[Peace-discuss] (no subject)

[ewj at pigsqq.org]

Glen Ford is great.

It's a bit absurd to call Romney "laissez faire".
He is a statist and cronyist all the way.
Maybe Ford means a facade of laissez faire.


>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: David Johnson <dlj725 at microsoft.com>
>  To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@mail0.frost.chambana.net
>  Subject: [Peace-discuss] (no subject)
>  Sent: Oct 20 '12 07:31
>  
>  [LINK: http://blackagendareport.com/] [IMAGE: Home]
>  
>  
>  [INPUT]
>  
>  
>  The Duopoly Debates Itself
>  
>  
>  Wed, 10/17/2012 - 12:57 — Glen  Ford
>  
>  
>  · [LINK:
>  http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/wall-street-hegemony]
>  Wall Street Hegemony |
>  · [LINK:
>  http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/presidential-debates]
>  Presidential debates |
>  · [LINK: http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/duopoly]
>  duopoly
>  [LINK: http://blackagendareport.com/print/content/duopoly-debates-itself]
>  Printer-friendly  version
>  
>  
>  by BAR executive editor Glen  Ford
>  
>  To any objective observer, the consensus that exists  between Barack Obama
>  and Mitt Romney on the fundamental issues of war and peace,  Wall
>  Street’s dominance of American life, and fiscal austerity, has been made
>  crystal clear in the two “debates.” In the absence of effective popular
>  resistance to the duopoly of money, the economic and social crisis fails
>  to  create a corresponding _political_  crisis for the rulers. As a result,
>  there is nothing important for them to  debate.
>  
>  
>  The Duopoly Debates  Itself
>  
>  by BAR executive editor Glen  Ford
>  
>  “_There is  consensus within the duopoly that austerity must be the
>  watchword – despite the  Occupy Movement.”_
>  
>  The two titans of America’s finance capitalist  duopoly clashed –
>  leaving behind a dull fart. It was as if the town hall at Long  Island’s
>  Hofstra University was hermetically sealed against the raging realities  of
>  a world and nation in systemic crisis. For 90 minutes, not one useful fact
>  or  thought was allowed to enter or escape.
>  
>  This is what happens when the terminal decline of the  old order is not met
>  by effective resistance from those who suffer under its  dead weight. What
>  to do about a jobs crisis that has left millions permanently  unemployed
>  from effects of the last _two_  recessions? Apply additional corporate
>  “incentives” to boost investment (Obama)  or a thicker layer of
>  _laissez  fair_ (Romney). And, by all means,  extract more energy (Obama
>  and Romney) from the exhausted environment, as if  lack of fuel is what has
>  stalled the engines of late capitalism. But do not,  under any
>  circumstances, question the inherent right of bankers (a.k.a.
>  “markets”) to dominate every aspect of economic and political  life.
>  
>  Banks were mentioned only three times: once, by Romney,  in connection with
>  (of course) cutting taxes, and twice by Obama. The president  is proud that
>  his grandmother was the vice president of a small bank, and he  took credit
>  (deservedly) for denying banks their $60 billion cut of college  student
>  loans. But the funneling of $16 _trillion_  in guarantees, grants and
>  virtually “free” money to financial corporations over  the last four
>  years – a profound restructuring of the relationship between the  State
>  and Wall Street – has been unmentioned in all three debates to date,
>  because it is a policy consensus within the duopoly.
>  
>  “_Do not,  under any circumstances, question the inherent right of
>  bankers (a.k.a.  ‘markets’) to dominate every aspect of economic and
>  political  life.”_
>  
>  Romney owned the word “poverty,” just as did  the Republican nominating
>  convention in Tampa, while Obama uttered the term not  once. Corporate
>  media pundits and even many “progressives” accept the Democrat’s
>  avoidance of the subject as understandable, since he is an incumbent. Yet,
>  the  fight against poverty was Franklin Roosevelt’s rallying cry during
>  capitalism’s  previous great crisis, and Lyndon Johnson initiated a War
>  on Poverty. Today’s  poverty rate hovers only a fraction of a percent
>  below the level of 1965, but  the standard-bearer of the party most
>  identified with the poor has nothing to  say on the matter. Instead, there
>  is consensus within the duopoly that austerity  must be the watchword –
>  clear evidence that the Occupy Movement is no longer a  felt threat.
>  
>  Romney is more “liberal” in the use of the term  “poverty” only
>  because his vision of _laissez fair_ trickle-down to the poor is more
>  fantastical (12  million jobs, just you watch!). Just as in the summer of
>  2011, all that  separates the Obama and Republican wings of the Wall Street
>  duopoly is the  question of “modest” tax increases for the very rich.
>  But both factions are  intent on cuts of around $4 trillion dollars, mainly
>  on non-military programs.  Why should Americans whose vital governmental
>  support is targeted for chopping  be concerned whether or not some
>  millionaires are also discomforted in the  process? Are the poor and
>  struggling classes supposed to accept the loss of the  necessities of a
>  dignified life, on condition that some rich people pay a modest  financial
>  tariff?
>  
>  “_There is  also no daylight between the contenders on drone warfare or
>  the continued  projection of U.S. power.”_
>  
>  The consensus on imperial war is near absolute.  What passes for argument
>  is merely a matter of style and posture. Romney attacks  Obama for failing
>  to grasp or reveal the “terrorist” nature of the fatal attack  on the
>  U.S. ambassador in Libya. But both candidates are wedded to an alliance
>  with Muslim fundamentalist jihadis against Middle East governments targeted
>  for  destabilization or regime change: Syria and Iran. Obama’s
>  obfuscations on  Benghazi were an attempt to continue masking the nature of
>  the Libyan legions  armed by the U.S. as proxies against Gaddafi, many of
>  whom are now deployed in  Syria – a mission with which Romney is in full
>  accord. There is also no daylight  between the contenders on drone warfare
>  or the continued projection of U.S.  power in the “Af-Pak” theater of
>  war, or in Somalia and Yemen. The War Party  wins in November, regardless
>  of the Electoral College  outcome.
>  
>  Despite the profound, systemic crisis of the global  capitalist financial
>  order and its U.S. imperial gendarme, there exists no  _political_ crisis
>  for the rulers, because there is no serious  internal resistance. These
>  theatrical productions may pass for debates, but it’s  really just the
>  passing of gas within a closed Wall Street  consensus.
>  
>  _BAR executive editor Glen Ford  can be contacted at _[LINK:
>  mailto:Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com]
>  _Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com__._
>  --------------------
>  _______________________________________________
>  Peace-discuss mailing list
>  [LINK: compose.php?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
>  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>  [LINK: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
>  http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss