This is the $64 question, now that it appears obvious they will lose every major confrontation with the Repukes over the extension of the Bush tax cuts - likely ending with at least two years of tax cuts extended as a "compromise" for the wealthiest (at a cost of nearly $140 billion) as the price to get any for the Middle class extended. But as I noted in earlier blogs, NONE of them ought to be extended given the parlous deficit crisis we are allegedly facing.
The argument that the tax cuts will create more jobs is totally and irredeemably bogus! Tax cuts do not create jobs, at least not jobs on a par with their cost. It would be vastly better, if an economic jigger is needed, to pass the unemployment benefits extension and let millions use those benefits to buy groceries, pay off mortgages, and utilities - and maybe have a few bucks left over to get little Johnnie and Susie a stocking with some candy canes.
This is bad enough, but reading in today's paper that the Dems will let the rich tax cuts pass without even making a case for unemployment benefits extension as the minimal price - is inexcusable! How has it come to this? More, how has it come to Dems not being able to prevail in any long term arguments with the Rs? Are they that much brighter? C'mon! Something is amiss here!
What is amiss - the clear giveaway- was mentioned by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media,Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:
"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.
It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries.
A new generation of economists trumpeted the value of applying market principles to all communication policy matters, as one of them put it, 'the ancient regime was often dominated by ad hoc prescriptions premised on shaky economics applied to dubious histories'."
In other words, the virus of Neoliberalism is at the root of the rot in the Democratic party - why they have long since ceased fighting for the poor working man, and now can barely lift their voices to defend the interests of the beseiged Middle Class - even as they prepare to vote through $140 billion for two years of tax cuts for the rich.
Now, it is a sad and sorry state that many of our populace have no grasp of Neoliberalism and appear to confuse it with traditional Liberalism. This is tragic, but why be surprised when an estimated 1 in 2 Americans are so woefully ignorant they confuse National Socialism with genuine Socialism?
Liberalism in the traditional sense has always been about defending and expanding personal rights and liberties, whether for speech, property protections, or in the venue of economics in terms of social justice and fairness. The Liberal in the latter sense demands a LIVING WAGE for the working population, which is defined as a wage that would accommodate basic needs in any community, without having to work more than one 8 hr/day job. Meanwhile, his Neoliberal counterpart says "Oh NO!" He argues the "free market" must decide wage scales and how many are hired and where hired. Never mind the "free market" has long since become coercive, as Charles Reich has noted ('Opposing the System', 1996). Because of centralization of many corporations and application of the same hierarchical managerial structure to all, the same rules generally apply. Workers therefore have no choice in setting their terms and conditions of employment. It is 'take it or leave it'. Hardly a free market!
The Neoliberal then, is all about worship of the free market and free market forces as basic empirical definers to how much an individual or society can attain. In his skewed universe, all would be well if the "market" would just be permitted free rein, laissez faire to the googleplex power, and devil take the hindmost! Deus ex machina anyone? This is why the Neoliberal pundit, wag or political hack now seeks to retrench benefits and entitlements, since he's invested in the basic thesis is each manjack ought to be able to make or earn his own way. If the government assists, then this "reduces personal initiative" to get ahead or so the Neolib argument goes! He doesn't seem to reckon that in times of insecurity most people will be driven be their most basic fears, not by some economic abstraction that doesn't exist.
Neoliberalism also extols the hegemony of the corporation as the fundamental unit of society, over flesh and blood humans. Oh, the Neoliberal will spout empty words proclaiming human worth and the need to contain or control corporate greed, but these are simple mechanical mouthings. For Neoliberal politicians, it's simple: it is those corporations that pay the bulk of his campaign expenses, via their contributions, and make his election runs possible. He dare not move beyond rhetoric to undercut their agendas.
How or where the Neoliberal toxin took hold in the Dem Party is a matter of conjecture, but most believe it started with pseudo-liberal Wuss Michael Kinsley, in an article in The Atlantic in the 80s. (Older readers may recall Kinsley sat opposite Pat Buchanan in the old CNN Crossfire series, and always got his butt handed to him by the Patster because of his meek bearing, weak voice and weaker arguments). The piece defined market empirical measures as the optimum way to share benefits from taxes, etc. as opposed to merely giving money out to the needy and poor, a la Johnson's "Great society" in the 1960s.
If a market measure didn't justify a support basis, say for unemployment benefits, or child health care, it wasn't to be done.
Why adopt this strategy? Kinsley and the honchos who were later to become the "DLC" (Democratic Leadership Council, aka "Republicans Lite") believed this was the best way to counter the Republican pro-business obsession. Hence, DLC strategy in this regard enabled Bill Clinton to out maneuver the Repukes on welfare in 1996, by actually supporting a welfare to work reform bill. (Of course, this earned Bill the undying contempt of many Liberals).
If the Dems could beat the Repugs at their own game, via Neoliberalism, why not use it? Well, because ultimately, it would make consolidating an activist base (reared as such from the time of JFK) reluctant to consistently ally itself with them. This is why many old line Dems have simply stopped voting, period. They couldn't stomach how the D-party sold itself out for political expediency, and how it's lost the will to fight for the common man.
How far were the Dems prepared to go in their new Neolib conversion? Well as far or further than newly minted Evangelicals, all full of piss, vinegar, fire and brimstone.
John Farrell, writing 4 years ago in his Sunday Denver Post column ('Lost liberals ponder path back to power'), observed that these "new Dems have no intentions of ever going back to any kind of economic populism" (read: join the struggle for the working man, woman) again. He quotes in his piece author Thomas Frank ('What's the Matter with Kansas?') and the degree of the Dems' capitulation to the corporate overseers (ibid.):
"the Democratic establishment is absolutely determined to not let that old-school economic populism back in the door, they would rather lose elections. And they do. They lose and they lose and they lose."
And, of course, having jettisoned the old school populism of FDR, JFK etc. they have lost elections - lots, like in '80, '84, '88, and more recently 2000, 2004 and 2010. (Though many rightly argue Bush had the 2000 election handed to him by 5 Supremes). The Dems may also lose again, White House, in '12 - if they don 't get their act together and finally organize around a credible economic populism. But how can they when their paymasters, the corporate elites and power brokers, are the ones underpinning the Neoliberal thrust?
Unsettling as it may be, the Neoliberal germ is also what would explain, account for Obama's "Deficit commission" which renders its alleged "prescription" on the basis of an "emergency" (exploding and unsustainable deficits - never mind they say nothing about halting the Bush tax cuts) and which would impose unfathomable and needless hardship on millions of Americans.
Is Obama himself a Neoliberal? (Contrary to what many who elected him in '08 believed). It would make sense, given the whole Dem establishment has taken that kool aid. And as R.J. Eskow observes in a recent blog:
"Despite the right-wing ideology behind the proposal, despite the bizarre inversion of goals that leads a "deficit commission" to cut revenue, and despite the co-chairs' mismanagement and public outbursts, reports indicate that the president is inclined to include many of its recommendations in his next budget. The administration has been determined to make cost-cutting proposals that affect Social Security, for a long time, according to all indications.
If the president moves to cut Social Security -- whether it's by cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or both -- it would be catastrophic: for his presidency, for his party, and for the nation. Every "yes" vote on the commission tomorrow make it more likely he'll do so.
How disastrous would that course of action be? A recent poll the depth of emotion on the issue: Seven out of ten voters opposes cutting Social Security to fix the deficit...
Make no mistake: These cuts will be laid at the feet of President Obama and any Democrat who supports them. There will be no passing the buck."
If Obama wishes to show he's not hostage to the Neoliberal paradigm, he needs to draw the line and renounce any plans to enter Social Security cuts in any future budget. Unfortunately, his very creation of this "commission" doesn't redound to his favor. He had to know before Alan Simpson made his first off the cuff remark about Social Security ("Sucking at 310 million tits") that all its off the wall proposals would be traced to him at the source. It also had many people scratching their heads why a putative Dem President would install a commission with the potential to weaken or destroy the most sacrosanct Dem programs (Social Security, Medicare). But if one groks the Neolib mindset this isn't a mystery, it would embody the ultimate step to separate the party from "economic populism".
Alas, Obama betrayed his Neolib DNA at his post-mortem conference by saluting Big Business and the "free market". He said: "The reason we've got an unparalled standard of living in the history of the world is because we've got a free market that is dynamic and entrepeneurial and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated." Straight out of the neoliberal DLC handbook! And why many progressives who voted for him now feel like they were bamboozled by his floaty rhetoric. (Though I was not one, as I always pegged him to be right-of -center and most likely Neolib but preferable to Insane McCain. ) This explains why Obama merely goes through the motions and endorses Bowles' and Simpson's remedies. The tragedy is he'll likely assure not only that he's a one-termer, but the Democratic Party itself goes the same way as the Whigs. A true tragedy given the party of FDR and his Liberal principles, has veered so far off course to pander to the very Big Business honchos FDR despised.
The argument that the tax cuts will create more jobs is totally and irredeemably bogus! Tax cuts do not create jobs, at least not jobs on a par with their cost. It would be vastly better, if an economic jigger is needed, to pass the unemployment benefits extension and let millions use those benefits to buy groceries, pay off mortgages, and utilities - and maybe have a few bucks left over to get little Johnnie and Susie a stocking with some candy canes.
This is bad enough, but reading in today's paper that the Dems will let the rich tax cuts pass without even making a case for unemployment benefits extension as the minimal price - is inexcusable! How has it come to this? More, how has it come to Dems not being able to prevail in any long term arguments with the Rs? Are they that much brighter? C'mon! Something is amiss here!
What is amiss - the clear giveaway- was mentioned by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media,Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:
"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.
It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries.
A new generation of economists trumpeted the value of applying market principles to all communication policy matters, as one of them put it, 'the ancient regime was often dominated by ad hoc prescriptions premised on shaky economics applied to dubious histories'."
In other words, the virus of Neoliberalism is at the root of the rot in the Democratic party - why they have long since ceased fighting for the poor working man, and now can barely lift their voices to defend the interests of the beseiged Middle Class - even as they prepare to vote through $140 billion for two years of tax cuts for the rich.
Now, it is a sad and sorry state that many of our populace have no grasp of Neoliberalism and appear to confuse it with traditional Liberalism. This is tragic, but why be surprised when an estimated 1 in 2 Americans are so woefully ignorant they confuse National Socialism with genuine Socialism?
Liberalism in the traditional sense has always been about defending and expanding personal rights and liberties, whether for speech, property protections, or in the venue of economics in terms of social justice and fairness. The Liberal in the latter sense demands a LIVING WAGE for the working population, which is defined as a wage that would accommodate basic needs in any community, without having to work more than one 8 hr/day job. Meanwhile, his Neoliberal counterpart says "Oh NO!" He argues the "free market" must decide wage scales and how many are hired and where hired. Never mind the "free market" has long since become coercive, as Charles Reich has noted ('Opposing the System', 1996). Because of centralization of many corporations and application of the same hierarchical managerial structure to all, the same rules generally apply. Workers therefore have no choice in setting their terms and conditions of employment. It is 'take it or leave it'. Hardly a free market!
The Neoliberal then, is all about worship of the free market and free market forces as basic empirical definers to how much an individual or society can attain. In his skewed universe, all would be well if the "market" would just be permitted free rein, laissez faire to the googleplex power, and devil take the hindmost! Deus ex machina anyone? This is why the Neoliberal pundit, wag or political hack now seeks to retrench benefits and entitlements, since he's invested in the basic thesis is each manjack ought to be able to make or earn his own way. If the government assists, then this "reduces personal initiative" to get ahead or so the Neolib argument goes! He doesn't seem to reckon that in times of insecurity most people will be driven be their most basic fears, not by some economic abstraction that doesn't exist.
Neoliberalism also extols the hegemony of the corporation as the fundamental unit of society, over flesh and blood humans. Oh, the Neoliberal will spout empty words proclaiming human worth and the need to contain or control corporate greed, but these are simple mechanical mouthings. For Neoliberal politicians, it's simple: it is those corporations that pay the bulk of his campaign expenses, via their contributions, and make his election runs possible. He dare not move beyond rhetoric to undercut their agendas.
How or where the Neoliberal toxin took hold in the Dem Party is a matter of conjecture, but most believe it started with pseudo-liberal Wuss Michael Kinsley, in an article in The Atlantic in the 80s. (Older readers may recall Kinsley sat opposite Pat Buchanan in the old CNN Crossfire series, and always got his butt handed to him by the Patster because of his meek bearing, weak voice and weaker arguments). The piece defined market empirical measures as the optimum way to share benefits from taxes, etc. as opposed to merely giving money out to the needy and poor, a la Johnson's "Great society" in the 1960s.
If a market measure didn't justify a support basis, say for unemployment benefits, or child health care, it wasn't to be done.
Why adopt this strategy? Kinsley and the honchos who were later to become the "DLC" (Democratic Leadership Council, aka "Republicans Lite") believed this was the best way to counter the Republican pro-business obsession. Hence, DLC strategy in this regard enabled Bill Clinton to out maneuver the Repukes on welfare in 1996, by actually supporting a welfare to work reform bill. (Of course, this earned Bill the undying contempt of many Liberals).
If the Dems could beat the Repugs at their own game, via Neoliberalism, why not use it? Well, because ultimately, it would make consolidating an activist base (reared as such from the time of JFK) reluctant to consistently ally itself with them. This is why many old line Dems have simply stopped voting, period. They couldn't stomach how the D-party sold itself out for political expediency, and how it's lost the will to fight for the common man.
How far were the Dems prepared to go in their new Neolib conversion? Well as far or further than newly minted Evangelicals, all full of piss, vinegar, fire and brimstone.
John Farrell, writing 4 years ago in his Sunday Denver Post column ('Lost liberals ponder path back to power'), observed that these "new Dems have no intentions of ever going back to any kind of economic populism" (read: join the struggle for the working man, woman) again. He quotes in his piece author Thomas Frank ('What's the Matter with Kansas?') and the degree of the Dems' capitulation to the corporate overseers (ibid.):
"the Democratic establishment is absolutely determined to not let that old-school economic populism back in the door, they would rather lose elections. And they do. They lose and they lose and they lose."
And, of course, having jettisoned the old school populism of FDR, JFK etc. they have lost elections - lots, like in '80, '84, '88, and more recently 2000, 2004 and 2010. (Though many rightly argue Bush had the 2000 election handed to him by 5 Supremes). The Dems may also lose again, White House, in '12 - if they don 't get their act together and finally organize around a credible economic populism. But how can they when their paymasters, the corporate elites and power brokers, are the ones underpinning the Neoliberal thrust?
Unsettling as it may be, the Neoliberal germ is also what would explain, account for Obama's "Deficit commission" which renders its alleged "prescription" on the basis of an "emergency" (exploding and unsustainable deficits - never mind they say nothing about halting the Bush tax cuts) and which would impose unfathomable and needless hardship on millions of Americans.
Is Obama himself a Neoliberal? (Contrary to what many who elected him in '08 believed). It would make sense, given the whole Dem establishment has taken that kool aid. And as R.J. Eskow observes in a recent blog:
"Despite the right-wing ideology behind the proposal, despite the bizarre inversion of goals that leads a "deficit commission" to cut revenue, and despite the co-chairs' mismanagement and public outbursts, reports indicate that the president is inclined to include many of its recommendations in his next budget. The administration has been determined to make cost-cutting proposals that affect Social Security, for a long time, according to all indications.
If the president moves to cut Social Security -- whether it's by cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or both -- it would be catastrophic: for his presidency, for his party, and for the nation. Every "yes" vote on the commission tomorrow make it more likely he'll do so.
How disastrous would that course of action be? A recent poll the depth of emotion on the issue: Seven out of ten voters opposes cutting Social Security to fix the deficit...
Make no mistake: These cuts will be laid at the feet of President Obama and any Democrat who supports them. There will be no passing the buck."
If Obama wishes to show he's not hostage to the Neoliberal paradigm, he needs to draw the line and renounce any plans to enter Social Security cuts in any future budget. Unfortunately, his very creation of this "commission" doesn't redound to his favor. He had to know before Alan Simpson made his first off the cuff remark about Social Security ("Sucking at 310 million tits") that all its off the wall proposals would be traced to him at the source. It also had many people scratching their heads why a putative Dem President would install a commission with the potential to weaken or destroy the most sacrosanct Dem programs (Social Security, Medicare). But if one groks the Neolib mindset this isn't a mystery, it would embody the ultimate step to separate the party from "economic populism".
Alas, Obama betrayed his Neolib DNA at his post-mortem conference by saluting Big Business and the "free market". He said: "The reason we've got an unparalled standard of living in the history of the world is because we've got a free market that is dynamic and entrepeneurial and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated." Straight out of the neoliberal DLC handbook! And why many progressives who voted for him now feel like they were bamboozled by his floaty rhetoric. (Though I was not one, as I always pegged him to be right-of -center and most likely Neolib but preferable to Insane McCain. ) This explains why Obama merely goes through the motions and endorses Bowles' and Simpson's remedies. The tragedy is he'll likely assure not only that he's a one-termer, but the Democratic Party itself goes the same way as the Whigs. A true tragedy given the party of FDR and his Liberal principles, has veered so far off course to pander to the very Big Business honchos FDR despised.
At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble brought together every 4 years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market, they are barely discernible from the Repugs. Two sides of one corporate party coin.
No comments:
Post a Comment