Politics and Capitalism
11 December 2009 9:29 am by Taylor Marsh
updated below
What’s most troubling is that we don’t know if Obama has changed, or if the influence of Wall Street is simply a fundamental and ineradicable element of our electoral system. What we do know is that Barack Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn’t be surprised. Maybe it’s our fault, for thinking he was different. – Obama’s Big Sellout
Matt Taibbi evidently missed the foreshadowing, which began a long time ago. Obama isn’t any different from any other politician who has ever made it to the top rung of the American political system.
Taibbi takes apart Clinton era money man Robert Rubin, asks for Tim Geithner’s firing, while learning about American reality. Politics and capitalism take turns driving each other, depending on which one is on a bender at the moment. It’s charming that Tiabbi thought Obama was different, as did scores of others, but if he was he’d never have gotten elected in the first place. Something that is actually a plus not a minus, because Obama is a whole lot better than a bought and paid for wingnut sure to run amok, but few on the left applaud him for that one, which is understandable. It should give you insight into one reason why our elections aren’t publicly financed.
More from Taibbi:
[...] Wall Street loved the Citi bailout and the Geithner nomination so much that the Dow immediately posted its biggest two-day jump since 1987, rising 11.8 percent. Citi shares jumped 58 percent in a single day, and JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley soared more than 20 percent, as Wall Street embraced the news that the government’s bailout generosity would not die with George W. Bush and Hank Paulson. “Geithner assures a smooth transition between the Bush administration and that of Obama, because he’s already co-managing what’s happening now,” observed Stephen Leeb, president of Leeb Capital Management.
… Taken together, the rash of appointments with ties to Bob Rubin may well represent the most sweeping influence by a single Wall Street insider in the history of government. “Rather than having a team of rivals, they’ve got a team of Rubins,” says Steven Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. “You see that in policy choices that have resuscitated — but not reformed — Wall Street.”
… The significance of all of these appointments isn’t that the Wall Street types are now in a position to provide direct favors to their former employers. It’s that, with one or two exceptions, they collectively offer a microcosm of what the Democratic Party has come to stand for in the 21st century. Virtually all of the Rubinites brought in to manage the economy under Obama share the same fundamental political philosophy carefully articulated for years by the Hamilton Project: Expand the safety net to protect the poor, but let Wall Street do whatever it wants. “Bob Rubin, these guys, they’re classic limousine liberals,” says David Sirota, a former Democratic strategist. “These are basically people who have made shitloads of money in the speculative economy, but they want to call themselves good Democrats because they’re willing to give a little more to the poor. That’s the model for this Democratic Party: Let the rich do their thing, but give a fraction more to everyone else.”
This connection between capitalism and politics is why Mitt Romney remains so dangerous.
UPDATE: This is a terrific rebuttal piece on what Taibbi gets wrong, those parts what I didn’t crop out. The Jamie Rubin as Bob Rubin’s son made me chuckle when I read it the first time. It’s even better in this smackdown. However, the quotes from Steve and David are dead on and they are correct, as are other elements of Taibbi’s tale, though it doesn’t excuse any of the errors, that’s for sure.
And Matt never wondered where Freshman Senator Obama got all the money to pass around in Congress and to Super Delegates? More walking around money to play with than Senator Hillary Clinton and he passed out to those “delegated” multiples more than Clinton.
Matt is just pissed because he’s coming to realize that Obama slicked him. Obama is everything Matt accused Clinton of being.
Hillary could have had just as much money “to pass around to Congress & to super delegates,” djjl, her team simply blew it. Let’s not try to float that Hillary is different from Obama when it comes to the corporate money game. She isn’t.
I think that there is a fundamental difference between WJC and what we have seen of Obama to date. Yes, Bill Clinton cozied up to Wall Street and he made some misguided decisions as a result of that. But I think his motivations were different.I think he was sick of Democrats losing the money game over and over and he saw this allience as a way around that. But I prefer to believe Taylor Branch’s assertion that Clinton was always trying to improve things for the American people.What they share IMHO is an overarching confidence in their own ability to pursuade. What they don’t share again, IMHO is an empathy for the common person.
That might explain Clinton’s ability to be a two term president,we shall see if Obama can pull off the same feat.Obama unlike either Clinton blew off the Reagan Dems and his supporters made a sport of trashing them.Now the dew is off the rose for many Obama supporters and unless he pulls off some miracles I don’t see the wave happening in 2012.
I keep reading how everyone is so disappointed in Obama…Yet, nobody is offering up his replacement. Who will it be then in 2012 if the so called dew is off Obama?!!! crickets is all I’m hearing. Every time one of my friends tell me I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I ask “Then who is the better choice for you Sarah Palin, Huckabee,Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty ? Because if those are the choices in 2012 then Obama does not have to fight to hard.
Marie…I think you are wrong there. If the economy is still bad and all those college students who thought Obama was so cool are trying to pay off college loans with low paying jobs or can’t find any job,do you think they will engage to the extent they did before? What about all those Obama Republicans that came out during the primary to defeat the big threat of Hillary? If Mitt can get past the crazy Republican primary,they might be happy to vote for him,Independents who hate deficits are bailing right now,add that to the energy on the right and you might have a problem.
One other possible problem. Long time party activists like myself are pretty well done with this party and not likly to man the stations this time around. Personally, I’m thinking of re regristering as a liberal Independent. I’m looking for a third Party even though I know they are doomed just to be able to put energy into something I believe in,or maybe just giving up politics altogether for more community work.
It’s capitalism which is bad, not the people who have never really understood it. Subtract the black vote from the last election and McCain wins. Who the “monied class” will allow “we the people” to elect as ‘our’ president will never really change. That person will always be a reflection of them. That does not mean that we are required to go along with their choice after we have elected their flunkie. When the “monied class” feels threatened by the rabble, that would be “we the people,” they will respond. The bigger the threat, the greater the response. (Violence is not permitted.) The greatest pressure point is the House of Representatives which is elected every two years. On November next if “we the people” vote out of office every single incumbant–every one—a very cear and threatening message will be sent to the “monied class.” Peace
Your assertion that capitalism is not “bad,” Imhotep, is absurd; it simply requires regulations, because people & politicians are greedy, both to acquire wealth & power.
As to your statement of “subtract the black vote,” that’s as bad as saying “subtract the women’s vote” and Hillary wouldn’t have been a viable candidate for president. With your “subtract the black vote” analysis close to exhibiting racism, which I’m sure was not your intent.
Marie205 says:
11 December 2009 at 10:56 am
This is a *very* good point of debate. It brings out the ultimate reality, though I still believe it’s too soon to look at 2012 yet, with 2010 a nightmare looming. But since you brought it up, the problem isn’t who would replace Obama; it’s the threat that Democrats won’t work to re-elect him (see LL), if passions run low, while the right comes out, putting Dems in the losing position by virtue of the fact they didn’t show up.
“Independents” stand for nothing, no driving dream or guiding principles. They’re simply waiting for a candidate to show up to lead them down a road without a map.
Ha! Love your definition of Independents! Although I do believe that there may be more people becoming independents in the mold of Bernie Sanders in the future.
Independents stand for nothing? Really.
10 major TARP recipients repay money
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jp-morgan-goldman-sachs-other-banks-repay-tarp
JP Morgan fined extra 1.1 billion
http://wallstreetpit.com/5256-jpmorgan-to-record-11-bln-tarp-repayment-charge
Bank of America repays TARP fund and Citigroup scrambling to repay
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afcd2b4a-e399-11de-9f4f-00144feab49a.html
It is not that I disagree totally with what the author is saying but I think that (as too often) the article does not give the full truth and in that sense is misleading. The fact that TARP funds have been repaid or that other banks are desperate to repay the fund is relevant, especially when your argument is that the president is selling us out. It is also important to mention that one of the reasons banks were desperate to repay is that the TARP funds came with strings (more government control of profit distribution, remuneration and corporate governance). In my opinion these strings should have been stronger, but clearly intolerable for the bankers, desperate to get government of their back. So the taxpayers were not completely “sold out”: “we” have made some profit and we are recovering some of the money.
That said I sort of agree with the frustration behind this article. As a kool-aid drinker one of my main frustrations with the President is that he was elected to be a leader, behaved like a populist on the campaign trail (at least in my opinion) but since sworn into office is behaving increasingly like a remote technocrat. There was a grass-root populist tone to him that has almost completely disappeared. Why he and democrats in general consider that this (rejecting populism) is the right move, is a mystery to me. I think that I can often understand the rationale and political calculation behind many of his actions, but it is no longer “I will be the voice making sure that your concerns are addressed at Washington” but more “me and my guys we know better than you what is good for you”. I find it puzzling but he really underestimated the extent to which voters yearned for change, not only of direction but especially of leadership style.
As I said, I tend to ignore many of the criticism towards him as false or greatly overstated, but the charge of inexperience is increasingly ringing true. Instead of questioning the political wisdom, he is increasingly just accepting it and trying to sell it to us as good when throughout his political career he was against it. One example was the income redistribution debate. During the campaign, in one of the rare moment of him being caught off script and unguarded, he admitted to Joe the plumber (memories memories) that he thinks that it is good to spread the wealth around. Reps jumped on that as a proof that he has no clue of what the US is all about, some dems saw this as proof that he is inexperienced because spreading the wealth is a big taboo in the US, the WSJ talked of socialism and the rancor of the liberals, political wisdom was that this was un-American and was a big blunder. But a majority of voters who were actually yearning for more social justice put him in power. Yet is looks that Obama instead of seeing that as vindication, rather decided to surround himself with the “great, the good and established”, big names with fat CVs (as Palin would say) to ensure that we are all in awe of his economic team, that no one says he does not have the best mind and ensure that as regards the economy he is not caught off guard saying “un-American” things. I explain this by lack of experience.
Not my choice of course but check out Republican John Thune in the article entitled “John Thune: The GOP’s Answer to Obama?”
http://tinyurl.com/yd7g6ad
No, Taylor, capitalism is bad. It feeds into the worst tendencies of human nature. It can not be controlled or regulated. That has already been tried a hundred times and in a thousand ways. All of those efforts have ended in the same bad way. Capitalism is a dysfunctional system which should be allowed to die the death that it so richly deserves. The time has come for the next stage in the evolutionary dialectic. You are correct, however, that Hillary would never have won in New Hampshire absent the women’s vote. That and the vote suppression and stealing that went on up there. I am not a racist, nor am I sexist, but I am a realist. Peace
“Taylor Marsh says:
11 December 2009 at 10:30 am
Hillary could have had just as much money “to pass around to Congress & to super delegates,” djjl, her team simply blew it. Let’s not try to float that Hillary is different from Obama when it comes to the corporate money game. She isn’t.”
I should have been clearer. My comment really had nothing to do with HRC and her campaign. My comment had to do with the amount of money the Freshman Senator walked into Congress with to pass around. Far, far more than Clinton or many other much more senior representatives.
I’m not talking about any money he raised during the campaign – I’m talking BEFORE he even announced an exploratory campaign.
Still, djjl, nothing wrong with that; don’t blame him at all. Smart politics.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist, LL.
That’s right, kris. For every independent you’ve got a different definition of what their political answer is. They’re looking for a personality to deliver on it. No platform or principles. They’re basically disaffected ex-Dems or Reps. That’s why it isn’t a “party.”
No, Imhotep, capitalism is not bad. It just needs regulation.
After Ensign crashed, Thune rose. I’m not surprised at all, but we haven’t seen Mitt get started. And again, don’t count out Sarah Palin and the rise of the tea party activists.
Isis says:
11 December 2009 at 12:33 pm
Brilliant assessment. Thanks so very much for taking the time to explain it so thoroughly; it was a pleasure to read your analysis, even if the deduction was depressing. I put this “In the News,” but you really must read it, Isis. It’s by Charles Blow of the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05blow.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
It will blow you away.
Well Taylor Indies must stand for something otherwise they wouldn’t have become the all important voting block.
As a newbie to being Indie I respectfully suggest you are wrong about this.
Yeah, you stand for a vote, one that is up to a bid from whomever comes by that sweet talks you enough to win it.
Every independent voter stands for something different. The candidate who can cobble together that block will have made quite a pretzel to get it.
Well, I’m just not making my thoughts clear. I didn’t mean to imply there was anything wrong – I meant to imply that there was BIG MONEY interested in the success of Obama. This wasn’t orchestrated by all the little people contributing to his election campaign coffers. This was an investment by moneyed interests with interests in mind.