The Corporate Left

Post Reply New Topic

Of what use is a powerless president? He gained the office on the basis of many proposals to turn around the disastrous directions of the previous administration and all he seems to be doing is sliding down the same slippery slope.His cabinet appointments are indicative of his directions and they are, to be highly complementary, totally discouraging.

This article http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01042010.html might be worthy of contemplation as to how much change in direction the current administration has made.

The United States is by and large fearful of radical change, and just Barack Obama's being elected is way too much change for a significant, vocal minority. The president does not act by fiat but is bound by Congress and the Supreme Court. More practically, changing the policies and practices of the government agencies under his direct authority takes time.

Obama is by temperament more cautious and methodical, more of a coalition builder than a man of precipitous action (that would be John McCain). Americans are less tolerant of left-wing policymaking than right-wing policymaking, so he cannot force through nationalized healthcare and end the wars, nor does he think, I believe, that those would be wise moves.

It's very interesting that G.W.Bush had no problems making significant radical changes in violating basic civil liberties, promoting torture, suppressing public information on vital issues that were massively damaging to the economy, to the ecology, to international law and suddenly it seems so, so difficult or impossible to get the country back on the track to decency and good government.

The Republican Party has more "party discipline" than the Democratic Party, which includes progressives and even a few democratic socialists on the left, liberals on the center left, moderate to center right (Democratic Leadership Committee), and even conservatives (the Blue Dog Coalition). This coalition with the more pro-business segment and conservatives was necessary to make gains in the South and in the middle-class suburbs. The Republicans, on the other hand, have all but eliminated liberals from their coalition and are ever more tightening around a core movement conservatism (see also the Tea Party). During the Bush years, Republicans mostly deferred to their leader (obedience to the leader and a strict dogmatism are two aspects of the psychological concept of right-wing authoritarianism that lead to greater party cohesion whereas the liberal left's preference for compromise seeking weakens them if politics is seen as a zero-sum game; Republicans' extreme belligerence towards Obama is because they don't recognize him as a rightful authority).

I disagree, there are a number of conflicting wings within the Republican party, and this was quite visible in the 2008 primaries. You have the hawkish neo-cons (represented by McCain and Giuliani), the social conservatives AKA Religious Right (Palin and Huckabee) and then you have the pro-business wing of economic/fiscal conservatives (Romney). You also have some libertarian-leaning offshoots (Ron Paul) and assorted nutters (the followers of Glenn Beck and Michael Savage). The pro-business wing is probably the most sensible, but in many ways incompatible with the populist nonsense of many on the Religious Right. The pro-business and neo-con wings can only really act together with Cheney/Haliburton-style crooked dealings. The Religious Right can support the neo-con agenda, but you get a rather frightening combination when you go that route.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has cornered itself into a box where it has no hope of victory without the support of the Religious Right—this is why Palin was nominated for VP, McCain alone would be unable to mobilize the evangelical base. This means that in national elections, you can choose between the Democrats and the Religious Right.

Who the Republicans nominate in 2012 will be crucial; it will determine the direction they want to take their party and who will be excluded from the new right-wing coalition. At the moment, it looks like the Religious Right will prevail and the pro-business wing is likely to be shoved aside.

There are more voters now, so the religious right is now overrated. They underrated the young voters this turnout and I predict that the next election will yield much more of a younger voter turnout. Apathy is passe.

The corporate left? Do you mean the green companies? Starbucks? Who is the corporate left?

The religious right is not sufficient on their own to win elections for the GOP. But they are necessary- no Republican can aspire to national office without their blessing. That's the problem the Republicans have now: they can't win elections with just the religious right, but catering to them will alienate other voters. Basically, they need a new coalition or they will be history.

RIP Republicans. They don't have the balls to step outside religious intolerance.

The Corporate Right: The Oil Companies, companies like Archer, Daniel, Midlands and Monsanto

The Corporate Left: The "green" companies seeking government subsidies for alternate energy sources.

Both the Corporate Left and the Corporate Right agree on

1. Government favors in law.
2. Government subsidies
3. The profits should be private, but losses should be socialized.

ruveyn

While Blue Laws and Televison censorship may hurt segments of the business community, much of it is completely indifferent to anything the conservative populists do. The Religious Right doesn't have a strong, anti-corporate, social gospel core - much of their economic philosophy consists of "wait until eternal paradise after death". Christian Right organizations - like the Christian Coalition of America - are significantly funded my corporations.

The business wing (more like owner) of the party will continue to thrive while the religious conservative masses delude themselves with the belief they've interjected virtue into the state.

Indeed. And using the same site as the original poster, here are McCain's top contributors:

link



With the possible exception of AT&T, none of them seem to be in the business of manufacturing material things. Though I suppose you could make a case that FedEx is "labor intensive," possibly, they're a service company. They move things, not make them. And everyone else on the McCain list seems to be banks, insurance companies, and --- rather bizarrely ---- an accounting firm (PriceWaterHouseCoopers).

In any event, I can't help but think the original list stinks to high heaven based on the fact that neither George Soros nor one of his companies seems to show anywhere as a major Obama contributor. That just doesn't strike me as credible.

One final comment: You have got to be kidding. The left has not only won the ideological war on the role and function of government, they're seemingly also able to define the terms of the debate. The neoconservatives (the first generation of whom were largely reformed Trotskyists, after all) running the show in the Republican Party love the idea of a leviathan state every bit as much as Team Obama does. Their paid poodles like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh yipping away about free markets and the evils of government intervention being no more than some sort of grotesque pro-forma ritual, a bit like how Caesar Augustus kept all the trappings of Rome's democratic institutions in place once he had in fact become the absolute ruler.

The few oddballs inside the Republican Party that think otherwise (Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are the only two even marginally prominent figures I can actually think of) have no clout, no followers and no financial backing.

Leo Strauss has triumphed where the Comintern, the various Internationals and what not all failed. Welcome to our paradise on earth, where we get to choose between a vision of the world as seen by Georges Soros, or as seen by Irving Kristol. And you know what? They don't look all that different from where I'm sitting.

Clinton dismantled welfare programs and bloated the military industrial complex. Typically very anti-leftist policies.

LBJ won all but a few states when he ran on a pro-social welfare state/anti-nuclear proliferation platform. Reagan won all but one on a pro-corporate welfare, anti-social welfare platform.

Unions have been decimated and workers benefits/salaries declining. Obama's named a bunch of staunch neoliberals to economic advisory positions. Not even Krugman made it in the administration, much less Dean Baker (consistently right on thee economy).

Leftism, as understood by the Daily Herald, the Bolizian peasants movements, the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, or by most of history - a championing of workers rights, social welfare systems, and (ultimately) worker self-managment - is utterly alien to political discourse.

A question I'd have to ask is whether America has ever had a real left. I mean, I see a some of this with FDR and the Progressive era, but generally I don't see a strong left-wing tradition in America, so the fact that Obama is weak is just to be expected.

I tend to agree, which is why I used "left" in the sense of "less rightward than the other party/movements".

Sweden's centre-right Prime Minister pretty much agrees with Obama on everything.

For a long time communism had a good deal of appeal until the realities of Stalinist Russia became apparent.