Change?
A couple of quotes from two of my heroes, Nouriel Roubini and Tom Engelhardt: The title of Tom Engelhardt's piece is "Don't Let Obama Break Your Heart" and Roubini's title is, "The Dismal Outlook for the US and Global Economy and the Financial Markets". Obama will inherit and economic and financial mess worse than anything the U.S. has faced in decades: the most severe recession in 50 years; the worst financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression; a ballooning fiscal deficit that may be as high as a trillion dollar in 2009 and 2010; a huge current account deficit; a financial system that is in a severe crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace, thus causing a worsening of the credit crunch; a household sector where millions of households are insolvent, into negative equity territory and on the verge of losing their homes; a serious risk of deflation as the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets becomes deeper; the risk that we will end in a deflationary liquidity trap as the Fed is fast approaching the zero-bound constraint for the Fed Funds rate; the risk of a severe debt deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise given price deflation while the value of financial assets is still plunging. Nouriel RoubiniIf I were to make a synthesis of what the two pieces above portend, I would say that progressives have until 2010, barely two years, to make a real difference in the way the world works, because if the economy is as bad as Roubini says it is and if Obama is only going to use warmed over Clintonites to fix it, as Tom Engelhardt says, then the Democrats are going to lose control of Congress in the mid-term elections._________________________On the day that Americans turned out in near record numbers to vote, a record was set halfway around the world. In Afghanistan, a U.S. Air Force strike wiped out about 40 people in a wedding party. This represented at least the sixth wedding party eradicated by American air power in Afghanistan and Iraq since December 2001.(...) So, after January 20th, expect Obama to take possession of George Bush's disastrous Afghan War; and unless he is far more skilled than Alexander the Great, British empire builders, and the Russians, his war, too, will continue to rage without ever becoming a raging success. Finally, President-elect Obama accepted the overall framework of a "Global War on Terror" during his presidential campaign. This "war" lies at the heart of the Bush administration's fantasy world of war that has set all-too-real expanses of the planet aflame. Its dangers were further highlighted this week by the New York Times, which revealed that secret orders in the spring of 2004 gave the U.S. military "new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States."(...) Domestically, it's clear enough that we are about to leave the age of Bush -- in tone and policy -- but what that leave-taking will consist of is still an open question.(...) All you had to do was look at that array of Clinton-era economic types and CEOs behind Obama at his first news conference to think: been there, done that.(...) How about former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, those kings of 1990s globalization, or even the towering former Fed chief from the first Bush era, Paul Volcker? Didn't that have the look of previews for a political zombie movie, a line-up of the undead?(...) You could scan that gathering and not see a genuine rogue thinker in sight; no off-the-reservation figures who might represent a breath of fresh air and fresh thinking (other than, being hopeful, the president-elect himself). Clemons offers an interesting list of just some obvious names left off stage: "Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, James Galbraith, Leo Hindery, Clyde Prestowitz, Charlene Barshefsky, C. Fred Bergsten, Adam Posen, Robert Kuttner, Robert Samuelson, Alan Murray, William Bonvillian, Doug & Heidi Rediker, Bernard Schwartz, Tom Gallagher, Sheila Bair, Sherle Schwenninger, and Kevin Phillips."(...) What Obama looks to have are custodians and bureaucrats of empire, far more cautious, far more sane, and certainly far more grown-up than the first-term Bush appointees, but not a cast of characters fit for reshaping American policy in a new world of disorder and unraveling economies, not a crew ready to break new ground and cede much old ground on this still American-garrisoned planet of ours. Tom Engelhardt
A narrow window of opportunity indeed, but probably the only window opened since the mid 1960s.
So, I agree with Tom Engelhardt that all those who have progressive agendas should press their cases hard and not give Barack Obama a minute's grace.
If progressives don't make a stink from day one we are going to continue with our endless wars, we will continue to torture, we will continue to aid and abet the endless oppression of the Palestinian people: and we will do all this while the Democrats political credit erodes as long discredited bubblemeisters run the world economy into the ground... And to top it off, this whole mishigos will be packaged as "change" and the Sarah Palins of this world will even call it "socialism".
That should not be allowed to happen. The next two years may turn out to be nothing more than what the president-elect calls a "teaching moment", but even that opportunity should not be lost.
So let Tom Englehardt's closing words resound in progressive circles:
Leave Obama to them and he'll break your heart. If you do, then blame yourself, not him; but better than blaming anyone, pitch your own tent on the public commons and make some noise. Let him know that Washington's isn't the only consensus around, that Americans really do want our troops to come home, that we actually are looking for "change we can believe in," which would include a less weaponized, less imperial American world, based on a reinvigorated idea of defense, not aggression, and on the Constitution, not leftover Rumsfeld rules or a bogus Global War on Terror.At least, if nothing else, our beautiful English language should remain intact and it should remain clear what the word "change" actually means, even if finally, nothing, or hardly anything ever really gets changed.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Advertisement





Roubini also wrote:
http://conquerthewallstreet.blogspot.com/2008/11/nouriel-roubini-obama-will-inherit-most.html
November 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, Roubini wrote that too. I love both Roubini and Engelhardt, but I would have preferred that Obama not use people so directly connected to Clinton's economic policies, which most authorities find also highly responsible for the mess we are in.
November 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The counter argument to this might be. They have realized that what they thought was a good idea didn't work and have looked seriously at where and why it went wrong. You need to go read some of Summers recent positions on the economy. I think you'll discover why Roubini is impressed.
November 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but why are you so negative toward Obama? Why are you so negative in your outlook in general? In looking at your comments in other threads you have declared this presidency a failure before it even takes place. That is strange to me. I get that you have a disdain/distrust for all things Clinton, but you must have realized that a Democratic administration was going to have to draw on people who served in the Clinton Administration or else there would be no one to tap. Richard Wolffe recently pointed out that a big mistake made by Bill Clinton was his initial rejection of Washington insiders who could have shown him the ropes. It resulted in many blunders in those first two years and a crushing turn over of congress in the '94 midterms. Obama is being smart by consulting insiders and outsiders. And he is smart enough, in spite of the opinions of many here at TPM, to separate good advice from bad advice. I am curious what he has done (not that you fear he will do, but something tangible he has already done) that causes you to have no faith in his ability to make good choices?
November 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
David told me his heart was broken by JFK and he suspects Obama to be another not-Prince-Charming. He said he thought McCain a sounder choice, (before Palin).
November 13, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazingly, I agree. I don't think progressives need to "make a stink", however. I think Obama is well aware of what he's up against and I don't doubt his commitment to resolving our difficulties. And I doubt most Americans would support the sort of sweeping change you and Mr. Englehardt seem to be advocating. We don't need no stinking Brave New World. Are needs are far simpler and more basic. We have our country back. Now we just want it to work properly.
November 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I really just write that? "Are needs"? Lordy, lordy...
November 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'd say that nothing about the USA is simple and hasn't been for about, who knows, maybe a hundred years? I think that what we need is a social safety net system like all the other advanced industrial countries. And I think it would be great if we stopped trying to intervene militarily and clandestinely in the affairs of other countries and cultures and closed some of the hundreds of military bases we have all around the world and didn't torture people or hold them without trial and I wish we didn't enable the Israelis to the extent we do in their oppression of the Palestinians and then I'd like it if we spent a lot of the money we would save on education, re-industrialization and of course health.
Is that a "brave new world"? And if it is, does it stink?
November 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's the brave OLD world. That's the America many of us remember from the seems-far-too-distant past. We've never been perfect, but I remember a time when we were a helluva lot closer.
Look, we're hopefully trying something new. We're shooting for wide support. We're looking for common ground. If anyone has the skills to take us where the majority wants to go, it's our President elect. And until he proves me wrong, I'm going to expect the best. I know there are many people who believe that they know what Utopia looks like and that nothing short of their vision is acceptable. Defining Utopia is an arrogation many of us are willing to give up for the benefit of the common weal. Believe it or not, we're actually looking forward to seeing what the compromise looks like.
November 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify:
What I am afraid that Barack Obama has done/is doing/will do, is to take America's left to the River Rubicon and then instead of crossing the Rubicon, he will just pull out poles and invite the left to fish. If that happens, as Engelhardt says it will break the left's heart. At this point there is a two year window to change things the way Roosevelt and Reagan did and if doesn't happen it will be a tragedy.
November 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The heart of the left is already destined to be broken because they're unrealistic and greedy. They want too much. They want to have things their way and they're firmly convinced that only they understand the difference between right and wrong. They're exactly like the far right in their self-centered opposition to compromise. They don't get the democracy thing. What they truly long for is an emperor that they agree with on all things. For the first time in a long time, intelligent adults are in charge again in America. That's plenty good enough for me.
November 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's hardly fair. There are plenty hard-lefters who are open to compromise. I'm fine with taking baby-steps, but the goal remains the same: a modern social democracy.
November 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're open to compromise, I'm afraid you're kicked out of the club. :) Or maybe we just have a different definition of hard left. The goal for me remains clean air, clean water, healthy forests, and a Supreme Court that actually understands and respects the Constitution. Oh, and a good space program. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. Setting a social democracy as a goal seems like a prescription for failure. I just don't believe we're that kind of nation, and I don't see the broad majority of Americans support a move in that direction. I don't want to live in a country my neighbors hate. I've been through that from the other side. I don't wish it on anyone.
November 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, if the left thinks Obama was ever more than a left leaning centrist ( and I'm not so sure how far even that lean is ) then they really weren't paying attention.
November 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but… the National Journal decreed that Obama was the most liberal senator. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?!?
Fun fact: Obama earned a 95.5 on their "liberal score", whereas self-described (I think) socialist Bernie Sanders only earned a 93.7!
November 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Obama himself said in the second or third debate, it's easy to look liberal if you are voting against George Bush.
November 13, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more. We got the guy we voted for.
November 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, you're not enjoying this are you? Would you feel better if someone called you a clueless jackass? We don't want you to be sad.
November 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sad, I just came back from a painter friend's opening... I haven't been following all of this. Now I'm going to eat dinner and continue reading "The Hakawati" till I fall asleep.
For me the bottom line in all this, where no compromise is possible, is torture, the Palestinians, health etc. If Obama doesn't come through on that stuff its better facing a Republican at least the battle lines are clearer than when facing a Judas Goat.
November 13, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink