Tweet
Triangulators like Bill Clinton and his protégé Rahm Emanuel adopt a position above and beyond traditional political lines. They explain that the liberals and the conservatives both hate it, so it much be a good idea. Conventional thinkers, like the op-ed writers for the WaPo, are impressed, they write good things. If the liberals and the conservatives hate it, it must be centrist or bi-partisan or whatever their chosen praise word might be. Activists feel cheated, but they don’t count.
This strategy will work as long as the two ends of the political spectrum stay in their places. In Clinton’s case, the liberals wouldn’t leave the party because they had nowhere else to go. The other side, the conservatives, is pleased that the triangulators have moved in their direction, so they can claim a win.
graphic: Pincer Movement, by Ourai via Wikimedia
Now take a look at the drawing at right.
This is how you beat a triangulator. It’s a drawing of a military maneuver called a pincer movement. The right side and the left side leave their trenches and move to either side of the triangulator forces. They out flank them, and both the right and left sides are able to fire on the common enemy. Wikipedia has a thorough description of the application of this strategy by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae.
The applicability of this strategy to politics is obvious: Grover Norquist and Jane Hamsher, anyone? Of course, it’s a lot easier in war, because the general controls both sides. Hannibal was able to deploy his troops in formations and locations where the strategy had a chance.
Health care reform, like most economic issues, isn’t an inherently partisan issue. Is there anyone on the right who wanted to defend the disgusting tactics of health insurance companies to avoid paying claims? Did they think their insurance company would pay their claims without someone to make them? Unfortunately, before that battle was joined, the deals were cut, and the demonization of our side was complete. The right wing wouldn’t leave its entrenched positions, even though many on that side would have benefited.
The next battle is financial reform. The parallels are obvious. Once again, there isn’t anything inherently partisan in regulating commercial banks and investment banks. Sure, we differ in degree, but there isn’t anyone who thinks the status quo is adequate. No one seriously argues that every financial instrument (the real name for the pieces of paper banksters call products) should run wild, subject only to policing by the “market”. People saw the damage done by the banksters to their pension plans, their 401(k)s, their savings accounts, their state and local governments, their charities and the endowments of their colleges as the “market” policed itself and the money disappeared.
Everybody, regardless of their politics, loathes banks. Everyone blames them for the Great Recession. Everyone despises the bank bailout, which was supported by both parties. It infuriates the entire country that no one has been punished civilly, let alone criminally, for the losses they inflicted on every American. People hate banksters worse than health insurance companies.
The Hamsher/Norquist letter is the first shot in the pincers movement on financial reform. We have a chance to join forces with all of the people angry at banksters and really make a difference. Progressives can’t hope to do this by themselves. We can’t even count on our own to stand with us. Conservatives know that the Republicans won’t lift a finger find out how the banksters caused the Great Recession or punish those responsible, and they certainly aren’t going to do anything to prevent another financial disaster.
It may be too late. The Obama administration may have already cut disgusting deals with their buddies on Wall Street. One obvious sign is that top bankers have done nothing to increase lending or deal with the foreclosure crisis, and all the President does is talk tough to top management who couldn’t care less. Congress doesn’t even bother jawboning.
Lots of progressives hate dealing with Norquist, and lots of conservatives hate it that Norquist joined forces with Hamsher. The question is not what you think about the incongruity of dealing with the other side. It isn’t whether you want a win. Of course you hate it, and you want and need a win. The real question is, are you ready to do what it takes to win, including forming a coalition with conservatives? Or would you rather have the banksters win again?
117 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
brilliant!
The elites don’t give a rat’s ass whether women have abortions, gays get married, somebody lights up a joint, etc. etc., because their power doesn’t depend in the slightest on the outcomes of these squabbles. But that’s why a political system dominated by such nonsense suits their interests.
It’s no accident that the beginning of the “culture wars” era coincided with the Democratic Party’s abandonment of its blue collar/New Deal traditions, as it morphed into another elitist party, replete with many of the same campaign contributors that have long bankrolled the GOP.
What remains is a phony 2 party system that obsesses over matters of identity, sex, and religion, as these issues by their nature stir strong emotions that blind people to the underlying similarity between the “2 parties” and their common masters. In the meantime, differences on issues of importance to the elites are mere lip service.
And to give the elites their due, they’ve done a masterful job. The sheeple get the endless culture wars boob bait while the elites pile up the power and money. Still, some of us are wise to the game that’s being played even if the camp followers on a lot of “right” and “left” blogs are clueless.
Glenn Greenwald’s hypothesis is that the purpose of changing parties at the top is to get the other side’s polity to sign on with existing policies. That’s what O meant by bipartisanship. The hypothesis sure fits the facts.
I’m going to repost this message from another thread, since it seems relevant.
We really need to differentiate between left v. right as seen by elites, or to use the language above, the political classes, and between left v. right as seen by the public. It’s been demonstrated that for the rich, who for the most part overlap with political elites, left v. right is mostly defined in terms of social issues. In other words, if you compare rich people in Wyoming and rich people in Massachusetts, the biggest differences are on social issues.
It’s meaningless, for example, to talk about whether “we” should make an alliance with “the right” over financial reform without first defining our terms. Greenwald does not really do this.
Straight off the bat, we need to clarify whether we are talking about conservative political elites or the Republican base. They’re very different animals. The first one is a poor target for any alliance; in fact, they’re enemy #1. The other one is much more diverse.
Hammer and anvil.
Reminds me of the Alan Dean Foster series ‘Taken’, where in one of the novels, our abducted Earthling and his intelligence enhanced dog companion come upon a world where cities are constantly at war with one another, but with a very strict set of rules about how and with what weapons. It’s pure stalemate…until the guy realizes he can get three cities all fighting one another, but two of them are fighting harder to defeat a larger one the other two never could’ve defeated on their own.
They win… then all three armies, still squabbling and skirmishing with each other, drive across the continent to take on an even bigger target city, one which had never been beaten before. Then it’s four armies, still technically fighting each other, but they manage to bring down still others which had been thought unassailable.
The enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend… but it *is* possible we have mutually compatible goals in some areas.
Does there come a point where this idea is seen as being oversold?
.
Okay, let’s play the devil’s advocate here:
Far, far more crucially, this strategy will work as long as liberal intellectuals, conservative intellectuals and Main Street, uh, dittoheads are oblivious to how triangulation works as an inherent component of crony capitalism writ large across the global economy.
The above strategy is one that strikes me as a bit, well, academic. It strikes me as one in which liberal pundits and conservtive pundits compile punditry that can work across the ideological spectrum to attack the Wall Street hacks and the “realists” who own and operate the way things really work when great wealth and great power get together to divide up the nation…and the world.
And, sure, why not. Something is always better than nothing at all. But that is not what needs to be done first and foremost. First and foremost a mass movement needs to be organized on the left at least comparable to the one being orgainzed by the teabaggers on the right. And secondly progressives need to organize efforts to drive the money grubbing hacks out of the Democratic Party.
But lots of progressive pundits don’t want to go down into those mud puddles do they?
Whatcha think?
Thanks masaccio, great post, as per usual.
Republicans won elections for decades, by pointing the finger at tax and spend Democrats.
It is critical that we work with folks such as Norquist and Paul. I do not see another choice.
The real question is, are you ready to do what it takes to win, including forming a coalition with conservatives? Or would you rather have the banksters win again?
Bingo. Enough dimwit bitching about “dealing with those icky people.” I, for one, am interested in getting a win. If you want a real shot at taking down some bankers, then suck it up and form some coalitions.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
A more advanced version of this pincer movement is one in which the “left” and “right” flanks stand side by side in a straight line. Then as the D.C. army moves toward the line the line “buckles” in the middle as if about to break. This makes the D.C. army think it needs to charge right into the middle of that line to bust through… but at just the last moment both the “left” and “right” circle around in a flanking manuever and entirely surround the D.C. army. This makes it so the D.C. army has only a small number of fighters on the outside edge close enough to even fight… all the others are crowded into the center looking at the backs of their fellows waiting for them to be taken down so they can step forwards and take their place… this means most of the power of the D.C. army is stuck in the middle of this crowd and is completely useless.. while the the “left and right” focus all their power inwards… able to shoot arrows into the middle of the crowd… but the arrows cannot be usefully shot back because the “left and right” are dispersed in a circle around them instead of being concentrated in crowd like the D.C. army.
I agree almost entirely. Mass movements can only be built if we reach out to the general public. As long as we’re confining ourselves to compiling punditry among political elites, then we’re lost. This strategy strikes me as a union of elites, not an effort to reach out to the public. I don’t know anything about Norquist specifically, but his ilk are not definitely not deserving of any alliance. The Republican base is a different story.
Mas, I think where the analogy breaks down is the assumption that both Norquist and (let’s pull a name out of the air here,) Jane (or you or I for that matter) want the same things.
I have no objection in principle to allying with people right-of-center, provided that our goals are common, and that’s both understood and clearly spelled out.
I’m also not sure from your post what the pincer is actually supposed to DO, in real life. In fact, the whole discussion is a little abstract for me. Do you have specific goals/examples in mind with regard to say, financial reform?
Hey, I have a random question that has nothing to do with this thread.
Do the writers at FDL in general get paid for their work? Is anyone getting paid?
One difficulty with the above tactic is selling it in the media.
If this is how triangulation functions:
They explain that the liberals and the conservatives both hate it, so it much be a good idea. [...] If the liberals and the conservatives hate it, it must be centrist or bi-partisan or whatever their chosen praise word might be.
and this is how your response functions:
The right side and the left side leave their trenches and move to either side of the triangulator forces. They out flank them, and both the right and left sides are able to fire on the common enemy.
Then the administration can still claim that they are being attacked from “both sides”. The fact that “both sides” have found common ground from which to attack will not mentioned, or repeated, and so there will be no contradiction, no cognitive dissonance generated to help change the discourse.
Unless you can find a way to redefine your coalition with a new catchy media narrative, aren’t you running the risk of falling to the same old triangulation?
I think that the mere discussion of this strategy – and I’m glad to see it occurring – will send a chilling signal to the powers that be that the strategy of playing the “sides” against each other has an expiration date.
That alone would be quite an accomplishment, IMO.
Another apt historical metaphor is the Pirate Jean Lafitte, who was critical to Andy Jackson beating the British at the Battle of New Orleans.
As I noted previously, I’d trade away all the left/right alliances in the world for half a million progressives marching on the Capitol Building next Spring.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be tried. But educating the folks on Main Street about how they are being duped by the right and the Wall Street hacks to abandon their own economic interests is far more crucial.
But that’s hard. I know this because in nearly 25 years in and out of various radical political organizations that was the toughest thing I ever did. But when it works [as it did eventually with the workers, civil rights, feminist, gay, physically and mentally challenged, and anti-war movements] nothing can really stop it.
But it can’t work if it’s not tried.
Yes, which is why I kick in $20/month.
In terms of the volume and quality, I feel as though I am just flat out stealing.
Want to find some conservatives that you can deal with? A simple change in language and a more basic understanding of a few subjects can go a long way.
For example:
1) Don’t demand action to stop “Global Warming”… demand action to end the addiction to middle east oil… both goals achieve the same thing, but only the later is supported by both the left and right.
2) Stop saying the “Free Market” caused this mess. It did not. There has been NO free market for many decades. Learn the difference between a regulated free market and centralized economic planning. Some corporations have been bribing Congress for many decades to get the government to intervene in one way or the other so that it is impossible for people to “take their business else where” to punish these companies. In a TRUE free market the people CAN take their business else where to have a major effect because a smaller company will step up to meet those peoples needs… Instead we have lots of rules in place from patent laws to subsidies to protections from law suits that keep the big companies safe from the actions of the people. For example the health insurance companies are protected from competition by the government not by the “Free Market” .. a TRUE free market would have forced these health insurance companies to change their ways along time ago if not protected by government laws. In a Ron Paul (true free market) world polluters could be sued by the people affected by their pollution and the government would back up their case… but because of the corrupted Congress and (non-free market) we have the government instead shields these companies from lawsuits…
I have to say I don’t see much long term gain in masaccio’s model. Not that it shouldn’t be taken up as a tactic. Just not a road to a long term recovery for the middle classes.
I really think Robert Cruickshank’s article is more cogent. It is the corporatists. The political class are their employees. I tend to think in old fashioned language. It is a class conflict.
There are several fronts on financial reform where there should be common ground. I will be laying out some of that in future posts. The major areas are dealing with institutions that are too big to fail, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, overall regulation of giants in all financial areas, and a very important one, swaps. Here is a recent post of mine on this issue. I have written a number of posts on credit default swaps and other financial reform and financial crisis issues, a list can be found by clicking on my name at the top of this post.
I just wrote my local paper, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and I asked them to cover this, because it involves Grover Norquist and Jane. That is a terrific straddle for any surviving big city daily.
The key point is that by moving right, they mollify that side, just as they did by moving to the conservadems on health care reform. We need for both sides to fight the “centrist” position. That breaks up the standard media narrative. It forces the lazy pundits to examine the arguments. The center doesn’t exist; there is no constituency for bad policy.
Well said.
Common ground with pundits or with the base?
Not to mention those ‘icky people’ are our neighbors, our customers, our in-laws, and our bosses.
There’s no percentage in waiting any longer to adjust our attitudes, we’re going to need a lot of help if we’re going to wrestle our country back from the corporate pirates.
I certainly think it’s worth exploring, and even pilot-programming; I just don’t trust the Norquists of this world to operate aboveboard, that’s all. (Any more than I trust Rahm or, sadly, Obama to do so).
Thanks for your post.
I’m all in favor of forging a new alliance, but the one proposed seems suited to single-issue advocacy, or referendums at the state level. How is this supposed to work at the national level? What could possibly constitute a coherent platform on which a hybrid candidate stand? I’m not saying this from a cynical POV, just real curiosity. Both sides may hate the influence corporations have on politics, but the left right divide emerges once you get past that first level of agreement. Any thoughts?
PEOPLE vs. CORPORATIONS (and their abusive practices) should be the central unifying message. Everyone can relate to it.
A mass march from the left would also help.
Jane, I thank you for starting something good (AGAIN!!)
I like the approach.
FWIW, I sometimes substitute laws of supply and demand for Free Market.
Of course, when you triangulate toward the right and:
1. Lose some coalition “centrists” to the legitimate conservative party as opposed to the ersatz conservative third way, and
2. Lose some coalition liberals to the Nader/GreenParty (turns out “they had somewhere else to go”), and
3. Lose the ensuing presidential election (featuring bonus conservative-cred-builder Lieberman),
4. You still need to blame those damn Naderites for poor strategy.
(I love NewGore_tm but OriginalGore_tm still makes me angry.)
The whole point really is to find a small list (1 or 2) of things that both the left and right can support and that happens to be at the core of all the other issues (even the ones they disagree on)…
#1) Corruption
#2) Corruption
The left and the right does not like the idea that a wealthy few make out like a bandit no matter what happens and the government does NOTHING to punish them when they collapse our economy … and at the SAME TIME these same government people are taking “Lobbyists” money… the conflict of interests are all over the place… Evan Bayh and his wife in relation to health insurance companies… Cheney and Halliburton … a REAL list would go on and on and on with NO exceptions for Democrats nor Republicans… NO exceptions… if it is found out Obama is somehow profiting off of his special position then he goes on the list…
A complete and detailed prosecutor style indictment spelling out all the ways that these people are being corrupted in ways that is TOTALLY unacceptable in the business world.
Instead of demanding real trials (which would probably never happen anyway) the left-right movement should have some kind of catchy slogon chanted over and over and over that ALL incumbants MUST be replaced. Out with the old and corrupt in the with new and untainted. This way it isnt about taking out just the ones the Left dislikes most or the ones the Right dislikes most… ALL of them must go at once to clean house. The left and right in one action votes against ALL incumbants. Forget the White House for once and just clean up Congress.
The corporations are not the bad guys really… they are our employers.. they make our modern world possible… the REAL enemy are those that TAKE the bribes… the corporations are just trying to WIN with the system they have available. And THE SYSTEM is one of bribary and back room deals. If we replace Congress with people from left and right like Ron Paul (lobbyists dont even bother talking to him because he does not accept their money) then the corporations will have to operate on the system of honest debate instead of padding peoples bank accounts.
fixed your typo.
Meet the new Gore
Same as the old Gore
I see Gore-love and Obama-love as two instances of the same sociological phenomenon. People are susceptible to personality cultism and they temporarily forget about policy. Both Gore and Obama are powerful orators and they can rally the liberal base when they speak truth to power.
Thankfully the left is starting to wake up to this, at least concerning Obama.
Financial regulation isn’t partisan. Wall Street only exists to serve the greater economy. It’s like the Uniform Commercial Code: it needs to be neutral in its impact on the economy. This is the basis for agreement across the political spectrum outside DC.
I was on a call with a Treasury guy discussing reform. I asked specifically whether we shouldn’t be looking at reform to stop trading that didn’t benefit the productive economy. He said it was too hard to figure out the difference between the productive economy and the financial interests. They don’t see that the people who lost their jobs because their companies were ruined by leveraged buy-outs can easily make the distinction.
AND, it wouldn’t hurt to keep reminding people that all mainstream media are CORPORATIONS, too!
Sorry but they didnt create that system. The military industrial complex was created by the WWII Federal goverment to win WWII and then the cold war. Eisenhower warned us what would happen if this system went unchecked… and now here we are… blinding blaming corporations or republicans or whatever does NOT help the situation. Use the truth… it is much easier to win with the truth on your side.
What you describe is the same tactic used by the Zulu in the 19th century. The flanks became what the Zulu called the horns of the bull.
Not corporations per se, I agree. That’s why I added “and their abusive practices” as a qualifier. It’s actually their abusive practices, including the insane notion of “corporate personhood,” which allows them to purchase the politicians and do all the damage we all find so reprehensible, left and right. “PEOPLE vs. CORPORATIONS” should just be the unifying slogan, then the details can be fleshed out once the attention of the people is focused on the proper target. And the proper target is not just all corporations, but only the ones that are big enough to corrupt and control the overall system.
Let’s begin to think about what we have in common with conservatives.
Then what we have in common with DLC.
If there is any time left over, let’s think about what conservaties have in common with us. Not the religious zealots.And the similarities in neo cons and DLC.
I have always wondered what wealthy non religious older white men are doing fighting abortion. My answer is triangulation.What is yours?
Incorporation is the employees of the supra-national elites. Corporations are the tools used to extract labor and wealth to sustain their power. That’s why I really prefer to frame it in terms of class. But because of Right Wing PC class conflict has a negative connotation among the public.
It is those men and women who hold the power of concentrated wealth that are destroying our free society and as well the planet that sustains us.
Let’s just see what happened to the SEC. I was securities commissioner in my state in Reagan’s first few years. I was beset by the SEC trying to get me to quit using my regulatory powers to prohibit sales of private placements under standard Blue Sky regs. I refused. Other states agreed, and after I left, so did mine. At the same time, the staff and investigators who were working on serious fraud cases were pulled off and put on meaningless tasks. Many of the 5-12 year veterans quit. Those were the first steps on the road to the anything goes version of regulation that is so popular with the republicans and republican-lite.
That stuff was pushed by the Securities Industry Association. They wanted to get free of any kind of regulation, including the weak stuff I with my staff of a few enforcement people could do. I also saw what happened to the CFTC under Reagan. Same story.
The securities regulatory climate is the direct result of securities industry lobbying and money.
I really take exception to viewing Wall Street as some kind of natural phenomenon that we have to work around. It is people who have definite agenda, strategies and tactics to stay in power and control the wealth………. just like a common politician.
A basic rule of alliances of convenience is to watch your back. Just because the right flank agrees to do something doesn’t speak to the timing. Same with the left flank.
History is replete with alliances of convenience disabling the next opponent. This is the game that was played between Churchill and Stalin at the end of World War II.
masaccio, did you think my question was rhetorical?
What I’m curious about is whether you envision us making common cause with either
A. Political elites like Norquist, the guy from Treasury you talked with, and yourself
B. The Republican base
or whether you find the distinction to be irrelevant.
What’s your take on this Bloomberg article…
Would Glass-Steagal work once again…? If the SEC does ramp back up again…?
True enough. Policy matters.
Of course, what most politicians want is support and prefer it of the cult variety. Then they can do no wrong.
I see the alliance as relating to the base. How do you develop a relation with the right wing base? We don’t have a lot of friends there, or credibility. To get there, we have to start somewhere. I’m guessing that’s one or more of the leaders.
Moving ahead, I’m not sure what to do about reaching out to their base. Maybe we start with their blogs. Any thoughts?
Well what I am really getting at (with out saying it) is that people like myself (and there are many) that WORK for these corporations are NOT going to go out there public ally calling them the enemy… it DOES take two to tango when it comes to offering bribes and taking them.. but it is MUCH more likely to get people to gang up on politicians than it will be the “corporations”… it smacks of communism… it smacks of the poor/middle class people vs the rich people… which is not what most Americans are against… MOST Americans dont care there is someone with more money than they do… instead we just dont like people getting and staying rich by being part of a corrupt system.
Sounds as though you might have a book/screen play in there.
start with the Paultards. I am one, and I can tell you that many of the anti-war, pro-market young conservatives have been following these “strange bedfellows” alliances. I am optimistic about where this is heading on the wave of HamsherNorquistGate and the Paul-Grayson “Audit the Fed” bill. Keep up the good work!
Also, about framing the debate. How about Transparent vs Close Door Govt? That was why I voted for Obama, that “new era of openness in govt.” rhetoric…after the Christmas Eve layaway special at Fannie/Freddie i feel like a fool.
FWIW, I like the term, oligopolies, because that connotes large corporations that really do not compete. They also tend to offshore a lot of jobs.
This is good to hear.
FDL has always been strong on transparency. We got swacked in the FISA fight trying to point out the problems with telecoms getting paid to cooperate with NSA, CIA, to vaccum everything.
…And their Corporate “HQ’s”… Bermuda and the Caymans should’ve displaced NYC as the Financial Capital a long time ago…! ;-)
I’ll say it again for you, it is the “abusive practices” that only big corporations can engage in, that can unite right and left in opposition. The politicians are only a tool of those corporations, and are just a meaningless distraction as a target.
And, I would add, that one cannot hope to ever win over the conservative “base,” who I consider to be the dedicated social conservatives. However, an attack based on the common economic interests we all have in working within an honest free market system, that is a different story, I believe. The corps spend billions convincing the public that they are their “friend,” we need to strip that bullshit mythology away. Corps are nothing like “persons,” and their basic interests hardly ever align with those of ordinary people (although they do align with the privileged wealth and power elite, but there again, the corps make a better target than “rich people,” since I agree that many carry the fantasy of becoming a “rich person.”)
I remember that well…I lurk here alot. Good work was done between GGreenwald, FDL and others.
This is very true… I have seen a few different instances where I was on Crooks&Liars and saw some post about taking on some corrupt part of government then go over to DailyPaul.com and someone had posted the same info with a link back to Crooks&Liars … Even though there are a lot of ex-Bushy teabagger types that do the whole Obama Joker Face thing… there are MANY of us that are NOT like that and want NO part in partisan childish games… here is something you can Google…
Who were the top four most common employer of donators to the Ron Paul presidential campaign?
1) Google
2) Microsoft
3) US Air Force
4) US Army
MOST of us dont care at all about the partisan battles over stupid crap like Monica and Clinton etc etc… we are interested in problem solving… just like in the software development world… we describe the problem… list the requirements for the solution to that problem… professionally and without corruption execute the implementation of that solution to meet the requirements…
Ron Paul appealed to us because he wasn’t saying things to trick the “base” into supporting him nor for political gain… he was simply listing out the historical facts and then offering well thought out solutions… his solutions might or might not be the correct ones… but he was the ONLY one offering a solution simply on its own merits and invited people to go do the research to decide for themselves if they think it might work… no lies… no pandering… no self-enrichment… just an honest attempt to come up with a Constitutional viable solution.
That about sums it well, simply and completely.
I love the idea of reinstating Glass-Steagall, and note that this is a right-left proposal.
NOTHING of real positive change to benefit the masses will ever occur until they put their bodies in the streets, deny the elites their participation in the scam (stop buying shit/boycott) and forment non violent civil disobedience on a mass scale.
THAT, will take some organizing . . . but during the Vietnam era protests, there WAS a unity of fragmented and opposing elements joined together to forment masses of bodies in the streets.
No reason it can’t happen again . . . . ‘cept for reluctance to DO so, by the masses, which I can’t explain.
I’m laughing at it all because the Mz. Hamsher thread below with 350+ responses last I looked at noon today and this one are beginning to resemble the intellectual banterings of Moon Over Alabama before it was closed, and Whiskey Bar before that.
Lotta intellectualism being bantered about, models of capitalism, socialism, Marxism’s, and such, all with war lessons entwined and religio/psycho/econo points of view folded in for a heady espresso drenched hyped up afternoon of melding and meandering berets and camo’s of assorted colors and patterns.
Whew!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against using brainpower to analyze and discuss shit. But that ain’t gonna get ‘er done, as GW points out, in his comment.
I’m with Mz. Hamsher, get shit done. And she’s doing it.
On we hope and march. One day at a time.
Roman Wedge formations operated much like this . . . they devastated armies tenfolds larger than theirs thru out history.
I find it tacky that you would ask.
Thanks for your service, hoss . . . SF Bay Area, Peninsula, late 60′s/early 70′s.
Well, in the first place, if the goal is to get to the base as you state, then the first question we need to answer is: who is the base?
Republicans are mostly white and tend to be religious and higher income. But there are Republicans who are religious, but not higher income, and there are Republicans who are higher income but not religious. You really have to navigate specific fjords and deltas here to get anywhere.
I don’t think we really need to go through Republican “leaders” like Norquist. One problem here is that there are inherent limitations as to what can be done online; you have to get out and build real organizations. Pick a specific demographic to go after, pick an issue on which you can agree. There are lots of ways to engage people.
I always enjoy, appreciate and respect your posts, Masaccio, dont’ take my comments today as criticism of any of them.
Just making a point today at FDL it seems as if Berhhard and Billmon and all were saddled up yet again. And that’s not a BAD metaphor . . . . but I DO make fun of some of the pseudo intellectualism that always crops up in those types of environ’s . . . .
So thank you for all you do, rawk on Masaccio. Please.
And I’m buyin the double espresso’s, hoss, for you, forever. Other latte sippin sissies can buy their own watered down sugar fixes. I’m only buyin for the hard charging crowd. *G*
It helps to pass the time while waitin’ for the shit to happen. And we all learn something in the process. *g*
I disagree with you utterly and completely.
The corporations are houses for the moneyed interests of the 1%, houses that have helped to break, bust, rewrite, amend and repeal ANY sort of regulatory holds there were in existence to keep them in check and in service to the masses, which they NEVER were.
They exist in SOLE function to service their masters of the 1% moneyed elites, and in doing so have bought our government lock stock and barrell, and have also bought our entire social system and structure.
The corporations ARE the #1 enemy, they exist FOR the #1 enemy, and they have invaded and now occupy our citizenry from top to bottom.
To paint them as anything else, is ludicrous, and smacks of one of their ranks who fears losing their elitist status within the walls of their houses.
Harumph.
It’s better to put regulations in place that monitors and flat out stops polluters, than wait for someone to bring a lawsuit. And another, and another..
The solution to corrupt politicians is not to elect only Ron Pauls who won’t take corporate money. The solution is to make corporate influence illegal altogether with publicly financed elections.
The corporations are the enemy. They need to have much tighter regulations. The revolving door needs to be closed between public and private service.
Libertarianism is not progressive liberalism, and is not at all the type of ideology I support, but I think there are many common areas of agreement these days..
Before we get too excited about this left-right alliance, maybe we should find an issue to try it out on. Something concrete–not a vendetta such as taking down RahmE (not that he doesn’t deserve it). Everyone hates the banks, right? If the theory holds, it should be possible to leverage left and right populism for some kind of financial sector regulation. BUT, I submit, it won’t work if: 1) the populist right is in fact a front for big business; and/or 2) the populist right is genuine, but distrusts government more than business.
What about the 99.9% of people that work for these companies and therefore rely on them to pay for their houses, food, children education etc?
The Corporations are alot more than the 1% you hate so much and want to have a class war with… This isnt about rich vs poor. There are many corporate people among that 1% who are not bribing their way to maintaining dominance. Bill Gates comes to mind. The guys running Google comes to mind… Your absolutest thinking is exactly what makes the left/right look stupid. “They exist in SOLE function to service their masters of the 1% moneyed elites”…. really? SOLE? They dont also serve to provide a living wage to millions? They dont make the MRI Machines? They dont make the medical cures? They dont make the nanotechnology that will make an all new energy economy possible? They don’t donate large amounts of money to charities? They didnt help America win WWII?
You are NOT going to win over alot of people by making these false 100% either or arguments. They are false and people know it. If the politicians DONT TAKE BRIBES… then how could the corporations do any of the things you accuse them of? They could not. People are not going to cut off their nose to spite their face… these companies are NEEDED. The government is needed… Lobbyists are not… the bribary is not.
Your sense of history is limiting and does not factor in the important details.
The MIC was created LONG ago by the elite moneyed interests of the 1% in Europe, whom created, funded and supplied WW1 on all sides, and then shifted that wealth to USA.
That wealth grew and fell to some degree with The Depression, and then came a need to create WW2.
WW2, a creation that had its inception in the early ’20′s, as munitions and steel families sold and helped to produce and weaponize Germany AND Russia AND Japan . . . . once again arming nations for profiteering, creating war for further profiteering and control once war is ended.
American and European families of untold wealth and generation after generation of CREATING that wealth, families of munitions and steel . . . all were and are part and parcel of the building of the MIC into the corporate feudalism our country is strangled by today.
You sorta left that part of history out of your synopsis. Google will give ya the linky’s, details, and such if you need to know more.
Let’s make sure as long as we’re telling stories in here, we tell the whole story . .
Roman Wedge x. Zulu bull horns collapse of the flanks . . . interesting war college discussion. *G*
Hoss, or hossette, we have great commonality WRTT. *G*
I want to win!
I’m vaguely familiar with Reagan’s financial forays as Prez, but less so with his time as Gov of CA.
I AM familiar with his union busting and dereg efforts at disrupting organized labor in CA, during his reign here.
Do you know if he was practicing finan deregging as Gov of CA, also?
Fascinating it always is, to keep comparing his reign in CA with his 8 years reign imposed on the USA.
WORST, ever, to date in his time. Still debating with myself WRT Bush 1, Bush 2 and now Obama.
But that’s 4 of the worst on MUCH larger scales than anything U.S Grant or Truman ever foisted upon us. Between the 4 of them, we are destroyed as a representative democracy.
What you are really refering to is the Federal Reserve… the BANKERS “Federal Reserve” funded WWI and WWII.. on BOTH sides… it was not the “Corporations” that did that… they just took contracts from their governments and provided services/products of war… the bankers are the ones that you should really be refering to. A corporation in pre-WWII that made boats and ships for fishing/recreation did not help make those wars happen… the Federal Reserve DID … and then that money was used to pay the boat corporation to make war ships…
There are a few exceptions though where you are 100% correct… read this and I think we will see where our arguments meet and agree…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
There’s a Trojan hidden in all this, and it’s not a latex one . . . although the PURPOSE is still for the screwing.
*G*
Aloha, CT!
“. . . it smacks of communism… it smacks of the poor/middle class people vs the rich people… which is not what most Americans are against…”
Good lord, how can you TYPE this level of untruth? The entire spectrum of the American People aside from you and the 1% are all FOR a war against corporate interests and controls of our lives, livelihoods and government.
And get this, hoss, there IS a class war that’s emergent, and the people are PISSED, in case you didn’t hear about it in the last few years of lost jobs, blown savings, retirements and evil corporate and government misdeeds to cover it up and siphon off yet MORE money from the classes, siphon it upwards into the hands of the likes of you.
Wow. Hubris, yer doin it right.
I don’t disagree with some of your points, but when you state: “who are not bribing their way to maintaining dominance. Bill Gates comes to mind.” Are you sure?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=A&type=P&id=D000000115
“Microsoft Corp is the world’s top computer software company. It is also one of the biggest campaign contributors in Washington…”
“The guys running Google comes to mind… ” Let me tell you, Google is absolutely not ‘your friend’. There are many other search engines, clusty.com one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html?page=2&show_comment_id=35906258
Google CEO on privacy: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Yessir, if you’re not doing anything bad – you have nothing to worry about Mein Capitan…
Google lobbying:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Google+Inc&year=2009
The elites want 2 things, and nothing else: money and power. btw: money=power. Giving people jobs is a consequence, not an interest. They don’t care about democracy, or ‘the people’
A feudalist corporate oligarchy grips us all by the throats.
I like the word, Boo, I like it just fine.
Good on yas.
Si! Es verdad, hoss.
Corruption–i.e. corruption of the political class–is not an issue, it’s a meta-issue, as is Rahm’s supposed perfidy at FannieMae. Attacking it is a means to an end. Personally, I wouldn’t be so unhappy with a venal, hypocritical, lecherous, etc., etc. Congress that delivered a genuinely progressive agenda. We put them there to make laws, not to be role models. We only (pretend to) care about the role-modeling because they do such a piss-poor job of law-making. So rather than going after “corruption,” which may or may not produce a class of politicians capable of delivering a progressive agenda, let’s find a single policy objective to unite around–and make a run for it. Here’s an example: permitting underwater mortgage-payers to write down their loans to value in bankruptcy.
“What about the 99.9% of people that work for these companies and therefore rely on them to pay for their houses, food, children education etc?”
Huh? A stat to cover those who WORK for corps? A partial stat? Ya lost me.
As to folks who WORK for corps? They joined the crowd . . . had the crowd been regulated, the employees would likely have a much more pleasant and secure lifestyle and future savings and such.
So, nice play GG, but fail. Those who work for the corps would have better lives had the corps been regulated, and never allowed to be what they are. Along the way, as you will find out one day, the corps cut losses come retirement time . . . hire cheaper, pay less, cover less bennies . . . more money to stocks, stock holders, and investors.
Systems broke, hoss, and your lovely cry on behalf of those serving and living off of the corp teat is a wolf in sheep’s cloth to distract. Nice Rovian work, though.
Nope, you misconstrue and now misrepresent all I commented.
The FAMILIES of 1% wealth created corporations, funded nations and enabled wars to continue their spreads of power and control, which led to the MIC.
You Fail. Nice corporate spin, though. Very status quo of you to do so, and wow, that wiki linky is real all encompassing in terms of the history of the European families going back to the 1300′s, up thru WW1 and the formulation of the American Family Empire.
Please. You insult the audience in here with your simplicity and blind obedience.
Really? Where are these people then? The only ones I ever see saying the corporations are the problem are SOME of the people from the left. The conservative half of this country does not say that… I dont ever hear people that dont get into politics saying the corporations are the problem… most people I have ever talked to want to work for a corporation… AND most people I have ever talked to say politicians are the crooks…not the corporations… in fact it is a cliche that “Politicians are Crooks”… there is no cliche I have ever heard that says “Corporations are Crooks” …never heard that one from anyone but SOME from the left…
I’ll just say, when yer gated walls only open for your entrance and egress, you don’t get the daily interaction with the masses much, do ya. Cuz yer sure not gonna hear about it at your workplace . . .
Have a nice productive day, GG, and a nice life. Just consider that, it’s YOU the masses are as fed up with, as they are with the corps themselves . . . *G*
If you bothered to click the links in that wiki you WOULD have been led to the same info I was about the banking system from the middle ages to today.. but you didnt so you totaly dismissed very good info…
You can go ahead and try to demonize Americans companies… you will go NO where… guaranteed. Microsoft as one example was known for NOT being involved in Washington at all until they started getting sued left and right… THEN they got involved because they learned you dont play the “pay to play” game then you just lose… Google does it for the same reason… if they dont ATT will get everything they want.
THAT shows that the problem is the system of bribary that has been set up… if you WANT to be good you lose. If you dont pay to play you lose. Corporations have no choice but to be part of that system or else they lose.
And your response is to deamonize the millions of people that work for these companies? Good luck with that.. the right WONT join you and many on the left wont either. No realistic people want to tear down Americans corporations. Most people DO want an unfair and corrupt system to be made fair and just… Most people have no reason to hate a corporation. And you saying so doesnt change that fact.. you sound like the people over at Fox News that says MOST Americans dont want the health care system changed… when in reality they are just talking about the Fox News viewers.. MOST Americans DO want the system changed… and MOST people do not go around blaming corporations for all these problems. MOST people DO go around blaming the politicians.
shit on the coalition in its infancy much Larue?
whether or not you believe that corporations are inherently evil, the issue is still how to insulate the American taxpayer from corporate/government graft.
corporations cannot TAKE from the public without our elected leaders giving them the keys to the public purse.
evil or not, you have to consciously ignore facts to say that corporations aren’t important to our economy and to a large extent the middle class.
“It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it>”–Sinclair Lewis
The politicians are corrupt because corporate money makes them corrupt.
Corporations are free to corrupt with their money because the Supremes have deemed them to be “persons” under the 14th Amendment.
How is a corporation like an (oppressed) person?
Thimk.
These are the stupid partisan stereotypes that must stop. SOME people from the left think is makes them “good” by bashing people with money. It does not make you “good”. It makes you jealous. It might even make you a communist… but it does not make you good.
I grew up very poor. I also grew up very evangelical christian. Over the years I learned to turn away from religion and that there are plenty of good rich people. Gated communities and all. Your attempts to demonize people you are jealous of makes you look bad.
A fair system where some people get to live in gated communities and some do not is a good system. If you have to work hard to get somewhere then you EARNED it. If you bribe someone in congress with lobbyist money then you did NOT earn it. THAT is the difference between honest people looking for a fair shake and those that want to game the system either for the rich or the poor or the left or the right.
Ya I agree. I dont understand all the details behind that one… my best guess is that this was done because the system of government we have is so dependant on the corruption that even the Supreme Court felt it was normal and neccessary…
One of my hobbies.
The original sin was Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad (1870) (read it). The Court opinion specifically said it was not deciding the case on the 14th Amendment, but the clerk of the Court was a railroad ooperative who wrote up the headnotes as though that was the primary ruling.
Thus corps are persons with free speech rights, and money is speech, and so they can but politicians and corrupt the whole system. An indefensible legal construct that has led to all the ills we now complain about, and which has never been seriously challenged, to my knowledge.
How is a corp like an (oppressed) person? Not at all!!!
I think some conservatives would be receptive, but maybe not the tea party. I know they were not mentioned here.
The keynote speaker for the National Tea Party Convention will be the same person who said this.
“We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place. Lack of government wasn’t the problem, government policies were the problem.”
Fun discussion, we all have a lot in common. I like ggibson’s presence here, I also enjoy larue’s spunk, but I think ggibson is getting the best of this exchange. While I probably would share more points of agreement with larue, it is important to understand that corporations are so intimately embedded in our beings that it isn’t useful to simply define them as the enemy. And when a thoughtful, voice from outside the left/progressive realm ventures in, not as troll, but apparently in search of substantive discussion, how does it help to say things like
“Good lord, how can you TYPE this level of untruth? The entire spectrum of the American People aside from you and the 1% are all FOR a war against corporate interests and controls of our lives, livelihoods and government.”?
God I guess I’m sounding like a concern troll, but I liked many of ggibson’s contributions. I didn’t think he deserved the venom.
We must learn from the best corporations have to offer, say the extraordinary efficiency and functionality of Walmart’s distribution systems, and fight against the worst, like the fact that Walmart has played a key role in destroying U.S. manufacturing. This article linked from Naked Capitalism vividly illustrates this. Marvelous article.
http://www.correntewire.com/how_status_quo_can_kill_example_free_trade
Here is my way of agreeing with those like Larue…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729#
You are not INCORRECT completely… your brush is just too wide…
I dont like the Tea Partiers partisanship.
However their existance is based on a kernal of truth. That truth being government is corruptable and corrupted.
They could not swallow Ron Pauls 180 from the Neo Cons.. so instead of totally joining in with those of us that support Ron Paul they instead morphed into the teabaggers.
They are largely followers. Sheeple. They are waking up a little bit, but really just want someone to lead them to victory over the perceived wrongs.
Ron Paul was saying the government is too big. And they didnt agree until it was Obamas government… but if you work with them while they are out of power and you work with them on terms that is not partisan anti-conservatism AND you work with them on a populous goal like cleaning up Washington/Wallstreet then you can find agreement with them. Start off showing them some respect despite their despicable behavior and they will calm down a little so you can talk.
If you REALLY are serious about working with them then do what we people in the computer programming world do… listen to all possible solutions to a problem seriously before choosing what is the correct way forwards… what I mean by that is that government is NOT always the best solution to problems. Maybe instead of saying we need the Federal government to do XYZ to solve this problem… first enterain ideas for solving the problem that does NOT require government power, government taxes, government force.
For example instead of saying a “public option” is the ONLY way … at least entertain the possibility that an NGO could run a nonprofit to do the same thing… maybe the government would provide the initial funding for the NGO, but would not be providing “force” via a mandate and would not be providing unlimited funding via taxes. This way you can solve the problem without putting even more power into the hands of the feds… what will you do when the GOP is in charge again and now THEY are the ones controling the “public option” because government was used a the only solution?
Gotta say Larue, I don’t agree with the firebreathing commie routine. Things are a bit more complex than that.
Canada’s system seems to work fine. I don’t see why we should not use something that’s been proven to work simply because some right wingers have an ideological inflexibility about it. At the end of the day, there are some issues that we will disagree on, we can argue all we want and not change each other’s minds. I think I’ve been doing that since Al invented the internet. I do think you’ve identified the problem correctly, ie fraud and corruption of our ‘representatives’and wall street, but how health care should be reformed is an issue that we can agree to disagree on. We do.
I am not sure we disagree even on health care. The Ron Paul approach to health care is once again “free markets”. And I think he is correct it would work again IF we whole sale changed the entire system at once. Which is impossible. And peoples health is too important to wait for the gradual transition to the free market.
I think if health care was not seen as just one more way for the Democrats to make government more in control of things then MOST people right/left would agree that it would be ok for just that ONE industry (health insurance companies) to be replaced by a single payer system because we all want worry free health care.. the religious really want it because it is compasionate, the conservatives want it because they dont want to go broke just because they get sick, and the left wants it because of the “human rights” aspect… which is really a combo of the religious outlook and the conservatives outlook.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/david-brooks-prefers-single-payer-status-quo
Medical care as a human right is not a commodity. There can be no real market for an equal right to equal care. There is no such thing as acceptable levels to be picked and chosen from. Competition is destructive for such a paradigm.
Your friends the heartless and mindless corporations are tools that real people use to accumulate wealth and the power it endows. .
The problem is with the distribution of the freedom and resources necessary to sustain reasonably comfortable life. No matter the system of distribution or names of the entities it boils down to where there is serious maldistribution there is instability and some would say injustice.
Our government under both parties is serving the ends of the wealthy and the powerful and not the ends of providing laws rules and regs that support the right of the people to their inalienable rights,
YOU? Again? Isn’t your shift over, or are you paid by the word? ; o )
Alas, my days in the service are now over. Disabilty bound I observe from my recliner. Waiting for each new generation to rise up and conquer.
Something. Anything.
If you want a conservative blog try the Daily Paul I’m pretty sure the owner of the blog is not one of the elites.
Seriously, am I the only one who thinks things have changed very suddenly at this site?
Maybe we should start using alternatives to google. One is Start Page It seems that Start Page is really focused on privacy.
The question I have about a single payer healthcare system is what happens if the single payer becomes corrupt? I think competition makes this less likely to happen. A middle ground approach could be a public option with competition from private insurance companies.
You all continue with the tragically mistaken assumption that protecting human rights should be profit makeing. There is no such thing possible as a “free market” for medical care. The needs are equal for all and as a right what is provided shouuld equal to all. Corruption comes from squeezing profit from people who are in, often desperate, need. and have no choice but to pay or die.
I swear, I wonder sometimes if there is anyone left who thinks in terms of anything other than how to plunder the gold.
Ron Paul is a simple minded adolescent.
coming late so just a blip;
very much enjoyed ggibson’s refreshing take on what ails us. The jist that Corporations are less culpable than governments, is a distinction without much difference, or a chicken or egg paradox.
Ignored were questions about individual responsibility, vs common good. How much useless production can be borne by a weakening planet? Should certain commodities and services fall outside of Corporate purview (Health, Water, Energy), or is everything tied to profit, etc….
There is a lot of misunderstanding on all sides which has been manufactured by cynics in positions of power. I consider myself far on the left of the political spectrum yet I feel almost certain that there is much more here to agree with than not.
I hope ggibson will stick around and share with us his viewpoints and insights in his clear and erudite manner, and that we decide to build on our commonalities rather than continue our minority existence in the wilderness.
night.
Hell yeah!!
The idea that Norquist is anti-corporate is fucking laughable. Man, you guys are having to contort yourselves to make a saint out of Jane.
Well said. Why is it that so many feel they have a right step in for a percentage, and then lobby for an increase? No wonder we have a Ponziconomy.
Exactly right on this:
Unfortunately much of what presents itself online as “the progressive movement” has very high on its agenda preventing the use of these new media to build a truly independent, self-sustaining, self-aware and class-conscious left grassroots movement.
Don’t know if I trust Norquist? But Pat Buchanan has been railing against NAFTA and imperial wars for years. As long as we agree not to discuss abortion, I think he could be a solid ally. And for those of you who don’t like his position on immigration, well it isn’t any different than Thom Hartmann’s.
Also we could get some traction with “States Rights” arguments….how the federal gov’t tramples individual liberties, and forbids states from experimenting (with single payer, for example).
I completely agree. As they say, “politics makes strange bedfellows” and this is definitely a good example.
Jane isn’t talking about supporting Grover’s policies, ditto for Grover on Jane. But for these few issues our interests align and honestly, progressives provide the brains (and the net for communication with the public) and the teabaggers have raw muscle and steely nerves (you ever seen them back down from a hopeless cause?)
I see this as a necessary alignment going forward. Both our groups are too small to affect the govt on our own (I would spitball it as 20% on each ‘wing’ of politics), but together (a 40% minority) we can get the things we agree on.
As the poster says, no one likes banks, no one likes having family members die due to lack of affordable insurance. These issues transcend politics and ideology.
“Ron Paul is a simple minded adolescent.” I don’t know if an adolescent would know enough about economics to predict the current economic crisis. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.