Is This the Conversation We’ve Been Waiting For . . . Or Not?
Posted: January 14, 2012 Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, 2012 primaries, Banksters, Congress, Corporate Crime, corporate money, Economy, income inequality, Regulation, Republican Tax Fetishists | Tags: crony capitalism, Financial Crisis, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, U.S. Economy 22 CommentsThe recent brouhaha over Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney locking horns over Romney’s involvement [I created 100,000 jobs] at Bain Capital 
has raised speculation that a conversation about capitalism, the way it’s been practiced these last 30-40 years, is about to commence, a conversation that is way overdue.
The irony is that the issue has been brought to the fore by Republican candidates, none of whom questioned the blowback of leveraged buyouts [LBO] and private equity firms in the past or even whispered the traitorous phrases–crony capitalism, vulture capitalism–in public. In fact, the centerpiece of GOP economic theory is free market fundamentalism—set the market free, unfetter business from governmental regulation and Heaven’s Gate will open.
Not quite.
There’s the 2008 meltdown to contend with, the abuses of Wall Street and a clear example that Greenspan’s ‘self-regulating’ market theory was a cruel and greedy joke. Following the meltdown, Greenspan himself glumly admitted his worldview was incorrect.
In addition, we have plenty of evidence that the so-called Trickle-Down philosophy has not ‘raised all ships’ as heralded by the true believers but rather led to huge income disparities, flat wages and the death-rattle of the middle-class.
Yes, there is the question of globalization. Like it or not, we have grown interconnected. But when decisions are made purely on profit, the quicker the better, then transferring manufacturing abroad, exploiting cheap foreign labor, taking advantage of lax worker safety rules and nonexistent environmental regulations begins to make a twisted sort of sense. So, too with trade agreements made deliberately lopsided and unfair because these ‘deals’ have no national loyalty. Profit is king; all else is subservient.
The long-term damage is massive. We don’t have to speculate about this. The evidence is everywhere in our unemployment numbers [which are far worse than reported] and the slide into poverty for alarming numbers of Americans. Add in the housing crisis, still escalating health care costs, the Gulf oil spill, endless wars, the battles over extracting oil, coal and natural gas while refusing to work on rational and workable alternative energy policies, and . . .
Well, it’s enough to make your head explode.
But suddenly, the door has flown open for a conversation on what it means to be a shareholder capitalist. The unquestioned virtue of profit over all else has begun to raise its ugly head.
For instance, what value [if any] is created for a society when money is valued above all else, valued over the welfare of fellow citizens–the sick, the disabled, even our children. What value is maintained when corners are cut, laws rewritten, ridiculous tax policies hyped as necessary for growth and future job creation? But the mythical jobs, positions offering a living wage, never come. What does it mean when massive profits stream only to the top tier of the population, the so-called job creators, while everyone and everything else is left to flounder?
I call it a no-value deal–a lie, a theft–the magnitude of which hollows out a society, sucks it dry.
For too long Newt Gingrich [for all his caterwauling now] and his like-minded buddies have called it the free enterprise system. Free for whom? Certainly not for the families who have lost their homes, seen their jobs exported and have no reasonable expectation that their own children will ever see better times. Not with the continuation of what Dylan Ratigan has termed Extractionism, a system that takes money from others without offering anything of value, anything that actually promotes growth or improves society. This is a system that merely fills the coffers of the Extractionists, while they play a heady game of King of the Mountain and continue to spread the folklore that this is what freedom and liberty look like.
But let’s be fair. Mitt Romney is not the devil incarnate, nor is Bain Capital the worst of the worst. Much of what Newt Gingrich’s SuperPac is selling to the electorate conveniently let’s Wall Street and multinational corporations off the hook. The ads fail to mention the cushy collusion of legislators who push laws and tax breaks to keep the circle spinning. And Washington Democrats who may be dancing the happy dance now are just as guilty of supporting the status quo, going along to get along, eagerly taking campaign donations from their own smiling Extractionists.
Is this the conversation Republicans are offering?
Sorry, no.
Rush Limbaugh has been apoplectic on the issue. According to Limbaugh, Gingrich has ‘Gone Perot.’
So you might say that Newt now has adopted the Perot stance, because he just said it: ‘I’m gonna make sure that Romney doesn’t come out of New Hampshire with any momentum whatsoever.’ And he’s using language that the left uses, and he’s attempting to make hay with this. You know, he’s trying to dredge up and have long-lasting negatives attach to Romney [this is what’s so unsettling about this] in the same way the left would say it. You could, after all these bites, say, “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Rudy Giuliani also weighed in.
What the hell are you doing, Newt?” Giuliani said this morning on “Fox and Friends.” “The stuff you’re saying is one of the reasons we’re in this trouble now.
This whole ignorant populist view of the economy that was proven to be incorrect with the Soviet Union with Chinese communism.
Oh yes, the ‘ignorant populist’ view that has beamed a light on business as usual. Which btw, is not working, except for a tiny fraction of the American public. If anything, Uncle Newt has pulled back the curtain and revealed an unsettling truth.
This might not be the full-throated conversation Americans need to engage in. Still it’s a beginning from a most unexpected quarter, whose raison d’etre is as caught up in short-term results as are its economic principles. Almost Occupy Wall St. in nature, the conversation is now in the open. This is a conversation that defies Mitt Romney’s suggestion that sensitive subjects are better left to the privacy of ‘quiet rooms.’
This is the conversation of the moment. The first word, the opening sentence. It has just begun.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Excellent, and very thoughtful, post. Gingrich and other critics of Romney and Bain are responding to the heightened awareness in the populace of the extreme income inequality in the country. It’s a direct result of OWS. It’s very inspiring and it just goes to show that when people band together to protest we can have an effect on the powerful. I agree the conversation has just begun, and even if it comes from Republicans, I’ll take it.
I disagree with you on Romney and Bain though. Romney may not be the “devil incarnate,” but he’s a very bad man and much more dangerous than Newt Gingrich. Romney is still getting away with too many bald-faced lies and distortions, despite the Republican attacks.
Thanks, BB. Appreciate the read and comments. Did you get a chance to read the Vanity Fair profile of Romney? I think the title was ‘The Dark Side of Mitt Romney.’ I found it really interesting, and no there’s nothing terribly attractive about the man, other than his physical appearance and the dedication he has for his own family–that seems true enough.
But I often wonder what makes these guys tick and VF offered a good insider’s view. I don’t know, maybe the list of rogues is so astounding that MR seems less destructive to me, more a precision technocrat. Rick Santorum or Jim DeMInt on the other hand, all of the theocrats, really make my skin crawl.
But who knows. If Romney were to take the WH, I might change my tune very quickly. Comes right down to it? I’m not voting for anyone coming from the legacy parties, not the GOP, not the Dems.
I actually wrote an entire post on the Vanity Fair profile of Romney. Here it is:
It may have been while you were out of town. I ordered the book the article was based on. I’m supposed to get it on Tuesday.
I confess I missed your post on the VF piece, BB. But it’s now on my reading list :0).
Lo and behold, I did read your post, BB. It was one of my first reads after I got home. What I didn’t do was take your suggestion at the time and read the VF article. That I did just a few days ago. Just didn’t tie it together.
Wonderful post peggysue. One can only hope that the conversation won’t come to a screeching halt even before the SC primary.
My question is what exactly is a free market? Free to do what it wants, inflict damage and have tax dollars pay for the clean up, take tax dollar subsidies whether or not they’ve contributed any of those very dollars, have the government confiscate property for them under eminent domain, get leases on federal property for a pittance? Dak – you’re the economist. Is that the actual definition of a free market or just how it’s practiced?
The truth is, there’s no such thing as a “free market.”
BB, that was kind of my point. The phrase is used all of the time. With my woefully limited understanding of economics (although it has improved greatly thanks to the wisdom imparted here by dak), businesses would be able to succeed or fail based solely on their performance. Romney thinks that Obama should have let the major car companies fail, yet has he spoken out against subsidies to oil companies? Not to my knowledge. What about the cattle industry whose cattle graze on public lands, destroy the watersheds, have tax dollars pay to poison, trap & shoot native species and pay next to nothing for these privileges? LIes, BS with a little smoke & mirrors thrown in for good measure. But, but, but – he’s a Good Family Man & an Elder in his church – he’d never lie, right? ARGHHH!
I got that, Connie. I just couldn’t resist saying it since Dak is under the weather today.
So sorry that dak isn’t feeling well. Hope it’s nothing serious.
I figured you did. As if you couldn’t tell, I get a bit “miffed” when words and phrases are bandied around that mean one thing but are used to mislead instead. Luntz has been on my radar for years and his manipulation of the public dialog drives me crazy. I’m a fan of George Lakoff and wish the dems & progressives would listen to him. But then, most of what I wish for never becomes reality.
Just woke up from my third nap today. It is the flu. I’ve felt like I’ve been dropped off a very high building for three days now. I seem to be changing from fever and aches into a sinus revolution now. Thank goodness for ibuprofren.
It’s just the flu, but she’s pretty wiped out.
Thanks, Connie. I think BB nailed it. There is no free market, except for the Gazillionaire Boy’s Club. And your description is very apt–the Government has become the Sugar Daddy to every scammer/grifter around.
Ordinary citizens? We’re the gullible marks.
Yep, peggysue, the gullible marks. We’re the ones – if we’re lucky enough to have jobs – that are actually funding the government with our tax dollars. The only “shelters” we have are our homes, if we’re lucky enough to have them. If they put us all on the street without jobs, who is going to pay their salaries or buy the crap products they market?
good post. 🙂
Thank you, ma’am!
On my cell phone so I can’t quote from your great post, peg.
I’m pessimistic about this conversation due to the way it’s arisen. I think it is going to get dubbed by the mainstream as just newtered trying to get even and just more populist noise rather than getting taken seriously. I also think today’s faux-progressives will be more invested in pointing out newtered’s opportunism and hypocrisy than using this as a chance to build populist bridges across left and right.
Would love to be wrong/be surprised.
There is little chance of that though. Sad to say
Me too, wonk. The thing that gives me a smidgen of optimism are the conversations and actions already underway–the growing opposition to Citizen’s United, drawing a number of activist groups together fighting common cause; the Amendment movements coming from various quarters to get the money out; the court decision in Montana; the fact that Occupy is still out there, raising the questions and making people think about what’s going on. Even this opposition to SOPA and PIPA that BB just updated. The opposition is working, leaving a mark because they’re making the players visible, drawing them into the light.
Cockroaches don’t like the light.
And now, the astounding off-message of Gingrich and Perry, trying to sell themselves as populists, while dissing Romney’s involvement with Bain.
Luntz said he was worried about the Occupy message. He has good reason to worry. The message has gotten through, entered the public’s consciousness and energized a lot of people.
Free market is a bit of a misnomer. I believe it’s like “free trade” in that the principles of a “free market” are best achieved by regulations which insure fairness of competition. Without those, you wind up with monopolistic markets and a race to the bottom in trade. It would be best if we replaced “Free” with “Fair” in both cases. FWIW.
That makes sense.