Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What DO you call it when democracy is broken at the behest of business?
http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/05/03/what-do-you-call-it-when-democracy-is-broken-at-the-behest-of-business/
“Democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 29, 1938 (Letter to Congress on the problem of Curbing Monopolies)
We sometimes forget that private monied interests have been campaigning for “small government” since long before Grover Norquist dreamt of drowning government in the bathtub. In this letter to Congress on curbing monopolies, Roosevelt warns that government must be strong enough to make corporations play by the rules or else we’ll be playing by their rules. Implicit is the idea that our interests don’t necessarily align.
The very next words that he wrote were, “that, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” Does the word “fascism” shock you the way it does me? I read this and thought “Didn’t FDR know that the first person to mention Nazis loses the argument?” But of course he hadn’t heard that (Godwin’s Law was coined in 1990), and he was dealing with real Nazis, so we have to cut him slack here.
When Roosevelt wrote this, I believe he chose his words carefully. In 1933 he’d encountered a group of right-wing bankers who tried to convince him to turn over his power to them in a corporatist government backed by the military. By the time he wrote this letter he’d already dealt with on attempt by big business to topple democracy in order to muscle its way into power. He called these Wall Street bankers “economic royalists” and warned: “give them their way and they will take the course of every aristocracy of the past – power for themselves, enslavement for the public.”
Wall Street bankers grabbing power for themselves is a very familiar tune. As a matter of fact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is an overt attempt to achieve many of the end results of a corporate government that Roosevelt warned about.
The TPP asks us to deputize private interests to run public policy as a profit center. This is antithetical to democracy as FDR points out later in his letter: “We believe in a way of living in which political democracy and free private enterprise for profit should serve and protect each other—to ensure a maximum of human liberty not for a few but for all.” As a successful capitalist Roosevelt knew that you can’t have a healthy business environment without fair rules of the road.
We know through leaks that the TPP seeks to tilt those rules toward the largest, most lawyered-up global businesses. Members of the Senate who’ve seen the actual TPP document are so alarmed they’re asking for it to be declassified. Currently they’re only allowed to read it with a minder present (no notes, no photos), and aren’t allowed to discuss it with the public. A staffer can read it only if their Senator is there with them by their side. That’s why Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown challenged President Obama to release the text of the negotiation to the public.
Regardless of the secrecy, we know that the most shocking features of the TPP gives corporate lawyers the ability to preempt “non-tariff barriers” to trade that could impact “expected future profits.”
Let’s be clear — non-tariff barriers are government policies that make it possible to have safe food, good jobs and a clean environment. Basically, this is what Republicans call “big government.” Under TPP, 500 the lawyers for the 1% were empowered to identify government policies on health, environment, labor and safety, that could impact business’ future profit with the intent of preempting any barrier to profit. These are the details they won’t let us see. On this subject, the usually understated Sierra Club says “these provisions elevate corporations to the level of nation states and allow them to sue governments over nearly any law or policy which reduces their future profits.”
(more at link)
http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/05/03/what-do-you-call-it-when-democracy-is-broken-at-the-behest-of-business/
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
the powerful who opposed his policies the very first year, in 1933 soon after his inauguration. Major industrialists then planned a coup take over of the WH with the assistance of military leader Smedley Butler and a veterans army. Thankfully Butler said no to the industrialists' Business Plot and had the courage to stand up for democracy and testify about the affair before Congress the next year, in 1934.
though he may not have known what to call it--at least 199 years ago. (see sig line)
I only wish they would have done something to stop it back then.
if some Americans didn't learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam, specifically how profitable long wars can be. It would help explain the long, unwinnable wars in the Middle East started by corporate chickenhawks with little or nothing to lose personally.
People are starting to catch on!
Americans are not the brightest bulbs in the knife drawer! 
We've had it for way before Adderall came along!
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8489065/politics-negative-partisanship-fear
it says, essentially, that both parties move their voters based on fear that the other is a "threat to the nation's well-being."
but here's the catch! Democrats are lag R's by 9-points in our ability to raise the threat level. everyone here on this board is sick to death of R's screaming "nazi" at every move obama makes. But they do it for a reason -- b/c it works to move their voters. they don't care if it's TRUE or not.
on our side it actually is TRUE that we're dealing with fascistic elements attempting to amass control...and yet we want to pussyfoot around with academic words like "plutocracy." you know what the average joe thinks Plutocracy is rule by this guy:
If they only realized how close they are b/c it's actually rule by Disney.
it says, essentially, that both parties move their voters based on fear that the other is a "threat to the nation's well-being."
but here's the catch! Democrats are lag R's by 9-points in our ability to raise the threat level. everyone here on this board is sick to death of R's screaming "nazi" at every move obama makes. But they do it for a reason -- b/c it works to move their voters. they don't care if it's TRUE or not.
on our side it actually is TRUE that we're dealing with fascistic elements attempting to amass control...and yet we want to pussyfoot around with academic words like "plutocracy." you know what the average joe thinks Plutocracy is rule by this guy:
If they only realized how close they are b/c it's actually rule by Disney.
