Writing this election day, a few hours before Obama's almost certain victory, I am sure that his election represents a great leap forward for America. Certainly, Obama's election represents the most significant advance, since the end of Jim Crow and the passage of the voting rights act, toward cleansing the moral stain from the body politic that is the continuing legacy of the system of chattel slavery -- in all its horror, brutality and injustice -- which was integral to the social and economic life of these United States for far too long, and which has continued to cast its long and dark shadow over American life ever since. Whatever else Obama accomplishes, if only on this one front, his election will have been of profound moral and historical significance.
Alas, as the contours of the ongoing economic crisis and of the Wall Street bailout have reminded us, there is more to what ails America today than our long and continuing legacy of racial injustice. Clearly, America also suffers from profound socio-economic injustice and from profound inequities of political power and influence that parallel these socio-economic inequities. On this front, that is, with regard to the moral imperative of socio-economic redistribution, I must admit that my sympathies are more with Nader than Obama, and my expectations for transformational leadership from Obama on the socio-economic and social-justice questions of the day are quite low, especially as he has surrounded himself with Wall Street plutocrats and establishment economists.
Ultimately, the solution to the problem of socio-economic inequity and injustice will not be solved until a new politics emerges on the ground. Indeed what America really needs in not so much a new President as a new politics. In Obama's early rhetoric (in Iowa) when he presented himself as the catalyst of something bigger than his own aspirations, he sounded this note, calling upon Americans to recommit themselves to an activist politics inspired by passion for the common good and the res publica. This note has not been sounded by him much since, and so it is an open question whether he (or anyone) will seek to build on the unprecedented levels of political interest and engagement which his campaign has engendered, and to transmute these publicly spirited energies into the genuinely participatory politics which could genuinely transform this country. Obama has certainly tapped into the collective hope for a very different kind of America, but how interested will he be in creating new channels of political expression and deliberation that look beyond the goal of his own election and reelection, and which look toward a revived polity and renewed civic life, when these new channels are likely to generate political ferment and moral demands for socio-economic change which will pose a challenge to the moderate and prudent course that no-drama Obama and his team are intent upon. Time will tell.
All this being said, voting for Obama was not a hard choice for me, mainly because I saw it as an important step -- not the last step and not the only step -- along the road to rectifying the legacy of America's primal sin of slavery. And while I hope for the best from an Obama presidency, and expect to be disappointed, I have no doubts about the intrinsic historical and moral significance of his being elected to the highest office in the land by the people of the United States, and that is enough to make today a day of profound importance and makes me proud to have been part of it by voting for Obama's election. And, with that said, now it is time to turn our attention to fight against those with a vested interest in the socio-economic status quo and to fight on behalf of creating the organs of a vitalized and active democratic body politic.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
To a Republican Friend Regarding the Choice of McCain or Obama
A note to a Republican friend in response to his reflections on whether to support Obama or McCain
Dear friend,
Some would say the bottom line is all that matters, the answer to the question who are you going to vote for. But with you, I would agree that the reasoning is important. From your note it is clear that in the main your vote for Obama is a vote of no-confidence for McCain in the face of campaign decisions that give you grave doubt as to what kind of president he would prove to be. His decision to choose Palin, his uncertainty and flailing about in the face of the deepening financial crisis, his low-road campaign tactics and penchant for mind-numbing slogans instead of offering analytic formulations which suggest a grasp of the problems facing America, all are good reasons to not vote for McCain. It is also disturbing that McCain's entire campaign has been about tarring and feathering his opponent and not at all about the structural challenges that America faces at home and abroad. If McCain does have a broad strategic and systematic vision of the problems facing America today, his inability to express this vision is disturbing, for if he cannot express it there is reason to doubt that he will be able to approach the problems that arise in a holistic manner and make cogent judgments grounded in such a macro-level understanding or valid world-view.
All of this being said, your doubts about McCain hardly add up to a strong case for Obama, and I can understand your uncertainty on this score. His resume is short, his mettle untested, his ability to make the tough calls uncertain. The one thing we know about him is that he is smart, reflective, systematic in his approach to problems, and able to bring all relevant parties to the table in order to hear from all sides before making a decision. These are all good habits of mind, which suggest a prudent pragmatic orientation, which suggest an orientation that should be relatively capable of dealing with whatever comes across the transom. These habits of mind, are, moreover, the very ones which have been strikingly absent on McCain's part.
Do we know enough about Obama's inner convictions or political principles? No. With a short resume put together almost in its entirety while he had his eyes on the presidency, pragmatic opportunism is clearly his strongest suit -- though that is not necessarily a bad quality in the case of a president who is likely to govern with an eye to his reelection and legacy. In your note I hear your concern about where he really stands regarding economic questions. So far, I am struck by his refusal to demagogue on these questions. Surrounded by an advisory corps drawn almost entirely from Wall Street and/or the Clinton economic team, his tone has been moderate, cautious. If he is ready to declare himself a tribune of Main Street and the Middle Class, he has been unwilling to play the radical populist card or to steal a card from Nader's playbook and declare himself to be the tribune of the people. I think he will follow the Clinton model, offering a pro-middle class political rhetoric while advancing policies that receive the imprimatur of the financial elites. Whether this policy course will be up to the challenges of the times is another question, but it will be a moderate approach which his very well-heeled corporate supporters are comfortable with.
In foreign policy, while again his record is short and his true convictions are unknown, all signs are that he will follow a relatively centrist policy line, a consensus position that hews to the editorial line of Council of Foreign Affairs. While he has said a few things that suggest naivete and leftist instincts, I sense that his pragmatism and his relative inexperience in this area will also lead him to craft establishment approved policies, perhaps with a slight leftward tilt.
My bottom line, and I sense it is yours as well, is that McCain has not shown himself to be up to the task of meeting the challenges of the tough times ahead. His judgment calls during the campaign, while hardly a great indicator of how he would govern, suggest an imprudence and lack of reflective capacity that do not augur well. Obama's approach to the campaign, and especially since winning the nomination at which point his campaign operations took on something of the quality of a shadow government, do suggest a reflective and systematic approach to dealing with problems that could only serve him well when it comes to government policy formulation -- at least when there is enough time to approach these things systematically, Of course, therein lies the greatest unknown: how will Obama respond when there isn't time enough to proceed systematically? What kind of decisions will he make when he must trust his gut and go on imperfect information? We have no way of knowing the answer -- and a career in legislative office is not really a good indicator either. And while we do know more about McCain's instincts in this regard, the verdict in this regard is mixed, and we know that he errs frequently by making snap decisions in cases where in fact there was time enough for deliberation and thorough consideration of all the options and all the implications. Obama may end up failing by erring in the opposite direction, but I would rather place my bet (and it is only a bet) on his deliberate and pragmatic approach to problems since I think more of the problems that will face the next president are of the kind that are amenable to such an approach.
Time will tell.
Dear friend,
Some would say the bottom line is all that matters, the answer to the question who are you going to vote for. But with you, I would agree that the reasoning is important. From your note it is clear that in the main your vote for Obama is a vote of no-confidence for McCain in the face of campaign decisions that give you grave doubt as to what kind of president he would prove to be. His decision to choose Palin, his uncertainty and flailing about in the face of the deepening financial crisis, his low-road campaign tactics and penchant for mind-numbing slogans instead of offering analytic formulations which suggest a grasp of the problems facing America, all are good reasons to not vote for McCain. It is also disturbing that McCain's entire campaign has been about tarring and feathering his opponent and not at all about the structural challenges that America faces at home and abroad. If McCain does have a broad strategic and systematic vision of the problems facing America today, his inability to express this vision is disturbing, for if he cannot express it there is reason to doubt that he will be able to approach the problems that arise in a holistic manner and make cogent judgments grounded in such a macro-level understanding or valid world-view.
All of this being said, your doubts about McCain hardly add up to a strong case for Obama, and I can understand your uncertainty on this score. His resume is short, his mettle untested, his ability to make the tough calls uncertain. The one thing we know about him is that he is smart, reflective, systematic in his approach to problems, and able to bring all relevant parties to the table in order to hear from all sides before making a decision. These are all good habits of mind, which suggest a prudent pragmatic orientation, which suggest an orientation that should be relatively capable of dealing with whatever comes across the transom. These habits of mind, are, moreover, the very ones which have been strikingly absent on McCain's part.
Do we know enough about Obama's inner convictions or political principles? No. With a short resume put together almost in its entirety while he had his eyes on the presidency, pragmatic opportunism is clearly his strongest suit -- though that is not necessarily a bad quality in the case of a president who is likely to govern with an eye to his reelection and legacy. In your note I hear your concern about where he really stands regarding economic questions. So far, I am struck by his refusal to demagogue on these questions. Surrounded by an advisory corps drawn almost entirely from Wall Street and/or the Clinton economic team, his tone has been moderate, cautious. If he is ready to declare himself a tribune of Main Street and the Middle Class, he has been unwilling to play the radical populist card or to steal a card from Nader's playbook and declare himself to be the tribune of the people. I think he will follow the Clinton model, offering a pro-middle class political rhetoric while advancing policies that receive the imprimatur of the financial elites. Whether this policy course will be up to the challenges of the times is another question, but it will be a moderate approach which his very well-heeled corporate supporters are comfortable with.
In foreign policy, while again his record is short and his true convictions are unknown, all signs are that he will follow a relatively centrist policy line, a consensus position that hews to the editorial line of Council of Foreign Affairs. While he has said a few things that suggest naivete and leftist instincts, I sense that his pragmatism and his relative inexperience in this area will also lead him to craft establishment approved policies, perhaps with a slight leftward tilt.
My bottom line, and I sense it is yours as well, is that McCain has not shown himself to be up to the task of meeting the challenges of the tough times ahead. His judgment calls during the campaign, while hardly a great indicator of how he would govern, suggest an imprudence and lack of reflective capacity that do not augur well. Obama's approach to the campaign, and especially since winning the nomination at which point his campaign operations took on something of the quality of a shadow government, do suggest a reflective and systematic approach to dealing with problems that could only serve him well when it comes to government policy formulation -- at least when there is enough time to approach these things systematically, Of course, therein lies the greatest unknown: how will Obama respond when there isn't time enough to proceed systematically? What kind of decisions will he make when he must trust his gut and go on imperfect information? We have no way of knowing the answer -- and a career in legislative office is not really a good indicator either. And while we do know more about McCain's instincts in this regard, the verdict in this regard is mixed, and we know that he errs frequently by making snap decisions in cases where in fact there was time enough for deliberation and thorough consideration of all the options and all the implications. Obama may end up failing by erring in the opposite direction, but I would rather place my bet (and it is only a bet) on his deliberate and pragmatic approach to problems since I think more of the problems that will face the next president are of the kind that are amenable to such an approach.
Time will tell.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Help the U.S. Economy not the. Banks: Create a Federally Run, National Investment Bank
the It gets better and better -- that is, if you are a banker on Main Street or Wall Street. The Times reports tonight that the US Treasury is poised to implement The Elmendorf Plan, following Gordon Brown's formula for bailing out the High Street banks, which Brad De Long explains as follows:
What galls me is that this salvation of the banks, the socialization of the risks of the very well heeled, saves their butts, and while it renews their ability to extend credit to Main Street, which is important, why should the banks and bankers become the disproportionate beneficiaries of this infusion of capital which will renew their capacity to lend? That the taxpayers will get a proportionate equity share in these banks proportionate to the infusion of capital is certainly a good thing, but it seems to me that the banks and bankers will benefit proportionately much more than we the people, than we the taxpayers.
A fairer approach by far would not inject capital into the banks but would create a new, public entity, a "Bank of the United States," with a number of regional or state branches which would become the source of the investment capital which the economy badly needs. Why should the government step in to firm up the very banks that got us into this mess, and why should we make investments in these banks that will redound to the benefit of the bank's shareholders and executives?
A new federally owned public investment bank, with tight controls on executive compensation, and with a mandate to spur green technologies, with a commitment to the common weal and to a reasonable return for the taxpayer on these investments seems like the way to go. Indeed we could create a number of such banks, each of which would focus on spurring investment within an individual industry.
But, the main point is that a move like this by the Treasury would resolve the liquidity crisis, would help to spur economic growth and would serve the public good without benefiting those who should be punished for having driven the economy into the ground while profiting all the way.
Have the government directly invest in and take an equity stake in troubled banks, thus reassuring their depositors and creditors that they are sound. The banks will then be able to profit by buying up distressed securities--hence raising their prices--and by directly lending to companies that will then be able to hire more workers, and depression will be averted.
What galls me is that this salvation of the banks, the socialization of the risks of the very well heeled, saves their butts, and while it renews their ability to extend credit to Main Street, which is important, why should the banks and bankers become the disproportionate beneficiaries of this infusion of capital which will renew their capacity to lend? That the taxpayers will get a proportionate equity share in these banks proportionate to the infusion of capital is certainly a good thing, but it seems to me that the banks and bankers will benefit proportionately much more than we the people, than we the taxpayers.
A fairer approach by far would not inject capital into the banks but would create a new, public entity, a "Bank of the United States," with a number of regional or state branches which would become the source of the investment capital which the economy badly needs. Why should the government step in to firm up the very banks that got us into this mess, and why should we make investments in these banks that will redound to the benefit of the bank's shareholders and executives?
A new federally owned public investment bank, with tight controls on executive compensation, and with a mandate to spur green technologies, with a commitment to the common weal and to a reasonable return for the taxpayer on these investments seems like the way to go. Indeed we could create a number of such banks, each of which would focus on spurring investment within an individual industry.
But, the main point is that a move like this by the Treasury would resolve the liquidity crisis, would help to spur economic growth and would serve the public good without benefiting those who should be punished for having driven the economy into the ground while profiting all the way.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Beyond Corporate Welfare
I know the financial bailout is not as sexy or interesting as the election, but I wanted to call your attention to a few aspect of the proposal submitted by Paulson which merit our attention. The first thing to point out is that the proposal essentially gives the Treasury carte blanche to frame whatever kind of package as they see fit with minimal congressional input and no oversight. Indeed section 8 of the short (3 page) legislative proposal indicates that if the administration gets its way neither the courts nor any agency will have a right to review the terms or the implementation of the bailout.
Thinking about the pending bailout in light of the New Deal precedent, I am reminded of the fact that the New Deal saved capitalism from itself and from the threat of socialism on the basis of a quid pro quo that granted the laboring citizenry a range of protections -- from social security to the rights of collective bargaining -- in exchange for labor peace and the preservation of the economic power of the industrialists and financiers. It seems to me that if the taxpayers are going to be asked now to pony up to the tune of a trillion or more dollars in order to "save the system as a whole," a system which is far from equitable in its operation and in the distribution of its fruits, those who have the most to lose (i.e., the winners in the present epoch of casino and finance capitalism) should be forced to accept analogously transformative redistributive changes in the socio-economic and political status quo which will serve to reverse the ever greater social and economic inequities that the latest stage of globalized capitalism has imposed upon the vast majority of Americans.
Further, it seems to me that if we permit the Congress to "fix the system" first, through the enactment of bailout legislation that will, in effect, be thoroughly regressive inasmuch as it will effectively redistribute national income from those with less to those with more (i.e. from the taxpayers to the plutocrats), our national leaders will never get to the imperative agenda of forming a new social compact which will shift power and resources from the top 10% to the bottom 90% of the populace. One can already hear the pundits proclaiming that the price of the bailout will make it nigh well impossible for the next President to achieve universal health care, improvement in education and infrastructure. One knows that the "fiscally responsible" crowd that brought about the collapse, and is now being bailed out, will insist that the next administration hold the line on so-called "discretionary" spending. In practice, this will surely mean that the glaring and growing socio-economic inequities will become even more pronounced in the course of the coming decade, unless the American people put their foot down right now and insist that the financial system can only be fixed as part of a total package that includes significant steps in the direction of much needed socio-economic redistribution.
It is unfortunate that this challenge falls to a Democratic Congress that is singularly lacking in spine. But it is fortunate that this crisis and opportunity has presented itself in an election year and on the eve of a presidential election. Bland nostrums and vague promises from either side should not be permitted to carry the day, however. And the Democratic Congress and the Obama camp must be made to understand that their power, and his election, hang in the balance.
In fact, it is extraordinarily irresponsible that the present administration in the twilight of its lame-duck term has proceeded with such temerity in seeking to mortgage the future of the American people and to impose a fait accompli upon the democratic electoral process that will serve to undercut future efforts to renegotiate the social compact, which is what the resolution of this crisis, and of the underlying disease which has produced this crisis, really calls for. Too much hangs in the balance for the American people to permit this attempt to hijack the American future in the name of the preservation of a profoundly sick status quo to succeed. The changes that have not yet been made to empower the middle class and poor to become full and equal beneficiaries of economic globalization are the moral and practical imperatives of the present hour, which the current crisis may permit us to tackle -- unless, under the pressure of the present financial hysteria and the Administration induced sense of panic, we are induced to "save the system" today andto put off tackling the structural challenges for another day. That "other day" has been too long in coming already. Following the herd right now will put that day off indefinitely while exacerbating existing socio-economic inequities.
Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. And while I support Obama, I think that in the face of the present crisis, and in the face of what is now the biggest issue in this election, he ought to fear that if he does not call for putting the brakes on the Treasury's very quick, very expensive, and very unfair fix of the financial system, and if he does not offer a comprehensive and concrete commitment to renegotiation of the social compact -- as the condition of the maintenance of the economic status quo, then Nader's more systemic approach to what ails us, and his more direct appeal to those Americans who believe that now is the time for a more thoroughgoing socio-economic transformation, may peel away just enough voters as to jeopardize Obama's election.
I do not want to see this happen, but I do think that Obama might jeopardize his election if his only response to the crisis is to cloak himself in "responsible bipartisanship" and to surround himself with Rubin, Tyson and Summers, who are all part of the team who brought the country to the present level of socio-economic inequity. While things are certainly far worse today, if memory serves the Clinton epoch was hardly one of great economic equality. I think Obama can dare to be bold in the current circumstances, and only by so doing is there any chance that he will be elected with a mandate to bring about the structural changes that are necessary. Otherwise, he may be elected but without a real policy mandate and without the clout or leverage to do what needs to be done.
IMHO
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
On the substance of the proposal, aside from asking for authority to spend up to $700 billion and raising the debt-ceiling, as I already noted, there are few details to be had. How much the Treasury will pay on the dollar for the mortgage-related assets it will be acquiring from financial institutions is not mentioned at all. Will it be 60 cents on the dollar or 30 cents? The proposal doesn't say, and the implications for the rest of us are not considered. Will the executives at these institutions be subject to a reduction in compensation as a quid pro quo for the bailout of their institutions? Again, the proposal is silent and would leave all such details to the judgment of the Treasury. Will the institutions be required to change the very practices that got us into this mess? Again silence. And, of course, as you all know there are no provisions in the proposal for helping those who are facing foreclosure, etc.Thinking about the pending bailout in light of the New Deal precedent, I am reminded of the fact that the New Deal saved capitalism from itself and from the threat of socialism on the basis of a quid pro quo that granted the laboring citizenry a range of protections -- from social security to the rights of collective bargaining -- in exchange for labor peace and the preservation of the economic power of the industrialists and financiers. It seems to me that if the taxpayers are going to be asked now to pony up to the tune of a trillion or more dollars in order to "save the system as a whole," a system which is far from equitable in its operation and in the distribution of its fruits, those who have the most to lose (i.e., the winners in the present epoch of casino and finance capitalism) should be forced to accept analogously transformative redistributive changes in the socio-economic and political status quo which will serve to reverse the ever greater social and economic inequities that the latest stage of globalized capitalism has imposed upon the vast majority of Americans.
Further, it seems to me that if we permit the Congress to "fix the system" first, through the enactment of bailout legislation that will, in effect, be thoroughly regressive inasmuch as it will effectively redistribute national income from those with less to those with more (i.e. from the taxpayers to the plutocrats), our national leaders will never get to the imperative agenda of forming a new social compact which will shift power and resources from the top 10% to the bottom 90% of the populace. One can already hear the pundits proclaiming that the price of the bailout will make it nigh well impossible for the next President to achieve universal health care, improvement in education and infrastructure. One knows that the "fiscally responsible" crowd that brought about the collapse, and is now being bailed out, will insist that the next administration hold the line on so-called "discretionary" spending. In practice, this will surely mean that the glaring and growing socio-economic inequities will become even more pronounced in the course of the coming decade, unless the American people put their foot down right now and insist that the financial system can only be fixed as part of a total package that includes significant steps in the direction of much needed socio-economic redistribution.
It is unfortunate that this challenge falls to a Democratic Congress that is singularly lacking in spine. But it is fortunate that this crisis and opportunity has presented itself in an election year and on the eve of a presidential election. Bland nostrums and vague promises from either side should not be permitted to carry the day, however. And the Democratic Congress and the Obama camp must be made to understand that their power, and his election, hang in the balance.
In fact, it is extraordinarily irresponsible that the present administration in the twilight of its lame-duck term has proceeded with such temerity in seeking to mortgage the future of the American people and to impose a fait accompli upon the democratic electoral process that will serve to undercut future efforts to renegotiate the social compact, which is what the resolution of this crisis, and of the underlying disease which has produced this crisis, really calls for. Too much hangs in the balance for the American people to permit this attempt to hijack the American future in the name of the preservation of a profoundly sick status quo to succeed. The changes that have not yet been made to empower the middle class and poor to become full and equal beneficiaries of economic globalization are the moral and practical imperatives of the present hour, which the current crisis may permit us to tackle -- unless, under the pressure of the present financial hysteria and the Administration induced sense of panic, we are induced to "save the system" today andto put off tackling the structural challenges for another day. That "other day" has been too long in coming already. Following the herd right now will put that day off indefinitely while exacerbating existing socio-economic inequities.
Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. And while I support Obama, I think that in the face of the present crisis, and in the face of what is now the biggest issue in this election, he ought to fear that if he does not call for putting the brakes on the Treasury's very quick, very expensive, and very unfair fix of the financial system, and if he does not offer a comprehensive and concrete commitment to renegotiation of the social compact -- as the condition of the maintenance of the economic status quo, then Nader's more systemic approach to what ails us, and his more direct appeal to those Americans who believe that now is the time for a more thoroughgoing socio-economic transformation, may peel away just enough voters as to jeopardize Obama's election.
I do not want to see this happen, but I do think that Obama might jeopardize his election if his only response to the crisis is to cloak himself in "responsible bipartisanship" and to surround himself with Rubin, Tyson and Summers, who are all part of the team who brought the country to the present level of socio-economic inequity. While things are certainly far worse today, if memory serves the Clinton epoch was hardly one of great economic equality. I think Obama can dare to be bold in the current circumstances, and only by so doing is there any chance that he will be elected with a mandate to bring about the structural changes that are necessary. Otherwise, he may be elected but without a real policy mandate and without the clout or leverage to do what needs to be done.
IMHO
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Art, the Imperishable and the Sense of Space
Postcards from Nowhere
Does the artwork create the locus of the meaningful, of the lasting space, of the human world, as it did in an earlier epoch? As Jed Perl observes, today's art "replace[s] the there that constitutes a work of art with a nowhere." This in turn raises the question of whether it is the there which constitutes the work of art or whether it is the work of art that constitutes the there. Hannah Arendt, following Heidegger, to some extent, argued for the latter, that the artwork, as a mortal thing rendered immortal by our commitment to preservation, worlds the world, founds the public space as a space of immortalization wherein mortals might enter and claim a piece of immortality, and thus lasting meaning.
Does the artwork create the locus of the meaningful, of the lasting space, of the human world, as it did in an earlier epoch? As Jed Perl observes, today's art "replace[s] the there that constitutes a work of art with a nowhere." This in turn raises the question of whether it is the there which constitutes the work of art or whether it is the work of art that constitutes the there. Hannah Arendt, following Heidegger, to some extent, argued for the latter, that the artwork, as a mortal thing rendered immortal by our commitment to preservation, worlds the world, founds the public space as a space of immortalization wherein mortals might enter and claim a piece of immortality, and thus lasting meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)