Showing posts with label New Deal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Deal. Show all posts

Friday, May 20, 2016

The rise of "Neoliberalism" and the fall of the Democratic party.

MORE DISCLAIMERS The Field Negro education series continues.

"In an interview with Chris Hedges in 2010, Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned linguist and dissident intellectual, remarked that he has "never seen anything like this."
By this, he meant the state of American society, relative to the time in which he was raised — the Depression years — and to the tumultuous state of Europe during that same period.

It is very similar to late Weimar Germany," Chomsky said. "The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over."

For decades, Chomsky has warned of the right turn of the Democratic Party, which has, in an effort to win elections, adopted large swaths of the Republican platform and abandoned the form of liberalism that gave us the New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

"Trump has been viewed with bewilderment by politicians who have divorced themselves from the needs of the people and who have sold them false goods to get ahead. But Trump, as Chomsky's prescient interview demonstrates, was inevitable."

This new approach was canonized by Bill Clinton, who triumphantly declared that the "era of big government is over."

With this declaration, Clinton ushered in a new era of the Democratic Party (the so-called New Democrats), which left behind the working class and cultivated amiable relationships with corporate executives and Wall Street financiers; many of them would eventually occupy key positions in Clinton's government, and many of them emerged once more during the presidency of Barack Obama.

The philosophical bent of the New Democrats was best summarized by Charles Peters in "A Neoliberal Manifesto," in which he defines neoliberalism as an ideology perfect for those who "no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business." Democrats, since Peters penned his manifesto, have far exceeded the bounds of this seemingly neutral stance.

Bill Clinton, for his part, destroyed welfare, deregulated Wall Street, worsened the growing mass incarceration crisis, and signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement, a sweeping deal that harmed millions of workers, in the United States, Mexico, and elsewhere.
Today, President Obama, in partnership with congressional Republicans, is lobbying aggressively for the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has been deemed by critics "NAFTA on steroids." The agreement, if made the law of the land, will encompass 40% of global GDP and will grant massive companies unprecedented power.

Despite President Obama's promises of transparency, the public has been forced to rely on leaked information to glean any specifics about the deal — and, based on the information we have, the agreement is a disaster for workers and the environment and, unsurprisingly, a boon for multinational corporations.

Democrats, in short, have left the working class in the dust, often using "the excuse," as a recent New York Times editorial put it, "that they need big-money backers to succeed."
Republicans, meanwhile, as Chomsky has observed, are "dedicated with utter servility" to the interests of the wealthy, and their party, with its longing for war and denial of climate science, "is a danger to the human species."

So we are faced with a political system largely devoted to the needs of organized wealth, which leaves working people anxious, worried about the future, and, as we have seen, very angry. In essence, political elites — on both sides — have created a vacuum into which a charismatic and loudmouthed demagogue can emerge.

As Chomsky noted in his interview with Hedges, "The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen. Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response."

That was in 2010. Now, in 2016, we have Donald J. Trump, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

Trump is, of course, not "honest" in any meaningful definition of the word, but his supporters believe that he "tells it like it is." They view him as a no-nonsense straight-talker, a man not confined by the limits of political correctness.

To garner votes, Trump has tapped into the fears and animosities of members of the white working class who previously backed Republicans but now view the party as a collection of bureaucrats who have sold them out.

Trump, they believe, is different. He isn't bought, they say; he uses his own money, accrued by his uncanny deal-making abilities. He's an outsider; he'll stand up to the stuffy elite. And he, above all, speaks the truth about who they perceive as the real enemies — not billionaires like Trump, but illegal immigrants and Muslims.

"What are people supposed to think if someone says 'I have got an answer, we have an enemy'?" Chomsky asked. In Germany, he added, "it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority."
Sound familiar?' [More]

So now we kind of know what goes on in the mind of the Bernie supporter.

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them for wanting something (or someone) besides Hillary and the dems to run the country, but when you consider the alternative......*shudders*  

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Government interrupted.

*

Remember that scene in the movie "Defiance", when the milkman brought the army back to the forest to capture the Jews? After which Liev Shrieber's character, Zeus, tells his brother, Tuvia, (Daniel Craig) "you should have killed the milkman."

That would be my advise to his O ness: he should "kill" the damn "milkman".


I see him channeling his inner FDR and trying to pass New Deal like programs. I understand that, and I support it. I love the large expansion of the federal government, because like FDR, I don't trust big business. I wasn't doing cart wheels over the stimulus package because I didn't think the government spent enough. I happen to think the government is the people, and we have more control over it--the government-- than we do a bunch of stock holders and corporate honchos who are watching the bottom line. The clowns on the right who would do away with the government would be wise to reconsider. They should try to remember what big business unchecked has done to this country and the mess that they have left us in. With all due respect to Gordon Gekko; the only time "greed is good" is when you are in a nice Jamaican or Italian restaurant.

Obama's problem is that he keeps playing nice to people who will never be nice to him. Compromise? (And please, no comments about how brilliant he is and how he is two moves ahead of everyone else on the chess board, and blah blah blah. Chess can be a long fucking game. Maybe he should be playing checkers, instead.) Reach across the aisle? (Watch that shoulder there O man, you are going to dislocate it with all that reaching.) Why? His opponents say that he is using the crises the frat boy created to push through his own agenda. Yeah, so what? I say he isn't pushing hard enough. Strike early and hard is what he should have done; don't give them time to regroup and counter with political pressure of their own. That's how you should be doing it O man, put your foot on their necks. If you have to go down to 50% approval ratings in the polls, go. You only need 51% to be reelected president.

"The bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants."

That was a congressman from New York standing on his soap box against social security when FDR was trying to get it passed.

"Isn't this socialism?"

That was a congressman from Oklahoma to Frances Perkins, Roosevelt's secretary of Labor.

Sounds familiar? It should; because it's the same type of rhetoric we are getting now from the right. Roosevelt had his fireside chats. That was cool in the mid 1930's, when there was no Internet, no 24 hour cable news cycle, and no conservative talk radio, 24/7, to stir up the rabid masses. The only thing his O ness should be doing by the fireside is burning republican amendments to the health care reform bill. Look how congress carried on when FDR was trying to get social security passed? And now, in retrospect, I am sure that we can all agree that social security ain't such a bad thing after all. I am guessing that 74 years from now, if things go as they should, A-merry-cans will be looking at health insurance reform in the same way: How could we have even fought this for so long? Sometimes time has a way of making idiots out of some of us who are blinded by ideology.

"A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing,".... "Sometimes they will call it 'fascism,' sometimes 'communism,' sometimes 'regimentation,' sometimes 'socialism.' But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical. ... I believe that what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what Americans have always been doing -- a fulfillment of old and tested American ideals. ... We remain, as John Marshall said a century ago, 'emphatically and truly, a government of the people.' "

Way to kill the milk man FDR. I am afraid that it might be too late for my boy to do the same. The army has already surrounded the forest.


*Pic courtesy of Wikipedia.