Both Liberals and Conservatives Hate Corporate Socialism (Where the Federal Government Favors Giant Corporations at the Expense of the Little Guy)
Washington’s Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. George – the head writer at Washington’s Blog – is a busy professional and a former adjunct professor.
~~~
President Obama has “compromised” on everything from financial regulation and healthcare to taxes.
Obama claims that all of his “compromising” shows that he’s getting things done. After all, politics was long ago defined as “the art of compromise”.
On it’s face, it makes sense that if both conservatives and liberals hate legislation, it must mean that there was give-and-take, and it ended up somewhere in the middle.
But that isn’t necessarily true.
Specifically, as I pointed out last month:
Conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in.
Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that they should be held accountable and reined in.
Okay, stay with me here for a minute …
Conservatives hate big unfettered government and liberals hate big unchecked corporations, so both hate legislation which encourages the federal government to reward big corporations at the expense of small businesses.
As an example, both liberals and conservatives are angry that the feds are propping up the giant banks – while letting small banks fail by the hundreds – even though that is horrible for the economy and Main Street.
The Dodd-Frank financial legislation wasn’t a compromise where things landed somewhere in the middle between liberal and conservatives ideas. Instead, it enshrines big government propping up the big banks … more ore less permanently.
Many liberals and conservatives look at the government’s approach to the financial crisis as socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for the little guy. No wonder both liberals and conservatives hate it.
And it’s not just the big banks. Americans are angry that the federal government under both Bush and Obama have handed giant defense contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton no-bid contracts. They are mad that – instead of cracking down on BP – the government has acted like BP’s p.r. spokesman-in-chief and sugar daddy.
They are peeved that companies like Monsanto are able to sell genetically modified foods without any disclosure, and that small farmers are getting sued when Monsanto crops drift onto their fields.
They are mad that Obama promised “change” – i.e. standing up to Wall Street and the other powers-that-be – but is just delivering more of the same.
They are furious that there is no separation between government and a handful of favored giant corporations. In other words, Americans are angry that we’ve gone from capitalism to oligarchy.
So if both liberals and conservatives hate something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a compromise. It may mean that they feel disenfranchised from a government that is of the powerful and for the powerful.
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
December 21st, 2010 at 11:04 pm
And this is why a charismatic populist can hobble an Obama re-election bid. Just speak honestly.
It really is odd, I think, that progressives like myself who feel that government spending is overboard on some priorities (like the Pentagon) and way too frugal on others (like major infrastructure improvements) share common sentiments with elements of the Tea Party crowd. We may differ in priorities. However, the sentiment that government today serves the well-connected and the wealthy remain consistent.
Consider that Ryan McKee has been appointed to the House Committee on Agriculture chaired (next session) by Frank Lucas. Ms. McKee was formerly with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce focusing on derivatives regulation. On the Agriculture Committee, she will liaise with the CFTC on the subject of (surprise!) derivatives legislation.
Peter Orszag, formerly of the Obama White House team, has gone to work for Citigroup as part of the latest turn in a twenty years-long revolving door do-si-do.
Progressives and Tea Party folks get angry about such news. This culture might change if angry conservatives/libertarians of the Tea Party were not played for such patsies. Progressives can affect change, too, through the primary process.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Most governments in most times and places have been of by and for the insiders.
What happened between 1776 and 1963 in America was an abberation brought about by extremely low population densities.
Perhaps a few far flung space colonies will experiment in popular rule in the far distant future.
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:59 am
The following quote from the article, “Many liberals and conservatives look at the government’s approach to the financial crisis as socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for the little guy.”
That’s a direct rewording of a Gore Vidal quote. “What we have in this country is socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the poor.”
- Gore Vidal
I have had the Vidal saying up on my http://www.parallelforeclosure.com blog for the past year. I am really getting sick and tired of all the lifting and none crediting that is going on on the internet. Author loses all credibility in my book.
~~~
BR: Its your position that because someone else on the internet used a quote from a famous author that you have cited, you somehow deserve the credit?
Well then (heh heh), how do you explain your lack of credit for this Big Picture post from December 2008?
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 am
Maybe enough people highlighting this common ground between liberals and conservatives will cause us to spend less time debating the differences. Since neither gov’t nor corporate leaders want to speak for the integrity of markets who will? The BR Einhorn post this morning strikes a chord. First, DE clearly worries that governments will never let anything too big fail, whether private or public. At the same time he also clearly admires a strongly competitive and innovative firm (i.e., Apple) that, in response to competition, moved away from the declining margins of traditional computers and laptops.
Teaching a special topics course this spring entitled “Market Power, Margin, and Relationships” because business students and their faculty typically do not openly discuss the role of power in shaping markets.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:28 am
Don’t forget Simon Johnson’s important contributions to the current state of affairs.
Agree with this post. Think it’s dead on.
But we are all being treated like patsies as the MSM beats us like a drum.
So, if this does point out a possibility, how do we exploit it?
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 pm
No, I didn’t want credit. I was saying I credited the source of my quote (that is very similar to your quote) on my blog. I figured if Gore Vidal said it, and then someone else says something very similar, maybe it was lifted from Vidal. If that’s not the case, so be it.
This comes on top of my recent back and forth with a blogger that is plagiarizing all of the economic blogs and I had to remove them from swarm the banks. I won’t mention the plagiarizing blog because I might then be accused of giving them more hits by mentioning them.