I can sometimes smile at America’s political elite. It’s a broad, bipartisan smile, aimed at the elite of both parties, the corporate press, the consultant celebrities. By any measure, the world has grown more dangerous on their watch, from increasing international belligerence and the threat of environmental catastrophe. Here at home, the scandalous gap between rich and poor is equally threatening (and immoral). On all fronts, leadership has botched the job.
And still the pundits, politicians, bureaucrats, and party hacks get their self-esteem from being part of the crew that’s wrecked the world. I know that some say they haven’t botched it at all, that they’ve succeeded in their real job of running off with the money and condemning the planet to ruin and the rest of us to poverty. That’s certainly true of some, like Dick Cheney. But it’s not true of many. They are just inept. They can’t see past the ends of their noses, and they’ve fallen in love with their own smell.
As we argued over health care this past week, the White House and the Senate circled the wagons. I know what it’s like on the inside of circled wagons. I’ve been there. The first order of business is to identify the unworthy outsiders, then get all self-congratulatory about how smart you are, how hard you work, and how little those unworthy outsiders know.
There’s a great parody of self-congratulating fools in the movie, Pulp Fiction. Vincent and Jules have created a bloody mess. Mr. Wolfe (Harvey Keitel) is called in to clean it up. He’s about got that done when the self-congratulating starts. “Well, let’s not start sucking each others dicks quite yet,” Keitel says. That’s a line that should have been uttered in all the backslapping, elite meetings that got the world into its messes.
Status celebration is exactly what leads a Chris Matthews to criticize the netroots or a Rahm Emanuel to dismiss liberals. The insiders are just heavy-petting one another because they’ve made it through the red velvet ropes and into the exclusive club. The problem is, when they engage in heavy petting, it’s the rest of the world that gets the political, cultural, economic and environmental equivalents of STDs.
It is, of course, fundamentally anti-democratic. It’s tragic, really, because if we are to survive these desperate times, we are going to have to overcome the elite experts and listen to the wisdom of the many. We’re going to have to achieve something closer to a true popular democracy.
A few years ago, psychologist Philip Tetlock completed a multi-year study of expert advice measured against actual outcomes, published in his book, Expert Political Judgment. Experts, Tetlock found, were no better than “dart-throwing chimps” at predicting outcomes or consequences. Experts:
…claim to know more about the future than they actually know, balk at changing their minds in the face of unexpected evidence, and dogmatically defend their deterministic explanations of the past.
Sound like anyone you know?
Tetlock summed it up nicely in an interview.
We found that our experts’ predictions barely beat random guesses – the statistical equivalent of a dart-throwing chimp – and proved no better than predictions of reasonably well-read nonexperts. Ironically, the more famous the expert, the less accurate his or her predictions tended to be.
I’m not sure I go as far as James Suroweicki does in The Wisdom of Crowds. We do need expert knowledge. But those experts have to listen to non-experts, to the broad public that knows a little something about consequences. Political elites are especially dangerous – precisely because of their fame and celebrity, which makes them more prone to error, according to Tetlock.
In the health care debate, efforts to improve the bill have been misrepresented and ridiculed as coming from unrealistic progressives with no real skin in the game. What? Doesn’t being a citizen mean exactly that one has skin in the game? And, uh, this is health care. My actual skin is in the game.
I, for one, simply wanted Democrats to understand that there might just be a voter backlash to a mandate without a public option and enforceable regulation. Behind the wagons, though, the high and the mighty have succeeded in reducing their goal to simply silencing those who seek to make it better.
When self-selecting elites create outsiders, victory too often means simply beating the outsiders. Policy differences and human consequences become little game pieces in a power contest dangerously abstracted from the world.



73 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Great blog! In the arrogance and greed of power….the ruling elites in the US lack a key ingredient for true support of the masses. Which they so eagerly want.
Wisdom. The only time I have seen it in my very old life was JFK and candidate Obama.
Do not think that candidate Obama just up and lost it on account of the inaguration and all. I think he has to man up to the true controllers of politics or else. Jimmy Carter seemed to have a bit of honesty about him which I am sure got in the way of handlers. He said after a year in the WH he realized it made no difference what he thought.
Rep. Alan Grayson on the Thom Hartmann Show, December 18, 2009:
With Rep. Alan Grayson’s observation, I realize that We the People, the sane people in America, are being harmed by using the Liberal-Centrist-Conservative and Democrat vs. Republican framing because the sociopaths are using these frames to protect and hide themselves within their positions of power.
So, here’s an idea. Let’s transcend these narratives by introducing a new, competing and compelling mental health paradigm / frame through which we view our elected officials. Just as corporations make use of Industrial/ Organizational psychologists in their HR departments to create an evidence-based perspective from which to make hiring decisions, we establish a panel of respected clinical psychologists which offers prospective candidates for elected office a voluntary way to confirm he or she does not have antisocial personality disorder (a.k.a. sociopathy).
Now, because we cannot negate a frame (i.e. George Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of a Elephant”), this panel would instead offer something like a “We the People” seal of approval, meaning a capacity or sense of moral responsibility and social conscience has been confirmed with the prospective candidate. Because candidates would have the option to subject themselves to this psychological scrutiny on a voluntary basis in order to achieve this special seal, no one’s boundaries would be violated. To protect each candidate’s privacy, the only thing that would be revealed about the candidate is whether he or she is granted the “We the People” seal. So, it would be advantageous for someone thinking of running for office to try for the seal right away, to confirm for themselves that they have the emotional capacity necessary to truly represent their constituents–the American people.
Having a seal of approval like this would have a secondary benefit: Americans subjected to manipulative campaign commercials and mailers would have another avenue from which to judge each candidate–from a mental health perspective. This would be open to any candidate from any party running for office. I’d rather have an old school empathetic Republican with a social conscience than a sociopathic new Democrat.
Your thoughts?
- Tom
Two news analysis that point to the ugly truth on the health care debate. Health care industry spends $600 million lobbying, hires hundreds of former Congressional staffers:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-lobbyists_bddec20,0,5453763,print.story
Harper’s magazine on how reform was meant all along to save the insurance industry:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740
Interesting idea, though, truth be told, we don’t need a panel of some kind to confirm what we already know. And then, of course, there’s all the sociopath’s teabagging allies. I wouldn’t be so sure the labeling wouldn’t work against the sane in the end. I mean this a little tongue-in-cheek, but still….
I took Obama’s campaign promises with a large dose of salt, knowing that even the most well intentioned individual would find that changing the culture of Washington was akin to moving a mountain.
I did expect him to AT LEAST try, so in learning that he is only another corporatist who lacked even sincere good intentions I am bitterly disappointed.
Or, as you et al wrote in your prescient 2007 (PDF) Rockridge paper on the health care debate, “The neoliberal emphasis on ‘systems’ often causes a loss of focus upon the progressive morality that lies beneath their political and policy solutions.”
(Great paper, BTW).
So very well said. Thank you. :-)
Thanks for including that link here. And thanks, Selise, for pointing to it last week as well.
If one sees the estimated 45,000 who die annually as a result of a failed health care system as causalities of the class war one might then ask what are the causalities of the plutocrats? When answered there is little doubt who is winning.
Uh, you’re not the singer-songwriter are ya? Whether ya are or not, thanks so much.
Well, the purpose of this strategy is not about convincing us, but rather all those Americans out there who fall victim to sociopathic manipulation. People fall victim to it because it is invisible–that’s the only way manipulation can work. I believe, like our corporations, our houses of congress are infested with sociopaths.
I’d love to see the mental health frame inserted into the election process as it is way way overdue. It should remain there from here on out.
- Tom
Yes, you are right, but couldn’t this also be said:
The idea of the other has been a problem in American politics from day one to the present.
I picture Demosthenes with his candle, in his lonely search . . .
For anyone who hasn’t seen this here is a diagnosis and a prescription.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools
It is easy to call the other guy crazy, but your solution seems to change experts from the present ones to groups of psychologists, questionable experts themselves. The real problem is hierarchical thinking of which most comenters are guilty. They want better leaders rather than think of ways we might create a more true democracy. Many think giving the average citizen a voice in collective decisions is a recipe for disaster. You believe in democracy or you don’t. If you believe in democracy, you realize the present system doesn’t come close.
I agree about the sociopathic tendences about many “leaders,” and I’d hope we can make that more evident. Psycho. screening panels, though, could be horribly abused. Also, there are tremendous conflicts among cognitive scientists and psychologists about many of these things. Whatta we do when yesterday’s categorical sociopath is today’s empath? Not likely, I know, I just don’t have that much faith in, well, experts…..
It would be, except I don’t argue for their exclusion, and criticize their behavior, not their essential selves. I argue for a more open process. The fault lies not in describing the elite as they are. They do make the rules after all.
“Well, let’s not start sucking each others dicks quite yet.
Perhaps that is why none of us can understand anyone in Congress. They can not speak clearly because the corporate dick doesn’t ever come out of their mouths.
Triumphalism, eh?
Seems to be a constant of the human condition, at least since we lost any mooring in mutual interest and the common good.
It’s not limited, by any means, to the prancing popinjays in the DC Palace.
The class war is effectively won. We lost. Big time.
Now the question is what do we do about it? Looks like most people are content — enough — with the outcome, and those who are dissatisfied are mostly interested in mitigations around the margins. Make it “less bad.” And call it “good.”
But those who are really discontent and believe the course of events to be not only wrong but morally repugnant — evil — are still flailing around not knowing which direction to take or how to use what limited power they have to precipitate … something better. Call it a Revolution if you want. Or a Regeneration.
There’s no agreement on action, or what’s the right action, or even agreement that the Systems we’ve relied on are truly broken and cannot be salvaged.
There’s no real agreement on principles or ideology, either, with a libertarian-market-individualist faction continuing to contend with a community-social-justice faction. Those who say it is not really a left-right political divide any more are correct. Neither term has any real political meaning — perfect for our degenerate mass media. Liberal and conservative are equally passé except as philosophical notions.
Can the factions opposed to the Corporatist triumph be melded? I’m in no position to say. But if they ever are merged — or contrary-wise, one of them triumphs over the other — the Corporatists may finally meet their match.
They do mumble a lot.
Bill Moyers’ guests (Robert Kuttner and Matt Taibbi) hit the nail on the head about the mess this Health Care Reform legislation has become.
Watch it if you missed if you missed it.
The Journal: Washington for Sale?
Why do we listen to pundits and losers anymore……..
It is clear the American people have beens “screwed” by corporate America in the lust for profit as Jefferson warned!
The desire to maintain “cash cows” which guts Americans of Liberty is a repeat in history. America is brainwashed by monopolized instilled needs, extracting life in return for whaT?
That is essential, and it’s problematic because of the virtual nature of media “reality.” People believe what their body knows not to be true.
Important. Thanks for the link!
Only problem with this …from my only personal experience..I did not vote for Obama for what he said in the debates. It was two things . His Mother’s influence, helping poor people.
Oddly enough, Rev. Wright and his church’s long history of helping the truly needy. Millions to feeding the homeless , AIDs patients and scholarships. The G– D—- America clip , although a poor choice of words was actually stated in re. to all the killing and stealing the US has done. He was talking about Iraquiis and how they would probably feel about us liberating them.Over a million people killed now.. His face looked very sad when he threw Rev Wright under the bus.
I think the ones who really control politics ..banks and military etc. put that clip out. Hillary was their first choice.Notice the way Obama’s face looks now as compared to campaign Obama? Sad.
You used the past tense. Is something closed off? Do progressives continue to do what we’ve been doing? How do effective communications happen across insider/outsider walls? I have some ideas . . .
Obama went to Washington to change Washington, but it has been Washington that changed him
No, nothing is closed off yet. In fact, I wonder if some of the progressive-bashing from the insiders may be exaggerated spin intended to get the bill out of the Senate, meaning some serious changes may yet be made. I know, wishful thinking….
Washington was built on a swamp it has never risen above.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Genn W. Smith and the firepup Freedom Fighters:
Thank you Brother Smith, you lifted me you off the bottom of a deep sea of frustration and anger. I would offer one additional thing to your beautiful offering on the hubris of power: what both “experts” and politicians need is failure in order to re-orient themselves to the source of the experience of truth. And of course the “truth” is experienced by the mass of the people.
That is why whatever exists of a progressive movement must work to “kill the bill” and hang a major failure on Obama before he can make “liberals” and progressives into the enemy in place of corporate power.
I am convinced that the progressive movement must keep the issues of national healthcare and the corporate wars in the Middle East alive into 2010, the movement of “hope” which Obama created in 2008 in order to get his corportatist ass elected, must come back to bury him and his corporate handlers.
We hafta create an anti-war movement around national healthcare, let’s make Obama see the ghost of LBJ on Christmas night.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION, THIS IS NOT A GAME!!
Yes, the decision-makers have to feel the failures in their bones, not just those they’ve thrown over the cliff.
aka, Hope. I’ve been struggling for a couple months whether to post a comment about my feeling “the betrayal of hope.” It seemed not quite right, as if Obama or anyone could control my sense of hope.
