"The new soul of the Democratic Party wears a pinstripe suit ".

[Dover]

Quote by Kevin Phillips, author of Bad Money, in an interview this week with Bill Moyers.

-----

BILL MOYERS: What do you think when you hear John McCain and Secretary Paulson say that the fundamentals, however, are solid?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, John McCain once said he didn't know anything about economics. And half the time what he says, you know, proves that on a day-by-day basis. I don't think we have a sound economy at all. Not remotely at this point. I mean, there are, like, ten yardsticks I could use. Paulson is your typical Treasury Secretary guy that has to deal with it. And everybody knows he has to exaggerate. He has to say all the Hoover type stuff about how strong the economy is and the recession's going to be over in three months and that sort of stuff. I don't really credit these people very much. But, frankly, I don't credit the Democrats either.

BILL MOYERS: No, I was going to say Obama's trademark rhetoric of inspiration seems to desert him when he talks about economic affairs.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: He doesn't seem to have anything very specific to say. That's part of the problem. A second problem is, for me at least, you know, just as I can't believe that John McCain ever wanted to get his economic advice from Phil Gramm. I mean, Phil Gramm, a former Texas Senator, appalling. He and his wife were known as Mr. and Mrs. Enron because they were so flagrant, that's McCain.

But then you've got Obama with Bob Rubin and he doesn't have any problem with the hedge fund types. I mean, one of the Chicago people was a major financer of his. He gets a guy to pick his vice-president. Turns out to be somebody who was part of the Fannie and Freddie mess.

So I don't exactly see Obama as this fellow riding in on a horse who represents all kinds of reformism. It's an important thing probably to have to change from the Republicans but I don't see that he is free of the ties to finance and Democratic Party financial types.

BILL MOYERS: I've known you a long time. Are you reaching the point where you're leaving yourself and us despairing?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not despairing because one of the things, as you know, when you get to be more or less our age, you've got grandchildren you can feel young with. But I'm sick of Washington. It really deserves the fact that 81 percent or 85 percent of the people think we're on the wrong track. I mean, we are on the wrong track. I wish I could say that there's a blueprint that would get us back on the right track. But my sense of histories previous goes to the one or two percent leading world economic power is you don't get back on the right track.

BILL MOYERS: So what happens?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: You go through a painful adjustment process. The British were absolutely top dog in the world in 1914. Two world wars and 35 years later, they were having, after World War II, they were having food rationing, the pound sterling crashed, dukes were giving guided tours of their castles because they couldn't afford to maintain them otherwise. Doesn't take long. And I'm afraid the United States is coming right into that period which marks a couple of decades coming up that are going to be very difficult for America.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote in that AMERICAN PROSPECT piece that some people, particularly in the reform community and among progressives, see this as a great opportunity for returning to the New Deal regulatory period instigated by Franklin Roosevelt in the pits of the Depression. You don't think that's happening.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I mean, there's several difficulties here. First of all, at this point, what you've got are the Democrats are the party right at this point that's getting most of the financial money. When Franklin D. Roosevelt won in 1932, we know he wasn't getting most of the financial money.

The second thing is I don't think we're more than partway through. The Democrats think it's going to be another 1933, they get in there, they can do all the New Deal stuff. My feeling is that they're coming in halfway and they're going to have to make hard decisions that are going to eat the Democratic coalition like a bologna sandwich. They're going to start civil wars-

BILL MOYERS: How come? What do you mean?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, if you're going to bail out Wall Street while you're saying oh, the Social Security recipients, maybe they don't even need that money. A lot of people in the financial community basically want to push Social Security on some sort of voluntary basis and needs test it and get rid of it. Now, a lot of Democrats in the labor movement are very nervous about Obama. They put out press releases talking about Rubin-nomics because they see that the flesh of the Democratic Party carries a lunchbox. But the new soul of the Democratic Party wears a pinstripe suit.



The video/transcript is available now at Moyer's site:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

Be sure to watch the other two segments of the show in addition to interview with Phillips.

[TwilightGardener]

1. How stupid--he blames Obama because his VP-search guy was once

part of Fannie/Freddie? NOT economic advisor, just the VP vet guy. WTF does that have to do with Obama's current economic philosophy?

[Dover]

3. And your thoughts on his 'guy' Rubin?

I feel pretty certain that given a choice between the two candidates, Phillips would choose
Obama (who is still kind of an unknown without the long history and political baggage) although
he IS suggesting that to get a glimpse of what to expect, perhaps we should look at who
he holds close.

He doesn't have the illusions of sainthood that many have about these politicians, and while we
certainly could use a heavy dose of hope he holds the line at realism.

[TwilightGardener]

13. I trust Obama to listen to his advisors, but ultimately forge his own path.

By contrast, I think McLoser isn't bright enough to develop his own economic policy, and is looking for a guru to lead him (Gramm). It's that simple--it's a choice between those two. I don't care if Obama gets advice specifically from Rubin or anyone else--it's the candidate himself, and his intent and vision, that matters.

[Dover]

26. I think this is way beyond parties and politics..n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

6. that's not the only problem he has with Obama.

the article is dead-on. Obama is not going to deliver any FDR populist miracles unless we twist his arm and demand them. I am also appalled Obama's platform is extremely vague and full of fluff when it comes to economic reform issues. I can only hope whatever they're cooking up is very, very good and I'm anxiously awaiting the day when we will see a cohesive, fleshed-out strategy to fix this mess.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Thanks for posting. Bill Moyers is always worth hearing.

[dkofos]

4. We definatlely need to return to the New Deal days.

That could be the only thing that saves us now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. It's hardly surprising that the Dems and Repubs are backing the swindle.

It's field day for the lobbyists when the politicians are running scared and trying to cover their sorry asses.

[Runcible Spoon]

7. thanks for this.

we need to to keep the pressure on the party and on Obama. I'm not expecting any New Deal miracles, sadly.

[Warpy]

8. I'm not quite as pessimistic as Phillips

only because Rubin and the rest of the Wall Street Democrats have a history of not making things worse, even as they've been loath to make them any better for working people.

That makes them vastly superior to Gramm, a man who unerringly picks out the exact things that will crash the economic system and pushes them through.

Make no mistake, Gramm will be the one running the government should Magoo get cheated into office.

It's the difference between disaster (which we already have) and the total catastrophe another GOP administration would produce.

[Dover]

11. Perhaps...but lets not fool ourselves that it would bring any significant change.

First, I don't see how you could say Rubin didn't contribute to this crisis. Inaction or continuing
to provide safe haven for abusers of the system is going to have a cumulative effect...eventually.

FDR was great at crisis management, but was NOT ultimately a change agent. Still, I think many would settle for that. However, as Phillips points out, the corruption runs deep and wide, so it's much harder these days to separate politicians from their financial tit. Dems aren't what they used to be.

Unfortunately, sometimes the only genuine change is a result of catastrophe. A bitter medicine,
but very effective.

[Warpy]

20. I didn't claim they'd change much of anything

I merely stated they had a habit of not making it worse.

Things have been so totally awful for the past eight years that I think a lot of us would settle for that.

However, things are likely to get worse because it's all outside their control.

This country has always been reactive, not proactive. Only when things get to the point that they're afraid of mobs do we get any positive change.

[Dover]

25. On that I do agree almost 100%,

Proactive vs. reactive. Yep.

But realistically, going about qualitative change is a complex issue and I don't think our current government can even keep up with the speed of unfolding events and issues even with the addition of think tanks (like adding computer memory to our brain trust), partly because they still have to operate within the same structure. (a bottleneck).

So there is an issue of needing to speed things up somehow (which is not the same thing as being 'reactive' but nearly so if we remain dependent on the same mechanisms), while also having a long and comprehensive view that foresees an ever increasing global complexity. It's really not a simple game of chess anymore but more akin to four-dimesional chess. My theory is that this is why we will have to develop our right brains more (which might seem counter-intuitive to some). Because that is how we take in and process whole systems. Non-dualism. And 'natural systems' would likely be the result. This is also why I think women are better equipped to lead us at this juncture.

At any rate, it will require a quantum leap on many levels.

[jwirr]

9. Isn't Kevin Phillips looking at this from the viewpoint of being a former

rw enthusiast? I would say he understands the problem very well but may be underestimating our pinstripe democrats. FDR had no reason to understand the needs of the average joe but he listened. Obama is much closer to that ideal of understanding. Also I know that he is saying that the democrats in congress are getting their money from big interests and he is right but most of them know who voted for them as well. And like FDR Obama has not taken money from the big boys so he is free to lead and not follow. But best of all is that we, the activists, are not going to let them deal from a closed hand.

[malaise]

14. I disagree with you

FDR's polio and his trips to Warm Springs, Georgia gave him an awful lot of exposure to rural poverty. Conditions in surrounding communities changed his life.

[jwirr]

22. On that I agree with you - I was basically referring to his inherited wealth. nt

[Dover]

15. I think the problem is that we've ALL been OVERestimating them for some time, and

not fully recognizing the very real changes to the party, despite abundant evidence of their new pinstriped alignment. We have not had a truly representative government for some time but have been operating like we have, given a lack of alternatives.
But as Phillips points out, the illusion has become harder and harder to keep in place as things
crumble around us.

And people really hate betrayal and the feeling that the wool has been pulled over their eyes,
even if they've actually been complicit in keeping those illusions alive.

[bread_and_roses]

18. He has indeed taken money from "the big boys"

I am too lazy to go look it all up again, but there are plenty here who probably have it bookmarked, or can enlighten you. Or you can search it out yourself without too much trouble.

As to his advisors, they are a great disappointment - maybe even a disaster, as it is obvious who's side they are on, and no doubt their advice is responsible for his vague language - can't scare the "big boys" too much while keeping hope alive among the peasantry, don't you know?

Once again, many of us are back at "well, we have to vote for so-and-so because so-and-so is so much worse, SCOTUS, etc. All true, all valid, all in the end insufficient.

I am convinced that the "big boys" at this point will be perfectly happy with a centrist Dem in the WH - he'll calm the waters, throw a few bones at the wage-slaves (us), and not do significant damage to the bottom line. That will prepare the ground for the next Free-Marketeer/Deregulator/Bankster.

[jwirr]

23. I am old enough to have learned that what a candidate does to get

elected is not always what he intends to do when in the office. The most recent example of this is of course *ss himself. But FDR did not talk about his alphabet soup solutions when he was running because he would never have been elected. Nor for that matter did he even understand in 1930 the lengths to which he would have to go to straighten out the mess. A lot of what Obama is saying may be just that - we will not know until he has a chance to carry it all out.

I know that congress and the president often act much different when circumstances call for it. When Ike Eisenhower was president his first term the democrats were in the minority - they accomplished nothing because they had no power. But in the last term they held the purse strings (I cannot remember if they also held the senate) but they were much more active verbally but still did not have enough power to change anything. However, in 1960 they and JFK took control and the same bunch of congressmen became a totally different group and they worked to enact many long held goals. When LBJ took the office they were great on everything BUT the war in Vietnam. What I am trying to say is what looks like a bunch of lumps on a log can turn out to be a nice chorus of frogs. I am hoping they surprise us and I refuse to give up that hope. IF they do then I plan on fighting them as much as I have fought *ss & co.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. What Phillips is saying...

Is that it is time to start screaming. Red in the face, eyes popping out, snot and spit flying screaming.

I agree. We are letting too many people off far too lightly.

[Dover]

12. Yes, WE should be at that table this weekend, discussing our future.

These closed door sessions need to flung open by US.

[alarimer]

16. Bingo.

The parties are two sides of the same coin. If you don't believe me, take a look at the corporate love-fest that was the convention.

A pox on both their houses. Unless the Dems are willing to risk losing elections by doing the right thing and re-regulating this mess, nothing will change. Certainly nothing will change for most of us.

[slipslidingaway]

17. This is an important message...

although I have not read or watched the show. While it is nice to have hope, people should try and plan accordingly for benefits, thinking specifically of Medicare, to be cut in the future IMHO.

Anybody who tries to ride in on a horse is quickly stopped by the corporate media, meaning they will be given just about zero coverage.

"So I don't exactly see Obama as this fellow riding in on a horse who represents all kinds of reformism. It's an important thing probably to have to change from the Republicans but I don't see that he is free of the ties to finance and Democratic Party financial types."

[MasonJar]

19. Someone posted today a comment indicating Obama had praised

Bernache and Paulson, while other posts pointed out respected economists who think this is socialist give-away again to the rich and the greedy. We must contsct our reps and insist that specific and solid restrictions accompany any money given to financial or etc. institutions. Obama is not nearly as progressive as we at DU. Please accept that. And he may not win. We must act now and we must be tough for a change. Enough is truly enough.

[burrowowl]

21. I highly recommend

Kevin Phillips: Wealth and Democracy
Howard Zinn: A Peoples' History of the United States

And when Obama is elected: Put his feet to the fire and send him Kevin Phillips' book!

[Dover]

24. Kevin Phillips mentioned that Obama had read his book

Don't know if he did, and/or what he might have thought of it.

As far as feet to fire goes, if we have in fact had the vote taken away (via various forms of fraud) and no longer have candidates that will go near a REAL issue or a sound bite, or a media that makes that possible, or a system that can function in the corrosive environment of corruption, then what
mechanism is left to The People that would lead to results?

[Kartius]

27. Highly doubt an FDR type renewal

The Great Depression was deflationary so FDR had the opportunity to spend vast sums of money on public works. We are now facing an inflationary recession and there is no way to spend ourself out of this. Programs must be cut dramatically with no room for additional programs and a Mid East war with no end in sight. These are the problem the next president will inherit and it may mark the end of the US as we know it today.