Blog Archives: July-September 2008

Sept. 30, 08 The Bailout Tanks

Looking at who voted no, I was struck by some familiar Democratic progressives: Kucinich asked if this was Congress, or Goldman Sachs' Board Room? My own first-term Congresswoman, more moderate, also voted against; she's running against a well-financed Republican in a conservative district. But two-thirds of Republicans, (only 40% of Democrats) voted against. They represented the conservative, small government wing of their party.

The Democrats who voted against were the more progressive--and those in tough races--but the Republicans were voting against their own administration. Their solution: eliminate capital gains taxes!

Speaker Pelosi's speech--that this bailout was necessary because of the failed policies of the last 8 years--could not have caused Republican nays, although it ruffled their feathers. The nays might have been because the bailout represented to these Republicans all the things wrong with Bush big government Republicans. The bailout was for a lot of our money, certainly, and for intervention in the sacred "free" markets, something Wall Street and corporate Republicans--and corporate Democrats--might feel comfortable with, but it was antithetical to small government.

Progressive Democrats, on the other hand, didn't want to bail out billionaires; they wanted to help "Main Street." Pelosi's speech was meant to rally them; perhaps it did. She claimed, after the vote, that Democrats kept their part of the bargain: a majority of Democrats voted Aye. But the Republicans bailed.

They already had an ad ready to blame Democrats for the sellout to Wall Street!

But the leadership agreement had been that each party conference would deliver a majority of its votes, because, while modified, this was a Republican administration's bill, unpopular with both parties. Democrats did not want to be stuck with sole responsibility; Republicans were to take the heat, too; but they wanted to mousetrap Democrats, instead.

A House Republican bill would offer only insurance for funds and minimal intervention; a Democratic bill would focus on homeowners' relief and taxpayer equity; it would have taxed stock transactions to pay for any financial bailout. Perhaps neither would pass both houses. Wall Street is stronger in the Senate. So, any bailout will have to offer assurance, at least, that credit markets won't be allowed to fail.

Both Presidential candidates stressed the need for bipartisan action--while McCain stooped to blame Obama.

What's next? Rosh Hoshana.

Either the Democrats should offer a truly Democratic bill that really protects homeowners, modifies mortgages, taxes Wall Street for any funds bailout (a tax would also discourage speculation) and regulates them, or let Republicans offer a non-interventionist alternative, but require them to pass it (with all their votes and a few Democratic ones).

Or Depression here we come! Then maybe a new New Deal?

Sept. 19, 08 Finesse Financial Turmoil
Gamble Pakistan

"If only," I can imagine Bush or Cheney thinking, "we could kill bin Laden, our people could win, instead of that awful black man."

Our foreign policy has been driven by this kind of thinking even pre-Bush, but he does it in spades. This is especially true in this time of financial turmoil; people's attention is fixed on the economy, so it's a good time for the administration to carry on some high profile undercover ops overseas.

It's a gamble, but I'm not sure the Bushies know that. Pakistan is capable of turning to China and Russia for help (they have more money than we do). The Bush administration is driving them there, because they just think Americans can do whatever is in their national--or political--interest anywhere in the world. If you aren't with us, you're against us: we're the sole Superpower.

Bombing Pakistan's Tribal Area increasingly despite the growing political reaction all over Pakistan (it was, and is again, a more or less democratic country), may also demonstrate how desperate the Bush administration is to prevent not just that black guy, but Democrats generally, from actually gaining control of the executive branch. It would leave them like sitting ducks--after all the crimes they've committed.

Desperation also shows in their bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG and now proposing to take on all bad debt--better to socialize finances than to allow Socialism!

Maybe people will buy it. Maybe they'll kill bin Laden before we edge into war with Pakistan; maybe the bailouts will calm things down; maybe McCain can win.

And he might, just because he's white and more familiar.

If that black guy wins we might all have a chance--just a chance--of building a more equitable, humane and prosperous society, and one that leads the world on global warming, new energy and green technology.

It's only a chance, a gamble, too.

But the gamble Bush/McCain are taking (I'm sure McCain's briefed--and pumped) is for limited political ends: to keep power by any means, and to protect their real base, the Selfish Class, so like the Roman Senators of fifth century Rome; wealthy Romans refused to pay taxes even to prevent the destruction of the Empire in 476.

But they'll pay for 527's to savage that black boy. Oh yes, they'll spend money to insure they continue to get all the favors the Republicans have tendered them over the years. The bail out is just a continuation. And when America goes down the tubes, they can always move to Dubai, or some other delightful place--and continue to act as if they own the world.

Sept. 18, 08 Political Drilling For Oil

Actually, the bill is Speaker Pelosi's attempt to placate enough of the "70%" of Americans who supposedly are demanding "Drill here, drill now!" It actually calls the Republicans' bluff. The oil companies won't commit resources for most of the areas "opened up to drilling," and the President won't sign a bill that takes away the tax-breaks and royalty gifts loaded on his friends, the oil companies. Yet Democrats are saying: "Go ahead, drill now if you want to, and we'll use the money you were taking (we think unjustifiably) to subsidize the alternative sources of energy we'll need in the future."

The bill muddies the waters. Pelosi no longer stands in the way of drilling, yet it still won't happen because the President will veto, even if the Senate passes the bill, or some version of it. That's unlikely. It's unlikely because the Republicans, taking their cue from the White House veto threat, will block it. So, Republicans will be voting against offshore drilling! Sweet.

The Republicans hitting upon the "drill now" mantra was politics, too, since it would not have provided enough oil, and none for over ten years, and the Republicans pressed for it for only two reasons: it was a good slogan that stupid people bought (most Americans?), and if it did come to pass, their friends, the oil companies, would make out like bandits. But not with this bill. Yet this bill would go a long way to defusing the Republicans' slogan.

It still makes Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress look like spineless opportunists: first they're against drilling, and then they're for it! The credibility of Congress will sink even lower--if that's possible (at 9% approval it seems unlikely). The one thing this may do for the Republicans is bolster their unlikely attempt to take back the House, or the Senate; even that is probably mathematically doomed.

That's why Democratic Congress-people supported the bill. It takes away the one issue the Republicans thought they had. And now, with the financial collapse getting worse and worse, the economy looks better and better--for Democrats. Democrats, except for President Clinton and Robert Rubin, resisted deregulation of the financial markets championed by Republicans (including John McCain). Even Rubin is now re-thinking the need for regulating the "shadow economy" that brought us here.

Note: On January 23rd I wrote after the sub-prime collapse that a depression was possible; it demonstrated the destructiveness described in The Selfish Class (e-book available on this website). Now other people are scared it could happen.

Sept. 16, 08 Lying Works, Caution Doesn't

A Report From the Trenches. No, not Wall Street: Allentown, PA.

The number of undecided among people identified by Obama's campaign as "persuadable" was frustrating and disturbing, and although there were more outright Obama supporters than McCain supporters among this sample, there were even more in between.

What were their questions? That was the frustrating part: almost half didn't have any particular questions: they just had doubts--about both candidates. Did Sarah Palin figure into their vacillations? Only to question Obama's judgement in not picking Hillary. But there was something else going on. One mid-30's man told me "they'd" kill Obama, and Biden was a loser, "they" being white "crazies."

Most people did accept the idea that "change" was needed, and after the turmoil on Wall Street I'm sure that need is perceived as even stronger. How, then, were they vacillating between the old warhorse, McCain, and Obama who has been running on the need for change for more than two years?

As I indicate in the title: lying works. McCain is now running as the change agent, the reformer, and so far people seem to be buying it, even though he offers no real substance as reformer and has been around Washington since Obama was in High School. What the undecided voter wants to know: what does Obama mean by change? No one expressed much curiosity about McCain's "change" agenda.

Beyond what people were saying in the upscale suburbs where the campaign sent me, I sensed distrust: distrust of all politicians, and therefore distrust of anything any politician said. One of the assets Obama had through the primaries was that he was perceived as someone who answered questions directly, who had integrity, who was inspirational but also cautious, or careful.

Two things have changed that: Obama's move to the center after the primaries on issues like FISA and the war in Afghanistan, and McCain's ads, including the whispering campaigns. Ironically, at the moment, despite McCain's repeated gaffes (underreported), his campaign theme unsupported by any substantive positions (reform, but no reform proposals), and his risky, hurried and controversial choice of Palin as his running mate, it is Obama who is viewed with suspicion.

If I were to advise Obama, or his campaign, I would say: you need to be daring, not cautious; you need to offer an exciting New program, like cleaning up Wall Street, or Washington, or "investing" in a jobs program perhaps linked to alternative energy, or to all three.

If lying works, this website will seem even more prescient: the selfish class will prevail again, as it did in Rome, and we will all go down the tubes.

Sept. 11, 08 "Sexism" Dominates News-cycle

What did these "balanced" or "liberal" shows headline? McCain's attacks on Obama for "sexist" language, when he said that McCain's (not Palin's) policy proposals were "lipstick on a pig." Both shows demonstrated that McCain had used the same phrase multiple times when attacking Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposals;. No one accused him of being sexist then.

MSNBC did show a clip of Obama rejecting the attack as a diversion from the issues they should both be addressing; Obama also appeared on Letterman for the same purpose.

But the media fell for McCain's ploy; it didn't talk about the tanking economy; it didn't talk about the differences offered by the two candidates, or even about the Republicans' popular but absurd energy "policy" ("drill, baby, drill!"). It didn't talk about health care or education or the wars, despite the apparent fact that one is in quiescence while the other (Afghanistan) is getting worse and US policy is proving counterproductive.

The media--even the "liberal" media--seems easily manipulated by the McCain campaign, which also showed an ad that completely misstates Obama's sex education legislation and makes him look like a pervert.

Olbermann wondered whether the media was finally sitting up and taking notice of the pattern of lies and sleaze connected with McCain's latest campaign ploys. I doubt it.

The Republican gang has used the media to take power, to keep it and to enrich themselves. It has done this through precisely these tactics: diversion from real issues to gossip and lies, beginning with Reagan, famously with GHW's racist ads against Dukakis, and W's allies' Swiftboating of Kerry. These tactics have brought us the disaster of Bush-Cheney. Yet McCain, running as "the change agent," is now trying to replicate 2000 and 2004, even though he publicly denounced those tactics in 2000 when he was a victim of them in South Carolina.

Maybe it won't work, but as one commentator pointed out, it was a tactic that dominated the news-cycle, demonstrating the stupidity of the media, and how its power can be harnessed through subterfuge and lies often repeated, even the "liberal" news media.

In the Roman Empire of the fifth century, information was only government sponsored, but government acted in the same way: diverting citizens from their real problems so that there never was opposition that could have forced the Empire to respond. Rome's collapse was the consequence. Will the US follow the same road?

Sept. 9, 08 What Obama Should Do

Race does have something to do with it.

McCain's advantage comes despite the worsening economic picture, which should hurt him, especially since neither he nor his party has offered anything meaningful to respond to it. And his new "change" mantra is despite the indisputable fact that his party is responsible for the policies that led to the downturn in the first place; he offers nothing substantively different.

Obama has offered moderate fixes for the economic slump, including a jobs program and infrastructure investment, but now, with the economy getting worse, he should beef up those proposals with a national investment and jobs program to improve and repair our sagging infrastructure. It would directly reduce rising unemployment and put upward pressure on declining wages. He could finance some of it through the windfall profits tax on oil he previously proposed. He should campaign hard on it.

What would be the Republicans' response? The oil companies are McCain's primary funders; he would be put on the defensive. McCain is also ideologically opposed to government action like a jobs and infrastructure program; he'd attack it as Big Government, but that would fly like a lead balloon, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the Republican economic policy responsible for the financial mess. It won't go away by the election; it will get worse. Obama should bet on it. So, forceful action will be necessary.

In addition, Obama would be acting like a Democrat, rallying all those losing their jobs, as well as all those anxious for their jobs, or their homes. He'd also rally the old line Democrats; they'd work doubly hard for him.

If Obama came out swinging for a huge investment to rebuild and repair roads, railroads, mass transit, bridges, and ports, cast it as a program to generate a million jobs, financed in part by a windfall oil profits tax, implemented by local construction firms, not multi-nationals, he'd have a winning issue. It would make 'drill, baby drill' and Sarah Palin passe.

A jobs and infrastructure program was what the Roman Empire needed back in 450 or so; roads were crumbling and unsafe, ports were silting in. The Empire fell because the selfish class in control resisted any effort that would raise their taxes. McCain and Palin, despite their vague populist rhetoric, represent the same selfish class, even to cutting taxes for the wealthy instead of for the people who need it.

Sept. 3, 08 The Tabloid Ticket

The story about Sarah Palin has concentrated on the most irrelevant parts of her political history: her tangled family. The tabloid frenzy obscures her sorry record in Alaska, as mayor and governor.

Her hand was out for pork from Sen. Stevens--until it was politically smarter to denounce it (and him). She demanded loyalty oaths (in Wasilla!) and fired those she felt weren't heartfelt in their loyalty. Arbitrary firings appear to be her style.

Before her first position, as Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin campaigned as a "fiscal conservative," and has since. But she raised regressive sales taxes, while cutting progressive property taxes. She raised revenues 38% and city expenditures 33% and then went on to demand that the city borrow $15 million for a stadium (on land with unclear legal title), and $1 million for a park. She recommended borrowing for sewage and road improvements as well. She inherited zero debt on becoming mayor and left office with $22 million in debts for Wasilla.

Further, her history of administrative expertise is made suspect by the following: when her summary firings generated a recall petition, Republican party leaders demanded that she turn over administration to a City Administrator. As Governor in charge of the budget, she gave the legislature no direction or guidelines, then grandstanded by line-item vetoes of the state budget, cutting everything she said was "pork." Most of her cuts were of needed programs of which she was ignorant, demonstrated by the fact that most of the expenditures were restored by the legislature over her vetoes.

Her popularity in Alaska stems in part from her rep as an enemy of pork, perhaps because she champions hunting everything and snowmobiling everywhere, but also because she took Alaska's surplus (generated from oil) and returned it to the taxpayers, despite the need for improvements to roads. She then recommended that the state borrow the money for infrastructure improvements.

One of the reasons why much of this negative history has not come out until now is that Palin earned the reputation of ruthlessness; she goes after enemies and even those who first helped her, like the city counselor who first showed her the ropes in Wasilla. People are afraid of her.

Put this together with Palin's vehement opposition to abortion, her championing of Abstinence Only sex education (look how it worked for her daughter!), her position as unabashed proponent of drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge (McCain was against), for drilling everywhere and her insistence that human activity had no impact on global warming, and she looks worse than Bush. In addition, she has zero international experience.

Quite a pick: McCain's first important decision.

August 14, 08 Next: American Troops in Georgia?

The plot thickens. One of Georgia's most avid promoters has been Randy Scheunemann, former lobbyist for its government who has long been McCain's top foreign policy advisor. McCain has been pugnacious about Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin, suggesting that Russia be expelled from the Group of Eight and prevented from joining the WTO. And now he has Georgia to sound off about.

Bush has taken positions that buttress McCain's bluster, including sending American troops to Georgia to oversee its use of the emergency aid he is also sending. Gee, maybe we should occupy Georgia, so that Russia would have to attack us if it wanted to further humiliate the country!

Actually, if Georgia was part of NATO, the US and all other NATO members would be obligated to defend it: we could have a land war with Russia--what a great idea!

The Russian military might be no match for individual NATO units, but be realistic: this would be in Russia's backyard; NATO would have to ship its troops great distances; meanwhile, Russia could cut off natural gas to Europe. And it does have nuclear weapons, a re-generated military, and lots of money.

Do we really need to manufacture an enemy like Russia? My wife was surprised that Russia isn't part of NATO. Why not, this is post-Cold War, isn't it? McCain acts as if he'd rather the Cold War were re-ignited. Consider why anyone would think like this:

With the Iraq war winding down (and Iraqis demanding us out of there), we'll have only Afghanistan and "terror" in combat. What will happen to the military budget? Defense industries and service companies have gotten fat on the GWOT, but this river of gold could dry up. Better shop around for another enemy, for one that will stimulate "defense" spending even beyond what we've expended for Iraq; no point in just standing still: onward and upward--with "defense" profits.

Yes, Georgia attacked South Ossetia and it is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have ordered this without some kind of reassurances from America, or NATO--or McCain's Scheunemann.

McCain stands for expanding the American Empire regardless of whether we can pay for it. Need I point out that the military--and the wealthy--bankrupted the Empire, which precipitated Rome's fall in 476?

August 12, 08 Georgian Limits to Empire

Just think: they aren't fighting two wars; their young people aren't under fire from supposed allies, and their country probably has as much influence with Russia and Georgia as we do, i.e. none at all.

The Georgian war shows the bankruptcy of Bush-Cheney-McCain foreign policy. We encouraged the Saakashvili government to pursue NATO membership; Georgians had the mistaken belief that the West would protect them from Russia. Saakashvili stupidly marched into South Ossetia, despite a recently reinforced Russian army "peacekeeper" presence.

How any Georgian, knowing any of their past history--a tiny country, long dominated by Russia and then absorbed by the USSR--would think they could get away with this is mysterious, unless Saakashvili truly believed that NATO troops would be right behind him. Did the American Ambassador encourage him in this idiocy, the way we encouraged the Hungarians in 1956?

The US really has no leverage. We are in debt, our troops are over-stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the West is in a burgeoning recession. Meanwhile, Russia is resurgent from oil and other raw materials; it is re-asserting its power over its neighborhood, and all the US can realistically do is say, "Please stop."

It has been pointed out ad nauseam that Saakashvili is the popularly elected President, but if Georgia is a real democracy (unlike the US), his people should throw him out of office for the stupidity of his attack: what was he thinking? That would also mollify the Russians, who have no reason to go away unless they get at least some of what they want: a more friendly Georgian government.

As for the US Empire: you see how much good it does in the world? Our meddling causes mischief almost everywhere.

I know this is a very unpopular position, but someone has to say it again and again: the US should dismantle its military bases around the world; it should renounce empire and concentrate on rebuilding "the homeland." We could become a "boring country" like Sweden or Canada, and we'd all be a lot better off. So would the rest of the world.

What are the chances of this happening? Considering that our military-industrial complex dominates this nation, and depends upon our imperial reach to justify itself, and considering that its expenditures (funded by you and me) amount now to almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars, chances are low to nil--until our economy, and our funders (China, Japan and the oil-nations) force us to retreat--like Rome in 476.

Then it will be too late.

August 6, 08 Oil Drilling Politics

I told him people were being misled by Republican propaganda, that drilling offshore would bring negligible results and only after ten or twenty years. No, he insisted, there was "this pool off California that has as much oil as Saudi Arabia!"

I was skeptical, but I did the research later--there is one pool that might have 11 billion barrels in it, according to oil industry geology--not proven oil, though some blogger, a not very informed critic, was saying there was 82 billion, enough for an 11 years supply.

My steamfitter agreed when I pointed out to him that we had to reduce oil use to curb global warming, but insisted that most people didn't care. Is this true? He said that most of his co-workers, when re-filling big refrigeration units, didn't use the required, elaborate recapture mechanism when taking out the old gas--it took too long: they just released all those CFC's into the atmosphere, despite the international treaty protecting the ozone layer. "They" might have been the speaker. After I made choking noises, he thought about it, then opined that there was a $10,000 reward to anyone who reported a violation like that. Has no one been prosecuted for doing this, despite the hefty reward?

Anyway, back to the oil-drilling conundrum. The Republicans think they've found an issue, and can please their oil-patch friends at the same time: both win. But the rest of us lose--if they get away with it.

Democrats need to come up with alternatives: another rebate targeted to the people who are hurting could be funded by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

We do need to cut oil consumption, and high gas prices are already accomplishing that. Opening up offshore oil drilling, would only profit oil companies down the road--unless they were taxed for any windfall profits. Would they drill then? In this vein, here's a cute idea: Drill anywhere, but

"...open drilling season comes with a simple quid pro quo. The oil industry gets slapped with a windfall profits tax that takes away any revenue in excess of $3 a gallon. Since we know it takes time to search for oil and drill wells, we can even give the oil boys a six-month grace period before the windfall tax takes effect. [Dean Baker, Truthout, 8/05/08]

How about it Obama?

August 5, 08 Pakistan in Afghanistan?

In a significant development noticed by very few, the civilian Pakistani government attempted to take control of the ISI (Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA and FBI rolled into one). The move had been in response to the recent bombing of India's Afghan embassy in Kabul, which American investigators blamed in part on Pakistan's ISI, working with the Taliban.

Pakistan's ISI, or elements within it, may be a major participant in the Afghan war behind the scenes.

BUT the government failed in its takeover! The civilian government's directive was rescinded when the military objected.

Up until now, the ISI has been nominally controlled by Pakistan's military, or perhaps vice-versa (the army's commanders have lately been former heads of the ISI).

The plot thickens: why would Pakistanis work with the Taliban? Back in the 1980's the ISI, aided by the CIA, helped the mujihadeen fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The CIA even resurrected the Muslim League's catchy slogan: "Islam In Danger!" to rally Muslim fundamentalists against the Soviets. The most aggressive mujihadeen later formed both al Qaeda and the Taliban--and I wouldn't be surprised if both have maintained ties to the ISI. Our covert war has come back to bite us.

Like Vietnam, the Afghanistan government's control outside the capital is sketchy, and like Vietnam there is a determined nationalist opposition, whose appeal now is partly that it opposes the foreigners supporting the government. Afghanistan differs from Vietnam in that neither government nor Taliban control large areas of Afghanistan; regional warlords do; many represent the central government only in name.

The Taliban (overthrown by NATO) opposes the government installed after NATO intervention, but it also opposes most warlords; it is now fighting where the central government's control is in dispute, or buttressed by foreign armies, but it's probable that if the Taliban overthrew the government, it would then go after the warlords; it did before. Still, the resources of the warlords are not readily available to help the government against the Taliban.

Why? The government is largely Pashtun, as is the Taliban, but Pashtuns only account for 35-42% of the population, while the northern warlords represent other ethnic groups: Tajiks are the main rival group (29% to 33%), then Uzbeks and Hazara, but there are others, too.

Afghanistan is an unpromising place for Empires. Not only ethnically divided, its mountain people are isolated and insular, fighting off invaders and each other for millennia. Russian, British and Soviet empires foundered in their attempts to control it; the USSR's demise was hastened by its Afghan war.

Will the US be next? "Winning" is not in the cards; the Afghan brew is too complicated.

July 30, 08 "Moral Leadership?"

Today we are not even looked upon as particularly civilized. Our public services are pitiful (compare American trains with European or even Indian trains); our laws are draconian (how many other developed nations execute their citizens; while we execute even women, and did execute children); is there another developed country that spends so much on healthcare and still doesn't cover significant portions of the population? How many other "democracies" have as low an election turnout as we do, and how many have turned their vote counting over to private companies' "proprietary" systems? Do we even have free elections?

What makes the US exceptional today is the huge investment we make in war-making, to the profit of a tremendous number of international corporations--most, but not all, headquartered in the US. We spend more than the rest of the world combined, but that's not moral leadership, that's stupidity. Not even the Pentagon can keep track of all the money it spends.

How can the US offer the world "moral leadership," when it goes around bombing and invading countries just because it's decided their regimes should be "changed," because they are counter to American "interests?"

Our Constitution is globally admired, our Bill of Rights offers the strongest protections to our citizens, but it was breached long ago: recently Congress approved Bush's nearly universal warantless wiretapping.

The Bush administration even spent legal resources on justifying torture (which they called "enhanced interrogation techniques"), and on determining that it could detain anyone indefinitely without cause . The Court did rule against the latter, thankfully, so unlimited tyranny was averted by one Supreme Court vote.

Who is really in charge?

A clue was a report on the privatization of the military and the security services. For example, NSA is dependent upon one contractor for more than half of all its work. Privatization has placed power in corporate hands.

If Obama is elected (still a big if), he would have a lot of work to do before the US again can offer the kind of moral leadership that it could in say 1945.

July 22, 08 Leader as Idiot

McCain says he's learning "to do a google." He's confessed many times that he doesn't know about economics and he just had to fire his primary economics advisor because of bad press: Phil Gramm said the recession was a moral problem and the US was a "nation of whiners."

Further, McCain wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent--they've done so much good! He wants to expand Bush's war-policy: staying in Iraq indefinitely, while pursuing "pre-emptive" wars all over the place; never mind about paying for them: he doesn't do economics.

So, why is McCain even a credible possibility for winning election? Why do the polls put him only somewhat behind Obama, who, on virtually any of the above issues is much closer in his positions to large majorities of Americans' concerns?

McCain has a reputation as a "maverick." He bucked his party on a few issues: regulating campaign finances (somewhat: McCain-Feingold is now on the books and campaign finance regulation is wildly ineffective); initially opposing Bush on torture--before compromising away his position--and recognizing that we have to do something about global warming (his policy positions on this are much too little, and too industry-friendly, but do represent a small difference from Bush).

There are two other reasons. One is obvious: McCain's friendly relations with reporters and media, generally. This is not accidental: McCain has courted the press for years. Would that Obama could have such easy give and take with reporters. Because of his good press relations, McCain can get away with the most outrageous miss-statements (like his oft-repeated confusion of Shiite and Sunni in Iraq) or ridiculous policy proposals, like his response to rising gas prices: open up more drilling offshore, even if environmentally sensitive, so oil companies might find more oil there someday; if they brought any to market, it would be after the beginning of the next presidential term.

McCain claims more foreign policy expertise than Obama, but his miss-statements belie that, and he would apparently rather bomb Iran than speak to its leaders.

In addition, the press has overlooked a serious "character issue" re McCain: his explosive temper, even displayed on the Senate floor. He'd have his finger on the trigger!

There is one issue that gives McCain a stealth advantage: race. He's the white guy; Obama's not trans-racial to many voters; he's black, but people won't talk about this.

The American Empire could self-destruct from the racist legacy of slavery. To put McCain in power because he is white is to be "hoist by our own petard," like Roman Senators denying, to the end, that Rome could fall--until it did.

July 18, 08 The Right-wing Implies
Obama Supported Terrorists!

So, now there are claims, published by the New York Sun and the Spectator that Obama provided support to an "Islamist," Raila Odinga, when the latter ran for President of Kenya! Further, Odinga is supposed to have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NAMLEF, the Kenyan Muslim organization, committing him to transform largely Christian Kenya into a Muslim state governed by Sharia law like Saudi Arabia! The subtext was that Obama is a covert Muslim.

First of all, Obama is not Muslim, and neither was his father. His grandfather was a convert, and one of his (many) half-brothers is, but the closest Obama ever came to being a Muslim was when he was enrolled (at age 6?) by his step-father in a public school in Indonesia; the school recorded his step-father's religion as Muslim, at a time when not being identified as a Muslim meant he was a Communist. Hundreds of thousands of Communists had recently been killed by Suharto's military regime.

Further, adding to the absurdity of the allegations, Odinga is a Christian, as is about 80% of the Kenyan population. Also, the supposed Memorandum of Understanding, Wikileaks points out, is an obvious forgery to which no Kenyan presidential candidate could possibly agree: all its purported conditions were unconstitutional, as well as politically impossible to realize. The government party opposing Odinga probably forged it; its intent was to discredit Odinga with the large Christian evangelical population.

But there had been a Memorandum between NAMLEF and Odinga: it was an agreement by Odinga to look into the cases of about 100 Muslim Kenyans who had been extraordinarily renditioned, probably under Bush-Cheney sponsorship, either to Guantanamo or to nations of convenience like Somalia, where they could be interrogated by torture. The Kenyan government had been a willing collaborator in Bush's covert war on terror; Odinga was campaigning against its abuses.

So, Obama supported a candidate who was critical of Bush's East Africa policies, a candidate who was Christian and campaigning for democracy; he is now Prime Minister of Kenya. Officially, Kibaki's government proclaimed election victory, but Odinga had won. The stolen election resulted in widespread protests and an internationally brokered compromise placed Odinga at the head of government; his rival, Kibaki, remains as President.

Confirming the more realistic version of the Memorandum, the Muslim leaders reminded Odinga, after he took office, that he needed to pursue the case of the Muslim Kenyans in Guantanamo.

What amazing fantasies conservative news outlets spread as truth, to cement in people's minds that Obama is a closet Muslim, an ally of terrorists. It doesn't matter to the right wing if it's pure fiction!

Will the real terrorists please stand up!

July 16, 08 Saying The Economy is Strong

Obama would say the second part. In fact he's been saying it for quite some time. Perhaps no President could say the first part, although FDR was responding to an economic crisis when he said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

But it's not presidential to say your country is in deep doodoo. Besides, if a President said that, the stock market would dive through the floor.

That's why a President wouldn't say it.

This gets to the whole question of what a President can say, and what he can't. He can't really "say it like it is." Too much hangs on his words. Early in the primary season, before Edwards dropped out, Obama argued that words matter, while Hillary insisted that only actions were important. As this case points out, words matter a lot.

Imagine what Obama would say, if he were President now, and what would McCain say if he were?

The only Roman Emperor after Diocletian (284-305) who proclaimed that things were bad and actually tried to do something about it was Majorian (457-461), who was assassinated for his popularity. McCain and Bush both remind me of the ineffective Emperors who led Rome downhill without ever acknowledging the danger: Honorius, Valentinian III, Maximus, Avitus, Libius Severus, Olybrius, etc. down to Romulus Augustulus. McCain supporters, and especially the economic poobahs who proclaim that all we need is more free trade and less regulation, remind me of the wealthy of the 5th century; they assumed that Rome was eternal, until suddenly it wasn't.

McCain insists on following Bush's economic and foreign policies, but that will lead us in the same downward spiral.

We need something different. Could President Obama say, at least, "We've been going in the wrong direction; we need to change course." He's already said it. We need a President to be like FDR, not so much a visionary as a charismatic who can lead, and is willing to experiment until we find a way to deal with the crisis. We don't need someone who assures us that this tanking economy is "fundamentally sound."

July 9, 08 Obama's Right-wing Budget?

But on the budget, Obama is a progressive when he derides McCain's claim that he'll balance it, while Obama makes no such claim. He says, there are too many important things that require expenditures that will keep us in the red. Like universal health care and better education and infrastructure. Which goes to show that he's more progressive than the Clintons.

Think about it: who benefits from a balanced budget in a recession? Possibly the banks, which would see lower interest rates, and possibly investors--but with some important caveats. Investors won't invest if there is no rising demand for the goods or services they could produce, and besides, they may be more likely to invest in China or Vietnam instead of in the US, especially if McCain prevails, since he's for expanding "free trade" even further.

On the other hand, spending on health care, education and infrastructure would bolster domestic demand directly--as it did when FDR began deficit spending to get us out of the Depression. And, with oil prices likely to keep rising, with the sub-prime mortgage credit crunch still not hitting its peak and the dollar still falling, it's likely our recession won't be far from Depression levels. Or will settle in with stagflation.

So, deficit spending domestically makes sense--unless inflation begins to soar--because the three factors above (oil, credit and the dollar) all subtract from demand--as does money going overseas to the war in Iraq. Since Obama has not "tacked" away from withdrawal from Iraq--he assures us--the savings from the war could finance at least some of his initiatives; allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire would finance more.

Progressive economists were upset when Clinton signed onto budget balancing, because a lot of progressive initiatives were lost through that decision. What was gained? Bush took the surplus and spent it on war and tax cuts, the first depleting our wealth, the second skewing it upwards.

Budget deficits don't make sense when the economy is booming, and they don't make sense when spent on unnecessary wars, or on tax cuts that finance elite pyramids of gold. They do make sense when a nation's schools, roads and health are in disrepair and the economy is in recession, but only a progressive appears to recognize that.

5th century Roman Senators would arrange for the assassination of any Emperor who proposed taxes on them; that's why Rome fell.

July 8, 08 Patriotism For Dummies

Is it true that the new stadia have fewer, more expensive seats? A long-time Yankee fan told me this; it's because it was necessary to make more space for the ridiculously expensive "sky-boxes" leased to large corporations--their CEO's have to have better venues for entertaining their friends and clients.

Meanwhile oil trades at over $140 a barrel. I wrote a blog not six months ago pointing out the likelihood of $100 oil. The dollar falls against the Euro and the Yen, and keeps on falling, especially since the European central bank has decided to raise interest rates to discourage inflation; inflation is hitting here, too, along with rising unemployment, a tanking stockmarket and scarce credit.

But we'll get a bigger Yankee stadium, and maybe we'll be able to sell more of whatever it is we still produce, because of the lower dollar.

Good times.

Dean Baker pointed out in Truthout that "free trade" agreements are really all about creating conditions which pit American factory workers for jobs against Mexican and Indian or Chinese workers, i.e. the agreements are for driving wages down, as well as exporting jobs.

One of the insights that we were supposed to have learned with the New and Fair Deals (FDR and Truman, respectively), was that you needed a prosperous middle class, made up even of factory workers, to fuel the consumer economy necessary for the modern industrial and post-industrial age.

The reason the world economy is on the skids is because American decision-makers have lost sight of that central idea. That's why "supply-side" economics superseded Keynesianism; it's why almost all economic management has been ceded to the Fed. Oh, I forgot about "the stimulus checks." My mother's went to pay another installment in last year's hospital bill (after Medicare). Ours? Who knows; we haven't gotten it yet.

With more and more people falling out of the middle class, the great American consumer engine is sputtering--but we get new and better stadiums. And New Orleans still hasn't been rebuilt, but it looks as if it will exclude poor and minorities when it does. Is that trickle up?

The stadium thing is like the Roman Empire's penchant for "games" and "circuses:" it's much more important to entertain than it is to improve peoples' lives. In Rome, that's all the proletariat was left with: games, the dole and baths. It kept them relatively quiet.

Gee, what a great idea!

July 2, 08 Obama's 1980, 1992--or 1932

Krugman of the NY Times points out that the era feels like one of the former, and it's Obama's choice. He's on target: Obama could be a transformational figure like Reagan, but on the left, or he could be a transitional centrist like Clinton.

So far, while his primary campaign appealed to the Democratic base and "change-oriented" youth, independents and minorities, his post-primary campaign finds him edging toward "the center."

Obama voted for funding the wars to the tune of $162 billion, without any requirements for withdrawal from Iraq; he's avowed support for the FISA renewal bill, even though he's against telecom immunity (or has been) and the bill purportedly provides it in a way that saves face for "centrist" Democrats.

There does seem to be room in the bill as written, however, for criminal cases against both the companies and the administration, so perhaps it's not as bad as it's been made out to be.

Obama also proclaimed qualified approval of the disastrous Supreme Court gun control decision, presumably to appeal to people like my neighbors: there is a shooting range within earshot of my house.

But Obama's appeal, like both Clinton and Reagan, arises largely from the potentiality he represents. I've argued (on this site) that despite his relatively moderate positions, Obama's movement could provide more effective pressure from progressives than was possible after Clinton's election.

That said, Krugman made the point that Reagan campaigned for identifiably conservative positions, so that when he was elected overwhelmingly, there was a definite mandate for them. Clinton, on the other hand, was rather vague about his program, and what there was of it was decidedly incremental; he did not offer sweeping change, and we never got it.

Obama, programmatically, sounds more like Clinton so far: offering incremental, not sweeping change. That's too bad, because the country feels ready for more than Clinton redux--so much has gone wrong since W took office. Even a lot of Hillary voters supported her because a woman President would represent major change.

The point of this website is that business-as-usual will lead us closer to what happened to Rome in the fifth century, whereas we (and the world) would be a lot better off if we began gracefully to extricate ourselves from Empire, to follow the British rather than the Spanish or Roman path. That requires sweeping change, however.

Actually, I hope the real parallel to this era is 1932--economically, Bush is most like Hoover. FDR offered hope, not specifics, a more conservative economics, and then ushered in the New Deal; 1936 was the real change election,