Beware Of Right Wing Rhetoric Re-Packaged As Anger at "Corporatist" Democrats

[TomCADem]

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan

Why do I start off with some quotes from Ronald Reagan? Because some on this board are slowly buying into it by embracing anti-government rhetoric masquerading as anger at “corporatism.” This buy-in comes in steps that you see played out every day on DU in three easy steps:

1. First, someone offers a legitimate rant about how corporations are opposing progressive endeavors such as fighting climate change, worker’s rights, or universal health care, which is true.

2. Second, someone notes, perhaps in the same post, that corporations have considerable power in the government, and points to the influence of corporations on politicians, which is also true.

3. Third, someone follows-up saying that they don’t trust and are disappointed with the Democrats because they are all corrupt corporatists, so they will stay home for the upcoming elections, or switch parties, because they lie. In other words, the poster promotes apathy and disenagement. They ask why bother supporting Democrats? They assert that the Democrats are no different than Republicans.

This third step of disengaging from politics and alienating oneself from participating in our Democracy is where we as Democrats are in danger of adopting the fatalism of flawed government that forms the basis of right wing conservative thought.

Democrats and liberals don’t, or shouldn’t, believe that government is perfect. However, it can and should serve the needs of the American people. To accomplish this, we as Democrats must remain engaged in government and the Democratic party, and make ourselves heard. Staying home and disengaging ensures that government will remain in control of corporations who never, ever rest, and it ensures the return to power of the Republicans who celebrate using government as a tool to aid private business. When Republican rule fails, it simply validates their view that government must always fail.

Chris Hayes has a great article discussing this dilemma and the reason why progressives should never assume that they have a common partner in anti-government tea baggers. Tea baggers are invested in the idea that government will fail. Democrats, progressives, and liberals generally believe that government can be improved to serve the needs of the people.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/hayes/2

There's a word for a governing philosophy that fuses the power of government and large corporations as a means of providing services and keeping the wheels of industry greased, and it's a word that has begun to pop up among critics of everything from the TARP bailout to healthcare to cap and trade: corporatism. Since corporatism often merges the worst parts of Big Government and Big Business, it's an ideal target for both the left and right. The ultimate corporatist moment, the bailout, was initially voted down in the House by an odd-bedfellows coalition of Progressive Caucus members and right-wingers.

In the wake of the healthcare sausage-making, writers from Tim Carney on the right (author of the provocative Obamanomics) and Glenn Greenwald on the left have attacked the bill as the latest incarnation of corporatism, a system they see as the true enemy. There is even some talk among activists of a grand left-right populist coalition coming together to depose the entrenched interests that hold sway in Washington. Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake touted her work with libertarians to oppose Ben Bernanke, more AIG bailouts and the Senate healthcare bill ("What we agree on: both parties are working against the interests of the public, the only difference is in the messaging"); David McKalip, the tea-party doctor who got into trouble for forwarding an image of Obama with a bone through his nose, wrote an open letter to the netroots proposing that they join him in fighting the "real enemy," the "unholy corporate/government cabal that will control your healthcare."

I don't think that coalition is going to emerge in any meaningful form. The right's anger is born largely of identity-based alienation, a fear of socialism (whatever that means nowadays) and an age-old Bircher suspicion that "they" are trying to screw "us." Even in its most sophisticated forms, such as in Carney's Obamanomics, the basic right-wing argument against corporatism embraces a kind of fatalism about government that assumes it will always devolve into a rat's nest of rent seekers and cronies and therefore should be kept as small as possible. But the progressive critics hold that we can and should do better.

* * *

So in this new year, while the White House focuses on playing within the existing rules, it's our job as citizens and activists to press constantly for changes to those rules: public financing, an end to the filibuster, the breakup of the banks, legalization for undocumented workers and the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, to name just a few of the measures that would alter the balance of power and expand the frontiers of the possible.

If I had to bet, I'd say that not of one of these will be won this year. The White House won't be of much help, and on some issues, like breaking up the banks, it will represent the opposition. Always searching and never quite finding is grueling and often dispiriting work. But there is simply no alternative other than to give in and let the field turn hard and barren.

I am not quite as pessimistic as Chris Hayes because he looks like a young dude, and he seems dispirited at the enormity of the task at hand. When has change occurred overnight and without struggle? Never. However, change will not occur through apathy. We must own our government and our Democratic party, and oppose Republicans who very clearly want to see government fail so that they can return to power and validate their beliefs in the failure of government.

So, in short, work to elect progressive Democrats. Oppose Republicans. And put heat on conservative Democrats who threaten to vote with the Republicans on progressive legislation.

[Abq_Sarah]

1. I march in lockstep with no one

When I see corruption, I'll point it out. Particularly within my own party.

As a small business owner, I see first hand the results of the pact between large corporations and our government. Corporations don't control the government unless our politicians, who rake in millions from them, allow it. This problem isn't limited to one side or the other as we've seen with the health care negotiations.

[TheWraith]

2. Translation: I'll agree with and work with no one. Except as it suits my ego.

That is, after all, what people mean when they whine about "not marching in lockstep." Because THEIR views are so much more important than getting anything done.

[Abq_Sarah]

6. Talk about ego...

I'm supposed to swallow a shit sandwich because someone has decided "it's for the greater good" and furthermore, if I don't agree, I'm selfish.

Is that about right?

[Touchdown]

16. Your translator is broken.

Or... you just reframed his statement to bully him.

[HughMoran]

3. Excellent, excellent post - highly recommended

Your post makes a significant point - let's not fall for the same sort of manipulation to which we are so opposed.

[blue neen]

4. You are correct. Beware.

:thumbsup:

[JVS]

5. I always thought that the democratic party could use a healthy dose of paranoia

[Bobbie Jo]

7. K&R

:kick:

[flamingdem]

8. This is critical, very very important for DEMS to know nt

[tinrobot]

9. "Democrats are no different than Republicans." sounds familiar...

Oh yeah, that term was tossed about way back in 2000 when Gore was "no different" than Bush. We all know how that one turned out.

History has a habit of repeating itself. I understand people are frustrated, as they were in 2000, but I hope people try to channel that frustration towards electing better Democrats, not abandoning the party.

Great post, BTW...

[DonCoquixote]

10. Before we attack each other

Keep in mind, while there are legit reasons to raise legit concerns, our enemies have no qualms about using their media muscles to mess with our heads. That is the point of the OP, not the "I'm right, you suck" memes we seem to be addicted to.

[Meldread]

11. I'm not even sure how I should respond.

I don't really care what other people are saying; they don't represent me. I represent myself, so don't take my post in the context of a any group.

I agree with parts and disagree with other areas. I'll start with what I agree with.

"So, in short, work to elect progressive Democrats. Oppose Republicans. And put heat on conservative Democrats who threaten to vote with the Republicans on progressive legislation."

I agree with this statement.

1. First, someone offers a legitimate rant about how corporations are opposing progressive endeavors such as fighting climate change, worker’s rights, or universal health care, which is true.

2. Second, someone notes, perhaps in the same post, that corporations have considerable power in the government, and points to the influence of corporations on politicians, which is also true.

I agree with both of those statements, which it seems we both agree on.

3. Third, someone follows-up saying that they don’t trust and are disappointed with the Democrats because they are all corrupt corporatists, so they will stay home for the upcoming elections, or switch parties, because they lie. In other words, the poster promotes apathy and disenagement. They ask why bother supporting Democrats? They assert that the Democrats are no different than Republicans.

I disagree with this statement, but so do you - so we're in agreement there as well.

This third step of disengaging from politics and alienating oneself from participating in our Democracy is where we as Democrats are in danger of adopting the fatalism of flawed government that forms the basis of right wing conservative thought.

I both agree and disagree with that line of thinking. I agree that no one should disengage from politics or the political process. Democracy only works effectively when people participate. However, I disagree that viewing "flawed government" and a support of a smaller, more efficient government, is either right wing, conservative, or fatalistic.

I support smaller government, because we know for a fact that the larger and more bureaucratic something becomes we lose efficiency and gain in cost. This is true for ANY large institution, be it the government or a large corporation. The larger something is the harder it is to change. My problems with government come from four different angles.

First is efficiency. I am not opposed to government, but I am opposed to government being ineffective. An ineffective government works for us less and costs us more; this is a proven fact. There are structural problems in the way our government operates that allows this to go on.

Second are issues surrounding liberty and freedom. I am always skeptical when the government wants to "protect" or "save" me from anything. When the government says that, they want to violate my freedom - they want to invade my privacy, and I do not trust the government to use the information they gather for benevolent purposes because it is run by self-serving politicians who are bought and paid for by large corporations. For example, do I really want the government reading e-mails and listening to telephone calls of all American's? Imagine a paranoid President like Richard Nixen with that type of power, and you can easily see how badly it can turn out.

Third I view many of the problems we have today as a result of government. Many people blame corporations, but we have to remember that corporations could not exist without the government. All of the power that a corporation possesses is gained directly from the government. The more power that is given to the government, in my view, is power that will be used for corporate interest rather than the people's interest. From my view corporations are the symptom of the problem, but the actual problem is the government that created them in the first place and continues empowers them.

Fourth when government is given power it is very hard to take it away. When you give the government an inch it takes a mile. Many people howled with outrage (and rightfully so) when Bush expanded the powers of the Executive Branch. So many powers were given to the government through things such as the Patriot Act... and Obama even campaigned against some of them. Yet, now... what do I hear? Silence. Obama has made good on a handful of promises, but they amounted to nothing but token gestures. He has all but embraced the power Bush left for him, and many people here are more than happy to let him have it... because, after all, he's a Democrat right? He'll use it for good, right? Ignore for a moment that I believe in the old adage: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And that I view power as the One Ring... it's just bad long term thinking. Eventually, someday, a Republican President will return to the White House. He will have all the same power we fought to keep away from Bush, but conveniently sat silent about while a Democrat was in the White House - perhaps our best chance to change it. It's hypocrisy, and it's all the worse because it is dangerous.

Finally, although this is somewhat off topic, I'd like to know what Chris Hayes age has to do with anything? You said: "I am not quite as pessimistic as Chris Hayes because he looks like a young dude..." What is that supposed to mean? I don't see where age has anything to do with pessimism or optimism.

[TomCADem]

17. Addressing three of your points:

First is efficiency. I am not opposed to government, but I am opposed to government being ineffective. An ineffective government works for us less and costs us more; this is a proven fact. There are structural problems in the way our government operates that allows this to go on.

The problem with Republicans is their view that government is always ineffective, and that private business is always effective and efficient. Can you really trust a political who is ideologically invested in the failure of governmental institutions? The goal should be to improve them, which does not necessarily mean to expand them. Yet, if the failure of government validates your political philosophy, then a strange set of incentives is generated.

The question is at what. Market actors will strive to generate a profit. However, this same impulse is not necessarily constrained to ethical activity. Indeed, a free market cannot operate without a government to provide some validity to the underlying transactions. If financial markets were completely unconstrained, would they operate if any company could freely cook the books without any fear of repercussion? Would anyone buy anything, if financial reportings was entirely caveat emptor?

Unfortunately, the free market is terrible at allocating the external costs of the results of private activities such as pollution. Likewise, free market principles are terrible at funding education, which is necessary for a functioning democracy and a vibrant economy. The world is replete with examples of unrest among the poor and disenfranchised.

The fact of the matter is a free market requires a strong healthy government to operate. Not surprisingly, places with no functioning central government are poor places to engage in free enterprise.

Second are issues surrounding liberty and freedom. I am always skeptical when the government wants to "protect" or "save" me from anything. When the government says that, they want to violate my freedom - they want to invade my privacy, and I do not trust the government to use the information they gather for benevolent purposes because it is run by self-serving politicians who are bought and paid for by large corporations. For example, do I really want the government reading e-mails and listening to telephone calls of all American's? Imagine a paranoid President like Richard Nixen with that type of power, and you can easily see how badly it can turn out.

The other extreme is anarchy as epitomized by the Somalia. There is no functioning central government, yet would you call the residents of that country "free"? There is a balance that we should strive for, but with Republicans you never hear about the appropriate level of regulation. It is always deregulation. This strikes me as extreme as someone pushing a centrally controlled economy.

The big difference between the government and free enterprise is that government generally is much more transparent the private business. While some may skoff, if you run a private business, and one of your customers demands to know your salary, see your correspondence, and ask what you are working on, you would probably tell them to get lost. Federal, state and local governments generally have to comply with FOIA laws. While their compliance can always be improved, there is no comparison between private business and government. Indeed, SEC disclosure requirements are a creature of, you guessed, government regulation.

The key to freedom in a democracy is to once again engage. Disengagement results to a de facto tyranny of the powerful who can control public opinion through the media. This is why I see Fox a great threat to our freedom due to its willingness to use its media resources to directly affect policy by abandoning a pretence at objective journalism.

Third I view many of the problems we have today as a result of government. Many people blame corporations, but we have to remember that corporations could not exist without the government. All of the power that a corporation possesses is gained directly from the government. The more power that is given to the government, in my view, is power that will be used for corporate interest rather than the people's interest. From my view corporations are the symptom of the problem, but the actual problem is the government that created them in the first place and continues empowers them.

I have to disagree with you here. The current mortgage crisis was largely caused by the incredible creativity of financial institutions to essentially create a ponzi scheme were trillions of dollars in wealth were fabricated and based on a fraction of real tangible assets. Can you blame them? No. They were chasing profits. You say that government is responsible because corporations are a creature of law. I am not sure how it follows then that governments are responsible for all of the actions of corporations and their actors. I doubt that you are advocating for the abolition of corporations and similar forms of association, which also strikes me as a rather instrusive use of governmental power. In other words, while complaining about the power of government, you seem to suggest that the solution is to use that power to strip private associations of their recognition under the law. Should the assets then escheat to the state? The shareholders? Before you know it, you are right back at communism.

My more modest suggestion is to recognize that corporations will pursue profits, but enact and enforce laws that regulate such activity so that it does not occur in a manner that is harmful for society as a whole.

The balance is elusive, but the polar extremes of a tolitarian government versus anarchy are even worse.

[Meldread]

18. My response.

"The problem with Republicans is their view that government is always ineffective, and that private business is always effective and efficient."

I would say this is not always the case. This is only the case when it comes to welfare and social programs that benefit people directly. When it comes to war and the military Republican's believe government is plenty effective there, even in places where it obviously isn't. For example, billions of dollars are lost each year in the Pentagon. We literally just don't know where the money goes, and can't find it! And because of their sway over politicians, they've been able to successfully lobby Congress preventing any requirements that they clean up their record keeping.

"Can you really trust a political who is ideologically invested in the failure of governmental institutions?"

If people are smart, they wouldn't trust anyone running for elected office regardless of their political ideology. Skepticism is a necessary and healthy trait to have when it comes to politics. So, of course I agree with this statement. However, I would also add that I also equally believe it to be true of a politician who believes that government can be the solution to every problem. Sometimes, it just isn't the case. Other times, there may be no real solution, and yet still there may be times when government and the private sector have to work together to solve the problem. The world is rarely black or white.

"The goal should be to improve them, which does not necessarily mean to expand them."

I would agree only to the extent that they are actually worth improving upon. This may not always be the case, but where it is I do agree. Other times we may need to look into total reform. For example, when it comes to our intelligence collection, I believe we should really combine the CIA, FBI, NSA, and a number of other intelligence agencies so there is one chain of command and a single institution. Having multiple institutions doing the same job means that sometimes it is difficult to connect the dots, and other times you have wasted resources with people working on the same case. It also makes it more difficult to hold people accountable for failings, because it is often spread throughout various areas of the bureaucracy.

I strongly believe in simplification and cutting away at bureaucracy wherever possible to make things more effective. However, bureaucracy shouldn't be confused with checks and balances.

I believe that we can get more effective government for less cost. I think there is sometimes a conflation of better means more expensive. Take our health care system as an example, it is very expensive, but it is expensive because it is inefficient. The greater cost does not provide us with superior service or results.

"The fact of the matter is a free market requires a strong healthy government to operate. Not surprisingly, places with no functioning central government are poor places to engage in free enterprise."

It's not a question of lots of government or no government. It's a question of effective government. Unless someone is an anarchist they believe in some form of government. I certainly do not think there are many true anarchists in the United States. Even most deontological libertarians believe in some form of government, despite the fact that in order for any government to exist there must be taxes and therefore the initiation of aggression. To take the view point to its logical conclusion would be anarchism and therefore no longer libertarianism.

I personally agree with your overall assessment. In order for markets to function -well- there needs to be a government that can provide a framework for which they operate. This is separate from what you spoke about earlier, which is protecting citizens against harmful aggression (fraud, environmental catastrophe, etc.) These are all obvious roles and needs for government. The debate is not whether the government should somehow be involved, but to what extent and how can it most effectively achieve the desired result.

Obviously, we do not want the government involved so heavily in the marketplace that it smothers the market. In these cases, the only ones that benefit are the large corporate institutions which are already firmly established. Those that suffer are the smaller institutions and those seeking to enter the market. I'm a strong believer that the government should compensate small and medium sized businesses when it comes to dealing with any barrier to enter and participate in the marketplace that the government itself is responsible for. Why? Because I believe competition is good.

Competition is good for many reasons. First, it is good for consumers because it provides choice and that almost always means that things become more affordable. Second, it is good for workers because it gives them a position from which to bargain from - if one business treats them badly they can take their skill set elsewhere where it can provide them with more personal profit.

Without competition the reverse happens: Less options for workers, which means lower pay, less benefits, and less choice for consumers at higher prices.

"The other extreme is anarchy as epitomized by the Somalia. There is no functioning central government, yet would you call the residents of that country "free"?"

We are not talking about extremes. The other extreme to the other side is North Korea. Would we desire such a strong central government that controls -everything-? Of course not.

When it comes to freedom, we want a government that stays out of our personal lives. We do not want a government that makes "moral" decisions for us because morality is subjective and personal.

When it comes to safety, it's one thing to be patted down at the airport, it's another thing entirely for the government to have the ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps of every phone and e-mail in the United States.

"The key to freedom in a democracy is to once again engage. Disengagement results to a de facto tyranny of the powerful who can control public opinion through the media. This is why I see Fox a great threat to our freedom due to its willingness to use its media resources to directly affect policy by abandoning a pretence at objective journalism."

There are two keys to having the most effective democracy possible. The first is education, because if people don't know what they're supporting then their vote is uninformed and dangerous. The second is, as you said, engagement.

When it comes to the media, whether it is FOX or some other outlet, it is all the same. You may get one type of spin from FOX and another from MSNBC, but at the end of the day it is still spin. At the end of the day, that is not the true threat to objective and real journalism, it is a symptom of the problem.

Every major media source exists on advertising, and therefore they are entirely focused on ratings. This has a HUGE impact on what is reported and how it is reported. If there was no money to be made by placing a conservative spin on things, FOX News would not exist. If there was no money to be made by placing a left-of-center spin on things there would be no MSNBC. At least in their current form.

The solution? This is one of those issues where I don't really know. I'm hoping that someone out there will come up with a real solution that works. Grabbing viewers is important if we want to educate as many people as possible, and yet at the same time we DO NOT want journalism that is factually inaccurate as we often see on FOX News. We do not want people representing themselves as agents of the media blatantly telling lies on purpose.

There might be a number of imperfect solutions. Part of it might be citizen journalists, everyday people who are passionate about an issue just going out to get the facts. Part of it might be something similar to the Rachel Maddow Show, where we go to someone who shares our idealogical position on most things, and yet at the same time delivers to us hard hitting news.

"I have to disagree with you here. The current mortgage crisis was largely caused by the incredible creativity of financial institutions to essentially create a ponzi scheme were trillions of dollars in wealth were fabricated and based on a fraction of real tangible assets. Can you blame them? No. They were chasing profits."

Corporations often have similar problems as governments. Corporations are answerable to shareholders who demand constant profits. Corporations, like government, are run by imperfect humans. I do not believe that those who run business in general deliberately drive them into the ground. I believe they are willfully stupid. They are humans who convince themselves of illogical things such as "the housing bubble will never burst! The prices of homes will just keep rising forever!"

It is easy to look at that in retrospect and see how stupid it was, but thats kinda looking back at old pictures and your former hairstyles. You look back and cringe, wondering what the hell you were thinking, but at the time you thought you were some hot shit. That mullet looked DAMN good; you thought you were Billy Ray Cyrus. Looking back, you're so embarrassed you want to burn the photos to destroy all the evidence. :p

Governments are exactly the same as corporations in their irrationality. Just like corporations answer to shareholders governments answer to voters. This means that the focus of government is rarely to the long term, but rather from one election cycle to the next. This was why the levies in New Orleans never got fixed. It would have been a long term project that would have cost a lot of money.

It is easy to look back in retrospect and see how stupid that was, but at the time the current thinking of the politician was that the levies would hold. They did not actively hope for or plot for them to break, but because they sought more immediate gains for the state instead of solving potential long term issues, they broke, New Orleans was flooded, and many people died.

The reality is that had politicians fought to repair the levies before Hurricane Katrina, the city would have never flooded. They then face the same issue Obama faces now, trying to argue that if he had NOT acted in the way he had to save the economy we would have been much worse off. The fact of the matter is, because we are not worse off, we're in a position to debate whether or not we would actually be worse off if he had done nothing - something we could never know.

This is why politicians often act the way they do and why certain things happen. Does this mean we should scrap the systems and institutions? No. However, there are clear weaknesses that we need to understand. If we understand that then we can hopefully make more rational decisions.

In the case of corporations, perhaps shareholders can learn to accept less immediate profits if it means that the money they've placed in the corporation is more secure and stable. It would still naturally grow over time, but it reduces the risk on their part to make the investment.

In the case of government, perhaps voters could learn to elect politicians who think ahead instead of just to the next election cycle. This helps deal with issues such as our debt. We do not want to face a situation when we can no longer get loans, or worse find ourselves in a situation similar to Iceland. We do not want to deal with problems once they've become an immediate crisis, we want to deal with them BEFORE they become a crisis.

"You say that government is responsible because corporations are a creature of law. I am not sure how it follows then that governments are responsible for all of the actions of corporations and their actors."

The government is comprised of three things. It starts with the people, who then in turn empower institutions (Congress for example), and the laws that those institutions create and enforce. Does this mean the government is directly responsible for every bad thing done by an individual? Not necessarily, but it can mean that they are indirectly responsible. In the case of corporations and the recent recession, the government played a role in allowing and in some cases enabling many of the bad loans to be made. The government should have been protecting consumers from predatory lenders who were taking advantage of them. Instead, the government was right along side the corporations in some cases, believing as they did "the housing bubble will never burst! The prices of homes will just keep rising forever!"

As so often happens, when something is repeated often enough it becomes accepted as truth and fact.

"I doubt that you are advocating for the abolition of corporations and similar forms of association, which also strikes me as a rather instrusive use of governmental power. In other words, while complaining about the power of government, you seem to suggest that the solution is to use that power to strip private associations of their recognition under the law. Should the assets then escheat to the state? The shareholders? Before you know it, you are right back at communism."

There are a number of things to touch upon here. First, let me be clear what I do advocate. I believe that the purpose of a corporation is to separate personal finances from business finances. I do not believe this should allow a CEO, employees of the business, or its shareholders off the hook for their actions. The purpose of the corporate shield is to reduce risk, which encourages investment and growth. Yet, at the same time we have to be aware that when you create a system that protects people from the consequences of their actions, you've created a system that encourages irresponsibility.

This is why even a severely crippled marketplace will always work better than a central planned economy run by the state. The state has the ability to shield itself from the consequences of its actions, and therefore bad things do not often get corrected. On the other hand, good things are also rarely rewarded. When you have consequences to your actions it discourages bad behavior and encourages good behavior. It may not stop or eliminate bad behavior, but it certainly curbs it dramatically. This is why corporations lobby the government, because only the government can shield them from the consequences of their actions.

However, it is also the very instrument of their creation. What I do not think you understand is that the government has been intruding on corporations from the moment of each and every one of their inceptions. In order for them to exist at all they require the government. It is the government that outlines the benefits and privileges as well as the limitations of the corporation.

Therefore, what I advocate is not increased intrusion but rather modification of how the contract works. I believe in establishing more limitations, and fewer benefits and privileges. I do not support destroying or stripping away the institution itself, but in my view - improving it so that they become more responsible and act in ways that are more rational. In my view such a thing is good for shareholders in the long run, because it discourages dangerous and destructive behavior. This places their investments at risk.

One of the privileges I'd like to see stripped away is corporate personhood. I do not believe that an institution should be considered an individual and hold similar rights. It is a contract to create an institution, not a person. The institution is made up of individuals who are afforded certain rights and should be able to exercise them freely. For example, I do not believe a corporation has the right to free speech. The government is fully within its right to limit cigarette advertising to protect children, for example. Furthermore, a corporation should not have the right to willingly spread disinformation and traffic in propaganda.

Does this mean I want to completely silence corporations? No. I simply believe that acceptable speech for corporations must be more clearly defined, and of course, the CEO, shareholders, and individual employees are fully within their right to advocate and speak freely. This does not impact their individual right, which I believe must be fiercely protected.

These are not extreme thoughts. It isn't communism, and it isn't dissolving the institutions entirely. It is merely structurally reorganizing the contract signed when the corporation came into existence. It is no more or less intrusive than what currently exists. What I desire is to modify the corporate contract in such a way as to make them more responsible by holding them accountable for the consequences of their actions. I also want to have a government focused more on individual citizens rights than the rights of the institutions it establishes in the peoples name.

"My more modest suggestion is to recognize that corporations will pursue profits, but enact and enforce laws that regulate such activity so that it does not occur in a manner that is harmful for society as a whole."

