…is to wrangle voters for oligarchs then enact policies to make the rich, richer.
This is clearly indicated by jobs for the families of politicians and the way that politicians are rewarded post-career.
The Clintons had a 100 million dollars a few years after leaving the White House.
Seven figure lobbying jobs are routine for Senators after their legislative career. Before that, their families are taken care of, and most of them somehow become multi-millionaires.
The same is true for high ranking bureaucrats. Timothy Geithner, who helped bail out Wall Street was giving six figure speeches almost immediately after leaving his post.
If you want to know who someone works for, look for who pays them.
You pay lawmakers far less than the rich. They do not work for you.
I would estimate that this is true of well over 90 percent of American politicians.
When Russ Feingold was defeated for re-election to the Senate, he took a job as a university Professor. Now this isn’t a terrible fate, and I’m not crying for him, but being the only person to vote against the Patriot Act and not, in general being corrupt, cost him at least a million dollars.
A year.
Americans seem to believe that people act in their self-interest (and should do so) and then, contradictorily, believe their politician should be willing to give up millions to do the right thing.
This is true, by the way, of Obama. His State department effectively immunized bankers for criminal acts by letting them off with fines (fines that did nothing to harm the money they had earned through illegal acts). His number one priority this last year has been the TPP trade deal.
Obama’s presidency oversaw the rich getting even richer, most of the population getting poorer, and there being fewer jobs per capita which pay less. These are his economic results, and they are not accidental.
The good things you can have in an oligarchical government are the good things of which the oligarchs approve. Oligarchs want workers to be interchangeable. Nonsense about gays or transgenders or whatever is bad business.
So are unions. So are good wages.
None of this is to say that you’ll never get thrown a bone, as with Obama’s sponsoring of overtime. But a clear-eyed look at Obama’s record (or Clinton’s, or Bush’s, or that of any Congress in the past 30+ years) indicates that policies were meant primarily for the benefit of the few, not the many.
Politicians wrangle voters for oligarchs, who pay them well for the service. They then pass bills and regulations which help those oligarchs, because it is those oligarchs who give them almost all their money.
If a politician does not do this, and gets into a position of potential power, the attacks are unrelenting.
For an example, please read the media coverage of Corbyn; note also how much he is attacked by Labour party politicians, EVEN as the vast majority of Labour party members support him (and that support has increased since he won the leadership.)
Corbyn didn’t take the money. For decades he didn’t take the money. He didn’t become a Blairite, even though he had every reason to believe that by not doing so, he was condemning himself to a life as a bank bencher, who would never get rich.
Whether you agree with Corbyn’s beliefs or not, THAT is integrity.
The vast, vast majority of politicians in the developed world are not just corrupt, they are your enemies. The actions they take impoverish and kill you in exchange for wealth and favors from the rich.
A man like Obama or Bill Clinton (or, in the future a woman like Hillary Clinton) is far more likely to ruin your life than Osama bin Laden ever was. Bill Clinton pushing through Welfare “Reform” harmed millions of the poorest weakest people in America. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed the financial crisis to happen.
Unless you are an oligarch, or a retainer who is on the gravy train, people like Clinton, Obama, Blair, Cameron, and Thatcher are your enemies. They are a direct threat to your well-being, welfare, and even life.
The first thing anyone who wants to be realistic about politics and power needs to realize is this fact. They are enemies.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
V. Arnold
You know what really sucks? Having integrity today, means you’re a sucker, according to the majority; who would take the money and run.
Having integrity is a very isolating experience; compromise being the byword of the compromised.
The worst of us (with few exceptions) always rise to power; to the point of being able to ignore elections that do not go our way.
We’re poor little sheep who’ve lost our way; bah, bah, bah…
ProNewerDeal
*stands up, claps vigorously* Thank you, Mr. Welsh.
It appears the Team D Machine pols/staff in Colorado is trying to harm USians, far more than 1SIS or whomever the T3r1st Boogeyman Du Jour is, could ever dream of doing.
On the MedicareForAll issue alone, I feel as though all the BigPol-i-trick-ian & BigMedia crying about T3rr0r1sm is absurd. Harvard Public Health Prof noted that BigPols’ killing of Canadesque-style MedicareForAll kills 45K USians yearly. Aka Bush43/0bama/H Clinton/P Ryan/etc kill 45K USians yearly. IIRC ACA by 2022 MIGHT reduce this mass-murder to “only” ~30K/USians yearly.
Given the lack of MedicareForAll, & the high Type 1 Underemployment Risk, I wonder if 1 is better off being a Wack Arnolds worker in Canada, than a employed BA-holding professional “knowledge” worker in USA. After all, USian professionals can get involuntarily converted to Wack Arnolds worker through no fault of their own. At least Canadians of any job live in a civilized nation with MedicareForAll.
Adam Eran
Spot on. A factoid of interest: Before “the end of welfare as we know it,” emanating from the Clinton White House and Newt’s congress, roughly 76% of those eligible for social safety net programs like AFDC got them. After, the “end”… welfare became a block grant. States had a positive incentive to minimize their welfare rolls, and got to keep the change if they did. Only 26% of those eligible now receive social safety nets.
Blissex
«Unless you are an oligarch, or a retainer who is on the gravy train, people like Clinton and Obama and Blair and Cameron and Thatcher are your enemies. They are a direct threat to your well-being, welfare and even life.»
That’s unfortunately very incomplete. A lot of voters, those in the upper 50% by income, those who have fairly secure, well paid jobs, have good pension plans still or are close to retirement, and own a little property or chunk of shares, think that those people are their friends. Those voters think of themselves as rentiers and, like the wealthier ones, like policies to drive wages lower and unemployment higher, and to drive property prices and rents higher too.
Since Reagan (and before) the dream sold by the policians in anglo-american culture countries to upper-income voters has been that of the “sunny uplands”, of a plantation economy where the rich less rich rentiers would live as masters and trusties in shining mansions on the hill, while the masses of the poor would work hard as servants to make the life of masters and servants easier and cheaper.
Those politicians have earned their wealth by wrangling the voters so that a coalition of rentier interests would come into power. A coalition, not just a few very wealthy sponsors. The policies of the rentier-sponsored politicians are *popular*.
D Frum and G Norquist described in different ways the situation:
«Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.»
«And that is, in 2002, on the investor class stuff … you could have said, just drop $7 trillion in stock market value with the collapse of the bubble … $7 trillion, trillions with a T … Americans had $7 trillion less than they used to have, you can expect them to be very irritated and in trouble. You did see the Republicans run out and agree to Sarbanes-Oxley in reaction to the Enron scandal. But going into November, what actually saved it for the Republicans was the investor vote, which went heavily R. Why? One, they didn’t blame Bush for the collapse of the bubble. They were mad at having lower stock prices and 401(k)s, but they didn’t say Bush did this and that caused this. Secondly, the Democratic solution was to sic the trial lawyers on Enron and finish it off. No no no no no. We want our market caps to go back up, not low.
The 1930s rhetoric was bash business — only a handful of bankers thought that meant them. Now if you say we’re going to smash the big corporations, 60-plus percent of voters say “That’s my retirement you’re messing with. I don’t appreciate that”. And the Democrats have spent 50 years explaining that Republicans will pollute the earth and kill baby seals to get market caps higher. And in 2002, voters said, “We’re sorry about the seals and everything but we really got to get the stock market up.”»
«And then, our job as conservatives is to wake up every day and say how do we make more of us and fewer of them. And the left’s position is the same. I passed out a series of trends here; I’d be very interested in whether people think I’m missing stuff. I would suggest the biggest trend is the number of people who own shares of stock directly. We’ve gone from 17 percent of Americans owning stock to up over 50 percent of households. According to Mark Penn, two-thirds of voters in 2002, 2004, somebody who owns at least $5,000 worth of stock is 18 percent more Republican and less Democratic. African-American, no stock, 6 percent Republican; $5,000 worth of stock, 20 percent Republican. Every demographic group gets better with share ownership.»
Blissex
«States had a positive incentive to minimize their welfare rolls, and got to keep the change if they did. Only 26% of those eligible now receive social safety nets.»
That is probably very popular with many if not most voters, the upper-income 50% who vote for their wallets, and even more popular with the upper-income 5% who fund politicians.
For them that means less of their money wasted on losers. believe in the American Dream: “F*CK YOU! I got mine.”
Ian Welsh
Blissex,
“think that”
The numbers show they are wrong, though what % was wrong has varied.
If you are not in the top 5% or so, Obama has made you worse off.
Shh
Reminds me a bit of Thomas Paine in fire and brevity. You speak well and truly Mr. Welsh.
Not much has changed since Cicero, eh?
Hugh
I agree. The primary weapon of class war is distraction. So if you can take those who are destroying and looting the country, who kill and harm many times more people each year than Osama did once, and you can sell the line that: “You may disagree with them but they aren’t evil people. Mistakes were made, but they acted in good faith (although these agentless “mistakes” always seemed to redound to their benefit) , as I said, if you can sell this, then you have won because those responsible will never be held accountable. And so the looting, criminality, and destruction can continue.
We need to remember that elites justify their privilege, power, and wealth based on the contention that they know more and better than we do. But if the results show that they don’t, if these results show they aren’t just wrong but consistently wrong, if the reality is not just that they are getting richer while we are getting poorer but that they are making us poorer so they can be richer, then the whole rationale for elite privilege disappears. And we are left with the realization, as Ian says, that these people were acting in bad faith, that they are our enemies, and that they should be treated as such.
geoff
“His State department effectively immunized bankers for criminal acts by letting them off with fines (fines that did nothing to harm the money they had earned thru illegal acts.)”
I believe you meant the Justice Department, in particular Eric Holder and Lanny “Too Big To Jail” Breuer, but yes to all of the above.
B lissex
«Unless you are an oligarch, or a retainer who is on the gravy train, people like Clinton and Obama and Blair and Cameron and Thatcher are your enemies. They are a direct threat to your well-being, welfare and even life.»
That’s unfortunately very incomplete. A lot of voters, those in the upper 50% by income, those who have fairly secure, well paid jobs, have good pension plans still or are close to retirement, and own a little property or chunk of shares, think that those people are their friends. Those voters think of themselves as rentiers and, like the wealthier ones, like policies to drive wages lower and unemployment higher, and to drive property prices and rents higher too.
Those politicians have earned their wealth by wrangling those voters so that a coalition of rentier interests would come into power. A coalition, not just a few very wealthy sponsors. The policies of the rentier-sponsored politicians are *popular*.
«States had a positive incentive to minimize their welfare rolls, and got to keep the change if they did. Only 26% of those eligible now receive social safety nets.»
That is probably very popular with many if not most voters, the upper-income 50% who vote for their wallets, and even more popular with the upper-income 5% who fund politicians.
For them that 74% of people who need welfare are not getting it means less of their money wasted on losers. They believe in the American Dream: “F*CK YOU! I got mine.
Stirling Newberry
Excellent article. Truly first rate.
DWBartoo
As always, Ian, your thoughts and perspectives are always very much appreciated.
DW
wendy davis
I’m so glad that you added high-ranking bureaucrats to the list, Ian, as they are often the most apt to go through the revolving door to sit on Big Banking boards, defense contractor boards, etc.
In some ways the fauxlanthropic foundations such as Gates, Clinton, Omidyar Group, and others bother me even more. And I’m not just pinging the Wikileaks on Saudi and other ‘contributions’ to the CF and a the Queen of Chaos selling billions in weapons systems to them (no, no, we’re assured: it was no quid pro quo!, but also the Gates Foundation investing in Monsanto, privatized crap education, and other people-killing and race to the bottom projects. The degree to which they and the many other ‘foundations’ and compromised NGOs drive policy is mammoth, and yet…they’re accountable to no one. And they reap mega-profits as they ‘Charitably Give™.
@ProNewerDeal: Explain please: “It appears the Team D Machine pols/staff in Colorado is trying to harm USians, far more than 1SIS or whomever…” I’d seen a headline, forgot to click in, that the CO legislature was considering some sort of single-player health (insurance) plan.
@DW: Nice to see you, amigo.
DWBartoo
Grand it is to see you, wendy, lass, as well.
I shall yet find my way to your Cafe.
DW
realitychecker
@ DW Bartoo
Have to give you a shout-out, old friend. I do so miss the old opportunities to read your comments and engage with you. Is there any place that you are regularly frequenting these days? I’d love to know, even though Ian is providing a reasonably satisfying substitute for the old Firedog gatherings, and most of his offering, as with this one, are superbly written and reasoned.
@Hugh–You continue to be a delightfully cogent voice, and I thank you for it, sir. I routinely use your Bush and Obama scandal lists to try and open the eyes of my political ostrich acquaintances.
(Hola Wendy.)
Joyce L. Arnold
Excellent. And thank you.
wendy davis
@ DW: We’d enjoy seeing you at Babylon. We are small, but we are doughty! (a bit too on the radical side for some, but…somebody’s gotta do it, no?)
@ Realitychecker: Hella wot? Oh, you must mean ‘hello’; yeeks, your Español accent typing is sucky. (Espero que estés bien.)
alyosha
I kept thinking of this cartoon, that’s about a hundred years old, the Pyramid of Capitalism.
DWBartoo
Ah, realitychecker, it doth mine heart good to once again encounter you.
You and wendy are among those often in my mind and thpoughts.
Namaste.
DW
Synoia
Friends come and Friends go (although it is nice to see familiar names here).
Enemies Accumulate.
realitychecker
@ WD-just meant to signal warm thoughts.
@DW-this is the only place I bother to engage anymore, but I would visit another as well if I knew I might encounter you there, amigo.
S Brennan
Wendy;
Went to your website, liked your stuff and bookmarked.
wendy davis
@ Realitychecker: yes, after my attempt at teasing, I said I hoped you were well. Oh, and agreed on Hugh. That lambert strether banned him, as I believe I remember him saying, got him another notch higher, ho.
@ S Brennan: glad you liked it; come by any time. Soul food an freedom music, and quite eclectic altogether.
(smiles), I’m afraid of punctuation tuning to smileys here; I forget if they do….
ProNewerDeal
@wendy davis , apologies for the confusion in my comment. I read a headline on nakedcapitalism, that the Team D Machine lobbyists are trying to defeat the CO State MedicareForAll Nov 2016 ballot referendum.
Since Harvard Public Health Profs’ estimate 30-45K USians/yr are killed due to lack of CAN-style MedicareForAll, I would say these CO Team D Machine lobbyists are worse than 1SIS in terms of killing USians.
johnm55
I have no problem with Jeremy Corbyn\’s integrity. I did not vote for him in the Labour party leadership election. As a Social Democrat I willingly accept that he was properly elected as leader. Because of that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait and see how or if he manages to reconnect the party to the electorate.
Because politics in Scotland has changed beyond recognition the 40 odd seats we could rely on are probably gone, at least for the foreseeable future. That means that in England, under the current electoral system, we need to attract about 3 to 4 million voters who voted Tory or UKIP at the last election. I don\’t think they voted that way as a protest against Ed Miliband not being left wing enough.
My problem with Jeremy as leader is that I don\’t think, that for all his integrity,*that his personality and policies reach much beyond the people who elected him leader
*Although I think that there is more to integrity than always following your own ideas regardless of the wider consequences.
Bella Venturi
Hedges: Reform or Revolution
wendy davis
Thank you, ProNewerDeal; I couldn’t find it there, but I did keep Duck-Ducking, and found this about the D’s being ‘split’ on Amendment 69.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/20/coloradocare-healthcare-plan-faces-opposition-from-democrats
Pfffft on f-ing Hick and Bennet, but hey! Aren’t the Ds the Party of the People?
DHS or some acronym sent me a letter telling me I had to file a form for fining myself for not purchasing ObamaDontCare. After downloading forms, looking at the arcane rap instructions, I put a cover letter on our return and said: ‘Here, you figure it out, name the fine.’ What a con that rubbish is. Thing is, we don’t even go to docs, so it adds insult to injury to be fined.
Looking at the amendment, sadly once again the self-employed carry all 10% of the tax increases themselves. That ain’t right: we self-employed are (or were) The Job Creators!
someofparts
My sense of things is that Jimmy Carter was a Russ Feingold kind of guy.
Blissex
«“think that” The numbers show they are wrong, though what % was wrong has varied.»
I mostly agree with this, the number show that for the past some years, but the top 50% of the working/middle class have been right (in particular the older women in that group, which electorally matter a great deal) for most of the past 30 years: stocks kept going up, house prices kept going up, wages of the bottomost 50% kept going down or sideways at best, prices of chinese-imported stuff have kept going down.
The story changed a bit in 2001 and even more so in 2008.
My impression is that the upper 50%, who have eagerly traded good wages, jobs and pensions, for bigger asset prices and lower import prices, have always been fools, and that the long term outcome is that they would lose both. When the mini-rentiers, or their heirs, find that when the asset price boom is ended, the good jobs, wages, pensions are gone and they cannot get them back, because the upper 1-5-10% will tell them “you voted to get rid of good wages, jobs, pensions, thinking it meant for other people, the losers, but now you are losers yourselves, and this is what you chose”.
But in the meantime most of the older mini-rentiers, the older 50-70% of the baby boom generation, have had it real good (especially the women, which matter electorally), because first they did enjoy the benefits of good wages, jobs and pensions, and then also those of growing asset prices and shrinking import prices and wages.
Ian Welsh
Yes Blissex, I’ve made that argument many times, mostly under the rubric “death bet”.
Popeye
Hello my long lost friends DW, Wendy, and Realitychecker. I just had to register to say hello to you. I don’t comment on politics anymore as I feel it is an effort in futility. Hope you are all well.
Namaste my friends!
DWBartoo
Popeye, you are yet with us! A delight to see you, dear friend.
Namaste
DW
realitychecker
Hi Popeye. As usual, you are showing more sense than most of us lol.
Popeye
@Realitychecker
It only took 61 years to figure out. LOL
DWBartoo
I do not much comment these days, on line, realitychecker, as I am spending more of my time encouraging the young who are being so viciously savaged by neoliberal and neoconnnish greed and abuse. The world already belongs to the young, and we older sorts ought, I consider, express our interest in helping the young as much as we may and, as well offer our appreciation for the courage, tolerance, and understanding which the young demonstrate so very consistently. I shall, however, happily check in here, on a regular basis, that I might find old and valued friends.
DW
Seas of Promethium
Meh.
Bella Venturi
@Seas of Promethium – not floating your boat? How ’bout this then:
A Harvard MBA Guy Is Out to Bring Down the Clintons
realitychecker
@ DW Bartoo
Any day and any place I get to see your fonts is a good day and a good place, my cherished friend.
I applaud how you are using your energies and talents, I am trying to do the same here at home, on the same reasoning, albeit probably within a much smaller circle, because I’ve been forced to the conclusion that the masses are simply not educable on a mass basis, and will just have to endure the terrible natural consequences of their choices. A man has got to accept his limitations, and mine seems to be that I can only effectively help those who are within arm’s length.
Hugs and love to you, my brother of the heart.
Namaste.