What you wrote today leads me to know that it is for each of us to decide if we will continue to carry our values on, regardless of what the powerful do. That choice is our power . . .
Great thought! Well put. Thanks for that.
jfc ! that is one prescient bastard. I can not wait to read that book. dogmatic being the operative term for me.
I have been casting about for a Rahm On The Couch type piece – not because I want to make it all about a ‘personality’ – but his intractibility, denial, and abject smugness – it’s almost like a classic personality disorder and I wanted to get my hands on something that might explain why/how he still holds sway – looks like there may be more than a clue in the Tetlock book
There will be a voter backlash or voters will stay home, but rest assured the corporation will still run everything and everyone. It’s not the people in office, there is no one coming to save us. We truly are going to have to become the change we’ve been waiting for and we are going to have to work to “persuade” the rest of the mainstream of the same. There is no one to elect that will save us from the corporations.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools
Excellent post.
I’m tracking the tea party funders. Money to pay for buses and organizing comes from the Koch family ( big private oil) , RJR Reynolds, and health insurance companies) but the people who attend don’t see that. Also here is an ironic deal the corporations who hate gov services USE lots of gov services for free at these events. The taxpayers pick up the tab for the protests organized to benefit the energy, tobacco and health insurance companies. How do they do this? They make a PAC or 501 c 3 and fund it to set up tea parties. The media don’t ask who funds this because they think it is Grass roots.
Why do taxpayers give free services to multibillion dollar corporations? Because the corporations use the tools to trick them with no penality.
If you knew this was happening in your city would you like that Corp money? Or what would you say to liberals who say, “don’t waste your time.” Or “If you ask the city to go after the corporate protest organizers theywill come after us and make us pay for services at our protests.” Or “they have a right as a corporation to their free speech too and if they can get the wingnuts to buy into their line, more power to them.”
What would you answers to these comments made by liberals.
Thoughts?
Btw, For reference the recent tea party in LA cost the taxpayers at least $6,500 in police security. They paid nothing.
I acknowledge that selecting a panel of licensed clinical psychologists could be abused, so that process would have to be worked out as carefully as possible. Again, I’m not proposing a government entity, just some outside organization willing to offer this service on a voluntary basis if candidates wanted it. I’m wondering, do existing organizations in the field of psychology ever endorse candidates? If so, I wonder how they would make that decision.
http://library.gmu.edu/resources/psyc/psychorg.htm
As far as not trusting panels, we do have a Supreme Court, with probably more than a few sociopaths, heading one of our three branches of government. At what point do we decide to confront the issue head-on? I would trust a majority opinion from a panel of 20 licensed clinical psychologists that a particular candidate shouldn’t be endorsed vs. how our current MSM and opposition candidates present their opponents in an election. For example, there’s a reason the Franken-Coleman election was so close and could have easily gone the other way.
- Tom
And that link to Mendand’s NYT review gives a very good overview. The book’s interpretive sections are quite good. There is a goodly amount of statistical analysis, too.
Get the government outta my wallet, you commies /s
That tracking you’re doing is important because it shows the sham as a sham, that the teabaggers are getting used.
We listen to them because they are booked on TV and quoted by newspapers. The understanding of the pundit success is how media friendly they are and how crisp their positions are. That is how they are judged. The producers don’t say, “Sorry William, I’ve been following your predictive success and you are 13-290. We are going with Elenor Clift who is 140- 290″. Doesn’t happen. It is more about were they “fun” as a guest. Did people complain? Where they easy to get on the phone? Do they have time to come to the studio?”
Do they have the right credintials? (applies to the left only. The right needs people to be popular if they are not an expert. If they are popular on the left they are actors. The right has popular non -actors to go on these shows.
It is not about the quality of the predictions. It is about the Quality of the performance.
Irving Janis’ theory of groupthink is another component to the pattern where empowered decisionmakers keep on digging themselves in deeper in order to salvage what they’ve wrecked and prove that they were correct.
I find that in my own local political participation, that once one gets a head of momentum, one tends to get heady and head of one’s capabilities, and that’s when one begins to fuck up. One lesson that I’ve been trying to learn is to figure out how to short circuit that impulse, where success shuts down evaluative and course correction circuits in the brain.
Rational minds should revel in being wrong to the extent that it helps put one on the right path instead of writhing in the pits of denial which leads to being wrong and wronger.
DO you think the “We the People” mental health screening would have flushed out that heir-to-Bobby-Kennedy pretender, John Edwards? He CARED so deeply about poverty, but somehow wives with cancer…not so much…nor children borne out of wedlock…those are to be denied.
He had us thoroughly bamboozled.
Self-exploration and review. Buddha was right all along. I’m serious, actually, that one can get in the habit of this. First thing you learn is that self-confidence doesn’t depend upon bluff. In other words, one reason we get the “big head,” as you say, is because we want to project confidence. That style is rewarded in our culture. But a deeper self-confidence arrives with self exploration. Yea, changing our minds can be labeled “dithering,” but people know in their guts that it’s not.
Once we begin to believe our own bullshit, we’re fucked.
The same sex marriage crowd is in this trap right now, they’ve dug themselves into a hole and are digging further down trying to figure a way out.
Part of this is that in winner take all politics, the stakes are high. If you’re going to join the contest, you’d better fucking be playing to win or else you’re wasting everyone’s time. Thus failing really sucks.
Here in SF, I do lots of supervisor campaigns. We end up winning about 1/2 or more. One we lost, but the guy who won is doing well. A mutual friend hooked us up for a phone call last week. It is always great to email an office holder saying “sorry, but I’m a bit toasted right now, can we have a conversation tomorrow, when it will be more productive?” So we talked the next day, and before we got into the policy agenda, I told him that it sucks to be wrong, but it is always better to be wrong when things turn out right than to be wrong when things turn out wrong.
If you can’t switch polarities in a heartbeat in politics while maintaining fidelity to values and principles based on what alignments are going to deliver the goods you want, then you’ve got no business taking up space and consuming oxygen in the world of politics.
Confucious said that…
Just as changing one’s mind can be labeled “dithering,” so has self-exploration been derided as “navel-gazing.” By people who have vested interests threatened when people become conscious.
This discussion reminds me of Marshall Ganz s idea about strategic capacity. The chattering classes lack it, the Democratic Party lacks it, so many of our allied progressive interest groups lack it. It also reminds me of Matt Stoller s point about the rootsgap: when a leadership is dramatically out of step with its base or the public at large.
The sad thing is that the leadership cannot see these problems, and would reject any solutions that involve closing this gap. Solutions must come from the bottom up.
This is a big topic. For instance, it’s only recently that neuroscientists have found the ways brains are wired to avoid a kind of literal determinism. We are neurobiologically wired to create, to have new thoughts, to right wrongs, change directions. A casual survey of certain cultural influences, say, Calvinist predestination, shows the lengths authoritarians will go to to convince us we don’t have choices.
All the way to calling the weighing of choices “dithering.”
One problem is that our politics is illegitimately mediated, in that the stuff between the sovereigns and the electeds is wholly corrupted, as electeds designate stakeholders that they know will serve the interests of their patrons, smart folks to serve those needs directly and idiots to represent those who would challenge the patrons.
The incentives in politics under this model run counter to those which would encourage problem solving, diametrically to the contrary, unfortunately.
There are broadly two classes of folks who do politics, those who primarily think their politics on the left and those who primarily feel their politics on the right. Our task is to identify commonalities by adapting our methods of communication such that we value both perspectives and synthesize a common populist ground between the two to take government away from Wall Street.
Exactly right. It’s the problem, or, put another way, if we solved it other problems would be easier to address.
Working people should get 5 hours a week paid to do politics to disintermediate the veal pen and hold electeds directly accountable.
Politics is complex like rocket science, but you don’t need an advanced degree to participate, that is our birthright as sovereigns in a democratic society. The experts aren’t, but as Henry Kissinger said something like: experts are those who coalesce and express the consensus if the elites.
yikes, database errors!
Hi Glenn… Great post… I am so sick of the sucking dick chattering pundits and the “insiders” in DC… which you sum up very well.
I would love to talk with you all day… or okay, at least all afternoon, but here are a couple of questions for you.
I read your excellent 2007 ‘health care debate’ piece through Selise’s link last week… I was struck by a couple of things… altho you wrote it prior to the second coming of Rahm Emanuel, I think your label of neoliberalism regarding the recent health care handout to corporations is apt.
Yet, not very many people are calling it what it is… with perhaps the exception of Matt Taibbi…but I don’t believe he has called their actions neoliberal.
But it would seem from Obama’s appointments from day one that that is exactly what is going on here. I also saw a youtube video recently of Obama addressing a group of people at a Hamilton Project meeting hosted by the Brookings Institute… he very clearly talked of his support ‘free markets’, the buzzword of neoliberalism.
