Nov. 6,
2008 (Information Clearing House) --
Tuesday’s
celebration
hangovers
have finally
started to
wear off,
and the
pieces are
beginning to
fall into
place.
Change will
be coming to
Washington
in January,
but it is
difficult to
decipher
what form it
will take.
Early clues,
however,
suggest that
Barack
Obama’s
administration
will prove
unlikely to
alter the
fundamental
political
machinery
that has led
us into war
and economic
turmoil.
Below is a
brief
summary of
Obama’s
potential
choices for
a few key
roles in his
administration.
Obama’s key
White House
position
will go to
Rep. Rahm
Emanuel of
Illinois.
While
Emanuel
knows his
way around
the
corridors of
Washington,
qualifying
him in the
traditional
sense, this
alone
doesn’t mean
he’s the guy
you want
drawing up
Obama’s
policy
papers day
after day.
For
starters,
Emanuel is a
shameless
neoliberal
with close
ties to the
Democratic
Leadership
Council (DLC),
even
co-authoring
a strategy
book with
DLC
president
Bruce Reed.
Without
Emanuel,
Bill Clinton
would not
have been
able to
thrust NAFTA
down the
throats of
environmentalists
and labor in
the
mid-1990s.
Over the
course of
his career,
Emanuel’s
made it a
point to
cozy up to
big
business,
making him
one of the
most
effective
corporate
fundraisers
in the
Democratic
Party. He’s
also a
staunch
advocate of
Israel’s
occupation
of
Palestinian
territories.
Emanuel’s
shinning
moment came
in 2006 as
he helped
funnel money
and poured
ground
support into
the offices
of dozens of
conservative
Democrats,
expanding
his party’s
control of
the House of
Representatives.
Emanuel, who
supports the
War on
Terror, and
expanding
our presence
in
Afghanistan,
worked hard
to ensure
that a
Democratic
House
majority
would not
alter the
course of US
military
objectives
in the
Middle East.
In short,
Rahm Emanuel
is not only
a poor
choice for
Obama’s
Chief of
Staff; he’s
one of the
least
progressive
picks he
could have
made. While
he may have
decent views
on abortion,
tax policy,
and social
security,
Emanuel’s
broader
vision is
more of the
same: war
and
corporate
dominance.
For arguably
the most
important
position
Obama will
be
appointing,
the
President-Elect
may pick
well-regarded
economist
Paul
Volcker,
former
chairman of
the Federal
Reserve
under Jimmy
Carter and
Ronald
Reagan.
Volker is
one of
Obama’s
closest
economic
advisors and
is thought
to be the
top-choice
for the
position of
Treasury
Secretary.
During the
late 1970s
and early
1980s,
Volker, in
an attempt
to cut
inflation,
dramatically
raised
interest
rates, which
helped the
elite
maintain
value in
their assets
but
strangled
the working
class as
credit dried
up.
In his book,
A Brief
History of
Neoliberalism,
David Harvey
writes that
Volker
personified
one of the
key facets
of the
neoliberal
era.
“[Volker]
engineered a
draconian
shift in
U.S.
monetary
policy. The
long-standing
commitment
in the U.S.
liberal
democratic
state to the
principles
of the New
Deal, which
meant
broadly
Keynesian
fiscal and
monetary
policies
with full
employment
as a key
objective,
was
abandoned in
favour of a
policy
designed to
quell
inflation no
matter what
the
consequences
might be for
employment.
The real
rate of
interest,
which had
often been
negative
during the
double-digit
inflationary
surge of the
1970s, was
rendered
positive by
fiat of the
Federal
Reserve. The
nominal rate
of interest
was raised
overnight …
Thus began
‘a long deep
recession
that would
empty
factories
and break
unions in
the United States and
drive detour
countries to
the brink of
insolvency,
beginning a
long-era of
structural
insolvency’.
The Volker
shock, as it
has since
come to be
known, has
to be
interpreted
as a
necessary
but not
sufficient
condition of
neoliberalism.”
In
supporting
Henry
Paulson’s
bailout
package,
Volker would
not
re-regulate
the banks
nor provide
more power
to
shareholders,
he’s simply
carry on one
facet of
neoliberalism:
tightening
federal
budgets
which
inevitably
will put
great
budgetary
pressure on
federal
agencies.
Another
potential
pick for the
post is
Robert
Rubin, who
served under
Clinton in
the same
position and
is currently
Director and
Senior
Counselor of
Citigroup.
Rubin played
a key role
in abetting
another
neoliberal
objective:
deregulation.
Where Volker
was hung up
on economic
austerity,
Rubin pushed
for more
deregulatory
policies
that ended
up shifting
jobs, and
entire
industries,
overseas.
Rubin even
pushed for
Clinton’s
dismantling
of
Glass-Steagall,
testifying
that
deregulating
the banking
industry
would be
good for
capital
gains, as
well as Main
Street.
“[The]
banking
industry is
fundamentally
different
from what it
was two
decades ago,
let alone in
1933,” Rubin
testified
before the
House
Committee on
Banking and
Financial
Services in
May of 1995.
“[Glass-Steagall
could]
conceivably
impede
safety and
soundness by
limiting
revenue
diversification,”
Rubin
argued.
While the
industry saw
much
deregulation
over the
years
preceding
these
events, the
Gramm-Leach-Biley
Act of 1999,
which
eliminated
Glass-Steagall,
extended and
ratified
changes that
had been
enacted with
previous
legislation.
Ultimately,
the repeal
of the New
Deal era
protection
allowed
commercial
lenders like
Rubin’s
Citigroup to
underwrite
and trade
instruments
like
mortgage
backed
securities
along with
collateralized
debt and
established
structured
investment
vehicles
(SIVs),
which
purchased
these
securities.
In short, as
the lines
were blurred
among
investment
banks,
commercial
banks and
insurance
companies,
when one
industry
fell, others
could too.
Robert Rubin
is in part
responsible
for
supporting
the policies
that pushed
us to the
brink of a
great
recession.
When the
subprime
mortgage
crisis hit,
instability
and collapse
spread
across
numerous
industries.
Another name
that is in
the hunt for
the top spot
is Lawrence
Summers, who
served
during the
last 18
months of
the Clinton
administration.
Summers is
greatly
responsible
for
expanding
Rubinomics
and is
credited by
many for the
collapse in
the
derivatives
market,
which later
imploded the
housing
market.
While
Obama’s
choice for
this
important
role is
speculative,
quite a few
fingers are
pointing to
Richard
Holbrooke.
After Gerald
Ford’s loss
and Jimmy
Carter’s
ascendance
into the
White House
in 1976,
Indonesia,
which
invaded East
Timor and
slaughtered
200,000
indigenous
Timorese
years
earlier,
requested
additional
arms to
continue its
brutal
occupation,
even though
there was a
supposed ban
on arms
trades to
Suharto’s
government.
It was
Carter’s
appointee to
the
Department
of State’s
Bureau of
East Asian
and Pacific
Affairs,
Richard
Holbrooke,
who
authorized
additional
arms
shipments to
Indonesia
during this
supposed
blockade.
Many
scholars
have noted
that this
was the
period when
the
Indonesian
suppression
of the
Timorese
reached
genocidal
levels.
During his
testimony
before
Congress in
February
1978,
Benedict
Anderson of
Cornell
University
cited a
report that
proved there
never was a
United
States arms
ban, and
that during
the period
of the
alleged ban;
the United States
initiated
new offers
of military
weaponry to
the
Indonesians
at
Holbrooke’s
request.
Over the
years
Holbrooke,
who is
philosophically
aligned with
Paul
Wolfowitz
and other
neoconservatives,
has worked
vigorously
to keep his
bloody
campaign
silent.
Holbrooke
described
the
motivations
behind his
support of
Indonesia’s
genocidal
actions:
“The
situation in
East Timor
is one of
the number
of very
important
concerns of
the United
States in
Indonesia.
Indonesia,
with a
population
of 150
million
people, is
the fifth
largest
nation in
the world,
is a
moderate
member of
the
Non-Aligned
Movement, is
an important
oil producer
— which
plays a
moderate
role within
OPEC — and
occupies a
strategic
position
astride the
sea lanes
between the
Pacific and
Indian
Oceans … We
highly value
our
cooperative
relationship
with
Indonesia.”
Other
foreign
policy
advisors may
also include
the likes of
Madeline
Albright,
the great
supporter of
Iraq
sanctions,
which killed
hundreds of
thousands of
innocent
people.
Madeline
Albright,
when asked
by Leslie
Stahl of 60
Minutes
about the
deaths
caused by
U.N.
sanctions,
infamously
condoned the
deaths. “I
think this
is a very
hard
choice,” she
said. “But
the price -- we
think the
price is
worth it.”
Samantha
Power, that
great
cheerleader
for
humanitarian
intervention,
also has
Obama’s ear
and may even
entice him
to put U.S.
forces in
Darfur.
“With very
few
exceptions,
the Save
Darfur
campaign has
drawn a
single
lesson from
Rwanda: the
problem was
the U.S.
failure to
intervene to
stop the
genocide.
Rwanda is
the guilt
that America
must
expiate, and
to do so it
must be
ready to
intervene,
for good and
against
evil, even
globally.
That lesson
is inscribed
at the heart
of Samantha
of Power’s
book, A
Problem from
Hell:
America and
the Age of
Genocide.
But it is
the wrong
lesson,”
writes
author
Mahmood
Mamdani in
the London
Review of
Books.
As Mamdani
continues:
“What the
humanitarian
intervention
lobby fails
to see is
that the Unnited States
did
intervene in
Rwanda,
through a
proxy …
Instead of
using its
resources
and
influence to
bring about
a political
solution to
the civil
war, and
then
strengthen
it, the US
signalled to
one of the
parties that
it could
pursue
victory with
impunity.
This
unilateralism
was part of
what led to
the
disaster,
and that is
the real
lesson of
Rwanda …
Applied to
Darfur and
Sudan, it is
sobering. It
means
recognising
that Darfur
is not yet
another
Rwanda.
Nurturing
hopes of an
external
military
intervention
among those
in the
insurgency
who aspire
to victory
and
reinforcing
the fears of
those in the
counter-insurgency
who see it
as a prelude
to defeat
are
precisely
the ways to
ensure that
it becomes a
Rwanda.”
Other names
in the
running
include John
Kerry, who
as many
know, ran an
antiwar
campaign for
president in
2004. A full
supporter of
the War on
Terror, with
a hard-line
on Iran,
will
certainly
not alter
the U.S.
relationship
in the
Middle East.
Regarding
the
Department
of Defense,
it looks as
if Robert
Gates will
still
control the
top spot,
with no
alterations
made to the
DoD or its
inflated
budget.
While the
election of
Barack Obama
is a blow to
George W.
Bush-Republicanism
and a gain
for racial
equality in
this
country, it
is in many
ways only a
symbolic
victory. The
future of
the United State’s
foreign and
economic
agenda will
continue to
be saturated
with
ideologies
and
individuals
that are
directly
responsible
for our
current
predicament,
both in the
Middle East
and
domestically.
Celebrating
the end of
the ugly
Bush era is
one thing.
Celebrating
the
continuation
of their
policies
with a
different
administration
in the White
House is
quite
another.
With these
prospective
appointments,
Obama seems
to be moving
backwards to
Clintontime.
This may be
sufficient
change for
some, but it
far from a
progressive
push toward
social,
economic,
and
environmental
justice.
For
significant
change to
happen, the
kind that is
needed in
order to
mend the
wounds of
the Bush
years, we
have to put
down our
Obama signs
and force
Congress and
the new
administration
to end the
wars in the
Middle East,
and push for
regulating
the
financial
industry
while
providing
true
universal
health-care
and economic
safety-nets
for all
Americans.
Given the
make up of
his
potential
advisors,
we’re in for
a long
uphill
battle. So
let’s drop
our
illusions
and start
organizing,
beginning
with a
discussion
of what
“organizing”
even means
in today’s
political
climate.