The political capital of legislative capitalism
Picture a factory, chugging along, churning out desireable product lapped up by an affluent and vast emptor class. Workers show up every day, punch in, and take their places on the line, pleased at least by knowledge their labor earns food on their tables and fire in hearths.
This was, for years, the American dynamic. The country was an industrial giant, fearsome example to the rest of the globe that resources, smarts and their attendant wealth could achieve any goal from curing disease to putting men on the moon and returning them home to earth alive and cheery. Like the Pharoahs' practical motives for building pyramids and sculpted monoliths of ancient Egypt, it also broadcast abroad implied "don't even think about f*cking with us" significance. Hear ye friends and foes alike: If we can do this for ourselves, think of what we can do to you.
When America was a technological and manufacturing powerhouse, we aimed lip-service worship at the lunchpail strata that achieved our bounty. Factories were too grimy and toxic to elevate as symbolic cathedrals of our burgeoning production cult, but the workers themselves were celebrated. Labor Day is a holiday echo of that hammer-and-anvil age. After paying their dues in blood and horror, unions achieved for American laborers a standard of living unmatched in the world. Sipping a beer, union-brewed, out of a can, made of ore union-mined and stamped by lords of a machinists local, an average joe could doff his blue collar a moment and enjoy a life with the comforts, if not social-anthill status, of middle class.
That horizontal affluence was just too expensive for our captains of industry, however. Little by little, America has been deindustrialized as factories relocated to foreign shores, where those troublesome environmental laws and selfish unions, always angling for their measly "living wage", were nowhere to be found. Friendly, if somewhat brutal, anti-democratic and murderous regimes were happy to see their nations play host to our new "globalization" hocus-pocus. It's one big, happy blue marble, after all. You're still thinking in terms of your own backyard? Dinosaur. What are you, a nationalist? Everything can be outsourced - even man-bites-dog scoops in your local newspaper.
We're left with a service-industry economy, made up of junior-league white collar toilers punching numbers instead of sheet-metal car bumpers, dreaming of lottery jackpots while juggling accounts for shell-game visionaries looting our vanishing, phantom markets.
But there are some reliable assembly lines left... In city halls and state capitals. And the biggest is on Capitol Hill, in that smoky swamp we call the seat of national power. Lawmakers are stocking the shelves with shiny products like those once touted in bright half-tones lining Sears catalogs, and stacked under colored pennants at shopping centers.
The new American cash-cow merchandise is legislation and influence. And lobbyists are buying.
The set-up has taken the demos - us - out of American democracy. We still elect our lawmakers, sure. But, once on job, our needs, our desires - our goals for ourselves and our children - disappear in a fog of greed and ambition somewhere just inside the cloakroom. Money talks, after all. There is no contest among "competing interests" if the most welcome among them have pockets deep as Croesus.
The health care "debate" that has so preoccupied the first months of Barack Obama's presidency crystalizes perfectly this degenerative dynamic. When Obama first outlined his proposals, loosely, as early as the 2007 debates (God, that seems long ago), the one obstacle easily recognized was the medical-industrial complex - big pharma, the insurance industry, etc. This formidable lobby had harpooned the Clinton intiatives more than 15 years ago. It hadn't weakened in the interim, it hadn't moved its enthused corruption to foreign shores.
How could it be overcome?
Well... now we know: It couldn't. It's too easy to couch this dilemma as a battle of Left and Right. It's much more complicated, and a lot more seedy, than that. Blue dog "democrats" are as delighted as anyone that the town-hall visigoths have so locked the attention of our media and discourse. This disruptive street theater has taken focus from their own far more effective and practiced dismantling of efforts to install what has been a hallmark of most "civilized" societies for more than a century.
Losing this battle underscores and intensifies our ejection from participation in our own government, and so, in the course our lives will take. Voters and democratic elections are as feckless and ceremonial as Britain's royal family. Each election day, we light votive candles for priests who worship other gods. We are left behind not so much because our demands are unattainable or overblown, but because we cannot afford - with money - our lawmakers' audience.
This political illegitimacy spreads to our social viability, as well. In a perceptive post today, cmaukonen offers a reminder of how quickly our middle class is disappearing. I and others on this site, notably TPMGary, have speculated this dissolution of "average" status may not be simply a by-product of our current political-economic template, but a deliberate scheme to reduce the country to underdeveloped condition. Poor countries in what used to be called the "Third World", are hardscrabble, inequitable and poverty-wracked; their citizens are disenfranchised and remote from any contact with political or economic self-control. These nations are ruled by economic destitution and violent intimidation.
And these set-ups are extremely advantageous to tiny ruling elites unaccustomed to and intolerant of backtalk.
How can this future not be a fait accompli for us, Americans, as our political voices shrink and our civic footprint dissolves?
















I too, wonder how we will ever overcome the obstacles with a political class, that inevitably fails to see any advantage to campaign finance reform once they have assumed the mantle of incumbency. Barack was an astute learner as he discovered forgoing public financing before assuming the presidency. There has to be a negative feedback loop at the polls, but achieving that is so much easier said than done. Your description of our status: "We're left with a service-industry economy, made up of junior-league white collar toilers punching numbers instead of sheet-metal car bumpers, dreaming of lottery jackpots while juggling accounts for shell-game visionaries looting our vanishing, phantom markets" is all too true.
August 30, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we break this hammerlock? What's the alternative? It must conform to the limitations hard-wired in our human nature; the 20th century provedd that. That prerequisite removes Marx's ideas as option. I'm not anti-business... but this framework has diminished if not utterly destroyed even minimal representative government. We are, all of us, victims of political identity theft. How do we recover our place in our own country?
August 30, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to start a 'People's Club'. Like a Sam's Club or Cosco for the disenfranchised electorate to act as a buying club on one hand, but with most of the profits plowed back into political action. A small percentage of each purchase gets plowed back into actualizing electoral reform, et al. Have our own cell phone service with the same mission. I'm trying to think outside the box of PACs. Make ourselves a taxable corporation with an over arching goal, that our voice be heard along with and over the other corporate interests that are currently dominating the debate.
August 31, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could it be overcome?
Well maybe all those junior-league white collar toilers in the service economy need to recognize that even though their collars are white instead of blue, and even though they went to college instead of straight from high school to work, and even though they work on spreadsheets instead of cold-rolled steel, they are all still laborers, just like their comrades in the factories, trucks and ports; and maybe they need to turn themselves into a political-economic force to rival the powerful unions of their grandparents' age.
Money and money-power have always talked loudest in Washington. The response is for the middle and lower-income many to overcome social and cultural divisions, achieve solidarity and pool their economic power into a force to challenge the affluent few, a force that even Washington must reckon with. "Big Labor" used to be a fear-inducing power that even the corporate lobbyists couldn't fuck with.
Great post, Curt. Almost hug-worthy
August 30, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deny it as may the cunning capitalists who are clear-sighted enough to perceive it, or ignore it as may the torpid workers who are too blind and unthinking to see it, the struggle in which we are engaged today is a class struggle, and as the toiling millions come to see and understand it and rally to the political standard of their class, they will drive all capitalist parties of whatever name into the same party, and the class struggle will then be so clearly revealed that the hosts of labor will find their true place in the conflict and strike the united and decisive blow that will destroy slavery and achieve their full and final emancipation.
Ignorance alone stands in the way of socialist success. The capitalist parties understand this and use their resources to prevent the workers from seeing the light.
Intellectual darkness is essential to industrial slavery.
How stupid and shortsighted the ruling class really is! Cupidity is stone blind. It has no vision. The greedy, profit-seeking exploiter cannot see beyond the end of his nose. He can see a chance for an "opening"; he is cunning enough to know what graft is and where it is, and how it can be secured, but vision he has none — not the slightest. He knows nothing of the great throbbing world that spreads out in all directions. He has no capacity for literature; no appreciation of art; no soul for beauty. That is the penalty the parasites pay for the violation of the laws of life.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson
The next time they throw a war and tell you how it is your patriotic duty to protect Americas interests. Then BY GOD ask whose interests?
If factories and industries want to go abroad then they should calculate the risk. I am not interested in defending them, since there moving proved they weren't interesed in perserving me from poverty.
August 30, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The weakness of the demos is not only the work of elites protecting their own sources of wealth but is part and parcel of the way things are made and how we use them.
This is a simple and almost painfully obvious observation to make but it merits repeating because the idea usually gets absorbed or subordinated by other ideas.
For instance, the thinker Ivan Illich has displayed the problems of our industrial way of life as well as anyone and better than most. He interweaves this message with an argument about what has to be done to restore "humanity." Taking him seriously means you end up talking about that argument. But he said one thing that always seemed bigger to me than his agenda: "Power is the ability and strength to change your immediate surroundings to be as you see fit." When weakness is defined by that measure, all the distance between how we feed, care, educate, and equip ourselves and the degree of influence each of us has in the unfolding of that process is abysmally large. Illich's response to this mind numbing largeness was to counter it with radical locality: Each place seizes as much control of what happens as possible. Maybe Illich is right but there are other ways to use his unit of measure.
The Illich unit of measure is handy in looking at such economic theories as those put forward by Marx and Hayek. While diametrically opposed in most of their thinking, these two gentlemen shared a secret lover: Spontaneity. They both explained that industrial production tends toward social stagnation if not constantly redirected by agents of change. The appeal to a universal condition that would assure this lack of stagnation does not add up to much power as Illich defines it. The "commons" seem to come more from people saying no together than agreeing to a yes. Living in a consumer society means the only form of change from the social forms of production is a collective effort. The tools have been forged by the Labor movement. Enough people have to say:
I won’t buy what you make. I won’t make what you want to be made. I won’t work for these wages. I won’t let other people work for these wages. I won’t buy what is made by slaves. I won’t teach my child to be one.
If the industrial process is the ground, change requires that things get made in different ways or we will become the victims of our inventions. In addition to enough people understanding they have power, new ways to make things have to get started.
I think I better stop there. Thanks for the post, Senor Curt.
August 30, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not read much today. I missed this.
This is complicated. There are no easy answers.
We, Americans, decided to turn everything over to corporations. At least the dems will look and say:
Hey this is not fair.
World wide we should be despised for this. I love it when folks, usually white folks joke about using cocaine or smoking weed. The users put those people in our prisons by being part of that system.
We go to Wallmart and spend five bucks for a sponge on a stick, made in some god forsaken third world sweat shop.
But out of the dems, all of them, who say this is not fair, not enough say:
HERE IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE GODDAMN THING.
Thank you for this post.
August 30, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is becoming more apparent that the real reason we will never control the undesirable element of our legislative problems. SELFISHNESS
You should change YOUR bad behavior.
(Matthew 7:5) . . .Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.
Selfishness and Walmart? dickday
(1 Timothy 6:17-19) . . .Give orders to those who are rich in the present system of things not to be high-minded, and to rest their hope, not on uncertain riches, but on God, who furnishes us all things richly for our enjoyment; 18 to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be liberal, ready to share, 19 safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, in order that they may get a firm hold on the real life.
Do you see a majority or a minority, Rich in fine works, liberal ready to share?
People do not want to be inconvenienced in their way of life or livelihood.
Every one is looking out for themselves. SELFISHNESS
Industrial pollution and destruction are what we reap. The real life is cast aside for the temporary Joy of MATERIALISM.
A Safety Net, with the added benefit of a stimulus package
What would be the cost, if we produced an abundant supply of food, lowering the cost for consumers? Putting people to work.
Would Farm subsidies be as expensive as Bank Bailouts?
At least I'd be fed and not just the bankers
August 31, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Medical-Industrial-Complex. Far more insidious, far more powerful and far more able to instill terror in the populous than the military version a former president warned us about in days long past.
For this version can effect the lives and well being not of those determined to be our enemies but on ourselves.
The captains of this new Complex are fully aware of this and make full use to intemidate, threaten and bribe to get what they want from government.
C
August 31, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink