Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Obama’s Budget Deal

August 4, 2011

Readers of my blog know that I have never been keen on conspiracist thinking, but I’m starting to get a bit paranoid after these recent budget negotiations. Watching them was like watching that old magician’s trick, in which the audience is made to look in one direction while the important thing that’s happening is in the other direction. For weeks we listened to one Tea Party Republican after another talk about how they must wreak the economy just to spite Obama. Meanwhile, few noticed that Obama actually proposed making cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Think about it, and the conspiracy makes sense. First, find the stupidest members of the white middle class. Tell them that Obama is a socialist and a fascist and a Muslim. Then organize them into demonstrations and let them make fools out of themselves. So the rest of the country gawks at these people and no one pays attention to what Obama is doing. They don’t realize just how conservative Obama is, and how he is waging war on the working class and the poor.

It is becoming clear that the ruling class have decided that they can live with a permanent state of high unemployment. Indeed, they may even view that as preferable. And if it is fine with them, it is fine with Obama.

What we need in this country is a movement of unemployed people.

Van Jones

January 27, 2011

Van Jones spoke at the University of Oregon the other day. President Obama appointed Jones as his Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, but he was forced to resign after a media witch hunt, mainly over his radical associations in the past. Jones began by saying we live in an era of “hope and heartbreak”, the hope being the election of Obama and the heartbreak being the Republican backlash against that election. He then talked about his family and his upbringing. He said that people have to advance themselves on their own initiative, but that they need to a have “a ladder they can climb up”.

He then addressed the young people in the audience. Discussing laptops and smart phones, he said, “Everyone of you is a walking technological superpower.” He then urged them, “Stop using technologies as toys and use them as tools.” Well, the young people in Tunisia and in Egypt have certainly been using their technologies as tools, but I suspect that’s not what Jones was thinking about. He then made some comments about the power of diversity and the need to handle our resources better. He then said we should get unemployed steel and auto worker to build wind turbines. He also criticized the food industry for using pesticides.

He then said, “We can’t afford left vs. right”. Never mind that left and right are reflections of very real material forces in our society. “I believe in markets. I believe in free markets, so much I want to see one.” You never will, because a truly free market is an impossibility. “I like market economies, not market societies.” Uh, so, what’s the difference? “A market society means everything is for sale.” Uh, isn’t that a free market? Could you explain please? “The stereotypical left is too cynical with regards to markets.” Speaking as a stereotypical leftist, may I say that perhaps I might be less cynical if people like you made some sense when talking about markets.

Jones then said, “This is still a moment of great hope.” Oh, we’re back to that. He then went on to say something about “two little Black girls playing on the White House lawn”. Funny, I equate hope with people getting jobs. “Democracy in crisis is a failure of imagination.” No, it is a failure of capitalism. He then urged the audience, “Dream big for America.” Uh, what about actually doing something?

During the question and answer period, someone from the audience pointed out that Obama failed to use the BP oil spill as an opportunity to push for renewable energy. In response, Jones said he was tired of people criticizing Obama. “We’re still struggling to get the model right for change under a progressive president.” He then explained how a progressive presidency functions. He said that during the 1960’s, the civil rights movement and the segregationists reached a “tie”. Lyndon Johnson then “broke the tie”. This is, to say the least, a highly eccentric interpretation of what happened during the Johnson Administration. A stereotypical leftist such as myself would say that Johnson tried to co-opt the civil rights movement. Anyway, Jones went on to say that we should try to organize based on the vague and historically dubious model that he just described.

Afterwards, a friend told me he heard Jones give mostly the same speech two years ago, only then he sounded much more radical. Perhaps the change in tone is due to Jones hoping once again to play a role in the government. You would think that after what happened to him, he would feel differently. Though perhaps that brief taste of power has proved addictive. After the First World War, people had a saying, “How can you keep a man down on the farm after he has seen gay Paree?”

Liberal Fear-mongering

December 11, 2010

I was reading the Register-Guard – Eugene’s laughable excuse for a hometown newspaper – and I saw this cartoon. It shows a fat, bald man, labeled “The Left”, watching Sarah Palin being sworn in as president. A though balloon over the man’s head reads: “Guess we showed Obama!”

Never mind that polls show that most Americans don’t think that Palin is qualified to be president. This is a typical example of liberal fear-mongering. The message is that we had better keep our mouths shut and let the Democrats screw us over, lest one of those awful Republicans gets into the White House. Of course, this merely guarantees that the Democrats will continue screwing us over.

Obama’s so-called “tax cut compromise” is actually an attack on Social Security. As Michael Hudson has pointed out in CounterPunch:

    …the tax giveaway includes a $120 billion reduction in Social Security contributions by labor – reducing the FICA wage withholding from 6.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. Obama has ingeniously designed the plan to dovetail neatly into his Bowles-Simpson commission pressing to reduce Social Security as a step toward its ultimate privatization and subsequent wipeout grab by Wall Street….

    “The bottom line is that after the prolonged tax giveaway exacerbates the federal budget deficit – along with the balance-of-payments deficit – we can expect the next Republican or Democratic administration to step in and ‘save’ the country from economic emergency by scaling back Social Security while turning its funding over, Pinochet-style, to Wall Street money managers to loot as they did in Chile….

The Democrats are not on our side.

The Oregon Elections

November 5, 2010


Six more years of this.

Here in Oregon’s Fourth Congressional District, the Democrat, Pete DeFazio, beat a bizarre Republican candidate, Art Robinson, by only six percentage points. Robinson, who has a PhD in chemistry, has called for abolishing public education. (Robinson sells home schooling kits over the Internet. I’m sure this is purely a coincidence.) Robinson denies global warming and claims that low-level radiation can be good for you. He spent an enormous amount of money on his campaign. His signs were everywhere. He even paid people to drive around with his signs stuck to their cars.

DeFazio has a reputation for being one of the more liberal members of Congress. In a liberal district, why did a right-wing nutjob like Robinson get such a large percentage of the vote? During the campaign, DeFazio made much of the fact that he voted against Obama’s stimulus bill, citing this as evidence of his “independence”. I don’t think this was too bright, considering that many people (myself included) got bigger refund checks because of Obama’s tax cuts. DeFazio should have voted for the stimulus bill and against Obama’s fraudulent “health care reform” bill. (DeFazio is terrible on immigration. He opposes amnesty and calls for beefing up “border security”.) God save us from “liberal” Democrats like DeFazio.

Ron Wyden, another Democrat, was re-elected to the Senate. Like DeFazio, Wyden had the cajones to vote against the bank bailouts, but, like DeFazio, he meekly went along with the health care flim-flam. Wyden’s opponent, somebody named Huffman, was an idiot. Huffman mailed out a campaign flyer that showed a picture of a toilet bowl. The caption read, “This is the state of Oregon’s economy.” Below that was a picture of a roll of toilet paper made out of $100 bills. The caption for this read, “This is Wyden’s plan to save it.” (The color scheme of the flyer was red, white and blue. Get it?) My mother became visibly upset when she found this in her mail. She held it out to me and said, “This is the most vulgar election ad I have ever seen.” She was so angry that she could barely speak. I took the thing from her hand and threw it in the trash. My mother is eighty-one years old, so that tells you something.

Much to my surprise, a measure to enable the medical use of marijuana was voted down. This is in a state where cannabis is a major cash crop, and where I have seen some people brazenly smoking pot in public. I’m still trying to figure out the reason for this defeat. I will write about it in a future post.

Democrats Fall Down, Go Boom

November 3, 2010

I had been planning to write another snarcky post about the stupid e-mails that the Democratic Party keeps sending me, but it began to seem to me like kicking a dead mule. It was clear the Dems were going to take a drubbing, and tonight it has come to pass. The Republicans have taken control of the House and have picked up seats in the Senate. The Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this. After controlling Congress for four years, they have nothing to show for themselves but a a fraudulent health care reform bill and a fraudulent finance reform bill. They made no effort to punish the banksters who wreaked the economy. They did not deserve to win these elections.

What’s sad about all this is that the Republicans truly deserved to lose. Their behavior was utterly contemptible: whipping up hatred of Mexicans and Muslims, claiming that unemployed people are lazy, and so on. They subjected us to the shenanigans of the racist and ignorant Tea Party. We can find some comfort in the fact that some of the dumber Republicans lost, such as Sharron Angle, who claimed that they have sharia law in Dearborn, Michigan. (She says she knows this because she read it in an article somewhere. So far as Angle is concerned, Dearborn might as well be on the dark side of the moon.) Christine O’Donnell and Joe Miller also lost. (However, the despicable Rand Paul appears to have won.) Perhaps this will finally lay to rest the idea that Sarah Palin is an important political player in this country, but I fear that the media will find some way to spin it as a victory for the Mooseburger Lady.

Another sad note is that Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act, has apparently lost.

What remains to be seen is what effect this will have on Obama. He has been in office for less than two years, and he’s already beginning to seem as irrelevant as George W. Bush did during his second term. Forget the oil spill, Obama’s Katrina was the health care bill. He used all his political capital to pass an insipid piece of legislation that will actually hurt many people. From that point on, he has been completely out of touch. Last summer he and his family went on expensive and much publicized vacations, while the country was stewing with a 20% unemployment rate. He talks about going after Social Security and Medicare, the two most popular government programs.

With the Republicans controlling the House, my fear is that Obama may be tempted to do something rash in order to regain the initiative, such as attacking Iran or something equally stupid. Whatever happens, it’s not going to be fun.

E-Mail from Obama

August 26, 2010

Recently I’ve found that I have somehow gotten on the Democratic Party’s e-mail list. I don’t know how this happened. I’m not registered as a Democrat. (I’m registered as a Green.) I’ve never given money to the Democrats. (I know better than that.) Nevertheless, I’ve been getting e-mails from people such as Nancy Pelosi. Normally, I just delete these things. Recently, however, I received an e-mail from no less a person than President Barack Obama himself! (Well, at least that what it says, anyway.) I felt deeply flattered that the Leader of the Free World would take time out from his busy schedule to write to such a humble person as I. Naturally, I felt curious as to what he had to say.

The message begins:

    When I took office, we had a big choice to make. We could do what was easy to get through the next election or we could do what was hard – and right – to help the next generation.

I assume that by doing “what was hard – and right”, he means caving in to the insurance industry on health care, caving in to Wall Street on finance reform, and caving in to the Israel lobby on the Middle East. I suppose it can be argued that these were hard things to do, but that doesn’t make them admirable. As for helping the next generation, I take it he means saddling them with debts for the bank bailouts and the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Thanks, Dad.

He continues:

    Our extraordinary House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and my Democratic partners in the House chose to lead.

I think he doesn’t mean “extraordinary” to be sarcastic.

    They chose to do the real heavy lifting to get our economy back on track and to restore the American dream for every American.

Huh? Since when is the economy back on track? We’re still mired in the same recession that was in effect when Obama too office. The “American dream” certainly hasn’t been restored for the millions of Americans who are watching their unemployment benefits run out. If Obama thinks he can make people believe that everything is okay with a lot of happy talk, he is sadly deluded. One of the reasons people respected Franklin Roosevelt was because he frankly acknowledged how serious the Great Depression was and how much people were suffering. This was a welcome change from Hoover’s inane assurances that “prosperity is just around the corner”. Many people have argued that Obama resembles Hoover more than he does FDR. I think the resemblance is uncanny.

Ah, but there’s more:

    Make no mistake about it. Democrats will retain the House of Representatives this year, as long as you continue working to help them win.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that, Barack. And things are going great in Afghanistan, aren’t they?

    Tuesday marks a critical FEC reporting deadline for my friends at the DCCC, the only Democratic political committee solely dedicated to protecting the House. I’m asking for your help to make their $1 Million grassroots goal before midnight Tuesday to continue the work we’ve only just begun.

Uh, you mean shafting people?

    The steady progress we are seeing toward America’s recovery is no accident. It’s happened because I’ve had Democratic partners in the House and Senate who have chosen to tackle problems that Washington talked about for decades but always just kicked down the road. Not anymore.

No, not anymore! Now they pass phoney-baloney legislation that accomplishes nothing! What an improvement!!!!!

    From the Recovery Act, to health insurance reform, to landmark clean energy legislation, to Wall Street reform, Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in Congress have passed the bills because they put the American peoples’ interests before the special interests.

By “clean energy legislation”, he means building more nuclear reactors and doing more mountaintop removal in Appalachia. The second half of the sentence is apparently not meant to be ironic.

    Now they need your help.

Oh, they do, do they?

    I know what a difference grassroots support can make in a tough fight. In the same way that you helped me defy the pundits and stand strong against the attacks from those who wish to protect the status quo, I need your help to make a difference right now to retain a Democratic House.

This is simply nonsense.

    Contribute before midnight August 31st to make sure that I keep my great Democratic Partners in the House. Your gift today will be matched by a group of generous Democrats.

Since the Democrats receive millions of dollars from corporations (they are currently receiving more corporate money than the Republicans are), why do they need me to toss them some pennies from the piddling unemployment payments that I receive? Does the word “bloodsuckers” come to your mind here?

    There is so much more work to get done. Now is not the time to turn back.

    Now is the time to remind ourselves what we can achieve together with Speaker Pelosi leading a Democratic House for another two years.

    This is our moment to retain a Democratic House and continue America’s progress.

    Thank you,

    Barack Obama

I am tempted to send Obama (or whoever sent this e-mail) a piece of my mind, but since Obama has the same regard for civil liberties that George W. Bush does, I think that might not be a good idea.

Peter Camejo

July 31, 2010

    Empty rhetoric is a form of capitulation.
    – Peter Camejo

I have just finished reading Peter Camejo’s memoir, North Star, which is available from Haymarket Books. Camejo is mostly remembered for having run as Ralph Nader’s running mate in the 2004 presidential election. However, he had a long and varied career before that. Although he was born in the U.S., he came from a wealthy Venezuelan family. He was a member of Venezuela’s yachting team at the 1960 Olympics. During the 1960’s, he was active in the anti-war movement. He played a leading role in the Battle of Telegraph Avenue, in which UC students fought with the Berkeley police. He became a leading member of the Socialist Workers Party. He ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970 (he debated Ted Kennedy) and for the presidency in 1976. (He reports that there were 66 undercover FBI agents working in his presidential campaign.) He was also involved in international work for the Fourth International. He tells of an incident in which he tried unsuccessfully to persuade a guerilla group in Argentina to release a businessman they had kidnapped. As I read about this, it occurred to me that under current “anti-terror” laws that exist in the U.S., he could have gone to prison for this. A striking example of how our freedoms have been eroded in recent years.

In the 1980’s he was expelled from the Socialist Workers Party. He founded a short-lived group called the North Star Network. He then moved into the field of socially responsible investing. In the 1990’s, he became involved in the Green Party. He ran for governor of California three times on the Green Party ticket.

I found the book fascinating. HIs accounts of his anti-war work provide insights into how to build broad coalitions, as well as how to confront police violence. However, I found his account of his time doing investment work less interesting, although he does give a revealing discussion of pension funds. He points out these funds are mostly managed by businessmen who are hostile to workers and to unions. He also points out that many environmental and conservation groups invest their money in companies that pollute, including oil companies. His account of the 2003 California recall election is amusing. (He gives an unflattering portrait of Arianna Huffington. Among other things, he points out that her attacks on Schwarzenegger made it easier for him to avoid discussing the issues.) I was disappointed that he never really discusses why the North Star Network never took off. I would think that might have been enlightening.

There are two aspects of this book that may well prove controversial. The first is his critique of Trotskyism. The second is his discussion of the left’s capitulation to the Democrats during the 2000’s. Camejo argues that during the 1930’s, when the Trotskyists were trying to differentiate themselves from the Stalinists, they became obsessed with having the “correct” interpretation of Marx and Lenin, as well as of events in the Soviet Union. The result, Camejo argues, is that they developed a rigid view of the world. (I have met Trotskyists who did seem to me ideologically rigid and obsessed with having the “correct” line on everything.) However, Camejo does admit that Trotskyists have played useful roles in political struggles – as his own participation in the 1960’s anti-war movement shows.

Camejo sees the left’s capitulation to the Democrats as an unmitigated disaster. It has paralyzed the left and made it easier for the Democrats to pursue pro-war and pro-corporate policies. Camejo has harsh words for Michael Moore, Medea Benjamin and others who threw their principles away to elect politicians whose positions they oppose. On this point, I agree completely with Camejo. It is going to take a long time to overcome all the damage that has been done.

Another of Camejo’s arguments concerns language. He argues that words such as “socialism” have acquired too much political and historical baggage, and that leftists must find new ways of explaining their ideas to people. I think Camejo may be right here, although I’m not sure how we would go about developing this new language. Camejo also urges leftists to study America’s radical history (such as the abolitionist movement) and to draw inspiration from it. I think this is an excellent idea.

One thing that struck me about this book is Camejo’s unwavering optimism, even after the collapse of the 2000’s. He expresses confidence that there will one day be a “Third American Revolution”. I certainly hope he was right about that.

Peter Camejo, presente!

No Immigration Bill

May 9, 2010

Obama has indicated that he will not try to pass an immigration bill this year. This should come as no surprise. Obama wouldn’t want to touch a divisive issue like immigration reform during an election year, especially since he failed to politically benefit from “health care reform”. However, this news has provoked dismay among some pundits, who want the federal government to pass an immigration bill ASAP, in order to head off any more toxic state legislation, like the awful bill that was just passed in Arizona. To be honest, I can’t see our government passing an immigration bill that isn’t terrible. As I pointed out in my last post, the only practical solution to this problem is to grant legal status to undocumented workers. Neither of the major political parties is willing to call for this. No one in the mainstream media is willing to advocate for it. Instead, we get endless delusional talk about “sealing the border”.

What’s more, because the Democrats won’t abolish the filibuster rule, the Senate is now virtually controlled by two right-wingers: Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. (Lieberman seems to be going off the deep end. His demands are becoming more and more capricious every day. I’m waiting for him to have his Joe McCarthy moment.) If the Senate ever passes an immigration bill, you can bet it will have all sorts of “anti-terrorism” amendments, vastly increasing the powers of the police.

An interesting side note: according to some reports, the Tea Party movement seems to be on the wane. I don’t think this should be surprising, considering that there’s no real political substance to the movement. I bet some of these people really believed the sky was going to fall if the “health care reform” bill was passed. Perhaps they’re feeling a little foolish right now, as well they should.

A Bitter Pill

March 21, 2010

Somebody once defined a fanatic as someone who redoubles his efforts after he’s forgotten what it is that he’s trying to do. I suppose that by that definition the Democrats and their supporters qualify as fanatics. The only important thing to them is that Congress pass a health care bill. The question of what the bill will actually do is irrelevant. Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean all say that we must support this legislation because… well, because it’s labeled “health care reform”. Isn’t that a good enough reason for you?

Supporters of this bill would do well to ask themselves why the bill is designed so that most of the provisions won’t take effect until 2014. (Interestingly enough, this will be after Obama stands for re-election.) Could it be that the authors of this bill realize that when the full impact of it is felt, people won’t like it?

Thirty-three states are planning legal challenges to this bill. This could be significant. (You may recall that it was lawsuits by states that stopped the Bush administration from going through with its plans to issue national id cards.) Of course, most of these states are probably opposed to the legislation for all the wrong reasons. That’s the sorry state of U.S. politics today: we have to rely on reactionary state governments to defend us from reactionary legislation that’s been gussied up to look “progressive”.

Update: I have since learned that the quote is from George Santayana. His exact words were: “A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim.”

I watched some of the final debates on TV. They were about abortion, as if the health and welfare of Americans were matters of secondary importance.

One-Term Obama?

February 20, 2010

A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans think that Obama will only serve one term. This shouldn’t be surprising. Obama’s two biggest accomplishments during his first term were 1) giving billions of dollars to the banks, and 2) escalating the war in Afghanistan, two moves that were both unpopular. He made no real effort to win over voters. His stimulus plan was too timid to have much real effect, and he completely mishandled the issue of health care reform, dropping it in the lap of Congress, who, of course, made a complete hash of it. Obama is starting to look like Jimmy Carter, who wreaked his own presidency to advance the neoliberal project.

The second year of his presidency doesn’t look any more promising. He has announced government loans for building more nuclear reactors. (How about loans for rebuilding New Orleans? At least the Big Easy isn’t radioactive.) He also wants to “reform” Social Security and Medicare. These are two moves that are sure to be unpopular. That second term is looking more elusive every day.

Obama has created a bipartisan commission to review government entitlements. This is a coy move. No doubt Obama is hoping to deflect public criticism by being able to say that he is only carrying out the recommendations of a bipartisan commission (note that magic word, “bipartisan”). Unfortunately, the Republicans are not fully co-operating, much to Obama’s annoyance. Obama’s proposal for a deficit-reduction commission created by Congress was shot down by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans.

Why wouldn’t the Republicans want to do this? Bear in mind, a large chunk of the Republicans’ voter base is composed of elderly voters. You may recall that George W. Bush wanted to trash Social Security, but he had to drop the idea after his fellow Republicans got cold feet. The G.O.P. wants to get rid of entitlements, but they want the Democrats to be the ones who take the heat for it. (An exception here is the certifiably insane Michelle Bachmann, who is waging a campaign against Social Security. No doubt, she believes that Obama’s goal is to herd us all into re-education camps, where we will be forced to collect Social Security checks and receive medical treatment paid for by Medicare. Truly, an Orwellian nightmare.) I have a sinking feeling that Obama may end up doing just what the Republicans want him to do.

Good-bye, second term.