Iraq War as template for destroying the welfare state???

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 16:00


Chris Hayes thinks so

Deficits of Mass Destruction

If you've been paying attention this past decade, it won't surprise you to learn that the country's policy elites are in the midst of a destructive, well-nigh unhinged discussion about the future of the nation. But even by the degraded standards of the Washington establishment, the growing panic over government debt is shocking....

....we face a joblessness crisis that threatens to pitch us into a long, ugly period of low growth, the kind of lost decade that will cause tremendous misery, degrade the nation's human capital, undermine an entire cohort of young workers for years and blow a hole in the government's bank sheet. The best chance we have to stave off this scenario is more government spending to nurse the economy back to health. The economy may be alive, but that doesn't mean it's healthy. There's a reason you keep taking antibiotics even after you start to feel better.

And yet: the drumbeat of deficit hysterics thumping in self-righteous panic grows louder by the day....

This all seems eerily familiar. The conversation--if it can be called that--about deficits recalls the national conversation about war in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. From one day to the next, what was once accepted by the establishment as tolerable--Saddam Hussein--became intolerable, a crisis of such pressing urgency that "serious people" were required to present their ideas about how to deal with it. Once the burden of proof shifted from those who favored war to those who opposed it, the argument was lost....

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the selling of the Iraq War was its false pretext. It never really was about weapons of mass destruction, as Paul Wolfowitz admitted. WMDs were just "what everyone could agree on." So it is with deficits. Conservatives and their neoliberal allies don't really care about deficits; they care about austerity-about gutting the welfare state and redistributing wealth upward. That's the objective. Deficits are just what they can all agree on, the WMDs of this manufactured crisis. Senator John Kyl of Arizona, speaking on Fox, has come out and admitted as much. All new spending increases must be offset, he said, but "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." So there you have it.

And Paul Krugman notes that afterwards, only those who were wrong will continue to be listened to:

Paul Rosenberg :: Iraq War as template for destroying the welfare state???
Let me rub a little salt in the wound: if the Iraq parallel is any guide, even after everything has gone wrong, and the US economy has slid into a deflationary trap; even after most people concede that austerity was a mistake; still, only those who went along with the mistake will be considered "serious", while those who argued strenuously against a disastrous course of action that "everyone" supported will continue to be considered flaky and unreliable.

But, of course, it's not just Iraq & the debt.  Indeed, what's difficult is to find an example where this pattern doesn't hold.  Did the serious people see the housing bubble growing right before thier eyes--much less it's coming collapse?  Did they see the financial mayhem that would come on its heels?  Did they see Enron for the criminal enterprise that it was--or did they blame California & it's evil environmentalists?  Did they do anything about global warming, which is shaping up to be the biggest threat the human race has ever faced?  Did they even try to fix our elections after 2000?  Or did they try to "fix" them?

Just where, oh where is the counter-example?  Where is the problem that the serious people actually recognized and did something effective about?

And let's go meta for a moment here:  Has anyone done anything about the appalling death spiral of old fashioned journalism, which failed to warn us about any of these problems?  The filibuster?  Has anyone done anything about that?

No.  We are facing total systems failure, just like Versailles leading up to the French Revolution.

This is not just a matter of individual failing. It's both institutional and inter-instutional.  It is systemic. We are the United States of epic fail, the United States of Anosognosia.  We are, as a nation, trapped in what Errol Morris so chillingly called it, "The Anosognosic's Dilemma: Something's Wrong but You'll Never Know What It Is".

Except, of course, that all us DFHs know exctly what it is.  It's the same old elitist aristocratic death grip that we've been struggling against for the past 10,000 years.  The "I'm right, you're wrong, God said so, and who the fuck are you to question me?" mentality.

That's what's wrong.

And they're coming after everything we've got left to live on, much less to fight them with.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vietnam (0.00 / 0)
Lyndon Johnson was the most successful New Deal Progressive since FDR and Vietnam destroyed his presidency. Besides the benefit of pouring large quantities of tax revenue into corporations coffers, wars also wreck Democratic presidents who try to act tougher than their war-mongering critics. It seems that only people who enter the presidency with a reactionary bent (Nixon, Reagan) can pull off diplomacy with the enemy.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

Progressives are rare in the Presidency. (0.00 / 0)
As I see it, FDR was one of the elites himself and he fought as hard as he could to protect his class. The only Presidents we have had since WW II that were working class have been Truman and LBJ.

I might have included Clinton, but he appears to have been bought off as a Rhodes Scholar and during his decade as Governor.

The reason why only a reactionary can pull off diplomacy with the enemy is because the American conservatives find it more difficult to organize to attack another reactionary. LBJ bought the conservatives off by sending Westmoreland his half a million troops to Vietnam, which allowed LBJ to pass Medicare and the Civil Rights bill.  


[ Parent ]
Maybe you should read this then. (4.00 / 1)
Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt by H.W. Brands

http://www.amazon.com/Traitor-...

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain


[ Parent ]
Stoic Is Right (4.00 / 1)
It's a pretty pathetic ploy rewriting history to make FDR look more Obama, since it's clearly impossible to make Obama look like FDR.

Yes, FDR wanted to save the system.  But he was quite willing to see the upper class take its lumps in the process.

Obama?  Not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Absolutely right, of course. (4.00 / 1)
Now, what practical solutions do we have?  And "none" is not an acceptable answer (even if it is correct).

Is the necessary change and action possible in the current system?  If not, how can we attempt to change the system to one that works?  If Citizens United is the final nail in the battered coffin for our "representative democracy," then where to from here?  You can be sure that "they," in addition to coming after everything we have left to live on and fight them with, are preparing to crush whatever solutions we come up with.


Perhaps The Most Immediate Thing (4.00 / 4)
Is to make sure that we don't see a major attack on Social Security & Medicare from the Catfood Commission after the mid-terms.  The time to start pressuring Congressional Democrats is now!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
These issues are a "common cause," (4.00 / 3)
a cause around which multiple stake-holders from varying constituencies can rally, from the Left, the Right, the Middle; Tea-baggers and Socialists; virtually anybody. It would be a Labor-centric (though not specifically Union) movement* that could likely muster that increase from 10% that Chris has written about.

If successful, an enterprise like that could serve as a springboard toward organizing other efforts to assert popular will against the cloistered ruling D. C. class.  

*Unemployed persons and retirees are counted among "Labor."  


[ Parent ]
Collective sociopathology (4.00 / 1)
Most of these neolibs are probably not sociopaths individually. But collectively, they function as one huge mega-sociopathic entity that destroys everything in its path. It's a form of tribalism, this tribe being the power and money elite, and it's just naturally doing what tribes do, look out for its collective interests.

If there were only a way to divide this tribe and pit it against itself. Let them take the ferocity with which they divide and conquer the rest of the world and turn it within. That ought to be fun to watch and might do some good.

They might not individually be sociopaths, but these are not good people.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Is Obama Willing to lose in 2012 to be the "deficit busting President?" (0.00 / 0)
That's the key question. Remember the Iraq war was orchestrated step-by-step from Dick Cheney's office in the White House. It WASN'T some media conspiracy among insiders. They were all reporting the White House propaganda. Bush/Cheney had decided that Iraq was "intolerable." Their reporting reflected the Bush priority.

So for your analogy to work, OBAMA would have to be behind the whole "deficit reduction push." because nothing's going to happen until 2013 unless Obama agrees to it:


Step 1: Dick Cheney decides to invade Iraq two days after 9-11. Powell and others point out that nobody on earth will understand attacking Iraq when Osama is in Afghanistan. Bush decides to attack Afghanistan first, THEN Iraq.

Step 2: While Afghanistan war is going on, insider elites go on media frenzy leading up to Powell's white paper fiasco in front of the U.N. based on clear signals from White House that "Iraq is next." Each step is based on White House leaks and blather from "anonymous White House officials."



In short, the entire media campaign was carefully coordinated from the White House, from Dick Cheney's office to carefully vetted media whores. . . er, sources.

Well the trillion dollar question is: Does Obama want to replicate that? Assuming Democrats lose big in 2010 elections does Obama want to shift gears and join with Republicans in ramming "entitlement reform" down America's throat for the next 2 years in the name of "deficit reduction?"

Because if he does, he's going to LOSE the 2012 election, 100% guaranteed. That's about the ONLY thing that I think could guarantee that anybody the Republicans put up would win amid widespread voter disgust and disillusionment.

Right now I don't see it, because he's already on thin political ice, and ANY move to inflict more pain on the American people is just going to destroy him. He has ZERO political capital to waste right now. He's NOT like Bush in 2005 deciding to "spend my political capital" on dismantling Social Security.

And he can't be blind to that (despite his creating the Cat-food commission).

Even if he IS blind to that the polls will instantly reflect a straight down-ward trend into Bush 2006 territory if he tries it!

Going into the 2012 election he needs a motivated and enthusiastic base, not everybody in the country hating him! In short there's just no way Obama can do it, or even THINK that he can get away with it politically.


I Disagree (4.00 / 1)
Neither Chris nor I are arguing that the situations are exactly identical, and there's no reason we should.

Obama has already shown himself to be a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. So he doesn't have to be the prime mover here.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The source of my nightmares (4.00 / 1)
And they're coming after everything we've got left to live on, much less to fight them with.

At one time I might have thought that was hyperbole; utter - and gratuitous - exaggeration.  I thought their instincts for self-preservation if not their latent humanity would intervene first.  Not any more.  I've absolutely no evidence to suggest my supposition has merit.

In addition, for Rick B:

Hoover Maneuver?

As a son of the postindustrial Pittsburgh proletariat who received induction into the nation's ruling class in Morningside Heights (and, later, on Capitol Hill) around the same time as Barack Obama did, I find Kevin Baker's musings on the psychohistory of our thirty-first and forty-fourth presidents entirely credible ["Barack Hoover Obama," Essay, July]. Those of us who "grew up as . . . outsider[s] and overcame formidable odds" to obtain an elite education and professional success did so at the cost of internalizing wholesale the values and worldview of our fellow "strivers and achievers." How else could we have come to believe that we belong in their ranks?

Surely, then, it should be no great surprise that our new president has, to date, politely declined to offer a serious challenge to the same corporate and institutional forces that decades ago admitted him to their ranks, with (as always) the proviso that he become one of them. Unlike Herbert Hoover, Bill Clinton, and Obama, the to-the-manor-and-manner-born FDR suffered from no such identity crisis and the personal insecurities it tends to engender. The surprise is not that Obama is on the fast road to betraying the radical reformist aspirations that his upbringing and racial background might suggest. It is that anyone who has been paying attention could expect Obama to do anything other than, in Baker's fine phrase, move the country "prudently, carefully, reasonably toward disaster"-in other words, to offer us more of the same.

David Osachy
Winter Park, Fla.
Harper's, Letters, September, 2009 (subscription required, I believe)

Apologies to those who have seen me post this a number of times already, and are bored reading it.  One of these days I might write a diary around it and then I can just link to it. :-|


Remember, wars are always good for the ruling class. (0.00 / 0)
When the economy is going well, but wealth is not moving upward quite fast enough, a good medium sized war helps make it unstable by inducing deficit spending at the wrong time.  Later, when the economy is going badly and all reasonable efforts to stimulate it fail due to a new wave of anti-deficit hysteria, then it is time for the stimulation of choice, the one that is never opposed by those in power. Yes, another major war.

Is Iran a big enough target?  Can it wait until the republicans are back in the WH, or does Obama have to do it?


Recently I was talking to some talented people. (4.00 / 2)
Academics, IT people, exotic-language translators, techies of various sorts. They reported that academia was dry, during the economic downturn business has been dry, but the military never stopped hiring.

Generalizing from the immediate situation, I realized that when a tremendous amount of government money was shifted from other purposes to military purposes, it had the effect of transforming the populace. Talented, highly-trained people willing to contribute to the imperial enterprise have a wonderful future ahead of them. Talented, highly-trained  identical people who are not willing to do that have a much more constricted future. The present plan is for the university and social services to dwindle while the civilian economy struggles back to health, but the military boom is meant to be permanent.

The conversation started out being about moderately-talented, partly-trained people. For most recent HS graduates with a B average, good health, and no serious problems, but with no particular job skills and no serious $$$ support from the family, the military is almost always the best immediate option.  


Avatar, Anyone??? (0.00 / 0)
This presents a very cogent backdrop for the ongoing struggle over the role of psychologists in facilitating torture. Clearly, they aren't the only ones being affected by this broader redirection.  Just the canaries in the coal mine, as it were.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox