On 8/4/2011 3:43 PM, Doug Henwood wrote: > Lincoln and FDR were produced by a society that was rising in wealth and > power. Obama is the product of a society that's rotting. >
I think Corey Robin made a good point about seeing "left" and "right-leaning" presidents in context: http://coreyrobin.com/2011/08/01/572/ "It doesn’t make sense to say Nixon was to the left of Obama without some reference to the political circumstances. Nixon was constrained by a still vibrant New Deal regime; Reagan came into destroy it, and did so somewhat successfully, but he was still encumbered by it. Obama operates in a different political world. As for taking him at his word, he’s said a lot of words. Sometimes he’s quite explicitly signaled a desire to break with the Reaganite consensus; not just in the campaign but early on in his presidency. So the words are murky." I say this as someone who has said repeatedly that Nixon was to the left of Obama. But Doug's point is essential. The attack on the New Deal gains that date back to Carter and continue and even deepen under Obama are not to be understood by looking at the mindset of a politician. Nixon did what he did because the USA was still a rising power and he could toss some crumbs from the table. Today's Counterpunch article that I forwarded here is excellent because it looks at Obama's rightwing policies in a global context. I dare say that if FDR was elected in 2008, he'd be doing the same thing. http://www.counterpunch.org/pace08042011.html At the close of World War Two the United States controlled 60% of global wealth. It was an artifact of war - the productive capacities of Europe and much of East Asia had been destroyed. Led by Europe and Japan, the destroyed infrastructure would be rebuilt, economies would rise again, global wealth would be redistributed and the United States would once again face fierce competition. The architects of post-war US government policy recognized that the US could not control 60% of global wealth forever. The US would help Europe and East Asia rebuild their economies because global capital demanded stability and needed places to invest. And that would inevitably lead to a redistribution of global wealth. Under those circumstances - and as expressed by George Kenan, one of its chief architects - the raison d’etre of American foreign and economic policy during the second half of the 20th century would be to maintain the wealth gap – to delay as long as possible the inevitable redistribution of global wealth. We are now in the 21st century. The US no longer controls 60% of global wealth and capital has abandoned its national character. As a consequence of trade agreements, capital is free to move over most of the globe in search of higher profits. But while capital has become international, the United States military continues to function as capital’s chief global cop. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
