Blacklisting Progressives: The Untold Story Beneath the Daschle Headlines

[balantz]

Blacklisting Progressives: The Untold Story Beneath the Daschle Headlines
by David Sirota
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11343

Amid the swirling headlines about Tom Daschle withdrawing his nomination for Health and Human Service Secretary is a very dark, very foreboding story that tells us a lot more about what to expect from the Obama administration than a single nomination fight. It is a story that every single voter who supported Barack Obama because of his progressive economic platform should know about - and worry about.
As every newspaper in America has been happy to report, Daschle worked with venture capitalist Leo Hindery after he left the Senate. Hindery was a top economic adviser to John Edwards and later to Barack Obama, and many had floated his name for U.S. Trade Representative or Commerce Secretary. Now, though, that won't be happening, as anyone mentioned near the Daschle flap is being shunned by the Obama administration.

But is that really why someone as accomplished as Hindery was never seriously considered for a top economic post in the administration? The media and the Obama administration would like us to believe yes - but the answer is no. It has far less to do with the Daschle situation and far more to do with Hindery's progressive economic ideology.

Buried in a Politico dispatch, we get the real story:

Hindery did his best to carve out his own public profile, with generous contributions to a range of Democratic-leaning organizations and a 2005 book, "It Takes a CEO," decrying outsourcing, Wal-Mart, and "an ethical and aesthetic 'race to the bottom'" in the media industry.
He also hoped to land a job in the Obama administration, and he had a close Obama adviser - Daschle -- in his corner, the two Democrats said. United Steeelworkers union officials also backed him.

- clip -

And that's the big story here: Leo Hindery, one of the few business leaders to use his wealth to challenge deregulation, corporate trade deals and anti-worker policies was blacklisted by the Obama administration well before the Daschle flap ever happened - and he was blacklisted because he dared to clash with the same Wall Street Democrats whose corporate-backed policies destroyed the economy.

You can go ahead and tell yourself that this is just theory - just a single example. But that's willful ignorance, as the Hindrey scalping is only one chapter in what has been one long narrative arc whereby economic progressives have been deliberately shut out of top administration jobs. Just step back and think about it for a minute: Amid a stable of eminently qualified and well-respected progressives like James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Larry Mishel, Obama has chosen Rubin sycophants like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy - the same Larry Summers who pushed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the same Geithner who masterminded the kleptocratic bank bailout, the same duo whose claim to fame is their personal connections to Rubin, a disgraced Citigroup executive at the center of the current meltdown. And the list of Rubin sycophants keeps getting longer, from Peter Orszag to Jason Furman.
As the Nation's Chris Hayes shows, its the same in other key regulatory positions, as free market fundamentalists who created the problem take the helm of the regulatory agencies they tried to destroy. Indeed, the only movement progressive in a top economic position is Jared Bernstein, and he was relegated to an amorphous job in the Vice President's office.

And now we see that's not an accident. Though Obama won states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana on promises to challenge Wall Street and reform our trade policies, there has been a deliberate and calculated effort to stack the administration with the very Wall Street Democrats who created the problems he lamented, and shun those who have been fighting the good fight.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Definitely recommended

:kick:

[nashville_brook]

2. someone please get Obama a ticket on the cluetrain -- the problem is Summer, Geithner, et al.

for crying out loud -- these are the people who deregulated us into oblivion. how could he betray us like this?

[Jim Lane]

3. The trouble with Obama's economic team is its one-sidedness

I could see including some people who could be denounced as "Rubin sycophants", because even economists not admired by Open Left could have something to contribute. The problem is that they're not balanced by any strong progressives. The article names several who could've filled that gap but haven't been called upon.

[lib_wit_it]

4. K&R-- Why should I be the only one whose day is ruined by this bit of truth?

[rapturedbyrobots]

5. maybe we should redefine progressive

the crux of this issue is contained in the second sentence of the OP:

It is a story that every single voter who supported Barack Obama because of his progressive economic platform should know about - and worry about.

the problem is that obama NEVER HAD a progressive economic platform. his platform was pure neoliberal crap from the start....and he was open about it during the campaign. but everyone overlooked this and pretended he was a progressive. surprise...people of color can be neoliberals too!

cognitive dissonance...its not just for republicans anymore.

yes it sucks that progressives are being shut out of the administration. working together in this administration will mean reaching out from the 'center' only in one direction... a handshake with the right hand and a middle finger with the left.

but you would have known and expected this if you paid any attention at all to what he was actually saying policy-wise behind those speeches that co-opted and misused the rhetoric of the left.

[Two Americas]

6. worse yet....

Beyond the activists being betrayed, there are other problems with the direction the administration is heading.

1. If you are not to the left on economics, you are not to the left at all. If you are not to the left at all, you might as well be Republicans. Worse yet, continuing to pretend to be on the left while not actually being on the left blocks any true political opposition to the right wing from forming, making the people even more vulnerable.

2. The people spoke, and they overwhelmingly rejected Reaganomics. They did not vote for "competence" nor "smarter" nor centrism. Right now the administration has immense popularity, but that could collapse in a hurry if the people are betrayed.

3. The growing crisis will demand a left wing approach if the people are to get any relief. After all, that is why we support the left wing - that is the only political approach that will benefit all of the people, and sooner or later will be absolutely essential and inescapable. If the people do not get any relief, there is now an extreme likelihood of massive social unrest. That will then require the politicians to move to the left anyway, or else to employ authoritarian police state repression to put down the unrest.

[balantz]

7. All good points TA. n/t

[rapturedbyrobots]

9. progressives were not betrayed

of course they may FEEL betrayed. but obama never promised 'activists'...i think you really mean progressives...anything. in fact he was openly hostile to developmentalist economics during the entire campaign. he was an open champion of neo-liberal free-market based solutions to domestic social problems (education, healthcare & the economy for starters). milton friedman would be proud if he weren't rotting in hell. how some people on the left translated his deliberately vague notion of 'change' into a social democratic utopia is beyond me. so no promise means no betrayal. of course people can continue to feel betrayed as a means of coping with the fact that they were confused when they voted for and maybe even campaigned for and donated to a dedicated neo-liberal intent on privatizing just about everything but social security.

[Two Americas]

10. agreed

First, I don't feel "betrayed" so you are preaching to the choir.

Secondly, I am not criticizing Obama and rarely have. He is not much different than most of the Democratic politicians we have been forced to deal with. I am criticizing his most zealous and intolerant "supporters" - fans, or whatever you call them.

Can there be any doubt that we were barraged with a false narrative about him all through the primaries and general election? He was ant-DLC, anti-war, he was not a centrist, he was just cleverly running to the right to win, he was "good" on all of the issues, and on and on. The same people now say "of course he is a centrist. Where did you get any other idea about him?" A year ago I was saying he was a centrist, and being attacked for that. Now I am supposedly "surprised" that he is a centrist - so I am told - and stupid for not realizing that he was a centrist. If I express opposition to right wing ideas and appointments, as I have for 40 years, I am called disloyal or much worse.

[rapturedbyrobots]

11. word

i feel you on that. i wasn't attacking you. just the notion that progressives have somehow been betrayed. i wish people who attack others for being critical would move past the democrat vs republican false dichotomy and address the root problem. the problem lies with neoliberalism...that it is collapsing from the weight of its own internal contradictions before our eyes should tell us that much. so when we criticize the president's economic policy it shouldn't be looked down on as bad-mouthing obama or being unsupportive of the democrats...it is simply working against neoliberal policy. that's a good thing. that's what all self-declared progressives need to be doing.

[waiting for hope]

8. Kicking - I rec'd you earlier.

This all looks like a slow bleed that will end up a gusher.

[Two Americas]

12. good to see you balantz

Let's give this a kick and see if we can spur more discussion.

[balantz]

13. Hi TA, hope all is well. Here is an update from Sirota:

Foxes In the Henhouse

by: David Sirota
Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:15
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11385


I was on CNN yesterday discussing my OpenLeft post about the blacklisting of economic progressives in the Obama administration. You can watch the clip here (at link above).

Today, Bloomberg News adds even more to this story, noting that Larry Summers - the same Larry Summers who undercut government officials who wanted to tighten financial regulations - is working to consolidate power inside the White House and marginalize anyone who challenges his free market fundamentalism:

Paul Volcker has grown increasingly frustrated over delays in setting up the economic advisory group President Barack Obama picked the former Federal Reserve chairman to lead, people familiar with the matter said.

Volcker, 81, blames Obama's National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers for slowing down the effort to organize the panel of outside advisers, the people said. Summers isn't regularly inviting Volcker to White House meetings and hasn't shown interest in collaborating on policy or sharing potential solutions to the economic crisis, they said.

While Summers, a former Treasury secretary, oversees the official White House economic policy apparatus, Obama tapped Volcker for a new Economic Recovery Advisory Board charged with injecting fresh, outside ideas into policy debates.

Volcker isn't a progressive - but it is true, as Bloomberg says, that he is "perhaps the world's most respected economist." The fact that Summers, who helped deregulate the economy, suddenly has the authority to prevent Volcker from providing substantive outside input to the president only further shows that there really is a coordinated effort to ideologically cleanse the White House of anyone who might offer an alternative to Summers' market fundamentalism.

And the policy consequences are obvious - the administration is now promising a new request for bank bailout cash and very likely the creation of a "bad bank" which most progressive economists say is just another scheme to throw taxpayer money at the people who destroyed our economy.

[Two Americas]

14. thanks

Nothing unusual or surprising here. It is the denial by so many among us that is the challenge.

[balantz]

16. I suppose there are different reasons for denial.

It sure is killing us.

How can we effectively look at and address the problems of our corrupt government if we live in denial of that corruption?

[Dr.Phool]

15. Kick! Too late to rec.

I saw it coming last year also. I just didn't think it would be a complete shut-out.
Republicans, free traders, neo-liberals, and war hawks took over where they left off on Jan. 19. No matter who's in the White House, the same jackals, from the same institutions, i.e. Council of Foreign Relations, rotate back in.

Throw in bipartisanship that resembles inviting the cannibals to dinner, you've got Einsteins example of insanity.

[bertman]

17. Too late to rec, but here's a KICK.

No President can be an expert in all of the areas that require his attention or decision-making. Yes, even someone as smart as Barack Obama or Bill Clinton needs others to keep him well-informed, or at a minimum, informed about the issues of the day. So, those who seek to control the agenda or the direction a Presidency takes do not need to have the ear of the President. All they need to do is get the right people in key positions around the President so he is hearing what they want him to hear.

How many minutes a day does the President actually get to listen to in-depth discussions of the priority or emergency-level issues he must deal with? I'm guessing maybe twenty, tops. Especially when he's just getting his team in place and trying to steer a massive economic stimulus package through the minefield known as Congress, he's going to be jumping from topic to topic like wack-a-mole.

Right now, the folks who are the behind-the-scenes power brokers are using all of their leverage to keep Obama on the track they want him on. So what we're hearing from Sirota is that Summers is already consolidating his power and shutting out the voices of dissent.

For me, the big question is: how much say did President Obama have in making his cabinet and high-level advisory choices? My guess is that he was doing what he was instructed to do "in the best interest of the country". Meaning, of course, the best interests of Wall Street and the corporate interest who control the levers of power.

Excellent thread, balantz.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

18. I like what I heard

from Thom Hartman this morning...."Repeal the Reagan tax cuts." Period.

:kick:

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. What happens when more of the same won't work?

We have reached an endpoint where solutions have to be actual. We have no more fantasy room. The only one I see trying to actually fix anything and do anything innovative is Sheila Bair. (Of those in the administration, I mean, not those excluded from it.)

[Jim Sagle]

20. Obama's a Republican. He campaigned as one while his fanz set up a fake narrative to distract us.

Now he's governing as one. Big surprise.