The Future of Liberal Power

Glenn Greenwald explains in detail what everyone can expect from a newly reelected Barack Obama and his trenchant liberal supporters. What he explains is exactly as I've seen coming for five years. Actually, I expected more of this in his first term. Glenn details how the "fight will proceed" in six detailed steps.

There is one caveat I need to add, that is, once his liberal supporters realize they've been betrayed - sold out- AGAIN, I expect them to simply shutdown and walk away, from him, the Democrats, from government, from everything, everything but family and simple survival. That's when the real battle begins.

---

Obama and progressives: what will liberals do with their big election victory?

With fights over social security, Medicare, ongoing war, and other key progressive priorities looming, what will they do with their new power?

Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 November 2012 10.39 EST 

The greatest and most enduring significance of Tuesday night's election results will likely not be the re-election of Barack Obama, but rather what the outcome reflects about the American electorate. It was not merely Democrats, but liberalism, which was triumphant.

To begin with, it is hard to overstate just how crippled America's right-wing is. Although it was masked by their aberrational win in 2010, the GOP has now been not merely defeated, but crushed, in three out of the last four elections: in 2006 (when they lost control of the House and Senate), 2008 (when Obama won easily and Democrats expanded their margins of control), and now 2012. The horrendous political legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney continues to sink the GOP, and demographic realities – how toxic the American Right is to the very groups that are now becoming America's majority – makes it difficult to envision how this will change any time soon.  [Read the rest at the Guardian.]

Follow Up to a Question About Pot

This article pretty much sums it all up:

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.

By Austin Cline: The question of decriminalizing some or all illegal narcotics, to a lesser or greater extent, then regulating and taxing the ensuing trade is a serious matter. There are fair arguments on all sides (because there is range of how far we could go with this, there is arguably more than just one "side") of the debate, but it cannot be dismissed as a pointless, irrelevant, or trivial matter. Yet that's precisely what Barack Obama did at a recent town hall meeting where, based on the reaction, he was surrounded by like-minded apologists for the current structures of power and liberty. Way to break outside the beltway and take it to the people, Mr. President.

Let's run quickly through some of the reasons why it's reasonable to regard the current "war on drugs" as causing more trouble than it solves. Both the violence and corruption associated with illegal drugs are more directly connected to the prohibition of drugs than to the use of drugs. The failure of drug laws to eliminate drug use has encouraged politicians to pass ever more draconian anti-drug laws, thus leading both to unnecessary suffering through harsh sentences for non-violent offenses and a decline in respect for the law when people see police and courts consumed with these cases.

Prohibition also undermines basic constitutional liberties by encouraging police to circumvent laws regulating search and seizures. No-knock warrants combined with paying for tips has led to innumerable raids on the homes of innocent people, including quite a few deaths at the hands of some over-zealous police who no longer seem to care very much about "protecting" and "serving" the public. Prohibition is a nightmare for national security, enriching those who already have a grudge against America and fueling resentment in others who are harmed by American efforts to suppress drug production.

Prohibition damages public health because there is so much resistance to the very idea that any illegal drugs might have any benefits — the prohibition mindset allows for only one response to drugs, no matter who might get harmed in the process. Prohibition is just as bad for the budget, consuming huge amounts of government resources, damaging the productivity of people caught up in the prohibition web, and excluding entire sectors as possible sources of revenue.

These reasons may not be enough to convince someone to support ending prohibition, but they are more than enough to cast doubt on prohibition and deserve stronger arguments in response. To put it another way, they are serious and substantive enough to earn something equally serious and substantive in return.

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that Obama was asked about a policy which is still viewed with suspicion and even fear by so many people in America. The case against prohibition may deserve a serious and substantive response, but that's hard to do when so many people's have been taught to react to drugs in a one-dimensional way: just say no. Opponents of prohibition thus have two hurdles: before they can convince people of their arguments, they must also convince people that any arguments should be considered at all.

Support for varying degrees of decriminalization and/or legalization has grown in recent years, but it's still a relative minority position with fierce opposition. That, however, is an argument for Obama to not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea — it's not an argument to dismiss it as a joke. Remember, decriminalization and legalization aren't just about eliminating one isolated restriction on people's liberty. It's not just about allowing people to get high as legally as they get drunk, though that's what so many tend to think about.

The question Barack Obama was asked ties into medical questions, sustainable farming and manufacturing (with hemp), new sources of tax revenues, and more. His dismissive and even flippant response suggests that he's unaware of all this; a serious response, even in the negative, would have indicated that he understands the complexity of the matter and simply arrived at a different conclusion. Something along the lines of "I understand why people argue for this idea and they make some good points, but I just don't agree with their conclusions" would have been a reasonable, respectful response. It would have avoided scaring apologists for the failed war on drugs while signaling to supporters of legalization that they should keep working on their arguments to make a better case. So why didn't he do that?

Sadly, that's a question which a lot of progressives have been asking on a lot of issues. Barack Obama has been touted as a progressive president, but it's hard to find examples which support such a label. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — the largest ideological group among Congressional Democrats — is the only major faction which Barack Obama has not met with. Obama has managed to find time to meet with conservative and moderate Democrats, all of whom have been working against progressive policies, but not with the more reliable supporters of progressive policies.

Yes, I know it's necessary to reach out to less reliable supporters in order to make a political agenda work, but that doesn't require ignoring or taking for granted your regular supporters. It's not a progressive value — or even smart politics — to present yourself as a progressive who somehow keeps ignoring other progressives. This, combined with Harry Reid whining that liberal Democrats shouldn't pressure moderate Democrats to stop standing in the way of progressive legislation, leaves the distinct impression that Democratic leaders across the board are consistently looking for ways to ditch progressivism in favor of a more conservative agenda.

--Joe

Gerbils and the Dumb-Down

If anyone thinks that what's happening in this country and to the World economy was caused by simple lack of oversight, moronic screw-ups or some other philosophical malaise, try thinking again. Since Ronald Reagan the Republicans have doubled the debt in their predetermined massive transfer of wealth to their enabled elite. What's happening is NO accident.

Here's one of my posts for Friday, August 8, 2008:
How The Stupid Rule

The Wrecking Crew: Thomas Frank on How Conservatives Rule

Frank writes, “Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction.”

Read the interview to learn how Ronald Regan and GHW Bush dominated Bill Clinton's agenda and how G. Bush Jr. has setup the next President.

Then there's this interview for Thursday, March 12, 2009, on Democracy Now with Michael Parenti that makes my case once again. Only it's his assessment that the goal is to make America and Western Europe just like Indonesia. According to him their doing a pretty good job, so far. You can read who they are in the complete interview here:

Michael Parenti: Economic Crisis the Inevitable Result of “Capitalism’s Self-inflicted Apocalypse” Here's an excerpt:

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the Democrats and Republicans. You said you’re infuriated by the Republican response, because they just want tax cuts for the rich. But what about the Democrats—I mean, just now we were playing for you Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary—and the approach to this crisis?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Oh, it’s insufficient. I mean, that’s what’s coming out with your questions. It’s insufficient. They’re not dealing with systemic questions. There’s all this debate about the stimulus package. Hardly a word has come out about the Federal Reserve giving away two-and-a-half trillion dollars, just giving it away unaccountably.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that.

MICHAEL PARENTI: The Federal Reserve just went—while we had this $750 billion stimulus package, which was passed by Congress, the Federal Reserve printed up—it can print up money and create money—and handed out over $2 trillion to the financial community in America, with no accountability, no debate in Congress and very little notice.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what’s the significance of that?

MICHAEL PARENTI: Well, the significance is that we’re going to—I mean, that’s our money, that it becomes real money when it becomes debt, and we’ve got to pay it. You see, the Republicans were never against debt; they were the biggest debt spenders there ever was. When Ronald Reagan came into office, the national debt was $800 billion. When he left office, it was $2.5 trillion. I mean, it was OK with him to spend. He also put in the biggest tax program that ever was, but it was a regressive tax. It was a Social Security tax on tens of millions of people. When George Bush, Sr. came in, the national debt went from $2.5 to $5 trillion. Clinton—I’ll give him credit for that one thing—he did try to go for solvency. But when you got to George Bush, Jr., for eight years, the debt has gone from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. And these Republicans were voting for that all along. All these spending bills were theirs. So, you see, they don’t mind debt, because debt is really a way of upward distribution. You tax the common people, and you give the money to rich creditors. It’s a very regressive way of redistributing wealth upward. So debt is fine with them.

Don't you just love these Republicans? Tell me this wasn't their longterm goal.

What do you see is the future of capitalism?

MICHAEL PARENTI: I see it as a future in which there’s going to be a lot of
suffering. I see it—the goal is to have more and more Indonesias and fewer
Denmarks and such.

And that means?

That means that even in the social democracies in Western Europe, there are going to be cutbacks, there’s going to be privatization, deregulation, greater—growth of inequities, rollbacks of human services and such, in countries that were pretty decent, countries where capitalism was reined in and held in line, to some degree, anyway.

Well, Indonesia, I mean it’s a free market paradise. They talk about free market. In
Indonesia, there are no consumer protections, there are no regulations, there is
no public medical care, there’s no public education. People just die younger.

If that's not enough you can read, Capitalism’s Self-inflicted Apocalypse by Michael Parenti.

Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer.
He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts. His highly
informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of
audiences in North America and abroad.

---

Here's a related commentary on SoHum Parlance II in his "WTF???" post about this subject. -- Well, when prodded just a bit he wasn't exactly at "a loss for words." A valid point, neverthe less:

March 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Eric Kirk

In spite of this, progressives trust the gov’t more than private industry (which they can hold accountable). Go figure…

Um. Well. The problem here is that government did not keep tabs on private industry. So let’s just say that the culpability is less. The private industry ripped us off. The public sector was negligent in preventing it.

--Joe