November 17, 2008
The debate concerning a possible bailout of the “big three” automakers (General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler) has now reached the House of Representatives. House Minority Leader, John Boehner (Republican from Ohio) has voiced his opposition to this latest bailout, indicating that it will not receive much support from Congressional Republicans.
In the words of Yogi Berra, we are experiencing “déjà vu all over again”. This process started with the plan of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, to bail out banks and other financial intuitions holding mortgages of questionable value, at a price to the taxpayers in excess of $700 billion. Back on September 22, when that bailout bill (now known as TARP) was being considered, Jackie Kucinich and Alexander Bolton wrote an article for TheHill.com, discussing Republican opposition to this measure. Their article included a prophetic remark by Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida:
“Bailout after bailout is not a strategy,” said Stearns, who said that taxpayers could be left with a huge bill.
Yet, “bailout after bailout” is exactly where we are now. On November 15, T-Bone Pickings appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press. Tom Brokaw asked T-Bone Pickings for his opinion on the proposed “Big Three Bailout”. The response was:
I wonder what you’re going to do about the next industry. Is it going to be the airlines or what if Toyota and Honda want some help, too? I don’t know. I don’t know where it stops.
Once again, we are presented with the need to bail out yet another American industry considered “too big to fail”. However, this time, we are not being asked to save an entire industry, just a few players who fought like hell, resisting every change from rear-view mirrors, to fuel injection, seat belts, catalytic converters, air bags and most recently, hybrid technology. Later on Meet the Press, we heard the BBC’s Katty Kay quote a rhetorical question from unidentified “smart economists” that included the magic word:
Can it withstand the shock to the economy if GM were to go?
Later on the CBS program, Face The Nation, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, used similar logic to that expressed by Katty Kay, when he stated:
When you talk about the negative shock that would result from bankruptcies of these companies, right now …
The magic word “shock” is once again playing an important role for the advocates of this newest rescue package. I was immediately compelled to re-read my posting from September 22, concerning the introduction of the Paulson bailout plan, entitled: “Here We Go Again”. At that time, I discussed Naomi Klein’s 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Klein’s book explained how unpopular laws were enacted in a number of countries around the world, as a result of shock from disasters or upheavals. She went on to suggest that some of these events were deliberately orchestrated with the intent of passing repugnant laws in the wake of crisis. She made an analogy to shock therapy, wherein the patient’s mind is electrically reformatted to become a “blank slate”. Klein described how advocates of “the shock doctrine” seek a cataclysmic destruction of economic order to create their own “blank slate” upon which to create their vision of a “free market economy”. She described the 2003 Iraq war as the most thorough utilization of the shock doctrine in history. Remember that this book was released a year before the crises we are going through now.
Ms. Klein’s article, “In Praise of a Rocky Transition” appeared in the December 1, 2008 issue of The Nation. She discussed Washington’s handling of the Wall Street bailout, characterizing it as “borderline criminal”. Would the financial rescue legislation (TARP) have passed if Congress and the public had been advised that the Federal Reserve had already fed a number of unnamed financial institutions two trillion dollars in emergency loans? Naomi Klein expressed the need for the Obama Administration to stick with its mantra of “Change You Can Believe In” as opposed to any perceived need to soothe the financial markets:
There is no way to reconcile the public’s vote for change with the market’s foot-stomping for more of the same. Any and all moves to change course will be met with short-term market shocks. The good news is that once it is clear that the new rules will be applied across the board and with fairness, the market will stabilize and adjust. Furthermore, the timing for this turbulence has never been better. Over the past three months, we’ve been shocked so frequently that market stability would come as more of a surprise. That gives Obama a window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first. Few will be able to blame him for a crisis that clearly predates him, or fault him for honoring the clearly expressed wishes of the electorate. The longer he waits, however, the more memories fade.
When transferring power from a functional, trustworthy regime, everyone favors a smooth transition. When exiting an era marked by criminality and bankrupt ideology, a little rockiness at the start would be a very good sign.
The Obama Administration would be wise to heed Ms. Klein’s suggestions. It would also help to seriously consider the concerns of Republicans such as John Boehner, who is apparently not anxious to feed America another “crap sandwich”.
Barack Anxiety Builds On The Left
December 8, 2008
With each passing day, we see an increase of editorial essays with the same theme: After winning the election, will Barack Obama abandon the liberal or progressive base of the Democratic Party? Some of the more strident ideologues from the liberal side of the spectrum are becoming more vocal in expressing anxiety about where the Obama Administration might take us. This distress results from the President-elect’s recent naming of Cabinet and other high-level appointees.
For example, On December 1, Katrina vanden Heuvel posted an article on The Nation website, expressing dismay over Obama’s decision to allow Robert Gates to continue serving as Secretary of Defense under the new administration. The criticism she voiced about the new foreign policy / national security team exemplifies the perspective of many writers concerning the entire list of appointments disclosed by Obama so far:
Commentator David Sirota has been quite vocal in articulating his disappointment over Obama’s cabinet picks. Back on November 19, he had this to say on the Campaign for America’s Future website:
Robert Scheer voiced similar uncertainty about Obama’s appointments in a December 2 posting on the Truthdig website:
The analyses of Obama’s loyalty to the progressive base of the Democratic Party were not restricted to the liberal-oriented blogs. John Harwood’s article in the December 6 New York Times provided us with a more optimistic view of what we might expect from the Obama Administration:
Robert Creamer demonstrated a similarly positive outlook in his November 24 posting on the Campaign for America’s Future website:
As we approach the initial days of the Obama Administration, it seems amusing to observe more squeamishness about our next President, coming from those on the political left than from those on the right. The McCain campaign’s old theme: “Who is Barack Obama?” seems to be lingering in the minds of many Obama supporters. Saturday Night Live taught a lesson to all of the worriers, with the sketch: “Obama Plays It Cool” . Fear not, ye of leftist leanings! Just stay cool.