It's the System, Stupid
I woke up this morning missing Molly Ivins. But there was no need. I soon realized that I could still hear her voice in my head, and she was calling out as if from a great distance.
"It's the system, stupid!" I believe she was saying. And it is, too.
I know Hillary and Barack are all involved in the "horse race" or "dog fight" or whatever they want to call it, but if they were paying attention to the real situation, this is what they'd find.
The US: superpower and supermarket of the world, lies at the nexus of three collapsing systems. The first is our system of campaign finance and by extension, government itself.
When pushed by that pushy guy, John Edwards, in one of last summer's debates, Hillary defended corporate lobbyists with the plaintive line, "lobbyists are people too."
Technically this is true. We're all people, but to be fair, corporate lobbyists are a special class of persons. Generally we label these kinds of people as "parasites." This is because they not only live off the blood and money of the rest of us, but their parasitic engagement with the system ruins it, makes it ultimately inoperable for any purposes but their own.
Like their patron saint, Darth Vader, many corporate lobbyists were once your elected representatives working for -- achievable -- change in the system itself. They worked themselves to the bone trying to pass legislation to make the world -- a little -- better, while continually trying to raise money to get reelected, until they finally got worn down. Then they took the golden handshake and joined the other side. In retirement from public service many corporate lobbyists get very, very rich.
And let's be honest, given the opportunity you might well do the same.
The results of the lobbyists gaming the system with their campaign contributions, however, have been disastrous. Whether or not legislators can take the lobbyists money and still vote against them, the cost of campaigns has escalated in the past decade alone, even more than the cost of elite colleges. This has made most legislators slaves to campaign contributions and the lobbyists who provide the lion share of them.
The obvious answer is public financing of campaigns. And of course, most corporate lobbyists don't want that because public financing would spell the end to their out-sized power. The tightening nexus of media conglomerates also don't want it, because they want to continue to be able to charge a fortune for campaign ads. You can see where this is going.
Meanwhile the international financial system is literally crumbling before our eyes. The business press has decided that the ongoing collapse of the financial system -- though they don't call it that, they call it "the recession" -- is due to the "subprime mortgage meltdown."
While the bad, collateralized mortgage debt madly circulating through the financial system is certainly the initial cause of the credit crunch at the root of the current crisis, it is also a symptom of the larger malady.
The underlying sickness that plagues the country is the hegemony of the finance economy over all other aspects of society and the human political economy.
The finance economy rose with the decline of manufacturing in the late '70s and early '80s. In these years the stock market went on a run that ultimately increased the total of corporate investment and theoretically, worth, by over 15-fold, from 1981 until today.
What made this massive increase in the size of the finance economy possible was the good old U.S. consumer. Instead of buying American goods manufactured here, we now bought foreign goods -- and domestic real estate -- financed by a new homegrown American product, cheap commercial credit and debt, produced for us by American banks like good old Citicorp, J.P Morgan Chase and the rest of them.
In fact, even as most of our real incomes declined we bought -- directly and indirectly -- more debt than we could, collectively, ever afford to repay. Many of us bought the credit debt because we needed to, just to keep our heads above water. Others of us bought debt so we could live like "the Kings and Queens of antiquity," all on a white-collar, wage-slave salary. Others bought the debt so they could speculate with it and try to game the system themselves. But we all bought it.
Not so strangely, what was going on among individual consumers was recapitulated on an enormous scale in the financial world at large. The names of the kinds of transactions changed over the years, from Leveraged buyouts to the more recent CDO's -- collateralized debt obligations, but it was all about the buying and selling of debt.
As it turned out, this was a very good business and led to the creation of a small, but not insignificant, new class of rich and super rich.
The enormous new pools of financial wealth also enabled the corporate financial elite to hire all those damn lobbyists.
Typically, the actual work of these corporate lobbyists -- when they are not busy eating away at the integrity of the legislative system itself -- is advocating for a regime of less regulation in the markets.
There are many examples of their successes; the deregulation of power and electricity companies that led to the rise of Enron, is one.
In 2005, we saw the new anti-bankruptcy law, in which the credit card companies, while keeping their ability to charge usurious interests rates, took away the refuge of Chapter 11 bankruptcy from ordinary Americans.
In 1999, the banking and insurance industries, after years of campaigning against the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act which kept them out of the incredibly lucrative investment markets, finally got the so called "firewall" legislation removed.
Once the banks went into collusion with the big investment firms, it was Katie bar the door; anything could be turned to an investment security, or "instrument" as the industry put it. And so we got the dicing up and bundling of these impossible to "rate" mortgage securities that are the cause of the current panic.
Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. The Big Banks and Big Investment houses have lost billions upon billions of dollars. They need to re-capitalize and fast, so they are bringing in new investment from the so-called sovereign wealth funds; government investment funds held by nations in Asia and the Middle East.
What the SWF's have in common is that they represent countries that have actually been producing goods and materials while the U.S. has been mostly been busy making debt. In many cases these countries have literally been subsidizing our debt orgy in order to keep us flush enough to keep buying their stuff. But now the gig's up. The American finance economy is running aground and the producing nations are being forced to tip toe in -- to take us over.
Frankly, they don't have a choice.
However, besides the loss of American national sovereignty, there is an even deeper problem endemic to the finance economy.
This is because the third system in collapse is "the big one," the ecological system of the planet itself.
Even when the market is functioning as it should, management still has to answer to shareholders whose main concern is maximizing their investment. In the case of public or private companies with a lot of leveraged debt -- and there's a lot of them -- there is a certain desperation to the search for immediate profits. However from the standpoint of the planet and its survival, maximizing return is not the first issue that needs to be addressed.
We should be talking about these things. It is an election year after all, but I think we're not talking about it, because there are certain politicians who must know that they are implicated in the looming crises that hover about us.
Exhibit number one: The Clintons.
As President, Bill Clinton pushed trade deals like NAFTA that both shipped jobs out of the country and rewarded the new financiers for their support. He signed the Gramm-Leach-Briley law that repealed most provisions of the Glass-Steagall act. He presided over the deregulation of the power and electric industries. He actively encouraged corporate lobbying in exchange for campaign contributions.
It's hard to say what goes in the mind of the Clintons' so that Hillary feels she can blithely ignore this history, pretending she is a candidate of change when in fact she is the very embodiment of a malignant status quo.
Molly Ivins saw it. In her January 20, 2006 column, she wrote:
"I'd like to make clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for President. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election... "
From my perspective, which admittedly is not the perspective of most Democrats, John Edwards is probably both the most electable candidate and the one who attacks the predations of the system most directly.
As Russ Feingold pointed out last week, Edwards is a flawed candidate. However that doesn't alter the fact that Edwards is currently the most eloquent spokesman we have against the influence of corporate money in politics and for the vanishing American Middle Class. He's the only credible anti-corporate voice in the race.
The big problem with Edwards' candidacy is it may no longer be viable. Edwards may be the most electable Democrat for a general election, but I don't see how he gets from here to the nomination.
Nonetheless, I'll be voting for John Edwards when my primary day arrives on February 5th. Edwards does take some votes from Obama, but I would submit that he takes more votes from Hillary and at this point, stopping Hillary is job one for Democrats.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you!!! Thank you!!! thank you!!! I have been begging people to open their eyes to this piece of legislation that not only got passed under Clinton's watch, but something he championed for. Thanks yoU!!!
The system, indeed. But what is happening is completely logical; no matter how detached the average American is from super-wealth or investments or stocks or any other advantage that the financial kings play at, ultimately, the average American is intimately connected. But the average American has been struggling, and feels betrayed by the banks because of hidden fees and jumping interest rates and non-hidden fees. People will gladly pay back debt that they believe is actually their responsibility, but when survival is the issue, banks and mortgage companies, with their fees that continue accruing, take a back seat and lose respect and credibility (as in, credit of a different kind) with the person struggling. For most people, that means walking away from their mortgage, knowing the mortgage company, indifferent and unyeilding, will not negotiate.
"The big problem with Edwards' candidacy is it may no longer be viable. Edwards may be the most electable Democrat for a general election, but I don't see how he gets from here to the nomination.
Nonetheless, I'll be voting for John Edwards when my primary day arrives on February 5th. Edwards does take some votes from Obama, but I would submit that he takes more votes from Hillary and at this point, stopping Hillary is job one for Democrats.
This is a magnificent post, but why do you falter at the end?
If stopping Hillary is job one, why would you risk the fate of the man who can do just that?
I understand and sympathize with your support of Edwards, but please don't confuse emotion with effectiveness.
Vote for Obama.
Edwards may in any case make an excellent Attorney General, but he will only get there if Obama wins.
Vote for Obama.
What we don't need are simple-minded scapegoatings like this. Yes, there are more lobbyists pushing for self-interest. But there are also lobbyists pushing against those. So "lobbyist=bad" gets a D- in government 101.
Bill Clinton vetoed NAFTA twice before he signed it. Are you so young that you cannot remember the Gingrich Congress that shut down the government during B. Clinton's term? Clinton barely survived a trumped up empeachment. But you expect him to have ruled the kingdom? Only CEOs can do that; not heads of state.
And let Molly rest. She had her objections to HRC, but calling on her spirit in order to politic for your candidate sucks. Or maybe stinks. No, sucks is good enough.
BILL CLINTON, THE ANTI-CHRIST?
(PART 1)
I feel like I woke up this morning and found boundary lines painted all over the surface of the planet, making it look like a Globe from space. But what if the entire Earth was inhabited by only one species of humans?
Or let's put it another way. It was presumably okay when all of the cars were made in Detroit, the steel was smelted in Pittsburgh, the high tech gear came from the Silicon Valley, agricultural goods all traded through Chicago, and New York was largely serving the same function that it now does. And the concept would be, what, that we replicate this scheme into every Podunk chunk of land that a few million people decide that their personal concept of justice requires them to be given national territorial rights over? What would happen if we tried for economies of scale and let areas of specialization develop appropriately, instead of trying to force them to conform to artificial boundaries largely set by dividing out people on the basis of ancient religions, or other largely meaningless differences? What if something like NAFTA was only a preliminary, albeit ultimately flawed, attempt to help define the confines of a new manner of living together? What if Bill Clinton made some well meaning mistakes, instead of having lived his life purely on the basis of the most foul and evil motives? What, realistically, could you have done better under the circumstances?
(Part 2)
Campaign finance reform is going to clean up what has become in a huge many ways a deeply flawed system? Yeah, right! THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!!!
And the fact that we’re all killing the only planet that all of us have is all the more reason why we can’t just retreat back into Fortress America, protecting a way of life that cannot completely continue (and in many ways existed only in our own innocent imaginations). For my money, we either get our shit together quickly on a much grander scale than anyone is currently talking about or face the onrushing time when things get away from us completely. Can’t we all get along? Not until we figure out a way to get along even with a million people sitting with begging bowls along the roadside in Calcutta. And not even that unless we find a way to exist with species and places that we seem hell bent on consigning to the trash heap of history.
Once again, Larry belies his own argument by pointing to Bill Clinton's decisions, not Hillary Clinton's current platform. If we are to judge her solely on her voting record, then we would see, by and large, that she has consistently voted in favor of working people, children, and the poor. Yes, she voted for the failed 2001 Bankruptcy Law, but had she been available to vote for the 2005 version (Bill was undergoing surgery the day of the vote), she has consistently indicated that she would have voted in the negative.
Furthermore, while she has taken money from various lobbies, it is apparent that money from the energy interests didn't sway her decision to vote against the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill, the same bill that Obama voted for. Before throwing Hillary under the bus, I would encourage you to really get to know her platform, talk with some folks who might have attended one of her town meetings, give a fellow Democrat a chance. You don't have to give up your skepticism, but try to keep an open mind.
Let's not be like Republicans.
ORS, don't be depressed. The tide may be turning in South Carolina. The latest polls show a rather dramatic shift. If we aren't able to nominate Edwards then we need to keep talking about how this evolved and how the press controlled the choices and shifted the debate.
Edwards is able to address corruption because he has made sound decisions in his fundraising. He is able to address the economic issues in a more far-reaching, long term way.
If you know anybody in SC, call them today! I've put my dog on job with a video :
http://www
A simple question for the would-be's next debate: "Why has Congress failed to pass MEANINGFUL campaign reform that excludes private AND corporate contributions and what have you done in your public life to help achieve this goal?".
I will be supporting the guy who got it right about the consequences of a war with Iraq the in the first place.
No need for continual apologies for giving a pathological liar permission to invade Iraq from my candidate, Barack Obama is the only Democrat that can unify the party and our former allies.
I was going to vote in the primary for Kucinich, who, while never electable was certainly a good candidate. Now, however, I'm going to have to do my part to get Edwards to the nomination! Out of the big three (which is, accordign to the MSM really the big two, plus Edwards) he's the only one who not only has great ideas, but knows how to get them done.
Unfortunately the people like the NY Times have started to believe she will win the nomination and we have more that will follow the leader. I can only hope Barack will start the flame burning brighter as edwards has failed to find what he can say that will be heard. Edwards is the best candidate no doubt but in this time of the first woman and first black no one wants to have the best one they want the first one whcihever that might be. Too many are still buying what Hillary is selling and want the 90's back but they are long gone and 9/11 and the bush war have taken all that away from memory. I want someone who will attempt to change the climate crisis for the better but the mayan calendar might end at 2012 for a reason we are just now understanding.
This is so true and worse the Clintons are dstroying any hope we had for change with their racial and religious baiting. They are sickening to watch.
This is just so depressing. Edwards is the most electable candidate in a general election. He is also the most anti-corporate candidate, and I admire that. The country needs him and he knows it. Unfortunately people are being influenced by the "celebrity" race between Obama and Clinton.
I agree democrats must stop Mrs. Clinton but not by using her gutter tactics. People must be proud of their candidate so by all honorable means please prevent her from winning.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
