The Obama-Clinton Status Quo

Obama campaigned as a Progressive, but governed as a Neoliberal in economic policy and as a Neoconservative in national security matters. Bill Curry reminds us about what he said and what he…

Obama campaigned as a Progressive, but governed as a Neoliberal in economic policy and as a Neoconservative in national security matters. Bill Curry reminds us about what he said and what he actually did in an article today. In recalling the 2008 election–

Voters knew the problem wasn’t “partisan gridlock” but a hammerlock of special interests. They could abide politicians’ incivility but not their corruption. Obama added some policy meat to the metaphorical bone of his message. He called whistle-blowers heroes and vowed to strengthen freedom of information, to let C-SPAN cameras film healthcare negotiations, end no-bid contracts, close revolving doors and never hire lobbyists to handle matters of special concern to their ex-clients. By late fall, nearly every speech he gave ended in a rousing call for reform.

Breaking those vows was the original sin of the Obama administration. No C-SPAN cameras ever filmed a meeting. He didn’t treat whistle-blowers as heroes; he broke records prosecuting them. He didn’t end no-bid contracts; he increased them. He didn’t ban lobbyists; he recruited them. (Healthcare industry consultants drove that team; he even hired a defense lobbyist to oversee Pentagon procurement policy.) Revolving doors kept swinging; every ex-Obama staffer you ever heard of now sits on some comfy corporate perch.  Republicans didn’t kill the reforms. Obama had the power to implement each one by executive order, but chose not to.

In 2008, Obama raised more money from big business than any candidate in either party’s history and in 2009 he hired the most conservative economic team of any Democratic president since Grover Cleveland. He then sided with insurers against a public option, with banks against rescuing homeowners and with business against raising the minimum wage. If you’re highly educated and care more about cultural than economic issues, you may not have noticed. If you’re financially pressed, you may be torn between Sanders and Trump, or have given up on politics altogether.

There are so many other things to talk about as well. So within the Neoliberal/Neoconservative Beltway consensus, Obama is less right wing than many than hardcore economic libertarians and national security hawks, but he is very comfortably situated within that consensus, and so is Hillary. 

Bernie clearly is not. And one has to wonder, if elected, how the establishment, both the plutocratic extremist Right and the security-obsessed Deep State types in the CIA and NSA would react to his taking over. They could live with Trump, but Sanders would be extremely hard for them to accept, and there is enough real power in both those sectors to push back in ways we might not want to think about.

For a long time now I've wondered if we've been living in what has become essentially a ceremonial democracy, and that no real power resides with the people we elect and send to Washington. But that's another reason I'd like to see Bernie elected. I fear that unelected entrenched power is too deeply entrenched, but I would like to see somebody like Bernie take it on if for no other reason than to see whether things are too far gone. His election would bring, if nothing else, a moment of clarity. 

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *