As I frequently feel the need to point out, I’m a Democrat. Since I’m neither a progressive nor a machine Democrat, people seem to find that confusing but it does raise the question what do I want from the Democrats?
First and foremost I want clean, honest government. We don’t presently have that either here in the state of Illinois or at the national level.
I want a United States that is at peace with the world.
I want Democrats to stop drawing dichotomies between “corporations” which they presumably don’t like on the one hand and “people” which they presumably do on the other. This very morning I read an op-ed by Ron Wyden in which he drew that very dichotomy. The reality of life in the 21st century is that a very large percentage of Americans work for corporations. They depend on them for their livelihoods. While it’s reasonable to want better corporations, disparaging them is a self-destructive error.
I want a lot of other things, too, but that’s a start.
I guess some people view my even raising these issues as misguided or disloyal. I see it as the higher loyalty.
Dave,
You seem to have very little in common with the current Democratic party. It strikes me that you’re largely in the same position as James Joyner is with the GoP.
I agree that I have very little in common with the present leadership. I encounter quite a few other Democrats with whom I find a substantial amount of common ground.
The US hasn’t been at peace with the rest of the world during my lifetime, or yours — what is this mysterious foreign policy you advocate that doesn’t involve a lot of bombing and shooting? I’m not opposed to not bombing people, mind you, I just don’t see how it happens.
We now have a low-level active drone war across most of the Mideast, largely thanks to Obama. I am of two minds on it — it’s immoral, but it’s less worse than sporadic invasions. It gives us a middle ground option that is less devastating to the countries we operate in. Is this good or bad?
I don’t see the Democrats being hostile to corporations. Even Elizabeth Warren, and her brainchild, the CFPB, just wants to regulate them, and skew the balance back towards the people a bit, and reduce the worst abuses.
You get some know-nothing kids in the street going on about how corporations are evil, but those are just the Democrats’ fringe, like the people holding up signs demanding the government stay out of their Medicare that pop up on the right.
I have never seen clean honest government. Anywhere. Or any large organization.
We have to structure our institutions to function for the larger good despite the people that are in charge, not relying upon their good graces. By and large, America has done that, with minor corruption having a limited effect on people, and major corruption being too obvious to ignore for too long. I think we are testing the latter side of that more and more though.
I don’t see much point in identifying as Dem or Rep. Large corporations and wealthy individuals contribute to both sides, just in case.
Oh, I don’t know, not invading other countries would be a good start. If we wanted to get wild and crazy, we might not go out of our way to bomb other countries without having been attacked by them.
I would largely agree, but not sure about corporations. I think that many Democrats do perpetuate such a dichotomy, but I think it is largely a way to criticize the wealthy, w/o doing it directly. After all, they now suck up to their own donor class.
I would propose that people assume both parties suck, and try to decide which one is worse and oppose them. If you aren’t splitting your vote, you are probably doing something wrong. Finally, if you must donate to candidates, don’t do so unless you know them well. Otherwise you just perpetuate the dysfunction.
Steve
I don’t think they oppose corporations in any way other than rhetorically. That’s actually the worst combination of rhetoric/policy because they can’t put forth a pro-business agenda but they actually promote a lot of corruption by pretending to regulate when they are really allowing the largest companies to run the table in order to secure their campaign contributions.
And just to clarify….I also think the GOP promotes the same kind of corruption and crony capitalism. I just (slightly) prefer that they are more transparent about it.
“I would propose that people assume both parties suck.” Ain’t that the truth.
“Try to limit” the influence of the bastards to the minimum possible, providing a safety net to a small group, providing for the national defense, enforcing the law and torts against fellow citizens.
There. Better.
But good luck with that. Democrats have eternal hope for good government.
Oh, I don’t know, not invading other countries would be a good start. If we wanted to get wild and crazy, we might not go out of our way to bomb other countries without having been attacked by them.
That’s just crazy talk.
Any time we suffer from a terrorist attack, there is a public outcry and a demand to strike back somewhere. Most of these strikes will be somewhere between ineffective and genuinely harmful to our interests, but the public does demand them.
The best we can hope for is to make the attacks smaller, more targeted, and less destructive. Try to reduce the blowback.
On the subject of hating on the corporations, one thing that really disappointed me about the Obama administration was the willingness to settle complaints of corporate wrongdoing for large sums of money.
It not only fails to jail anyone, but it also looks like a shakedown. And it just becomes a cost of doing business.
When Wells Fargo creates millions of fraudulent accounts for customers to soak them on fees, they shouldn’t skate free with a fine. If we can prove intent or negligence, we should bring charges. Jail who we can and work our way up. Prosecute the company, and then unincorporated it if need be — make sure the shareholders lose, so there’s an incentive for accountability.
And, if we can’t prove anything, do nothing.
But, I recognize I sound like a lunatic, wanting law and order.
Gustopher,
I wasn’t asked if I consented to the bulk of the country’s economic power being controlled by the top three thousand corporations. I wasn’t asked to consent to cleaning up their messes and I wasn’t asked if I consent to bearing the costs of their malfeasance. You can have corporate power or you can have democracy. You cannot have both.
I agree with that completely.
I would ask additional questions. Why did we prop up the big banks? Why didn’t we prosecute any of their top executives? Why has no major company president been prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley? My answer would be that there are too many politicians and apparatchiks who see them as future employers and sources of present political donations. The notion that the protection of miscreant business executives is limited to one political party or another doesn’t meet the laugh test. If there’s one thing on which there’s bipartisan agreement, it’s that.
The problem is the rhetoric. It interferes with the ability to put sane policies in place. Our high nominal corporate income tax rates are bad policy in a globalized economy but constantly railing against “the corporations” puts politicians in a bind. They’ve got to continue stupid, ineffective policies to keep up appearances.
Long on rhetoric, short on action.
Two points. First, is that what happened? Or is what happened that politicians on both aisles assumed that if they didn’t strike back there would be a public outcry which would result in their losing their jobs? I think it’s the latter.
It’s a subtle distinction but a distinction nonetheless. Leaders are supposed to lead, not follow every opinion poll. The way our system is supposed to work is that our elected representatives and the president are not supposed to be blown about by the winds of popular passion.
Second point. You can explain attacking Afghanistan that way but not our invading Iraq, the drone war, bombing Libya, or our intervention in Syria.
In fact the drone war is diametrically opposed to that claim. How in the heck can a top secret war be used to assuage popular demands for revenge?
What I think is happening is that we have incompetent leaders who are playing checkers but think they’re the gods of the universe and playing 12-dimensional chess. We’d be better off if they were responding to popular passions.
Ben:
We have a representative system not direct democracy. Switzerland has something approaching direct democracy but it’s much, much smaller with significantly more social cohesion and consensus despite having four official languages. And to the best of my knowledge it’s the world’s largest direct democracy.
The only way we can have more democracy here is by devolution of power and more being done at the state but particularly the local level with commensurate attention being paid at the state and local levels. Monopolies should be broken up. Do you realistically see any of those things happening?
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.â€
It’s become too profitable, in the currencies of both power and money, to make things politically profitable for the “establishment” class. It’s the reason for the vast majority of invective directed towards Trump.
The only way we can have more democracy here is by devolution of power and more being done at the state but particularly the local level with commensurate attention being paid at the state and local levels. Monopolies should be broken up. Do you realistically see any of those things happening?
You’re seeing things through the lense of public vs. private. Legislate this, clean up this, break up that, state and local government. This is how conservatives and liberals see everything.
But there’s another group which views this as beside the point. Ditto for notions of direct or indirect political democracy which can have but little impact on people’s lives.
If you don’t want monopoly then you don’t have a system where all the incentives align to produce monopoly. If you don’t want corporate misbehavior then you don’t have a system in which the incentives all push the corporation to misbehave. Zooming in on government’s role is a distraction.
Incentives will always align to encourage monopoly but that only produces monopoly indirectly. Monopoly is mostly produced by government intervention these days.
Second point. You can explain attacking Afghanistan that way but not our invading Iraq, the drone war, bombing Libya, or our intervention in Syria.
I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq — it was a disaster that created ISIS, and we are pretty much stuck with that fight now, wherever it leads. The drone war pops up on the news regularly to remind people that we are doing something about terrorists.
Libya should not have happened. I think our involvement did nothing to change the outcome, but it undermined our non-proliferation efforts.
In fact the drone war is diametrically opposed to that claim. How in the heck can a top secret war be used to assuage popular demands for revenge?
The drone war is top secret? Really? We have a top secret war that regularly puts out press releases? I had never even considered that it might be secret. The folks running it are obviously using some subtle definition of secret that doesn’t match the colloquial definition.
We get a steady stream of “a drone killed three terrorists in wherever†reports, which blunt the desire for revenge, since people think we are doing something.
“disappointed me about the Obama administration was the willingness to settle complaints of corporate wrongdoing for large sums of money.”
Well, looking at how McKesson made tons more money off of their misdeeds than what they were fined, it looks like we will now corporations fined relatively small amounts of money. An improvement no doubt.
Steve
Monopoly is mostly produced by government intervention these days.
That isn’t true. Incentives to monopoly exist within capitalist systems, in which profits are maximized by eliminating competition and by maximizing scale. No capitalism, no monopoly. And notice that, in response to my previous comment, you immediately fell into the same tired argument of state vs. private that has never gotten us anywhere.
Ben,
What is your alternative framework and where, historically, can it be found?
There is always a balance between state vs. private (or collective vs individual). I don’t see how that framework can be dispensed with.
There are no natural monopolies. Monopolies require force, and this force must be used to acquire or eliminate any natural competition.
There are reasons for government established monopolies. These are primarily utility infrastructure. Having multiple electric distribution, cable, telephone, and other networks is less efficient than one well-regulated entity, but well-regulated seems to be a problem.
“and this force must be used to acquire or eliminate any natural competition.”
That force can be simple bribery or corruption.
Adam Smith
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.â€
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Steve
@Gustopher
Libya should not have happened. I think our involvement did nothing to change the outcome, but it undermined our non-proliferation efforts.
Had the “non-proliferation” President not proliferated, the Libya regime change would have ended quickly. The Europeans were running out of munitions, and if I remember correctly, they had at most two weeks of bombing capability left.
On the other hand, the Libyan slave markets were re-established, and we have President Obama to thank for that. (Let me guess. It is not racist for the first black US President to re-establish the African slave trade.)
@steve
That force can be simple bribery or corruption.
It includes any government protection – copyrights, patents, regulatory agencies, and crony capitalism.
The problem is government not the economic system. Otherwise, Mao would not have had to murder millions of people.
Andy,
The public vs. private paradigm emerged alongside capitalism with the english civil wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. Throughout the overwhelming arc of human history this was an idea people would have found confusing; the separation didn’t exist.
Marx didn’t analyze policy as a balance between public and private, and in fact wrote virtually nothing about the subject. He focused on how production is organized and why capitalist modes of production are antithetical to the ideals of liberty, equality and brotherhood which informed the anti-feudal revolutions within Europe and the American colonies. Whether you have government or private persons controlling or owning the means of production changes nothing, as we now see in our hyper-privatized capitalism, just as we saw in the Soviet Union’s hyper-state capitalism. Both societies are unhappy, grim and unfree.
The solution, therefore, is not to be found in (as conservatives and liberals constantly demand) capturing the state. The solution is to reorganize our workplaces one enterprise at a time into a democratic framework rather than the top-down, tyrannical framework of the capitalist model.
If you’s like a concrete example of this I’ll give you one.
Let’s say you own a business and you have employees. Maybe you’re nearing an age at which you’d like to retire and take it easy for a change. But you have a problem: what will you do with the business you’ve worked to build? If your children (assuming you have any) don’t want it then you are typically left with two options. You can sell the business to another capitalist enterprise or you can close it down.
Selling it off means you have no guarantee what the new owner will do with it. They may chop it up for parts, load it with debt to line their pockets and fire the employees you want to protect. Closing it, obviously, puts those people out of a job, deprives the community and destroys all the work you’ve done.
But there is a third option: you can sell it to your employees who will operate it as a worker-owned, non-capitalist enterprise. In other words, a democracy at work. Instead of a boss giving all the orders and controlling the output, the workers will now decide what their business will produce, how to produce, when to produce. They are never going to vote to ship their own jobs to Mexico. They are never going to vote for pay disparities of 300-to-1 as we see in the corporation. They aren’t, if they own a lead foundry, going to vote to spew toxic material into the community where they and their children live. And the record of worker-owned enterprises is they fire people as a last resort. Much of the regulation levied by the state is no longer necessary in this paradigm because the incentives rewarding horrible behaviors are no longer present.
Without capturing the state, without anything other than some legislation to level the playing field for financing such initiatives (capitalist banks are highly averse to lending to worker enterprises) we can move beyond many of the inherent flaws within capitalist systems, and many people are already doing this. I have found this voluntary arrangement has great appeal regardless of political identification. There are a lot of Republicans in worker-owned enterprises who wanted a life different than they had in the capitalist firm.
And incidentally, one of Bernie Sanders’ campaign proposals, which he submitted in two bills in May, is to help provide financing for worker-owned start-ups and converstion of existing capitalist enterprises. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party has gone even further by proposing that workers be given first right to buy an existing business should the owner decide to close it or sell it off.
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the detailed response.
I’m not sure if you’ve heard of it, but my favorite brewery is New Belgium in Ft. Collins Colorado. The founder of that company did exactly what you described – he cashed out and it’s now a 100% employee owned company and it’s very successful.
Another example is Publix, the major grocery chain in Florida and parts of the southeast. I’ve lived all over the US and Publix is one of the best chains IMO.
I think it’s a model that can work and has a lot of advantages. I have no issue with government policy that supports it or at least doesn’t discriminate against employee owned firms.
However, I don’t think it falls outside the capitalist market system or the public/private framework. Unless employees are gifted ownership they will still need to come up with the capital to either start a business or procure one. That’s probably a big hurdle in many situations. Employee owned companies may want to go public to raise capital to expand their business or raise capital in other ways. They can’t exist in isolation. In short, they are a great model and should be supported but they don’t exist outside a capitalist market system.
Andy,
The idea of market systems is only 250 years old. In other words we see markets everywhere not because thry exist but because that’s what we’re trained to see. Much of out economy exists in what economists refer to as a state of ‘market failure’; I would argue there never was a market to begin with in such places. But markets, although very limited in their roles, long predate capitalism. So we don’t need a capitalist system to operate within one.
And keep in mind that Marx didn’t view capitalism as fundamentally a market system, or one defined as the need for capital. Capitalism for Marx was the employer-employee relationship which he considered not dissimilar to the lord-serf and master-slave relationships. Of course he recognized there was a difference in the legal status of one vs. another, but still, one has control of production, of what is produced and of the other’s time. The other must obey or be punished.
To Marx, if you break that relationship you’ve moved beyond capitalism. And that’s basically as far as he and other philosophers of the time took it. What kind of world would emerge post-capitalism they didn’t know.
I personally cannot tolerate any more of the endless left vs. right debate that never solves anything. Government, regardless of who captures it, is not a solution to the fundamental problems in our society. We have to do it ourselves and we can.
“On the other hand, the Libyan slave markets were re-established, and we have President Obama to thank for that. (Let me guess. It is not racist for the first black US President to re-establish the African slave trade.)”
Is it too obvious to mention, again, that Barrack Hussein Obama is of Arab slave trader descent? Check out the origin of the names, “Barrack”and “Hussein”. Beating a dead horse here, but he wore the African American mantle when i was useful to him. He NEVER was one.