See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Charade
Source:
The Freeman Online
URL Source: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/the-charade/#
Published: Oct 16, 2010
Author: Sheldon Richman
Post Date: 2010-10-16 16:53:23 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 126
Comments: 4
Dinesh D’Souza has the bizarre idea that Barack Obama’s presidency can be best understood by realizing that “Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s [that is, Obama’s late estranged Kenyan father]. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.” D’Souza needs to get out more. Specifically he should have a talk with Timothy Carney and Charlie Gasparino, whose books demonstrate beyond question that the best phrase to sum up Obama’s presidency is not “African anticolonial socialist” but “American Progressive corporatist.” Carney’s 2009 book is titled Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses. Gasparino’s just-published book is called Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street. Neither writer could be mistaken for a left-winger. The political establishment, helped by the mass media and intelligentsia, has long played a game in this country. It consists in depicting the competition for power as between two blocs: one hostile to business in the name of social justice, the other friendly to business in the name of “the free market.” Each bloc’s talking points and pet projects are calculated in superficial ways to reinforce its signature theme. Whenever the blocs need to rally their respective bases, they accentuate their surface differences. The “anti-business” bloc accuses its opponents of being, say, Wall Street lackeys, while the “pro-free-enterprise” bloc accuses its opponents of being, say, socialists. It’s all a sham that serves both side’s interests. The rivals actually want two variations of the same thing: the corporate state, a system of economic privilege that transfers wealth via government from market entrepreneurs, workers, and consumers to well-connected business interests. What we have are two factions of a single establishment. Differences in rhetoric notwithstanding, both are friends of and beholden to big entrenched manufacturers (military contractors lead the way) and big financial institutions. Neither faction wishes to do anything to undermine the interests of these businesses. And for their part, the business people have no desire to antagonize either side. They need one another: The politicians need the campaign funds and economic cooperation; the businesses need the subsidies, guarantees, low interest rates, and impediments to competition. The banks in particular need friendly relations with politicians (federal, state, and local) who float debt that brings big fees for bond underwriters. It’s one close and lucrative alliance (which is not say the various parties agree on every detail). Thus it has been throughout American history (scroll down to Carney review). Obama to the Rescue Enter Barack Obama. “For the most part, Obama had been good to the banks — really good. They’d gotten everything they wanted in terms of bailouts and handouts and reaped enormous profits because of it,” Gasparino writes. “…The fact of the matter is, when you strip away the name-calling and class warfare coming from the Obama administration, and when you ignore Wall Street’s gripes about the new financial reform legislation that will put a crimp in some of its profits, these two entities are far more aligned than meets the casual eye. They coexist to help each other — in an unholy alliance against the American taxpayer.” Gasparino points out that Obama signaled his eagerness to be Wall Street’s friend at a meeting with the big players during his presidential campaign, and they came through with the money. Wall Street had no reason for remorse when they saw his economic appointments and advisers: Timothy Geithner (formerly of the New York Fed), Lawrence Summers (Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and former World Bank president), Paul Volcker (former Fed chairman), Robert Rubin (formerly of Goldman Sachs, later of Citigroup), Ben Bernanke (reappointed as Fed chairman), Rahm Emanuel (formerly of Goldman Sachs), and Greg Craig (a political insider who has gone on to represent Goldman Sachs from one of the nation’s top law firms). Many other Wall Street insiders, whose names are not so well known, have the President’s ear. Garparino’s thesis is confirmed by the essential continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations. Wall Street got first consideration beginning when the rotten fruit of bipartisan housing and monetary policies became apparent. If anything, the Obama team has substantively treated Wall Street better than the Bush team did. The Fed has gone into the business of allocating capital selectively, buying up mortgage-based and other “assets” of dubious value from institutions deemed too big to fail. One must guard against being deceived by political rituals. The Dodd-Frank financial “reform” is portrayed as the long-overdue taming of Wall Street, but no one who pays close attention believes that. The usual players will help write the myriad rules the new law calls for, and they are not likely to harm the insiders’ interests. Sure, Obama bashes Wall Street these days. No surprise: There’s a campaign on in which his party is in deep trouble; unemployment is stuck above 9.5 percent; and the disillusioned base needs rallying or it won’t show up at the polls. The bigwigs at Goldman and the other firms may not be happy about the rhetorical roughing-up. They may even be concerned that a desperate Obama will do something in the short run that could reduce the growth of profits and executive pay. Such uncertainty is surely one reason for the cautious investing and slow recovery. But it’s unlikely that any big player fears that the future holds a radical anti-capitalist revolution. The daily talk-radio and cable-news alarms about this being the most radical left-wing administration in U.S. history should be chalked up to base-rallying on the other side. As I suggested at the outset, the American political system capitalizes on the division in public opinion over the role of government by propagating the myth that there is a grand war raging between the advocates of Big Government and the advocates of Free Markets. In fact, it’s an intramural competition between two rival factions that favor government management of the economy — with a few differences in detail — on behalf of special interests. Why the charade? All the better to exploit the productive classes, those that would be prospering in a freed market.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: irishthatcherite (#0)
I think this is a perfect example of what we were discussing on the other thread. I bet the EU is much the same way.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
As jew Mayer observed, "If I control the banks, I care not who rules the country." Or something close to that. They give a flip about zero's blathering; they have us by the short-hairs and they know it.
I agree with this 100%. I think this is a perfect example of what we were discussing on the other thread. I bet the EU is much the same way. More or less, but with less of an emphasis on the false left-right paradigm. In fact, in Irish politics, the left-right divide is almost non-existant, the two main sparring partners, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael do not fake the ideological divide, both instead claim to the same thing only better. It was, until the Progressive Democrat became defunct, left to the junior partners of the two Irish parliamentary blocs to fake the left-right divide; Labour (traditionally aligned with Fine Gael), of course, assuming the left-of-center ground, while the PDs (aligned with Fianna Fail through their 20+ year existance), pretended to be a classical liberal party.
From Blank Cheque Ireland... to Bounced Cheque Ireland.
#2. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, 4 (#1)
#3. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
In fact, it’s an intramural competition between two rival factions that favor government management of the economy — with a few differences in detail — on behalf of special interests.
The problem is, they have succeeded.
Any third party can not hope to get more than 1/3 of the vote, so they are as useless as tits on a boar. We have two choices. One screws us dry, the other uses lube, but we're still getting screwed.
Obama dosnt have to "transform" America, it's already done.
#4. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#1)
Whenever the blocs need to rally their respective bases, they accentuate their surface differences. The “anti-business” bloc accuses its opponents of being, say, Wall Street lackeys, while the “pro-free-enterprise” bloc accuses its opponents of being, say, socialists.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest