According
to MSNBC, President Obama said: “Some of these folks [opponents of
the TPP] are friends of mine. I love them to death. But in the same
way that when I was arguing for health care reform I asked people to
look at the facts – somebody comes up with a slogan like ‘death
panel,’ doesn’t mean it’s true. Look at the facts. The same
thing is true on this. Look at the facts. Don’t just throw a bunch
of stuff out there and see if it sticks...”
Obama's
comparison referencing the “death panels” concocted by the
lunatic right did not go unnoticed by his critics from labor and the
left. Most objected that comparing their opposition to TPP to the
ravings of crazies hardly suggests the sentiments of a friend.
Of
course this is an old story. Since the defeat of Walter Mondale in
1984, the founding of the Democratic Leadership Council and numerous
associated think-tanks, the Democratic Party has moved smartly and
steadily rightward, shedding any semblance of New Deal or Great
Society progressivism. During the Obama years, the process has
reached a point where the Democratic Party's meager left wing
pretends to represent the Party's soul while the leadership pretends
to welcome its views. On occasions like the TPP incident, the
leadership fumbles the script and reveals its true feelings.
Sadly,
few lessons are drawn from this experience or the pattern of contempt
and derision demonstrated by the party's corporate coddling
leadership.
Flashback
As
we enter the Silly Season-- the 18 months of lies, bluster, and empty
promises preceding the Presidential election-- I am reminded of the
last great moment of self-induced, liberal/left self-deception. In
the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, all but a few
unrepentant Marxist-Leninists, Green Party hardliners, and assorted
outliers joined hands in a mad orgy of Obama-mania. For those who
need reminding, Obama was actually the corporate choice preferred by
the ruling class to clean up the mess left by a failed, embarrassing
Bush administration that destabilized the Middle East, antagonized
allies, blemished the image of the US, and stood clueless before an
economic crisis unprecedented since the Great Depression. A fresh
face was needed, a politician unstained by the Bush era, untainted by
the “insider” label.
Barack
Obama fit the bill, just as Jimmy Carter, a Georgia peanut farmer and
home-spun governor did nearly four decades earlier after the Nixon
crimes and indignities. In both cases, an “outsider” promised to
restore confidence in a tarnished office. I wrote in 2008:
There are some
striking and illuminating parallels between this election season and
the Presidential election campaign of 1976. Like the eight years of
the Bush administration, the eight years of Nixon/Ford produced an
unparalleled collapse of support for the Republican Party. The
Watergate scandal coupled with the failure of the US military in
Vietnam and an economic crisis left the Republican Party wounded and
regrouping. The interim elections of 1974 produced gains for the
Democrats, especially in former suburban Republican strongholds.
Most citizens looked
to the then forthcoming elections with a profound desire for a new
course. The Democrats chose a political outsider, Governor Jimmy
Carter of Georgia. Carter promised to make the government “as good
as the people.” Pundits hailed Carter as a departure from the old
politics and a fresh, honest voice for change (e.g. The Miracle of
Jimmy Carter, Howard Norton and Bob Slosser, 1976).
Similar
to 1976 and the Presidential candidate J. Carter, his presumptive
2008 counterpart, Barack Obama, is viewed as a Washington “outsider.”
He has campaigned as a candidate of change. Pundits hail him as a
fresh voice untainted by the vices of the establishment. (2008: a Reprise of 1976?)
Was
Obama really the corporate choice? Or is this just baseless
cynicism of a sectarian old leftist? I observed in 2008:
Wall
Street has strongly supported the Democratic candidates over the
Republicans. Through the end of 2007, seven of the big 8 financial
firms (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, JP
Morgan Chase, UBS, and Credit Suisse) showed a decided preference
towards the Democrats. Only Merrill Lynch gave more to Republicans,
though they gave the single most to Clinton. The
Wall Street Journal (2-3/4-08),
while noting that Obama receives a notable number of contributions
from small donors, pointed out that “…even for Sen. Obama, the
finance industry was still the richest source of cash overall…”
Through
February, Obama leads the other candidates in contributions from the
pharmaceutical industry and was in a virtual dead heat with Clinton
with respect to the energy sector.
These
numbers strongly suggest that candidates, especially Democratic Party
candidates, are unlikely to challenge their corporate sponsors in any
meaningful way.
(The Political Economy of the Elections)
To
underscore the meaning of these campaign contributions, I ventured:
This
election cycle has revealed something new: Democrats are raising more
money from corporate interests for their campaigns than the
traditionally dominant Republicans. This process began before the
2006 elections, accelerated sharply in the Presidential elections,
strengthened in the early primaries and continued into 2008. In
March, 2008, McCain gained somewhat on his Democratic rivals, but
still fell well below the total raised by the two Democrats.
Within
the Democratic camp, Clinton dominated most corporate contributions
until 2008, when Obama enjoyed big gains, pushing ahead through March
especially in the key industries of finance, lawyers/lobbyists,
communications and health.
Would
it be far-fetched to say that the corporate choice was there for all
to see? Is it difficult to imagine from these facts that unlimited,
unconditional bail-outs were ahead for the financial industry in
2009? Or health care “reform” structured around the wishes of
insurance companies, the health care industry, and pharmaceuticals?
Yes,
it was there for all to see.
Of
course many were willfully blind to the facts, embracing
self-delusion instead. I wrote of one left pundit so struck with
Obama-mania that he reported the Obama victory with wild hyperbole
and messianic verve:
"...hundreds
of millions-Black, Latino, Asian, Native-American and white, men and
women, young and old, literally danced in the streets and wept with
joy, celebrating an achievement of a dramatic milestone in a 400-year
struggle, and anticipating a new period of hope and possibility."
(Quoted in Getting beyond Euphoria)
That
pundit has today found a new messiah in Bernie Sanders.
Two
days after the 2008 election, weighing the new administration's chief
players, their backgrounds, and political records, along with
stressing the limitations deeply embedded in the national political
institutions, I cautioned that Obama would not and could not deliver
the goods expected by the broad left. I summarized the election as
follows:
The
2008 US Presidential election is behind us. A fair estimation of the
results might be as follows: A
clear, significant statement of
the US electorate; a hollow, likely disappointing result for
the people.
After the euphoria of the Obama victory, it is vital that we separate
these two assessments and avoid the cynicism of leftist isolationism
and the self-deception of hopeful idealism. What the voters wanted
was unquestionably significant change. What they were promised was
change. Whether change will come from the Obama administration is -
at best - questionable. (The Presidential Election: A Victory for the People?)
I
concluded the essay with the following remarks:
It's time for the
left to put aside the comforting illusions and rebuild an
independent, oppositional front that is not dependent upon the good
will of the corrupted Democratic Party. We desperately need that left
to forge a true people-saving agenda from the destructive gorilla.
Unfortunately,
we (the left) have yet to construct the independent, oppositional
front needed. Nor has the opposition to the Democratic Party
steamroller advanced much beyond the motley group of “a few
unrepentant Marxist-Leninists, Green Party hardliners, and assorted
outliers” present in 2008. Accordingly, the new political season
very likely will reproduce many of the same inanities and fantasies
inflicted seven years ago.
Hillary?
With
the ability and expectations of raising well over a billion dollars
for the forthcoming presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton will
likely be the Democratic nominee and very probably the next
President. Unlike the 2008 Obama-moment, the ruling class is opting
for “insiders” in the period ahead. Even with polls showing a
twenty-five year low in confidence that the country is going in the
right direction, even with barely double-digit approval of congress,
and even with decidedly negative images of both parties by poll
respondents, the masters of our fate are favoring old dynastic names:
Clinton and Bush.
Chastened
by its encounter with “hopey-changey,” the electorate appears to
be looking for “experience” as the most important attribute of a
candidate this election cycle (Washington Post/ABC News
poll). Of course this is precisely the image Clinton has been
carefully cultivating since her Senate tenure. Like her husband, the
former President, Ms. Clinton seems untouched by her publicized
failings. Neither the abuse of her internal communications while in
government service nor her slimy horse trading with foreign and
domestic wealthy donors to her billion-dollar family foundation has
shaken her campaign. The Clintons know no shame, the media show no
indignation, and Democratic Party loyalists own no principles.
While
there is much talk that the Democratic Party's liberals need some red
meat to keep them in the game, there is little evidence that it is
forthcoming or needed. Elizabeth Warren likely pledged loyal
opposition in her meeting with Ms. Clinton last year.
Even
a recent dust-up between Warren and Obama over the secretive,
corporate-friendly TPP never moved the compass leftward. Warren
timidly and opportunistically raised fears that “foreign”
corporations might use the TPP enforcement function to influence US
regulation of financial institutions (instead of exposing it as a
license for any corporation to violate the sovereignty of all
participating nations). Obama shot back artfully: “...The notion
that I had this massive fight with Wall Street to make sure that we
don't repeat what happened in 2007, 2008 [the recession], and then I
sign a provision that would unravel it? ... I'd have to be pretty
stupid." Readers may be unacquainted with events occurring
exactly as Obama recalls them. They may search their memories in vain
for a “massive fight” with Wall Street. Instead, they may
remember the massive bailout of Wall Street on his watch, vivid
memories that should make one suspicious of Obama's defense of TPP.
Missing
from the spat is any effort to call out Hillary Clinton on the TPP.
Presumably, her stand on this controversial subject is of great
importance for those wishing to make an informed choice in the 2016
election. But the Clinton campaign does not want informed opinion.
Her campaign chief reportedly said of the issue: “Can you make it
go away?”
Another
anti-Clinton “populist,” former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley,
has cast aside his hard-line image while serving as Baltimore's
mayor. Then, he was a Giuliani clone; his administration terrorized
marginalized people to ethnically and class-cleanse the new
Baltimore, a Baltimore that has made the murderous rough ride in
police custody globally infamous. Today, he has been reborn as an
ardent enemy of Wall Street.
But
Democratic Party leaders need not fear. Opportunism has become so
deeply embedded in liberal politics that 87% of liberal poll
respondents “could see themselves supporting Mrs. Clinton” (Wall
Street Journal/NBC News poll).
To
corral the rest, Democrats have Bernie Sanders. Writing in BlackAgenda Report,
Bruce Dixon astutely labels Sanders the “shepherd” for the
Democratic Party:
...we have seen the
Bernie Sanders show before, and we know exactly how it ends. Bernie
has zero likelihood of winning the Democratic nomination for
president over Hillary Clinton. Bernie will lose, Hillary will win.
When Bernie folds his tent in the summer of 2016, the money, the
hopes and prayers, the year of activist zeal that folks put behind
Bernie Sanders' either vanishes into thin air, or directly benefits
the Hillary Clinton campaign.
As
Dixon understands and history shows, Democratic Party insurgencies
end by sapping the energy and zeal of its idealistic fighters while
herding them back into the fold for the ensuing center-right
campaign. Before Sanders, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were the
standard bearers for the futile Children's Crusades against the
Party's bosses. Sanders' motives are irrelevant here. Whether or not
he sincerely believes he can change the trajectory of politics within
the two-party system, the Democratic Party has morphed into an
institution irredeemably in the clutches of the rich and powerful.
Only forces outside of the Party are capable of directing
matters leftward.
Voters
seem resigned to mediocrity and the parties seem anxious to comply.
In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, respondents'
net positive feelings (positive minus negative) were graphed. Five
Republicans scored in negative territory. Only Hillary Clinton
managed a net zero to lead the pack. Despite rating quite poor on
honesty and straightforwardness, Ms. Clinton is polling ahead of the
early Republican candidates.
The
Republicans face added obstacles with conflict between their
corporate-coddling economic royalists and their ideologically
extremist wing, especially the Tea Party. Republican leaders embrace
the ideologues as foot soldiers, but recognize that they are a
liability with voters in the general election and shun them as
candidates. While most Republicans currently prefer Jeb Bush over the
rest of the pack, the ideologues-- especially the Tea Party--
question his bona fides (among Tea Party loyalists, he is only
the first choice of about 6%). Republican leaders know they must keep
the Tea Party in the game (would any Republican leader dare call the
Tea Party a bunch of f**king retards?) At the same time, they
desperately want to minimize the Tea Party agenda. In 2012, they
succeeded by securing the nomination for a corporate shill, Mitt
Romney.
Undoubtedly,
many dollars will be spent, speeches made, and articles written to
convince the electorate that there are real differences between the
parties and their candidates. But the differences that surface will
not be with goals: the two parties share a common goal of US
dominance in foreign policy; the two parties share a common goal of
protecting and promoting capitalism in domestic policy.
The
differences will be in contrasting assessments on how to achieve
these goals. Some politicians believe that the empire is crumbling
because the country has turned away from traditional values; others
believe the empire is crumbling because we have acted rashly and
highhandedly; and still others believe that the empire is doing just
fine! But all but a very few fully support the empire. If you don't
believe it, ask yourself how many elected officials show up at your
anti-drone demonstration, your protest of Israeli outrages, or your
solidarity march with Venezuela.
And
on the domestic front, our political options are determined by which
policies best promote the smooth operation of capitalism; some
politicians see unions and welfare as obstacles to the optimal
operation of the market; others see inequality and poverty as
obstacles to the optimal operation of the market; and still others
think that the economy is going swimmingly. But all pay obeisance to
capitalism. And do politicians show up at picket lines; have they
joined the fight against police brutality; are they leading the fight
for a new minimum wage?
Rarely.
The
silly season conjures frustration and anger. But as I wrote
elsewhere, “...it is vital that we...avoid the cynicism of leftist
isolationism and the self-deception of hopeful idealism.” We must
not drink the dubious lesser-of-two-evils kool-aid, nor should we
leave the electoral field to the hypocrites and liars. Many former
loyalists now speak of Obama as a traitor or back-stabber. He is
neither. He never was on our side.
I
learned (Labor Notes, May 2015) that Vermont Governor Shumlin
has rejected the Vermont health care program and has set out with
fellow Democratic legislators to go after other programs through
steep budget cuts. Author, Traven Leyshon, notes that “The sense of
betrayal runs as deep among state workers and teachers as it does
among health care campaigners.” But Governor Shumlin did not betray
the workers; he was never on their side. This is the important lesson
that we must continue to share if we are to move beyond the two-party
trap.
Happily,
Leyshon reports that “Unions here are drawing the conclusion that
we need to run our own candidates. The existing Vermont Progressive
Party, which now has nine legislators, could become the vehicle.”
This, too, is the lesson that we must spread. If we are to fight the
hopelessness and impotency of two-party politics, we must tackle the
difficult task of mounting independent and third-party campaigns. Can
we afford to wait on another election cycle?
Zoltan
Zigedy
No comments:
Post a Comment