Sunday, December 19, 2010

Wall Street’s Theft and Its Hold on Power: Back to reality after the high of the DADT overturn. Good feelings cannot last forever especially since the American public’s Wall Street ire has seen fit in its infinite wisdom to elect Republicans (the party of Wall Street) who are double the right wingnut extreme of the last Party of No in the 111th Congress. This one will provide, I suspect, even more hair ripping moments for people of my political persuasion. Moreover, since many of the state legislatures are in Republican control the Congress for the next election may prove even more difficult for Obama’s 2012 hoped-for victory. My good mood, therefore lasted exactly 24 hours.

Quoting from MSNBC:

The 2010 census report coming out Tuesday will include a boatload of good political news for Republicans and grim data for Democrats hoping to re-elect President Barack Obama and rebound from last month's devastating elections.


The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.


I love the NYT economic editorialist Paul Krugman. Mr. Krugman has a way of putting one of the most complex Wall Street theft stories and its parasitic hold on power into simple terms the Everyman can understand. I believe what he says in his NYT editorial last week. I link his post “Wall Street White Wash” below.

I have thought from Day 1 of the Obama presidency and during his ultimate selection of the banksters for his economic advisers -- the foxes who got the chickens nearly killed -- that he should have put Dr. Krugman and forces like him who are allied to the middle class and not to Wall Street, at his side. Krugman's predictions so often are correct.

President Obama did not do all I thought he would when I voted for him. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has tempered my otherwise down-in-the-dumps feelings but I have for two years been scratching my head and wondering why he is not the man I thought I knew whether it was about health care, tax cuts, civil liberties or war. Here is some of the analysis about which I gave a great deal of thought:

I believe the president knew from the moment he stepped into office that there are forces of money and power in Washington, in the country and, indeed, in the world that even the president cannot control. He realized in no time that they, in fact, controlled him. I believe he, too, has a compromising personality as his time on the Harvard Law Review suggested. The tax deal and health care were symbolic of his understanding that legislation is about compromise. The question becomes, however, will the other side accept that premise too especially in our new even more decidedly “conservative” majority House and with the Republican gains in the Senate as well. Mr. President, keep your handy dandy veto pen in close proximity.

Washington is bought, sold and owned by huge corporate banking and industrial (often military) moneyed interests. While the fact of this monstrosity may not have been Obama's cup of tea he had a proclivity to politely drink what he was offered knowing it was probably an offer he could not refuse.

He knew he could not overrule the banks and their lobbying interests stuffed with cash. Moreover, (I'm going out on a limb) maybe he even feared for his life if he challenged them. Recently, I have been reading a book entitled "Family of Secrets" about the Bush family dating back to W’s grandfather and H.W. Bush’s father, Prescott Bush.

Their Yale Skull and Bones comrades and other good-ole-boy connections with their attendant right wing political and business ideological rigidity always remained secret but a source for the acquisition of monumental power. Many of their connections were in banking and oil and, in the book, there is speculation, albeit unverifiable, about their relationship to the JFK assassination. The author suggests that a cozy clandestine relationship of right wing business and government interests had a desire to see JFK removed from office. The author submits that certain high powers within our government thought JFK was not sufficiently committed to their military, industrial, anti-Communist acquisition-of-oil from-South-America purposes. Who knows if there is truth to the author’s writing? I suggest you read the book. Let’s just say, I am reasonably satisfied that what is true about the JFK assassination is not contained in the government-produced “Warren Report.” Kennedy made a lot of enemies especially on the right.

Perhaps, the president senses the real truth of government power, has a personality amenable to compromise, and ignored much of his take-for-granted base which he gave a few but nonetheless important tidbits. Much of his presidency is an extension of the oligarchy that has, in truth, existed for decades and it will, indeed, pay any price and bear any burden to keep that power and wealth situated in the same hands of a few at the expense of the many.

If we as progressives cannot win policy even with formerly the most liberal member of the Senate elected to the pinnacle of power then we, perhaps, never will. Unless there is a true non-violent uprising of the people for humanitarian purposes on the left and not just the corporately bought off white tea bagging often ignorant nationalist clones on the right, we might have a better chance! Until then Wall Street’s theft and hold on power will be, seemingly, eternal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

No comments: