Right-Wing Ideology A ‘Shape-Shifter’ — Naomi Klein

In my ongoing (and probably never-ending) effort to ingest the complete works of Naomi Klein, more or less in reverse order (I finished reading This Changes Everything last month), I have begun the formidable task of absorbing The Shock Doctrine, Klein's work on how some governments, many corporations and some leaders both corporate and governmental leverage the public's response to major disasters... acts of terror, natural disasters such as storms or earthquakes, unconventional changes of government, etc. ... to exercise, even in a democracy, a far greater degree of executive and corporate control than previously possible. Klein's term for it is "disaster capitalism," and even a couple dozen pages into the book she makes a compelling case not only for the existence of such a phenomenon but also that the US (among many other nations) is experiencing it, from no later than 2001 forward, possibly from as early as the mid-20^th century.

What captured my attention at the moment was her observation about how the terminology changes to obscure what is really being done to us, and to the citizens of other nations (p. 14-15, first [hardcover] edition, 2007):

Naomi Klein

In the attempt to relate the history of the ideological crusade that has culminated in the radical privatization of war and disaster, one problem recurs: the ideology is a shape-shifter, forever changing its name and switching identities. [Milton] Friedman called himself a "liberal," but his U.S. followers, who associated liberals with high taxes and hippies, tended to identify as "conservatives," "classical economists," "free marketers," and, later, as believers in "Reaganomics" or "laissez-faire." In most of the world, their orthodoxy is known as "neoliberalism," but it is often called "free trade" or simply "globalization." Only since the mid-nineties has the intellectual movement, led by the right-wing think tanks with which Friedman had long associations — Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — called itself "neoconservative," a worldview that has harnessed the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda.

The ideology I grew up with at least through childhood and part of adolescence was unmistakably "liberal," no bloody "neo-" prepended, a direct descendant of the political and economic philosophies of FDR, JFK and (in some matters) LBJ. No shape-shifter I! May I add a cross-lingual pun to the terms listed in the previous paragraph: "laissez‑unfaire"?

Klein's book looks likely to prove a satisfying if massive read. Take a look, at least; it should be in your public library, now that it is no longer her most recently published book. Or do an excellent activist-writer a favor and buy it; we need to encourage such people to dedicate themselves to the serious issues of our day.

Dark Pools: Who Owns The Stock Market, And Who Benefits?

Source: Rosenblatt via WSJ

Kos's bobswern has republished, with permission, an article by Pam and Russ Martens at Wall Street on Parade called Who Owns the U.S. Stock Market? The answer may not surprise you... I've known a tiny bit about this phenomenon since around 2007 or 2008, when I was working for some very market-oriented people in my next-to-last contract before I retired... but it damned well ought to frighten you even if your only investment is a retirement account or two. The short version (not adequate, but the best I can do in a sentence): a combination of automated trading algorithms, self-trading in "dark" venues, and massive trading venue ownership by the largest investment firms threatens the stability of the invested wealth of literally everybody else. It's not a pretty picture, if you're part of "everybody else."

‘The Payoff’

 Seldom does a Washington lobbyist, lawyer and power-broker write a book. Even less often do I bother reading such a book. But it looks as if I am going to finish Jeff Connaughton's The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins, in record time. It's not a page-turner for the author's writing (middling at best), his great personal charm (none that I can see), his admirable character (maybe, but like most wealthy people, he has some other aspects) or the novelty of the plot (I suspect this crap was going on long before our republic was a gleam in its founders' eyes), but because I find it simply dumbfounding that Wall Street essentially runs unregulated, and has the power to do literally anything it wants.

Read it and weep: we are wholly owned. Don't buy the book; I found it at the corner library, and you probably can, too.

It's Clear To Me...

... that running a government like a business... a "country" like a "company" ... is a terrible idea.

A business (at least a corporation) has one overarching legal obligation: make a profit for its shareholders. Most corporate executives, and Rmoney is no exception, interpret that mandate as "no matter what it takes to do that, no matter who gets hurt, no matter, period."

A government has a mission almost opposite to that of a corporation. The government's obligation is to all the people of the nation: to level the playing field, to enforce fair play to the extent possible, and to see to it that no one is unduly harmed just because of their station in life.

Il Duce?

President?

A hardcore, hard-hitting "capitalist" background (apologies to the capitalists I know who do NOT pursue their businesses with no-holds-barred abandon) is exactly the WRONG background for a President of the United States. Rmoney is living proof. Running a government like a business is not too far from Mussolini's definition of FASCISM... briefly, corporatism. Does Rmoney want to claim Il Duce's mantle?

An Astonishing Lapse: Rmoney's Moment Of Truth

 


I suppose we should not be surprised. It is bound to be wearying to speak platitudes one doesn't believe, day after day, concealing one's true beliefs in pursuit of a dishonorable, self-centered goal. Sooner or later, the truth will out. Here, from Raw Story (H/T Enfant) is Rmoney's unintended "moment of truth":

...

... Romney’s own understanding of the presidential role has never been entirely clear,

He may, however, have accidentally let his beliefs slip out at a campaign event in Florida on Friday, when he referred to the United States as a “company.”

U-S-A! U-S-A! ...

“[Obama] didn’t know what it takes to actually make the economy work,” Romney told his audience. “Paul Ryan and I understand how the economy works, we understand how Washington works, we will reach across the aisle and find good people who like us, want to make sure this company deals with its challenges. We’ll get America on track again.”

Romney hesitated slightly after the word “company,” as if he was vaguely aware he might have used the wrong word, but then plowed on without correcting himself.

...

In his own mind, Rmoney has never left the executive offices of Bain Capital. And the USA is a "company" in a vulnerable position, and therefore to be bought, tapped, sucked dry and discarded. You've known it all along, but it is chilling to hear Rmoney say it aloud himself, in public.

I wonder if the rank-and-file Republican faithful have known it. I suspect that, if so, their faith will protect them from believing the simple truth of the statement, despite the fact that it is right there on video. Faith conquers all... including truth.

Two Good (If Frightening) Reads From Dean Baker

Rep. Paul Ryan's Far-Right Agenda and The CEO Plan to Steal Your Social Security and Medicare. If you think Congress dances to the voters' tune, you may be in for a nasty shock.