0 votes

Obama's Failing "Corporatist" Presidency

Obama, more than Al Gore, George W. Bush, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, has been the most fully realized CONSENSUS CORPORATIST CANDIDATE of the last decade. His policies reflect a revival of the overt corporatist model prevalent in Bill Clinton's first two years, with a vengeance. Obama's economic rescue package was written by Wall Street, through Timothy Geithner and company; the same will be true of any "financial regulation reform" that ensues from Washington. Big business, with some input from big labor, has already written the immigration bill, quietly resting with Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham, ready to be sprung when the time is ready; it will narrow citizenship rights and redefine immigration from a strictly economic point of view. Energy companies are fully incorporated into the writing of the climate and energy bills. The military writes war policy (General Stanley McChrystal's little "rebellion," as Obama was supposedly "thinking out" Afghanistan war policy, was all the more ironic for its pure redundancy). Any legislation that comes out of Washington can only be corporatist in tendency (this will be further enhanced by the Supreme Court striking down campaign finance restrictions), and will only make things in each of the realms -- energy, finance, immigration, health care -- worse, by definition, since genuine redistributive/egalitarian thinking is completely off the table. - Huffington Post

Dominant Social Theme: Corporatism must yield to egalitarianism.

Free-Market Analysis: This article, written by a young author with the Huffington Post, really got us thinking about political labeling. The article is certainly, in our opinion, written from a leveling perspective, as Samuel Johnson would say, and seems to bemoan the lack of sincere, activist government. Nonetheless, the analysis of the PROBLEM is quite cogent and timely.

The author makes the point that prevailing political operational philosophy is corporatism. We, in fact, have been taking a page from Mises in labeling the American system increasingly socialist - and it is. But in a sense, to call the actual leadership environment "corporatist" allows one the freedom to make some associations that might not otherwise be readily available, if one is used to free-market thinking.

We read recently somewhere that despite the evident obvious problems with the current government theories involving 9/11 - and the equally mendacious reasons given for starting the ever-shifting, crazy quilt of Middle Eastern wars - the American "corporate" consensus simply wouldn't allow a thorough re-examination of these issues that might lead to significant alternative truths. We thought at the time this was an interesting point. But juxtapose this corporate consensus to the larger concept of a corporatist state, and it makes even more sense. The front-facing power structure (which the power elite stands behind) is neither right nor left from this point of view but an amalgamation of power players. Here's some more from the article:

http://thedailybell.com/index.asp