Let me preface this post by explaining my reason for posting it. It is not to condemn Obama, or to criticize those of us who voted for him (as, in fact, I did). It is to remind us that the real work of influencing policy decisions is ongoing, and to shine a bright light on the choices that Obama and his advisers are making. I am heartened by the fact that Obama is intelligent, reasonable, educated, and engaged with the world – indeed, it is for those very reasons that I believe he may be amenable to progressive influences. But we must be those influences.

So… the Obama team announced the formation of their Transition Economic Advisory Board:

The Transition Economic Advisory Board will help guide the work of the Obama-Biden transition team in developing a strong set of policies to respond to the economic crisis. The Board includes:

• David Bonior (Member House of Representatives 1977-2003)
• Warren Buffett (Chairman and CEO, Berkshire Hathaway)-will participate via speakerphone
• Roel Campos (former SEC Commissioner)
• William Daley (Chairman of the Midwest, JP Morgan Chase; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Commerce, 1997-2000)
• William Donaldson (Former Chairman of the SEC 2003-2005)
• Roger Ferguson (President and CEO, TIAA-CREF and former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve)
• Jennifer Granholm (Governor, State of Michigan)
• Anne Mulcahy (Chairman and CEO, Xerox)
• Richard Parsons (Chairman of the Board, Time Warner)
• Penny Pritzker (CEO, Classic Residence by Hyatt)
• Robert Reich (University of California, Berkeley; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor, 1993-1997)
• Robert Rubin (Chairman and Director of the Executive Committee, Citigroup; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury, 1995-1999)
• Eric Schmidt (Chairman and CEO, Google)
• Lawrence Summers (Harvard University; Managing Director, D.E. Shaw; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury, 1999-2001)
• Laura Tyson (Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; Former Chairman, National Economic Council, 1995-1996; Former Chairman, President’s Council of Economic Advisors, 1993-1995)
• Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor, City of Los Angeles)
• Paul Volcker (Former Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve 1979-1987)

Let’s review: 17 members. Eight captains of finance and industry, including three former federal officials. Seven more former federal government officials. One governor of a midwestern state. One mayor of a large city. No representatives of labor unions. No representatives of non-governmental, non-financial entities. No academics without deep ties to the federal government. No one to represent the voices of the poor, the marginalized, the disenfranchised.

And now recall the Chomsky excerpt, posted below:

The domestic sources of power remain basically unchanged, whatever the electoral outcome. The major decision-making positions in the executive branch of the government, which increasingly dominates domestic and foreign policy, remain overwhelmingly in the hands of representatives of major corporations and the few law firms that cater primarily to corporate interests… It is hardly surprising, then, that the basic function of the State remains the regulation of domestic and international affairs in the interest of the masters of the private economy, a fact studiously ignored in the press and academic scholarship, but apparent on investigation of the actual design and execution of policy over many years.

We’ve got our work cut out for us.

Radical Priorities, Pages 119-120:

In attempting to assess a new Administration in the United States, it is important to bear in mind the extraordinarily narrow spectrum of political discourse and the limited base of political power, a fact that distinguishes the United States from many other industrial democracies. The United States is unique in that there is no organized force committed to even mild and reformist varieties of socialism. The two political parties, which some refer to, not inaccurately, as the two factions of the single ‘Property Party,’ are united in their commitment to capitalist ideology and institutions. For most of the period since the Second World War, they have adhered to a ‘bipartisan foreign policy,’ which is to say, a one-party state as far as foreign affairs are concerned. The parties differ on occasion with regard to the role of the State, the Democrats generally tending to favor slight increases in state intervention in social and economic affairs, the Republicans tending to favor greater emphasis on private corporate power. Thus, under a Democratic Administration, there are likely to be some moves toward ‘welfare state’ policies along with a more aggressive foreign policy, as the State pursues a more interventionist program at home and abroad. But these distinctions between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ are only marginal in their significance and are at most slight tendencies rather than serious alternatives.

The domestic sources of power remain basically unchanged, whatever the electoral outcome. The major decision-making positions in the executive branch of the government, which increasingly dominates domestic and foreign policy, remain overwhelmingly in the hands of representatives of major corporations and the few law firms that cater primarily to corporate interests – thus representing generalized interests of corporate capitalism as distinct from parochial interests of one or another sector of the private economy. It is hardly surprising, then, that the basic function of the State remains the regulation of domestic and international affairs in the interest of the masters of the private economy, a fact studiously ignored in the press and academic scholarship, but apparent on investigation of the actual design and execution of policy over many years.

In fact, if some Administration were to depart in a significant way from the interests of highly concentrated private corporate power, its behavior would quickly be modified by a variety of simple techniques. Basic decisions concerning the health and functioning of the economy – hence social life in general – remain in the private sector. Decisions made in this realm set the conditions and define the framework within which the political process unfolds. By modifying the economic factors under their control, business interests can sharply constrain actions within the political sphere. But the issue rarely arises, since, as noted, the government, including those who manage the state sector of the economy, remains basically in the hands of private capital in any event.

Extra-governmental sources of ideas and programs are also, naturally, dominated by those who control the basic institutions of production, finance, and commerce.

He wrote those words in an article examining the prospects of an incoming Democratic Administration… in 1977.

The political battles to come – which will have an enormous impact on our lives and the lives of people around the world – will not be easy. Having a president in the White House who is demonstrably intelligent and reasonable could be a good thing.

But let’s not pretend that, because Barack Obama has been elected, our battles are won.

For instance: today, flush with the glow of yesterday’s victory, Obama announced that he’s chosen the execrable Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. This is the same man who, as the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, fought tooth and nail to exclude, marginalize, and demonize anti-war Democrats in the 2006 primary races. He withdrew national Democratic support from a progressive Congressional candidate and recruited opponents to defeat her in the primary. Emanuel has, time and time again, shown himself to be firmly allied with the “centrist” (read: “Republican”) wing of the Democratic party, personified by the Democratic Leadership Council. (See this Truthout special for more on Emanuel’s role in recruiting conservatives in the 2006 campaign.)

Rahm Emanuel is the opposite of someone like Howard Dean. After Dean lost his bid to be the Democratic nominee in 2004, he undertook another, far more unusual campaign – he campaigned to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). What’s unusual about this is that the DNC chair is usually chosen by party insiders in Washington, who present their choice to the state parties as a fait accompli. Dean fought for the votes of the state party leaders, and when it was clear he had enough support, the other candidates withdrew, and Dean won the chairmanship (much to the chagrin of Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, incidentally).

What Dean did next is stunning: he set out to devolve the DNC’s power to its state party organizations. He believed that the best decisions are made by people who are close to the issues that matter to voters. He also believed that Democrats need to compete in every county across the country. His emphasis on rebuilding (or, in some cases, building) viable state Democratic party organizations laid the groundwork for Obama’s successful use of Dean’s “fifty-state strategy” in this election.

Here’s what Rahm Emanuel said to Howard Dean about Dean’s strategy:

“You’re nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That’s fucking bullshit … I know your field plan – it doesn’t exist. I’ve gone around the country with these races. I’ve seen your people. There is no plan, Howard.”

Howard Dean is smart, compassionate, and effective. I haven’t seen his name mentioned as a possible Cabinet appointee in the Obama administration, incidentally.

In Rahm Emanuel’s defense, he and Obama have been friends since their early days in Chicago together. And, since Emanuel served in the Clinton White House, he can be a bridge to the Clinton wing of the party. And, further, many times someone can sublimate his own opinions in the service of his boss. Nonetheless, the selection of this pro-war, anti-grassroots, former-Investment-Banker as Obama’s chief of staff is a clear signal that we’ll have to keep the pressure up throughout Obama’s term of office if we want to see real, progressive change.

Another crystal-clear signal of this sort are the reports that Obama will likely name Lawrence Summers to be Treasury Secretary. Larry Motherfucking Summers is the guy who signed a 1991 memo, when he was Chief Economist of the World Bank, asserting that “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

Larry Summers was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary from 1999 until the end of his term. He lobbied the Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Financial Services Act, which the Congress ultimately did – leading rather directly to the current financial disaster we’re witnessing. Here’s an excerpt from the 1999 New York Times article describing Clinton’s signing of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act:

“With this bill,” Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said, “the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century — one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.” Opponents said it would have the opposite effect, creating behemoths that will raise fees, violate customers’ privacy by sharing and selling their personal data, and put the stability of the financial system at risk.

This is the same Larry Summers who announced that efforts by faculty at MIT and Harvard to force their institutions to divest from Israel, due to Israel’s ongoing occupation and subjugation of Palestinian territory, were “Anti-semitic in effect, if not in intent.” The same Larry Summers who drove the African American scholar Cornel West out of Harvard by accusing him of being unserious and contributing to grade inflation. The same Larry Summers who, while President of Harvard, asserted that perhaps the lack of women in top science, engineering, and math jobs was due to their innate lack of ability in those fields.

Obama’s choices of advisers and Cabinet members says a lot about how he’ll govern. The early signs are not very hopeful, at least for those of us who aren’t DLC “centrists.”

Any progressive change that comes out of an Obama administration is going to happen because we organize and fight for it every step of the way. The effort to get real change enacted is going to need the same organization, the same energy, and the same stamina as the effort that put Obama in the White House. And this time, we’re going to have to do it without Obama’s national and local organizations, without the support of the Democratic party, and – crucially – without their hundreds of millions of dollars.

We’ve only just begun…

Seriously. We’ve been hearing for years that Americans need to curb their excessive consumption habits. We’ve been told that we drive too many cars, we use too much electricity, we throw away too much plastic, we import too much oil, and on and on and on.

Suddenly, we’re using less oil; we’re driving fewer miles; we’re buying fewer cars; we’re buying fewer goods; and we’re using less electricity. But this is all being reported as “bad” news!

We obviously are in desperate need of new ways to measure economic and social well-being. It shouldn’t be a headline crisis when U.S. auto sales drop 50%, it should be a sign of much-needed progress!

Spending and growth are not the measures of a healthy and satisfying life. I’ve been thinking about this stuff a lot since I read Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy. I’ll do a “dogeared” post on it soon…

“[Oil company] reports record profits…”

That headline ran today. It also ran in July, 2008. According to my search of the New York Times archives (oil AND record AND (profit OR profits)), it also ran in April, 2008. It also ran in February, 2008. It also ran in February, 2007. It also ran in July, 2006. It also ran in January, 2006. It also ran in October, 2005. It also ran in August, 2005. It also ran in February, 2005. It also ran in August, 2004. It also ran in July, 2004. It also ran in October, 2000. It also ran in July, 2000. It also ran in May, 1997. It also ran in January, 1997. It also ran in January, 1990. It also ran in October, 1988.

It’s funny. I guess if you control the supply of something vital to every sector of the economy, and there’s no limit on your pricing power (other than “the market”), then you can pretty much guarantee you’ll earn a shitload of money.

Here’s the relevant graf from 11 years ago:

Exxon, the largest oil company in the United States, said its profit jumped nearly 49 percent to a record $2.49 billion, or $2 a share, in the fourth quarter, compared with a profit of $1.68 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the similar quarter of 1995. Revenue climbed to $37.62 billion from $31.50 billion.

And here’s the word today:

Exxon Mobil Corp.’s third-quarter net income rose 58% to a new record of nearly $15 billion… Exxon Mobil said it earned $14.83 billion, or $2.86 a share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70 a share in the year-ago period.

Those are quarterly profits, not gross receipts. That’s a profit rate of almost $2,000 per second!

I also enjoyed finding this little nugget in an April 27, 1986 article in the New York Times:

President Reagan urged the repeal of the ”windfall profits” tax on domestic oil in an attempt to help out those companies hit by the price drop.

That tax was repealed on August 23, 1988, and has not been reinstated – although oil prices, which were around $38/barrel in 1980 and had fallen below $20/barrel in 1988, peaked above $140/barrel this summer.

Chris Hedges won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on terrorism for the New York Times. He’s the author of a number of books, including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002) and American Fascists (2007), the latter book a disturbing look inside right-wing evangelical Christian movements in the United States. He earned his Masters of Divinity at Harvard in 1975, and he served for several years as the Chief of the Middle East bureau of the New York Times.

In other words – yes, the man has a particular political perspective, but he knows his shit. And what he says in his most recent article for Truthdig is truly terrifying:

A victory by Barack Obama may embolden right-wing populists. They will be able to use Obama and “liberal Democrats” as a lightning rod for the failings, growing poverty and incompetence of the state. The elite – as happens in all such moments of confusion, revolt and social chaos – will probably be forced to make an uncomfortable alliance with right-wing populists if they want to survive. The center of the political spectrum will melt…

We have begun a socialist experiment. George W. Bush and John McCain, in stunning repudiations of all they claimed to believe, call for massive state intervention in the financial markets and the use of billions in government funds to buy major stakes in banks. The question is not whether we will build state socialism. This process has already begun. The only question left is whether this will be right-wing or left-wing socialism.

The left – with a few exceptions, like the Progressive Party in Vermont – has largely thrown in its lot with the Democratic Party. Right-wing populists, as is evidenced by the acrimonious split in the McCain campaign, remain clustered around the fiefdoms of large megachurches that stoke hatred and frightening totalitarian visions of a Christian state. The left has no correlating centers of activism, organization or mass support, especially with the decline of labor unions. If left-wing populists do not rapidly build local organizations, as was done in Vermont, to compete with the right-wing populism of the Christian right, the most dangerous mass movement in American history, they will be easily swept aside.

In other words… the Democratic Party is happy to use the efforts of thousands of dedicated volunteers to elect their candidate; don’t expect the Democrats to return the favor, when those thousands of people are demanding mortgage relief, welfare payments, and health care. The Democrats have demonstrated, time and time again, that they are firmly on the side of the corporate masters, and against the people.

I’m hopeful that, with so many people getting experience in organizing their fellow citizens during the Obama campaign, we’ll find it easier to work together to bring about greater economic and social justice. The big difference will be that, instead of working with the support of the Democratic party, we’ll be “out in the cold,” working against the entire corporate-political juggernaut. If you think it’s hard to fight the Republicans with the Democrats on your side, wait until they’ve ganged up on you!

Hopefully the Progressive Party in Vermont can teach us a few lessons…

One of the blogs I’m checking obsessively these days is Nate Silver’s excellent poll data site www.FiveThirtyEight.com. In addition to fascinating analysis (and detailed critiques of other polling sites) he peppers his blog with a number of anecdotal election stories. This recent post from a caller in Virginia caught my eye:

Last week, Julie Hensley made one of her thousands of phone calls on behalf of Barack Obama. A woman answered. As Hensley ran through her short script, the husband impatiently broke in.

“Ma’am, we’re voting for the n***er.” And hung up.

NOTE: Be sure to check out the final twist to this story at the bottom of the post.

I think this story says a lot about how Obama is winning over folks who otherwise are racist. In troubled times like these, the “content of his character” really is more important than the color of his skin.

We’ve gone down a lot of bad roads in this country, but we are growing up. I see this election very much as a generational shift, from the politics/ideals of the past to those of the future.

UPDATE: More on “Racists for Obama”

Stolen from a comment on IOZ’s blog by aaron:

Which country’s government am I?

1. I sink hundreds of billions into armaments, bankrupting myself and creating a current accounts deficit with my own extraterritorial dependencies.
2. I invade Afghanistan.
3. I have a centralized banking system.
4. I own the means of production (auto manufacturing for example).
5. I imprison millions of my own citizens.

A Sinfest comic.

(Via The Black Snob)

Picked this one up over at Calculated Risk; too good not to share.