Centrists don’t want to the do the right thing

I’ve never found the whole are they evil or stupid (or not) debate all that enlightening. Nor the “what does Obama really believe in his heart of hearts” vs. how he’s actually been governing for the last two years. The democratic party has been dominated by centrists for nearly two decades. All we need to go on are their actions, a generally atrocious record whether in or out of power.

I suppose these other psychological analyses, hard science surely, are helpful, if one’s goal is staying in the church despite its priests’ crimes against humanity.

Evil is as evil does.

Stuart is still falling into the “they’re not evil” trap.

Whether “they” are evil or not, they are stupid:

1) The definition of the housing bubble is that the median price of houses rose faster than the median rise in wages, that is, house prices outstripped afford-ability. A gov’t. jobs program that would employ the unemployed would raise the wages of the unemployed (from the current level, $0), and in turn raise the median wage. This, in turn, would support higher prices for houses, which is the aim of the Fed. Res. and U.S. Treas. policies. Not employing the unemployed is having the opposite effect, reducing the price at which houses can be sold. So, the neo-liberals’ policy of not having a gov’t. (jobs) program is, in fact, hurting the industry (finance) that they support and believe in. Of course, the lack of accounting and auditing has helped to keep the large banks’ insolvency hidden — a hollow “solution.”

2) The programs that those employed by a gov’t. jobs program would be employed at would improve the infrastructure of the country and the education of the population. This, in turn, would benefit the industries of the country. Not having these programs is a drag on these industries, much like the overpricing of medical services is a not-so-hidden cost to all companies in the U.S. So, the neo-liberals’ policy of not using the gov’t. to employ people to address these problems is, in fact, hurting the industries that they support and believe in.

That they are persisting in their beliefs despite the fact that it is contrary to their desired goals and reality shows that they are not thinking (or, equivalently, thinking stupidly), but are holding a “religious” belief. A recent and egregious example of this stupidity was Obama’s “summit” with CEOs where he thought that discussing the economy with them would lead to their hiring the unemployed (or, as the evil camp would have it, he engaged in kabuki).

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — Arthur C. Clarke

The Evil versus Stupid debate suggests that likewise, any sufficiently evil thinking is indistinguishable from stupid.

Centrists? Centrists my ass.

Agreed. The literal definition of “centrist” is to hold the views held by the majority of the population, rather than the minority views. They call themselves “centrist” as a propaganda move and as a matter of ego (“I’m the Reasonable, Serious Person — you’re an extremist nut*.”).

See Figure 2 in this post to compare what the majority of the population thinks and expects the wealth distribution of the u.s. should be, as opposed to what the neo-liberals think it should be. The neo-liberals are not centrists.

*The currently-preferred term for an “extremist nut” is “sanctimonious purist.”

Stupid people don’t manage to orchestrate the largest upward transfer of wealth in world history.

For a long time that didn’t matter, the US was so rich that they could stumble along…

Yes, they have been ruining the country, but there is so much to ruin that it has taken some time.

Be assured, my young friend, that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation — Adam Smith

(There are a lot of small variations on this quote. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a source that reproduces Smith’s letter that contains it.)

Think of them as courtiers and of the west as a court society. A very capable courtier is usually incompetent outside of court.

The modern metaphor for the courtier in the u.s. is Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss. Middle management, who spend their time concerned that they meet the desires of the upper management or owners of the company, while unconcerned that they are making life miserable for the workers in the company. In the public arena, they are the Useful Idiots. They can be evil, but they don’t have to be. They just have be useful to the wealthy.

A big part of the reason that the left/liberals/progressives will have a difficult time changing the course of policy is that the left does not pay millions of people daily to work towards better policy while the corporations do pay millions of people daily to carry out bad policy. Obama/Bernanke/Geithner/etc just want to be on the side that’s winning.

The problem is some ideas are so bad that if you work at them, try to make them work, you make the world worse.

A less obvious example of this is what Glenn Greenwald has been documenting in his battle against the interviewers (self-described as “journalists”) at corporate media outlets (and, yes, NPR belongs in this category), in which they have been carrying out the bad idea that they (the “reporters” and “journalists”) should be against what WikiLeaks does. It’s a bad idea and they do their best each day to carry it out. If they didn’t then they would not be employed in their position. They likely never would have been hired for it. The corporations are good at finding idiots who will be useful to them.

The merger of journalists and gov’t. officials.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read this analysis, Ian, it’s much appreciated.

Second, I apologize in advance for taking so much of your time with this novella-sized response below, but it’s important that I’m clear, and so I hope that you read all of it, and follow the links that I provide to source my claims. Sometimes it just has to be this long, I’m sorry.

So, you ask “what makes you think they don’t desire high unemployment rates?“, and that’s a question I’d love to answer.

But before I do that, let me address your sense that the sort of “Third Way vs Conservative, Center vs Right” stuff I’m asking folks to consider is basically a meaningless taxonomic exercise (“how many angels dance on pins”).

As I’m sure you’re well aware, Ian, we movement liberals are getting our asses kicked down here, politically speaking.

Our liberal Democrat representatives –the ones who aren’t merely machine pols– seem to be in a miserable state, unable to withstand virtually any pressure applied to them, or to effectively respond to messaging directed against them. And, when I say they seem incompetent at resisting “pressure” or “messaging,” I mean that it looks like they’re the Polish cavalry up against the Wehrmacht of the establishment political press corps, Democratic leadership and the White House. The Polish Army at least knew that they were being blitzed; liberal Democrats don’t even seem to know that there’s a campaign being waged against them. Not that I’m a huge fan of Dennis Kucinich, but when he votes for the PPACA because, as he says (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210#ixzz19XuublLS) “I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency,” that’s a big indication of how fucked we are. This guy, the supposed paragon of liberal “purity” wouldn’t say “My president” about Bush, but he’ll say that about the Larry Summers-appointing, Petraeus-lionizing, “government can’t create jobs”-proclaiming, New Democrat Obama, and that’s a huge problem for us –and America.

But there’s a bigger problem, Ian, even bigger than the one you pointed to in your excellent post from July of this year (https://www.ianwelsh.net/netroots-schizo/), entitled “Netroots Schizo,” in which you described two camps of attendees at this year’s Netroots Nation, one being a disparate faction of non-Obama loyalists (in which you and I fall), and the other being:

“the folks who would characterize themselves, in general, as hard nosed pragmatists and “realists”. These range from the “Obama is the greatest liberal president since FDR” types, who think that the Obama is just wonderful and those progressives and liberals who don’t agree are simply delusional to those who feel that a lot of what he’s done has been watered down pap in general but that it’s certainly better than nothing and that those who are disappointed are unrealistic idealists who simply don’t understand the constraints Obama and Congressional Democrats are working under.

The second side is angry at what they parody as fairy tale thinking and deeply unrealistic. “Obama couldn’t fix everything, but he’s better than the Republicans will be if they get back in power” is their mantra, ranging from “really, he’s wonderful and you’re insane for thinking otherwise” to “well, yes he sucks but he sucks less than what the Republicans will do when they get in power.” Either way, they see the attacks from what they consider the “purists” as deeply damaging. Democrats may or may not be a ton better than Republicans, but either way, they are better, and there is a moral case to be made for sucking it up one more time and working hard to elect, as the old progressive battle cry runs, “better Democrats”. This is a two party state, with those parties having an unbreakable oligopoly on power. Dissing Democrats just helps the even worse party win, at which point they will do even worse things. So get over your problems, whether they are with economic policy or Obama’s continued shredding of fundamental civil liberties like Habeas Corpus, jump back into the trenches with your bowie knife or bayonet and fight for Democrats, not against them because by constantly bad mouthing Dems all you do is make it more likely that Republicans will win, and if they win, well, that will be baaaaddddd. Very, very baaaaaddddd.”

That bigger problem is that the latter group you’ve identified, the ones who hold the opinions with which you and I disagree, actually represent the vast majority (79%) of those who self-identify to Gallup as liberals (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145268/Obama-Approval-Slipping-Among-Liberal-Democrats.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Presidential%20Job%20Approval), down in the tax deal December from November’s obscenely high 88% approval amongst liberals.

That situation is what allows Progressive Policy Institute’s (formerly the DLC’s) Ed Kilgore to fatuously proclaim (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/06/agony_of_the_liberals_versus_o.php) in “Agony of the Liberals Versus Obama’s Liberal Approval Ratings”

“Sure, you can find elite opinion on the Left that’s been souring on Obama steadily as we head towards the midterm elections. But it’s a useful reality check to note that when it comes to actual voting Americans of the liberal persuasion, if there’s any “agony” over Obama, it is mostly derived from anger at the president’s opponents.”

That’s the Third Way ideologue Kilgore exulting over the fact that the very rhetorical position from which movement liberals would prefer to argue, i.e. representing popular small-d democratic reform against neo-liberal elite consensus, has been effectively denied to us. The message that Obama’s opponents from the left are “elites” is also in play, which is another triumph for the New Democrats, one of which they probably had to have been aware when they chose Obama to be their representative: “elites” is code for “white limousine liberals whose pseudo-intellectual disaffection masks unreconstructed racism.” There’s no shortage of those willing to employ arguments like those found in Tim Wise’s Daily Kos diary “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Glenn Beck? Racism and White Privilege on the Liberal-Left” (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/18/894176/-With-Friends-Like-These,-Who-Needs-Glenn-Beck-Racism-and-White-Privilege-on-the-Liberal-Left) for partisan ends:

“Class-Based Reductionism on the Left

Perhaps the most common way in which folks on the left sometimes perpetuate racism is by a vulgar form of class reductionism, in which they advance the notion that racism is a secondary issue to the class system, and that what leftists and radicals should be doing is spending more time focusing on the fight for dramatic and transformative economic change (whether reformist or revolutionary), rather than engaging in what they derisively term “identity politics.” The problem, say these voices, are corporations, the rich, the elite, etc., and to get sidetracked into a discussion of white supremacy is to ignore this fact and weaken the movement for radical change.”

Even worse, the folks in that latter category you identify are essentially echoing what those with all the messaging power of the establishment are repeating every single day. Very few people exposed to politics hear anything other than this message. The “rank n’ file”, therefore are virtually indistinguishable in this regard from those with the biggest, most repetitive, most strategic and most expensive megaphones, the New Democrats’. Liberal Democratic voters by a nearly 8 in 10 majority, believe a fundamental lie they’re told about Obama and the Democrats who hold all of the Party cards in the capital: he’s a “progressive” like them.

If you were to speak to fellow movement liberals in the States about Obama and the Democrats, and you told them that Obama was indistinguishable from Bush on the things that matter, you would receive one of a number of fact-based arguments in return, any of which seem intuitively true, correspond highly with received common knowledge, and are therefore understandable to and repeatable by even the least informed. Obama did appoint Sotomayor, Bush appointed Constitution-In-Exilist “Sc-alito.” Obama did repeal DADT, Bush would never have signed that law. Bush did invade Iraq, Obama would not have –even if we can reasonably argue that he probably would have voted for both AUMFs, had he been in the Senate at the time. The Democrats did pass “Health Care Reform,” the Republicans unanimously opposed it. The Democrats did pass a nominally Keynesian “stimulus package,” the Republicans unanimously opposed it. The modern GOP is still the party of the Southern Strategy, and the Democratic President of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama. Over and over again, any liberal Democrat in this country with even a cursory understanding of current politics will mostly likely make the case that the policies of the Democrats are vastly different than the policies of the Republicans. Most Liberal Democrats know who Sarah Palin is, and they hate her worse than anything. Many Liberal Democrats know who Ralph Nader is, and they hate him, too. They’ve won.

Like I said, we’re getting our asses kicked down here, Ian.

Your arguments, however useful in many contexts, seem to be of questionable practical value in addressing this ass-kicking, especially because the latter folks you wrote about have heard them a million times, can therefore predict them, and some have already spent decent money strategizing and implementing powerful messaging to counteract and discredit your position. They rarely hear the kind of arguments I am advancing, and tend not to understand them when they do. They will be slow to react to this new kind of rhetoric from movement liberals, and when they do, it will probably be ineffective and predictable.

The previously-mentioned DLC swell Ed Kilgore warned his New Democrat Network counterparts last year in The New Republic piece “Taking Ideological Differences Seriously” (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/taking-ideological-differences-seriously) that the center’s strategy may have revealed an ideology-based weakness :

“on a widening range of issues, Obama’s critics to the right say he’s engineering a government takeover of the private sector, while his critics to the left accuse him of promoting a corporate takeover of the public sector. They can’t both be right, of course, and these critics would take the country in completely different directions if given a chance. But the tactical convergence is there if they choose to pursue it.

For those of us whose primary interest is progressive unity and political success for the Democratic Party, it’s very tempting to downplay or even ignore this potential fault-line and the left-right convergence it makes possible. “

What may seem like a Scholastic theological argument about the angelic capacity of pinheads to you is an attempt to address that fundamental lie, by exposing the vast ideological differences between movement liberals and Third Way Democrats, instead of continuing to argue the policy regime similarities between Obama and establishment conservatives. Movement liberals’ failure to make that case have allowed New Democrats “whose primary interest is progressive unity and political success for the Democratic Party” victory after victory. Maybe it’s time for us to do something about that.

They will do and say things in accordance with certain ideological tendencies. I argue that it is possible to predict what they will do and say, and so it is possible to wage successful political war against them, which is what I’m advocating, since they are currently waging successful political war against us. Because of their victories against movement liberalism, we currently have no political power to stop them from ruining peoples’ lives, and the country’s future.

It’s not that I’m wrong and misguided about the donor class and its interests, Ian, it’s that I’m correct on the facts about what the Third Way is and who New Democrats are, and I’m trying to do something different with those facts than you are.

Help me out, man. It might work –maybe, probably not in time, but who knows? It’s my country we’re talking about, and because I truly love my country, I have to ask for you to at least honestly consider that, in addition to being venal, stupid, morally corrupt, other-directed, coward politicians, they might also be in the grip of another horrendously wrong ideology. I’m not asking you to deny what you know, I’m asking you to consider that this explanation may fit at certain times, and therefore it may help our understanding –so that we can win, one of these days.

Finally, to answer your question, “what makes you think they don’t desire high unemployment rates,” I would point out two things

1. when Third Way ideologues believe they aren’t speaking to a mass audience, they’re far more honest about what they actually think about anything, including unemployment

2. based on my reading of what position papers these people put out year after year, it’s not that they desire high unemployment, it’s that they don’t care as much about it as neo-New Dealers do

You’re absolutely right about their aversion to wage rate increases, that’s absolutely true, although less “stuck” wages is how they’d put it. Their occasional advocacy of the repeal of Davis-Bacon, the New Deal-era prevailing wage laws (here’s PPI circa 2002 blaming Davis-Bacon for schools not being built http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=250999) is evidence of that.

But they do consider themselves “New Keynesians,” and, to the extent that Third Way policy people find high unemployment to be an unacceptably unproductive use of human capital, they don’t seem to favor Neo-Classical attempts to get back to an employment equilibrium via wage decrease. They adhere to this brand of economics-speak they call “The New Growth Economics,” which posits that high growth is more important than high unemployment rates, as Robert Atkinson lays out here in “The New Growth Economics: How to Boost Living Standards through Technology, Skills, Innovation, and Competition” circa 2001 (http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=107&subid=123&contentid=2992):

“As the Progressive Policy Institute has articulated in its New Economy Index, the New Economy is more global, more knowledge-driven, more entrepreneurial and dynamic, and driven by digital technologies. In this New Economy, neither Keynesianism nor supply-side economics provide the right answers because today’s economy is fundamentally different than the one of even 15 years ago. The Clinton Administration moved toward a new conception of economic policy. It’s time to build upon that and fully embrace growth economics

This means placing the focus of economic policy squarely on boosting per-capita incomes, and that means focusing on productivity. As Paul Romer states, “the most important economic policy question facing the advanced countries of the world is how to increase the trend rate of growth of output per capita.”

It may seem obvious that productivity growth should be the object of our economic policies, but strikingly, both liberal and conservative economic doctrines want to take a shortcut to growth, focusing not on productivity but on redistribution. Conservatives want to raise after-tax income by cutting taxes — taking from public expenditures to boost private incomes. Liberals want to tax the rich more, dramatically increase the minimum wage, and spend much of the surplus to funnel the proceeds to programs to benefit “working families.” Neither approach recognizes that the only long-term answer to improving the economic well-being of Americans is to focus on productivity.

In addition, neither liberals nor conservatives embrace fiscal discipline. Conservatives would see the surplus go to tax cuts, not paying off the debt. Some have even recently begun preaching supply-side Keynesianism, arguing that large tax cuts are needed to spur consumer demand. Many liberals continue to believe that because government spending boosts consumer demand it leads to more jobs and in turn higher wages (but lower profits or higher inflation since higher wages would have to result from increased bargaining power by workers, not higher productivity). As a result, they attacked efforts by the Clinton administration to pay off the debt, calling it Calvin Coolidge economics. Yet, with full employment, cranking up large new spending programs or tax cuts would only produce inflation and efforts by the Federal Reserve to counteract the stimulative effect.

Growth economics also challenges the mistaken notion of natural limits to growth. Until last year, most economists postulated that the economy could not grow faster than 2 percent to 2.5 percent per year without sparking inflation. Growth economics recognizes that the economy can grow much faster without inflation, as long as productivity grows as fast. In fact, the new administration should set a goal to double living standards for American workers within 30 years. This would require maintaining an annual productivity growth rate of 2.5 percent — even less than the 2.7 percent productivity growth rate the country has seen since 1996.

Embracing growth economics does not mean ignoring past economic policy goals, such as job creation and inflation control. While these still matter, they are no longer central. The information technology revolution, as well as a highly competent Federal Reserve policy, has led to the longest expansion in economic history. Because globalization, increased market competition, and the technology revolution have reduced the threat of inflation, the Federal Reserve does not need to induce anti-inflationary recessions as much as it used to.”

Listen, I’m truly sorry to have to make you read through that dreck, Ian, but that’s the policy that these people advocate, when they’re so certain that nobody in the public is listening that they can afford to admit that the Fed actually creates recessions to inhibit inflation, something that virtually no politician will ever say (and if they do, they’ll be ignored by the political press corps).

They don’t desire unemployment as a means to keep wages low to enrich their donors, they desire high productivity as a means to enrich their donors, which they then believe will also enrich the nation. While they don’t advocate abandoning “past economic policy goals, such as job creation,” they don’t ultimately believe the government should knock itself out addressing them, since, while policies that put large amounts of people back to work “still matter, they are no longer central.”

This is what they say:

“Under the old economic policy model, it was not clear that there was a role for government in economic policy beyond managing the business cycle and protecting intellectual property rights. Growth economics makes it clear that government policies can boost long-term income growth. It recognizes the conservative insight that free markets, competition, and innovation boost growth. But it also recognizes the liberal insight that government investments, particularly in science, technology, education, and skills, can provide a foundation upon which productivity growth depends. And finally, growth economics recognizes that fiscal discipline underlies all of this.”

That’s austerity speaking, in February, 2001, but not the market fundamentalist variety, not the GOP variety, and certainly not the popular conservative variety.

That’s the Third Way. They’ve been looking for an opportunity like this economic crisis we have in the States for years. It’s what they do. They’re better than us at this.

And having read reams and reams of this kind of stuff, positions and strategies that orgs like PPI have been putting out repetitively for the past sixteen years, and then having watched the Obama Administration and New Democrats in Congress pass as much of it as they possibly could (given conservative opposition), I think they’re telling the truth in these policy papers, Ian. I started reading their “Health Care Reform” proposals from over the past ten years during the Democratic primaries, and then I watched those awful policies actually become law two years later –and watched liberal Democrats vote and ultimately clap louder for the DLC’s premier think tank’s flagship policy.

That’s why I don’t think they desire high unemployment, despite the obvious logic of their donor class benefiting. It’s not high enough growth policy for these people. It’s by definition unproductive, under-utilized capacity, which their economists seem to abhor, although (laughably) they tend to view unemployment in the context of the current crisis as structural, and therefore out of the bounds of counter-cyclical policy, anyway. In this way, much like the way Project for a New American Century had the recent opportunity to prove they are elite idiots and ideologues, they’re wrong as wrong can be, but will never admit it.

I hope that answers the question of why I think the way that I do at least somewhat satisfactorily, Ian, thanks so much for reading and considering all of this.

Maybe someday we’ll get a chance to speak together about this on Jay Ackroyd’s “Virtually Speaking.” I’ve listened to you on that program, and have tried to honestly paraphrase your arguments when Marcy Wheeler and I were panelists this December (here’s the relevant segment of my appearance on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaBKmdW3tos ).

Here’s where I think the case can be made that Obama is evil, and not incompetent or stupid: He sees where political pressure is building to do something that would hurt the corporate class & wealthy, and he finds a way to release that pressure (with the help of other Democrats) so that the corporate class & wealthy are not hurt.

I don’t think this point is addressed in Stuart Zechman’s analysis.

Exhibit 1: The insolvent large banks were not nationalized or put into receivership in early 2009. Instead, accounting rules were rewritten (“regulatory forbearance” — could even Orwell have foreseen such a term?), “stress” tests were “conducted”, and the insolvent banks were not found to be insolvent.

Exhibit 2: There was a year-long campaign, demanded by the majority of the population, to reform the medical services industry (insurance/drugs/hospitals). Obama successfully delayed any reform for a year until the original, non-reform that the “insurance” sector had written long ago to protect itself was enacted. Had this bill failed to be enacted, there would have been enormous pressure to write a new bill that was not what the “insurance” sector had written.

Exhibit 3: In the face of growing calls for Elizabeth Warren to be put in a position in which, it is believed by some, she would have had the power to reform some of the financial industry practices, Obama used the “Senate won’t confirm her” excuse not to nominate her for the position, and put the senators in the position of having to vote against her.

Exhibit 4: With the tax cuts for the wealthy due to expire and with unemployment benefits for the unemployed running out, instead of applying pressure on the Republicans not to hold UI benefits hostage to renewing tax cuts, Obama inverted the politics and used UI benefits to force the extension of tax cuts.

Looking forward, we ought to be able to use this as a guide for predicting Obama’s actions: If there is some political pressure building for some action that will hurt the interests of the wealthy and the corporate class, then we can reliably expect that Obama will take some action to relieve that political pressure.

An example where we might see this happen is in the foreclosure fraud that is unraveling across the country. If the banks get to a point where they see the possibility that they won’t be able to escape from the consequences of their fraud, then we can expect that Obama will (again, with the help of Democrats in Congress and possibly the Treasury and the Fed. Res.) take action to help them escape the consequences of their fraud.

anon2525,

Good comment above with well illustrated examples, I would add before Obama, most citizens were against the wars and wanted them halted. In the course of two short years, it’s the Dems who’s blood lust must be curtailed, it’s Dems who are calling for expansion of hostilities, using their rank and file [black and hispanic voters] as cannon fodder for the Democratic elites vicarious glory in Asia.

The fact that so many of my ‘liberal” friends who were at one time against the endless wars switched and now support Obama and his expansion of these senseless killing has made me despise “liberals” as a group. “Liberals” are not an ideology or political group, they are a social networking group that advances their career while concealing their utter lack of humanity. Whereas, the right wing differs only in their desire to openly display their lack empathy, “liberals” lack the wingnuts courage and hide their revolting avarice.

It’s all a show, once you are over a certain income group [or a wannabee], your first loyalty is to those who gave you your position over others, not Republican, not Democrat, not liberal, not conservative, not right, not left, simply a gentleman’s agreement to steal as much life blood from other human beings as is practical whether through artifice, or by brutal force of arms.

anon2525:

I’m not disagreeing that “[Obama] sees where political pressure is building to do something that would hurt the corporate class & wealthy, and he finds a way to release that pressure (with the help of other Democrats) so that the corporate class & wealthy are not hurt.”

I’m saying that you and I think that this is evil, and they think that this is good policy that will ultimately help the US.

These people in the Obama Administration, the New Democrat Coalition and the establishment Democratic policy and messaging infrastructure have a different idea than movement liberals about what is good and what is evil.

I could quibble with a few details regarding the policies you’ve enumerated, but you’re mostly correct.

Another example that I could provide would be the fact that, when High Treasury Officials gave anonymous access to some liberal bloggers, and were asked about the failure of HAMP to actually save ordinary peoples’ economic lives, here’s their response, as summarized by one of those in attendance (http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/933.html):

The conversation next turned to housing and HAMP. On HAMP, officials were surprisingly candid. The program has gotten a lot of bad press in terms of its Kafka-esque qualification process and its limited success in generating mortgage modifications under which families become able and willing to pay their debt.

Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole. Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least.

There were murmurs among the bloggers of “extend and pretend”, but I don’t think that’s quite right. This was extend-and-don’t-even-bother-to-pretend. The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks. Policymakers openly judged HAMP to be a qualified success because it helped banks muddle through what might have been a fatal shock.

I believe these policymakers conflate, in full sincerity, incumbent financial institutions with “the system”, “the economy”, and “ordinary Americans”. Treasury officials are not cruel people. I’m sure they would have preferred if the program had worked out better for homeowners as well. But they have larger concerns, and from their perspective, HAMP has helped to address those.

Just to be clear, when you say that we can predict that they will do their damndest to enact HAMP-style policies that will put the interests of people last, and the interests of institutional actors first, you’re absolutely correct.

That’s different than simply predicting that they will be “evil,” though, and a far more useful approach, in my opinion.

The reasons why it’s a far more useful approach have to do with why it’s much more useful (for the voter) to tell a voter that a politician is a “conservative” than it is to say that politician is “evil.” In this case, because these politicians aren’t conservatives, it’s better to tell voters what they actually are: Third Way Democrats.

“Evil” won’t be blamed for this incompetent government’s failures, but liberalism will be. That’s why it’s less useful to focus on the satanic qualities of their policies, I think.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to read through all of that, anon2525.

Stuart Zechman,

I am not afraid to insult people when I believe their motives are self-serving in the personal sense, or just outright evil.

It is not my intent to insult you when I call your views naive. As Machiavelli [the first political scientist] advised the prince, [paraphrasing here], look not to what people say, or what they say they believe, look to what they do. And in the Democrats case, Obama in particular, the action speak clearly and in a thundering voice, WE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF TAXPAYING CITIZENS IN COMPLETE CONTRAVENTION TO THE OFFICES WE HOLD, but we are cowardly, so unlike the Republicans, we pretend to care, when in fact we do not.

Need proof? Obama in two years has gotten more US soldiers killed in Afghanistan than Bush in eight years. The Democrats, Obama in particular, actions speak clearly and in a thundering voice. 500 hundred soldiers dead this year alone for a pointless war. No sorry, I think you mean well, but it’s not Obama’s stupidity that caused those deaths, nor his “philosophy”, it’s his socipathic nature…which is common amongst men who have been rejected by their mothers. His venality is not a result of some failed philosophy, his sociopathic venality seeks justification for his actions any philosophy will do.

Economics has seen the void created by the major religions abandonment of justifications for abject brutality and has stepped into the breach to provide rationalizations for worldwide cruelty. Economics sprung from the loin of religion…and an apple never falls far from the tree.

Not that I’m a huge fan of Dennis Kucinich, but when he votes for the PPACA because, as he says “I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency,” that’s a big indication of how fucked we are. This guy, the supposed paragon of liberal “purity” wouldn’t say “My president” about Bush, but he’ll say that about the Larry Summers-appointing, Petraeus-lionizing, “government can’t create jobs”-proclaiming, New Democrat Obama, and that’s a huge problem for us –and America.

The problem with Kucinich’s rationalization is not that he betrayed some liberal purity or that he said the phrase “my president.” The problem is that he betrayed representative democracy when he did not vote the position that he had campaigned. If politicians are free to contradict their clear campaign positions, then representative democracy is meaningless and there is no legitimate gov’t. What he did was not “un-liberal” — it was un-American.

(And his justification — “I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency” — was Orwellian (or Obama-ian) in that his higher responsibility was to represent the people who voted for him based on the position he campaigned on. His higher responsibility was to do the opposite of what he did.)

These people in the Obama Administration, the New Democrat Coalition and the establishment Democratic policy and messaging infrastructure have a different idea than movement liberals about what is good and what is evil.

I think that we have the same idea about what is evil: Lying and deceiving in order to get what you want. The non-evil approach would be to present your views to the population and attempt to convince them that you are correct. What dictator hasn’t thought that he knew better than the populace? “The king is a good man — he knows better than we do.” What distinction is there from this view and the elaborate rationalization that the NDC has come up with?

Just to be clear, when you say that we can predict that they will do their damndest to enact HAMP-style policies that will put the interests of people last, and the interests of institutional actors first, you’re absolutely correct.

That’s different than simply predicting that they will be “evil,” though, and a far more useful approach, in my opinion.

Agreed: In specific instances, specific descriptions/predictions are to be preferred over a general prescription. I was giving a general prescription because I was not describing a specific instance. When describing a general observation, the more useful approach is to use general terms. So, your recommendation is misplaced.

In general terms, we can predict that when political pressure builds sufficiently to cause action that will harm the interests of the wealthy and corporate class, then Obama and his supporting Democrats will lie, deceive, and hide their goals (“which are for your own good, children”) and will, in an Orwellian manner, use liberal/left/progressive rhetoric to sell/market their actions. Briefly put (too briefly?), “they will be ‘evil’.”

If you were to speak to fellow movement liberals in the States about Obama and the Democrats, and you told them that Obama was indistinguishable from Bush on the things that matter, you would receive one of a number of fact-based arguments in return, any of which seem intuitively true, correspond highly with received common knowledge, and are therefore understandable to and repeatable by even the least informed.

The problem described here is two-fold: 1) How do “movement liberals” perform an end-run around corporate media outlets? Corporate media outlets are not going to give “movement liberals” a platform to present their views in opposition to the DNC’s views. 2) What views should the “movement liberals” present to counter the short-hand responses that the DNC has?

– Obama did appoint Sotomayor, Bush appointed Constitution-In-Exilist “Sc-alito.”
– Obama did repeal DADT, Bush would never have signed that law.
– Bush did invade Iraq, Obama would not have –even if we can reasonably argue that he probably would have voted for both AUMFs, had he been in the Senate at the time.
– The Democrats did pass “Health Care Reform,” the Republicans unanimously opposed it.
– The Democrats did pass a nominally Keynesian “stimulus package,” the Republicans unanimously opposed it.
– The modern GOP is still the party of the Southern Strategy, and the Democratic President of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama.

Over and over again, any liberal Democrat in this country with even a cursory understanding of current politics will mostly likely make the case that the policies of the Democrats are vastly different than the policies of the Republicans.

(formatting added)

This, I think, was the most useful part of SZ’s post — a description of a practical political problem that should be addressed. What is needed is a concise response to all of these items (and more) that describes the reality so that “any liberal Democrat in the country” can ask “Who are you going to believe, that guy or your lying eyes?” Of course, that will mean that liberal Democrats are going to have to engage in the battle in the civil war against the DNC. When someone says that bush appointed Alito and Roberts, a liberal democrat will have to respond that presidents only nominate judges — neither of these men would be on the court if it hadn’t been for the votes of democrats in the senate. Because those senators don’t have to pay a political price for their votes, they feel free not to represent their constituents.

James Galbraith: Whose Side is the White House On?

The Democratic Party has become too associated with Wall Street. This is a fact. It is a structural problem. It seems to me that we as progressives need — this is my personal position — we need to draw a line and decide that we would be better off with an under-funded, fighting progressive minority party than a party marked by obvious duplicity and constant losses on every policy front as a result of the reversals in our own leadership.

What is at stake in the long run? Two things, mainly, in my view. First, it seems to me that we as progressives need to make an honorable defense of the great legacies of the New Deal and Great Society — programs and institutions that brought America out of the Great Depression and bought us through the Second World War, brought us to our period of greatest prosperity, and the greatest advances in social justice. Social Security, Medicare, housing finance — the front-line right now is the foreclosure crisis, the crisis, I should say, of foreclosure fraud — the progressive tax code, anti-poverty policy, public investment, public safety, and human and civil rights. We are going to lose these battles– get used to it. But we need to make an honorable fight, to state clearly what our principles are and to lay down a record which is trustworthy for the future.

Beyond this, bold proposals are what we should be advancing now; even when they lose, they have their value. We can talk about job programs; we can talk about an infrastructure bank; we can talk about Juliet Schor’s idea of a four-day work week; we can talk about my idea of expanding Social Security and creating an early retirement option so that people who are older and unemployed or anxious to get out of the labor force can leave on comfortable terms, and so create job openings for younger people who, as we’ve heard today, are facing very long periods of extremely aggravating and frustrating unemployment; we can talk about establishing a systematic program of general revenue sharing to support state and local governments, we can talk about the financial restructuring we so desperately need and that we’ll have to have if we are going to have a country which has a viable private credit system and in which large financial power is not constantly dictating the terms of every political maneuver.

(emphasis added)

Next month, when Obama and the right-wing propose to cut Social Security, liberal democrats should be responding that Social Security should be expanded, Medicare should be expanded. Are there any liberal democrats in national office? Dennis Kucinich, please put your hand down.

…you can choose to say that you’d much rather vote for a liberal Democrat than a Third Way Democrat, since the latter’s governance always results in a net loss for ordinary people due to their ivory tower fantasies about how things are supposed to work in the real world.

I’m assuming that this is not what you would have liberal democrats say. I’m hoping that you would not. I’m hoping that liberal democrats will have specific criticisms and specific proposals, rather than referencing a “third way democrat” label/brand.

Example: Don’t tell people that under bush and obama habeus corpus has been suspended. (In fact, forget the phrase “habeus corpus” — like you’ve never heard of it.) Tell them that the gov’t. is locking people up and not providing a reason for doing it. Tell them that the gov’t. can come into their house, take away them or a family member, and never provide a reason. People are against the gov’t. locking people up and not even providing a reason. Tell them that Obama, the NDC, and the right-wing are in favor of it. Repeat.

But we need to make an honorable fight, to state clearly what our principles are and to lay down a record which is trustworthy for the future.

This is exactly what I want the democrats to do, even if it means still losing. I want them to fight for what’s right, not compromise on the important issues. Because compromising on the important issues looks (is) the same as losing, and if we’re going to lose anyway, I’d rather lose and stick to my principles.

To this comment by a sincere, decent guy:

“we need to draw a line and decide that we would be better off with an under-funded, fighting progressive minority party than a party marked by obvious duplicity and constant losses on every policy front as a result of the reversals in our own leadership.”

I reply. Once the remaining FDR/LBJ Democrats have left the ‘roach motel” of the Democratic party has it ever occurred to anyone that HiFi-Corp funding will dry up for said same? If the Democratic Party has lost it’s scent and it’s ability to hold onto people…what purpose does it serve? Dems would loose every seat they have without FDR/LBJ Democrats, they would go the way of the Whigs. I don’t think evil people are stupid, just venal, why would they pay to watch a bunch of pop-pom girls play against the varsity football team?

There would be one team in town and one employer and every one of those little douche bags who have betrayed us since at least 2003 would have to get on their knees and give a good Booman just to get hired as a butler. Freed from duplicity of “Careerists” such as the like Josh Marshal, Ezra K Matt Y who call for other men to serve in senseless foreign wars, we could re-establish a party that represented working families, people who have to pull a paycheck to survive.

The “Labor” Party’s platform must be short, it must protect working people of all classes before and ABOVE any other value. Without “Four Freedoms” the rest of your realized hopes won’t fill a thimble. I say this because I have just spent the last ~45 years watching one working class group after another get systematically peeled off and thrown in the bin. Once the ability to make a living without daily fear is lost, so to the appetite for the justice of other human beings. Once a working person is secure in their person, there desire for justice blooms like a plant with soil and water. Once the Democrats started walking away from the working class in the 1970’s, the return of 19th century economics was assured.

This has been a long drought that could have ended in 2008 those of us who were not taken it must walk out of this desert. Those that were fooled, but not fools are welcome. Those who used the words cunt, racist and bitch should stay with the “Democratic” party until it dies and is folded into the Republican party. I am not the biggest fan of Hillary, but for group that’s willing to settle for the slightly lesser of two evils, Hillary was a factor of 10 above Obama.

* I am sure all the wordsmiths will want to label it with clique like “MYIQ2L4O” acronyms…or take their ball and go home, but the US needs a Labor Party, not a Green, Woman’s, African, Gay, Atheist, Mexican, or Methodist party, it needs a party that represents 80% of the population that live pay check to pay check.

