-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Krugman: Obama Naive about Influence of Cor****ate Power?
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The New York Times via Alternet - Dec 17, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/election08/70878/
Obama: Naive About Influence of Cor****ate Power?
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination
are offering similar policy proposals - the dispute over health care
mandates notwithstanding. But there are large differences among the
candidates in their beliefs about what it will take to turn a
progressive agenda into reality.
At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is
that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can
get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."
At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy
and cor****ate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that
America needs another F.D.R. - a polarizing figure, the object of much
hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.
Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a
long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And
I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, nave.
The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator -
Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register - suggested
that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special
interests, because "the same groups are often responsible for getting
things done in Wa****ngton."
Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we're going to sit at a
table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their
power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."
This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said
that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would
include insurance companies and drug companies.
On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by
name. He declared that "We want to reduce the power of drug companies
and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will
have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."
Hmm. Do Obama sup****ters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring
us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?
O.K., more seriously, it's actually Mr. Obama who's being unrealistic
here, believing that the insurance and drug industries - which are, in
large part, the cause of our health care problems - will be willing to
play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there's no
way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also
reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.
As a result, drug and insurance companies - backed by the conservative
movement as a whole - will be implacably opposed to any significant
reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I'll get on television and
say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I'm sure the lobbyists are
terrified.
As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone
who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without
bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an im****tant sense,
he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For
example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that
the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the
country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Wa****ngton."
And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next
year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from
focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week's Democratic
debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.
But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines
Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on
the grounds that his "harsh anti-cor****ate rhetoric would make it
difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime beneficiary
of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his
message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the Project
for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama's coverage has been far more
favorable than that of any other candidate.
So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?
He will probably win - but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more
populist platform. Let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters
really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an
end to harsh partisan****p, are projecting their own desires onto the
public.
And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the
bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become
president, and tries to get anything done.
(c) 2007 Independent Media Institute.
*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Our main website: http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHaFAQiz2i76ou9wQRAml5AJ9tUesRSO742qLCLzRaowFJluCq9gCfVVgc
ZPlmlCrTt72fQ/41uCv3zjo=
=6CHN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
