Obama is unable to say the words “single-payer health care.”
Some of you reading this are saying, “Yeah? So? What’s that, anyway … single-payer health care?” Well, simply put, its a health care system very similar to the Canadian system. It’s pretty much the same as HR 676, sponsored by John Conyers in Congress and it’s a lot like like the new bill (S.703) put forward by Senator Bernie Sanders. Basically, its new and improved Medicare for all.
Imagine there’s no HMO-style delivery system sitting right smack in the middle of your health care dollar, siphoning off 25-35% of your premium! The savings would be intense, as you might imagine. Imagine also that doctors are able to just treat you without ever having to wonder what level of care your insurance company will allow them to employ. Imagine that there are no forms to fill out and that you can go anywhere you like to seek treatment without any co-pays.
What’s the trick? No trick. I went to school in Canada and have ex-pat relatives who live there and the Canadian system is absolutely amazing. I could relate personal anecdotes all day about how terrible the American health care system can be and how great the Canadian system can be by comparison but, for the moment, lets just stick to the objective part of the equation.
It costs Canadians about $5200 per person for their single-payer health care system and this is about $2700 less per person than we will spend this year, per capita, in the United States. This means that we already spend more than enough to cover everybody. That’s the dirty little secret of corporate health care propaganda. It would actually be cheaper to cover everybody. Canadians also live a full year longer than we do. That’s another dirty little secret. You can do the math.
If, as the Rush Limbaugh crowd would attest, our new president is such a “socialist”, I have to wonder why he is not trumpeting this (seemingly, Communist) conspiracy that would make us all healthy while saving us money? Why are Democratic apologists falling all over each other trying to explain to us about “political feasibility” and achieving “the possible”.
“After all”, they say, “the guy’s only been in office for a few months. Give him a break. He’s got to work on these things one small step at a time.” He is currently advocating a forced HMO plan that would be no more effective or affordable than asking Dow Chemical to grow our food and his party is telling us he has a plan.
You’d think that this guy who just land-slided the election on a campaign of hope and change would be a far better strategist than these apologists are claiming. He just told his supporters that we are in desperate economic straits and that he would need to print several trillion dollars and give it out to people (mostly to people other than those who are actually hurting) and … everyone is actually buying it! They say, “Well, he’s got to do something, right?” Congress debates for about fourteen minutes and then says, “Okay, Barack. We trust you. You got to do what you got to do.”
We all know that Obama is riding a very short wave. It will end soon and now is probably the only time during his first four years that he might be able to approach congress with something this important and actually expect to get it passed. Even so, he’s pulling a Hillary Clinton on us instead and everyone seems to be buying it!
If Obama was really a socially-conscious guy, he would go on TV tomorrow and he would say, “Almost 20,000 Americans are dying every year because they lack access to health care and I can’t stand it anymore! Not on my watch! It’s a crisis and I’m going to fix it. I have a plan and it will save us money and it will also cover everyone. Similar models are being used in dozens of other countries around the world and it would simply be stupid not to follow their lead just because the HMO lobbies tell us we have to.”
But, he’s not going to do this and I don’t actually blame him. I blame you, the Obama voter. It’s your fault. You voted for him and you did so in a safe state where it made no difference at all. I told you he didn’t have a progressive bone in his body and you said, “That’s okay, Matt. We’ll hold his feet to the fire. Look at the movement! Look at all the young people! Look at all the excitement Obama generates.”
I’ll believe the “feet to the fire” rhetoric works when I see some evidence of it. Go ahead and pressure him like you all said you would. Please prove me wrong! I would really, honestly, love for you to do so. Please do so! Every day that you wait, about 50 more Americans will die. That’s more than six 9/11’s every year and you could prevent them all by simply making good on your campaign promise.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
That's My Girl! (An Essay On the Two-Party System by My Daughter)
The Two-Party System in the United States
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.
There are many things about the United States government that are easily criticized; the healthcare system, war, and taxation are all very good examples of controversial issues in political society today. Although each of these topics exemplifies what is wrong with the government, the two-party system is the apex of a failing political machine. This machine is corrupt and misleading and has made the American people ignorant. The two-party Democrat and Republican system is wrong because it is destructive to the democratic ideals that the United States was built on and neglects the welfare of the citizens. The two-party system employs candidates who are driven primarily by special interest groups and lobbyists, smothers all possibilities for other parties in the voting process, and will eventually lead to a dictatorship-like one party system, all of which will demolish democracy in the U.S.
The primary negative characteristic of the two-party arrangement is that it has evolved into a system that exists solely to support special interest groups and lobbyists who do not hold the welfare of the people in high regard. The Republican and Democrat Parties are well-known for choosing big business and oil companies over the American people in congressional history. The Bush administration repeatedly turned down proposals to tax the oil companies during a time of petroleum prosperity, while Bill Clinton sold out to the healthcare industry multiple times at the expense of the American people during the nineties. No t to say that a candidate running for office should not have certain motives and groups of interest that they support; the real issue is whether or not they are going to support the groups that employ the best standards for American success and well-being. Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil are not the types of businesses that support these ideals but are very popular throughout the two-party Congress. The two parties nominate candidates who are unconcerned with serving the people; unless, of course, those people are signing the checks every month to ensure that their corporate stocks are strong.
Barack Obama, presidential hopeful for the 2008 campaign, has reportedly received large campaign funds and endorsements from major insurance companies who recently faced a cataclysmic economic crash that had the country in a panic. Coincidentally, Obama voted for a federally funded corporate bailout of these companies. Giving billions of dollars to agencies that already receive ludicrous tax breaks and federal monetary support would seem a little insane to the average human. After recognizing that Obama was funded by these companies, it makes perfect sense that he would bail them out. One might ask why a company that already receives special federal treatment deserves a bailout when there are several other important issues that need funding. Major corporations do not deserve the money and the American people do not deserve this type of mistreatment. These decisions are being made by chosen officials from one of the two parties and the relationships that those officials have with big business and major corporations. However, it is the American people who elect these officials into office and therefore are contributing to the country's demise.
The second damaging characteristic of the two-party system is that the Democrat and Republican parties have monopolized the voting process and make it impossible for other parties/candidates with a wider range of views to have a stand in the elections. Many Americans believe that either a Democrat or Republican will win the presidency or seat in the Senate regardless of any other party's candidates. If one does not believe in either of the two candidates, he or she is practically forced to withdraw from voting because there simply is no other option. In reality, this is not true and there are several other parties in addition to the two previously stated that are trying to make themselves known in society today. The U.S. was built on democratic ideals that give the power to the people in a free electoral system. One can infer that a free electoral system would allow for the voters to be fully exposed to all options made available to them in every single election. Anything that compromises this privilege to the citizens of the United States is violating the constitutional values that used to make this country so respectable.
Why is it that Ralph Nader, candidate for President from the Independent Party, has been denied entry several times into the political debates despite the fact that he is on the voting ballots in forty-five states? The Republican and Democrat parties do not want the citizens knowing that they have other options in addition to the salt and pepper standards that have been handed to them. A little paprika would not hurt anyone and is almost guaranteed to make the citizens happy (remember Perot?). If the American people were even aware that they could actually vote for someone who held the same values as they do, they would be shocked at how the principles of democracy have been sacrificed for corruption. This lack of knowledge just further empowers the damaging capabilities of the two-party system.
Finally if one of the two parties becomes weaker than the other, there is the potential for the American government becoming one-party dominant. This is essentially the same thing that happened when the Democrat and Republican parties overthrew the other parties over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The parties competing against the Republican and Democrats were not resorting to lobbyists or strong business corporations for monetary support and campaigning purposes and eventually lost the power to run in the elections. If the United States becomes a one-party dominant system, the country will have finally reached the zenith of governmental corruption. Congress, if it even exists anymore at that point, will most likely attempt to distract the citizens by holding elections between two candidates from the same party. Doing so would be completely ineffective and pointless, but if the American people can fall for this two-party system, then Congress can definitely divert the citizen's attention for a few more years. It is only a matter of time before one of the two parties surpasses the other in strength, money and ultimately, power.
Some might argue that the two-party system works because it is stable and predictable. Besides the fact that this statement is completely false and a product of the brainwashing mechanisms used by the current administration, predictability is not something the American people need. When the citizens become less ignorant and realize that they have been swindled into thinking that they are being fairly represented, there will no longer be any 'stability'. If the kind of stability these adversaries are talking about is the kind that is built upon lies and half-truths, then the elected dictatorship that exists now is more stable than anything before. In order to achieve stability, the people of the United States need to have their blindfolds removed and given the chance to explore other possibilities for the future of their country before the wobbly foundation they are standing on crumbles.
It is apparent that the system today is flawed beyond comprehension and is corrupt in several different ways. Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'Republicrat' regime today is that it is functioning at the expense of the hard-working people of the United States and is plainly doing them an injustice by not offering them what was promised: Democracy. The citizens do not realize that they could have more options that would provide for a strong government with ideals based on popular opinion instead of one-sided and selfish principles. The United States needs to lose two-party politics and open the door to the possibility of an elected president that is actually wanted by the people. Once this democracy has been restored, the country will flourish, the people will finally be satisfied, and the nation can move forward in a positive direction as one unit. The country simply cannot handle another president that was elected because the voter felt limited in their selection and made the decision based on the lesser of two evils.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama's Inauguration
I want to be happy for all my happy friends but I simply can't.
They all say the same thing; "Give Obama a chance! Don;t be negative/cynical/pessimistic!"
Well, how about realistic?
Obama has already told us quite plainly what he will do about the issues of the day. We don't have to wait for his first challenge to know what he will do.
We are in a health care crisis and over 100 million Americans are without meaningful (or any) access to health care. Single-Payer would fix the problem and save about $700 Billion dollars annually. Obama has announced a plan which, like Clinton's, costs more than we currently spend and allows the HMO's to continue raping and pillaging.
We have killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis. Barack has said we need to keep killing but shift our focus to Afghani civilians and he has also admitted that we will continue staffing those 14 military bases in Iraq indefinitely.
Israel has destroyed 55,000 Palestinian homes and killed more than 1,000 civilians (as compared to 4 Israelis). In keeping with the desires of the military-industrial complex, Obama has said that he is fine with Israel "protecting itself".
We are on the verge of environmental disaster. Hydro power, wind power or "clean coal" and "safe nuclear". You are now fully aware of his "clean energy" policy.
Our economy is totally failing. Obama supported and worked for a bailout to aid rich speculators at the expense of the poor.
Why should we be optimistic when Obama has so clearly tipped his hand already! Ruling class politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'd like to "hope" that I'm wrong but you know that I'm not.
They all say the same thing; "Give Obama a chance! Don;t be negative/cynical/pessimistic!"
Well, how about realistic?
Obama has already told us quite plainly what he will do about the issues of the day. We don't have to wait for his first challenge to know what he will do.
We are in a health care crisis and over 100 million Americans are without meaningful (or any) access to health care. Single-Payer would fix the problem and save about $700 Billion dollars annually. Obama has announced a plan which, like Clinton's, costs more than we currently spend and allows the HMO's to continue raping and pillaging.
We have killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis. Barack has said we need to keep killing but shift our focus to Afghani civilians and he has also admitted that we will continue staffing those 14 military bases in Iraq indefinitely.
Israel has destroyed 55,000 Palestinian homes and killed more than 1,000 civilians (as compared to 4 Israelis). In keeping with the desires of the military-industrial complex, Obama has said that he is fine with Israel "protecting itself".
We are on the verge of environmental disaster. Hydro power, wind power or "clean coal" and "safe nuclear". You are now fully aware of his "clean energy" policy.
Our economy is totally failing. Obama supported and worked for a bailout to aid rich speculators at the expense of the poor.
Why should we be optimistic when Obama has so clearly tipped his hand already! Ruling class politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'd like to "hope" that I'm wrong but you know that I'm not.
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Response To Brian Mann
This entry is a response to Brian Mann, "Ralph Nader manages To Be Relevant Again, Sort Of"
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/blogs/ballotbox/blogger.php
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
What I Really Want To Know
I consider myself a third party activist. I only support independents and Greens and Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever. As such, I am often asked my opinion by those who play the two party game. I try to be civil and decent. I try to help them understand my viewpoint and I sincerely try to understand theirs.
Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?
I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.
There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;
1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?
2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.
A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.
I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.
I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;
"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"
"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.
This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?
Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?
I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.
There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;
1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?
2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.
A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.
I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.
I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;
"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"
"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.
This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Forgive Me For Not Jumping Around Like An Idiot
While about 70 million Americans are feeling elated today, slightly less than 60 million are fairly disappointed (bear in mind that there are over 300 million of us). This is the nature of our two-party dictatorship. While a significant minority of us are walking around with election hangover, a HUGE majority of Americans (about 170 million) are simply left wondering why all these people are so concerned about which Sales Rep will head the corporation known as USA, Inc for the next four fiscal years.
In my lifetime, these "CEO's" have proven themselves to be a slippery lot who do nothing for the working class and who pander to their corporate donor base and the shrinking middle class, handing out pork like after dinner mints at a Greek diner. Why would the majority of us care which puppet you've selected to mislead us this time? It really doesn't matter. The small percentage of us who are awake, who do vote and who are politically active know that our candidates (Nader, Barr, McKinney, Paul, Kucinich, LaRiva, Calero) are not going to win. We just feel like showing our fellow citizens that you don't HAVE to do what the machine wants you to is quintessentially American. You CAN vote independent or third party. You don't have to play the game by their rules.
The other 90% of this majority are inactive and don't vote at all. They are not stupid. In many cases they are street smart. They are workers. They know the system is rigged. They think we are all crazy to bother. They know that the empire is crumbling. They know their jobs are in serious danger. They know there is no health care. They know wages are too low. They know what the mortgage crisis means first hand. They are not apathetic. They are seething.
Will an Obama or McCain presidency be markedly different for any of these people. Obviously they don't think so.
Will Obama get us out of Iraq? Will he "unbuild" the corporate and military entrenchment we have undertaken there? Will he reverse our course to occupy Syria or Pakistan or Korea? Of course not. We're all toast. Obama will put a nicer face on our fascism but its pretty hard to dress up this pig we call American foreign policy (never mind the lipstick).
Will Obama put forward articles of impeachment to ensure that the war criminal Bush and his cronies go to prison for torture, war profiteering, mass murder and the suspension of our Constitution? Of course not. Honor among thieves. Future presidents can feel safe bringing the jackboot down because Obama is here to show them there will be no repercussions.
Will we get health care? While those who read know that Single Payer Health Care is the only proven answer to universal health care worldwide, Obama has been supporting an unfundable, Hillary-style, corporate plan that will allow the HMO's and Big Pharma to continue profiteering from human misery, making 25% net incomes, while denying care to sick people. 18,000 Americans will die in Obama's first year in office alone because they lack access to health care. He will not change this even with the clear mandate the people have given him.
Will Obama end our racist prison industrial complex and decriminalize marijuana and hemp? Will Obama open the gates and release the millions of black prisoners imprisoned for non-violent crime and fill the prisons with the white collar criminals who have fleeced the Amercian worker repeatedly? Of course not. Prisons are great economic development. They are loved by Dems and Reps alike and Wall Street is the source of many huge campaign contributions. Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Will we see NAFTA or GATT renegotiated to include labor laws and environmental restrictions to protect our air and water and our jobs and our standard of living? Of course not.
So many "progressives" have said to me over the course of this day, "Well, at least McCain didn't win! Lets give Obama a chance!"
In truth, although the man, John McCain, didn't win, the class he represents and the agenda they put forward DID win yesterday. It seems that, once again, we the people, have learned nothing.
Corporate media told you that McCain and Obama were your only choice. They told it you from every angle and at every location and with amazing frequency (about 6,000,000 times a day). You believed 'em and you voted for McBama. Why does it never occur to you that you shouldn't EVER do what the machine tells you to? Have you not read your Orwell?
It would be great if you thought for a minute about what I am saying. I am admittedly not happy about what just happened. In my world, fewer than 1.5% of those who bothered to vote had the good sense to vote for a human being. About 98.5% of those voting are "happy" to have voted for one major corporation or the other. I am not "happy" about that. Its truly a terrifying thing to contemplate.
Over the next four years, as your values are betrayed and the media makes up all kinds of lies to excuse these betrayals and you start to fall for this fake, two-party, liberal vs. conservative, polarization all over again, try to remember what I have said here and use that awareness to propel you to try something different next time around. Vote for a human being. Ignore what the machine is telling you. How many times will you do the machine's bidding before you get it?
In my lifetime, these "CEO's" have proven themselves to be a slippery lot who do nothing for the working class and who pander to their corporate donor base and the shrinking middle class, handing out pork like after dinner mints at a Greek diner. Why would the majority of us care which puppet you've selected to mislead us this time? It really doesn't matter. The small percentage of us who are awake, who do vote and who are politically active know that our candidates (Nader, Barr, McKinney, Paul, Kucinich, LaRiva, Calero) are not going to win. We just feel like showing our fellow citizens that you don't HAVE to do what the machine wants you to is quintessentially American. You CAN vote independent or third party. You don't have to play the game by their rules.
The other 90% of this majority are inactive and don't vote at all. They are not stupid. In many cases they are street smart. They are workers. They know the system is rigged. They think we are all crazy to bother. They know that the empire is crumbling. They know their jobs are in serious danger. They know there is no health care. They know wages are too low. They know what the mortgage crisis means first hand. They are not apathetic. They are seething.
Will an Obama or McCain presidency be markedly different for any of these people. Obviously they don't think so.
Will Obama get us out of Iraq? Will he "unbuild" the corporate and military entrenchment we have undertaken there? Will he reverse our course to occupy Syria or Pakistan or Korea? Of course not. We're all toast. Obama will put a nicer face on our fascism but its pretty hard to dress up this pig we call American foreign policy (never mind the lipstick).
Will Obama put forward articles of impeachment to ensure that the war criminal Bush and his cronies go to prison for torture, war profiteering, mass murder and the suspension of our Constitution? Of course not. Honor among thieves. Future presidents can feel safe bringing the jackboot down because Obama is here to show them there will be no repercussions.
Will we get health care? While those who read know that Single Payer Health Care is the only proven answer to universal health care worldwide, Obama has been supporting an unfundable, Hillary-style, corporate plan that will allow the HMO's and Big Pharma to continue profiteering from human misery, making 25% net incomes, while denying care to sick people. 18,000 Americans will die in Obama's first year in office alone because they lack access to health care. He will not change this even with the clear mandate the people have given him.
Will Obama end our racist prison industrial complex and decriminalize marijuana and hemp? Will Obama open the gates and release the millions of black prisoners imprisoned for non-violent crime and fill the prisons with the white collar criminals who have fleeced the Amercian worker repeatedly? Of course not. Prisons are great economic development. They are loved by Dems and Reps alike and Wall Street is the source of many huge campaign contributions. Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Will we see NAFTA or GATT renegotiated to include labor laws and environmental restrictions to protect our air and water and our jobs and our standard of living? Of course not.
So many "progressives" have said to me over the course of this day, "Well, at least McCain didn't win! Lets give Obama a chance!"
In truth, although the man, John McCain, didn't win, the class he represents and the agenda they put forward DID win yesterday. It seems that, once again, we the people, have learned nothing.
Corporate media told you that McCain and Obama were your only choice. They told it you from every angle and at every location and with amazing frequency (about 6,000,000 times a day). You believed 'em and you voted for McBama. Why does it never occur to you that you shouldn't EVER do what the machine tells you to? Have you not read your Orwell?
It would be great if you thought for a minute about what I am saying. I am admittedly not happy about what just happened. In my world, fewer than 1.5% of those who bothered to vote had the good sense to vote for a human being. About 98.5% of those voting are "happy" to have voted for one major corporation or the other. I am not "happy" about that. Its truly a terrifying thing to contemplate.
Over the next four years, as your values are betrayed and the media makes up all kinds of lies to excuse these betrayals and you start to fall for this fake, two-party, liberal vs. conservative, polarization all over again, try to remember what I have said here and use that awareness to propel you to try something different next time around. Vote for a human being. Ignore what the machine is telling you. How many times will you do the machine's bidding before you get it?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Michael Moore - Hardly a Progressive Thinker
Michael Moore's most recent piece is "How the Democrats Can Blow It" (see it at "alternet.org" or at Moore's webiste). In it, he says that Dems should not demean McCain if they wish Obama to win. Moore calls Republican tactics like "swiftboating" a "cesspool" that "they swim in". At the end of this diatribe, he casually refers to Nader-supporters as "crazy".
How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.
Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.
Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.
Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.
Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":
1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.
2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?
3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?
4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".
Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.
The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.
How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.
Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.
Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.
Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.
Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":
1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.
2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?
3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?
4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".
Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.
The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Obama Says He'll Debate Nader!
I was just driving to work and listening to WAMC. Senator Harry Reid was on talking about how healthy he felt the Democratic Party "debates" were for the country. He was also making all the usual excuses for why the Democrats weren't fighting for the agenda of those who elected them in 2006. I couldn't help but be disgusted. The "debates" have simply been he said/she said battles between the two Democratic Senators whose views are fairly similar. I want debates but I certainly don't want 21 photo-ops between two people who basically agree on everything and thats what I've seen thus far.
Am I wrong to want substantive criticism and discussion of each candidate's "health care" plan? Is it really weird that I want a moderator to ask these empty corporate heads why, in the name of God, they and their party don't support Single Payer Health Care? I want discussion of why universal health care that is half the price we currently pay isn't even on the table. Is it really so strange that I would like to hear an actual discussion of the subtle differences between staying in Iraq for "a few more years" or "until 2011" or "until the job is done". Whatever happened to the whole "I am against this war", "Lets get the Hell out right now!" position? Which one of these pro-war candidates has a plan for peace and which one will bomb Iran as soon as they can? I want to know why nuclear power and big coal support both candidates even though each one claims to support "alternative, sustainable" energy? ets have some details about their individual policies to resolve America's energy crisis and self-created carbon emission troubles. Lets have a debate where they each discuss the mechanics of HOW their plans (for anything) will work!
Obama settled my mind somewhat recently when he said that he would debate Ralph Nader. The Nader Campaign sent this (tongue in cheek) email out (I've posted it below and you can also check it out online at "votenader.org"). If Obama really would debate Ralph, I would send him a check and a letter supporting his democratic principle. I really would. I wonder, though, should Obama become the candidate in the general election and then refuse to make good on his promise (or even mention it) .... How many Obama supporters will see the light and send Ralph a check and a letter? ;-)
Friday, April 4, 2008
It's The Deregulation, Stupid!
It's the Deregulation, Stupid
Democrats from Carter to Clinton helped roll back the government's regulatory power, but as the economic crisis deepens, "regulation" is no longer such a dirty word.
by James Ridgeway March 28, 2008
Speaking at Cooper Union in New York City on Thursday, Barack Obama went where few Democrats have dared to go in the past quarter-century: He made a case for more regulation. As part of a speech on his economic platform, Obama depicted the current economic crisis as a consequences of deregulation in the financial sector. "Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," he said. "Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one—aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight."
This is quite a statement from a candidate who's received $6 million in campaign contributions from securities and investment firms, just slightly less than rival Hillary Clinton, who cashes in at $6.3 million. Obama's criticism was sharp, but his six-point plan for rebuilding a regulatory structure was short on both details and teeth, and relies on the Federal Reserve, which is like having the fox guard, well, the other foxes. Still, his use of the r-word signals what is at least a rhetorical departure for a party that has been running from regulation for decades.
Obama isn't the only one. Last week at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, also argued that years of banking deregulation were in part responsible for creating the subprime mortgage crisis and the larger economic downturn, which he didn't hesitate to call a recession. He talked about the need to impose more "discipline" on investment banks, requiring a higher level of capitalization and transparency. Frank called on Congress to consider establishing a "Financial Services Risk Regulator" that would have "the capacity and power to assess risk across financial markets" and "to intervene when appropriate."
Such a proposal may seem like too little too late in a month when the likes of Bear Stearns crumbled to dust, yet, like Obama's speech, it suggests a small shift in what has long been the dominant position of the Democratic Party. Without entirely eschewing the sacred myth that the free market always knows best, some congressional Democrats are envisioning a more direct role for the federal government in carrying out economic policy and imposing rules and restrictions on banks and brokerages. Calls for increased oversight of financial markets come at a time when the Federal Reserve System, the quasi-public institution that is seen as the fulcrum for managing the economy, is losing credibility, what with its failure to predict or head off the current crisis and its ineffective and controversial responses once it arrived. Americans are beginning to look elsewhere for leadership on these issues. As the economy continues to decline, some voters may finally start asking their government to rein in Wall Street. And some Democrats may finally be willing to veer out of lockstep in the party's long march toward deregulation.
Deregulation has been the mantra on both sides of the aisle since the late 1960s. Long gone are Democrats like Michigan's Phil Hart who, as chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, held hearings on the concentration of economic power in the United States, and proposed expanded government regulation of everything from the oil and auto industries to pharmaceuticals to professional sports. Hart believed that because wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of such a small number of corporations, the market economy had become no more than a facade. In this context, what would bring about lower prices and greater productivity and innovation was more government intervention and regulation, not less.
Hart got a Senate building named after him, but his warnings about the threat of unbridled corporate power and consolidation went unheeded. Instead, the rush to deregulation began, first in the transportation sector. Efforts begun under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford came to fruition under Jimmy Carter, who hired deregulation guru Alfred E. Kahn to head the Civil Aeronautics Board, the widely loathed agency responsible for regulating the airline industry. Senator Ted Kennedy and his then aide, future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, embraced deregulation as a consumer issue, and with their support, Kahn quickly worked his way out of a job: The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act dissolved the CAB and removed most regulation of commercial airlines. Carter also signed into law bills deregulating the railroads and the trucking industry.
You could argue that transportation deregulation has been a wash—replacing a system of bureaucratic incompetence with one of profit-seeking negligence, and exchanging safety for lower prices. The same cannot be said for the deregulation of the energy sector, notably the natural gas and oil industries under Ronald Reagan, and the electric utilities under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Left to its own devices, a deregulated energy industry has given us Enron and Exxon—California brownouts and $100 barrels of oil. Deregulation of the telecommunications industry, also under Clinton, reduced the number of major phone service providers to just a handful of multimerged giants.
Even more damaging, in light of today's economic crisis, was the sweeping deregulation of the banking and financial services industries that took place in the 1990s. What makes this enterprise particularly confounding is not only the fact that it took place under a Democratic president with support from a majority of Democrats in Congress, but that it followed so closely on the heels of the savings and loan crisis, which ought to have served as a cautionary tale on the dangers of deregulation in the banking sector. The Depository Institutions Act of 1982, another Reagan initiative, was supposed to "revitalize" the housing industry by freeing up the S&Ls to make more loans. Instead, the regulation rollback led to what economist John Kenneth Galbraith called "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time" as they engaged in a fury of high-risk lending. The collapse that followed cost taxpayers an estimated $150 billion in government bailouts, and contributed to the recession of the early 1990s.
Yet Bill Clinton, elected in large part because of that recession (a la James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid"), was talking about deregulation before he was even inaugurated. The National Review reported that "Bill Clinton embraced at least one Reaganesque idea at the Little Rock economic summit" he held in December 1992: "banking deregulation."
The banking industry objected to regulations put in place in 1989 after the S&L debacle, as well as others dating back to FDR. The heads of the six major U.S. banking associations, according to the National Review, had written "a long letter to the President-elect in December advocating nine substantive reforms." The conservative magazine concluded that the new president seemed more than willing to oblige, but bank deregulation was being held back by such powerful congressmen as "House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D., Tex.), a populist throwback to the Thirties who believes bankers are by definition out to exploit the 'little guy'" and "House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D., Mich.), who holds a quasi-religious belief that banks caused the Great Depression and must be tightly regulated. (Dingell's father was a principal author of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.)"
The Glass-Steagall Act was, in fact, a primary target of the Clinton-era deregulation effort. An early piece of New Deal-era legislation, the act was passed in response to speculation and manipulation of the markets by huge banking firms, which most liberal economists believed had brought on the crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall imposed firewalls between commercial banking and investment banking, and between the banking, brokerage, and insurance industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and campaign contributions, "Eager to create financial supermarkets that peddle everything from checking accounts to auto insurance, the three industries for years have lobbied Congress to streamline regulatory hurdles that bar such operations."
Despite Bill Clinton's announcement that "the era of big government is over," it took the better part of his administration for him to push these initiatives through Congress. In 1999, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, always a good friend to Wall Street, finally brokered a deal between the administration and Congress that allowed banking deregulation to move forward. Shortly after the compromise was reached, Rubin took a top position at Citigroup, which went on to embark upon mergers that would have been rendered illegal under Glass-Steagall. As the New York Times put it, Rubin would be leading "what has become the first true American financial conglomerate since the Depression"—a conglomerate that could exist only because of legislation he had just shepherded through Congress.
Passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was celebrated in a Wall Street Journal editorial as an end to "unfair" restrictions imposed on banks during the Great Depression, under the headline "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade." But Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, writing in Mother Jones, warned that the legislation, which amounted to the "finance industry's deregulatory wish list," would "pave the way for a new round of record-shattering financial industry mergers, dangerously concentrating political and economic power." Mokhiber and Weissman also predicted that such mergers would eventually "create too-big-to-fail institutions that are someday likely to drain the public treasury as taxpayers bail out imperiled financial giants to protect the stability of the nation's banking system."
Enter Bear Stearns. In addition, the merging of commercial and investment banking helped enable high-risk mortgage lending to make its way into the mutual funds and 401Ks of millions of Americans in the form of mortgage-backed securities. "Diversifying bad debt just spreads the poison," as Frank said in his Boston speech. It also makes a falling housing market reverberate throughout the economy far more than it did even during the S&L collapse. Enter the subprime crisis. And welcome back, 1929.
As these new financial giants go into freefall, a little regulation once again sounds like a good idea, just as it did in 1933. But increased regulation will never come willingly from the Federal Reserve, an "independent entity" that is answerable to no one, and has always operated largely in the interests of the big banks that make up its membership and provide its funding. Under two decades of leadership by the notorious anti-regulator Alan Greenspan, the Fed took a hands-off approach, preferring to set "guidelines" for the financial industry rather than enforce rules. In December 2007, the New York Times compiled a rundown of the multiple warnings and pleas made to Greenspan, over a period of at least seven years, to address the dangers posed by subprime lending—all of them, of course, rebuffed by the man who still claims he couldn't have predicted that the housing bubble would someday burst. The Fed's approach is unlikely to change much now—at least, not without a fight.
The Federal Reserve is set up in such a way that Congress cannot force its hand. But it can apply pressure, by way of threatening to pass legislation to accomplish what the Fed refuses to do. That's what Barney Frank did last summer, when he thought Fed chair Ben Bernanke wasn't doing enough about predatory lending practices. "The Fed has the authority to spell out rules about what is unfair and deceptive," Frank said in an interview with Bloomberg News. "If by default the Fed is not in the process of doing it, we, I think, should pass a law giving the authority" to other government agencies.
Now, in addition to outlining a plan to deal with the epidemic of foreclosures, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee are looking at legislation that could force financial firms to sing for their supper—a few bars, at least. The Financial Services Risk Regulator proposed by Frank last week would have the power to demand "timely market information from market players, inspect institutions, report to Congress on the health of the entire financial sector, and act when necessary to limit risky practices or protect the integrity of the financial system." In return, he said, financial institutions would have "potential access to the discount window for nondepository institutions."
Frank was referring to the lending program for brokers started by the Fed on March 17, which extends the same lending rules previously employed by commercial banks to securities firms. Two days after it opened, Financial Week reported, under the headline "Investment bank CFOs Not Proud," that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had already overcome concerns that borrowing from the Fed might "make them appear financially weak," and had taken advantage of the discount window, at the new rock-bottom interest rate of 2.5 percent. So Barney Frank's modest proposal simply says that if the government is going to back loans to billionaire investment firms at rates that middle-class credit card holders can only dream about, the companies are going to have to submit to a little oversight in return.
Critics outside the government have taken things a step further, advancing the view that if the taxpayers are going to be responsible for bailing out greedy financial giants like Bear Stearns, they ought to get a piece of them in return, as well as some say in how they are run. Conceivably, the federal government could either take over and run the affected enterprises, or at the very least take a share of the stock in order to exercise control. "I think it makes the most sense to take it [Bear Stearns] over outright," Dean Baker, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in an email last week. "The key point is that we don't want Bear Stearns taking big risks with the public's money. I suppose it's better that we at least share in the gains if they do this sort of gambling, but it would be better to have the government directly step in and not allow the gamble."
Such measures are highly unlikely. But Baker argues that a bailout without some kind of consequences will have no impact at all on the kind of unrestrained, irresponsible behavior on the part of financial firms that got us into this mess in the first place. "The issue here is essentially the moral hazard problem that you had with the S&Ls," he said. "If you have the option of making a bet where the government covers your losses, you might as well make it a risky one."
Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also says he wants to "pin down just how the government decided to front $30 billion in taxpayer dollars" to back the sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. He and Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) have both said they will hold hearings on the matter. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Baucus and Dodd are among the top recipients of donations from the securities and investment industry.
In the end, the real question is what kind of regulation of these industries can come from a Democratic Party that now relies on them to fund its campaigns. A few reform-minded Democrats in Congress won't get far without support from the White House. And while financial industry campaign contributions to Democrats have climbed ever since Bill Clinton shifted the party's rhetoric and policymaking away from "big government," donations in this election cycle dwarf those of the past.
With his speech in New York, Obama is clearly trying to show himself to be a man who isn't afraid to bite the hand that's feeding him. He is also putting space, on this issue, between himself and Hillary Clinton, in part by reminding voters of the outcomes of Bill Clinton's policies. He denounced both "Republican and Democratic administrations" for regulatory failures leading to the current crisis, and, as the New York Times reported, "handouts supporting the speech" noted that "the banking and insurance industries spent more than $300 million on a successful campaign to repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999." Any effort Hillary Clinton might make to separate herself from her husband's positions will be undermined by the fact that Robert Rubin, promoter of bank deregulation and still a top official at Citigroup, is an advisor to her campaign. On Monday in Philadelphia, in her own speech on economic issues, Hillary Clinton urged President Bush to immediately form an "Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures," which "could be headed by eminent leaders like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Bob Rubin."
For the moment, at least, Obama has staked out the higher ground on this issue. In the end, though, says Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, "No matter who becomes our next president, Wall Street will have an indebted friend in the White House." Once the campaign rhetoric fades, the only thing that might bring change on Wall Street is a revolt on Main Street, from Americans who finally cast blame for their lost homes and depleted retirement accounts on its rightful source.
James Ridgeway is Mother Jones' senior Washington correspondent.
@2008 The Foundation for National Progress
Read the article online:
Check out the latest from Mother Jones at:
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Is It Time For The Peace Movement To Protest Obama?
A wonderful article on Obama written by a friend of mine, Kevin Zeese, the Director of Voters For Peace. http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=147
Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?
By Kevin B. Zeese
In the last two weeks Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right. The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable.
In the last two weeks Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right. The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable.
Some peace advocates had already given up on Sen. Obama because of his record since he came to the U.S. Senate. His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton. Obama did make a great speech before the war began, saying much the same thing that peace advocates were saying, but that seems to have been the peak of his peace advocacy. Indeed, Black Agenda Report described how Obama took his anti-war speech off his website once he began running for the senate. And since coming to the senate he has voted for Iraq funding, giving Bush hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops as well as keeping the military option on the table for Iran.
But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq. First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.” Where would this strike force be based? Obama said “It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places.”
Of even greater concern are the 140,000 civilian troops who are in Iraq, the private security forces -- contractors, mercenaries, whatever label you put on them they are a privatized military. With regard to these Obama said: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops.” When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?”
Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only “withdrawing” “combat” troops and ending “the war.” Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, ending the “war” is not the same as ending the occupation. Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq. No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent.
What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region “not necessarily in Iraq” who could strike in Iraq when needed. Is this what he means by withdrawal?
The other important speech that Obama gave focused on his broader approach to foreign policy. In this speech, given on March 28th, Obama praised the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. Obama described his foreign policy as a traditional U.S. approach – certainly not the “change” he promises in his big campaign speeches saying “my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan.”
There is lot to unravel in the foreign policy of these former presidents. While these X-President’s are much more popular than the current occupant of the White House, which is why Obama believes tying himself to those will garner votes, each of their foreign policy strategies relied heavily on the use of the U.S. military. Here are some highlights:
To set the tone for their foreign policy, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan get credit for negotiating with Iran to hold the U.S. hostages until after Reagan-Bush took power in return for military and financial assistance to Iran. This act put their personal political ambitions ahead of the needs of U.S. citizens being held hostage.
Perhaps the best known Reagan-Bush foreign policy was the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme to circumvent U.S. law by providing arms to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. They shipped weapons to the mullah’s in Iran in return for cash which was used to fund the Nicaraguan fighters. This was done because the Congress passed a law preventing U.S. tax dollars being used to arm the rebels in Nicaragua.
As part of their campaign against the Soviet Union the Reagan-Bush team also armed Islamists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. This allowed Osama bin Laden to gain a stronghold in Afghanistan and is one of the root causes of today’s military adventures.
Thus Reagan-Bush armed two current “enemies” Iran and al Qaeda. In fact, they also armed Saddam Hussein by providing him with the makings of an array of weapons of mass destruction. The arming of Saddam continued with the Bush-Quayle administration even after Saddam “gassed” his own people.
President George H.W. Bush was the only CIA director to become president. As in the Reagan era, Bush I treated Saddam Hussein as a close ally. Shortly before the Gulf War he approved the sale of an additional $4.8 million in "dual-use" technology to factories identified by the CIA as Saddam's nuclear and bio-weapons programs. And, just before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush sold him $600 million in advanced communications technology.
Prior to the Kuwait invasion the Bush administration sent signals to Saddam that the U.S. was not worried about a military conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. But when Saddam sent tanks into Kuwait the U.S. responded with an aggressive aerial campaign that destroyed much of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure and a 100 hour ground war. Bush then urged anti-Saddam forces to rise-up against Hussein and then left them hanging without U.S. support. Then, the “peace” with Iraq led to the sanctions of the Bush and Clinton administrations which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
The only Democrat mentioned by Obama was JFK. Obama did not mention the less popular LBJ, Jimmy Carter or his opponent’s husband, Bill Clinton. Perhaps because the Kennedy administration was so long ago he expects voters not to remember their militarism. And, the Camelot aura of Kennedy is one Obama aspires to.
Of course, President Kennedy must be given credit for the steady expansion of the Vietnam conflict and its escalation into a quagmire that trapped his successor. Kennedy drew a line in the sand against communism in Vietnam saying “"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.” Troop escalation went from hundreds to more than 15,000, the Green Berets and helicopters were both sent in. Kennedy approved a coup which led to the killing of the prime minister and his brother in 1963 and a succession of regimes seen more and more as U.S. puppets. Kennedy was assassinated shortly after the coup but the path into Vietnam had been laid.
What other foreign policy misadventures does JFK get credit for? One of note was a military attack on Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. This invasion by 1,500 exiled Cubans ended in disaster for the U.S. as it was easily rebuffed by Castro with most of the troops captured. JFK did not give up on regime change after this failure; in fact he escalated it with Operation Mongoose. Mongoose, which lasted until the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, included among its plans the use chemical weapons against sugar cane workers, sending the Green Beret’s into Cuba, using gangsters to kill Cuban police, propagandizing the Cuban people, sabotaging mines, cash rewards for killing Cuban officials and false flag attacks against the U.S. to be blamed on Cuba.
And Kennedy also gets credit for taking the initial steps that ended up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 1963 Kennedy backed a coup against the Iraqi government. The CIA helped bring the Baath Party to power. The CIA provided the new Iraqi government with a list of suspected Communists to kill. Saddam Hussein was one of those who carried out the killings which included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers, Iraqi professionals and officials. The U.S. began to arm the Iraq regime with weapons they used against the Kurds and U.S. and British oil companies began profiting from Iraqi oil.
No doubt Senator Obama is well-aware of this history, so what did he mean when he said his foreign policy would emulate these three? Are we to expect more coups of regimes we don’t like? The arming of future adversaries? Illegal actions to circumvent the Congress? Now that Sen. Obama has tied himself to Kennedy, Reagan and H.W. Bush he needs to clarify whether this Hall of Shame history of bi-partisan U.S. foreign policy is what he intends to emulate.
Senator Obama clearly thinks he can take the peace movement for granted. Many peace advocates support Obama because of his pre-U.S. Senate speech against the Iraq invasion. But, now his foreign and Iraq policies are coming more closely into focus maybe it is time to re-think that support. It is time for the peace movement to push Sen. Obama to be a better candidate, one that will really bring change to U.S. foreign policy.
For those who like Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” it is important to realize his foreign policy, as he is beginning to define it, brings neither. Obama is risking the loss of votes to three strong alternatives to the two parties. If Obama is not pulled back toward his pre-Senate position more and more peace voters will desert him for either former Representative Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s independent campaign, or possible Libertarian candidates Mike Gravel or former congressman Bob Barr. These are all candidates who are strongly opposed to military intervention and the Iraq occupation. In November there will be choices of real peace candidates or a major party nominee who is no longer promising real change.
Pressure now from the peace movement, if heeded by Sen. Obama, will make him a stronger candidate. Is it time to for the peace movement to protest Obama?
Kevin B. Zeese is Executive Director of Voters for Peace.
But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq. First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as “a strike force in the region.” Where would this strike force be based? Obama said “It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places.”
Of even greater concern are the 140,000 civilian troops who are in Iraq, the private security forces -- contractors, mercenaries, whatever label you put on them they are a privatized military. With regard to these Obama said: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops.” When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said “Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?”
Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only “withdrawing” “combat” troops and ending “the war.” Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, ending the “war” is not the same as ending the occupation. Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq. No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent.
What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region “not necessarily in Iraq” who could strike in Iraq when needed. Is this what he means by withdrawal?
The other important speech that Obama gave focused on his broader approach to foreign policy. In this speech, given on March 28th, Obama praised the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. Obama described his foreign policy as a traditional U.S. approach – certainly not the “change” he promises in his big campaign speeches saying “my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan.”
There is lot to unravel in the foreign policy of these former presidents. While these X-President’s are much more popular than the current occupant of the White House, which is why Obama believes tying himself to those will garner votes, each of their foreign policy strategies relied heavily on the use of the U.S. military. Here are some highlights:
To set the tone for their foreign policy, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan get credit for negotiating with Iran to hold the U.S. hostages until after Reagan-Bush took power in return for military and financial assistance to Iran. This act put their personal political ambitions ahead of the needs of U.S. citizens being held hostage.
Perhaps the best known Reagan-Bush foreign policy was the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme to circumvent U.S. law by providing arms to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. They shipped weapons to the mullah’s in Iran in return for cash which was used to fund the Nicaraguan fighters. This was done because the Congress passed a law preventing U.S. tax dollars being used to arm the rebels in Nicaragua.
As part of their campaign against the Soviet Union the Reagan-Bush team also armed Islamists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. This allowed Osama bin Laden to gain a stronghold in Afghanistan and is one of the root causes of today’s military adventures.
Thus Reagan-Bush armed two current “enemies” Iran and al Qaeda. In fact, they also armed Saddam Hussein by providing him with the makings of an array of weapons of mass destruction. The arming of Saddam continued with the Bush-Quayle administration even after Saddam “gassed” his own people.
President George H.W. Bush was the only CIA director to become president. As in the Reagan era, Bush I treated Saddam Hussein as a close ally. Shortly before the Gulf War he approved the sale of an additional $4.8 million in "dual-use" technology to factories identified by the CIA as Saddam's nuclear and bio-weapons programs. And, just before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush sold him $600 million in advanced communications technology.
Prior to the Kuwait invasion the Bush administration sent signals to Saddam that the U.S. was not worried about a military conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. But when Saddam sent tanks into Kuwait the U.S. responded with an aggressive aerial campaign that destroyed much of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure and a 100 hour ground war. Bush then urged anti-Saddam forces to rise-up against Hussein and then left them hanging without U.S. support. Then, the “peace” with Iraq led to the sanctions of the Bush and Clinton administrations which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
The only Democrat mentioned by Obama was JFK. Obama did not mention the less popular LBJ, Jimmy Carter or his opponent’s husband, Bill Clinton. Perhaps because the Kennedy administration was so long ago he expects voters not to remember their militarism. And, the Camelot aura of Kennedy is one Obama aspires to.
Of course, President Kennedy must be given credit for the steady expansion of the Vietnam conflict and its escalation into a quagmire that trapped his successor. Kennedy drew a line in the sand against communism in Vietnam saying “"Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place.” Troop escalation went from hundreds to more than 15,000, the Green Berets and helicopters were both sent in. Kennedy approved a coup which led to the killing of the prime minister and his brother in 1963 and a succession of regimes seen more and more as U.S. puppets. Kennedy was assassinated shortly after the coup but the path into Vietnam had been laid.
What other foreign policy misadventures does JFK get credit for? One of note was a military attack on Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. This invasion by 1,500 exiled Cubans ended in disaster for the U.S. as it was easily rebuffed by Castro with most of the troops captured. JFK did not give up on regime change after this failure; in fact he escalated it with Operation Mongoose. Mongoose, which lasted until the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, included among its plans the use chemical weapons against sugar cane workers, sending the Green Beret’s into Cuba, using gangsters to kill Cuban police, propagandizing the Cuban people, sabotaging mines, cash rewards for killing Cuban officials and false flag attacks against the U.S. to be blamed on Cuba.
And Kennedy also gets credit for taking the initial steps that ended up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 1963 Kennedy backed a coup against the Iraqi government. The CIA helped bring the Baath Party to power. The CIA provided the new Iraqi government with a list of suspected Communists to kill. Saddam Hussein was one of those who carried out the killings which included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers, Iraqi professionals and officials. The U.S. began to arm the Iraq regime with weapons they used against the Kurds and U.S. and British oil companies began profiting from Iraqi oil.
No doubt Senator Obama is well-aware of this history, so what did he mean when he said his foreign policy would emulate these three? Are we to expect more coups of regimes we don’t like? The arming of future adversaries? Illegal actions to circumvent the Congress? Now that Sen. Obama has tied himself to Kennedy, Reagan and H.W. Bush he needs to clarify whether this Hall of Shame history of bi-partisan U.S. foreign policy is what he intends to emulate.
Senator Obama clearly thinks he can take the peace movement for granted. Many peace advocates support Obama because of his pre-U.S. Senate speech against the Iraq invasion. But, now his foreign and Iraq policies are coming more closely into focus maybe it is time to re-think that support. It is time for the peace movement to push Sen. Obama to be a better candidate, one that will really bring change to U.S. foreign policy.
For those who like Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” it is important to realize his foreign policy, as he is beginning to define it, brings neither. Obama is risking the loss of votes to three strong alternatives to the two parties. If Obama is not pulled back toward his pre-Senate position more and more peace voters will desert him for either former Representative Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s independent campaign, or possible Libertarian candidates Mike Gravel or former congressman Bob Barr. These are all candidates who are strongly opposed to military intervention and the Iraq occupation. In November there will be choices of real peace candidates or a major party nominee who is no longer promising real change.
Pressure now from the peace movement, if heeded by Sen. Obama, will make him a stronger candidate. Is it time to for the peace movement to protest Obama?
Kevin B. Zeese is Executive Director of Voters for Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
