance, specializing in healthcare issues.
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/are-corporations-trying-distract-us-social-issues-while-they
No comments:
Post a Comment