Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, those two are synonyms, or at least close in meaning, so much so that the difference is trivial, and you are picking nits.



That also does not in any way conflict with what I said.

This election remains unpredictable, and to attempt to predict the 2012 election based on it is an exercise in futility. But one thing I know for certain: the long-term future cannot possibly be what you fear. Whatever government we put in place must be one that actually solves the institutional problems we face. Anything that fails to do so will be gone by the time the Crisis ends. And the Republican Party as presently constituted has not even the ghost of a solution. They can win this year, but in the long term, without radical changes to where they stand, they cannot.

The government put in place will have to deal with the number one problem we have, an oversized government and promised benefits that are unsustainable for the future. the Democrat party with its allegiance to public employee unions and fealty to the idea of government largesse is the most ill equipped to solve that problem.....

More Chris Christie:

Conservative Governor on his "confrontational tone"

Governor Christie Responds To Teacher During Town Hall

Presidential caliber stuff right here:

Governor Christie: Day of Reckoning

Originally Posted by Weave

The government put in place will have to deal with the number one problem we have, an oversized government and promised benefits that are unsustainable for the future. the Democrat party with its allegiance to public employee unions and fealty to the idea of government largesse is the most ill equipped to solve that problem.....

Corporate dominance is far worse than that of the government. At least the government, in theory, is answerable to its constituents. Corporations are only answerable to their shareholders, a group that encourages them to make as much money as possible despite any other non-monetary costs.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Corporate dominance is far worse than that of the government. At least the government, in theory, is answerable to its constituents. Corporations are only answerable to their shareholders, a group that encourages them to make as much money as possible despite any other non-monetary costs.

I can see that, but there is a counterpoint to that: namely that if a corporation does something that I as a consumer don't like, I can vote with my wallet to patronize a competing business more to my liking. In short, people can use the power of their own purse strings to "reward" the companies they believe are doing it right (or at least better).

People have no such choice with government. No matter how much some people dislike government practices or disagree with their policies, governments are both monopolistic and coercive -- and people have no choice but to "patronize" it with taxes.

Note that this isn't some libertarian/minarchist rant -- it's just pointing out that there are reasons not to put all trust and faith in government just as there is reason not to put all trust and faith in business.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Corporate dominance is far worse than that of the government. At least the government, in theory, is answerable to its constituents. Corporations are only answerable to their shareholders, a group that encourages them to make as much money as possible despite any other non-monetary costs.

I'll agree with you on the day McDonald's forces me to buy a Big Mac with the threat of jail time, or forces me to work for them whether I want to or not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's not even possible to predict this November's election outcome, let alone the one two years after. Statements like "the Republicans will almost surely take the House, and the Democrats will almost surely keep the Senate" require the caveat: "If the election were held today." It won't be, and how things will change between now and November contains many imponderables. Absent substantial shaping events -- something we can't assume -- the race will certainly tighten between now and then, making it less likely that the GOP will take the House. On the other hand, WITH substantial shaping events, anything from a total Republican takeover of both houses to a Democratic victory increasing their margins becomes possible.

With two more years to go between now and when Obama comes up for reelection, all we can do is present some if-thens. I will say this: IF this election results in gridlock, THEN the situation will worsen for most Americans, AND public anger and demands for effective action will increase. In that case, and because this is a 4T, any of the following far-out scenarios becomes plausible:

1) Shakeup in the White House -- Obama's entire team of economic advisors resigns, being replaced by a progressive modern-day Brains Trust, and he very publicly calls on Congress to pass simple, much-needed legislation designed to bring jobs home, push wages up, and spread the wealth around. Assuming this year's election has the House/Senate split that David predicts, much of this legislation is introduced into the Senate, where it is either passed or killed by Republican filibuster; those bills that pass go on to the House where the Republicans kill most of them. Anger and disgust at the GOP keeps growing. Obama wins by a landslide in 2012, bringing in new Democratic majorities in both houses.

2) Obama defeat in Democratic primary -- a progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party, expressing public fury at the failure of the government to do anything effective, mounts a serious primary challenge on the part of a charismatic, progressive Democrat who seizes the nomination from Obama and goes on to win the general election with big margins.

3) Third Party Victory -- public disgust with both parties generates an insurgency outside the ranks of Dems and Pubs, resulting in a first-time-ever win for a third party candidate, who defeats both Obama and the Republican nominee. The new third party also takes enough seats in Congress that a coalition caucus of its own members and progressive Democrats rules in the House and Senate.

4) Fascist takeover -- the Tea Party insurgency morphs into a full-on fascist movement, complete with the currently-absent socialist elements, and a charismatic leader wins the 2012 GOP nomination on a platform that promises jobs and income redistribution and energy independence, but also the "restoration of order" through setting aside civil liberties. This candidate goes on to secure a Republican victory in the general election, but one that has the corporate interests shaking in their boots -- along with civil libertarians.

I'm not prepared to actually predict any of these outcomes, as all of them involve lots of imponderables -- but that's the point. We cannot make any serious predictions of electoral outcomes that far out, especially not in a 4T.

1. Completely plausible that there will be firings if they lose the House, as thier should be, since they cannot blame Obama himself (although untimately he deserves it). In reality, the lefties like Valarie Jarret and others who advised him to completely ignore the Republicans and thier constituents should be the ones who are fired.

2. Again plausible. But who? Some people say Hillary but she would have to run to his left and she has already moved to his right. Wouldnt look geniune. Also, after a drubbing in 2010 for being too left I dont see anyone winning the nomination and certainly not winning the general from a farther left position than Obama is now. Sounds a little Bob Schrum"ish" to me...a recipe for disaster....

3. Third party? I could see that. Most likely though it would be a Tea Party spin off ala the Reform party. I could see them getting tired of the Republicans if the Repubs continue on a "Big Govt Conservative path thye took in the mid 00's. (since many Tea Partiers are former Perotistas) Possibly the emergence of the Green Party from the far left too. A 4 way election would be interesting....

4. Fascist takeover-sheer fantasy. First, no tea partier I know supports anything close to resembling "redistribution" and would NEVER support that position. There may be some who did but they are in the distinct minority. Second, it could be Reagan incarnate and I would NEVER support them trying to restrict my firearm rights and other rights as well as monitering my financial status etc. Nope, never....

I don't forsee any of us ever being forced to buy a Big Mac, but have complained numerous times about excessive corporate control, which is what we have had for at least the last three decades. They have become so pervasive in influencing every level of government that the two worlds are becoming one and the same in many ways. And while the primary goal of the 20th century was to rein in excessive totalitarian state power, the goal of the 21st century should be to rein in excessive corporate power. The latter suffered a bit hit with the recent SCOTUS decision, but the unlimited influence decision did apply to unions as well. And there are those in think tanks who believe we may actually one day be headed for a post-corporate world. Don't expect to see this within my lifetime, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's not even possible to predict this November's election outcome, let alone the one two years after. Statements like "the Republicans will almost surely take the House, and the Democrats will almost surely keep the Senate" require the caveat: "If the election were held today." It won't be, and how things will change between now and November contains many imponderables. Absent substantial shaping events -- something we can't assume -- the race will certainly tighten between now and then, making it less likely that the GOP will take the House. On the other hand, WITH substantial shaping events, anything from a total Republican takeover of both houses to a Democratic victory increasing their margins becomes possible.

With two more years to go between now and when Obama comes up for reelection, all we can do is present some if-thens. I will say this: IF this election results in gridlock, THEN the situation will worsen for most Americans, AND public anger and demands for effective action will increase. In that case, and because this is a 4T, any of the following far-out scenarios becomes plausible:

1) Shakeup in the White House -- Obama's entire team of economic advisors resigns, being replaced by a progressive modern-day Brains Trust, and he very publicly calls on Congress to pass simple, much-needed legislation designed to bring jobs home, push wages up, and spread the wealth around. Assuming this year's election has the House/Senate split that David predicts, much of this legislation is introduced into the Senate, where it is either passed or killed by Republican filibuster; those bills that pass go on to the House where the Republicans kill most of them. Anger and disgust at the GOP keeps growing. Obama wins by a landslide in 2012, bringing in new Democratic majorities in both houses.

A certainty about a White House shake-up. Even the economic reality (going from a meltdown to a recovery) dictates different economic policies.

A GOP majority isn't going to give President Obama any legislative victories unless they are pure concessions to the super-rich -- like outlawing or emasculating unions, cutting the minimum wage, allowing workers to "work off the clock" for the "creation of capital", and of course tax-cuts that most obviously serve the super-rich. This is the Tea Party/Birch Society GOP we are talking about.

Yes, even though Communism is dead except in North Korea, the John Birch Society is very much alive and well. Of course, these fellows are the sorts who spell Obama with a hammer-and-sickle device in his name.

2) Obama defeat in Democratic primary -- a progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party, expressing public fury at the failure of the government to do anything effective, mounts a serious primary challenge on the part of a charismatic, progressive Democrat who seizes the nomination from Obama and goes on to win the general election with big margins.

Any significant intra-Party challenge to an incumbent President has invariably led to defeat of the incumbent. If President Obama is not "progressive" enough to satisfy the Base, then even Sarah Palin has a chance to win the Presidency. I just don't see that happening. Democrats who hate the Tea Party are likely to find even more Americans who hate it after its chosen stooges make fools of themselves in office.

3) Third Party Victory -- public disgust with both parties generates an insurgency outside the ranks of Dems and Pubs, resulting in a first-time-ever win for a third party candidate, who defeats both Obama and the Republican nominee. The new third party also takes enough seats in Congress that a coalition caucus of its own members and progressive Democrats rules in the House and Senate.

Fascinating -- but unlikely. Republicans are not going to break away to make this possible and credible.

4) Fascist takeover -- the Tea Party insurgency morphs into a full-on fascist movement, complete with the currently-absent socialist elements, and a charismatic leader wins the 2012 GOP nomination on a platform that promises jobs and income redistribution and energy independence, but also the "restoration of order" through setting aside civil liberties. This candidate goes on to secure a Republican victory in the general election, but one that has the corporate interests shaking in their boots -- along with civil libertarians.

The only corporate interests shaking in their boots will be those involved in businesses (erotica, racy books and movies, maybe liquor) that the Tea Party opposes, left-wing media that could be squelched, and those who might have the "wrong" religion. There will be plenty of profit printing and distributing devotional materials, pseudoscientific texts, mythologized histories, "family" guides (wives and children submitting to the father and the father submitting to the boss), and right-wing hagiographies. You might see libraries (public and personal) raided for "unpatriotic" and "un-American" books that become sources of alternative energy. The people shaking in their boots will be such people as journalists, politicians (including RINO types), and college professors and teachers of all kind who fail to toe the line.

In any event, a fascistic America will invariably create international enemies that now seem absurd. The only pro-American countries will either be abject satellites or "partners in crime". People will be obliged to suffer for the greed of the elite, emigrate, learn the hard way (hard labor on starvation rations), die, or submit.

Fascist regimes always choose in favor of big landowners, tycoons, and executives who fund the Movement. Workers simply work harder and longer for less under worse conditions. Any redistribution of income will be away from working people to extant elites and of course the Party hacks.

I'm not prepared to actually predict any of these outcomes, as all of them involve lots of imponderables -- but that's the point. We cannot make any serious predictions of electoral outcomes that far out, especially not in a 4T.

I thought that electoral outcomes were more predictable in the last two Crisis Eras than this one... but in this one I look at the Tea Party, its attempt to combine populist anger with the will of right-wing ideology, and its utter contempt for objective reality, and I see the most dangerous mass movement in America since the KKK of the 1920s.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

and I see the most dangerous mass movement in America since the KKK of the 1920s.

Wow. You really ARE way out there.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'll agree with you on the day McDonald's forces me to buy a Big Mac with the threat of jail time, or forces me to work for them whether I want to or not.

Ah, but McDonalds never will. Instead they simply have a business model that takes advantage of a legal and institutional environment that makes their shitty burgers artificially cheap. And if they ever perceive a threat to the corporate liability laws, transportation subsidies and farm subsidies that fluff their profit margin -- you can bet they'll lobby hard to maintain those policies.

My only gripe with the liberal concept of "corporate power" is that it treats giant firms as if they are an automatic and natural result of industrialization -- which government can either choose to ameliorate or not. I contend that an industrial economy need not be organized in this way, but in the meantime I accept state action that reduces concentrations of wealth as being better than outright plutocracy.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Wow. You really ARE way out there.

Misappropriation of history, much free-floating anger, utter disregard for objective truth, contempt for the intellect, secret funding by shadowy groups -- the combination is ugly.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In that case, and because this is a 4T, any of the following far-out scenarios becomes plausible:

1) Shakeup in the White House -- Obama's entire team of economic advisors resigns, being replaced by a progressive modern-day Brains Trust, and he very publicly calls on Congress to pass simple, much-needed legislation designed to bring jobs home, push wages up, and spread the wealth around. Assuming this year's election has the House/Senate split that David predicts, much of this legislation is introduced into the Senate, where it is either passed or killed by Republican filibuster; those bills that pass go on to the House where the Republicans kill most of them. Anger and disgust at the GOP keeps growing. Obama wins by a landslide in 2012, bringing in new Democratic majorities in both houses.

The assumption here is that Obama is just waiting for the right moment to be sufficiently progressive (akin to LBJs surprising switch on Civil Rights). I'm dubious.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

2) Obama defeat in Democratic primary -- a progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party, expressing public fury at the failure of the government to do anything effective, mounts a serious primary challenge on the part of a charismatic, progressive Democrat who seizes the nomination from Obama and goes on to win the general election with big margins.

Weave asks who this challenger might be. One possibility would be Russ Feingold, if he keeps his seat in the Senate. But frankly, if this scenario plays out, the Democratic nominee is likely to be a total surprise.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

3) Third Party Victory -- public disgust with both parties generates an insurgency outside the ranks of Dems and Pubs, resulting in a first-time-ever win for a third party candidate, who defeats both Obama and the Republican nominee. The new third party also takes enough seats in Congress that a coalition caucus of its own members and progressive Democrats rules in the House and Senate.

This is only possible if the ticket can plausibly draw from both parties. The GOP is nativist enough that a Perot-style platform is too easily co-opted by them. Thus, the only plausible third party campaign would be a "liberal-tarian" one. I think this is only possible if neither 1) nor 2) occurs.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

4) Fascist takeover -- the Tea Party insurgency morphs into a full-on fascist movement, complete with the currently-absent socialist elements, and a charismatic leader wins the 2012 GOP nomination on a platform that promises jobs and income redistribution and energy independence, but also the "restoration of order" through setting aside civil liberties. This candidate goes on to secure a Republican victory in the general election, but one that has the corporate interests shaking in their boots -- along with civil libertarians.

Fortunately, I agree with Weave's assessment that the GOP will not take a socialist turn in the immediate future. I do think it will get there by the end of the Crisis though -- but only after so much progress has been made on social and civil liberties that the authoritarian side of the GOP will be heavily restrained in practice. In other words, a reasonable, non-evil version of this scenario is what the GOP will be like during the High.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The assumption here is that Obama is just waiting for the right moment to be sufficiently progressive (akin to LBJs surprising switch on Civil Rights). I'm dubious.

Speaking of LBJ, Obama may decide that he doesn't want to be President anymore and bow out.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Speaking of LBJ, Obama may decide that he doesn't want to be President anymore and bow out.

The circumstances there were quite unique -- a divided Democratic party and compatible foreign policy views between the sitting President and the Republican nominee. The historical evidence suggests that Johnson realized the Democrats would split their votes and if he bowed out of the race he could stay above the fray and ensure continuity of policy under Nixon. I don't think that sort of situation prevails today.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The assumption here is that Obama is just waiting for the right moment to be sufficiently progressive (akin to LBJs surprising switch on Civil Rights). I'm dubious.



Weave asks who this challenger might be. One possibility would be Russ Feingold, if he keeps his seat in the Senate. But frankly, if this scenario plays out, the Democratic nominee is likely to be a total surprise.



This is only possible if the ticket can plausibly draw from both parties. The GOP is nativist enough that a Perot-style platform is too easily co-opted by them. Thus, the only plausible third party campaign would be a "liberal-tarian" one. I think this is only possible if neither 1) nor 2) occurs.



Fortunately, I agree with Weave's assessment that the GOP will not take a socialist turn in the immediate future. I do think it will get there by the end of the Crisis though -- but only after so much progress has been made on social and civil liberties that the authoritarian side of the GOP will be heavily restrained in practice. In other words, a reasonable, non-evil version of this scenario is what the GOP will be like during the High.

Feingold is looking like the likely loser this fall although he is a tough incumbent. Actually losing his seat may free him up for a run. I seriously do not see him knocking off Obama. Ted Kennedy couldnt do it against a seriously weakened Carter in 80. Kennedy had family name recognition working for him (but Chappaquiddick working against him). Most people outside of Wisconsin have no idea who Feingold is.....

As far as the Repubs turning socialist....what would be the point...we already have a socialist leaning party, we dont need two...If that were the case, the Republican party would disappear....

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Wow. You really ARE way out there.

Welcome to Pbrower, our expert Hyperbolist.....

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Ah, but McDonalds never will. Instead they simply have a business model that takes advantage of a legal and institutional environment that makes their shitty burgers artificially cheap. And if they ever perceive a threat to the corporate liability laws, transportation subsidies and farm subsidies that fluff their profit margin -- you can bet they'll lobby hard to maintain those policies.

My only gripe with the liberal concept of "corporate power" is that it treats giant firms as if they are an automatic and natural result of industrialization -- which government can either choose to ameliorate or not. I contend that an industrial economy need not be organized in this way, but in the meantime I accept state action that reduces concentrations of wealth as being better than outright plutocracy.

Indeed, we all already help pay for the big mac with our taxes going to their agricultural subsidies. Force will eventually arrive to collect if one won't help support cheap grains and meats. Same goes for oil and the banking system, but those are just some of the most obvious & expensive examples.

Originally Posted by Weave

Welcome to Pbrower, our expert Hyperbolist.....

Says one of the posters that think center-right Dems are Socialists.

This is interesting. Has anyone else noticed this story yet, in connection with my possibility #1 above?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100922/...onomic_adviser

I, personally, will not miss Summers. Now if Geithner would go as well, we might have a beginning.

Originally Posted by Odin

Says one of the posters that think center-right Dems are Socialists.

In any event people need to know that it isn't only socialists who establish dictatorships. Conservatives out only to protect and extend their class privilege can, too; the danger with a conservative dictatorship the regime can panic and turn to thugs as enforcers.

I don't know whether to call the John Birch Society "ultra-conservative" or "fascist"... but the Tea Party Movement is very close to it in ideology and objectives. Whatever President Obama is, he is no Marxist-Leninist, and his only "socialism" seems to be a reform of a bad health care system and to not sell off the public sector cheaply.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Ah, but McDonalds never will. Instead they simply have a business model that takes advantage of a legal and institutional environment that makes their shitty burgers artificially cheap. And if they ever perceive a threat to the corporate liability laws, transportation subsidies and farm subsidies that fluff their profit margin -- you can bet they'll lobby hard to maintain those policies.

My only gripe with the liberal concept of "corporate power" is that it treats giant firms as if they are an automatic and natural result of industrialization -- which government can either choose to ameliorate or not. I contend that an industrial economy need not be organized in this way, but in the meantime I accept state action that reduces concentrations of wealth as being better than outright plutocracy.

The left interprets the issue as a problem with free markets, when it is a problem with government. If corporations have unfair advantages because of government collusion and corruption, the solution is not socialism, or the twisted form of state capitalism the Democratic Party is currently trying to construct. It's getting rid of corrupt politicians, and reducing the power of government.

That's the problem with John McCain's campaign finance law and all of the thinking behind it. It presumes that crooked politicians are helpless to resist the temptation of money, and therefore the problem is the money, not the crooked politicians. Instead of taking away the money so the politicians are not tempted, how about taking away their power so they have nothing to sell?

Originally Posted by independent

Indeed, we all already help pay for the big mac with our taxes going to their agricultural subsidies. Force will eventually arrive to collect if one won't help support cheap grains and meats. Same goes for oil and the banking system, but those are just some of the most obvious & expensive examples.

Again...the problem lies with the government, not the market.

The Carter-Obama Comparisons Grow

Walter Mondale himself sees a parallel.

Walter Mondale, Mr. Carter's vice president, told The New Yorker this week that anxious and angry voters in the late 1970s "just turned against us—same as with Obama." As the polls turned against his administration, Mr. Mondale recalled that Mr. Carter "began to lose confidence in his ability to move the public." Democrats on Capitol Hill are now saying this is happening to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Mondale says it's time for the president "to get rid of those teleprompters and connect" with voters. Another of Mr. Obama's clear errors has been to turn over the drafting of key legislation to the Democratic Congress: "That doesn't work even when you own Congress," he said. "You have to ride 'em."

Mr. Carter himself is heightening comparisons with his own presidency by publishing his White House diaries this week. "I overburdened Congress with an array of controversial and politically costly requests," he said on Monday.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Again...the problem lies with the government, not the market.

As there can be no market without the government, this distinction is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As there can be no market without the government, this distinction is meaningless.

Of course, you mis-state on the one hand, and have causality reversed on the other.

As to the first, it is clear that there can be no "The Market" -- in the sense of the overall financial paradigm that holds today -- without government. Too many of its fundamental features and inhabitants are creatures purely of state privilege (the concepts of corporate personhood and limited liability being only two of the very, very many).

As to the second, it is similarly clear that no government can arise without there having already been some form of 'market' (in the classic sense of a customary framework for people in a society to meet and engage in commerce). Such frameworks are emergent properties of even villages -- which is to say, pre-city. Regardless the validity of its logic, you've always insisted on tying 'government' with 'city'. Since markets come prior to cities, they are prior to government.