Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Johann Hari: The real reason Obama is not making much progress

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:12 PM
Original message
Johann Hari: The real reason Obama is not making much progress
Before you can appeal to America's voters you have to appeal to the corporations

Friday, 20 November 2009



Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His healthcare bill is a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the over-charging insurance companies - if it passes at all. His environmental team is vandalising the vital Copenhagen conference by saying the US – the single biggest emitter of warming gases – will not sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on Bush – such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras – many people are asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?

A pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues – Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine that bankrolls both parties – have rallied over the past few months to defend two causes with very little popular support in the United States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.

Let's start with rape. This story begins in Iraq in 2003. The private military contractors sent by the Bush administration to guard the oil pipelines didn't want to get bogged down in expensive legal cases if anything went wrong. When it came to Iraqis, the Bush team simply exempted them from all Iraqi law, in a move so sweeping one Senator called it "a license to kill". But what about if their employees attacked each other, or other Americans? The private companies insisted all their employees sign contracts saying that, whatever happens to them, they will settle it in in-house, through "arbitration". Why? While representing the company at a real legal trial costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, an arbitration panel costs a few thousand. It saves cash.

This policy came, however, with a different price tag. According to her later sworn testimony, Jamie Leigh Jones – a 20-year-old working for the contractor Halliburton/KBR – was hanging out with co-workers one night in Iraq when her drink was spiked. When she woke up, she was haemorraging blood from her vagina and her anus. Her breast implants were ripped. The damage was so severe she later needed reconstructive surgery on her genitalia. She surmised she had been gang-raped by the seven men she had been drinking with. When she approached Halliburton/KBR, she says they locked her in a metal container with no food or water for 24 hours. A doctor came to see her wounds and took DNA evidence, although it was later "lost." A guard took pity on her and loaned her his cell phone. She called her father, who called the American embassy – and only then was she released.

In an Iraq that was collapsing all around her, there was no chance of the Iraqi police investigating. Halliburton/KBR insisted that her contract required the alleged gang-rape to be addressed by the company's private arbitration process, forbidding any claim in the American courts. (If this was how they treated blonde English-speaking American girls, what did they do if Iraqis said they had been abused?) After Leigh Jones went public, many other American women came forward to say they had similar experiences working in Iraq. Her legal team argues the refusal to allow rape to be pursued through the courts created a climate where it was more likely to happen.

The Democratic Senator Al Franken, when he heard about this, was horrified, and tabled a simple amendment to the law. It demanded that no company that prevents rape victims from having their day in court should receive taxpayers' money any more. Rape is rape. A majority of Republicans in the Senate – including John McCain – voted against the amendment. Why? The private contractors are major donors to the Republican Party, but the Senators claim this didn't affect their judgement. No – they said that Franken's proposal was a "vendetta" against Halliburton/KBR with "political motives". Franken pointed out any company trying to stop rape victims getting justice would be treated exactly the same by this law. The Republicans ignored him. They voted to maintain a system where some rape is not pursuable in a court of law.

At the same time, a group of Democratic senators have tried to amend the latest customs bill to ensure that nothing produced by slaves should be sold in the United States. It sounds uncontroversial – as uncontroversial as punishing rapists, in fact. Yet corporate lobbyists are militating behind the scenes to oppose it. As the private subscription-only newsletter "Inside US Trade" reported: "Business groups are worried by the potential effects", and a source tells them there will be, "a push from lobbyists closer to the Finance Committee mark-up of the bill... US industry groups and foreign governments could form ad hoc coalitions to help send a united message." They will fight for their right to use slave labour.

These examples are extreme, but they reveal a powerful undertow that is at work on all political issues (and both main parties) in the United States. To see how, you have to understand two processes. The first is the nature of corporate power. Corporations are structured to do one thing, and one thing only: to maximise profit for their shareholders. No matter how personally nice or nasty their CEOs are, if they put anything ahead of profit, they will be sacked, and replaced by somebody who doesn't. As part of a tightly regulated market, this can be a useful engine for growth. But if it is not strictly reigned in by the law and by trade unions, this pressure for profit will extend anywhere – from trashing the environment to rape and slavery, as these cases remind us. The second factor is the nature of the American political process today. If you want to run for elected office in the US, you have to raise a fortune from corporations or the super-rich to pay for TV advertising. So before you can appeal to the voters, you have to appeal to the corporations. You do this by assuring them you will serve their interests. Once you are in office, you have to keep pleasing them at every step, or they won't pay for your re-election campaign. This two-step overwhelms the positive instincts the individual politicians may have to do good – and drags the US government further and further from the will of the people.

Obama had to climb through this system, and he is currently imprisoned by it. It explains his relative failure so far. Healthcare is proving so hard because the insurance companies are paying both Republicans and right-wing Democrats in Senate to thwart any attempt to provide universal healthcare coverage. Yes, it would save the 17,000 Americans who die every year because they lack insurance but it would depress their profits. Reducing carbon emissions is proving so hard because the oil, coal and gas companies are paying Senators across the spectrum to crush any moves to reduce oil, coal and gas use. And on, and on.

So far, Obama has tried to co-opt the corporations into his agenda by ensuring they will profit from any changes, but this inevitably waters down the proposals, often to the point of uselessness. The Cap and Trade legislation before Congress, for example, will barely limit carbon emissions at all because it has been gutted to please the polluters.

He will only achieve significant progressive change if he reforms the political system itself – to make it accountable to the American people, not the corporations. He needs to change the rules of the game. Ban big business from making political donations, and replace it with state funding. Shut down the lobbying industry. Make a big populist speech announcing you are driving the money-lenders out of the temple of democracy: it'd be surprisingly popular in a country where people can see they're being ripped off every day. The alternative is to become rapidly complicit in a system where defending rape and slavery is seen as just another day's work in Washington DC.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-real-reason-obama-is-not-making-much-progress-1823863.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NRaleighLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Alarming, brilliant, and essential reading. And, yes, depressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Alarming, brilliant, essential....
and missing from the American media....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. And that is the big problem.
The M$M has been a complete failure. One would think the fact that we are victims of a thorough but bloodless coup d'etat would be newsworthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Spot on.
And the proposed solution might work, but the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. We literally can't stop people or corporations from giving money to politicians without that case being overturned.

Now what. :shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. You CAN ban ALL private money
A publicly financed election system that prohibits all campaign donations would be legal as it imposes a restriction on everyone.

Free speech can be accomplished using other means than bribery of politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Congress CAN pass any law it likes.
Whether the Supreme Court will strike down that law is another question.

It's certainly worth trying.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. We have the right to petition
We dont have the right to buy our own Congress members.

Petitioning can be accomplished in other ways.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yikes.
We have ONLY the rights that the Supreme Court says we have. If they don't enforce those rights, then we have no rights.

They have said that money is speech, and that corporations have the right to "speak" by giving money to politicians.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. I am amazed at how clueless some of our people are.
I like to listen to hartmann, but his day-after-day refrain of "we have to get money out of elections" is hopelessly and fatally pollyanna. We can't get money out of elections, and saying that we have to is just prolonging the inevitable while continuing to hand over money and rights to corposations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. ...by virtue of "corporate personhood"
which was a terrible idea to begin with. If any politician tried to revoke corporate personhood, however, now that would be something to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. Threaten justicers with impeachment
Scalia in particular has a record of accepting fringe benefits from corporations such as private jet travel and free exclusive vacations. The SC justices are not immune to corruption or impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. NO we can't
that's the point. There are going to be some very large fires before this is fixed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. You need to read Buckley v. Valeo, then.
That was the SCOTUS case that equated money with free speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. the terms rape and slavery do bring things into focus a bit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama is complicit. No way is he going to cut off the big wigs he hob nobs with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. "He will only achieve significant progressive change if he reforms the political system itself . . .
– to make it accountable to the American people, not the corporations. He needs to change the rules of the game. Ban big business from making political donations, and replace it with state funding. Shut down the lobbying industry. Make a big populist speech announcing you are driving the money-lenders out of the temple of democracy: it'd be surprisingly popular in a country where people can see they're being ripped off every day." . .

unfortunately, I have seen exactly zero indication that Obama is willing to even consider such an approach, much less attempt it . . . he had a major opportunity in the healthcare debate, but announced that he "had no interest in putting insurance companies out of business" . . . he also had a golden opportunity when making fiscal policy, and he chose to throw hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at banks and investment companies . . . his approach to the corporate/government oligarchy seems to be "go along to get along" -- and that approach is NOT conducive to meaningful change in any way, shape, or form . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BirminghamExaminer Donating Member (943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. Kick...for some reason it says this post is older than 24 hrs...so I can't do RECOMMEND..
It's horrendous...and with so much of this out there...why isn't anyone listening in Washington? Obama has many females in his Cabinet...and on his staff.

What is wrong that they didn't come in with him knowing about all this. We here out there in internet land and on DU have been reading horrendous stuff for years. That's why we worked so hard to get Kerry and then Obama elected. And to get those 60 Votes in the Senate.

Obama is the President. Either he's been co-opted...so he's powerless or he's spineless...or those around him are spineless and beholden to the same lobbyists the Congress is. Which is it? And, how could his New Team that came in with him have been so beholden to Lobbyists.

Seems to me that individual small donations were more than the Lobbyists gave (see Open Secrets Website) so how can they claim that they owe the Lobbyists more than those of us who donated and VOTED for him? If he had to choose sides, surely we all gave and worked harder than Goldman-Saks and the Health Care Companies? Why don't "WE the PEOPLE" count anymore? Seems we haven't for decades. But, this election was different in so many ways. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stumbler Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
18. An inspiring essay, but disappointing to know it's never going to happen
As an earlier poster commented, Obama's "going along to get along," and I couldn't agree more. He has had the ability to bring real change and reform like the type he campaigned on to Washington, but he hasn't. Why? And as another poster said, he got more money from small donations than lobbyists, so why does he do their bidding before Ours?

First, he and his administration and all of Congress are being greeted each and everyday by lobbyists from special interest industries, while he hears from the millions who voted for him once - on election day. The lobbyists are paid to be ever-present to the point of harassment. But We the People voice our "choice" once and expect it count for the next four years. But the second flaw, and most likely the fatal one, is the fact that Obama wants to be liked by everyone. He's likely learned from the Clinton era that while campaigning, a president can pay lip-service to Liberals only to s**t on them for the next four years because they've learned "to just take it." We may stage protests, but more than likely we'll just submit ourselves to bitching on blogs, and trying to console ourselves about that fact that "at least he's not Bush." As a result, we get flowery "things are gonna change" messages during the election cycle, and once it's over we're back to closed-door deals with the powerful and wealthy special interests who'd gladly have their own mothers and sisters raped and forced into slavery if it meant higher profits for the 2nd quarter.

And let's face it: This article is a must read... for those who'll never read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
19. How do corporations give money for TV ads to candidates?
The FEC claims:

Prohibited Contributions

While most individuals are free to make political contributions, three categories of individuals are prohibited by law from making contributions: foreign nationals and Federal government contractors and, in some instances, minors. These and other prohibitions on contributions are explained below.
...
Corporations and Unions

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml


So, when corporations are said to be donating to a candidate, what is actually happening? Is there a loophole that could be tightened up without the Supreme Court saying it's a restriction of freedom of speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. The whole process is corrupted
I was furious to find out that at the Minnesota DFL's annual dinner, the rank-and-file pay one price but the wealthy get to pay a much higher price (unaffordable to most people) for a private reception with Minnesota's Congressional delegation.

That's just outrageous. The wealthy and powerful can "befriend" the Congresscritters at a reception and then come in and ask for favors from their "good buddy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
22. Kick!.
Edited on Thu Nov-26-09 06:32 PM by KoKo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
23. the sad fact is most of us already know this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC