Despite the well-intentioned defence of Barack Obama, his present and former financial-policy advisors including Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Paul Volcker and others, explain more about Obama's commitment to the health and well-being of the American people (as opposed to the wealth of the American elite) than his attempts at "pragmatic" negotiated solutions—which have usually ended in the selling out of the American public to corporate interests.
The most telling of these include the failure to raise the top marginal tax rates to the wealthy. But don't just take it from me. Check out today's New York Times. Warren Buffett tells it like it is. Check out his extraordinary op-ed piece.
In the end Obama may be remembered as the second coming of Herbert Hoover (who was not necessarily a bad president), rather than another honest Abe Lincoln.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteThe individuals you mention would not have been the choice of many of us, to be sure. But I think you use their names in an almost talismanic way, as if the mere reference were enough to prove Obama's a sellout. What exactly are you saying these men did to make the current economic situation worse after becoming associated with Obama? Did they oppose the president's stimulus plan? I think they supported what he wanted to do in that regard, which seems to me the main thing.
Isn't the problem that the stimulus wasn't large enough and that the shortcoming was largely due to the utterly idiotic opposition put up by congressional Republicans? How is that Geithner's fault, for instance?
You don't have to be a political genius to know these Republicans are playing hardball. The President should give a little of that in return. Especially when he had two years of majority.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans are winning the battles not only in Washington DC, but in WI, OH, FL, and around the country, yet the left is calling what happened in WI a win. What?
Instead of just defending what he has done (his results are mixed at best) we should be pushing him to do more to better the country.
If corporations won't hire to jump-start the economy, then the government should. Where is the Democratic, President's job bill?
Renewing the Bush tax cuts did more than add more deficit to the debt, it emboldened the Republicans to take the stupid stance they did in the debt ceiling debate.
The results of that debate led to spending cuts only. I would consider that a win for Republicans. And it again emboldens Republicans for the up coming budget debate.
His HC mandate just got shot down by the courts.
I don't think his political strategy is effective. He certainly is not changing Washington, he does seem to have just joined in on politics as usual in Washington. He seems to be good at it, but that is not getting America out of our financial hole.
Talismanic way? Absolutely. These are the same people who were attached to the Bush II administration, and some to the Clinton admin. before that.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is the continuing lack of US legislation on regulating its rogue financial system, and the imposition of restrictions on the elite—including raising taxes.
Hell, Dino, even Hoover raised the top marginal tax rate from 25% to 63%. Obama doesn't even begin to speak in these terms to the American public. Instead he negotiates, forms an elite "super-committee" and keeps apologizing to the public. That's not progress, nor is it offering hope a financially struggling voter can believe in.
Not Geithner's fault? You bet it is.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about Obama's not even beginning to speak in such terms re the tax rates is flatly contradicted by any number of nationally televised instances. He has repeatedly and pointedly said he favors raising taxes for those at the upper income end and has recently insisted that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will not be renewed next time. Will the GOP try -- yet again -- to blackmail the country and threaten it with ruin unless those tax cuts are continued? Sure they will because they have absolutely no conscience and no sense of responsibility, and that's where the president is going to need to take a stand. If he doesn't, I think everyone will find fault with him there because it would leave us with no alternative (since everyone seems to be insisting on deficit-cutting now, stupidly enough given the situation) but to savage the social safety net.
The "rogue financial system" is a separate issue -- I would agree that we haven't seen anything like the necessary response to what happened in 2008. Democrats need to understand that while Wall Street may not like some of the things Dems want to do, it WILL adjust and keep making tons of money. That was basically Mr. Buffett's point, wasn't it? Successful businesspeople will always take stock of the tax situation and go right ahead and make the smartest investments they can because if you don't invest, you don't make anything at all. We have allowed the big banks and financiers to get used to making easy money by means of legalized fraud, and that needs to stop, even if they throw a temper tantrum when we change the rules.
But as far as pulling us out of the recession via stimulus spending, my question remains: did any of those chaps you mention, complicit as they may be in what went before, deny the fundamental Keynesian principle underlying stimulus spending? Again, I say it's mostly Republican obstructionism, not hopeless, craven complicity on Obama's part. Critics might do well to realize just what kind of economic order we're dealing with here: it's capitalism, and given its fundamental orientation towards accumulation of capital, Any president is likely to run up against pretty severe constraints when he or she tries to get to the heart of the problem. The problem, really, is THE SYSTEM ITSELF. Not that I want to get rid of it altogether, but I recognize it for what it is and don't have any illusions about creating a paradise of fairness and justice under such an economic order.
Edge, I'm with Dino on this one. What I find is that among my friends who are quick to label Obama as a sellout is a failure to have used due diligence in following the President's pragmatic strategies. He is accused of not addressing topics that have been repeatedly addressed. For a start, do a YouTube search on Obama speeches.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, in spite of the clear historical evidence that the office of the U.S. President has never lent itself to being a bully pulpit for rallying the parties against one another too many progressives keep yelping about needing the President to make it clear that he wont tolerate dissent. Of course, there is no legitimate followup that he can employ if the dissenters refuse to behave.
Then there's all the ruckus about those to whom the President turned to clean up the economic mess that he inherited. If I want to get something done, I hire the most qualified people to do the job. Sometimes the most qualified are those that were part of the strategies that created the problem in the first place. Americans have this need to attribute qualities to the actions of others grounded in emotions and not logic or pragmatism. The first though process is that evil Wall Street types set out to undermine the American economy. Then it's logical that you don't want those same evildoers to participate in the repair process. Of course, the syllogism falls apart if your initial premise was wrong. There was no intent in our economic collapse other than generations of greed and worship of free market capitalism as a god.George W. Bush didn't cause the recession, neither did Ronald Reagan. They were just in the line of bad decision makers in Washington that set us up for the current recession.
I am not surprised that voices cry out for someone to blame. We always want someone to blame because we need to believe that every aspect of our existence can be controlled. To acknowledge that life is random scares the hell out of us, and recognizing that change is a lengthy and arduous process makes us want to sleep with a night light. Rationally, it's laughable to think that all of the 20th century's excesses can be resolved in three years by a single man in the 21st century.
The Republicans know what the members of this forum seem not to know. And that is that there is never a line in the sand with Obama. Conversely, there are continuous and incrementally moving lines drawn in the sand on the other side.
ReplyDeleteThe real challenge for Obama is returning control of America's finances to the American people, which has been MIA for more than a half a century. The last serious attempt was made by Kennedy six months before he died, when he signed Executive Order 11110, to permit the U.S. to print its own currency (as opposed to relying on the privately-owned Fed). Johnson, immediately after the assassination and on the plane back to DC, rescinded the order. The words unfortunate coincidence hardly do the events justice.
The only real answer, as Lincoln discovered during the Civil War, was for the US government to take control of its own money supply.
Obama has always paid lip service to taxation and banking, but has done precious about it, from the appointment of advisors onward. IMO. Much like the creation of a universal health care system similar to most if not all of the so-called developed world.
Btw, Hoover didn't raise the tax rate. No U.S president ever has. Only congress may propose legislation; the president may sign or veto the entire bill. The U.S. president does not have line item veto authority. Hoover had a Congress that increased the tax rate.
ReplyDeleteBasic civics, no matter how annoying to continually reference it, is essential in analyzing governmental actions. My recent post was about the dangers of mythologizing the past. It is flat out inaccurate to speak of any president as raising taxes. To do so does not lie within presidential authority in the U.S. To get any legislation passed, a president must have enough congressional votes to get the job done. This president has had the unpleasant experience of trying to work with a Congress that has no interest in compromise and that, as recently demonstrated, is willing to allow this country to teeter on the edge of financial disaster in an effort to bring down this president.
I have repeatedly addressed the constant focus on comparing this president's action to a mythologized view of past presidents because the wasted time in such comparisons have led to a diminishing in support for the President by his own former supporters. In the meantime, the disgruntled Tea Party is looking to the Republican party to give them a platform for their voices and successfully eroding the conservative platform of the Republican party and replacing it with a Tea Party hybrid that has the potential to be lethal to the economy, minorities, women, and the poor.
Have to comment on the health care reference. The Affordable Health Care Act is far from perfect but a public opinion was never a possibility. there were not enough votes for it. If we are to listen to the people, there wasn't a great deal of public support for a public option either. The growth of the Tea Party coincided with the health care bill. Town hall meetings were held in communities large and small and the antipathy towards the health care act was significant in numbers.
Edge, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment but exactly how do you believe that Obama could have secured a universal health care system similar to most if not all of the same so-called developed world? Mos of the people so vocal in their opposition to universal health care would actually benefit from such a system but the prevailing interest is in making certain that no one gets something who is undeserving, which is codespeak for an ethnic or racial minority, the unemployed, the poor, an illegal immigrant,(aren't they all) or Muslim.
Frankly, I'm impressed that the Affordable Health Care Act was passed at all. The last time that anyone tried to reform health care in the U.S. was during the Clinton administrations and that failed royally.
Drawing lines in the sand are part of old and hopefully dying definitions of leadership grounded in a macho mythology of what it means to be a real man. Candidate Perry has been all over the media in the last two days babbling on about how his military experience and Obama's lack thereof make Perry a much better candidate for president. Of course, it clearly hasn't dawned on Perry that as women have historically had a very limited role in serving in the military that if such a criteria were enforced it would make it highly unlikely to find a female candidate with the prerequisites military background to be considered in the presidential pool.
Besides, it wasn't so long ago that progressives soundly critiques President GW Bush for drawing lines in the and, making statements such as, "I'm the Decider." Progressives cried out for a leader who was an intellectual, who functioned based on logic, not feelings. Recall that little invasion of Iraq post 9/11, it was all about lies and emotions.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteWhat you don't understand, in turn, is that the kind of "they're all in on it" discourse you promote is likely to leave Democrats licking their wounds in late 2012, wondering how they lost to some elitist phony or some wild-eyed religious fanatic bent upon establish the Rule of the Saints. That won't make things better; it will on the contrary lead to the destruction of what's left of the social contract in America, tattered as it may already be. Make no mistake, these bastards smell blood and they're closing in for the kill.
By the way, the complainers who say Obama should be more like FDR (I'm not referring to you but rather to that general criticism) seem to forget one big thing: FDR had little reason to compromise with the rightists of his time because the disaster everyone feared HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. Obama is in a somewhat different position -- he's anxiously trying to head off a similar disaster, to which we have come close but not yet succumbed. Against him are arrayed a large number of cynics, opportunists and outright lunatics hellbent on destruction. Not an easy position to be in, so how about a little respect for that? Rational, humane people are always at a disadvantage when dealing with belligerent morons, rigid ideologues and fanatics -- their very reasonableness is turned into a weapon to be used against them. There's no easy way to sidestep that difficulty.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteI think your comment cuts right to the heart of the matter, I mean the "raising taxes" thing -- yet another instance in which President Obama is flouted for not doing something that he MANIFESTLY DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO, short of declaring himself something fanciful like Perpetual Dictator, or Supreme Commander of the Milky Way Federation of Planets, or whatever.
Dino. Yes it is the SYSTEM and the US needs a leader who can address that dire structural problem.
ReplyDeleteSheria, I am not blaming Obama, I am criticizing him. Perhaps the presidency is not a bully pulpit, nor is it possible to get past the pragmatic instrumentalism of the current system.
However, it is clear that the voters' wishes no longer control of the national direction, any more than the president or Congress does. The American SYSTEM has been hijacked by the monied/corporate-financial elite, much as the British system has been for a couple of centuries.
Structurally, the entire political system in the US runs on corporate campaign donations, subtle graft and corporate pressure, if not outright blackmail. If the root causes are not addressed (the merger of corporate-elite interest and the state) the American people, especially the poor and working poor, will pay the punishing price.
As much as Obama may say the right things in speeches, he is failing to galvanize the hope he offered in his campaign for the presidency. The failure of Obama is his failure to truly empathize with the people and to show the public the clear way forward.
That is because he's intuitively perceived by the public to serve different masters. The right wing lunatics succeed only by way of this shortcoming (and the convenient reality that they're also bought and paid, of course).
So in the end, the entire thing becomes an elaborate charade played out on behalf of a dimmed-down, media-controlled, demoralized public.
Somehow I'm getting or reading the above comments out of sequence. First, Dino, I expect that for the most part we are discussing and sharing the viewpoints of the Democratic centre left here, rather than trying to convert the right, at least in this forum. So I tend to post things that might stimulate debate amongst ourselves. As a Canadian I have no interest in contributing in—ever so small a way—to tactically driving the US any further toward the right!
ReplyDeleteBut what I'm driving at is the fundamental undersystem of the system, which can be summed up in a single question: Is America still a functioning democracy, or is it now on its way to a full plutocracy? (Issues of right or left matter less from that perspective.)
Sheria. I agree with you on the constitutional and governance systems involved, of course. But that doesn't discount the power of the president's rhetoric to arouse and educate the US electorate, some of whom have been deeply disenfranchise over the past three years, not to mention the past three decades. On that task I think the president has been less that successful.
Following a different tack, the president's willingness to accommodate both sides may be good short term policy, but perhaps the financial system (and its controllers) need to be stopped outright. Obama had the chance to take over the Fed in 2008. He had the chance to use stimulus money to rescue homeowners and not the bankers who fleeced them. But he can't because he himself is being handled, at least from my view of the proceedings.
And from my view I bring my own national biases, from living in a country that has universal health care and a prime minister who has the power to actually turn the whole Titanic him- or herself. We also have a publicly owned central bank that can and has decoupled from US and international (read IMF) policies.
All of which leads back to the structural systemic problems the US must face, sooner than later.
"The failure of Obama is his failure to truly empathize with the people and to show the public the clear way forward."
ReplyDeleteI think this is an unfair characterization. Speeches do not translate into public policy unless there is a "clear" consensus in Congress; and words such as "empathy" and "way forward" are logical fallacies to the extent that one should not attribute failure when causal relationships are contradictory or subjective at best. Volumes have been written in the pages of the Swash Zone and elsewhere about the near monolithic opposition of Republicans to Obama’s initiatives.
Speaking of the man from Berkshire Hathaway, Obama cited Warren Buffett during a speech in Iowa today. Surely you must know that Warren Buffett has served as an advisor to President Obama. And surely you must know that Buffett and Obama are political allies on this and many other issues. Today was a tag-team performance by Buffett and Obama to turn the tide of public opinion on the issue of taxation.
As a courtesy to Sheria, I think this post should have been incorporated in the comment thread under her original post. All opinions, pro or con, could have and should have been accommodated there without upstaging her with a new post.
It seems this comment thread has been jiggery-poked. I appreciate TOM's response.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Octo, I'm sure all the best wealthy and influential people are Obama's advisers, from Oprah on down. It's always a tag team. But why does he actually NEED tag teaming? Isn't he the leader of the free world? TOM's comment above alludes to that.
And as a courtesy to me, you might think that I'd already considered publishing this in the comment thread under her post, but thought it added a separate, yet related, topic.
You are also incorrect in your assertion that a president's speeches do not translate into public policy unless there is a "clear" consensus in Congress. If that were the case how did GW Bush manage to take America into Iraq? I seem to remember there was some speechifying involved.
The only tag teaming going on here seems to be the Obama believers vs. the Obama realists. It's not about OBAMA, dammit, it's about the American people—and from my self-serving point of view, America's impact on the rest of the world.
Nor am I opposed to Obama given the deranged forces on the right. But that's another topic.
I would also appreciate, Octo, any thoughtful comments on my actual proposition: that America seems to be rapidly drifting toward a plutocracy and seems to have no means of intervention due to its political governance structures—including, but not limited to, the two party system, campaign funding, corporate lobbying, voting district rezoning and porkbarrel military industrial spending. Hello...?
ReplyDelete"America seems to be rapidly drifting toward a plutocracy and seems to have no means of intervention due to its political governance structures"
ReplyDeleteIt does seem that way, but I suspect it's long been influenced unduly by the rich and powerful. Today's rich and powerful might include more multinational corporations in the mix and of course far larger concentrations of wealth and power than were conceivable a hundred years ago. Communications Technology itself has made them more powerful than "we" are since the cost is so high and I agree that today it's closer to one million: one vote than one man: one vote.
Sweeping election reform might change things a bit, but it's not going to be allowed to happen nor will corporations lose their personhood and special rights.
Yes, Capt. Those are the battle lines stretching back in America to the robber barons and media barons who are still with us today, more powerful than ever, along with their even more powerful financial barons, who now have multi-generational positions as presidential advisers. That's where the fight should be taking place, not this fucked up ideological war between left and right. It's top and bottom, as it's always been, as you have also regularly pointed out.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it IS election reform, and the stripping personhood (that travesty!) from corporations. But how? Where does one begin? In the classrooms, on the streets...? Apparently not in Congress or the Oval Office.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteNice characterizations -- "believers" versus "realists"? That's quite an oversimplification. And what about your claim to Sheria that you're not "criticizing Obama"? No, you're doing something much less healthy: your very title uses the term "betrayer," and the end-punctuation doesn't throw me off the trail -- you mammals think we extinct lizards are dumb, but we're not! Your language attributes something bordering on treason to Mr. Obama. I find that reckless and lacking foundation; it's not language one should use lightly, just as a title-teaser followed by a question mark. Inflammatory terms don't conduce towards reasoned debate.
Finally, you contrast yourself with the rest of us for the kind of analysis you're offering about systemic problems -- fine, but I and everybody else here have said pretty much the same thing umpteen times. It's second nature to anyone with a decent education. Lacing your posts with conspiratorial language doesn't add anything.
You don't seem to realize the contradiction between your general claims, which imply correctly that America's political problems often go beyond parties and persons, and the language you use against President Obama as a "betrayer," etc. The language of conspiracy and treason is ALWAYS personal, implying agency and stirring up visions of cigar-chomping swine carving up the planet in their smoke-filled boardrooms, etc. Mixing these kinds of discourse is confusing and not particularly helpful.
Dino, I suspect that with your decent education you're reading skills should be well honed. In point of fact I wrote that I AM criticizing Obama.
ReplyDeleteAs to treason, I am not an American. Nothing I say can be held as treasonous, as I have no pledge of allegiance or citizenship to defend. That said, you may interpret my position any way you wish.
As to the characterization of Obama as a betrayer (or ally) of the American lower and middle classes, that's the essential question upon which every voter must privately reflect. That's not treason, shame on you.
And as for me contrasting myself with the rest of you, I suggest you've just done a better job of it than I. Good for you. But I would suggest that, despite your accusation, my so-called inflammatory and reckless approach has conduced some small measure of reasoned debate here, as your response might indicate.
You don't scare me, mister lizard; we mammals are resilient. Obama IS the system; its top representative. Change starts there, as well as with us. Perhaps that's also an oversimplification, but it strikes me that America is suffering from a critical case of political and systemic over-complexity.
I do apologize if my contributions are not particularly helpful, since you have all already solved these problems umpteen times over.
But I would agree, however, that we have no need of conspiracy theories here. The behaviour is right out in the open. It's no longer the cigar-chompers; it's the next generation of pinot-sniffers at the fundraisers.
And oh, you might also want to check out Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's recent comments on corporately funded politics...but maybe he's just a part of the Obama-Buffett tag team, too...maybe it's a positive conspiracy!
ReplyDeletehttp://moneyland.time.com/2011/08/15/starbucks-ceo-calls-for-a-boycott-on-campaign-donations/
Edge,
ReplyDeleteMy comment suggests you're accusing Obama of something like treason, not that you yourself are about to commit treason. So don't be silly.
Agreed about the "criticism" point -- my misremembered reading is at fault there, so I apologize for that mistake.
Anyhow, your "we don't need conspiracy talk" line isn't convincing. You seem very fond of engaging in it. And no, I don't find it healthy or useful to pose that as a question because it isn't at all warranted in Obama's case. The whole damn political system has indeed, over time, been rigged against the ordinary person, but let's not be insinuating that Obama himself is a traitor, yes? This is a public site, and there are lots of people out there who take that kind of thing quite literally; they do not mean the president well. That's reason enough to take exception to such terms here.
Yes, well, food for thought. I certainly didn't mean to suggest Obama was treasonous. Betrayal is not treason. Most, if not all, presidents have instrumentally betrayed some portion of their constituencies. FDR betrayed his class with the New Deal and has been revered as an American patriot.
ReplyDeleteAs to conspiracies, I believe that much of what transpires both politically and socially are silent conspiracies based on mutual interests, personal gain and shadow alliances. These are not the sophomoric, overt conspiracies of which the paranoid fringe engages. That type of conspiracy is unnecessary and even repellent among today's elegantly tuned, associated network driven, Harvard educated ruling class.
So yes, I am inclined to follow my instincts regarding collective motivations among our so-called leaders. And I think there has been significant evidence of corruption, manipulation, collusion and scandal both corporately and politically for justifying such an assumption. It would be, in my opinion, naive to speculate otherwise.
As to this being a public forum, I doubt that anything we pose here is a threat to the future of the free world. There is an optimistic lack of hate-mongering here as well as an openness of opinion that should serve the public debate well.
And if you're denying any possibility of soft, insider conspiracies (call them insider networks, if you prefer), then we must disagree. At last reckoning this is still a world in which money and influence talk loudest.
Edge,
ReplyDeleteYour present way of putting the case is more defensible than your initial post with its insufficiently qualified rhetoric. As for naivete, I don't suppose anybody here thinks America in 2011 resembles Andy Griffith's town Mayberry in the Fifties show. Besides, as I like to say, "things never were the way they used to be." And the Jurassic? Please! Don't get me started -- you couldn't even get a decent cup of coffee back then. But let's move on now to other things.
I don't think Andy's Mayberry actually resembled the 50s, let alone 2011. But thanks for that and other dismissive remarks. My point was actually leading toward the opposite view, that the behaviour of money and power has always been thus, as the Capt's comment also acknowledged. But now, as you suggest, moving on...
ReplyDeleteMoving on... you might want to check out Naomi Klein's excellent piece on the effects of spiralling inequity...
ReplyDeletehttp://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/08/london-riots-and-global-financial-looting
She cites the same behaviour and types of characters now advising Obama.
(apologies, can't hotlink; you'll have to cut and paste)
A few additional thoughts that I'm just getting around to writing down:
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues that has to be addressed is that a lot of Americans like or at least, willingly tolerate our system. When people complain about the recession, they are not proposing that we revamp the system of free market enterprise; they just want to move their own position from the bottom of the heap to a higher position. There has been no overwhelming outcry for a fundamental change in the economic structure of the United States. There is minimal support for entitlement programs and this is not new. The public assistance program took a whopping hit under a democratic president, Bill Clinton. It still hasn't recovered. The American desire for substantive change is a myth. No one wants to be poor but that doesn't mean that anyone wants a more equitable distribution of wealth. To the contrary, the American psyche is so bound up in the belief that financial success is based on individual merit that we still buy into the Horatio Alger myth that one can pull himself up by his or her bootstraps even if one doesn't have any boots. We blame people for being poor. I's their fault because they are unwilling to work. The very vocal Tea Party is not comprised of wealthy Americans. There may be corporate money going to support the Tea Party agenda but the rank and file are regular working class people. What draws them to the Tea Party is their belief that all of these lazy, nonworking folks looking for a government handout are what is bringing them down economically.
They aren't looking for, nor are they receptive to any talk about redistribution of wealth and universal health care. Why do you think that they have labeled Obama a socialist? Every statement that he has made along these lines has been immediately pounced upon by a significant number of Americans and fed by Tea Party rhetoric to present the President as a socialist betrayer of all that is pure and American.
Do I think that he should stop efforts to take us down a different path, hell to the no. However, there is nothing that can be said from the bully pulpit that is going to make the scales fall from the eyes of the public and generate a kinder, gentler America. Significant change of the type needed t shift the ground in capitalism value system that the majority of Americans accept occurs incrementally. We are not ready to embrace the notion of social responsibility to include address the inequitable distribution of wealth. The very growth of the Tea Party movement belies that Americans are interested in any such change in ideology. No one wants to be poor and no one thinks it is fair that they are poor. However, the flip side is that the only poor who are blameless for their lot are the ones staring back in our mirrors; the rest are just a lazy bunch waiting for government handouts. It's a schizophrenia that is inherent in the American psyche. Shifting that structural paradigm requires first getting rid of the mythology that America is a Christian nation based on Christian values. I like the way that Ghandi put it, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteSacré-Coeur! Your comment is worthy of a standalone post because it captures a sense of the crosscurrents and contradictions that have vexed America since inception. It does not seem to matter whether one is a first, second or third generation American, or whether one is descended from Pilgrims or slaves or immigrants. Although our respective legacies may be distinctly different, all of us end up interwoven into the complex tapestry of the American experience. It seems people don’t change a country; America changes us.
Recently, I met a man in the waiting room of a car dealership, who mentioned in passing that he is an immigrant from a former communist bloc country. He describes himself as a proponent of the hard work and self-reliant school of American values. He possesses no historical memory of the events and social struggles that shaped my younger years. His attitudes are virtually indistinguishable from those of a Tea Party Republican.
In this context, I wonder if there are any studies that document the positive aspects of social change, i.e., specifically how many people did affirmation action raise from poverty, how many professional careers were launched by Pell Grants, how many health catastrophes were prevented by Medicaid and Medicare, how many jobs were created or saved under equal opportunity rules … at what economic benefit to the country? Corporate media does not bother exploring such things, but someone should.
Yes, the power of the American Myth. It's Burger Kings and Disneylands and Speilberg movies have changed the world. But the system is rigged. Upward mobility—and the Dream—has stalled (there are stats on that). Now what? Status quo?
ReplyDeleteComplicity has become the obstacle, not conspiracy. Just because the poor suckers on the bottom believe what they're fed by Murdock's Fox or by the Tea Party mob—or the Geithner set—doesn't mean it's right.
But it does prove that democracy is a chimera that needs constant reformation—and yes, defense, too, Sheria. Providing the majority of the people are actually up to it. Otherwise, the system will be run by those who show up—and have the most vested interest in showing up.
And yes, Octo, the shoe does deform the foot, as the foot deforms the shoe.