Labelling Obama as a corporatist...

[berni_mccoy]

I don't see how people can honestly do it.

To help stymie this baseless claim in the future, please read my latest journal entry.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. It's easy to do.

Step one: Take a point of view that all corporations are inherently and entirely evil, possibly to the point where they should be abolished altogether.
Step two: Advancing any policy that does not support Step one means you are a corporatist.

There are plenty of DUers following these two easy steps regularly.

[goclark]

2. The Rethugs have some playing right into their greedy hands

and the Big Money is footing their bills for doing so.

[RoyGBiv]

6. It also helps to strip the word of inherent meaning ...

I'd seen the word "corporatist" used before about a year or so ago, but rarely in quite the same context that it's being used so rampantly these days.

Picking a word that sounds naughty and arbitrarily applying some meaning to it that fits ones point helps significantly in being able to apply the label to anyone anyone pleases.

[NJmaverick]

3. The President's life story shows he certainly not a corporatist

If he was he would have gone to a high priced corporate law firm and gotten a fancy office, car, home and so on. Instead he went to work in the inner city as a community organizer, doing things to help others.

[quiet.american]

4. Exactly. nt

[POAS]

5. But that was all before

his "Manchurian Candidate" programming was activated.

:sarcasm:

[RoyGBiv]

7. I gotta get me one of those ...

I need someone to just walk out into the street and start randomly shouting obscenities and throwing tree branches at my neighbor who likes to start his lawnmower at 5 in the morning.

Maybe put one of those chips in the 6'6" former linebacker that lives down the street.

[POAS]

8. Well that's fine I'm sure but

Maybe put one of those chips in the 6'6" former linebacker that lives down the street.

Don't let your "significant other" near the remote control!

[Number23]

9. rofl!!

I was just thinking, "mmmm... 6'6 former linebacker..."

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[Cha]

11. Pesky details that get in the way

of such labels.

[BeyondGeography]

12. But he took money from corporations he is now imposing new rules on, ergo he is a corporatist

:dunce:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. Everyone is hit with that label or "DLC"

I bet half the people wouldn't know what to say if you asked them what the "DLC" was.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. It's a kinder, gentler way of calling him a fascist.

Since corporatism leads to fascism.

It's why Beck uses it all the fucking time.

[CTLawGuy]

14. Obama has never held a corporate job in his life

he was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER for goodness sakes!

[CBR]

15. It is a lazy, reflexive label. nt

[stevenleser]

16. I've never liked the term anyway.

Corporations are full of workers who keep them going. I am not anti those workers so I cannot be anti the corporations.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Simply put because he demonstrates the ideological position that

the the best engine for the social and economic advancement is corporate commerce. As such his primary concerns are always what is good for the powerful and the wealthy because without growth, ever increasing trade, and economic interconnectedness his entire philosophy of the advancement of humankind goes in the dumps.

His interest in safety nets and reluctantly regulations is fueled primarily to promote systemic stability.

He pretty well spells it out in the early chapters of 'Audacity of Hope' and as such I admitted he was a corporatist even as a vocal supporter.
My "misunderestimation" was that I convinced myself that this was much more of an operative issue than an ideological one. The sad case is he seems to truly believe that "properly" handled that the likes of BP, Monsanto, and Halliburton will really save the world rather than leaving it used up and in darkness.

[Robb]

18. Commerce, not "corporate commerce."

There is a difference you're intentionally missing, I believe. :hi:

[TheKentuckian]

19. I don't think I missing anything and certainly not intentionally

If it was never my desire to have this perspective.

The corporations and globalization are integral to commerce as Obama sees it. It is the corporations he sees as the fundamental engines of trade and a functional, developing society. Without the multi-nationals there is no progress in his estimation, in fact the multi-nationals are evidence and the embodiment of progress from his viewpoint.

I don't doubt that he may well believe they need to be under some measure of control under the framework of mutually agreed upon rules and that because of the swift currents of globalization that a safety net must be in place because otherwise there is too much instability and the natural tendency to shut down and circle the wagons becomes too great and stability becomes such an issue that it stagnates growth and reduces trade.