So far, there have been many surprises in the contest for the 2008 Presidential nomination. Six months ago, it appeared the probable candidates would be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. After Tuesday's primaries they will be John McCain and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Last year it appeared the leading issue would be the war in Iraq. Now it's likely the great debate will be about the economy.
In 1932, there were no debates between the incumbent Republican President, Herbert Hoover, and the Democratic challenger, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Nonetheless, by the time of the election, most Americans were aware of fundamental differences in their approach to solving the Great Depression. This fall, when Senator McCain debates Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, Americans will recognize a stark reality: Republicans have learned nothing in eighty years.
The Great Depression was fueled by a combination of irrational market exuberance, unfettered greed, and lack of governmental oversight. The current recession has been powered by the same factors. The period leading up to the 1929 stock-market crash saw irrational exuberance in the form of a speculative investment in stocks. In recent times we've seen the same unwarranted enthusiasm; this time for housing.
In both eras there was unfettered greed; the dominant morality was "what's in it for me." The Great Depression saw a few unscrupulous individuals get rich by peddling penny stocks and other shaky financial vehicles. The current recession saw consumers taken in by pernicious credit-card practices or by sub-prime loans with rates that unexpectedly accelerated.
In both periods, there was a woeful lack of Federal oversight. The stock-market abuses in the twenties led to the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and other regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, the current recession was fueled by Bush Administration policies that both fueled America's appetite for debt and weakened financial oversight.
In the fall there will be a series of Presidential debates featuring Senator McCain and either Senators Obama or Clinton. The dominant subject will be the recession. While Republicans have had plenty of time to learn from the mistakes that produced the Great Depression, McCain is likely to reprise the rhetoric of former President Hoover; he'll assert that, if left alone, the market will make the necessary adjustments.
Over the past eight decades, the Republican Party has been remarkably consistent in their wrongheaded economic rhetoric: greed is good because it represents the will of the market and monopolies are even better. GOP candidates have promised to cut taxes, minimize the role of the Federal government, and, more recently, reduce entitlements.
It's not difficult to see why Republicans favor cutting the taxes of the rich and powerful; this is a quid pro quo for the GOP's wealthiest donors. Therefore, McCain follows the Bush lead and advocates tax reduction as the only way to ease the current recession. Nonetheless, based on America's experience in the Great Depression, cutting taxes won't pull us out of an economic downturn. Nor will the meager economic stimulus package recently passed by Congress.
Similarly, it's not difficult to understand why Republicans seek to minimize the role of the Federal government: the rich and powerful want to have their way with the market without restrictions. But, what finally pulled America out of the Great Depression was more government, not less. Republicans ignore the reality that agencies such as the FDIC have helped stabilize the economy.
When we study the lessons of American history, it's obvious that what is needed to remedy the current recession is massive government intervention, investment on a scale that hasn't been seen since Roosevelt's New Deal initiatives. But McCain doesn't favor this strategy; he advocates the same hands off policies that Bush and other Republican dinosaurs have espoused for the last eighty years. In contrast, Senators Clinton and Obama understand the necessity for government intervention.
In the coming 2008 economic debate, there will be two major points of disagreement. The first will be what to do: McCain will advocate passivity; he will take the classic Republican approach, which is to pray that the market will provide the remedy. In contrast, Obama or Clinton will prescribe action; each will suggest their own version of the New Deal.
The second point of disagreement will be how to pay for the necessary fiscal stimulus. McCain's number one priority will be "winning" the war in Iraq, no matter how much time and money is involved. The Democrats' number one priority will be to fix the economy. They will suggest America cannot afford to continue to spend $2 billion per week in Iraq and we should shift the focus of the war to Afghanistan – a move that will reduce military expenditures and free funds for domestic programs. In addition, Democrats will link "homeland security" to our domestic well-being and assert we must strengthen the average American family as an integral part of our "war" on terror.
John McCain was born in 1936 and he experienced the Great Depression. Nonetheless, he has chosen to rely upon Republican ideology rather than the hard lessons learned by his and other American families. McCain's behavior proves the old adage: "You can't teach an old [war] horse new tricks."
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
I wish it were so that electing Democrats would result in huge reductions in military spending and that critically needed domestic programs could be funded with the savings. It just isn't the case.
What evidence is there that electing Democrats will save the $2 billion a week the US is pouring into Iraq? In one debate, neither Clinton nor Obama could commit to having all the troops out by 2013. Obama has called for increasing the overall size of the US military by 90,000 troops. Why, if he's going to return the roughly 150,000 troops from Iraq, does he need an additional 90,000? And the truth is, Obama has said deploying so many troops in Iraq has short-changed the forces needed in Afghanistan. Transferring troops from one conflict to another does not save money. Furthermore, Obama said he will continue fighting Al Qaeda inside Iraq. The Center for American Progress estimated this will require roughly 60,000 troops. Just how long does he plan to continue funding that hole in the US budget?
Both Obama and Clinton have called Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. While neither has called for attacking Iran militarily, hawkish attitudes like these will likely demand a substantial outlay of military preparedness dollars.
And then, of course, we have the issue of more than 730 foreign US military bases. The US pays all sorts of exorbitant fees to host countries for the privilege of occupying foreign soil. And those bases are staffed by costly military personnel and costly military equipment. Have you heard either Obama or Clinton call for the closing of all, or at least most, of these bases. No, I'm afraid you have not.
And finally, we have the mother-of-all budget abuses: the military budget itself. In a recent article, Chalmers Johnson noted that the actual military budget exceeded $1.1 trillion per year. That's a whole lot of domestic priorities going without funding. Have you heard Obama or Clinton railing against the great corporate welfare system we affectionately call the military-industrial complex? No, I'm afraid you have not.
The sad truth in this election, once again, is that we have a choice between those who will continue to fund the abusive military budget and those who will continue to fund the abusive military budget. That isn't to argue there is no difference between the two major parties; there is. But any hope of meaningful change when the national treasury is being bankrupted by corporate excesses is little more than a pipedream. In the end, all the promises are nothing but promises. Without deep cuts in military spending there will be no funding of healthcare reform, education reform, retirement security, national infrastructure or the social safety net.
After we elect the next President, be they Democrat or Republican, it will be we the people who are left arguing over the few crumbs that remain.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 10:11:51 AM
Bob Burnett's article entitled, "The Great Debate of 2008", is a lucid, well-constructed essay. It bring clarity, value, good editorial writing judgment when contrasting two sides – by giving equal time to each – and then draws an excellent, concise conclusion.
The article has great fluency and it builds with each paragraph. This is a model editorial that is emblematic of the type of articles that we encourage and promote at Op Ed News.
Frank R. Senior Editor OEN
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 1:15:14 PM
There may very well be another issue on which to debate:
The Columbia incursion into Ecuador and the massing of troops on the borders of both nations and Venezuela as well. This is what the two Democratic candidates had to say on it, from Common Dreams.Org, like Mr. Burnett a Berkeley,Ca. product:
Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008
click here Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008
"The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors."
Obama is absolutely right, of course, that nothing should used as a "pretense" to ratchet up tensions or threaten the stability of the region. But this glosses over the apparent fact that Colombia flagrantly, deliberately, and with premeditation violated Ecuador’s sovereignty. Ecuador is a U.S. ally. The U.S., as a member of the Organization of American States, has an obligation to defend Ecuador’s sovereignty. If you say that doesn’t matter, then what you’re saying is that a country like Ecuador can’t rely on the U.S. to behave in accordance with international law, and has to turn to countries like Venezuela to help defend its sovereignty (as it has.) In this assertion, you’d have a lot of agreement in Ecuador, including from its U.S.-educated president.
Obama says, "The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors." That’s absolutely correct. He might also note that the U.S. — which is a protagonist through its role in Colombia — shares this obligation.
Now let’s consider Hillary’s statement:
Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008
"Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course."
This is 100% wrong. Hillary acts as if the "event" is not the Colombian attack in Ecuador, but the Venezuelan response (Ecuador, the country whose sovereignty was violated, is an afterthought.) . According to Hillary, Colombia has "every right" to "defend itself" by violating Ecuador’s sovereignty — that’s the event — but if Venezuela sends troops to its side of the Venezuela-Colombia border — its own national territory — that’s "unwarranted and dangerous." Hillary says that "after reviewing the situation," she is hopeful that Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in "closer cooperation with Colombia" — the country that just flagrantly violated its sovereignty — than with Venezuela, its ally that is speaking up against the violation. She is hopeful that Ecuador will lick the hand that beats it. As president, she will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to press Venezuela to change course. Good luck with that. It’s the U.S. and Colombia that need pressure to change course — to forswear violations of international law and to choose real diplomacy.
Judging from Hillary’s statement, we should expect no meaningful change in U.S. policy towards Colombia, Ecuador, or Venezuela (which she falsely claims is a dictatorship) if she is elected president — unless it is a change to make it worse.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 6:30:56 PM
The Great Debate can rightfully be called, The Great Sham.“
All the social problems which the two major Party politicians claim, promise to resolve..., jobs, impoverishments of millions..., the latest "War" for the resources of other societies, can all be traced to their origins..., the economic system, and its corporate autocratic ownership by dominant capital investors… Such control of our needed tools of social production, is used primarily, not for our societal use, but for the profits which accrue to their private coffers…, and to the exclusion of the needs of society itself.
In this arrangement, We, the People, are left out of any decision making in all matters that affect our lives. The Obamas , Clintons and McCains, make certain to reassure their corporate financiers that they are all for “ private enterprise,“ the euphemism for capitalism, and are committed to remain as corporate puppets, an allegiance once question will quickly remove them from the millions of money needed to cover the airwaves with their self serving propaganda.
The "Great Debate," is literally, a great sham concocted by the Presidential Debate Commission to continues the illusion that We, the People, actually live in a democratic society! Fat is, We don’t. We cannot practice DEMOCRACY in our political government. We cannot make decisions and have these implemented in our work places.
The ONLY moment We have input is in the election charade where We cast our VOTE to authorize our so-called “Representatives of the People” to carry out their legislative obligations to their big bucks private and corporate supporters.
Two significant Congressional actions should bear out how Obama, Clinton and McCain all suck up to private and corporate capital investors, whose private profits are always of the utmost importance regardless of how this affects the health and well being of our society.
One is the fact that it took ten, that’s TEN, years before Congress increased the minimum wage for the lowest paid working citizens of our nation, from $5.15 and hour to $6.55 an hour…, and then to a whopping $7.25 in 2009!!! Imagine ! 40 cents more…That’s a shattering $3.20 more each working day? And then the following year, a staggering 70 cents an hour increase in 2009! Why that adds a mind boggling $5.60 increase in “just” one day’s work!!! Now, that’s a real “people’s” Congress, wouldn’t you say?
The other significant Congressional obligation to the corporate autocracy is its authorization for the Bush Administration to invade Iraq for the sole purpose of acquiring its oil reserves…, an indispensable resource which corporate America needs in cheap costs and steady supply in order to compete globally. The continuing deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and Americans, both regular army and now State national guard…, is maintained, and considered by government and private spokespersons asa necessary price to pay for the security of our nation …, completely justified despite the thousands of deaths of both American military kids and Iraqi …, considered a necessary price to pay, still daily maintained as a “good” for the Mid East region because it had brought DEMOCRACY (???) to that part of the world, and the most fear ridden justifications always placed before us … that it is “…Better to fight them (the “Terrorists”) over there than “HERE!”
These two Congressional milestones in the service of our society’s capitalist corporations…, are necessary to recognize if we are to build the genuine democracy which we want and so desperately need, and certainly a requirement if we have any considerations for the well being of our future generations .., which we undoubtedly do!
To sum up…, the social content of the Presidential “debates” is indicative of conditions remaining as they are…, with a few more reform promises already being prepared for the next generation of political pretenders who seek OUR support for their access to their corporate and private benefactors.
A social and economic democracy is our only way out of these repetitive depression and war results plague every generation. All the social problems which the two major Party politicians claim, promise to resolve..., jobs, impoverishments of millions..., the latest "War" for the resources of other societies, can all be traced to their origins..., the economic system, its corporate autocratic ownership and control of our needed tools of social production..., tools which we, as a society, do not own, rather, these indispensable economic resources are held as private property to be used, not for our societal use, but for the profits which accrue to their capital investors..., to the exclusion of the needs of society itself. And in this process, We, the People, are left out of any decision making in all matters that affect our lives.
The "Great Debate," is literally, a great sham concocted by the Presidential Debate Commission to continue the illusion that We, the People , live in a democratic society!
Every Presidential candidate We have been allowed to view in the corporate owned and controlled media, always reminds us that they are for the "Free Market," their synonym for capitalism, the system in which our socially operated industries and services are privately owned, controlled , managed and used for the profits of private individual and groups, to the exclusion of what is in the best interests of our society...
As serious adults interested in the preservation of all the positive humanvalues we hold dear…we can do no less than examine one of the more vocal movements which are active in bringing to the national discussion table the question of how to bring about a peaceful and legaltransformation of our society from the corporate and political domination of our lives …, which can be found at:
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
