Month: February 2010

It’s Getting Hot In Here

by digby

I guess the long knives are out. Here’s the first of what I assume will be more to come:

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] pain”, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

Ok, before we go any further, I have to interrupt and point out that there is a missing explanation here: perhaps the problem is that everyone, apparently including the Obama team and this reporter, insisted on actually believing that the election signaled a fundamental shift in the political landscape so huge that the earth was knocked off its axis and everything was different. In other words, far too many people believed the hype, which I understand was very, very seductive, but it was foolish, nonetheless.

The problems were always huge, the system was always broken, the Republicans were always nuts. For some reason it was convenient to ignore all that pretend that we had had a rebirth all shiny and new and that if the worst happened, Obama could always just make a speech and everything would fall into place. Nobody’s as good a politician as he was assumed to be — and that assumption came from a presidential campaign that could have probably been won by anyone with a D after his name, which makes it even more facile. It was hubris, and we all know where that leads.

The piece goes on to reveal that Obama is being badly served by his closest advisors, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, who apparently dominate decision making in the White house and in the view of whoever is is talking, insulate the president from more diverse thinking and give him bad advice. The thesis is that they are political hacks who are preventing the president from making sound policy decisions. If the anecdotes are true, that may be the case, especially in a time when good politics depends so heavily on good policy.

It’s fascinating, of course, because it’s gossip and because some in the White House and others close to the administration have decided to try to dethrone these four. The courtiers are rebelling. That’s usually not a good sign. It will be interesting to see if Obama reacts.

I would just point out two things. First, this is exactly the set-up which everyone admired so much about the first term Reagan White House. He was surrounded by three close aides, Deaver, Meese and Baker, who insulated his beautiful mind from outside influence. It’s surprising how much the Obama administration modeled itself on Reagan. And it’s vaguely disturbing, as well, since the political landscape is radically different even if the economy is equally stressed. Plus, Reagan was an elderly, white Republican, which alone makes it a different political universe.

The second point is that these stories always act as if the president is a simple child who has no agency in all this. The fact is that if there’s one job he has above all others as chief executive, it’s choosing the very best people to run the administration. If he’s surrounding himself with political aides whose jobs it is to protect the Obama brand or whatever, it’s his decision to do so.

What this really signals is that the Obama bubble has conclusively popped and people are now dealing with political realities. Believing that he was some kind of wizard whose very person was imbued with the power to change reality with a few well chosen words wasted a lot of time. But if its over, I’m very glad of it. Now maybe they can start looking at problems realistically and understand just how hard they have to fight to solve them.

And Rahm, by the way, is way more trouble than he’s worth. Even Nixon’s advisors were more subtle — and far more lethal. You don’t keep a nasty henchman who makes enemies of everyone and inspires loathing by his very presence if he can’t even get the job done.

Steve Clemons has more, here.

.

Put Their Mouths Where Their Money Is

by digby

Following up on the post below, I think this is would be a good idea as well:

Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “roadmap” budget plan — which calls for balancing the budget in 50 years by effectively privatizing Social Security and Medicare — could become an excellent political tool for the Democrats, says former Clinton adviser Paul Begala.

Begala, in an interview today with TPM, said Democrats should force the GOP to bring their ideas into the public eye.

“Why don’t we put Mr. Ryan’s budget up to a vote?” he said. “Make them vote on it.”

Democrats, he argued, should stop calling Republicans the “party of no.”

“They have ideas, and lots of them. And their ideas ruin the country,” Begala said.

What the Democrats have to do, he said, is make the 2010 elections a choice between Democratic and Republican ideas, instead of a referendum on just the Dems. (A point Chuck Todd made earlier this week.) The way to do it, he said, is to highlight those GOP ideas.

Begala said the White House has already begun to do this, with both President Obama and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag mentioning Ryan’s budget.

And Congressional Dems have seized on the opportunity to call out the provisions that would privatize Social Security. Reps. Chris Larson and Linda Sanchez have introduced a resolution opposing such privatization, which would force Republican lawmakers to vote on the idea.

The minute I heard they were talking about Republican Paul Ryan’s social security-slashing shock therapy budget I knew they had finally decided to politically confront the conservatives head on. They don’t have much practice at this kind of politics and they are likely to be scolded mercilessly by David Broder, so who knows if they will actually do it. But it’s one of the only ways the Democrats can illustrate the logical consequences of Republican rhetoric. It takes ruthless, political skills that I’m not sure they have, but considering that they are dealing with an insane opposition they’d better get some if they want to keep their majority.

Certainly, if the people of this country are to understand what radical right wing ideology is really all about (and, conversely, what liberal ideology is all about) this dialog needs to take place

.

Simple

by digby

There’s an awful lot of frustration out here, and everyone keeps telling us that the teabaggers and the “Scott Brown” Republicans are somehow speaking to it. But offering the same old “free market” theology that got us into this mess. Unfortunately, the Democrats aren’t offering anything better.

Darcy Burner says it’s time to pick a fight:

If there’s a silver lining to what’s happened over the last several months with healthcare reform, the Citizens United decision, the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat, and discussions about the need to reform the filibuster, that silver lining is this: it’s ripped the mask off of the real problem we’ve been struggling with. It’s made it obvious that we are suffering from the degree to which our government institutions have been captured by corporations. We are dealing with a problem in which too many elected officials on both sides of the aisle serve the interests of those corporations more than the people they’re supposed to be representing.

[…]

Next week, there’s going to be a test in Congress. A real litmus test about whose side various Representatives and Senators are on. It’s a stunningly straightforward bill – only two pages long – that would simply remove the antitrust exemption for health insurers. It would keep insurers from being able to collude and price fix, requiring them to compete in the marketplace for business.

Unlike nearly everything else that’s been done in the last year, this bill is completely uncompromised – no deals have been cut to water down the bill in favor of health insurance companies. It is an unambiguously populist bill, and a clean cut against corporatism. It’s building off of work that key progressives in the House, including Reps. DeFazio, Slaughter, and DeGette, have been teeing up for years.

Yesterday, Reps. Tom Perriello and Betsy Markey, the lead sponsors of the bill, had a press conference in the snow in DC. And the insurance industry was scared enough to show up and start passing out information indicating that if they had to compete with each other and stop colluding, that would somehow result in insurance prices going up. I kid you not.

So here’s the deal: we need to watch the bill, and see who’s on which side. And then, I think, we need to make a really big deal of it. Because this is the first unambiguous litmus test we’ve had, and it’s so straightforward that even my Republican dad will agree. Vote against this bill, and it means you’re in the pocket of the insurance companies. Very, very simple.

The campaign ads write themselves, don’t they?

.

Beer Track

by digby

USA Today gives us a little preview of the Tea Partier’s dream debate October 2012:

First, Obama on his overall approach:

Everything we’ve done over the past year has been not only to right our economy, to break the back of this recession, but also to restore some of the security middle-class families have felt slipping away for over a decade now.

The Republicans:

Some of the steps we took were done without the help of the other party, which made a political decision all too often to jump in the backseat, let us do the driving and then critique whether we were taking the right turns. That’s okay. That’s part of what it means to govern.

On Washington:

Folks are out there working hard every day, trying to meet their responsibilities. But all around them during this last, “lost” decade, what they’ve seen is a wave of irresponsibility from Wall Street to Washington — they see a capital city where every day is treated like Election Day, and every act, every comment, every gesture passes through a political filter. They’ve seen the out sized influence of lobbyists and special interests, who too often hijack the agenda by leveraging campaign money and connections.

On reports that he’s prepared to accept defeat on health care:

So just in case there’s any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform.

On national security:

We have begun to leave Iraq to its own people. We’ve charted a new way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and made good progress in taking the fight to al Qaeda across the globe.

And here’s Palin (from her Nashville appearance) on:

The Obama agenda:

How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff workin’ out for you?

The Tea Party movement:

This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any one king or queen of a tea party, and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.

On national security:

Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we’re at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standin’ at the lectern.

Her own future:

My plan is quite simple. To support those who support the foundation of our country when it comes to the economy. It is free market principles that reward hard work and personal responsibility.

On Obama and recent Democratic election losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey:

When you’re 0-3 you’d better stop lecturing and start listening.

It seems obvious to me that she’s a mess, but then I thought George W. Bush sounded just as vapid and he served eight years. After that, I lost my confidence that the American people couldn’t possibly find that kind of empty folksiness to be a sign of leadership. Indeed, I suspect there are quite a few people for whom George W. Bush is the prototype president, so this might make them feel all warm and comfortable. Never say never.

.

Squids And Showdogs Working Together

by digby
 
The NY Times published an interesting article today about Goldman and AIG that doesn’t really break any new ground, but puts the narrative together nicely, charts and graphs included. If you haven’t been following the saga of the thick and plodding AIG getting squeezed by the Vampire Squid, this is as good a place to catch up as any.

The question of whether or not Goldman did anything illegal or was just doing what any dominant capitalistic predator would do remains unknown. But I was actually more interested in the questions raised at Naked Capitalism about what was missing from the piece rather than what was in it:

Doubts about the monolines were becoming serious in the first acute phase of the credit crisis, September-October 2007. They were a daily focus in the business press in January-February 2008. Bear went under and was rescued because its failure would have rocked the CDS market.

There might have been a defensible case for denial of the seriousness of the problems afflicting the CDS market up through March of 2008. The Bear meltdown, the fact that the ratings agencies were starting systematic, aggressive downgrades of CDOs, and the belief that Lehman and Merrill were next to go meant understanding the risk of mortgage-related CDS exposures was imperative to understanding systemic risks. Even a cursory examination would have led straight to AIG. The “oh were weren’t their regulator” is an implausible excuse. The Fed and the SEC most assuredly WERE regulators of the parties exposed to AIG.

And this inattention raises further issues. Virtually all of the Goldman CDO exposures with AIG were entered into when Paulson was CEO of Goldman. Why has there been no inquiry into his role in overseeing, and ultimately profiting, from these deals?

AIG’s failure to understand the implications of the current market values and downgrades underlying its CDOs sheds light on its CDO underwriting process (or more accurately, lack thereof). How widespread was this problem at other companies? Did anyone that invested in (or insured) these deals really understand them? It suggests that only reason any of these parties were involved in these deals was because they were rated AAA. Yet to date, the SEC, Treasury and Fed have done nothing to address the essentially misleading nature of AAA ratings on such bonds.

Although details are emerging bit by bit on CDOs and credit default swaps, there is still a great deal that is not out in the open. The failure of regulators to push for much larger-scale inquiries suggests at best a troubling complacency, or at worst, the knowledge that a full bore investigation will reflect very poorly on the powers that be.

After watching the interview with Paulson and Greenspan on Meet The Press this morning. I’m guessing the latter.

Among other things, they told us that nobody could have ever predicted that real estate could be a bad investment and that deficits are the biggest threats the world has ever known, but that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the wrong thing to do and we have to cut social security or the terrorists will win.

Henry Paulson is one of the world’s ruling oligarchs.  And when asked whether or not he thinks that the Wall Street bonuses are outrageous or if he has any regrets about the bailouts, he repeatedly deflects the question by saying that we need regulatory reform, specifically a risk management provision of some sort.  Maybe I’m wrong, but I assume he’s talking about the proposed FDIC authority in the financial reform bill, which flies in the face of the Luntz talking points characterizing this as a “permanent bailout” fund.

I don’t trust Paulson in these matters so I’m assuming that there’s either something wrong with this FDIC authority — or Paulson sees another catastrophic failure of the financial sector, knows there will be no more bailouts forthcoming and is trying to foreclose the final slaughtering of the golden goose. Any ideas? Is he begging for someone to stop them before they pillage again?

Anyway, if you want to see the Frick and Frack of financial elite failure (with their performing showdog Dave helpfully keeping the questions light) here’s one section of the discussion:

.

She’s Getting It

by digby

I mentioned the other day that Palin still didn’t understand how to use political correctness as a proper wingnut weapon.

She’s finally figured it out:

WALLACE: White House Chief of Staff — you mention him — Rahm Emanuel. You called him out. He used the “R” word. He said, “retarded.” He has now apologized for using that word, met with activists, said he’s going to join the campaign to try to eliminate use of that word —

PALIN: Oh, you know, Rahm Emanuel, I think he had some indecent and insensitive ways of being, including his language. And as I said for a variety go reasons, giving the President poor advice and his heavy handedness. I think he should step down.

I’m not politically correct. I am not one to be a word police. But I do believe that his insensitivity, in a time when I had just promised in my GOP convention speech that those with special needs and families and those who love those with special needs would have a friend, and a advocate in the White House if John McCain and I were so blessed as to be elected.

That didn’t stop me because our votes didn’t carry the day, we didn’t win. That didn’t stop my passion, my commitment to reaching out and to helping the special needs community when they asked for it. And they did ask for it on this one. They reached out to me and said, can you kind of highlight the problem that we have the White House, with both the President and his Chief of Staff being so insensitive to the special needs community. And I said, I’m here. Send me. I will do so.

WALLACE: OK. But Rush Limbaugh weighed in this week. And he said this:
“Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.”

PALIN: He was satirical (ph) in that –
–
WALLACE: Wait a minute, let me finish.

PALIN: OK.

WALLACE: “I mean, these people, these liberal activists are quote, kooks.”
Should Rush Limbaugh apologize?

PALIN: They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct–

WALLACE: But he used the “R” word.

PALIN: Using satire. Name calling by anyone — I teach this to my children, you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too.
Name calling by anyone, it’s just unnecessary. It just wastes time.
Let’s speak to the issues and —

WALLACE: But you know what some people are going to say, Governor, and have said. They say, look, when it’s her political adversary Rahm Emanuel, she’s going to call him out, he’s indecent, apologize. But when it’s a political friend like Rush Limbaugh, oh it’s satire.

PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with “F-ing retards.” And we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it’s been reported, did say that. That’s a big difference there.

But again, name calling, using language that is insensitive by anyone– male, female, Republican, Democrat, it’s unnecessary, it’s inappropriate and let’s all just grow up.

Also, she said in this interview it would be absurd not to consider running for president and that the problem with Obama is that he was too inexperienced for high office.

It’s still early in the morning, but I think I’ll start my Super Bowl drinking right now.

.

Tough Guy?

by digby

If this is true, the man really is worthless:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel vehemently opposed Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to put alleged September 11 plotters on trial in a civilian court, according to a new account from the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer.

“Rahm felt very, very strongly that it was a mistake to prosecute the 9/11 people in the federal courts, and that it was picking an unnecessary fight with the military-commission people,” Mayer quoted an “informed source” as saying.

The New Yorker story says Emanuel’s opposition was driven in part by concerns that the decision would alienate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

This is from Jane Mayer who is very credible, so I tend to believe it. The idea that Lindsay graham can be appeased by anything, much less by this is so absurd that I can only assume that rahm was using this as an excuse. it simply defies reason that he thinks Graham xcan be counted on. He has always been a perfidious little creep. He likes to see himself as a “maverick” but everyone should have long ago realized that Republican mavericks always use their “maverickyiness” to screw Democrats. That’s the role they’ve been assigned.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Pre-game movie marathon

By Dennis Hartley

This being Super Bowl weekend and all, I figured this would be as good a time as any to trot out my Top 10 Favorite Sports Films (and some alternatives). As per usual, my list is arranged alphabetically, not in ranking order. So, ladies and gentlemen-start your DVD’s!

Bend It Like Beckham – Director/co-writer Gurinder Chadha whips up a cross-cultural masala that mixes the time-tested formula of the “cheering the underdog” sports film with Bollywood-style flourishes. Her story centers around a headstrong young woman (Parminder Nagra) who is upsetting her traditional Sikh parents by pursuing her “silly” dream to follow in the footsteps of her idol, David Beckham and become an English soccer star. Chadha also weaves in a subtle subtext on the difficulties that South Asian immigrants face assimilating into British culture. Great support on hand from Juliet Stevenson, Keira Knightley and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (as a likable character, for once).

Breaking Away – This beautifully realized slice of middle-Americana from director Peter Yates and writer Steve Tesich (who picked up an Oscar for his screenplay) is a perfect film on so many levels. More than just a sports movie, it’s a genuinely touching “coming of age” story and one of the most insightful ruminations about the simple joys and surprisingly complex social fabric of small town life you’ll ever see on film. Dennis Christopher excels as a 19-year old Bloomington, Indiana resident obsessed with bicycle racing, a pretty coed and anything Italian. He and his pals (played to perfection by Dennis Quaid, Daniel Stern and Jackie Earle Haley- all unknowns at the time) are on the cusp of adulthood and unsure of what they are going to do with their lives. Barbara Barrie and Paul Dooley both give genuinely funny and warm performances as Christopher’s parents.

Bull Durham – Writer-director Ron Shelton really knocked one out of the park with this very funny, insightfully written and splendidly acted rumination on life, love, and oh yeah-baseball. Kevin Costner gives one of his better performances as a seasoned, world-weary minor league catcher who reluctantly plays mentor to a somewhat dim hotshot rookie pitcher (Tim Robbins). Susan Sarandon is a poetry-spouting baseball groupie who selects one player every season to take under her wing and do some, er, special mentoring of her own. A complex love triangle ensues. It’s sort of Jules and Jim meets The Natural. I miss whip-smart, “adult” comedies like this-they are sadly MIA these days.

Downhill Racer – This frequently overlooked 1969 film from director Michael Ritchie examines the tightly-knit and highly competitive world of Olympic downhill skiing. Robert Redford is cast against type, and consequently delivers one of his more interesting performances as a talented but arrogant athlete who joins up with the U.S. Olympic ski team. Gene Hackman is outstanding (as always) as the coach who finds himself at frequent loggerheads with Redford’s contrarian demeanor (he makes John McEnroe seem like a lovable guy). The film has a cinema verite feel that gives the story a realistic edge.

Fat City – This 1972 character study is one of John Huston’s lesser-known works, but IMHO it is one of his finest. Stacey Keach is outstanding as an alcoholic, down-and-out prizefighter who becomes a mentor for a neophyte (Jeff Bridges). Susan Tyrrell is a standout as Keach’s love interest (she deservedly received a Best Supporting Actress nomination). If you prefer Rocky-style boxing yarns, you’ll find no sentimentality or audience pandering here. The song “Help Me Make it Through the Night” haunts the film, and has never sounded so bittersweet. A bit of a downer…but well worth your time.

Hoop Dreams – One of the most universally praised documentaries ever, with good reason. Ostensibly “about” basketball, it is at its heart about perseverance, love, and family-which is why it struck a chord with audiences as well as critics. Director Steve James follows the lives of two young men from the inner city as they pursue their dreams of becoming professional basketball players over a five year period. Just when you think you have the narrative pigeonholed, it goes off in some unexpected directions, resulting in a riveting tale that you really couldn’t make up. This film is a winner, in every respect.

North Dallas Forty – Nick Nolte and Mac Davis lead a fantastic ensemble cast in this locker room peek at the lifestyles of pro football players and the machinations of team owners. Some of the antics are allegedly based on the real-life hijinx of the Dallas Cowboys, replete with wild parties and other assorted off-field debaucheries. Charles Durning (who scored a career achievement award from the Screen Actor’s Guild back in 2008) is perfect as the coach. Peter Gent adapted the screenplay from his original novel. This film is so entertaining that I can almost forgive director Ted Kotcheff for foisting Rambo: First Blood and Weekend at Bernie’s on us a little later in his career…

Personal Best – When this film was first released, there was so much fuss made over a couple of brief (and tastefully done) love scenes between Mariel Hemingway and co-star Patrice Donnelly that many failed to notice that it was one of the most realistic, non-condescending portraits of female athletes to ever reach movie screens. Writer-director Robert Towne did his homework; his pre-production research included spending some time closely observing Olympic track stars at work and at play. The women in his story are shown to be every bit as tough and competitive as their male counterparts; Hemingway and (real-life pentathlete) Donnelly deserve credit for not sugar-coating their characterizations in any way. Scott Glenn is excellent as the women’s hard driving coach.

Slap Shot – A puckish satire. Paul Newman skates away with his role as the coach of a slumping minor league hockey team in this classic, directed by George Roy Hill. When Newman learns about a possible sale of the franchise, he decides to pull out all the stops and start playing “dirty” hockey. The entire ensemble is outstanding, and screenwriter Nancy Dowd’s riotously profane locker room dialogue will have you rolling. Newman’s Cool Hand Luke co-star Strother Martin (as the team’s manager) handily steals all of his scenes. Lindsey Crouse (in a rare comedic role) is memorable as a sexually frustrated “sports wife”. Michael Ontkean performs the funniest male striptease bit in film history, and the endearingly sociopathic “Hanson brothers” simply have to be seen to be believed.

This Sporting Life (1963) – This movie was part of the string of “angry young man” dramas that stormed out of the U.K. in the late 50s/early 60s. Films like Look Back in Anger, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning and The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner were steeped in “kitchen sink” realism and English working class angst. This Sporting Life was an important watermark for both its director (Lindsay Anderson) and star (Richard Harris). A Brando-esque young Harris tears up the screen as a thuggish, egotistical rugby player who has a gift for the game and becomes an overnight sports star.

Part 2: That’s like, your opinion, man: Top 10 Most Off-the-Wall Sports Films

Okay, so maybe you’re not particularly in the mood for the inspirational locker room speech, the decisive last minute rally or to cheer for the underdog. Perhaps your tastes lean more towards the cultish and the offbeat? No worries, I’ve got all your, um, bases covered this evening. Here are my picks for the Top 10 Most Off-the-Wall Sports Films:

All The Marbles-A droll sleeper with Peter Falk as the manager of a female wrestling tag team. This was director Robert Aldrich’s final film (Kiss Me Deadly, The Dirty Dozen).

The Big Lebowski– I will admit that I am not quite as enamored as the cultish devotees, but this is THE sports film for those who sure as shit do not fucking roll on Shabbos.

Bite the Bullet-Out of his myriad films, Gene Hackman has declared this unique western about a long-distance horse race to be his personal favorite. Who am I to say neigh?

Caddyshack-Jesus, I know a lot of people who worship this movie. A tad overrated, IMHO, but Bill Murray, Rodney Dangerfield, Chevy Chase and Ted Knight are all aces.

Cockfighter-Regretfully, I cannot guarantee that no animals were harmed in the making of this film, but it features a career-best performance by the late great Warren Oates.

Death Race 2000(1975)-God, I miss Paul Bartel. Avoid the 2008 remake at all costs.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters-An amazing documentary about some very obsessed video game competitors. You truly could not make these characters up. See it.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome-You know the rules. Two men enter…

The Seventh Seal-Don’t give me that look. Chess counts as a sport.

Shaolin Soccer-Shaolin monks apply their martial arts prowess on the soccer field. This could only come from the mind of Stephen Chow (Kung Fu Hustle). It’s tons o’ fun!

.

The Same The World Over

by digby

This post from Bill Black says it all:

Hans-Olaf Henkel was one of the primary German architects of the global financial crisis in his capacity as leader of the association that lobbied on behalf of Germany’s large businesses. He has written recently that a number of the CEOs running those businesses should be placed in a “Halle der Schande” (Hall of Shame). One hopes that he will find his continued association with them congenial when he his given the most prominent pedestal in that Hall.

Herr Henkel was the leading German business proponent of deregulation and the executive compensation systems that drove the global crisis. He brought a special passion to denouncing German tendencies toward social equality and the resulting cultural limitations on executive compensation. The government and equality were the twin evils and when the government sought to increase equality the combination was Henkel’s ultimate nightmare. It was certain, therefore, that he would blame the global crisis on government efforts to reduce discrimination against working class, particularly minority, Americans. It was equally certain that he would be enraged when Professor Galbraith refuted this claim. Herr Henkel replied:

Mr. Galbraith should familiarize himself Jimmy Carter’s “Housing and Community Development Act” where in Section VIII Banks were prohibited the practice of “red lining” which until then enabled them to distinguish “better living quarters” and “slums.”

It is not common to read nostalgia about the good old racist days when the government (the FHA) and businesses worked together to prevent loans from being made to blacks. Herr Henkel has an interesting concept of causality. His “logic” is that blacks, not the denial of home loans, caused “slums.” Banks, naturally, did not loan to blacks because blacks lived in slums. They drew “red lines” on maps around “slums” where they would not lend. Then came what Herr Henkel terms the “do-goodism” among politicians that banned the red lining of integrated and black neighborhoods (aka, “slums” in Henkel’s world view). The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (passed under President Johnson) outlawed redlining. Under Henkel’s “logic” it, after over a 30-year latency period, caused the global financial crisis. Black borrowers (“slum” dwellers all) destroyed the global economy. And Jews caused Germany to lose World War I by stabbing it in the back.

But it gets better. Herr Henkel claims that he is on a mission to fight a blood libel. He is enraged that opponents of the disastrous financial system smear (Verunglimpfen) that system on the basis of the wrongdoing of the CEOs leading our most elite banks. This makes his casual, fact-free, smear of blacks all the more appalling and hypocritical.

Obviously blacks and Mexicans caused the financial crisis. Everybody knows that. The smartest, most productive members of society couldn’t possibly devastate the world economy while reaping huge rewards for themselves. That wouldn’t make any sense at all.

.

Solution Shortage

by digby

I don’t know if you happened to catch Bill Moyers last night, but it featured one of the most confusing and unsatisfying debates I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t because the debaters were bad. (It was liberal Lawrence Lessig and libertarian Nick Gillespie.) It was clearly because nobody really knows how to deal with the immense problem of corporate money in politics.

I come down on Lessig’s side generally, and found Gillespie to be nearly incoherent. But Lessig’s comments were unsatisfying as well. Public financing is good, but I don’t think it solves the problem of this glut of corporate money in politics and the intellectual capture of virtually all members of the ruling class by the worst players in the financial industry.

These two fellows are as smart as anyone and yet I got the feeling by the end of the discussion that while they certainly disagreed about the Citizens United ruling (the libertarian being typically blase about the power of big money) to the extent they agreed that the system was dysfunctional, neither of them really had the vaguest clue about how to fix it.

LAWRENCE LESSIG: … That’s why I think we’ve got to begin to think about a constitutional change that makes possible or secures reform. Now, I think we should push for citizen-funded elections today. And there’s a bill right now in Congress, the Larson-Jones bill that would achieve it. And let’s risk the Roberts court. But in the longer run, I think we’ve got to take back control of our democracy, both from the lobbyists and from the Supreme Court and set up a system where we can believe once again in what our government does.

BILL MOYERS: And in the long run, what do you think we ought to do?

NICK GILLESPIE: I, well, you know, I think that we should move in the direction that Citizens United is pointing. And to have less campaign finance regulation. Because that will increase the amount and variety of speech. When you talk about having, you know, controlling or taking back our democracy, that means saying, “Okay, you can speak now. You cannot speak now.” In the end, it’s about the suppression of speech, which is the most dangerous thing.

I don’t like corporations. I don’t like politicians. I, for whatever reason, I love free speech. And I see this decision as enabling more of that, which will help me and my, you know, gang of ragtag utopians, hopefully, pull off the caper of the 21st century, and actually work towards a government that, you know, does its proper functions well, and leaves us the rest alone, to live our lives in peace.

LAWRENCE LESSIG: So, yay, free speech, we agree about that.

NICK GILLESPIE: Absolutely.

LAWRENCE LESSIG: Horrible, horrible lobbyist, fundraising Congress. We also used to agree about that, at the end of your video. So, I should think we agree. We should have more free speech and less control by lobbyists or the funders. And have a Congress that cares about the people and not about their funders.

NICK GILLESPIE: And we can do that now. We don’t need a constitutional amendment. What we need to do is to say to our congressmen, “If you vote for this law, if you vote for this policy, you’re done. You’re fried.” And that can happen. And it has happened. And it should happen more. I think we are moving into a world of more engaged politics, more participatory politics, because of the internet. Because of other dimensions of life. Decentralization of power or rather of knowledge, if not of political power. And it will lead to a decentralization of political power.

Does any of that happy talk inspire confidence? I certainly agree that we should try to defeat candidates who disappoint us. Obviously. But it’s not really going to be any easier when corporations can buy up every ad slot in the weeks going into an election, is it? I’ll certainly do my best to “get the word out” but you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not quite as rosy about the future of our participatory democracy in the wake of this decision as Mr Libertarian is. And yes, constitutional amendments are good and we should take back our country.

That’s it?

.