Sign in with Facebook
Will Byrnes's Reviews > Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party
Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party
by
by
Will Byrnes's review
bookshelves: nonfiction, american-history, economics, military-and-intelligence-non-fic, terrorism, history
May 19, 2012
bookshelves: nonfiction, american-history, economics, military-and-intelligence-non-fic, terrorism, history
Covering the period from the mid-term elections of 2010 to 2012, David Corn offers readers a look inside the Obama Administration through a host of battles. The overall takeaway is that Obama seriously wants to be the adult in the room in DC and tries his best to fulfill that mission. There is a lot of difference between campaigning, in which you can say whatever you like, stake out whatever positions you prefer and not have to temper your rhetoric to accommodate opposition, and actually having to run the federal government. Once in office, your opponents, who might not be able to keep you from talking, can prevent you from enacting your desired legislation unless you play ball.
David Corn
I am of the opinion that the president had staked out initial negotiating positions that were not nearly far enough to the left. At least propose single-payer. At least propose a public option. While Corn’s look into the administration thought process may not go far enough to remove that dissatisfaction it does offer very concrete reasons why Obama chose to do what he did in all the battles explored in this book. The item that stands out the most for me is how Obama was willing to take on considerable political risk, and go against the advice of many of his advisors, in deciding to go ahead with the Osama Bin-Laden mission. Major guts there. Hardly the no-brainer that it was portrayed as being by Mitt Romney. Also, how he approached the Libya uprising, seeing to the core of what was needed tactically and having the ability to maneuver the international politics towards that end. Obama is a much tougher and slicker character and deft political player than I had realized.
Corn looks at several of the budget negotiations the administration entered into with Republican leadership. One thing that stood out very clearly is how much control John Boehner did not have over his barrel of Tasmanian-Devil Tea-Baggers. Whatever deal he made with the administration he was constantly back-tracking, denying he had said what he had said and basically proving to be an ineffective leader. Of course he always had to worry about House Whip, and full time reptile, Eric Cantor, trying his best to insert sharp objects between his ribs from the rear. It is remarkable that any deals were made with the Republicans at all.
There are plenty of instances in which reasonable people might ask simple questions
Regarding an administration decision to scale back public statements critical of Republican opposition during budget negotiations:
It is clear that when two parties at the negotiation table do not share core values there is trouble. Here, the president was determined to see that the American economic recovery suffered as few hits as possible, while the Tea-Bagger-driven Republicans would be more than happy to cause global economic chaos in order to get their way.
So one comes away impressed, maybe less dissatisfied when one sees what the president is up against. It certainly increases our appreciation for the damage that might be done to our nation by the barbarians at the gate. The prospect of putting in charge of the country the same drivers who landed the national vehicle in a ditch is daunting enough. Now we have to worry about a party heavy with ideological Thelma and Louises, unwilling to wait for a bathtub drowning, who are champing at the bit to drive the country off a cliff. It is a lucky thing that we have an administration that can steer the ship of state away from such peril, and knows when to step on the brakes when needed. This is an enlightening read.
=============================EXTRA STUFF
Links to the author’s Twitter and FB pages
Corn’s articles in Mother Jones
David Corn
I am of the opinion that the president had staked out initial negotiating positions that were not nearly far enough to the left. At least propose single-payer. At least propose a public option. While Corn’s look into the administration thought process may not go far enough to remove that dissatisfaction it does offer very concrete reasons why Obama chose to do what he did in all the battles explored in this book. The item that stands out the most for me is how Obama was willing to take on considerable political risk, and go against the advice of many of his advisors, in deciding to go ahead with the Osama Bin-Laden mission. Major guts there. Hardly the no-brainer that it was portrayed as being by Mitt Romney. Also, how he approached the Libya uprising, seeing to the core of what was needed tactically and having the ability to maneuver the international politics towards that end. Obama is a much tougher and slicker character and deft political player than I had realized.
Corn looks at several of the budget negotiations the administration entered into with Republican leadership. One thing that stood out very clearly is how much control John Boehner did not have over his barrel of Tasmanian-Devil Tea-Baggers. Whatever deal he made with the administration he was constantly back-tracking, denying he had said what he had said and basically proving to be an ineffective leader. Of course he always had to worry about House Whip, and full time reptile, Eric Cantor, trying his best to insert sharp objects between his ribs from the rear. It is remarkable that any deals were made with the Republicans at all.
There are plenty of instances in which reasonable people might ask simple questions
…had Obama allowed the Republicans to turn the national debate into nothing other than a debt seminar? “We can be faulted for this,” Axelrod said later. “Nobody anticipated the degree of Republican obstreperousness and implacability. We knew there would be strident voices, but the degree to which that tail would wag the dog—we didn’t assume.”Really? Don’t you guys read the papers, watch TV, check out internet sites? Yes, the administration most definitely can be faulted. They paid no attention at all to the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, and maybe even millions of us who were sending the White House e-mails wondering why he could not see the obvious. This is a prime example of how politicos slip inside the DC bubble and fail to appreciate what is going on in the world beyond.
Regarding an administration decision to scale back public statements critical of Republican opposition during budget negotiations:
Axelrod subsequently explained. “The decision was made to go out and talk about jobs and the economy and allow the negotiations to proceed until the president needed to intervene.” And as Robert Gibbs put it, “It’s difficult to put out your right hand to shake their hands and then strike them with your left hand.“Why the hell not? The other side has no such compunctions. They never stopped accusing Obama of being an alien, never stopped claiming he was a secret Muslim, never stopped accusing him of being an anti-American, even a terrorist. Are they so completely lily-livered that they can dish it out but they can’t take it? Well, yes they clearly are, given their hysterical reaction to any criticism, but why should Democrats give these nut-job hypocrites an inch? They did not exactly soften their stance at the negotiating table because Obama kept the gloves on. The arena of public opinion counts, and it was, and remains important for progressives to not allow the fear-mongering and divisive hatred of the right to blare unchallenged. Bad call, Mister President.
It is clear that when two parties at the negotiation table do not share core values there is trouble. Here, the president was determined to see that the American economic recovery suffered as few hits as possible, while the Tea-Bagger-driven Republicans would be more than happy to cause global economic chaos in order to get their way.
So one comes away impressed, maybe less dissatisfied when one sees what the president is up against. It certainly increases our appreciation for the damage that might be done to our nation by the barbarians at the gate. The prospect of putting in charge of the country the same drivers who landed the national vehicle in a ditch is daunting enough. Now we have to worry about a party heavy with ideological Thelma and Louises, unwilling to wait for a bathtub drowning, who are champing at the bit to drive the country off a cliff. It is a lucky thing that we have an administration that can steer the ship of state away from such peril, and knows when to step on the brakes when needed. This is an enlightening read.
=============================EXTRA STUFF
Links to the author’s Twitter and FB pages
Corn’s articles in Mother Jones
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Showdown.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
May 19, 2012
–
Started Reading
May 19, 2012
– Shelved
May 19, 2012
– Shelved as:
nonfiction
May 19, 2012
–
Finished Reading
May 22, 2012
– Shelved as:
american-history
May 22, 2012
– Shelved as:
economics
May 22, 2012
– Shelved as:
military-and-intelligence-non-fic
May 22, 2012
– Shelved as:
terrorism
June 9, 2018
– Shelved as:
history
Comments Showing 1-50 of 77 (77 new)
Amen! Reading the brilliant comments of people like you two, Will and Steve, is one of the main reasons I stick with goodreads. Thank you.
How very kind, Les. Thank you.
Les wrote: "Amen! Reading the brilliant comments of people like you two, Will and Steve, is one of the main reasons I stick with goodreads. Thank you."
Hey, Thanks, Les.
Hey, Thanks, Les.
Another great review, Will. I will definitely check this one out, and I am very happy to see your take on it.Steve, I read your comments very carefully and I really like the tactical sense of what you are saying. You are probably correct on all points.
On the other hand, I think there were major issues within the Democratic caucus (remember the Blue Dogs) about a 'radical solution' like single-payer, and we all know that 'socialism' is a dirty word in this country. My point is that Obama could never be in the position - even at the start - of proposing something that his own party would not support in huge numbers. He always knew he couldn't count on Republican votes in the end.
As Will and I have been discussing, there is a huge problem in this country with the mechanics of getting from point A (our health-care system is a fiscal disaster) to point B (private enterprise won't solve the problem; the government must step in, one way or another).
For reasons that are still not clear (to me), the average voter cannot keep his/her eye on the ball long enough to push the bought-and-owned Congress to a real solution. And the lobbyists will always win as long as that is the case.
If this is correct, the mistake in the Obama camp may have been to trust in the voters too much to keep their eye on the ball. From my perspecive, the situation looked a lot like Moses (Charlton Heston) and the whiny Israelites on their trek to the promised land in The Ten Commandments.
Will, I don't know if Corn discusses any of this. I would be interested in his (and your) perspective.
Jim wrote: Steve, I read your comments very carefully and I really like the tactical sense of wha..." Oh, Jim. I am so happy to hear a medical professional talk like you do re the need for reform. During the heat of the debate, my doctors ( I see a whole platoon of them) would often proselytize against reform and hand out literature about how it would destroy medicine as we know it. I was curious where you fell on this issue. I am greatly encouraged. I think it will take medical professionals like you to change people's minds, because politicians seem to have no credibility. Re blue dog I agree. President could not stake out a position to the left of his support but that's what I meant by power politics, LBJ-style, wherein if you cross your president or your speaker you lose the committee assignment you cherish. I don't know the rules of the Senate, but maybe Max Baucus, who got massive donations from insurers finds out he has been reassigned to the oversight committee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I think you need to have a rep as a street-fighter if you want your tough negotiations to work. Thanks so much for responding to both Will and to me.
Great points, Steve. At the risk of excessive topic drift, here are a few thoughts.1) I am going to take a wild guess that your doctors are in the 50-plus group, white males, and wealthy. But, if memory serves, the American Medical Association endorsed the original Democratic bill (WITH a public option). I think that represented the voting members (MDs all), many of whom are younger, female, and multiethnic, and not necessarily wealthy. The times, they are a-changin'. The docs I talk to all know that the billing/insurance system sucks - most of them spend a lot of their 'patient time' on the phone, arguing for insurance coverage of a needed procedure. Of course there are hundreds of related issues, but I will stop there.
2) Your point about committee assignments is very interesting. I will note that Nancy Pelosi got every major initiative through the House, including a climate/energy bill that never made it to the Senate. She delivered, and her team knew how to whip the troops into shape.
3) On the other hand, the 60-vote 'supermajority' in the Senate couldn't even bring a lot of bills to a vote. I hate to point fingers here, but your OK senators, Coburn especially, were major impedimenta to any progress on anything. Everything was filibustered.
4) With that said, I think it is clear that Harry Reid is no LBJ, even in his dreams. The stories about LBJ in the Senate are legendary, and he carried that clout into the White House on a tremendous unity wave after JFK's assassination. Of course, it all came apart when Vietnam was in full escalation...
5) A good test case of how the Senate works today was the rebuke of Joe Lieberman after he campaigned for McCain. He lost his committee chairmanship (I think), but the rest was mostly a slap on the wrist because he held the threat of switching to the other caucus over the leader. And, in a filibuster-every-bill climate, that threat had teeth.
6) It may go down in the books that Obama made a fatal mistake by not sending over his own progressive bill(s), and negotiating from there. But he did have a bulldog chief-of-staff (Rahm Emanuel) who was working the wires like crazy, and who knew everybody on both sides of Capitol Hill. So, I will be interested to see how the history books treat all of this.
7) Bottom line, as I think Will is saying: the last 2 years should have taught us something about the choice we face in the fall. I am fine with a middle-of-the-road reality, when the alternative is a right-wing takeover of all three branches. Been there.
For reasons that are still not clear (to me), the average voter cannot keep his/her eye on the ball long enoughThere are two elements to this, I expect. The first is that most major media in this country, and in all countries for that matter are controlled by corporations that have a perspective. It is almost comical, for example to see how the presenters on The Weather Channel have to dance around saying those dangerous words "global warming" or even "climate change" even though the evidence shows up in their work every day. We do not have a major media outlet comparable to the major TV networks that is run by, say, a labor organization, or some portion of the Democratic Party. but we do have Fox, which is mouthpiece for the Republicans, and competition like CNN keeps turning backflips trying to mimic them. Newspapers rarely offer a range of opinion other than conservative or moderate. And as for radio...well, enough said that Rush is king of the airwaves.
So we have the arena of information tilting to the right and on top of that we have a population that is, overall, not all that curious. People in America, from what I can see, basically do not give a rat's ass about much of anything, unless it affects them personally. And even then we have a very effective right wing lie machine convincing them that up is down and diverting their justifiable rage at economic injustice into racist, homophobic, xenophobic and misogynistic side-tracks. It is as if our national political conversation is a fantasy movie in which the audience has willingly suspended their disbelief. While it may be a factor that people have to work more hours just to get by, which leaves them with little time or energy for looking into the specifics of issues, it also may be the case that people are basically lazy and would rather watch Idol than vote. Simple, if stupid slogans suffice for far too many, and it takes a real national movement (Civil rights, anti Vietnam War) to even catch their attention. It's a mean country in a lot of ways, and the meanness is abetted by ignorance, willful or imposed.
he did have a bulldog chief-of-staff (Rahm Emanuel) who was working the wires like crazy
I think it remains to be seen if being a bulldog, per se, is sufficient. Rahm, did an excellent job of alienating many of the people he dealt with, and would have been ousted by Obama had he not left on his own.
I am fine with a middle-of-the-road reality, when the alternative is a right-wing takeover of all three branches. Been there.
More or less agreed. I do with, though I wish that the road would stay in one place and not continually shift rightward. What is the middle now used to be far right. And what is far right now is absolute madness. We need more Rachel Maddows out there. And we need some actual liberals on the federal courts.
I believe it was Anthony Weiner who suggested to Obama that the way to move forward on health coverage was to expand Medicare bit by bit. This has the benefit of simplicity. People know and love Medicare, so tagging along on that brand is a good thing. And it does not have to be done all at once. I could definitely see it add people 55-65 in one push. Then infants in another, then children. Then begin to fill in the gap between 21 and 55. there may be other or better ways, but this seems to me the likeliest to succeed.
Will wrote: "There are two elements to this, I expect. The first is that most major media in this country, and in all countries for that matter are controlled by corporations that have a perspective. ..."Your analysis is brilliant as usual, Will. I think you nailed it. As we have discussed, the really crucial question is whether the average voter will see through the expertly managed game, and vote accordingly. In my opinion it is too soon to tell for this election cycle, but there are at least some encouraging signs.
Expansion of Medicare would be a great way to go, but first the voters have to see the Ryan budget for what it is - the end of Medicare as it now exists (among many other atrocities). And that budget has to be put away in the bin of dead ideas. Boy, do I hope that happens, but the average voter has to see it.
I loved that video! Listen to Obama today, and the tune is changing. A bit of artful kicking going in the other direction now.
To be continued..
Thanks, Jim.A bit of artful kicking going in the other direction now.
A very happy thing.
the really crucial question is whether the average voter will see through the expertly managed game,
If, after all the crap that Scott Walker had foisted on the people of Wisconsin, he is returned to office, I believe that bodes ill for the general election. It will show rather definitively that money in sufficient amounts can overcome any rational response by the voting public. The American people appear to have the attention span of goldfish. While I sincerely hope that they throw the bums out, people tend to re-elect their members once they become incumbents, no matter how low an opinion they have of Congress overall. So, I am guardedly hopeful about the November outcome, but I feel like the kid under his desk back in the 1950s wondering if this time there really will be a big explosion.
I'm just lurking but I agree with all that you are saying. I lived in Ontario for a year and a half and I was in the hospital twice and went to a couple of different doctors. I found the health care to be far superior to the healthcare my foster kids get with Medicaid. It wasn't perfect but it was better than our public health systems. Single payer doesn't mean the demise of Western medicine. One of my closest friend's brother is a Canadian doctor and he just bought a 4 million dollar house. I hate politicking. I wish that ads and political shows had to be fact-checked.
There are organizations that do fact-checking, but it is after the fact (which would be a pretty good name for such an organization). And single-payer, or some variation works fairly well for the rest of the first world. It is clear that moneyed interests have a stake in keeping the American people from having as good a national system as, say Costa Rica. Welcome to America, land of one-dollar-one-vote.
Will wrote: "If, after all the crap that Scott Walker had foisted on the people of Wisconsin, he is returned to office, I believe that bodes ill for the general election. It will show rather definitively that money in sufficient amounts can overcome any rational response by the voting public. The American people appear to have the attention span of goldfish. While I sincerely hope that they throw the bums out, people tend to re-elect their members once they become incumbents, no matter how low an opinion they have of Congress overall. So, I am guardedly hopeful about the November outcome, but I feel like the kid under his desk back in the 1950s wondering if this time there really will be a big explosion. "With you on all points, Will, and I will be watching the outcome in Wisconsin as well (tossed a little money in that direction, too; might do a little more).
I actually got a nice shot of confidence from my discussion with Stephanie on her review of Rachel Maddow's book (starting around comment #24). I would be interested in your thoughts on it.
Kelly wrote: "I'm just lurking but I agree with all that you are saying. I lived in Ontario for a year and a half and I was in the hospital twice and went to a couple of different doctors. I found the health care to be far superior to the healthcare my foster kids get with Medicaid. It wasn't perfect but it was better than our public health systems."Great points, Kelly. As Will and I have discussed here and there, the misconceptions that Americans have about the Canadian health care system are a testament to the overwhelming power of skillful misinformation. That, and the conditioned disinterest of most people in complex issues - which is similarly well managed.
Rigorous fact-checking would go a long way toward solving the problem. And you can be sure that the moneyed interests will pull out all stops to prevent any such thing from happening.
We have a very long way to go in this country. Realistic awareness, in my opinion, is the first big step forward.
Thanks, Jim. Maybe if the Glenn Beck's of the world were forced to have a marquee at the bottoms of their screens scrolling "this information has not been fact checked and is probably false, designed to rile you up against the people I don't agree with..." I am not necessarily being biased: I also support doing this for the ultra left who don't fact check either, although I'm not sure who that is, I'm sure there's somebody.
There are no Ultra left people in major media. The most you will see are bleeding heart liberals like me, but better looking, younger and more articulate. It would be a mistake to presume that just because the right feels no need to rely on facts that liberals in media feel the same way. Where one might find the occasional exaggeration or item taken out of context on the left, there is nowhere on the left the steady and near-total disregard for truth that characterizes Rush, Hannity, and all of Fox.
Jim wrote: " I am going to take a wild guess that your doctors are in the 50-plus group, white males, and wealthy. But, if..." Jim, Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail regarding the health care issues that I am so passionate about. I would have responded sooner, but I did not see your comments until now. I never seem to get notifications of comments on other people's reviews unless I remember to check back. Again, I take great encouragement from your comments regarding changing attitudes of doctors. I disavow any responsibility for any Republican Senator coming out of Oklahoma as I can assure you that I did not vote for them. Although, in defense of Coburn, I do think him a principled man, with whom I happen to disagree, unlike Fox talk show hosts and Rush Limbaugh who are unscrupulous alarmists and demagogues.
Kelly wrote: "Thanks, Jim. Maybe if the Glenn Beck's of the world were forced to have a marquee at the bottoms of their screens scrolling "this information has not been fact checked and is probably false, design..."Thanks, Kelly. I don't think we are near the point where major media will be required to display that sort of fact-checking. But there are independent websites that do that now - the trick is getting enough people to actually visit those sites and learn. And yes, what is good medicine for the right would also serve for the left, if and when it is needed.
Like Will, I take the view that the guilt is hugely weighted toward the far-right agenda. But of course there is a major anti-intellectual current in that group, so items like statistical validity, testable hypotheses, and so on don't rate very highly on their scale. You won't get Fox News to tell the truth as long as the Murdochs are running the show, and especially as long as they can make big money by lying.
Will wrote: "There are no Ultra left people in major media...Where one might find the occasional exaggeration or item taken out of context on the left, there is nowhere on the left the steady and near-total disregard for truth that characterizes Rush, Hannity, and all of Fox."I certainly agree with you, Will. MSNBC's lineup is the closest thing to Fox counterpoint that you will find in U.S. mainstream media today. CNN is all over the place in their quest for decent ratings. But they and the network news shows, and others, are caught in the easy web of 'balanced coverage' as opposed to critical investigation. The balance, of course, consists of equal time for the corporatist propaganda alongside the peer-reviewed research and other carefully documented studies.
These are all big issues that work against the sort of realistic awareness that I think we need.
I am so angry with them all that I don't want realistic awareness, I want armed insurrection and either a bloodbath or a cowed, meek upper class of rich bastards plowing fields with 15th-century human powered plows, while their wives and daughters service Congolese soldier-children to pay off the hideous and unnecessary debt they've racked up fighting their bill collection actions.
Steve wrote: "I take great encouragement from your comments regarding changing attitudes of doctors. I disavow any responsibility for any Republican Senator coming out of Oklahoma as I can assure you that I did not vote for them. Although, in defense of Coburn, I do think him a principled man, with whom I happen to disagree, unlike Fox talk show hosts and Rush Limbaugh who are unscrupulous alarmists and demagogues."Thanks, Steve, and I have had my own frustrations with the continuing GR issues over notifications. Not fixed yet, for sure.
Our medical school may not be typical of those in, say, the midwest. But when I have looked across the room at the 40 med students I am teaching in a given year, I am always struck by the sheer ethnic and cultural diversity of the group. Most are American citizens, and most are from the upstate NY region. But many parts of this country are becoming extremely ethnically diverse, and the next generation of docs will (from my experience) reflect that fact even more than the current residents or junior faculty, attending physicians, etc.
I never thought for a moment that you had voted for said senator(s). And I do understand what you are saying about Coburn - I have seen that side of him as well.
When I see those on the right stop the use of words-as-weapons like socialism, Obamacare, rationing, death panels, etc. etc., I will know that things have really changed for the better. That day will come when (and if) enough voters see through the corporatist facade that Will has described so elegantly, and the words no longer have magic powers.
We are not there in 2012. But we may be moving in the right direction - I certainly hope so.
Richard wrote: "I am so angry with them all that I don't want realistic awareness, I want armed insurrection and either a bloodbath or a cowed, meek upper class of rich bastards plowing fields with 15th-century human powered plows, while their wives and daughters service Congolese soldier-children to pay off the hideous and unnecessary debt they've racked up fighting their bill collection actions. "No need to sugar-coat it Richard; just say what you really think!:)
Seriously, I am counting on opinions just like that one (though they won't be nearly as eloquently stated), and I would like to see a lot more vocal expression of them in this country. We live in a climate of legal corporate crime on an absolutely massive scale, and the reason it has come to this point (my view) is that there haven't been enough pitchforks in the streets (yet).
I don't want to see a revolution. Too much risk of catastrophic outcome, in my view. But I do want some genuine fear in the heads of the perpetrators of all these monstrosities - from Rush Limbaugh, to Karl Rove, to the Koch Brothers, and yes, to Jamie Dimon.
I think we have to get to a point where they know that their walls are going to come down, and the lies won't sell any more. Maybe we are getting there, maybe not. Let's see what happens in the Wisconsin recall, where the Koch brothers are trying to fix another election. One data point.
Jim...your measured and reasoned voice soothes me.NOTHING will soothe me enough not to hate and scream about the hijacking of my beautiful, wonderful, amazing country, built on a dream of respect and equality of treatment for all, built with blood and sweat and death from people who could barely read and write AT BEST, but who believed in a vision never before seen and only sporadically spotted this century: Fairness. Social and economic justice. Sincere and abiding respect for the right of each to disagree with all WITHOUT FEAR OF OFFICIAL REPRISAL.
Who hijacked that vision, this amazing, beautiful dream?
Moneymen. Must make their money safe. THEIR money, not the money earned by the sweating laborers whose efforts create the goods and provide the services that generate the profits that enable their worthless sons to go to college instead of Afghanistan, their worthless daughters to have comings-out and weddings that would, in a rational society, cause rebellions against their useless extravagance.
Every compromise, every time the President stakes a position that *should* belong to a moderate Republican, is a victory for the hijackers. Every word of caution, every single utterance that isn't a shout, a scream, a challenge flung in the leathery old faces of the horrid, vile, evil men and women who control 90% of the money in the country, is a waste of breath and another step closer to making permanent the horrors of fascism that send down deeper and deeper roots in Murrikin society.
The world my grandchildren will live in isn't one I wish to see. Which means, the christian gawd being the evilhearted bitch she is, that I'll live to 141.
Conservatism is morally, politically, societally WRONG and should be resisted at every turn. And I do only what one old man can: Holler at the assholes to get off my lawn.
Richard wrote: "Who hijacked that vision, this amazing, beautiful dream?Moneymen. Must make their money safe. THEIR money, not the money earned by the sweating laborers whose efforts create the goods and provide the services that generate the profits that enable their worthless sons to go to college instead of Afghanistan, their worthless daughters to have comings-out and weddings that would, in a rational society, cause rebellions against their useless extravagance."
Richard, I love your eloquence and your unerring sense of history. And, as you know, you are in extremely good company:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent they conquered.”
― Thomas Jefferson
And here is another:“Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
Two hundred years later, and we *still* refuse to see that it really, truly IS Us vs Them.
Richard wrote: "Two hundred years later, and we *still* refuse to see that it really, truly IS Us vs Them."Very well said, again. This democratic republic was always a bold experiment. Jefferson believed that man is perfectible, but knew perfectly well that he himself was far from perfect.
But the man did have a crystalline vision, and his words would be well heeded, right now. The experiment continues, but the lights in the lab are flickering something fierce.
Jim wrote: "Richard wrote: "Two hundred years later, and we *still* refuse to see that it really, truly IS Us vs Them."Very well said, again. This democratic republic was always a bold experiment. Jefferson ..."
The lab's been moved to the basement and the lights are pine-tar torches. The superconducting supercollider lab is reserved for the corporate communications team that handles damage control stemming from environmental calamity.
I am disgusted with the supine heirs of Jefferson and Adams. We deserve the gummint we got and we got the gummint we deserve.
Richard wrote: "The lab's been moved to the basement and the lights are pine-tar torches. The superconducting supercollider lab is reserved for the corporate communications team that handles damage control stemming from environmental calamity.I am disgusted with the supine heirs of Jefferson and Adams. We deserve the gummint we got and we got the gummint we deserve."
I can't disagree, but I work in the lab and think I can keep the torches going for a little longer. I also think the supercollider has an unfortunate tendency to break down at odd intervals. Especially when someone messes with the power supply.
And I know this much from my years of lab work - you can usually find a variant of the experiment that will work, and you don't really need that supercollider if you can still think straight.
To be continued.. This coach is looking very pumpkin-y.
I'm too tired to cOmment on the profound statement made by you wise men about the preponderance of lying windbags on the far right. I just try to be fair and balanced and acknowledge that I do not have a double standard. For example, although I adore Michael Moore, some of his films border on propaganda in their inability to acknowledge any of the right's concerns that might have possible merit. Jim and Steve: have you checked your default settings? Do you have it set to automatically check "email when people reply"?
Kelly wrote: "I'm too tired to cOmment on the profound statement made by you wise men about the preponderance of lying windbags on the far right. I just try to be fair and balanced and acknowledge that I do not have a double standard."Thanks for the kind words, Kelly, and I certainly agree with the goal of being (truly) fair and balanced. It isn't easy - we all harbor biases that influence our thinking on all sorts of issues.
And I do agree with you that Michael Moore's films can go over the top at times, and in some unfortunate ways. I like him and admire what he tries to do, but I don't spend a lot of time watching his work.
What really bothers me is that we are not, in general, having an honest discussion of real issues in this country. In part this is (my opinion) because so many of the issues come down to concepts or mechanisms that most people do not understand - not in enough depth to discuss them, or process what others are saying about them.
The banking system is a good example. Without some understanding of credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, leverage ratios, capital reserves and automated trading, you can't really understand how investment banking operates, or how much danger those factors create for everyone.
You can get a sense of it by watching how markets react every time there is a fresh piece of news about the European Union. Will Greece default or withdraw from the Union? How about Spain, or Italy? Relatively small economies have major effects on the global system. But without some depth of understanding of the titanic leverage in these banks' holdings, you can't really see just how fragile the world economy really is, and how we are all held hostage by the leverage of the banks.
So financial reform, especially of the banking system, is absolutely crucial to achieve any kind of economic stability. With that understanding, you can simply watch and listen to the statements of, say, Mitt Romney that he will roll back the (relatively weak) financial reforms that were passed in this administration! Context is everything in this game, and context is missing in the mental framework of the average voter. And that is a very dangerous situation indeed.
There are many other examples (health insurance is one), but enough rambling. Oh, and I did check my default settings, and email is definitely checked for replies and basically everything else. I think GR gets overwhelmed by the traffic at times, and their system software just isn't robust enough (yet) to work through the overloads.
Yikes. How do I check to make sure I see all replies? I get scores of emails about them but I'd hate to miss someone's question or reply to my question because of notification problems. I wonder if server lever spam filters catch stuff? I've had that happen with other sites in annoyingly inconsistent ways. Anyway, I agree about the banking. I'm watching the euro situation like a slo-mo fall in a movie. I can see that it's a very bad thing to fall but I'm fairly ignorant as to what's going on because to me money had always been a way to not be homeless and to get more books. I lie a little, I used to have investments before I got sick but it was simple stuff: stock options and moving the stuff in my 401k around which was really fun but pretty safe since we only had about ten excellent options to choose from and I was young.
Today quite by accident I found a Schoolhouse Rock that I'd never heard of called Wall Street! Alas, the tune and wording were so boring I only watched about 27 seconds of it. It's interesting thought that in the early 70's they though that was an important lesson for younger kids and now I think most high school students wouldnt know anything sung in it.
Apparently many on wall Street find it mysterious as well
Perfect response. See, I told you you are brilliant. :)
If Clinton goes to hell for anything, it won't be Lewinskijinks or Whitewatersnooze...it will be the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Richard wrote: "If Clinton goes to hell for anything, it won't be Lewinskijinks or Whitewatersnooze...it will be the repeal of Glass-Steagall."I agree, Richard, and I think it will be among his biggest regrets. That genie will not go back into the bottle without a titanic struggle.
Kelly wrote: "Yikes. How do I check to make sure I see all replies? I get scores of emails about them but I'd hate to miss someone's question or reply to my question because of notification problems...."
I wrote a response earlier, Kelly, but it disappeared (probably something I did wrong).
I don't think there is any easy way to be sure of seeing all replies at this point. I do think that a lot of sites have glitches when the traffic gets really heavy, but some of the issue could also be from hacker/pirate traffic slowing down the entire net (yes, they are out there all the time). I think there are many bottlenecks in the U.S. system - but not to worry, free enterprise will get all of that sorted out...
I checked out the Schoolhouse Rock vid! I agree, it is boring, but there was a time in this country where the average person could take an interest in investing their hard-earned cash, and hope to make a positive return. Not so easy any more, and you sure don't do it on a level playing field. Dubya pretty well wrecked any semblance of fairness in the game - another trick I didn't mention before is 'flash trading'. If you don't know about it, you don't want to.
Will wrote: "Apparently many on wall Street find it mysterious as well"
Yes indeed, Will. As you know perfectly well, they can invent 'exotic instruments' with leverage and positive feedback loops, AND manage to be SHOCKED by the inevitable crash. Jamie Dimon will be testifying in Congress soon over his latest 'hedge' fiasco at Chase. Should I set my DVR?
Thank you Jim. Flash trading sounds scary. I'm picturing a broker in a trench coat and no pants.
Haha, no, it's even worse than that. No broker, just a computer watching the incoming stream of buy-sell orders, BEFORE they are executed. The algorithm detects a significant concentration in orders to buy or sell a particular stock. Then, it INSERTS an order to do the same trade IN FRONT of the incoming orders!!! The computer skims off your money by benefitting from the push that you give to the price, up or down. I hope that made sense. Perfectly legal; they wrote the law to make sure of that, and paid the Congressmen off to vote for it. It is also called high-frequency trading.
Last I heard (a year or so ago), Goldman Sachs was putting up a massive building, filled with computers, to do NOTHING but flash trading at the highest possible speed. Early bird gets the worm...
Lots more examples where that one came from. Will knows this stuff a lot better than I do.
Agreed, Richard, and here is the kicker: human greed has no limits. Left unchecked, it is never satisfied. The only effective inhibitor of greed is fear.This has been Jim's neuroscience moment for today.
There is another solution to greed. It entails torches and pitchforks.
Will wrote: "There is another solution to greed. It entails torches and pitchforks."
Will wrote: "There is another solution to greed. It entails torches and pitchforks."Just so, Will. I play this little thought experiment in my head from time to time.
Which comes first in this country: 1) the fear of the gathering storm (and real reforms that don't get billionaired out of existence); or 2) the torches and pitchforks?
I see Syria, but with a much better PR machine, not soon, but eventually.
Richard wrote: "Will wrote: "There is another solution to greed. It entails torches and pitchforks."I love that, Richard!
Here is a good, current example of the gathering storm:
http://act.engagementlab.org/sign/cli...
I have now signed 3 of this series of petitions. Heartland Institute's corporate support has been cut in half since the drive started. The goal is to cut the other half.
Will wrote: "I see Syria, but with a much better PR machine, not soon, but eventually."You may be right, Will. I don't have a clear vision of how it goes. I do find it hard to envision a true dictator here, but maybe you have another scenario in mind.
Actually I do not have much of a clear vision. As passive as most Americans are, it is likelier that the vast majority of people will throw up their hands and believe that whatever happens is not affecting them personally and "what can an individual person do anyway?" Having a clear dictator makes it much easier to focus on a definable evil, but what if the focus is diffused. We have a perfect example of this in Egypt today. They got rid of the figure at the top, but what is left? The candidates left in the presidential race do not exactly offer visions of a city on a hill. The people must be wondering, "We took to the streets and shed blood for this?" As long as the underlying institutions remain, the figurehead at the top is mostly meaningless. What that means in the USA is that unless we return to a system in which our democracy is more one-person-one-vote than one-dollar-one-vote, institutional change is impossible. Whether the president is Obama or Dubyah. Not that there is no difference between those two. The differences are significant, but basic change is institutional not personal, regardless of whether the person at the top is voted out of office or is slaughtered by a mob. And, in another vein, it is the lunatic right that is arming, not the pissed-off left. Any armed conflict in the USA will result in full-on fascism not any return to liberal democracy. The only hope for the left resides in non-violence, much as I would love to see many of the dark forces of the right separated from their skulls. The police can be relied on to apply violence if protesters begin to make headway. That is what police do. They do not take their orders from protesters but from those against whom demonstrators protest. And that is where the violence is most likely to occur. Maybe not at a Syrian level, but it is not usually the cops who are hauled off to hospitals in numbers when there is street conflict. And they seem to feel that a single injured cop is justification enough to bash heads on any who disagree. And it seems that mostly they do not even bother waiting for that single injury.
well said, will. pls forgive faux ee cummings typing but left elbow/shoulder in terrible shape today.i fear i'm one of the hand-thrower-uppers. it's that or throw hand grenades.
I am a practicing lawyer. Whether I want to be or not, that makes me a professional negotiator. It's not fun, it's not always in service of the ultimate truth-- but it's absolutely necessary to be tough and start far from where you expect to end up. President Obama may have been a brilliant constitutional law professor, but he appears to understand little about the art of negotiating with bullies. I agree, you start with universal-single payer, and if you have to compromise to get mere health exchanges then so be it, but at least you get their commitment on that ( a former Republican response to Hillarycare, BTW). When Republicans propose new tax code and 15% flat tax for the rich, your opening position is a 100% tax rate for all income over a million. (OK, I exaggerate a little.) The problem, as I see, it is that Obama starts out where he wants to end up. That may be laudable to be honorable and honest in dealing with people of good will and good faith, but it does not work when you are dealing with vicious, demogogues and bullies like modern Republican politicians. Also, I understand he was compromising to get conservative Democrats on board with health care, but that's where power politics come into play, i.e., Senators show up the next morning and Harry Reid escorts them to their new office in the basement by the furnace, and earmarks to their states get cut off. Good review and analysis, Will.