Believing Your Own Propaganda
I spent a lot of time reading conservative blogs today, mostly to gauge their reaction to Obama's auto bailout announcement, and it occurred to me that -- at least with respect to this issue -- the majority of conservatives are engaged an imaginary debate with fictitious opponents.
Most of the posts I read were filled with complete nonsense about the dangers of government interference with private industry (as if that's not what always happens when companies go bankrupt). Many indulged in the paranoid fantasy that the Obama administration wants to take over and run GM, that administration officials would soon be sitting in the board room telling GM what cars to make, who to hire, where to build factories, etc. Others warned that this was a dangerous power grab by the Obama administration, that it was the first major step toward turning the country into a socialist state.
I'm always amazed by how willing conservatives are to believe their own lazy caricatures and, as a result, how completely and utterly they fail to understand the actual motivations and beliefs of their political opponents. The reality is that liberals in this country -- including Obama -- have absolutely no desire whatsoever to nationalize private enterprise. They're not going around looking for excuses to take over corporations. Quite the opposite, actually. The absolute last thing that Obama wants to waste his political capital on is trying to run a company. If Obama could magically waive his finger and have companies like GM, Chrysler, and Bank of America suddenly be solvent again and capable of handling their own affairs, he would gladly do so. Indeed, a number of major banks probably should have been put in FDIC receivership already, but Obama is desperate to avoid that scenario if at all possible (hence the Geithner plan).
Obama -- and nearly every other American liberal -- would much rather focus on issues like health care, education, and energy policy, issues they care about and have crafted detailed policy proposals to address. They believe in capitalism and would prefer to govern over a healthy economy in which private industry was humming along and didn't need to be bailed out. How can anyone with any functioning brain cells really believe that Obama wants to spend his time figuring out how save GM? Or that he really wants to have his administration run that company? Honestly, that's just crazy stupid. This is the last thing in the world that Obama would choose to have on his plate. It's a bad situation, with no easy answers.
Whatever decision Obama ultimately makes, however, we can all rest assured that he will not opt to take over GM and run it out of the West Wing. He wants this situation to be resolved as quickly as possible and, based on his speech today, it's pretty clear that what they're doing right now is laying the groundwork for a pre-packaged bankruptcy. They don't want to run the company. They just want to keep it from imploding in a chaotic fashion and thereby minimize the harm to the rest of the economy. So they're pressing GM to come up with a plan of reorganization now, before bankruptcy proceedings are commenced (usually that happens during the bankruptcy proceeding).
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy. That debate, to the extent it ever really happened in this country, was settled a long time ago. What we're dealing with right now are differences of opinion regarding how best to manage the failure of a number of major companies. It's not a debate about socialism vs. capitalism; it's a debate about methods of damage control. But many conservatives have so deluded themselves with their own propaganda that they're not even capable of following the conversation any more. So instead they spend all day indulging in paranoid delusions and debates that have no relevance to current events. It's a sad spectacle.
UPDATE: Just be clear, in this post and a few other recent posts, I make some statements that, when viewed in isolation, sound like sweeping generalizations of "conservatives." As I hope is clear from the context, the people I'm referring to are the conservative bloggers I'm linking to in those posts, the Malkin-esque know-nothings who tend to dominate the conservative blogosphere (and talk radio and Fox News, etc.). There are certainly intelligent conservatives out there who understand how bankruptcy works and realize that Obama isn't attempting some sort of socialist power grab. I know them. I work with them. Sadly, though, the most vocal representatives of "conservatism" at the moment are shrieking idiots.
Most of the posts I read were filled with complete nonsense about the dangers of government interference with private industry (as if that's not what always happens when companies go bankrupt). Many indulged in the paranoid fantasy that the Obama administration wants to take over and run GM, that administration officials would soon be sitting in the board room telling GM what cars to make, who to hire, where to build factories, etc. Others warned that this was a dangerous power grab by the Obama administration, that it was the first major step toward turning the country into a socialist state.
I'm always amazed by how willing conservatives are to believe their own lazy caricatures and, as a result, how completely and utterly they fail to understand the actual motivations and beliefs of their political opponents. The reality is that liberals in this country -- including Obama -- have absolutely no desire whatsoever to nationalize private enterprise. They're not going around looking for excuses to take over corporations. Quite the opposite, actually. The absolute last thing that Obama wants to waste his political capital on is trying to run a company. If Obama could magically waive his finger and have companies like GM, Chrysler, and Bank of America suddenly be solvent again and capable of handling their own affairs, he would gladly do so. Indeed, a number of major banks probably should have been put in FDIC receivership already, but Obama is desperate to avoid that scenario if at all possible (hence the Geithner plan).
Obama -- and nearly every other American liberal -- would much rather focus on issues like health care, education, and energy policy, issues they care about and have crafted detailed policy proposals to address. They believe in capitalism and would prefer to govern over a healthy economy in which private industry was humming along and didn't need to be bailed out. How can anyone with any functioning brain cells really believe that Obama wants to spend his time figuring out how save GM? Or that he really wants to have his administration run that company? Honestly, that's just crazy stupid. This is the last thing in the world that Obama would choose to have on his plate. It's a bad situation, with no easy answers.
Whatever decision Obama ultimately makes, however, we can all rest assured that he will not opt to take over GM and run it out of the West Wing. He wants this situation to be resolved as quickly as possible and, based on his speech today, it's pretty clear that what they're doing right now is laying the groundwork for a pre-packaged bankruptcy. They don't want to run the company. They just want to keep it from imploding in a chaotic fashion and thereby minimize the harm to the rest of the economy. So they're pressing GM to come up with a plan of reorganization now, before bankruptcy proceedings are commenced (usually that happens during the bankruptcy proceeding).
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy. That debate, to the extent it ever really happened in this country, was settled a long time ago. What we're dealing with right now are differences of opinion regarding how best to manage the failure of a number of major companies. It's not a debate about socialism vs. capitalism; it's a debate about methods of damage control. But many conservatives have so deluded themselves with their own propaganda that they're not even capable of following the conversation any more. So instead they spend all day indulging in paranoid delusions and debates that have no relevance to current events. It's a sad spectacle.
UPDATE: Just be clear, in this post and a few other recent posts, I make some statements that, when viewed in isolation, sound like sweeping generalizations of "conservatives." As I hope is clear from the context, the people I'm referring to are the conservative bloggers I'm linking to in those posts, the Malkin-esque know-nothings who tend to dominate the conservative blogosphere (and talk radio and Fox News, etc.). There are certainly intelligent conservatives out there who understand how bankruptcy works and realize that Obama isn't attempting some sort of socialist power grab. I know them. I work with them. Sadly, though, the most vocal representatives of "conservatism" at the moment are shrieking idiots.
posted by A.L. at 9:45 PM
27 Comments:
Unfortunately, the auto bailouts could breathe new life into the lunatic likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are basket cases, and have been for decades. Americans don't want a GM airbag inches from their heads. They don't want their kinds on the road at night in a Chrysler. If Obama becomes too involved in these Detroit disasters, people like Hannity and LImbaugh will be able to ridicule him. I voted for Obama, and I've always been very enthusiastic about him. It would be a shame if he let his Presidency get bogged down by basket cases like GM and Chrysler, much as Bush got bogged down by Iraq.
I'm always amazed by how willing conservatives are to believe their own lazy caricatures...
So, conservatives have lazy caricatures. Yet in the previous paragraph is this:
Most of the posts I read were filled with complete nonsense about the dangers of government interference with private industry (as if that's not what always happens when companies go bankrupt).
You equate what one elected politician is doing, without any legislation to back it up, with what a judge does in a court of law during a bankruptcy (MLS and I made this point in the other thread). I think what you call conservative "caricatures" are more apropos than you are giving them credit for.
The reality is that liberals in this country -- including Obama -- have absolutely no desire whatsoever to nationalize private enterprise. They're not going around looking for excuses to take over corporations.
Then tell me why the administration is looking to have a mandate put in to control the pay structure of all financial institutions, even those that didn't take, or were coerced into taking, TARP money. Maybe the left is looking to take over certain key industries, not all of them. Some were named in the post: energy, health care. Others, finance and auto, are add-ons.
How can anyone with any functioning brain cells really believe that Obama wants to spend his time figuring out how save GM? Or that he really wants to have his administration run that company?
Then why is he doing it? Is he looking to have his administration further imitate the actions of the Bush administration?
He wants this situation to be resolved as quickly as possible and, based on his speech today, it's pretty clear that what they're doing right now is laying the groundwork for a pre-packaged bankruptcy...They just want to keep it from imploding in a chaotic fashion and thereby minimize the harm to the rest of the economy.
A pre-packaged bankruptcy? If you mean a pre-packaged liquidation, delaying things won't do anything except give GM more of our tax dollars to flush down the toilet. Bankruptcy is always chaotic, and no amount of "welfare" is going to make it less so. Had the Obama administration actually wanted to act responsibly, as opposed to what the Bush administration did (which conservatives condemned), it would have told GM to take their chances in court now and get the inevitable over with.
Obama -- and nearly every other American liberal -- would much rather focus on issues like health care, education, and energy policy, issues they care about and have crafted detailed policy proposals to address...This is the last thing in the world that Obama would choose to have on his plate.
A complete non sequiter. Every politician, every person, would like conditions to be favorable for what they want to do. Sometimes politicians have to put their agenda on hold.
In Obama's case, his intent is to expand the government massively and quickly; and, he's using the economy as an excuse to do it, and doing so without having a debate on it. He hasn't put his agenda on hold one bit.
What we're dealing with right now are differences of opinion regarding how best to manage the failure of a number of major companies. It's not a debate about socialism vs. capitalism; it's a debate about methods of damage control.
Considering how often Bush is referred to as a fascist by the left, as a reaction to the nation being attacked, it is hard to reconcile that the left really cares about methods, just who implements them. In this case, Bush is vilified, while Obama is exalted.
"Honestly, that's just crazy stupid"
Right on queue, SteveIL
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy. That debate, to the extent it ever really happened in this country, was settled a long time ago.
This, I'm afraid, is a serious misreading of American history. Maybe that history never interested you, or maybe your choice of career has embedded you in a universe of opinion which is unaware of it, or discounts it as something which happened long ago, and far away.
All I'll say is that you're repeating conventional wisdom, that it's wrong, and that, in times like this, one can never be sure who anyone of significance will turn out to be.
William,
Name one person of any prominence on the American left who thinks that we should nationalize solvent industries?
There are people (myself included) who believe in things like a single-payer health care system, but that's about as far into the "socialist" realm as anyone goes here (and it's not very far). I'm sure there are genuine socialists in this country; they just don't occupy any high offices or play a significant role in the national conversation.
one can never be sure who anyone of significance will turn out to be.
Names please.
I'm not sure it was your intent, but this sounds very much like a suggestion that some of the high profile elements of the U.S. left of center are crypto-socialists. In the smaller group of U.S. left-of-center people with actual significant political influence, I'm not seeing anyone who is obviously a socialist, other than perhaps Bernie Sanders.
i am a socialist, bernie sanders is a socialist; obama is a left-leaning moderate. i wish he were a socialist.
Last I heard, being a socialist wasn't in the least illegal -- much as the right wing might wish it were so.
So, all you folks, perhaps you should end your comments with "not that there's anything wrong with being a socialist."
A.L., Bill Arnold, I think you've both misunderstood my point.
A.L., I was reacting to your blithe to the extent it ever really happened. It did happen, and to a very great extent indeed. Millions were involved in it, with both their voices and their bodies. It's been customary under both the Republicans and New Democrats, to pretend that things like the shooting wars between Pinkertons and the UMW never happened, and that the IWW either didn't exist, or that it didn't really believe in the labor theory of value. Victor's history -- believe it at your peril.
As for Bill Arnold's point about who of any importance is a Socialist, I'd quote Faulkner about the past not being dead, that it's not, in fact, even past. If you beggar the people, they'll look beyond you to something or to someone else. Capitalism isn't ordained by God, and I dare say there are more than a few people who are once again wondering if it's vaunted advantages are as intellectually defensible as we've all been told.
It's not that anyone presently in the seat of power is a crypto-socialist, Bill, it's that a socialism which was once born out of exactly the shit that we're now about to endure again can also born be born again, with suitable adjustments for the times we live in. If that happens, either socialists will find prominence, or prominence will find socialists.
That you don't think so is fine with me. You may even be right. I just don't think that you can be quite so sure about it A.L. seems to be.
William,
I think you're reading too much into an aside. I was trying to make a point about the spectrum of ideas that are currently mainstream in American politics, not a historical point. You're absolutely right that there were points in our history where socialism was much more mainstream (though less so than in many other countries).
I also concede that if things get bad enough, those ideas could make a bit of a comeback. It would have to get REALLY bad, though. Probably at least as bad as the Great Depression.
Point taken, A.L., but if we don't want to be blind-sided, we have to aware that the present universe of discourse isn't the only one possible. If you look at what's happening in Latin America, which may be as ephemeral, or as doomed as the smug scriveners at The Economist tell us, it certainly would have been unthinkable just two decades ago.
If you look at the prominent supporters of single-payer health care -- and there are a few -- nationalization of a solvent industry doesn't seem as far-fetched as it did even two years ago, despite all the din about it's being off the table.
My take on the outcome of our present commitments to financial capitalism and world empire is that in the face of the real obstacles to continuing them, they may collapse as quickly as the Berlin Wall did. If you grant me even the faintest plausibility for such a dark scenario -- which has its prominent visionaries as well, although there aren't any in Washington at the moment -- then perhaps the Right Wing does have something to be afraid of, idiots that they are. I certainly hope so, even though I'd be content myself if it were something less than the vanguard of the proletariat.
i would also note that the right isnt sure which decade they are in, nor which one they want to fight. the unholy alliance of the evangelical christians and the tax slashing conservative is helping sound the death nell for the republican party.
There are certainly intelligent conservatives out there who understand how bankruptcy works and realize that Obama isn't attempting some sort of socialist power grab.
Can we include Bob Corker in this group? Corker, on his own .gov website, is touting a Politico article that cites the following quotes:
“This is a major power grab by the White House on the heels of another power grab from Secretary Geithner who asked last week for the freedom to decide on his own which companies are ‘systemically’ important to our country and worthy of taxpayer investment and which are not.
“This is a marked departure from the past, truly breathtaking, and should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise. I worry that in one fell swoop we’ve lost our moral high ground throughout the global community as it relates to chastising other countries that use strong arm tactics to invade on private property rights.”
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy.
Define "of significance".
Define "genuine socialism."
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy. That debate, to the extent it ever really happened in this country, was settled a long time ago
The debate was settled a long time ago because we have been operating in a quasi-socialistic form of capitalism for around 100 years. The notion that there is anyone of significance in America who still believes we have anything approaching genuine capitalism is pure fantasy.
To that degree, conservatives who rail against the current Left and the Obama administration are hollow shells. They refuse to acknowledge that the "national greatness" supply-side economic and political philosophy they have endorsed for the past quarter century engaged in as many forms of corpratism and quasi-socialism as anything Clinton or Obama did (or will do). Medicare Part D anyone?
However, to claim that the Left does not envision - or seek to implement - policies that establish such nebulous and foolhardy goals as "income equality" and "universal healthcare" is bogus. These are "genuine" forms of Socialism. Maybe it's Comparmentalized Socialism, Targeted Socialism, or as I have said before quasi-socialism...the fact is that these policies are the goal of genuine Socialism.
The uproar against Big Government Liberalism and quasi-socialism is a century too late.
I think there is a portion, a substantial portion, of our country that might be quite open to a reigning in of "free market" capitalism not too long from now. That you even see this faux-populism ("Off with the bonus-takers heads!") on the right suggests there is some new relationship developing to the back seat the public good has taken to shareholder interests. Call it whatever you want, but there is great potential for change in these dramatic times.
One point about WT's cautionary statement above - "If you look at the prominent supporters of single-payer health care -- and there are a few -- nationalization of a solvent industry doesn't seem as far-fetched as it did even two years ago, despite all the din about it's being off the table."
The reason that nationalization is suggested (rightly, I would argue) is because the successes in the health care sector are a significant part of the failures in others, such as the auto industry. The reason our companies are having difficulty competing with say, Toyota, have a lot to do with the large slice of their operating income that is happily snatched by the health care industry.
So to suggest that health care is being singled out for random nationalization is not considering the interconnectedness of our financial problems.
William, "I think you've both misunderstood my point.", I misunderstood your point, and for whatever it's worth agree with you. These are dangerous times for capitalism. Maybe the Chinese will save it this time.
" I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars."
So let me get this straight: Obama is deciding what cars should be produced, wants new authority to take over any financial company, decide what kind of energy sources we use, has fired a CEO, wants to expand government involvement in health care -- and I'm paranoid for thinking he is a socialist? Really?
Colin,
If you get from the statement that you quoted that Obama is "deciding what cars should be produced", "wants new authority to take over any financial company", and the rest, then, yes, you are paranoid (rather severely so, I'd say). Also delusional. We've already go Steveil, I don't think we really need another delusional right-winger, but, for my part, welcome anyway.
Really.
C2H50H:
...then, yes, you are paranoid (rather severely so, I'd say). Also delusional. We've already go Steveil, I don't think we really need another delusional right-winger,...
Since you had to drag me into this, take a gander:
The Chevrolet Volt may wow the media when it arrives in dealerships next year, but the Obama administration believes the plug-in electric car will cost too much and won't attract enough buyers.
"While the Volt holds promise, it will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short-term," the administration said in its evaluation of General Motors Corp.'s restructuring plan. The car "is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable."
We're delusional? I don't think so. However, I see some who are in denial.
SteveL,
The article you link to describes a government audit of the finances of GM which make recommendations, but DO NOT mandate any sort of changes- especially by litigation.
So, the Obama aministration "worries". What of it?
Brad H.
And, SteveL, I note that you left off the very next sentence of the article:
Despite the administration's assessment, GM remains committed to the Volt and will begin production next year.
Doesn't this seem way too anemic to be called "Socialism?"
Anonymous at 1:47pm and 2:00pm:
The article you link to describes a government audit of the finances of GM which make recommendations, but DO NOT mandate any sort of changes- especially by litigation.
They aren't using litigation. That's the problem.
Doesn't this seem way too anemic to be called "Socialism?"
I'm sure former CEO Wagoner was one of those from GM committed to the Volt. Where is he now?
The color choices on this web page make it difficult to read the blatherings of the dittoheads as they reiterate their support for the failed Republicon policies of the past.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." -John Stuart Mill
"Then tell me why the administration is looking to have a mandate put in to control the pay structure of all financial institutions, even those that didn't take, or were coerced into taking, TARP money. Maybe the left is looking to take over certain key industries, not all of them. Some were named in the post: energy, health care. Others, finance and auto, are add-ons."
Where are you getting this from?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home