At the end of his talke, he did caveat his support of their efforts by urging them to not forget people in middle America trying to pay their bills… which seemed an odd ps.
Anyway… my question to you is… is the guy a fake? How could he campaign, stridently, on such populist, progressive policies… openly decrying lobbyist influences… and specifically Tauzin, whom he and Emanuel negotiated this year?
How can there be such a big disconnect? Taibbi pointed out that Goldman Sachs was his biggest corporate contributor… but of course we never heard about that (at least I didn’t) during the campaign.
The congnitive disonance around the current reality as compared to the fiery campaign speech I personally witnessed in northern NM is really extreme.
If THIS guy… who promised such hope and change has sold us out from day one… I must say I don’t hold out much hope for substantive change with our existing bi-party system.
He and Emanuel know they have us by the cajones (and whatever the female anatomical equivalent is, in my case) and we have no where else to go as we witness the outright theft of our taxpayer money being handed over to corporations.
ps… I’d like to add that the cognitive disonance is most pronounced around the fact that Emanuel negotiated this giveaway to the medical insurance/pharma complex in order to ensure their $$ continue to flow freely to Democrats in the upcoming elections…
That’s another fact that is getting almost no airplay (gee I wonder why!)… Obamuel have very deftly played the ‘victim’ role in having to cave to ‘centrist’ Dems (or I don’t know what the fuck you call Lieberman… some alien Independent Republican hybrid masquerading as a wannabe Dem)…
And the most sad fact of this is that the WH is continuing the Bush policies of screwing people while making them think that they (the WH) is working hard for them…
They will have their ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment and the majority of Americans will not know that they are getting screwed…
I personally don’t think there will be a voter backlash next fall or that there will be an uprising about the loss of the public option. The lulled and complacent populace that comprise the center of the bell curve will be duped again.
I guess the only good thing about that is, the corporate money can’t get up off the couch on election day and vote. It’s going to be a blood bath and I for one can’t wait.
Sadly tbsa, I don’t agree… see this comment at the bottom of #57…
“I personally don’t think there will be a voter backlash next fall or that there will be an uprising about the loss of the public option. The lulled and complacent populace that comprise the center of the bell curve will be duped again.”
And I really don’t think there will be a backlash… the WH knows that the informed progressives in the blogosphere comprise a very small part of the voting bloc.
You know, we don’t need to see into Obama’s soul to know what to do. We have to amplify our voices, individually and collectively, and create a public environment in which electeds have to follow us.
I do think Obama’s choices so far have demoralized the base, and he and his team have really underestimated the effects of that on their own political fortunes.
We have to begin to “play through” elections. I think Bush was an emergency, and short-term tactical focus necessary. But real reform won’t happen until we learn to execute longer term strategies while taking advantage of short-term opportunities.
I used to be an optimist… and I wish that I agreed with your assessment.
But I do think it matters when someone campaigns on populist principles and from day one goes 180 degrees the opposite direction. I think we who campaigned for him, went door to door for him, donated to him, registered new voters for him, and took first time voters to the polls for him deserve to know why and how that happened.
To me it says that they are all bought and paid for. Or if not, if some are truly progressive, as with Howard Dean, they will simply be brought down by the corporate media complex.
I think the TV/cable medium really has become the message… with absolute corporate control over the pundit class… and virtually complete control over our alleged elected representatives, the voice of dissidents will never be allowed to be heard.
I marched against the war in DC in 2007… only to see the numbers of protesters described as “tens of thousands” in EVERY article when clearly there were hundreds of thousands of people there… Tim Robbins said he could not see the end of the crowd from the stage… it was huge.
No one is allowed to fly over DC to estimate crowds.. and the NPS does not make estimates anymore because someone, somewhere doubted their estimates at one point…
100s of tea partiers get more coverage than hundreds of thousands of war protesters, or 10s of thousands of health reform marchers.
Democracy depends upon a well-informed electorate, and I know from going door to door for Howard Dean that the majority of Americans equate watching CNN to being informed. Truly… I was told that numerous times.
We are screwed. Even now, the progressives who are standing up to the sham of the healthcare reform bill are marginalized and are called irrational… by the time elections come around in 2010, the monied interests will win again.
A la de Toqueville… “people (do) get the democracy they deserve”
Couldn’t agree more…
The Rich have been screwing the rest of us for eons!! Time “We the People” need to turn the tables on them through higher taxes like the WWII rates. Oh and this capital gains shit should be treated as ordinary income!! No Corporate Welfare period… they pay a flat 25% on gross profits! That might help the deficit…
just saying…..
I was bamboozled too. I had no idea what Edwards was secretly up to. He was my first choice in the Democratic primary. I’m glad he was found out early in the process.
The thing about experts is, we do need them from time to time. Real experts with a brilliant track record, not people who simply call themselves that on tv without regard for how wrong they’ve been in the past. It’s shameful the harm that the teabaggers and climate change denialists are causing our planet by inviting doubt and discounting climate change experts.
Here’s an interesting post on psych evaluations:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-frank/license-and-registration-_b_40785.html
Great discussion everyone!
- Tom
It would be better if any candidate failed the test they could be either disqualified from office or at the very least the fact they failed should be public information. Then I would agree with the “Test”.
As always, thoughtful and thought provoking piece, thanks. I must admit however, that I’ve been more than surprised by some of the Obama bashing going on in the FDL comments over HCR lately. And the vitriol directed at anyone who offers up anything less than a full throated condemnation of Obama. Is it really that naïve for me to consider the possibility that the administration saw this outcome as inevitable and proceeded accordingly? Rather than some Kabuki dance, isn’t it possible that Obama tried to manage expectations by down playing the importance of things he knew he couldn’t get? You don’t let your ego write checks that you know you can’t cash. I’m not defending the bill, but I place the blame squarely on a dysfunctional congress, and an obstructionist/nihilistic GOP. That’s what enabled a few deeply dishonest and ego-maniacal Senators to hold the country hostage. Other than some gassing about the mythical power of the bully pulpit, or real leadership, I’ve yet to hear what actual leverage so many seem to believe Obama had over the likes of Lieberschmuck and friends acting in bad faith. It’s unlikely that FDR or LBJ would have moved much major legislation partnering with our current congress, because in today’s GOP, Barry Goldwater would have been castigated as a R.I.N.O. and that’s worth remembering.
PT…. The 2007 Rockridge Institute analysis of the health care debate (cp-written by Glenn… link from upthread) calls this tendency the “Surrender-in-Advance” trap…. which is exactly what Obamuel did with health care.
Here’s a quote (emphasis mine):
“The neoliberal emphasis on “systems” often causes a loss of focus upon the
progressive morality that lies beneath their political and policy solutions. Specific
references to progressive values disappear from their messages. So do references to
the government functions of protection and empowerment. Neoliberals may begin
with the morality of empathy and responsibility for oneself and others, but their faith
and focus soon shifts to the abstract, to complicated systems and intricate
public/private solutions. Empathy, the moral force that holds together our democracy
and the engine of community, is reduced to sentimentality and shunted aside.
Neoliberal thinking can lead to a dangerous trap. We call it the Surrender-in-Advance
Trap. With an exaggerated emphasis on system-based solutions, neoliberal thought
may lead one to surrender in advance the moral view that drives an initiative in the
first place. Those who pragmatically focus on appeasing what they assume will be
unavoidable political opposition to their proposals also run the risk of moral
surrender. For instance, assuming strong, possibly insurmountable, conservative
resistance to government-based health care solutions, they will embrace profitmaximizing
insurance solutions because they believe that 1) political opposition can be muted; and 2) the “free” market, properly regulated, can serve moral purposes,
such as providing health care for all Americans. Proponents of these neoliberal
solutions often overlook the fact that the very source of the health care crisis is the
structure of insurance: the less care they authorize the more profit they make, and
profits come first and are maximized.”
Always tough to keep an eye on both policy and campaigning at the same time. All too often in local politics, when we’re all hip deep in campaign mode, corporate interests will throw bombs at us legislatively to try to distract us from winning the campaigns.
5 hours paid political time per week for all working Americans.
Our ideas are well articulated, most of them are populist more so than leftist, radical or liberal, and with a bit of work, might see their appeal rise to the level where they cannot be ignored if we can take a big picture view of mobilizing Americans to take government away from Wall Street and the financial sector.
Left and right, we all want an economy that provides us meaningful, sustainable employment. Services won’t do it, we need manufacturing. Both left and right oppose so-called “free trade” deals, and there is sufficient popular support for protectionism to the extent that we can rebuild our productive capacity that has been intentionally destroyed by the kleptocrats who are wringing the country dry.
I understand your point and will read the entire piece, but I reject the certitude of things like “…which is exactly what Obamuel did with health care.”
Even when you take the Republicans completely out of the equation, and Obama had followed your prescription, my leverage question remains unanswered. To my mind, the outcome would have been the same or worse. A moral argument requires moral recipients who are at least willing to put the needs of others ahead of their personal wants, and Obama didn’t have enough of those in his own party. There is nothing to suggest that, without powerful carrots or big sticks, Holy Joe and Co. would have “done the right” thing. Remember, Snowe and Nelson balking yesterday after getting more than they’d asked for. There is, however, a lot to suggest had Obama committed 100% to “fighting the good fight” Republicans would likely have been able to run out the clock. We may well have ended up with less than nothing (hcr off the table for years) and a great dimenished position for anything else. But I agree, its certainly the strategy for meaningful, long term reform.
“…they will embrace profitmaximizing insurance solutions because they believe that 1) political opposition can be muted; and 2) the “free” market, properly regulated, can serve moral purposes, such as providing health care for all Americans.”
The GOP has flogged the Milton doctrine for over thirty years now and their mantra has become so internalized, by so many Democrats were forced to succumb or become irrelevant. The financial collapse gave us a crack to start deprogramming but it’s long road. I believe Obama understands that it’s no time to cut off your nose to spite your face over the size of the very first step. Obviously, I have no way of knowing, any of this, it’s just were I am currently.
Nope, I’m not he, but I am Greg Brown. The moniker was selected by Google. :-)
I’m not exactly sure what “my” prescription is… I don’t believe I have ever espoused a prescription… but I can make a couple of observations that negate your continuing apologia for Obama:
1) Altho I can’t find it just now, I have seen a youtube of a campaign ad in which Obama is educating a small gathering of people about the 2006 Rx atrocities… alluding specifically to Tauzin (altho not by name) and stating “he is now making millions of dollars a year in the private sector…” Obama specifically points out how Medicare was not allowed to negotiate for drug prices and says at the end “we can not allow these kinds of thing to continue.”
Then the WH negotiated DIRECTLY with Tauzin on deals for PhRMA.
My point being, yes he may have recognized the harsh realities of the Senate voting dynamics …. but he DID NOT have to sell out Americans on pharmaceuticals and insurance compromises even before the bills were being written.
2) There is ample evidence that even though he campaigned HARD on the concept of having a public option and on reining in lobbyists… from the get go Emanuel was pushing for a trigger for the PO and that the WH worked with lobbyists to craft the SFC bill… see numerous post by Jane on these issues.
3) It is my belief that having recognized the Senate dynamics, Obama could have chosen early on to go the reconciliation route to get core elements of reform that he campaigned on, and then deal with insurance malfeasance/crimes in other pieces of legislation.
He, of course, if much too timid for that. The Bill Moyers interview with Robert Kuttner and Matt Taibbi is worth watching for further discussion of things he could have done in anticipation of problems, but simply did not do.
___________
He sold us out every step of the way, see record insurance company profits over the past week.
Given that your first reply made no mention of the tangible possibility reconciliation, my inference of was based on what you did write, since “prescription” offended you I apologize. As to your inference of my “continuing apologia”, I can only suggest you consider other possibilities. It was the unjustifiable and wholly unnecessary hubris being displayed that prompted my original comment.
From all I’ve read, reconciliation was at least a real option, but hardly a slam dunk. Getting knee-capped on an end run would have been disastrous with far reaching, and long term damage.
Looking at your “refutations” 1) and 2) are factually correct, but the conclusions you reach or no less speculative than anything I’ve been considering, and I’ve been fully aware of the same set of facts. The difference being, I recognize my thoughts as speculative, whereas, you do not. You seem to impute yourself with magical powers,allowing to discern the motivation of others with absolute certitude. While I’m willing to accept the possibility of your assertions, I’ve considered them myself, I’m on solid ground saying you don’t and can’t actually know them. Like I said, it was the rampant hubris that first pissed me off. Yours in no more palatable to me than any of the others. But good luck, maybe some find your style persuasive.
rampant hubris? what the fuck are you talking about…
I find your personal attacks rather interesting… to say the least… I was engaging Glenn in a dialogue re Obama’s neoliberal actions… I was not trying to be “persuasive” to anyone…
Perhaps you should read this article re Feingold’s assertion that Obama is partially responsible for the loss of the public option.
I am not trying to engage/convince/persuade anyone of anything… I am merely voicing my opinion.
Something perahps with which you are not familiar, given your pugilistic style of posting..