“Money and the Midterms: Are the Parties Over?" (Interview with Thomas Ferguson”/Naked Capitalism )

[KoKo]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)


Saturday, November 13, 2010
“Money and the Midterms: Are the Parties Over? Interview with Thomas Ferguson”

First posted at New Deal 2.0

Lynn Parramore: What do you make of the 2010 Election?

Thomas Ferguson: The 2010 election was not like others. It was certainly not simply 2006 in reverse, this time with the Republicans winning by a landslide. There is an obvious cumulative process at work here, with first one party and then the other receiving lopsided votes of no confidence from voters. The U.S. economy is barely moving; millions of Americans are looking for work and struggling to find ways to salvage their life savings and pensions; the international position of the U.S. is sliding; and the government is largely paralyzed on issues that voters care about most. We have clearly been in a political crisis for some years; the meaning of the 2010 election is that this crisis is becoming much deeper, moving into an entirely different stage. The parallels to the Great Depression are eerie: At that time, in many countries, voters seem to have followed an “in-out,” “out-in” rule. But that process does not go on forever. As the Depression deepened with no solutions, all kinds of strange creatures started creeping out of the shadows. The U.S. seems to be entering that stage.

Lynn Parramore: You’re implying the political system failed in some serious way. How so?

Thomas Ferguson: 2008 had all the earmarks of a classic realigning election, as my old colleague Walter Dean Burnham describes them. In the wake of the financial collapse, it looked for all the world like voters were ready for, even demanding, major reforms. They had elected a Democratic President on a promise of “Change,” with both houses of Congress solidly Democratic. That’s why many people were thinking that Obama was going give us a modern New Deal. They really believed him when he promised change. Instead, Obama’s failure on the economy has discredited the whole idea of the activist state. The dimensions of this failure were spectacular: he didn’t move aggressively to combat unemployment, the economic stimulus was half as large as it needed to be, and he didn’t deal with the mortgage crisis. So unemployment stayed way up, and many people remain in danger of losing their homes or are underwater on their mortgages, with the whole housing sector stalling out. To make matters worse, the administration lavished aid on the financial sector. The spectacle of the government aiding bankers, who turned around and paid themselves record bonuses, has just been unbearable for millions of people.

What the election really shows is not that the parties can’t agree — Democrats and most of the GOP leadership finally agreed on the bank bailouts, for example — but that the American people will not accept the policies that leaders in both parties prefer. In 2006 and 2008, the population voted no-confidence in the Republicans on the war and the economy. They have just now presented the Democrats with another resounding a no-confidence vote. What makes the current situation intractable is the fundamental reason for these serial failures. It’s obvious: big money dominates both major parties. The Obama campaign’s dependence on money and personnel from the financial sector was clear to anyone who looked, even before he won the nomination, promoted Geithner, brought Summers back, and reappointed Bernanke. For years I’ve promised people that I’ll tell you who bought your candidate before you vote for him or her, by simply applying my “investment theory of political parties.” When I analyzed the early money in Obama’s campaign in March, 2008, it was impossible not to see that many of the people responsible for the financial crisis were major Obama supporters. As I wrote for TPM, serious financial reform would not be on President Obama’s agenda.

Lynn Parramore: Lots of people point out that the banks have paid back the bailout funds and that the government actually made money on the deal. Can Obama at least claim that this policy was good for the American people?

Much More of this INTERVIEW to CONTINUE READING AT:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/11/money-and-the-midterms-are-the-parties-over-interview-with-thomas-ferguson.html

[Blue_Tires]

1. 5th rec

[glitch]

2. K & R nt

[briteleaf]

3. Why is it so hard to admit that america is now a plutocracy?

The big campaign donations now are being made to both parties by foreign countries, corporations and the ultra-wealthy. They have been buying political influence with expensive campaign ads paid for by secret, concern groups. These are the life-blood to career politicians in both parties. Even supreme court judges are publicly attending extravagant affairs funded by those hoping to persuade. This is a great article dealing with exposing the facts of the takeover of america. It's called a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy). I'm just wondering why folks don't start calling a plutocracy what it really is. We have to expose the secret before we can educate enough voters to motivate them to change. Here's the change: election reform. Outlaw lobbyists, severely limit donation amounts, outlaw secret concern groups and their donations or just force all politicians to live with public funded campaign finance.
There's plenty of folks willing to stand up and shout about taking america back. This is the only way to take america back. Take it back from political money and give it back to the voters. You don't need to donate money to a candidate, just donate your vote if you support them. We all know that thousands of expensive campaign adds work with their bumper sticker slogans that call for change or smear the opposition (with and without facts). So, you voters out there please explain to everyone what "PLUTOCRACY" means and, in a few decades, we'll all get smart enough to take back america from the many concerns who carry fists full of dollars. We need to start using the P word.

[Skittles]

5. CORRECT; WORTHY OF ITS OWN THREAD

per Webster:

Definition of PLUTOCRACY

1: government by the wealthy
2: a controlling class of the wealthy


Examples of PLUTOCRACY

If only the wealthy can afford to run for public office, are we more a plutocracy than a democracy?

Corporate greed and America's growing plutocracy.

[Dr.Phool]

6. And the media is a full fledged partner in all of this.

Because eventually, almost all of these contributions wind up in their hands as ad buys.

When all of their normal revenue sources are cutting back on advertising, due to the recession, they were well bailed out by attack ads.

[Skittles]

4. "..........serious financial reform would not be on President Obama’s agenda."

hoo boy did he ever get that right

hope he's wrong about Haley fucking Barbour though :mad: