SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: T L Comiskey who wrote (160621)2/13/2009 1:33:19 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 362360
 
Why Judd Gregg's Change of Heart Was a Birthday Present to Lincoln's Protégé

The president's magnificent speech last night in honor of Abraham Lincoln did exactly what he has been needing to do, and did it artfully and disarmingly: to begin re-branding government as something other than, as Reagan branded it, "the problem, not the solution." Behind a memorable branding campaign is almost always a memorable story, and the story the president told was precisely the one that Americans across the political spectrum have needed to hear, particularly those in the political center, who have developed a deep distrust of the only institution that can now save their jobs, health care, unemployment insurance, homes, and retirements. The story he told is of how government can sometimes err on the side of stepping in where it doesn't need to or in ways that are ultimately counterproductive, but that the pendulum has now swung so far in the other direction that we have forgotten that citizens joining together for the common good -- which, last I remember from the Declaration of Independence, is what democratic government is supposed to be -- is often the only force powerful enough to do what individuals cannot do for themselves. The speech masterfully blended together values shared by people across the political spectrum -- individual autonomy and responsibility, and collective effort and common bonds -- but that have often been touted as values of the right and left, respectively.

In a brief moment, the president also disarmingly dealt with what appeared to be the latest black eye on his administration, Senator Judd Gregg's sudden recognition that he doesn't really believe in things like regulation of commerce, stimulating an economy on the brink of collapse, or making sure everyone is counted in a census, and hence withdrew his nomination to serve as Secretary of Commerce. Toward the beginning of his speech, President Obama set the scene, with a twinkle in his eye that turned into a broad smile, of an Abraham Lincoln before he became Abraham Lincoln, wondering if he'd receive a phone call offering him the position of Secretary of Commerce.

Although another cabinet member biting the dust was probably not welcome news for the White House, this one was actually a Lincoln's Birthday present. President Obama has taken Lincoln as his role model and has tried to emulate his "team of rivals." However, as pointed out by my colleague Joel Weinberger, Lincoln didn't invite Robert E. Lee to give him advice on his war plans or ask Jefferson Davis to serve in his cabinet. If the President wanted a rival on his team for commerce, he might have chosen Nobel laureate and progressive economist Paul Krugman, who would be part of a team of rivals who are, at the very least, on the same team, wearing the same-colored uniform on the battlefield at Elkhart.

But Gregg was a problematic choice long before his views on the census or his non-vote on the stimulus became apparent, for reasons that reflect the way our minds and brains work. Much of our thought is unconscious and associative, not rational or linear, and shaping those associations -- as Reagan did with "government" -- is central to moving public opinion. For years, Democrats have led Republicans in the polls on most of the issues tracked by pollsters except two: national defense and commerce. This administration has an historic chance of changing that, as long-term advantages for Republicans of 30 or more points in the polls when respondents are asked who they trust more, Democrats or Republicans, on both protecting the country and working with business to create prosperity, dropped to single digits in 2008, and for good reason: when the Republicans finally held the reins of power for the last eight years, they destroyed their credibility on national security by waging wars unnecessarily and incompetently while simultaneously precipitating not only the worst year for business since the Great Depression but the greatest economic crisis this country has faced in a century. By choosing Republicans as Secretary of Defense and Commerce, the administration sent out an unintended meta-message to voters: you can trust us Democrats on a lot of things, but when it comes to defense and commerce, let's bring in the Republicans, because they really know something about keeping us safe and prosperous. The last thing the White House needs to do -- even in its unrequited spirit of bipartisanship -- is to reinforce Republicans' historic advantage on these issues at a time when voters are rightly beginning to rethink it.

huffingtonpost.com



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (160621)2/13/2009 3:47:31 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 362360
 
Elegy for a Toxic Logic
And carpe diem for what comes next

by Rebecca Solnit

A student of Shunryu Suzuki Roshi, the founder of the San Francisco Zen Center, once sheepishly asked him whether he could sum up the essence of Zen in a single sentence. "Everything changes," said Suzuki Roshi without missing a beat, then moved on to another question. Now that everything has changed, the despair of four years ago-not just that Bush had been re-elected but that he would prevail forever in a nation that would forever believe his lies and follow his cult of imperial war and climate-change denial and free-market fundamentalism-has vanished like morning mist.

Everything changes. I myself expected we'd see a nonwhite or nonmale presidency in my lifetime, but not that it'd come so soon, and with it came a profound symbolic shift within the United States, a redefinition of "us" and "them," as well as a sign to the rest of the world that this country is some kind of hybrid, turbulent bridge between global north and global south, the white and the nonwhite, wealth and poverty, as the poles weirdly united in Barack Obama, whose symbolic currency is immeasurable, whatever his limitations. But electoral politics, even as they unfolded with all the richness of a Shakespearian drama (with the Clintons doing a splendid Lord and Lady Macbeth in the primary season and McCain topping them with his King Lear to Faust meltdown), were hardly the only arena where change prevailed.

Capitalism imploded more dramatically than anyone had imagined, though once it had, its collapse seemed as obvious as inevitable. That is, underregulated free-market capitalism ate itself before our eyes. At the beginning of the Bush era, now passing from the face of the Earth more like a toxic plume than a morning mist, the then-functional FEMA predicted three major catastrophic risks for the United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a hurricane strike on New Orleans, and a major earthquake in San Francisco. In early 2008, some distinguished sources were predicting an economic apocalypse too, including German president and former International Monetary Fund chair Horst Köhler, who declared, "International financial markets have developed into a monster that must be put back in its place."

When these markets fell apart, so did many of the fundamental premises of the past few decades, which is part of what makes this moment in history so interesting, and so unpredictable. Even trying to grasp it is dizzying, like looking-as Mike Davis put it-into the Grand Canyon and trying to understand its vastness. What exactly collapsed? Not just the financial assumptions of the Bush era, or the Clinton and Bush eras of globalization, or of Reaganomics with its cult of the free market, but something bigger and deeper. It became clear that the American economy had been for almost four decades a desperately ill patient requiring more and more life support to keep it going: get off the gold standard in 1971, then deregulate markets, globalize capital, go for "financialization"-the conversion of more and more aspects of life on Earth into investment opportunities-unto the derivatives and hedges and bundled mortgages that brought it all down.

I have never been able to confirm the adage that the Chinese word for crisis is made up of the characters for disaster and opportunity, but if it isn't true it ought to be. This unforeseen moment has many possibilities. The death of capitalism, or rather the revelation of its profound diseasedness, is an opportunity it would be ironic to call golden. But check out what Michael Pollan wrote last October: "In the past several months more than 30 nations have experienced food riots, and so far one government has fallen. Should high grain prices persist and shortages develop, you can expect to see the pendulum shift decisively away from free trade, at least in food. . . . Expect to hear the phrases ‘food sovereignty' and ‘food security' on the lips of every foreign leader."

What he's saying is that the rationale for globalization has unraveled and, in some parts of the world at least, will soon be abandoned. The logic of forcing your local or national economy to stop providing for its own needs and serve instead the global market has been upended. Sadly, as with most calamities, the already poor and hungry will pay and are already paying the greatest price-but we should be careful about being too mournful about this moment in history. The system was designed to produce their poverty and hunger, to grind them down and discard them. When it worked as intended, farmers in India and Korea were committing suicide by the thousand; Mexican farmers were being shoved off their land and essentially dispatched on the long tramp north; Brazil's soybean bonanza was leading to deforestation, displacement of small farmers, soil degradation, and doing nothing for that nation's hungry. The same stories could be told about many nations in Africa-and about American small farmers. It was a system designed to destroy the many for the profit of the few, and it had been producing suffering, hunger, and despair all along. Though its collapse may produce yet more suffering, it opens the way to systems and ideologies that could produce far less. Already unsteady as the World Trade Organization and the Free Trade Area of the Americas failed, globalization itself is faltering, as is the rationale that it is good for the majority of us. It never was, and now the evidence has won the argument.

The sudden rise in petroleum prices helped to undermine the logic of shipping everything everywhere, and domestic shippers have already scaled back. Those fuel prices dropped again in part because consumption itself dropped, but they will not drop to where they were a few years ago. Cheapness-in the United States, if not in Europe-was part of what made polluting the atmosphere fun and easy. The whole argument against doing anything about climate change was that the unregulated free market must not be interfered with, except maybe to commodify the right to pollute. Now that the market had to be interfered with in order to save it from its own folly, that argument is gone. So much of what made the United States such a disproportionate polluter and emitter was our obscene wealth, now somewhat reduced; a decline in snowmobile purchases, overseas vacations, new construction, and so forth is very good news for the environment. The madness of postwar affluence is fading, and Americans are beginning to make very different choices about debt, consumption, and other acts of economic overconfidence-though of course desperation remains unevenly distributed in a world that always had enough for everyone. The early tales of the crash concerned capitalists canceling their yachts, not standing in bread lines.

Still, everything changes. And a logic that was tantamount to religion has collapsed, the logic that made it so hard to do anything about everything: poverty, injustice, environmental degradation, corporations run rampant, economic madness. Now that the logic is gone-or so weakened that it can never come back with the force it had in all policy arguments for the past three or four decades-we have an extraordinary opportunity. Not a gift, not a guarantee, but an opportunity to supply a different logic, one of modesty, prudence, long-term vision, solidarity-and pleasure: all the pleasures that were not being brought to us by a system whose highest achievement was represented by endless aisles of shoddy goods made in countless sweatshops on the other side of the world.

The future has never been more uncertain, but that's not all bad news. This moment could belong to those who want to articulate something that is neither capitalist nor communist but local, durable, humane, imaginative, inclusive, and open to ongoing improvisation, rather than locked in place as a fixed ideology. The moment is ours to seize.

© 2009 Orion Magazine

Published on Friday, February 13, 2009 by Orion Magazine