- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
TAS Live
Obama's New Deal
(Page 2 of 2)
William McNary, the president of US Action who spoke at a panel later that afternoon, said the next ten years were the most critical period in the history of the progressive movement. "Everybody's talking about change," McNary mused. "Are we gonna get real progressive change? Are we gonna get small change? Or are we gonna get chump change?"
Alan Charney, a program director for the same group, echoed the call in a panel describing "The Next New Deal."
Charney asserted that the prosperity that Americans enjoyed in the aftermath of the New Deal was based on an economic "paradigm" that is now in crisis because of globalization, trade, corporate influence, and what he called new "social cleavages," such as immigration.
"What we need is a new, a Next New Deal to rebuild our economy on a different foundation," Charney said. Among the changes he advocated were more investment in college education, health care for all, "green" jobs and an end to America's dependence on fossil fuels.
"This is a transformational moment. They come along once in a generation, once in a lifetime," he beamed. "When the mass movement is there, that will be the time when the political leadership will be forced to act."
ALONG THESE LINES, a number of issue-focused groups and coalitions have formed to push specific progressive causes, such as the Apollo Alliance for alternative energy and Health Care for America Now!
Obama himself has given mixed signals throughout his career -- and especially during the presidential campaign -- as to whether he's a principled liberal, or a slick politician who would compromise progressive ideals for short-term political gain.
In 2003, when Obama was still an obscure state legislator making a long shot bid for the U.S. Senate, he was a proud progressive. In a lengthy questionnaire filled out that December for the staunch liberal Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization, Obama vowed that as U.S. Senator, he would be "a champion for the progressive agenda" and boasted that he had "demonstrated the backbone and passion to really fight for progressive causes, even when the political winds are blowing in the other direction."
That same year, Obama spoke at an AFL-CIO event and declared himself a "proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan," which is a more technical term for a socialized system in which government is the sole purchaser of health care. But during his presidential campaign he has stated that he would only support such a system "if we were starting from scratch." On the other hand, Obama has conceded that his health care plan could incrementally lead to a single payer system. The common complaint among progressives about Obama's handling of the issue is simply that he hasn't spoken about it much since the general election started -- a criticism that is sharpest among Hillary Clinton loyalists.
During the Democratic primaries, Obama railed against the North America Free Trade Agreement, but in the general election, he cooled off, and said his prior anti-trade rhetoric was just an example of how political campaigns could get "overheated." He also softened what was a firm 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and backed away from his pledge to meet unconditionally with the leaders of hostile regimes within the first year of his administration (now he tends to talk in vague terms of "tough direct diplomacy"). He also reversed himself by supporting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation that granted immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government even after vowing to filibuster any bill that included such a provision.
"BARACK OBAMA is not a progressive by any means," said Tim Carpenter, the national director of Progressive Democrats of America. "We have no illusions. This is a guy who missed a key vote when it came to no strike on Iran. He missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote [designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group], he was very slow coming out against the war, and though he spoke out against it, he voted for every appropriation."
Carpenter said that his group, which was founded in 2004, is mostly focused on organizing at the district-by-district level and electing progressive members of Congress, but would still work to get Obama elected.
"I think it's safe to say we're where conservatives were in '64
with Goldwater," he said. "Conservatives made a rational decision
that they were going to stay within the party and they were not
going to be afraid to lose based on the issues that united them
as conservatives. We're doing the same things as
Democrats."
Among the successes they already claim is that, for the first
time, the Democratic Party's platform adopted in Denver calls for
guaranteed health care. Also, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
(D-MD) paid a visit to Progressive Central during the convention.
"The Democratic leadership is becoming quite aware of what we're
up to," Carpenter said.
For all their optimism, it's worth pointing out that there are substantial differences between now and the other periods of transformational change in American political history. Both LBJ and FDR assumed office during times when the climate was far more suited for sweeping changes. Progressives can do all the talking they want about how the economy is in a state of severe crisis, but empirically, our current economic problems pale in comparison to what they were when FDR was elected in 1932. That year, the nation's economy shrunk by more than 13 percent and the unemployment rate was 23.6; by contrast, the economy grew 3.3 percent in this year's second quarter, while as of July the unemployment rate was 5.7. LBJ assumed office in the wake of the tragic assassination of the beloved John F. Kennedy and the outpouring of sympathy made it a lot easier for his successor to push legislation through Congress -- and it didn't hurt that at one point Democrats had 68 Senators.
The biggest mistake progressives are making is to believe that
the diminished prospects for the Republican Party this November
mean that the conservative movement itself has been vanquished.
But regardless of who wins this election, the network of
conservative media, policy organizations, and activist groups
will still be in a much stronger position to resist radical
liberal reforms than their predecessors in the earlier eras of
transformational progressive change.
(This article
appeared in the October 2008 issue of The
American Spectator.)
Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Advent Is Coming
- Joe Being Joe
oldpapajoe| 11.3.08 @ 2:04PM
Dream on. It will take the Conservative movement a decade to recover from a BHO victory--that is why McCain has to win. There is no second chance this time around.
Mike Sawyer| 11.4.08 @ 3:33AM
Are you kiddin me? The entire basis of this article is as if the "progressive" movement has any claim to legitimacy. LBJ, FDR, "where we were with Barry"?
How did this guy get away from CNN? OK - I finally give up, but who will they come to now after they wreck the economy, denude our forces, and are compelled to convert with the sword at their neck? How many limos will be there then?
Ms. Know| 11.14.08 @ 11:10AM
They have him like Roosevelt on the cover of time. I can't wait until the socialist illuminati turn this world upside down. What will people think then?
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org| 12.1.08 @ 9:24PM
Mr. Obama's New Deal December 01, 2008.
Mr. Obama's New Deal
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
December 01, 2008.
“If FDR's New Deal had worked then, it is not entirely obvious why it should not work again.” (Why Bluff Martial Law?)
After that sentence was written, which was based on the populist understanding of what FDR had supposedly accomplished in the New Deal, through actual research into the facts of the matter however, it has now become blatantly apparent why it would not work again. FDR at the time had capitulated to the banksters – some say he was in fact the banksters own very clever pointman – and changed America's money which was previously redeemable in gold, into fiat paper money, with the passing of The Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933. All the gold of the American peoples was confiscated, and in effect, handed over to the Federal Reserve System in lieu of an infinite supply of paper money constructed as a national debt. The principal of this national debt was never intended to be ever paid back – it was setup as an infinite inflationary supply source. However, the interest on it was to accrue exponentially – compound-interest – and this interest was payable by the American peoples, the consumers, the corporations, and all economic activity in the United States. In addition, making the US dollar world's reserve currency at Bretton-Woods by the victor of World War II, made increasing that principal a global impetus from the entire world's economic activity. Every US Treasury Security held by the oil producing nations courtesy of Henry Kissinger, every dollar held in foreign exchange reserves by the world's nations, indeed every dollar in circulation, contributed to this principal! Every dollar added to the principal that was beyond the growth of the American nation's real GDP – based on real production and not financial wizardry – was inflationary. Thus all economic activity due to debt financing, as opposed to balanced budget financing, was by design, made inflationary. The word “inflationary” means when a dollar purchases less than it did before, or the same thing costs more than it did before. However it's official measurement also has become a con-game, and therefore, that word here is used to mean the real empirical experience of real wage-earning consumers who are the most susceptible to inflation (and who, incidentally, also pay the bulk of the interest on the national debt through their federal income tax), and not official reportage based on some artificial basket of goods.
More the American worker made, more he paid out in taxes and in rising cost of living, so that he and she ended up with less and less in working families with even both parents working! Thus American public took on more and more debt, sometimes to make ends meet, and sometimes to enjoy the good times that were easily handed them on the platter of inextricable debt. And so the monster of debt fed itself. This wasn't just a side-effect as almost all the economists and politicians would have the ill-informed public believe, but by the very design of the monetary system under the Federal Reserve System. That was quite a brilliant coup d'état under the guise of solving the problem of the Great Depression by the banksters! The same banksters funded the causes, and all participants, of World War II, just as they precipitated the Great Depression itself. It was a banksters' World War, and a banksters' Great Depression! And a banksters' currency that kept creating more and more debt by design. Their 'small' calculated baby-step to create world government led to more millions dead and disillusioned than all wars of all history added together. Just as it is re-playing out the same game today, but much closer to endgame. Since the year 1933 was only the beginning of the paper money scam – this incarnation of the central bankers' perpetual scam since time immemorial, actually began in 1910 at Jekyll Island, and got cemented with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913 – the cumulative national debt then was low, the interest payments were low, and the Frankenstein was just a cute baby boy. Therefore, President Roosevelt could trivially embark on his debt-financed spending spree which became known as the New Deal. See the debt-chart from 1900 to 2006 in the book by Van K Tharp here, and current national debt numbers proudly reported by the U.S. Treasury here. Today, such a spending spree is not possible in the existing monetary system because the Frankenstein of debt has now matured into an ugly monster about to devour its feeders. And yet, such a spending spree is still generously being granted to the banksters to the tune of $7.7 Trillion for bailout, as reported by Bloomberg on November 24, 2008! This was a brilliantly orchestrated design, because the cure for this now fully grown grotesque Frankenstein – in order that it not devour its own creators – is being presented as a common global monetary system run by private central banks, owned by the very same banksters! A crafty and audacious planning of a hundred years expertly being brought to fruition! Please see the Monetary Reform Bibliography, and Monetary Conspiracy for World Government.
The unfortunate populist version of FDR's New Deal is deeply entrenched in American society – like all its other indoctrinations – and it is even more exacerbated by polished disinformation documentaries like “1932” (see LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles? ). And the whole shebang of the Federal Reserve System is very cleverly camouflaged, and confounded, by its learned exponents and detractors alike (see Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat? and also Chapter 6 of Ron Paul's book: Revolution; caveat lector on Ron Paul here!)
Mr. Obama's Agendas are anything but 'New Deal'. To uncover his agendas, one must uncover the men, money, power, and ideologies backing him. The most prominent are Zbigniew Brzezinski who groomed Obama, and David Rockefeller who brought an unknown polish Jew who had written the seminal book “Between Two Ages” into world prominence. Between the two of them, they invented an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia, as the President of the United States in 1976. That American President eagerly destroyed the USSR by “giving to the USSR its Vietnam War” at the expense of devastating an innocent civilization, called Afghanistan! For that achievement, a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to that gentleman from Georgia. For the conquest of the planet into a one-world government – the dream of the financial oligarchs and banksters – another Peace Prize awaits its political executors. Be forewarned. Please see Response to 'Why I won't vote for Obama' November 03, 2008.
While Project Humanbeingsfirst does not agree with all points of perspective with Webster G. Tarpley, it does concur with Mr. Tarpley's dire warnings on Obama (see his book, interview part1, part2), primarily because the agendas are writ in plain-sight by studying its prime authors. The confrontation with Russia looms ahead as the next baby-step to seed further “revolutionary times” in Asia as ominously foretold in “Georgia-Russia: It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!”. Pakistan is in the gun-sights too for its long-planned dismemberment, as was disclosed in the 2007 analysis “Saving Pakistan from Synthetic 'Terror Central'”.
If anything, all that is Mr. Obama's real New Deal, planned by the 'ubermensch' masterminds, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the Rockefeller's many foundations for world-government.
It is shameful that in the otherwise interesting analysis of America's post election prognosis, Noam Chomsky – “arguably the most important intellectual alive” according to the New York Times – appearing on 'Democracy Now' with Amy Goodman on November 24, 2008, in a conversation titled “What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World”, did not even once mention the name Zbigniew Brzezinski, or the Rockefeller's Trilateralist agenda for world-government to be run by the world's private central-banks. See the Monetary Reform Bibliography for evidence – since Noam Chomsky likes evidence, but of course not of the forensic type. Only that which is ex post facto revealed by the New York Times! Because it is a safe bet that the NYT will never reveal that 911 was an inside job of expert controlled-demolition behind the magic-show of highjacked airplanes and 'Bin Laden', nor reveal the Machiavellian agenda for world government of the financial hegemons, it is quite safe to accept the axioms du jour. To challenge the obvious would be “ignorant and meddlesome”, and quite beyond the pale of an intellectual who hath once boldly proclaimed: “Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation...”. Only ordinary plebeians are left to do that today – and that's okay because few pay any attention to the “ignorant and meddlesome” peoples anyway.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-new-deal-dec012008.html