Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Political journalist Alexander Cockburn (pronounced CO-burn) began his career at the University of Oxford, working as a reporter and commentator in...
Read more about Alexander Cockburn.
Political journalist Alexander Cockburn (pronounced CO-burn) began his career at the University of Oxford, working as a reporter and commentator in...
Read more about Alexander Cockburn.
All the Populism Money Can Buy
Alexander Cockburn
Across the country last weekend, there were antiwar demonstrations,
modest in turnout, but hopefully a warning to Obama that war without
end or reason in Afghanistan, plus 40,000 more troops to Kabul, is not
why people voted for him.
Left and liberal commentators have talked yearningly about a new populist fever raging in the American body politic, prompted by the spectacle of bailouts for bankers but foreclosures and the dole for everyone else. I can't say there's much sign of populism in any energetic form. Look at movies from the '30s like Capra's "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" and there's a real edge to the anger of that time Capra felt it necessary to convey. These days, the anger is mostly formulaic. Over the weekend the left opinion-makers at the New York Times -- Bob Herbert and Frank Rich -- chewed out Goldman Sachs. Growled Herbert: "Even as tens of millions of working Americans are struggling to hang onto their jobs and keep a roof over their families' heads, the wise guys on Wall Street are licking their fat-cat chops over yet another round of obscene multibillion-dollar bonuses -- this time thanks to the bailout billions that were sent their way by Uncle Sam, with very little in the way of strings attached."
The Obama administration promptly rushed to cover its left flank by announcing it's planning to impose cuts in executive pay at seven companies with substantial bailout funds. The U.S. senate's parlor populist, Bernie Sanders, dutifully proclaimed that the Obama administration was "taking an important step forward in trying to control the obscene compensation packages of the top executives on Wall Street."
Note the meek qualifier "trying." The truth of the matter is that the Obama team has managed the tricky shot of giving more bailout money to the banks than the cumulative dispensations of all previous U.S. governments, while at the same time not giving any significant debt relief to ruined homeowners, a huge slice of whom are poor, black and Hispanic. Obama is not seeking to reform the financial system, and it would be beyond miraculous if it did since the contrivers of the present mess -- Lawrence Summers, et al -- were given a welcoming clap on the back by the new president as he stepped into the White House and told them to get on with the job. This amazing bailout for the system -- as if Lenin had used the October revolution to restore the Romanovs -- has been engineered without significant opposition from organized labor or the left-liberal end of Obama's own party.
Of course, people curse the bankers and their political flunkeys as they watch their 10Ks atomize, their homes go and their jobs disappear to China. They smolder as they watch the parade of Murdoch's demagogues on Fox, flirting and toying with the theme of Obama's assassination. The Obama administration dares to war with Glenn Beck, apparently the only enemy it feels capable of taking on. The gossip site Gawker calls on its readers to turn in all discreditable information about Goldman Sachs executives. The liberal talk host Olbermann calls on his audience to rat out Beck. Neither invitation has thus far yielded any significant harvest.
Alas, American populism needs the octane of cash. During the Clinton scandals, Hustler supreme Larry Flynt wanted his audience to rat out high-ranking Republican sinners. He offered $100,000 cash rewards and the dirt rolled in. Populism has to be cash-based these days. Maybe that was Ralph Nader's point. His first work of fiction, 700 pages long, is titled "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us."
========
Alexander Cockburn is co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book "Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils," available through www.counterpunch.com. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Copyright 2009 Creators Syndicate Inc.
This news arrived on: 10/23/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
10-25-2009 02:30
JCE wrote:
So, nameless idiot, in what part of my history do you find something wrong. That our government let the insurance company have a oligopoly, which is basically a couple of them having a monopoly, which is illegal. In fact, in some states, they do have a virtual monopoly. Or that businesses got too big to fail, and be controlled, and are now out of control, in there rape of the people. That Obama is standing up to the insurance companies? That Bush wasn't committed to doing the job right when he had the chance in Afghanistan? That insurance premiums are sky sky high, and getting higher, or that they don't have death panels to determine who lives, who dies, and who gets to have the operations, the treatment, or the coverage? That if the government does its job, and not let this happen, free enterprise might work? These things are all public knowledge, easily verifiable facts. Tell me, if you can, where my history is wrong. You can't or you would. You can't even hold a conversation, you just attack and insult. No wonder you remain a nameless republican.
10-24-2009 23:03
wrote:
JCE
You sure can twist history to fit your depressed outlook on America. If anyone wants a long drink of kool aid, ask JCE. This guy belongs in an institution.
You sure can twist history to fit your depressed outlook on America. If anyone wants a long drink of kool aid, ask JCE. This guy belongs in an institution.
10-24-2009 21:23
JCE wrote:
The main change has been that Obama is making the attempt to stand up against some of the special interests, and the republicans are showing their tru colors.
Because of the fact that Bush was never committed to any of those goals, only for oil, in his military actions, and the people were panicked into supporting him, for all the wrong reasons, and now the people know the truth, it is unlikely that all of a sudden there will be any real commitment to the current military action in Afghanistan. This was Bushs ball, and he dropped it, wasn't interested in what the tried to tell the people was the real reason to be there. Why would people believe it now? Government is supposed to be a check of private enterprise. Case in point is the insurance companies. Government failed, and now the insurance companies have a monopoly, crowding out competition, raising premiums devastatingly high, and have death panels to boot. Government can, and is obligated to, stop this about of private enterprise. Then, perhaps, private enterprise could work as it should. If a few more things were done that should be done.
Because of the fact that Bush was never committed to any of those goals, only for oil, in his military actions, and the people were panicked into supporting him, for all the wrong reasons, and now the people know the truth, it is unlikely that all of a sudden there will be any real commitment to the current military action in Afghanistan. This was Bushs ball, and he dropped it, wasn't interested in what the tried to tell the people was the real reason to be there. Why would people believe it now? Government is supposed to be a check of private enterprise. Case in point is the insurance companies. Government failed, and now the insurance companies have a monopoly, crowding out competition, raising premiums devastatingly high, and have death panels to boot. Government can, and is obligated to, stop this about of private enterprise. Then, perhaps, private enterprise could work as it should. If a few more things were done that should be done.
10-24-2009 16:53
rig wrote:
Relying on government to get things done is why we have the constitution of the United States of America. The framers knew that government was the problem, which is why they gave us the bill of rights. Governments can never do as good of a job at anything as private enterprise which is why we are ( maybe were) the richest country on the planet. Letting government get involved in everything that they are trying to get involved in is a huge mistake. Rich people live all over the world, no matter the type of government. The difference is that everyone and more people will have a chance to get rich in this country. If everyone worked as hard as they do at succeeding as they do at complaining than maybe they could get rich also. Nobodies life is going to improve by having government play Robin Hood.
10-24-2009 09:03
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
Afghanistan
The war on terror can be fought in the Taliban and al- qaeda's strong holds of Afghanistan and Pakistan now . Both terrorist organizations are having more problems with funding due directly to the US and Allied forces destroying the poppy fields and giving the farmers more constructive crop options .Plus the freezing of their international bank accounts .
Or we can wait till they have destabilized Pakistan enough to get their hands on the nukes or work some trade agreement with Iran for when they manage to get their long range nuclear missiles online .
I guess the decision is, deal with them now before they have access to long range nuclear missiles either from Iran or Pakistan or deal with them after they have accomplished this .
Their fanatical pursuit of murder and terror is not going to change the only thing that will change is the West's commitments .
The bottomline is either you are as committed to your cause as the enemy you fight and if you fail in that, then you should not be involved in a military conflict .
Or we can wait till they have destabilized Pakistan enough to get their hands on the nukes or work some trade agreement with Iran for when they manage to get their long range nuclear missiles online .
I guess the decision is, deal with them now before they have access to long range nuclear missiles either from Iran or Pakistan or deal with them after they have accomplished this .
Their fanatical pursuit of murder and terror is not going to change the only thing that will change is the West's commitments .
The bottomline is either you are as committed to your cause as the enemy you fight and if you fail in that, then you should not be involved in a military conflict .
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Alexander Cockburn ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