In this we agree. I would even argue that it is the DUTY and PURPOSE of any business to pursue profits. Without the pursuit of profits there is no business in the first place, and if there is no business there are no jobs.

[laughingliberal]

12. Agree, for the most part, with this post but this quote from above confuses me

" the basic right-wing argument against corporatism embraces a kind of fatalism about government that assumes it will always devolve into a rat's nest of rent seekers and cronies and therefore should be kept as small as possible. But the progressive critics hold that we can and should do better. "

I don't know what the right wing argument against corporatism means. The right wing certainly supports policies that have allowed corporatism to thrive. The Bush years saw an amazing escalation of a process that started under Reagan. I'm just not sure I see right wing arguments against corporatism. Certainly, they don't call it corporatism but the socialisation of risk and privatization of benefits they have promoted would qualify, I would think. Am I missing something?

[Fading Captain]

13. Who is disengaging from what?

It is the Democratic Party who is forcing the left to the margins.
If we vote for Nader, we are blamed for Bush.
If we don't vote at all, we are apathetic.

Fuck that shit. You want to cram this two-party corporate bullshit down my throat and criticize me if I am not satisfied by choosing between the lesser of two very obvious evils.

And then you have the nerve to tell people to beware of my stance, because it is similar to right wing rhetoric?

My god. That's rich.
I am pro labor. I am pro government. I am pro peace. I am pro choice. I am pro public education. I am pro national health care.

Where the fuck is the Democratic Party?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Putting heat on conservative Democrats is making them earn out votes.

The "lesser of two evils" is still evil.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Your point is valid only if we as a constituency wake up to reality as a group

and truly and honestly accept that we have real and serious systemic as well as internal issues or otherwise we'll be left with stripped lands, filthy water, dirty air, and third world style poverty regardless of which party is in control with the major difference really being an orderly transition or auger into the ground but in any event the same exact destination is reached.

Playing the game and hoping to do better next time only works if there is no clock working against you ir you have endless attempts but in this case and in a few other timebombs we have ticking, we just don't have a few generations to spare (or in some cases like financial reform every day invites another crash and another round of too big to fail handouts) in getting things done. Left to their own devices (and we know they largely are) the robberbarons and the corporate commies will strip mine this country.

If Obama had any appetite to deal with restoring order and putting a collar on big business he'd campaign daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly calling out Congress and naming names of those that stand in the way of rules of the road and the security of the American financial sector until even the most stupid motherfucker could see clearly and send him the reps and Senators he needed to do the people's business and make corporations once more servants rater than masters.

Its impossible to lose. Getting the people to understand and wrap their minds around the greatest attack on America in history. Impress on the people the picture of the gigantic hole in our country. Instead of playing three card monty with the piddling TARP he should make clear that we are on the hook for 24 trillion dollars or nearly two full years of every cent of the US economy. Every burger flipped, every cup of coffee, every home bought and sold, every bit of interest, all the dimes from the lemonade stands, every consult, all the bets, each and every paycheck, EVERYTHING for almost two full years.

Then pile on with the jobs lost, businesses that closed their doors, the need for the stimulus, the statehouse cutbacks. Then connect the dots to the pay and huge bonuses. Explain the game of "heads I win, tails the taxpayer losses" and how the "bankers" and speculators make their money betting on if we lose our homes or drop dead, keep the winnings, charge the treasury when there are none, and collect king's ransoms for having the guts to take the risks.

I know if a foreign force had done this level of damage and especially if the threat was still this present then all the stops would be pulled and responsible leadership would be reacting and marshalling the people if any dared to obstruct and I see nothing different here. It is difficult to imagine that any government that had serious intent to do it's duty and protect the people would allow this mess to fester or fail to use the full powers of the bully pulpit to mobilize the citizens to apply every ounce of pressure and/or replace roadblocks to our national security.

Incremental solutions don't work with pressing and explosive situations. Some stuff must be dealt with immediately or the time for solutions will pass. Also, doing the right thing will often open up other doors. Given legislators willing, able, and mandated to actually deal with Wall Street then we'd also very likely to have the votes to deal with the other problems of our times.
Unfortunately, there is little will to work in the best interests of the country and her people or there would be less mickey mouse in a period of this kind of crisis. The Republicans are of course completely gone and sadly it must be admitted that there is plenty of cancer spreading through our own party as well and we can't fully judge the extent but odds are the rot is significant, maybe worse than we can guess.