Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

    Empire of the Senseless

    by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume the following to be true: Barack Obama is not a stooge, a cipher, an empty suit, or a puppet. He is not incompetent, indecisive, or deranged. He is, in fact, intelligent, purposeful, and rational. Let us further assume that Obama is sincere in his actions, if not always his rhetoric, and that his actions, from the persecution of whistleblowers to the assassination of American citizens, are premeditated, planned, intentional and taken without ambivalence.

    What do we make of this? On the surface, it means that Obama is as culpable as he is capable. His icy certitude has always been his most grating affectation. Yet there is no one to hold him accountable for his crimes against the Constitution, high and low, not even the Visigoths of the House. Despite the daily hysterics fulminating from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Obama is the choice of the elites, the man they want at the helm at this fraught moment for global capitalism. It’s his competence that makes him so dangerous.

    Obama is the executive manager of what the British punk band the Mekons called the “Empire of the Senseless”. By this, I don’t mean an empire that is inchoate, but a government that doesn’t sense, that doesn’t feel, that is immune to the conditions and desires of the governed. America has degenerated into a sham state, a republic of the observed and monitored, where government operations are opaque and menacing. A pervasive dread seems to envelope the nation.

    So, in the face of this reality, we confront, once more, Lenin’s piercing question: what is to be done? This is not a metaphysical exercise any more, but an existential and practical one of the most extreme urgency. How do we respond to an ossified state that serves abstract interests yet remains chillingly indifferent to human suffering? Moreover, where do we turn when the institutions that once served as forces of social change are now largely kaput.

    The politics of lesser evilism remains a crippling idée fixe for most of the Left, despite the carnage strewn across the landscape by the politicians they have enabled over the last two decades: from the Clintons to John Kerry and Obama. The Democratic Party itself has become a parody of a political enterprise, a corporate-financed ghost ship for the gullible, the deluded and the parasitical. For all practical purposes the party has been superceded as a functional entity by pseudo-interest groups like MoveOn and their new house organ, MSNBC, which provide daily distractions from and rationalizations for each new Obama transgression.

    To a great measure, the responsibility for the fatal ease with which Obama has been able to implement his draconian policies, from domestic spying to drone strikes, must be borne by the timid response of the political left, who have serially denied what they knew to be Obama’s true agenda, an agenda of neoliberal austerity at home and imperial aggression abroad—an agenda that was incubating from the moment the young senator hand-picked Joseph Lieberman to be his ideological mentor in the US Senate.

    Predictably, the more they indulge Obama, the more he tends to ignore, if not psychologically resent, their existence. For most of us, the economy is still crashing. A recent analysis by UC Berkeley’s Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty of and the Paris School of Economics, revealed that 95 percent of the economic gains since the recession began have been captured by the top one percent. This was not an accidental outcome. Obama’s economic plan was geared to generate precisely this result. But no one wants to talk about it on the Left.

    Witness the president’s rare conclave with the Congressional Black Caucus. With black poverty and unemployment rates at startling highs, Obama swatted away meek queries about the savage toll his economic policies have inflicted on urban America and pressed the delegation to publicly cheerlead for his scheme to shower Syria with cruise missiles. The CBC members sat mutely, soaking in Obama’s humiliating lecture, while black America remains under a state of economic siege.

    This brazen act was soon followed by Obama’s announcement that he had picked Jeffrey Zients to head the National Economic Council. Who is Zients you ask? Well, he was a top executive at Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, plotting takeovers, mass firings, raids on pensions and de-unionization of factories. He did so well at this grim job that his net worth now tops $100 million. One might view this appointment as an act of casual sadism, rubbing salt in the wounds of progressives. But the Left is so moribund, so deeply immured in a political coma that the insult didn’t even prompt the slightest protest, not even a vestigial yelp for old time’s sake.

    Liberals seem to have finally come to terms with their own vacuity.

    What about the rest of us? What do we do? Here we must turn to the heroic revelations of Edward Snowden, which denuded the government’s aspirations toward a kind of roving omniscience, probing and recording the most intimate beliefs and intentions of its citizens. After the initial tingles of paranoia fade, we might be able to view this as a perversely liberating condition. What a relief! We no longer have to hide our discontent, our efforts to make sense of the senseless. We are free to become the sovereigns of our own actions without fear of disclosure.

    And so we remain, nearly all of us, left and right, clinging stubbornly to the tiny freedoms that remain: to object, to denounce and to resist, until a real oppositional force emerges. Or SEAL Team Six team shows up at the back door.

  • #2
    Re: Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

    Flash!!

    The Washington Redskins just announced they are changing their name!!

    By removing the word "washington" they will get away from the badge of incompetence. It was becoming embarrassing when they played on the road. And you know how the snickers of sports reporters hurts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

      Liberals seem to have finally come to terms with their own vacuity.
      Not much chance of that, but a good liberal/leftie like Jeff (and his mentor, the dear departed Alex Cockburn) know that the folks the right see as commie liberal socialists, well, aren't that at all. The right calls them names and feels righteous, but they're being played. What's liberal about Obama? If not for the color of his skin, he'd be just the sort right wing would feel cozy, at least insofar as most of his policy work.

      I've mentioned it before, but the best left critique of these so-called liberals today is Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class. The modern Democrats are many things. Liberal/left is not one of them. The last of the principled liberals were murdered on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel and the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel. The rest preferred longevity.
      Last edited by Woodsman; October 18, 2013, 12:51 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

        Not before they bring back Chief Knockahoma

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

          Maybe the Obamarats (under Clinton liberals had some successes) will have to come to terms with their incompetence and corruption:


          http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/1...into-november/


          Industry source tells NRO: WH may have to consider “unthinkable options” if website meltdown continues into November

          posted at 11:21 am on October 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

          Today’s must-read comes from Yuval Levin, who spoke to five managers at the HHS department that’s running Healthcare.gov and three health-insurance industry managers. Their reactions to two weeks of total chaos on the site: “Restrained panic” from the former and more or less pants-wetting panic from the latter. I don’t think this qualifies as the news story we’re all waiting for because Levin has no sources up the chain in the decision-making parts of the executive branch, but if people in the industry are whispering about “unthinkable options” now, rest assured that people in the White House are too.

          I can’t excerpt all the parts that are noteworthy, although if you’ve been following news about the Healthcare.gov apocalypse you already know some of what Levin reports — the login fiasco is a result of HHS demanding that people create an account before seeing what plans cost, the system still can’t calculate subsidies correctly (which means some people are getting the wrong price when they buy coverage), the “back end” communications between the federal data hub and private insurers are a shambles, and the chaos will only increase if HHS solves the login problems without solving the back end problems. (Imagine insurers having to sift through 5,000 garbled enrollments per day instead of 50.) What about the timeline, though? Per Levin’s sources, D-Day will come sometime in mid-November.

          If the problems now plaguing the system are not resolved by mid-November and the flow of enrollments at that point looks like it does now, the prospects for the first year of the exchanges will be in very grave jeopardy. Some large advertising and outreach campaigns are also geared to that crucial six-week period around Thanksgiving and Christmas, so if the sites are not functional, all of that might not happen—or else might be wasted. If that’s what the late fall looks like, the administration might need to consider what one of the people I spoke with described as “unthinkable options” regarding the first year of the exchanges…

          One key worry is based on the fact that what they’re facing is not a situation where it is impossible to buy coverage but one where it is possible but very difficult to buy coverage. That’s much worse from their point of view, because it means that only highly motivated consumers are getting coverage. People who are highly motivated to get coverage in a community-rated insurance system are very likely to be in bad health. The healthy young man who sees an ad for his state exchange during a baseball game and loads up the site to get coverage—the dream consumer so essential to the design of the exchange system—will not keep trying 25 times over a week if the site is not working. The person with high health costs and no insurance will. The exchange system is designed to enable that sick person to get coverage, of course, but it can only do that if the healthy person does too. The insurers don’t yet have a clear overall sense of the risk profile of the people who are signing up, but the circumstantial evidence they have is very distressing to them. The danger of a rapid adverse selection spiral is much more serious than they believed possible this summer. They would love it if the administration could shut down the exchange system, at least the federal one, until the interface problems can be addressed. But they know this is impossible.

          Sick people with preexisting conditions whose coverage will be very expensive for insurers will spend all day on the site trying to sign up. Young, healthy people, whose money insurers desperately need to help pay for that very expensive coverage for sick people, might try once or twice and then give up. Result: A giant bill for insurance companies with no way to pay it except by jacking up premiums on everyone who currently has insurance, and even that might not be enough. That’s the death spiral, and that’s why “unthinkable” options are suddenly, but inevitably, on the table.


          Levin suspects that, at the barest minimum, the White House will have to extend the deadline for the uninsured to enroll past March 31st of next year, but that’s just a fig leaf given that D-Day will have come months earlier and that, per USA Today, it’ll take six months of retooling to get the site in shape. (Levin’s sources told him bluntly that they don’t know how long it’ll take to fix it, which I assume is industry-speak for “not soon enough.”) One thing they might be able to do, I would think, is turn Healthcare.gov from a data hub designed to make comparison shopping for plans and enrollment nice and easy into a site that simply points users to the webpages of individual insurance companies and encourages them to enroll there. That’ll make comparing plans much more difficult — see yesterday’s post about trying to sort through the fine print of the gold, silver, and bronze plans for insurers X, Y, Z across nine different web pages — but it’s an alternative to suspending ObamaCare for a year. Or is it?

          Many health insurance products currently on the market don’t meet Obamacare’s benefit standards and consumer protections so they are being discontinued. Consumers with these plans are the most likely to see rate increases next year, especially if they earn too much to get tax credits. “They’ve got to convert to a new policy — no ifs, ands or buts about it,” Laszewski said.

          And while people who currently pay for their own health insurance are likely to do whatever they can to remain covered, buying a plan directly from an insurance carrier or using a private online broker isn’t what Obamacare promised, and tax-credit subsidies aren’t available without the federal system. Moreover, these private companies aren’t prepared to deal with millions of customers who were supposed to be using the government marketplace, Laszewski said…

          If these problems persist longer — weeks, months, a whole year — the entire Obamacare project falls apart, Laszewski said: “It’s a holy shit moment.”

          Insurance company webpages may be slightly out of date, they may not be prepared for a crush of traffic (although they’ll certainly be more prepared than Healthcare.gov was), and, most importantly, they won’t be able to reduce “rate shock” among lower- and middle-class customers by telling them up front how much taxpayer money they’ll get to help pay for their new plan. Maybe you could manage that for now by telling people something vague, like “If you make between $X and $Y, you’re likely to receive a subsidy roughly equivalent to $Z” and then try to deal with the precise calculations later, but when will those calculations be made? Will it be before January, when these lower-income people need the money to offset the cost of their expensive new plan? Could even private companies pull together a stopgap tech project like this with just a month’s lead time? See now why people in the industry are wetting themselves?

          One last reason to read Levin’s piece: Desperate for a silver lining about the rollout, lefties are touting the fact that the state exchanges are running comparatively smoothly. That’s true, say Levin’s sources, but that’s a low bar. Quote: “Back-end data issues seem to be a problem everywhere, and some of the early enrollment figures being released by the states are not matching up with insurance company data about enrollments in those states, which suggests a breakdown in communication that is only beginning to be understood.” The states may be doing better, but “doing better” doesn’t necessarily mean enrolling enough people via a glitchy system to avert a death spiral. Exit quotation via HuffPo: “[F]ailure of this magnitude would discredit a core premise of this presidency, that government can do big things to improve Americans’ lives.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

            Originally posted by vt View Post
            Maybe the Obamarats (under Clinton liberals had some successes) will have to come to terms with their incompetence and corruption “[F]ailure of this magnitude would discredit a core premise of this presidency, that government can do big things to improve Americans’ lives.
            No doubt the right will do everything it can to paint this as a failure of Obama specifically and of government, generally. What else would they do? And big surprise; Rich Lowry at National Review wants to change the subject.

            Even so, I still can't believe it. Incompetence, ignorance, arrogance; take your pick. To think an administration would put its signature legislation - all its eggs - into a single point of failure is enough to make you pull your hair out. But then to make that single point an IT system only compounds the error. Poll the IT gurus on iTulip formally or informally and you'd likely get something on the order of "well, we coulda told you it was going to blow up."

            Large IT projects managed by non-military agencies of the government are always at risk. They just don't do a good job of it, generally. That's not to say the military/security/intel systems aren't bollocks either, but they can make things "secret" and hide their mistakes from public view.

            With the sort of political pressure you'd expect was put on the SESes and GS-15s running the program, you were guaranteed to get all sorts of changes large and small, inside and outside the scope of development that were politically motivated and fear driven. You'll get them even if the contractor jumps up and down and screams and demands a signature saying "we told you it will break." But of equal certainty is the likelihood that there were calmer and more thoughtful folks who rang the bell and cautioned a better approach. But who listens to them?

            I bet the developers were making changes and fixing bugs until hours before the rolllout. It was destined to fail, at least on the IT side, no matter the management approach or development methodology. Why? They'll be studying it for years, but the easy answers are too big a scope, requirements not nailed down before development, huge and geographically dispersed development teams, tight deadlines, and precious little time for QA and regression testing, by the looks of it. If I know CGI, the prime, they saw it for the "Sh!t Sandwich" it was coming in and likely wrote the contract in such a way as to protect themselves.

            If not for the colossal strategic incompetence of the Tea Party caucus in forcing this suicide pact on the GOP, the story for the past weeks could have been the disastrous roll out of the exchanges. Talk about impotence and incompetence! I don't want to ascribe brilliance to actions motivated by God knows what, but timing the GOP's antics so as to distract the country from the rollout was a nice bit of happenstance. The press used to complain that Reagan was the "Teflon president" because no problems would stick to him. Only now the GOP is the "Velcro congress" where every problem sticks to them.

            Is it a failure of government? Well, to date it's most definitely a failure of this government. But then to say that it is evidence that no act of government can be successful is typical right wing hyperbole. Why so extreme? Americans complain about their government and always will, but they want to see it improved; not abolished and its functions turned over to the FIRE and other interests cozy with the GOP. And even thought the right wing forgets, the military which it idolizes so much as representative of our "best" is part of the government, too.

            But to your point, there are some things the government does not do well at all. IT projects seem high on that list. The only bright side is that it gets us closer to single payer.

            Comment


            • #7
              how liberals are reading events

              Originally posted by don View Post
              Empire of the Senseless

              .
              I am more in the "Obama is a stooge" faction. I was in a discussion last week and the debt limit impass came up. The liberal said that the tea party was funded by billionaires. I pointed out that the debt default threatened financial assets, which were overwhelmingly held by the 1%. He said that these people were so rich they were immune to market down turns.

              That might be true for someone like Sauros, who makes money by shorting things. So Sauros is simultaneously funding Obama (moveon.org) and the Tea Party.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: how liberals are reading events

                Another example is education:

                http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...st-math-skills

                This is a scary statistic too:

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...f_graphic.html

                The south does not have the industrial or knowledge base, and has a much higher percentage of poor blacks and Hispanics, California, Texas and Arizona have higher numbers of Hispanics, many illegal with poor skills. But New York and Illinois are above 40%. And Oregon?

                2 major recessions have taken their toll and the slowest recovery in decades doesn't help.

                Comment


                • #9
                  single payer

                  Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                  . . .. IT projects seem high on that list. The only bright side is that it gets us closer to single payer.
                  I don't think single payer will save that much money. Sure there some administrative overhead, bickering among insurance agencies. But even medicare is highly inefficient. There's no incentive to take out the over treatments and ineffective treatments, etc.

                  What I am wondering, though, is why county hospitals are not offering much cheaper care than private sector ones. Fees are astronomical.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: single payer

                    Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
                    I

                    ..What I am wondering, though, is why county hospitals are not offering much cheaper care than private sector ones. Fees are astronomical.
                    I have the same question about member-wned credit unions vs big banks.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Obama Lays Bare Liberal Impotence

                      Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                      No doubt the right will do everything it can to paint this as a failure of Obama specifically and of government, generally. What else would they do? And big surprise; Rich Lowry at National Review wants to change the subject.

                      Even so, I still can't believe it. Incompetence, ignorance, arrogance; take your pick. .....
                      my vote = ALL the above + more = what ya get with an administration comprised the smallest ever % of private sector types
                      (and NO i dont have any data, sides the emails swirling around on just this 1 topic...)

                      Why? They'll be studying it for years, but the easy answers are too big a scope, requirements not nailed down before development, huge and geographically dispersed development teams, tight deadlines, and precious little time for QA and regression testing, by the looks of it. If I know CGI, the prime, they saw it for the "Sh!t Sandwich" it was coming in and likely wrote the contract in such a way as to protect themselves.
                      based upon this piece of 'state data' ?
                      i'd say its more like the 'birds of a feather' syndrome - of hiring the most connected, vs the most competent/capable..
                      here's another example of that same syndrome, with the same results - and yet another, with the very same type of 'results'
                      but on an even 'grander' scale.

                      just a few more 'inconvenient truths' ?
                      or part of a wider pattern (of some in the political class)?

                      If not for the colossal strategic incompetence of the Tea Party caucus in forcing this suicide pact on the GOP, the story for the past weeks could have been the disastrous roll out of the exchanges. Talk about impotence and incompetence! I don't want to ascribe brilliance to actions motivated by God knows what, but timing the GOP's antics so as to distract the country from the rollout was a nice bit of happenstance. The press used to complain that Reagan was the "Teflon president" because no problems would stick to him. Only now the GOP is the "Velcro congress" where every problem sticks to them.
                      esp when we have the lamestream media focusing with laser-like intensity on EVERY EVENT and EVERY WORD of the opposition at EVERY OPPORTUNITY - while they conveniently IGNORE THE MOST OBVIOUS and quite inconvenient of TRUTHS
                      because that would make THEIR TEAM in particular, look bad???

                      but we wouldnt want to get distracted by that old news, no siree bob.

                      Is it a failure of government? Well, to date it's most definitely a failure of this government. But then to say that it is evidence that no act of government can be successful is typical right wing hyperbole. Why so extreme?
                      oh.. i dunno... maybe because at the moment of truth in 2008 into 2009, THIS government bailed out their buddies
                      and left The Rest Of US swingin in the breeze???

                      i still say - without intending to apologize for any of em - that somewhere down the road, the prev occupants WILL be at least 1 notch above on the 'worst ever' lists - no matter whos it is.

                      Americans complain about their government and always will, but they want to see it improved; not abolished and its functions turned over to the FIRE and other interests cozy with the GOP. And even thought the right wing forgets, the military which it idolizes so much as representative of our "best" is part of the government, too.

                      But to your point, there are some things the government does not do well at all. IT projects seem high on that list. The only bright side is that it gets us closer to single payer.
                      well... 1 outa 2 of the immed above aint bad, far as what eye can find that we agree on, woody - but on #1, methinks there's been plenty of evidence to show that the demorats are THE MOST COZY with the F's and likely a lot of the I's of the med flavor - in the FIreM brigade - and we wont even get into the legal/tort wing of that group, particularly in the beltway bunch, as well as the lower manhattan mob.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: single payer

                        Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
                        I have the same question about member-wned credit unions vs big banks.

                        Right. It seems like the dividend stream or executive bonuses payed by normal banks should go to CU members.
                        It would be interesting to look at thier books. I have never had time. I have read that for large banks, like WF, the income statements are very opaque.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: single payer

                          Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
                          I have the same question about member-wned credit unions vs big banks.
                          I think the main difference is in engaging in legitimate above-board accounting or not. Clearly somehow the private hospitals and big banks can pull insane return off the same business as the little not-for-profits. Either they are that much more "efficient" or they are cooking the books. And sure enough, we get how many bank bailouts and incidents like the Richard Scrush affair. That's the thing about inserting the "free" market into where it doesn't work. It's all built on fluff, mark to model nonsense, and outright illegal accounting scams. The free market seems to work great for restaurants and knick knacks and electronics and clothes. It seems to work terribly with hospitals and banks and insurance companies and the like. Who would have guessed that geographic and power monopoly conditions aren't conducive to opaque private ownership other than Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and the rest of the classical liberals?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: single payer

                            "geographic and power monopoly". You mean like governments? They are a monopoly, once elected, for years; with powers of coercion and intimidation that private industry doesn't have. Ever tried to fight city hall or the IRS? Or the excessive regulations that destroy productivity and impose extra costs?

                            Reasonable regulation is fine, and punishment to egregious infractions is needed. Then why haven't any bankers or Wall Streeters gone to jail for the AFC? What about the massive corruption and bankruptcies of alternative energy companies run by donors to the President's campaign?

                            Like I said all these "ploticians" are liars and crooks; throw them all out and come up with a new system.

                            Make whistle blowers public hero's. Call out the press on both sides as partisan hacks.

                            Speaking of hacks (er)
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=3sTfZJBYo1I
                            Last edited by vt; October 19, 2013, 09:05 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: single payer

                              http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/0...price-setting/

                              http://americablog.com/2013/04/bills-rollback-medicare-drug-prices.html


                              What politicians are on the take for this?! Get their names and parties!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X