In a recent Washington Post op-ed piece Harold Meyerson speaks about the end of days of Rove.
“It's also that conservatives have run out of agenda. With his preemptive war and seemingly permanent occupation in Iraq and his attempt to privatize Social Security, George W. Bush pushed American conservatism past the point where the American people were willing to go — pushed them, in fact, to the point where they recoiled at the conservative project. And with that, American conservatism shuddered to a halt. In the 2005-06 congressional session, Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, yet they introduced no major legislation.”
All true... as far as it goes.
Mr. Meyerson seems to be implying that if the Democrats make a clean sweep in the elections all will finally be set right. The implication is that Rove's Raiders and Cheney's Charlatans will sail away to some mist-enshrouded isle, licking their wounds, never to bother us again.
I wish.
Meyerson, like tens of millions, seems to be so overcome with relief at the thought that these carpetbaggers are soon to be gone that he thinks that Democrats and many independents will finally be able to let down their collective guard.
Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This current phase of the struggle between honest American citizens v. corporate America began with Reagan. There were three major surges of this carpetbagging. Each time it was cloaked in the speech of saviorism. “America is in peril and we'll save you from our enemies! Those without and within!”
The people, angry, confused, with a growing sense of desperation, seeing real social, community, and moral decay, jumped at the chance for anything offering balance and some sense of normalcy. Disaster, either real, imagined or created is the opiate used by opportunists. And there was (and still is) no greater band of opportunists than the reconstructed Republicans under the facile leadership of President Reagan. But things became amazingly ugly as Rove and company, during the Clinton years, began gearing up to retake the White House. Having suffered through Bush Sr., (who was never a real favorite of the emerging neocons and certain extreme Republican conservatives) the “new” Republicans started by relentlessly attacking the Clinton White House and Clinton himself.
The world was stunned at the non-stop vitriolic rant coming from the Republicans on the Hill seemingly over innuendo and dalliance. Let me stop here and state that I am not, nor have I been, a supporter of President Clinton. I am non-partisan. But facts are facts. The Republicans on the Hill behaved for years like rabid dogs. In the end, they managed to bring the government nearly to a complete stop. When Bush was thrown up by the Republican Machine as another charismatic leader (echoes of “I voted for him cuz he talks like me!”) the blood from those dogs was still draining past the beltway.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bennett
Thanks for this M.B.. You point out much that involved citizens (of whatever country) should hear and heed.
I heard an ultra corporate republican pundit saying that unless McCain kowtows to the far right, they'll drop any support for him, and let a Democrat get elected.
Kinda like punting...
She seemed confident that they can obstruct or smear whoever gets elected, leading to the same sort of single term presidency that befell Carter.
The ultra corporate republicans are looking towards 2012, hoping to retake our government in order to establish yet another lengthy feeding frenzy for members of their decades old club.
America has an opportunity to change this. The groundswell of young voters gives me hope that all is not yet lost.
But if it doesn't happen over the next eight years, we may lose the dream that has been America, maybe forever.
2 - Les Slater
Marlowesbeef,
"Fortune 500 CEOs who see them as instrumental in making our government work for corporate ends have not left the building..."
And you think the Dems aren't beholden to them?
Les
3 - Clavos
"And you think the Dems aren't beholden to them?"
You're dead on, Les.
There are as many Dems in corporate boardrooms as there are Reps.
4 - P.Marlowe
Clav, Les... Come on boys, you've read my posts enough to know I've said REPEATEDLY that - LORD KNOWS the Dems are NO SAINTS... As in, yah, they be lovin' the lobbyist loot too...
But between the Dems (and the Reps that aren't slaves to the far right) that have some degree of moral and ethical foundation there is a CHANCE that some good can come.
But of course there are Dems that are beholden to corporate interests -THAT IS THE ISSUE isn't it?!
The only difference is that Corporate America has made the neo-cons of the Rep party their gravy train. The Reps - knowing a lucrative job awaits them the moment they step out of their government posts are quiet eager - far MORE so than Dems - to do the bidding of corporate America...
But of course to a lesser extent it can be said of Dems...
That is why I am an INDEPENDENT.
But the issue is corruption... So who GIVES A RATS ASS WHAT party it is doing it? Is it OK if Republicans do it? But wrong if Democrats do it? Or is it ALWAYS WRONG?
The issue is - who is doing MORE OF IT under WHICH WATCH and why the hell do we allow it?!
Marlowe
5 - P.Marlowe
Bennett... Thanks for the post and hope you're right...
Marlowe
6 - Dave Nalle
"Fortune 500 CEOs who see them as instrumental in making our government work for corporate ends have not left the building..."
And you think the Dems aren't beholden to them?
The basic conceptual error here is in thinking that the interests of corporations, the interests of the people, and the interests of our elected representatives are automatically not compatible.
In fact, corporations are where the people are employed, and their interests ARE the interests of the people and should be represented in government.
As for Rove and Cheney, you're sadly msitaken if you think the Democrats don't have people just as machiavellian waiting in the wings. Their agenda may be slightly different, but the democrats have agenda-driven ideologues just like the neocons, and they have political hatchet-men galore just like Rove.
Dave
7 - Cannonshop
The thing is, Dave, that Rove's famous in part, because he is SO much like his opposite numbers among the Dems in terms of what rules of engagement he follows and the methods he uses. There just aren't that many Conservatives who are both that serious, AND that effective/ruthless in the same biological organism. This is part of why the man is so hated by his opponents, and so despicable as a human being-Conservatives oppose Moral Relativism, Rove PRACTICES it, but for a lip-service conservative cause, instead of where one might reasonably expect his style of tactics-that is, among the Left, whose embracing of Moral Relativism has freed them from the constraints of Honour, and allowed them to co-opt the very language of debate to serve their cause.
Corruption is EXPECTED of Dems, it's a scandal only among Republicans in part because of that party's naive insistence on promoting ideals of morality and honour. Like Man-bites-dog, a corrupt, ruthless, amoral Republican is NEWS, whereas a corrupt, amoral, ruthless Democrat is merely EXPECTED.
8 - Les Slater
Dave,
“In fact, corporations are where the people are employed, and their interests ARE the interests of the people and should be represented in government.”
Of course you would say that. No surprise here. But it’s ridiculous on the surface of it. We could make a small change, just one word, which will demonstrate.
‘In fact, corporations are where the people are employed, and their interests ARE the interests of the EMPLOYEES ….’
Your fallacy is that you use the word ‘people’ as if there were no class differentiation between them at all. In this regard you imply, person = person, in ALL cases. It just ain’t so. The interest of the worker and his boss, in general, are far different, and OPPOSED.
It is true that the SOME people’s interests are in fact the same as the boss class, but only a very SMALL percentage.
Les
9 - Dave Nalle
. The interest of the worker and his boss, in general, are far different, and OPPOSED.
As I've told you again and again, this is NOT 19th century Germany and this statement is not true in the context of the US in the 21st century.
Companies are largely run by middle management, and the difference between them and the workers is minimal in both earnings and interests.
Workers are now and increasingly stock investors, often in their own companies, so their interests in that area are the same as the interests of the top levels of management.
The US is more and more evolving away from the model of business on which all of your beliefs are based, and your interpretation of reality has moved from archaic to irrelevant to entirely meaningless.
Dave
10 - Clavos
So would you have corps owned by the workers, Les?
Who would "boss" (run) them?
11 - Dave Nalle
The workers would elect leaders or a board of workers would hire professional management. Les isn't really talking about collectivism, though he might support it. Me, I'm a big fan of collectively run businesses. Look at Nokia or REI. They prove that the business model is valid.
Dave
12 - Les Slater
Dave,
“As I've told you again and again, this is NOT 19th century Germany and this statement is not true in the context of the US in the 21st century.”
I’m not sure where, or in what century, you actually reside. Aren’t you the same person that recently told us that imports were at LEAST twice that of exports for most of your life? You just don’t seem to have a grip.
Les
13 - Les Slater
Clavos,
“So would you have corps owned by the workers, Les?”
It’s a lot more complicated than that. The working class, and most of the middle classes, have different priorities than what we see we see coming on down from the representatives of the capitalist class. That’s one of the reasons that there is such a fucking huge groundswell of people wanting any leader that is different than we what we have foisted on us now. They want CHANGE. The problem though, is that we have no mass means to even discuss this. It all comes filtered through the media that is owned AND controlled by the same class that is shoving its priorities on us, and has no desire to change in the direction most of us need.
Having any sort of corporation, even if run by workers, is a hindrance to our ability to set priorities on a societal level. What we need to do is move away from relatively small institutions, like profit centers. The goal, the necessity, of the management of these profit centers, is to maximize the profit of that PARTICULAR entity. The problem is that there is no conscious planning of how the results come out beyond what is best for that profit center. Under capitalism it is the MARKET, or as Dave’s idol, Friedman would say, the invisible hand, which he is quite comfortable with ascribing to GOD.
We, as a society have to have a much greater role in deciding what our priorities should be. Those that control now, will, and are, doing their best to block the democratic majority from setting those priorities. That blocking, on a political level, is the institution of THEIR political parties, both Republican and Democratic.
How society would be organized without the capitalists is no big mystery. We already have universities and think tanks with the knowledge and the skills to organize an economy. We just have access to what is being discussed and have public discourse on the directions, resource allocations, and pace of meeting the needs of all society.
Les
14 - troll
Les - I know of no socialist state or entity (past or present) or any theoretic plan that rationalizes prices without referencing existing systems of private ownership to get an idea of relative value
15 - troll
I find the term 'boss class' to be a misleading throw back...the conflict is not in the relationship between supervisors and supervisees which will exist in any organization of labor but in that between owners (plenty of whom couldn't boss their way out of paper bags) and workers
no matter how brutal the kapo he is not the problem
16 - troll
Dave - assuming that workers managers and owners have compatible interests why when a company lays off workers does share valuation in that company tends to rise and when workers in that company move to collectively organize share valuation declines -?
17 - troll
the failure to view capitalist production as an international project leads to hallucinations of an 'ownership economy'
18 - Les Slater
troll,
"I know of no socialist state or entity (past or present) or any theoretic plan that rationalizes prices without referencing existing systems of private ownership to get an idea of relative value"
The value of any product or entity can be equated to the amount of labor needed plus the cost of materials. And the cost of materials can be equated to the amount of labor needed and the costs of its materials. At some point there are products of nature, which when labor has been performed on them, they also have value, PRECISELY equal to the NECESSARY amount of that labor. Any wasted labor, or other inefficiencies do NOT contribute to value.
All wealth is derived from nature plus labor. The NECESSARY amount of LABOR for management and accounting is also part of the value. Things like insurance have absolutely NO value. Any labor used in such function is totally WASTED, and therefore of no value.
The sum total of what workers will be able to acquire is equal to the sum total of what all workers produce, minus any value that is used to maintain and/or increase productive capacity, cost of overhead like management and accounting, costs of replacing accidentally damaged goods, and the costs to reuse or dispose of waste.
I use 'acquire' above instead of 'buy' because a base level of all necessities can be made available to all, regardless of how the value is OTHERWISE distributed. Prices will be determined by the priorities set by society at large. There is no need for the price to correspond with the ACTUAL amount of labor used in any production of product produced or service rendered. The only requirement is that, on average, more is produced than is consumed.
None of this depends on any distinction between physical, mental, and/or artistic labor.
Les
19 - bliffle
"In fact, corporations are where the people are employed, and their interests ARE the interests of the people and should be represented in government."
Fifty years ago, maybe, when the benefits of corporate success wore more widely distributed and unions had some power. But industrial leaders have turned more against their employees for plunder, and employees are turning against employers now, too.
20 - Les Slater
troll,
"I find the term 'boss class' to be a misleading throw back...the conflict is not in the relationship between supervisors and supervisees which will exist in any organization of labor but in that between owners (plenty of whom couldn't boss their way out of paper bags) and workers"
The boss class is the capitalist class. It is their capital that employs workers to make a profit. I wasn't talking about any other form of organizing production than the capitalist mode. In that system there is a conflict between supervisor and worker, even if that supervisor is also a worker. Those relationships are part of the process of exploiting the worker.
Les
21 - handyguy
Corporations aren't inherently evil, no. But just because the capitalist system has helped a lot of people join the middle class doesn't mean large corporations are all good, either. Corporations are motivated by profit, and they are inherently amoral. So there can be good but also awful results.
Corporations can often seem utterly cold and heartless, such as during a massive layoff, or when giving small or zero raises to the rank and file while upper management rakes it in. Anyone who has worked in a mid-sized or large company has seen this up close.
There are a lot of middle-class and lower-middle-class people in this country who feel they have lost ground in the last decade, while the rich have gained massively. Dave and Clavos may claim all they want that these people are just mistaken; I tend to believe people when they say they're hurting.
In addition, the influence of money in politics is inherently corrupting. It corrupted the Dems in the years leading up to 1994, and the GOP in the years leading up to 2006. Whether John McCain and Barack Obama can lead things in another direction will be a very interesting thing to watch.
22 - Dave Nalle
Dave - assuming that workers managers and owners have compatible interests why when a company lays off workers does share valuation in that company tends to rise and when workers in that company move to collectively organize share valuation declines -?
Share value rises after layoffs because of a perception of increased efficiency. If you cut the payroll, presumably you are making the company more productive relative to the payroll. It's largely an illusion. In few industries is payroll a large enough factor in overhead for limited job cuts to make a really significant difference in the bottom line unless the payroll is just loaded up with deadwood.
Dave
23 - Les Slater
troll,
"assuming that workers managers and owners have compatible interests why when a company lays off workers does share valuation in that company tends to rise"
Many workers these days own stocks. If the value of their portfolio goes up sufficiently to compensate for the loss of their job, then they may actually be in tune with the management's decision to lay them off.
And of course, organizing a union is not such a good idea if the value of your portfolio goes down.
Les
24 - Clavos
So tell me, Les. In your plan is there any room for interest and dividends? What about profits?
If not, what incentives will be offered to secure the cooperation of the subjects/citizens?
Will workers be able to accumulate money (or points, whatever) to acquire things they don't need but do want? And will the economy you envision produce unnecessary things, such as TVs and fishing poles or tennis rackets, even luxury goods?
How would you assign values to different levels of labor? Ditch digging isn't the same as saving a patient's life with one's medical knowledge and skills.
How would you deal with those who refuse to labor, or who produce less than their abilities, or those who can't, for any reason?
What will you do with (or for)those who work much harder (or more efficiently or intelligently) than anyone else?
Will some people (e.g. those who are smarter or harder working than the average) have more (whether goods or money or property) than the less intelligent or the lazy?
25 - Clavos
"In few industries is payroll a large enough factor in overhead for limited job cuts to make a really significant difference in the bottom line unless the payroll is just loaded up with deadwood."
In the (US) airline industry, the largest cost is fuel.
The next largest is labor.