Matt Taibbi provides us with another impressive article. While middle class Americans are staring down the barrel of some of the toughest economic times in recent memory, our political media continues to serve up a pointless gruel of distractions.
Taibbi’s basic point.
What the political media wants to talk about:
The press, meanwhile, is clearly flailing around for a sensational hook to use in selling the election, as the once-brightly-burning star of blue-red hatred seems unfortunately to have dimmed a little — just in time, perhaps, to torpedo the general election season cable ratings. They are working hard to come up with the WWF-style shorthand labels they always use to sell electoral contests: if 2000 was the “wooden” and ?condescending? Al Gore versus the “dummy” Bush, and 2004 featured that same ?regular guy? Bush against the “patrician” and “bookish” John Kerry (who also “looked French”), in 2008 we?re going to be sold the “maverick” McCain against the “smooth” Obama, or some dumb thing along those lines. Time has even experimented with a “poker versus craps” storyline, feeding off the incidental fact that Obama is a regular poker player while McCain reportedly favors craps, which apparently has some electorally relevant meaning — and if you know what that something is, please let me know.
We’re also going to be fed truckloads of onerous horseshit about the candidate wives.
What the political media ought to be talking about:
Our economic reality is as brutal as it is for a simple reason: whether we like it or not, we are in the midst of revolutionary economic changes. In the kind of breathtakingly ironic development that only real life can imagine, the collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed global capitalism to get into the political unfreedom business, turning China and the various impoverished dictatorships and semi-dictatorships of the third world into the sweatshop of the earth. This development has cut the balls out of American civil society by forcing the export abroad of our manufacturing economy, leaving us with a service/managerial economy that simply cannot support the vast, healthy middle class our government used to work very hard to both foster and protect. The Democratic party that was once the impetus behind much of these changes, that argued so eloquently in the New Deal era that our society would be richer and more powerful overall if the spoils were split up enough to create a strong base of middle class consumers — that party panicked in the years since Nixon and elected to pay for its continued relevance with corporate money. As a result the entire debate between the two major political parties in our country has devolved into an argument over just how quickly to dismantle the few remaining benefits of American middle-class existence — immediately, if you ask the Republicans, and only slightly less than immediately, if you ask the Democrats.
The conclusion:
These fantasy elections we’ve been having — overblown sports contests with great production values, decided by haircuts and sound bytes and high-tech mudslinging campaigns — those were sort of fun while they lasted, and were certainly useful in providing jerk-off pundit-dickheads like me with high-paying jobs. But we just can’t afford them anymore. We have officially spent and mismanaged our way out of la-la land and back to the ugly place where politics really lives — a depressingly serious and desperate argument about how to keep large numbers of us from starving and freezing to death. Or losing our homes, or having our cars repossessed. For a long time America has been too embarrassed to talk about class; we all liked to imagine ourselves in the wealthy column, or at least potentially so, flush enough to afford this pissing away of our political power on meaningless game-show debates once every four years. The reality is much different, and this might be the year we’re all forced to admit it.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!This pretty much hits the nail on the head especially about China being the sweatshop of the world.The american middle class is in trouble as well as the lower middle class.The high paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced by service jobs and here’s the kicker in the past ten yrs wages have fell in these three sectors construction,hospitality and leisure(service industry),landscaping,and meatpacking all three of these industries are heavily influenced by illegal immigrant labor.In addition the the H-1 visa program(which is widely abused especially by companies in India)and those such as Bill Gates who clamor for a increase of the high tech visa program is hurting higher educated persons in engineering and so on.
So what is our politicians answer to this?Simple to import more cheap low skilled labor by not securing our border and implementing guest worker programs and raise the number of high tech visas to the U.S. thus hurting the citizens of the U.S.At least that was the sum of the last Comprehensive Immigration bill saty tuned for the third go around on this in 2009 no matter who is elected president.Business interests always get what they want in the end.
Anybody who think that politics is the means to solve these big issues is deluding themselves.
I mean, of the big problems of this day, most are the unintended consequence of government programs to “solve” other problems.
The mortgage mess is a direct result of policies designed to increase homeownership, but which ultimately incentivized banks to lend to people who had no business owning homes. The coming bailout is just going to institutionalize past mistakes.
The energy mess has a number of causes, but the government not letting domestic energy supplies develop, as well as not allowing things like refineries and nuclear plants to be built, are two major causes. Ethanol policy is another.
On healthcare, despite having a “free market” the government directly funds most of it through Medicare and Medicaid (not to mention that tax deductibility of employer provided health care), and regulates just about every aspect of its provision. In another words, there is no free market, and Medicare alone is rapidly bankrupting the country.
So… what makes anyone think that trying to fix problems through the political process is going to work better this time?
Hope Springs Eternal?
Buzzcut posted above:
“I mean, of the big problems of this day, most are the unintended consequence of government programs to “solve†other problems
I would submit that government always makes a significant difference,and today’s thinking is that laissez-faire economic policies are always good,so the individual should just go with the program and ‘quit whining’.
The kind of intervention I’d like to see from government ( and we would have perhaps avoided the current mortage disaster) is government mandating proctective do’s and dont’s for the mortgage holder, who should be fully informed as he goes through the process.
Only government can be tested constitutionally to protect the individual.No one expects mortage writers to write non-mandated laws to be gratutiously responsive to the customer,although many have done so. We have never had bigger,meaner government than we have had the last few years.And it’s all in the guise of government being ‘smaller’.
Government can enact legislation to protect the individual, but in my estimation, that takes a more liberal mindset than has been common.It’s true we’re all at the mercy of world ecomonics and NAFTA is here to stay,but a more liberal-minded government can still reign in the power brokers with strategically enacted legislation,as it did in the 19th and early 20ieth centuries..
The robber barons are back, but this time with deep international tenacles.We got a real mess,that’s for sure.All the big shots are reading the same book and are on the same page,and we all got friends and neighbors who are helping them out.
So instead of politics to solve national problems, does Buzzcut prefer a strong man on horseback to make the trains run on time? A Respected and Beloved Leader? a Great Helmsman?
.
As Churchill put it pithily: Democracy is the worst of all forms of government except for all the others…
According to you, Buzzcut, I’m in a constant state of delusion! All I have to say about that is that I’m rubber, you’re glue – whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!
So there. YOU are delusional!
But when political candidates say this they’re dismissed as fringe, spoilers, statistically insignificant, etc… There are candidates like McKinney(or Nader for that matter) and Barr to some extent, who are speaking the truth about issues we face. But while people keep voting for the 2 parties that gave us what we have, we’ll keep getting more of the same. Vote for a spoiler, and help spoil the rotten system we keep feeding.
Maybe. On the other hand, I figure that Nader voters in Florida 2000 who preferred Gore to Bush bear some responsibility for our current situation.
Nader got 100,000 votes in 2000 in FL and Gore lost by about 550 votes.That sums up the inadvisability of 3rd party politics in American politcs.’Nader gave us Bush’ is the best way to put it.I’ve never forgiven the fool,yet I respect and agree with much of his views on issues.But he’s become a caricature.
The only other political system I’ve experienced up close is in France and the French seem to gravitate between extremisms because and they have countless political parties. A victorious party usually has to form a coalition government,which means a party has to negotiate which of their core beliefs to compromise with another party in order to rule.Since many parties are small, core belief defines many parties.Then that position is agreed to be completely off the table during the coalition.Can we imagine, for example, the Republicans agreeing to put abortion off the legislative agenda?
Our 2-party american system works for the kind of centrist government we’ve had historically. The republicans are currently purging themsleves of the extremist,ineffective postions (hopefully anyway) which got them into so much trouble.Democrats have had their regular purgings also.The Democrats are now finding religion,and Obama ,if he is elected, would be our first liberal-Christian president.. Obama,thankfully, should help us put religion back into historical political relativity’ With our currrent adminstration liberal and Christian are considered incomptabible,so we’re heading maybe for a political milestone,a new ‘morph’ in national thinking.
Our 2-party thinking changes very slowly ,but is always trending away from whatever the current party core beliefs are.Americans are pragmatic and impatient and maybe even politically fickle…always have been,always will be.Pure ‘belief thinking’in a
3rd party candidacy ,as some here seem to be advocating, would destroy American democracy as we know it.
As a Frenchman once observed to me about American ingenuity.:Americans always do what works to get things done,and don’t do things that don’t work twice in a row.In other words ‘what’s right’ is situational.
The French ( local government especially) are notorious for arguing incessantly about the right way to do things and then never getting anything done) Thank God for them they have a very centralised, socialist-democratic type government that just goes ahead and does things according to expert advice,such as building a tremendously comfortable and efficient railway system.
So instead of politics to solve national problems, does Buzzcut prefer a strong man on horseback to make the trains run on time?
How’s that different than Obama? Or, really, how’s that different than Obama’s supporters (mistaken) belief of who Obama is?
How is my saying that the feds have no business attempting to “solve problems” in any way an endorsement of dictatorship? You’re projecting, dude.
It’s an evolution. Government has to be strong enough to keep those it governs in check when they act contrary to the public welfare. Corporations get strong; government has to get strong too. The trick, of course, is keeping government in check while allowing it to be powerful enough to keep the other predators in check. Hobbes’ Leviathan is necessary; but you need some Lockean mechanisms to keep the Leviathan chained when not in use.
More Democrats voted for George Bush in Florida than voted for Ralph Nader. Plus there’s all the votes that weren’t ever counted. Nader is a convenient scapegoat, but there were many things at play in the 2000 election. I’m just saying that if you keep voting for the same parties, don’t expect something different. Just think if all those Democrats hadn’t wasted their votes on Gore, and had voted for Nader instead. We’d be in even better shape. But then again I believe if Nader or the Greens won, we’d experience a coup anyway. Too dangerous having pacifists in charge. *rolls eyes* Remember that Abraham Lincoln was a 3rd party presidential candidate that won! The sky will not fall if 3rd parties begin to have more of an impact on American politics and policy.
Lou- don’t you think that the co-called two-party system is already a pre-fab coalition government? Look at the Republicans. Many of their coalition very strongly favor limited government, cuts in spending, elimination of federal departments. What did the Bush Administration compromise? Limited government, cuts in spending, and elimination of federal departments. It did the opposite.
The Republicans are purging themselves of so-called extremist positions? Like what? Iraq?
Americans don’t do something wrong twice in a row? Like what? Vietnam/Iraq? Like farm subsidies over and over? Like federal stimulus checks?
Idealists (myself included) are never going to get all of what they want, because the political process is not a winner-take-all result, and that’s fine. But when there is a political party that fully (or best) represents my views, as the Libertarian Party does for me (the Greens for others, etc.), then for me (and them) the only wasted vote is the one not cast for that 3rd party.
Indeed, if the Libertarian Party was not on the ballot, I would vote in the general election in much the way I vote in the primary: Sign the book and go home.
I cannot in good conscience vote for 90% or either Republicans or Democrats. Voting against them does my conscience no better. Per South Park, what’s the difference between a giant douche and a turd sandwich?
Corporations get strong; government has to get strong too.
That’s a bunch of BS right there. What % of government spending is to “keep the corporations in line”. But a small fraction.
What is the govenrment spending money on? Socialist Insecurity, Medicare, interest on the debt, and the Iraq war are the big 4. None of that has anything to do with corporations.
Considering what corporations pay to lobby Congress, is the government protecting us, or are the corporations just using Congress as another tool to stifle competition? The later, or course.
Big, eeeeeevil corporations mostly exist in the minds of liberals.
Well, o.k. Let’s approach this from another angle. If it’s unnecessary and a bad deal; why the general popularity of Social Security and Medicare? Citizens too stupid to know they’re being had?
If it’s unnecessary and a bad deal; why the general popularity of Social Security and Medicare? Citizens too stupid to know they’re being had?
What’s not to like about Medicare? You go to the doctor, he treats you, and you pay nothing? I’d like that deal.
Social Security is not much different. You work, you retire, and the government sends you a check. Sweet!
It’s the COST side of the ledger that is the problem. Simply put, Medicare is unsustainable. It is literally bankrupting the country.
It’s bad is a lot of other ways too. Here’s one example:
Why won’t doctors talk to you on the phone? Why do you need to come in for a visit?
Medicare only pays if you come in for an appointment. They don’t pay for phone consultations.
Social Security will bankrupt the country, but that’s a few decades off. What I don’t like about SS is that it discourages people to work and save.
If SS had never existed, this country would be a lot richer than it is today. We’d be working more, making more money, and saving a lot more.
It isn’t even clear that the elderly would be worse off, becuase the elderly as a group are the second richest age cohort, right after those at the ends of their careers. Retirees who own stocks and other investments would have had higher returns if the economy had been stronger throughout their lives, and they would have made more income.
Does your library have “The Myth of the Rational Voter” yet?
It’s out in paperback, too.
Prior to implementation of Social Security and Medicare, it’s my understanding that old folks were living in squalor, starving, and generally dying in ways and under conditions that are inappropriate for a first world country. How would you propose making sure that doesn’t happen again?
Prior to implementation of Social Security and Medicare, it’s my understanding that old folks were living in squalor, starving, and generally dying in ways and under conditions that are inappropriate for a first world country. How would you propose making sure that doesn’t happen again?
First of all, Socialist Insecurity was started in 1935. Pretty much everyone was living in squalor, starving, etc. etc.
Everyone, eldery and non-elderly, has come a long way in the last 70 odd years. There is no evidence that the elderly would have been any worse off without SS.
Buzzcut, you’re going to know what senior squalor looks like when the first generation without assured corporate pensions and Social Security gets old.
Buzzcut, you’re going to know what senior squalor looks like when the first generation without assured corporate pensions and Social Security gets old.
Which would be… my generation. I don’t know where things are now, but a couple of years ago, the projection was that SS would go bankrupt the very year that I turn 65 (in 2036). Ouch.
Which is why I have a 401(k) that I max out. And a Roth IRA. And an IRA.
Corporate pensions are worthless to me. I change jobs too often. I would rather that they go away entirely, and companies just match more of their employees 401(k) contributions.
Regarding future senior squalor, I think the whole idea of retirement will seem quaint to us in the future. People are going to be working well into their 70’s by that time.
To Mike Cole,
1. Yes the 2-party system is a coaltion of views, and politicians have to compromise among their own party before they even confront the opposition. There used to be such a concept as ‘good faith compromise’ which has disappeared with all the ‘belief’ thinkers’,and in my view that’s why government is so often acrimonious with more frequent legislative shut-downs.Maybe I wasnt paying as much attention 30 yrs ago as I am now.
2.I think government will be as big as it has to be and if govt is cut then the private sector will just take over,which is no improvement and they aren’t even accountable to the voters. Government is expected to function as well or better when it is cut, but is just becomes more inefficient,but doing all the same things. At least that’s my take..I think private charges more for less service than govt,but that’s just maybe an impression.Cutting government is a false concept; the lowest common denominator will always fill a void.Cutting govt across the board seems to be advocated by those who want to turn over public service for profit to groups with no accountability.
3.’Republicans purging themselves from extremist positions’. I had in mind that the social conservatives have become a loser for the Republican party and if Republicans want to appeal nationally they have to get past the social/moral characterizations of groups of people by the self-appointed,self- annointed moral elite.
4. ‘Americans are free thinkers and don’t make the same mistake twice in problem solving/getting things done’ is kind of an american characterization from abroad.’If you want to know what’s going on,ask an American’ is another’.
American work ethic and getting things done is much admired by the French and other Europeans.
5.I admit to not understanding how libertarian government would function. It seems like survival of the fittest with no social conscience or safety net.
Buzzcut– You’re the same age as me? You seem so much older, in a “Hey kids, get off my lawn!” kind of way.
Lou- I’ll respond to your numbered items. :-)
1. If you wanted the most extreme politicos of any American era, go to pre-1812. The examples of ‘belief thinkers’ went by names like Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc. Government has been highly acrimonious throughout American history. Even Lincoln was continually assailed from within and without his party, right up until his final days.
2. Well, no. There are those of us who believe that the federal government should have no role in, say, education. That should be a matter left to the states and their municipalities or other local districts. And we see how destructive federalizing education can be, looking at No Child Left Behind, that has held federal money over the heads of the schools, making them dance to the federal tune- teaching to the test, lowering standards to make test scores look ‘improved’, etc. Besides being grossly inefficient, it is unconstitutional besides. So, many smaller government advocates want the Department of Education eliminated.
3. We can go with the social conservatives if you like. Actually, the Republicans sadly hit on an extreme socially conservative idea that worked very well in previous elections: demonize gay people. Putting all of those BS constitutional amendments about gay marriage on the ballot in 2004 went much further to re-elect George W. Bush than Ralph Nader. But to me, that’s just one stripe of moral elite. Another moral elite says that if you earn more money than someone else, your role is to support others.
4. Having been to Europe four times in the past few years, I can say that Europeans are both amazed and appalled by our work ethic. I returned to Spain three times over three years to see a building not completed, that would have been built and occupied in five months. The Danes were appalled that I choose to work up to 18 hours/day at times when on projects. It is interesting to get their perspective.
5. Libertarian policy is often characterized as you have. These are our core beliefs:
You own yourself. You have the right to do what you like with your life, so long as you do not initiate force or fruad upon another human being.
You find that most people believe in this, but only in certain areas of life. For instance, Republicans generally believe this about one’s business and property, but not about one’s bedroom or body. Democrats generally are on the flip side of it.
Doug- On social security, I don’t think it’s a question of ignorance at all. It’s hard to get past the idea that if someone ‘paid in’ for 40 years, that they should draw the benefits. I can’t argue. A promise is a promise. You just aren’t going to find people voluntarily walking from their benefits. So, under the burden of the over-promising of benefits, we’re going to crush our economy and health care system. It really isn’t any different than what has happened to so many of the late industrial giants, who over-promised on pensions, and gored the companies (especially the steel industry) in making good on the benefits.
I predict that our cities are going to really feel this, in about 10 years, because their benefit packages to long-time employees are going to be absurd burdens to cities that are declining, and losing population.
Buzzcut– You’re the same age as me? You seem so much older, in a “Hey kids, get off my lawn!†kind of way.
Well, I do hate teenagers with a passion. And I did put up a fence in my backyard to keep kids from cutting through my yard.
I bust it old school, yo.
To Mike Cole
Point well taken about Madison Jefferson,Adams being belief candidates. But elief is relative to the situation when it’s a matter of legislation. We must always examine what an idealist or believer wants to legislate for all of us.Just knowing what he says he
No child left behind was a program in my opinion that ignored academics,and emphasized making a list of failing schools and bad teachers.( I think the intent was then to give vouchers to kids in failing public schools to go to private schools). I’d like to see curricula as the basis of public school reform. The reason public schools are bad is because of local control,but that’s also the reason others are very good.Housing patterns and local wealth mainly determine quality of education.Only the federal government can assure equal access and equal funding nationwide,imo.But without basic, uniform nationwide, core curricula we’re just wasting our efforts.
Would a libertarian president integrate public schools forceably such as Eisenhower administration did back in the 50s in Little Rock? I assume that would be ‘local control’for a libertarian.
correction above::… just knowing what he says he believes won’t tell us what he will legislate.
One of the ideas that has been discussed in regards to Social Security is to treat it (for tax purposes) like an annuity, i.e. having it tax free until basis is recovered, in other words having social security benefits completely tax free until the amounts paid in for each participant are recovered, and then taxing Social Security benefits 100%. Of course there are many variables in determining benefits due to age when electing to begin receiving benefits, life expectancy, etc. but perhaps it could at least begin to solve a problem that is a time bomb waiting to go off. I hope our next president (I am still undecided, but am leaning towards Obama, one of the things I admire about Obama is his ability to think “outside the box” to explore new solutions to the serious problems our nation is facing). It’s probably the CPA in me that likes the idea of cost recovery of Social Security paid in before taxing benefits and then taxing them 100%.
Lew-Of course a Libertarian president would back integration. It’s called ‘equal protection under the law’. This started as an anti-extreme conversation, so why’d you have to go extreme on me?
Look, one thing we’ve had a hard time dealing with as a society is the idea that some individuals do better than others. It runs from wealth envy, to other success envy. But, fact is, some people have greater talents in some areas, others are more talented in others, and this does pertain to schools. Equal access is to often confused with equal outcomes.
Finally, saying that ‘knowing what one believes does not tell us how one would legislate’ applies to every single person we elect. What’s your point?
Mike Cole asks:
Finally, saying that ‘knowing what one believes does not tell us how one would legislate’ applies to every single person we elect. What’s your point?
What I need to know is that the person who seeks to legislate believes in constitutional law and honors precedents and sees the constitution as evolving along with a changing society. That’s the basic 1st step to trust any politician,but is never stated as part of his agenda.
Thanks so much for your insights from a libertarian point of view. I really wasn’t sure in what circumstance you would advocate government intervention.
I would hope everyone would understand the need for equal access with no guarantee of equal outcome.But ‘equal access’ to hard to define,and can be seen as reverse prejudice by some.
Mike ‘Kole’