Let’s get this straight at the outset: Phil Gramm, President-elect McCain’s chief economics adviser, did not misspeak when he said the only thing wrong now is a "mental recession" and America is a "nation of whiners." The corporate media, to the extent they are covering the story at all, are leading with McCain’s disavowal of Gramm. McCain has said the same kinds of things. He also said Social Security is "an absolute disgrace." This is what Republicans believe. Imagine if Obama had said such things?
While McCain is again showing his fundamental dishonesty, and the media are continuing to cover for him, Gramm unambiguously showed the mindset of today’s Republican Party. "Creative destruction" is their mantra, "free markets" their religion. And if you lived Gramm’s life, you might well wonder, "why are people complaining?" The former senator from Texas championed tax cuts for the wealthy, breaks for corporation and deregulation. He was repaid handsomely, most recently with his ties to the giant bank UBS.
Most Americans have paid a huge price. Median incomes have actually fallen in recent years, millions have lost their health insurance, and most average workers are losing the foundation of the middle class: secure jobs at good wages with benefits and pensions. This was partially concealed by the scam of the housing bubble, and now that’s gone. The Republican leaders, who have become wealthy from tax cuts, outsourcing, union busting and community-destroying mergers say, "stop whining."
But will they pay a price in November? I’m not convinced.
The free market ideology has always been a scam. The market is kept free and functioning by strong and effective government regulation, especially to prevent industry consolidation and cartelization, as well as financial fraud, while encouraging competition. Under the GOP none of this has happened. Their free market is a gamed market. The powerful players use public policy to get rich. They use media disinformation and a school system that doesn’t teach history to ensure that many Americans don’t even know when their government was the envy of the world, or why Social Security is no disgrace.
Not since the Gilded Age has government been so much "of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations." The consequences are seen in income disparities not seen since the 1920s if not the 1890s — all covered over by endless media distractions, cheap stuff from China and a suburban "lifestyle" that keeps people in their cars for hours being indoctrinated by Rush Limbaugh.
Jack Beatty’s Age of Betrayal: the Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900, is a new history of the Gilded Age. It’s been pilloried in the corporate media for going too hard on the robber barons. Yes, if only we could have avoided those pesky backlashes: the Progressive Age and the New Deal. What most struck me in reading it was the divide-and-rule tactics used by Republicans (and conservative Democrats). Talk about deja vu all over again.
In the late 19th century, the ideology of white supremacy was an especially potent way to keep poor Southern whites from uniting with blacks to vote for their common economic interests. Meanwhile, the Republicans for decades "waved the bloody shirt" of the Civil War against Democrats, even though the GOP had long ago abandoned its roots among average Americans and "the right to rise."
In 1896, incumbent President Grover Cleveland — the only Democrat elected between the Civil War and 1912 — was ousted by his own party in favor of a charismatic young political unknown, a relatively inexperienced legislator, but a man who was the finest orator of his age. His "cross of gold" speech is among the most electrifying moments in American political history. William Jennings Bryan went down to defeat — three times in all.
History doesn’t repeat itself. Bryan limited himself to the issue of expanding the currency through coinage of silver — a dubious economic platform, although one that showed sympathy for suffering common people. But he was running against powerful corporate interests that saw him as a huge threat. And in a time that seemed so promising for a populist Democrat, after years of using state power to crush strikes and vast discontent among both workers and farmers — Bryan lost. History doesn’t repeat, it instructs.
So I’m still not convinced Obama can win. He had to vote yes on the Constitution-shattering FISA legislation so the right couldn’t use a "no" vote against him. That’s because fear and terrorism are their last "bloody shirts" to wave (although 9-11 happened on their watch). Their mantra of "drill, drill, drill!" may also be effective — it won’t do a damned thing to change the oil reality, but Americans might think they can continue living like it’s 1965.
He will not get a fair shake from the media. While McCain continues to make clear you will get more of the same only worse if you vote for him, the media obsess about Obama’s "flip flops." And the Democrats form up their signature circular firing squad.
Excellent post. It’s fascinating how free-market ideology is the lingua franca of those under 40. They’ll “never get Social Security because boomers will spend it all”. The “government always wastes money because they don’t operate like a business”. And, if you’re not a businessman, “you have no right to criticize business” (and its multiple variants).
Curiously, older people remember when government did work well while young people have been spoon-fed Milton Friedman from birth. Yet, statistically, older voters tend to favor McCain and younger voters Obama. Perhaps it’s a question of style although there may be a point where raw reality supersedes the received wisdom of the markets and Ponzi.
Despite the propaganda of getting rich by cutting taxes for “producers”, most young people realize how gamed the whole system is. They also see their chances of fully enjoying the prosperity of their parents are growing smaller. They may be skeptical about government but they intuitively grasp the absurdity of getting rich by making the rich even richer.
I think Obama will win despite the media and echo chamber advantages enjoyed by McCain. I think this is because the pain can’t be masked by bromides and sideshows. If the economy were chugging along decently, McCain would win because the right’s use of fear and xenophobia will alway trumps rational choice. But the right’s zeal to cry wolf has induced its own reaction. If it works again, bitterness and cynicism will overwhelm us and voters know it. Obama is a step in a different direction at a dark hour. Afraid as we are, we’ve run out of reasons to stay stuck.
I saw a newspaper article this morning discussing the trade deficit, which has shrunk due to the weak dollar but is still large. In it was also mentioned that our deficit with China has been the largest of any single nation.
According to U.S. government figures, our trade deficit with China alone was $256 billion for all of 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007
The article mentioned that some critics have blamed China for keeping its currency at artificially low levels and therefore of making its exports cheaper to U.S. buyers.
Such criticisms have been around for years, of course, but the point is that one can scarcely imagine a “free market” when governments, directly or indirectly through their policies, manipulate the very basis of trade.
Of course, China’s wage structure is already appallingly low, so even if its currency were not kept artificially weak, U.S. workers would have a difficult time competing with Chinese laborers.
This too, however, is an example of the myth of the so-called “free market”, since Chinese laborers do not sell their labor so cheaply by choice: China is a totalitarian society, and labor organizing is harshly regulated there — indeed, independent unions and labor organizing are banned by law. Ironically, ACFTU, the sole legal trade union (run by the Chinese Communist Party) seems dedicated to serving the interests of foreign investors rather than the workers.
A government dedicated to genuinely free markets, in addition to empowering its own workers to freely organize and strike without government interference, might well restrict trade with China or levy tariffs, seeking to enforce this multinationally by enlisting the cooperation of other developed countries whose workers face similar “competition” from the manipulated Chinese labor market.
Instead, we find that the opposite has occurred. Back before China opened itself to foreign private investment, we heard plenty about how awful the Red Chinese government was. Not so much anymore, now that the government (still totalitarian, and every bit as brutal) has actively courted private investment.
Remember that annual debate regarding whether China should be granted “most favored nation” trading status? True, the debate was merely camouflage for applying the rubber-stamp of approval, but at least there was a discussion which brought China’s dismal human rights record to the fore of public discourse.
In 2000 China was permanently awarded this status, so no more debate. Now Uncle Sam limits himself to the occasional crocodile tear while voraciously gobbling up the goodies which China’s currency manipulation and harsh repression of labor makes possible.
My theory is that the U.S. government is, in practice (as opposed to rhetoric), quite happy with totalitarian governments, provided they are cooperative with foreign investment and not actively militaristic or otherwise antithetical to U.S. foreign policy. This is because such governments can insure a stable infrastructure while using their legal and police organs to prevent workers from effectively organizing, since that would threaten the cheap labor so beloved by the investors of developed countries.
How else to explain the difference in the attitude of the U.S. government toward China and Russia? Russia is at least nominally democratic, and though its repression of dissent and influence over the mass media is pronounced, it pales in comparison to the totalitarian powers exercised by the Chinese Communist Party.
But whereas China has made itself a one-stop shopping experience for foreign investors eager to exploit its labor force, and is generally discrete in its criticism of the United States (except on the issue of Taiwan and the occasional flare-up over Tibet), Russia has kept a much firmer national hand on foreign investment, both officially and (via organized criminal syndicates) unofficially.
And of course, Russian leaders seem to feel that unless they are regularly engaged in a war of rhetoric with Washington, their people and the world at large must regard them as doormats — though in its biased treatment of Russia, Washington is about equally to blame for this perennial, ill-tempered jousting. And Russia actively competes against the U.S. for influence in the Middle-East and elsewhere.
So, the kid-gloves with which Uncle Sam treats China (versus Russia) are a bit puzzling, until you take into account the economic and other competitive aspects of these relationships.
Does anyone really think that China is kinder to its citizens and dissidents than Russia is? Does anyone think that China’s society is politically or socially freer than Russia’s? Does anyone think that China spies on the United States in a less wholesale manner than Russia does, in seeking governmental, military, and corporate secrets, or that it is less intrusive or persistent in its espionage?
Not to mention Cuba! But let’s not go there. (Literally, since by federal law we’re prohibited from doing so.)