It wasn’t more than a few months ago where I was arguing with you in regards to obama and I was on the evil intention side and you were on the side that he had merely bought into the establishment bullshit. I was making similar points that you are now making in regards to his true intent. It’s good to hear that you appear to be giving the evil intention opinion a bit more thought

Here’s the distinction in the comments I wrote above versus the comments that I made months ago (which I also made early in these comments*):

Obama&co have, I think, shown themselves to have “evil” intent when it comes to politics, but they believe (religiously, despite all evidence) in their economic policy. Politics versus economics. What I was arguing months ago is that they did/do believe in their economic policy (which is what SZ is saying in his posts above), but they are dishonest/evil in getting it enacted (politics). For example, Obama can well believe that protecting the insurance and drug companies is the best way to provide medical services to the country (economic policy), but he did not make that argument to the country. “You, the people, don’t agree with me, but I know better than you so I’ll lie and deceive you” (politics).

*See here: https://www.ianwelsh.net/centrists-dont-want-to-the-do-the-right-thing/#comment-12906
and here: https://www.ianwelsh.net/centrists-dont-want-to-the-do-the-right-thing/#comment-12911

Here we go,

A single Issue, yeah that’s winner, right out of the “Divide and Conquer” playbook.

Did you read “not a Green, Woman’s, African, Gay, Atheist, Mexican, or Methodist party, it needs a party that represents 80% of the population that live pay check to pay check.”

Z most people who work for a living aren’t going to make the connection…and if they did…and you succeeded beyond your/my wildest expectations and totally reformed politics as we know it….then your party should go out of business…leaving working people with nothing.

Go poll people, try “With record unemployment and ever declining wages, which do you think is more important, to feed and clothe yourself, or election reform?” Beyond dumb, it’s in “Public Option” territory.

Let’s see the PPFEP, the Purely Publicly Financed Elections Party…got it. Yeah, I’ll add that to my “MYIQ2L4O” acronyms list.

s brennan,

Oh, here we go, I see that you are off on one of your foolish, arrogant bents again …

It’s not Divide and Conquer; it’s Unite and Conquer.

Look at the extremely low congressional approval ratings of the two parties and one can discern that there is a lot of angst about a lack of representation. I don’t think it is a very hard argument to make that big money has taken over control over our government and both republicans … have you ever heard of the tea party? … and democrats can agree to that. That singular issue could conceivably unite a big enough part of the population to vote in representatives that promise to vote for that. Without representation, we can’t get the legislation that is needed to improve the lives of the vast majority of the population. That’sa step one. Is that really that hard to sell?

Until we neutralize the power of the well-financed forces that continue to corrupt our politics, we are in a very uphill battle. And lots of luck getting a bunch of republicans to buy into a labor party. They should, but they won’t.

wft were you intending to get across with this garble:

Z most people who work for a living aren’t going to make the connection…and if they did…and you succeeded beyond your/my wildest expectations and totally reformed politics as we know it….then your party should go out of business…leaving working people with nothing.

Your poll question is misleading and irrelevant.

Yeah, sure mate, without an acronym that adheres tightly to the party’s agenda, we don’t have a chance. It always comes down to the acronyms. And what exactly is the democratic and republican party’s acronyms again?

Z

cathyx:

You wrote:

I agree with the difficulty in following what your point was, and I had the same questions as the others. But what I was expecting at the end of your first post was what you think the strategy should be to combat these new democrats. If you have one, please tell me, because I’m very frustrated with how things are.

First of all, sorry about that. It’s very tough to get this idea across to folks who have never heard it before. Jay Ackroyd agrees with that difficulty, too, here ( http://my.firedoglake.com/stuartzechman/2010/12/26/we-must-be-a-different-base/#comment-2 ), although he’s kind enough not to mention that it’s a function of my writing, as well.

To answer your question, I think that strategies for taking the Democratic Party back from New Democrats include, but are not limited to:

1) influencing the political press corps, as movement conservatives have

2) creating media, as movement conservatives have

3) identifying the New Democrats and their Third Way ideology to fellow movement liberals, by assembling information resources and creating communications opportunities (if that sounds nebulous, I’ll go into greater detail later)

4) breaking the hold of New Democrats over the national Democratic Party through local campaigns for Congressional seats

5) getting really fucking clear on what we believe and who we are, which means working on eliminating “Benevolent Democrat” ( http://www.correntewire.com/new_benevolent_democrats ) sentiments, statist-when-it’s-your-party sentiments, pure partisan tribalism, pure personality loyalism and identity politics, and other destructive, counter-productive forces from movement liberalism, and coalescing around a core, recognizable ideological identity

Each of these points I’ve tried to implement, with some small, yet surprisingly rapid successes, cathyx. Of course, much brighter people than I will come up with better plans, and be more competent in implementing them, I’m sure.

I hope that begins to answer that important “but what do we do about it?” question, thanks so much for asking.

anon2525:

What I was arguing months ago is that they did/do believe in their economic policy (which is what SZ is saying in his posts above), but they are dishonest/evil in getting it enacted (politics).

That’s correct. What’s particularly vile about the New Democrats is how they ruthlessly they exploit the safety of hostage populations when pressuring liberal Democrats.

Remember the “4o million uninsured” who would die, if the PPACA wasn’t passed?

Didn’t we just have the unemployed’s insurance benefits held over our heads, if our representatives didn’t vote into law the non-binding Kyl-Linoln (that’s right, New Democrat Blanche Lincoln http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2907&kaid=103&subid=111 ) amendment which raised the inheritance exemption from Bush’s $1 million to a whopping $5 million tax-free ( http://kyestates.com/2010/07/14/breaking-news-5m-exemption-35-rate-sought-amendment-small-business-jobs-bill/ )?

The New Democrats have a pretty clear strategy: every major piece of Third Way policy legislation requires a hostage population for sufficient leverage over liberal Democrats in Congress. It’s dishonest, and, yes, it’s evil.

To give an example of this lack of thought on Obama’s part (blinded by arrogance), there is his interview on the Daily Show in which he says that when he came into office, he didn’t do what Roosevelt did. He took the “responsible” course of action. How stupid and arrogant does a “democrat” have to be to call Roosevelt irresponsible for the actions that he took when he first got into office (the famous 100 days)? (And only a few days before the mid-term election.) Before then only a republican would have done such a thing. (Besides being stupid and arrogant, his remarks were also ignorant about the history.) Before Obama did that, you would likely say, “he can’t be that stupid.”

anon2525,

I don’t agree that obama thinks that clinton’s economic policies will work in this situation like they did back then. I think that’s absurd … it’s an entirely different economic landscape. What, we need more free trade that ends up sending jobs overseas? More financialization of our economy? That’s going to spark the economy up?

IMO a lot of clinton’s economic policies have helped put us where we are right now … clinton reaped the short-term benefits of those policies and there are no bubbles or tech revolutions that obama is advancing to help those policies produce the effects that they had back then.

Z

Most people on our side believe that the Democrats in the capital are “as liberal as they can be, given the circumstance.”

These “most people…believe” claims are ones that I have spoken with many people about, and, unfortunately, what most people believe that “most people believe” varies depending on who I talk to. So, I take your claim with a grain or two of salt. Even if “most people believe” this about Democrats, a large percentage do not. A large percentage believe that the democrats did not support liberal policies as well as they could, and as a result did not vote for them in November. Whether or not this large percentage of voters was “most” or not, it was enough that a large percentage of non-liberal democratic politicians lost their elections.

anon2525,

Whatever dude, the point still holds …

Z

I don’t agree that obama thinks that clinton’s economic policies will work in this situation like they did back then. I think that’s absurd … it’s an entirely different economic landscape. What, we need more free trade that ends up sending jobs overseas? More financialization of our economy? That’s going to spark the economy up?

This is going on in both the U.S. and Europe, not the adoption of Clinton’s economic policies, but the adoption of economic policies that are counter-productive. Absurd? They wouldn’t do it? They are</em doing it. (At the moment, only Iceland is taking appropriate economic steps, and they appear to be doing it because their (very small) country was in extreme crisis, which knocked out all of the previous political officeholders.) And why are they doing it? In part because they believe in an economic theory that has been proven false by history.

In an interview in 2009, Obama (the self-serving liar — we take it with a grain of salt) said that he selected former Clinton people to run his economic policy because it was a time of crisis and there were not a lot of people with gov't. experience that also had experience with economics and wall street. Never mind his explanation — he chose former Clinton people so we can assume that he expected them to be successful in averting or lessening the crisis of the moment, whether they duplicated to economic policies of the 90s or came up with new policies for the current situation.

anon2525,

The absurdity is not that obama is doing it … he’s serving the rich, that’s what the deceitful bastard does … the absurdity is your belief that he thinks those clinton era policies are going to “take hold” and turn the economy around.

Z

anon2525,

You’ll argue forever to avoid admitting you’re wrong. As I explained above, you’ve misconstrued the person who I think is being absurd: it is you.

The difference between obama and the republicans is that obama ran on, and articulated, an economic view that was a lot different than what he has effectuated; the republicans have not, they’ve consistently ran on tax cuts, deregulation and free trade.

I guess it’s just an accident that obama’s economic policies benefit his biggest donors; in particular the health care companies, the oil companies, and wall street. Funny, how his “mistakes” and “miscalculations” keep benefiting them and will very likely benefit him in the form of campaign donations if he runs again … I doubt it … or once he leaves office.

You’re a smart person, but you argue to be right, you don’t debate to get at the truth IMO. You’re never wrong, you’re only misunderstood.

Z

My statement: Obama appears to me to think, “Hey, just give it time — we have to persevere. Clinton’s policies didn’t start to take hold until his second term. I have Clinton’s people running my economic policy.”

Your statement: I don’t agree that obama thinks that clinton’s economic policies will work in this situation like they did back then. I think that’s absurd.

If you think that there is an absurdity in the above statements, it is of your own making. No one said that Obama is carrying out Clinton’s economic policies. That was your jumping to a conclusion. You then declared that you think that your own conclusion is absurd. Everyone can read the text in the comments above.

You’ll argue forever to avoid admitting you’re wrong.

Instead of describing about my psychological state (thanks for the therapy, btw), how about presenting reasons that people reading your comments find convincing? And who cares what I think? All that should matter is that you provide good evidence and logic.

As I explained above, you’ve misconstrued the person who I think is being absurd: it is you.

Answered. You’ve jumped to a conclusion and that asserted an absurdity exists. Even you should be able to see that in what you wrote.

…you argue to be right, you don’t debate to get at the truth IMO.

Again, who cares what I think or what my psychological state is? Either present good reasoning and evidence for what you think is true or… don’t.

You’re never wrong, you’re only misunderstood.

Who cares about me? Why do you keep bringing up my psychological failings? What does this have to do with my argument that Obama is evil and stupid? Why do you not present some evidence that people cannot be both evil and stupid? (there can only be evil geniuses?) Or some evidence that Obama does not agree with the people who are around him and that he’s associated with since before he got into office, all of whom proclaim to believe in an economic theory that has been shown to be invalid?

A few additional remarks, but these will include some links, which will likely put the post into moderation, or I’ll break them up into small posts with only a few links each.

(Warning: if the debate is going to degrade into a discussion about my psychological failings — and they are numerous — then I’m going to be dropping out until the debate resumes, if it ever does.)

Here’s an example that Krugman writes about in which people who have been shown to be wrong by events continue to believe that their approach is correct:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/grownups/

Then there’s this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/they-have-made-a-desert/

(continued…)

Consider this piece of effrontery: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20081124,00.html

Sorry, but as a rule I don’t read Time. Maybe when the adult version comes out:

http://www.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version-of-magazine-aimed-at-ad,17950/

Reposting the final Krugman quote, above. I screwed up the HTML (again) and omitted this link

The case for expansionary policies in the face of a slump is intellectually difficult; Keynes described the writing of the General Theory as a painful process of discovery, and so it is. The natural instinct of almost everyone is to think that tough times require tough measures, and that if the economy is suffering, the government should tighten its own belt. It would take a clear consensus from economists to overcome that natural bias.

And that consensus has, of course, been lacking — largely because a significant proportion of the economics profession has spent the last three decades systematically destroying the hard-won knowledge of macroeconomics. It’s truly a new Dark Age, in which famous professors are reinventing errors refuted 70 years ago, and calling them insights.

The ancient Greeks had a saying that Krugman puns on: “Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain”

We should be more worried about Obama&co stupidly believing in a discredited economic theory than their having an evil economic point of view (that is, if they knew that their public economic reasoning was incorrect and a lie). Overcoming a discredited-but-plausible theory is much more difficult, especially when the more correct economic theory is unintuitive.

“You know as well as anyone that the nature of my arguments are that they are meant to be consumed by ordinary people –I’m the one explaining in mainstream commentary what movement liberals, us neo-New Dealers are to movement conservatives in front of partisan Democrats.

This is not an elite affair, you must know that.

That’s part of the strategy.”

SZ, I know that you earnestly believe this is true, but I’m afraid ordinary people is a pretty nebulous and subjective term. Ordinary folks like engaged news consumers at Time.com? Engaged blogospherists here or at FDL? Or just ordinary Americans getting their news from a glance at dead tree papers and/or their local newscasts or whatever pap smear CNN is streaming across their telly. Folks busting their ass 24/7, with time for their families, maybe their church, and, god willing, some football.

Listen, I know we’re on the same team. I simply have grave misgivings about the course you envision. Not saying that my own ideas are concise or coherent either, BTW, or that I have the magic formula. I think your response to Cathy is a way forward, but it’s marginal at best at a time when small steps are very unlikely to prevent some particularly unpleasant things from occuring. You approach leaves me observing most of our rhetorical energy designed to communicate liberalism to people who already think they’re liberal, or that Barack and Bill are champions of the working class.

And here’s my rub–what if the ordinary Americans aren’t paying attention to this conversation at all. What if, in lieu of taking to the streets, door to door, on behalf of some as yet unnamed/unformed movement, we’re merely preaching to our peers, a largely educated, professional class with the leisure time to post/consume blog commentary day in day out.

IMO, these people, if they don’t already see the light of day, it’s often b/c they have no interest in waging the type of battles that I think are necessary to prevent collapse. They’re still too comfortable–more radical (i.e. necessary) steps might threaten what they have, all for whom, the migrant workers, Walmart employees, truckers? See Chris Hedges for the type of visceral contempt such “liberals” deserve.

There’s a silent majority out there that’s a ready-made base for another new deal. All our money, all our energy, should be directed at them, not the likes of Patrick Sartor.

Finally, I’m curious about what you think of Ian’s contention the day after the midterms:

“The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama.”

B/C if you’re not onboard for such a movement, you’re very likely putting any of this desperately necessary work off until 2016. Every day he’s in office, liberal dies a little bit more. Your party (no longer mine, at least not until further notice) will not begin rehabilitation until he’s rejected soundly.

anon2525,

Psychological failings? You really take things too personal.

I never said that people can’t be both evil and stupid; you jumped to that foolish conclusion. I’m not arguing about that pointless hypothesis. You said that obama is evil politically and stupid economically. I said that obama … who hasn’t fought a damn bit for the 99ers and did little to fix the foreclosure crisis and has instead focused much more on restoring wall street’s wealth and power … is evil on the economic front. But hey, maybe he just is incapable of understanding why certain progressive economic policies would benefit the country even though he articulated during his campaign why those policies would work. And hey, why change course now that everything is going so well.

And who cares what I think?

There you go … that’s the most meaningful point you made in our whole discussion.

Oh, and hold your warnings to yourself … arguing for argument’s sake on matters such as whether people can be both evil and stupid hardly interests me. I just don’t find it that compelling. That’s just plain stupid IMO.

Z

I’ll speak a kind word for anon2525, he and I have not always gotten along, but his words are far more worthy than his outspoken critics have been.

jcapan, you are right on the mark with your last remark! A return to FDR/IKE/LBJ domestic policies would restore the republic. The Gilded age policies ushered in by Friedman/Jarvis/Reagan 32 years ago have been disastrous.

” A return to FDR/IKE/LBJ…Don’t fall for this again, folks” – Morocco Bama

How old are you buddy? Did you experience life when we landed on the moon and even our enemies praised our efforts. For the last 35 years working class people in the US have been working longer hours, retiring later and becoming poorer. How old are you buddy?

“It’s time to shred this Plutocratic Oligarchical system once and for all and replace it with something just and equitable. I know that’s not going to happen” – Morocco Bama

How old are you buddy? I suggesting we go back to what worked, had somebody suggested in 1964 we would go back tot he idiocy of the Gilded Age most folks would have said something like “there’s no going back”. You “bark at the moon” and suggest a better plan is your head.

“Well brother, we would all like to see the plan” because you sound like an Obamanaught with the dreamy eyed “Pubic Option” instead of the straight forward LBJ plan of expanding Medicare downward. How old are you buddy?

Morocco,

“That’s not in the cards, and you’re powerless to change that fact.”

You’ll find no greater admirer of Zinn. And while I fear you’re right about the first half of your statement, he would surely disagree with the latter point.

In one of his last interviews before his death, he said:

“I guess if I want to be remembered for anything, it’s for introducing a different way of thinking about the world, about war, about human rights, about equality, for getting more and more people to think that way.

Also, for getting more people to realize that the power which rests so far in the hands of people with wealth and guns, that the power ultimately rests in people themselves and that they can use it. At certain points in history, they have used it. Black people in the South used it. People in the women’s movement used it. People in the anti-war movement used it. People in other countries who have overthrown tyrannies have used it.

I want to be remembered as somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn’t have before.”

http://bigthink.com/howardzinn/

Not that I’m accusing you of the sentiment, but Zinn never stood for apathy.

I think SZ’s analysis (that I have read in this thread) is spot on, and jibes entirely with my experience of mainstream econ blogs and suchlike: they really don’t believe that the people can ever be capable of economic self-government, collective or individual. That may be a stupid belief; it may be an evil belief. But a whole lot of things flow from that particular belief. For example, it becomes imperative to support the existing financial industry, rather than convert the distribution of money into a public utility (or to permit reversion to a gold standard for that matter).

The PPACA can be explained that way too. A single-payer system puts health care allocation under at least nominal democratic (small d) control. As this is unacceptable, they must create an arcane system that *attempts* to keep health care out of popular control BUT somehow “bends the cost curve” which we know it cannot do…

Mandos.

It would be rather convenient of them to decide for us that we are incapable of economic self-government and that we are better off having them look after our economy and deciding what is best for S>them us. And, by the way, they seem to be okay with allowing people to make stupid economic decisions, such as buying a house that that they can’t afford, when it benefits wall street.

Z

Oh, fuck it … I intended to strike out the “them” near the end of the first sentence of the posts above.

Z

Just in case that link doesn’t get you far enough down the page, because of all of the wait time while the ad widgets load, the comment to which I’m referring starts as:

Thanks Glacier for focusing attention on the Brits
This will be a long comment, related to your post but going much deeper. Forgive me perhaps, for hijacking your thread, but this screed has been floating around my brain all week and this seemed like a good place to park it.

The thing about Britain is that their debate is closer to the real meat and potatoes of what this argument is all about. Ours is frustratingly diverted into “Like or Dislike Obama” or “Is the Tea Party Racist” and other tangential questions.

Britain makes it clear: it’s really about social democracy vs. neoliberalism.

It is important that an Open Left understand this. This is the debate that is barely allowed to be mentioned on our side of the pond but it’s the crucial distinction.

When Paul Krugman argues for Keynesianism he’s taking the social democratic side of this argument. But he’s not allowed to say so, or at least not willing.

The mistake of our side in the past period was in not understanding how strongly our opponents believed in the other side of this argument. It was indeed their central rationale. It wasn’t “just politics”. ..

I see the children are babbling on.

The Guardian has this collection of pictures that speak volumes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit

These are image memories of the future for a place that has no future.

Endless prattle, mostly inane, raising gossamer words to obscure what should be perceived

unaided; what is, that is plain before their eyes.

Words without the weight of thought, carelessly strewn about; language without the anchor of shared meaning, adrift in a swirling sea of belief driven by the word-winds of the moment. Helpless. Cartoons of credibility. Existing. Solely to prove:

“Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, that to opine away, and remove all doubt.”

Since I’m at it, might as well …

Anon-whatever has been spreading their opinions as thickly as sand on the seashore of late. A reminder, when your opinions are so common as sand on the seashore, each opinion, like a grain of sand, has neither much significance, nor value. Furthermore, should there be a grain of diamond amongst the sand, no-one would ever know it. Hopefully you will gain a modicum of maturity this coming year; do wipe the cheeto dust from your fingers.

I think we all should adopt T-Bear’s Doris Day approach to these matters. It’s much less stressful, and some would argue downright blissful…in its ignorance.

God, how I love Doris Day. She’s what America should be. Here’s to Doris Day. Enjoy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

It’s mostly a self-serving myth that, in general, the quiet are the wise.

Anon, whom I had, also, seen there even referred to me in a post.

Must be a different anon. We are legion. I’ve never been to Swampland (that’s at “Time,” correct?)

I, absolutely, do not believe that Obama is evil. I believe he, like John Kerry and Bill Clinton wishes not to offend anybody and likes to find a place where we all can be halfway infuriated rather than anybody being totally infuriated.

“absolutely?” Does this mean that you know him personally or have spent much time around him. It’s awfully difficult to know someone “absolutely,” or even “very, very well.” Or is that just rhetoric?

It’s fairly clear to me that Obama is willing to substitute his judgment in favor of representing the judgment of the people who elected him. He lied repeatedly about what he was going to do when he got in office. The argument or discussion in the set of posts, above, is whether or not his economic policy is evil (meaning that it is intended to benefit a few while being sold as benefiting the whole of the economy, as opposed to benefiting the whole of the economy while being sold to benefit the whole). As far as I can tell from what people have written, above, there is general agreement that his politics are evil (that is, he lies to get what policy he wants).

(O/T: Why would people want to frequent a website called “Swampland?” The name sounds as though the people who set it up hold the people who write there in contempt. They didn’t name it “The Wetlands” or “The Biologically Diverse and Useful Area” or “The Tropical Rainforest.”)

Relatedly, for those who have not read it, Jon Walker has written a dialog between a Progressive and a Corporatist Democrat.

Unless I have misread them, I don’t think that anyone in any of the posts above supports the position of the Corporatist Democrat.

“It’s not that they desire or welcome obscenely high foreclosure and unemployment rates …… ”

somehow ‘they’ are not responsible for the consequences of thier actions – only their “desires” count – wherever do these people (‘they’) get their moral compass from?