General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBait and Switch: The Heavy Price of Social Progress
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/53472/bait-and-switch-the-heavy-price-of-social-progressby Chris Floyd
This is the pattern that has been followed for decades: some social advances are accepted by the power structure -- as long as the economic dominance of the ruling elite is not challenged. In Obama's case, of course, this was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of his election. He would not have been allowed to be in the position of being elected president had he not clearly and continually signalled to the elite that he was in no way a threat to their power; in fact, as Hirthler notes, he went much further, and made it clear that he would be a more efficient and effective promoter of economic elite than cack-handed Republicans like George W. Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin. And so it has proved. The nation's oligarchs, corporations and financial sectors have devoured ever greater proportions of the nation's wealth under Obama's rule, while chronic unemployment and underemployment grinds on, the nation's infrastructure rots, and the quality of life (and hopes for the future) of ordinary people continues to be degraded.
<...>
And so on it goes. In our day, social progress is a tool used deliberately by our leaders to extract more gains for the elite at the expense of the general public. Vast amounts of energy and attention, especially potentially dangerous progressive and/or populist energy, is expended on social gains -- on winning them, opposing them, maintaining them, trying to reverse them, etc. -- while the overall system of domination rolls on unopposed. Obama benefits from this on the left, where his cynical nods to social progress -- without actually doing anything very concrete about it with all the power he holds -- mutes 'progressive' criticism of his truly abominable foreign and economic policies, which include state murder, Stasi-like surveillance, the exaltation of the rich and the degradation of everyone else. In the same way, George W. Bush gave lip service to the opposition to social progress, on abortion, for example, while never really doing anything about it, which fired up his own political base even as he, like Obama, advanced economic and foreign policies that degraded the lives of ordinary people -- including his own fired-up followers.
None of this is to gainsay the great worth of those social freedoms we have managed to advance over the past decades. It is a great thing, a wonderful thing, that American and South African blacks have more political freedom than they once had. It is a great thing, a wonder, that people who love people of the same sex are no longer subjected to quite so many of the legal restrictions and cultural calumny that they have long endured.
But the dynamic -- social freedoms being 'allowed' or accepted only if the ever-increasing power of the economic elite is not threatened -- still holds.
<...>
How curious that Barack Obama ascended to the throne of American power in 2008, just as the African-American populace found itself on the wrong end of one of the greatest transfer of wealth from one group to anotherover half their wealth, mostly in the form of real estate, largely from black hands to white hands, from vulnerable families to faceless real estate trusts. One would think, by listening to the glistering orations of Mr. Obama, that he would have acted to instantly restore the wealth of an abused minority. But, of course, Obama would never have been handed the scepter of American power had he not first paid fealty to the embedded wealth of American society. Had he not assured real estate, finance, and insurance sectors he was a free market guy, capable of enabling corporatism like the best of Republicans. And that he could in fact do it better than his predecessor. Simply swap out the labels to suit the changing economic climate. Deregulation would be reconfigured as toothless regulation (with its overweening regard for the market). Privatization would be swabbed off as energy independence (using the American obsession with independence to undermine ecological mandates). Federal downsizing would be recast as deficit reduction (falsely conflating declining growth with social spending). But as he shouldered his way through the living rooms of silent power, he assured the assembled doyens of industry that it all came to the same. Thus, the downward spiral of blacks was simply accelerated, their claims denied, their houses foreclosed upon, their creditors enriched.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and a member of the saner wing of America's only political party: the Party of Business.
Social progress, while welcome, is just table scraps for the help.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)social progress under his administration "doesn't count".
The author's attempt to claim that there was a trade for social progress is nonsense.
I'm sure DU's perpetually disgruntled will love it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama accomplishes something (though not fast enough and in the face of inordinate opposition from both within and outside of his party) ait means nothing ... just "table scrapes."
I wish folks would just go on a call for that glorious revolution that seems to be the obvious and only acceptable course. Then, we will be entertained by the whine of their inconvenience, as revolutions tend to be messy.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)when a piece of good news can be turned into a piece of an intricate evil puzzle.
Clearly Obama was against social progress, so he must have traded that for something else.
And that nonsense helps them sleep better.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he controls federal spending.
And, of course, millions receiving health coverage thanks to the ACA is nothing to people like Floyd, who care about ideological purity poses moreso than they do human welfare.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(in a really sad sort of way)
"We want X" => "All we got was a 'X'-1" (which is +1 more than we had) => "I'd support him more, if he started talking like a damned Democrat. Use the damned Bully Pulpit" => "Pretty Speech" => "We want X" => "All we got was a 'X'-1" (which is +1 more than we had) => "I'd support him more, if he started talking like a damned Democrat ..."
Rinse ... Repeat.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That is exactly how it works.
Demand something, get it, declare it meaningless.
HomerRamone
(1,112 posts)"state murder, Stasi-like surveillance, the exaltation of the rich and the degradation of everyone else" don't the "you never loved him" claque understand? Not to mention "In the same way, George W. Bush gave lip service to the opposition to social progress...while never really doing anything about it"...
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)HomerRamone
(1,112 posts)the Moscow Times...these are some of the places Chris Floyd has had his work published. Is it upon him you are casting your aspersions? Smirking Chimp, who re-published this?
Change has come
(2,372 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)They'll apparently let us have change that doesn't affect their bottom line. Economic change that helps the average citizen? We need a Bernie Sanders of Elizabeth Warren, maybe Grayson, for something like that. Don't get fooled again.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)"How curious that Barack Obama ascended to the throne of American power in 2008, just as the African-American populace found itself on the wrong end of one of the greatest transfer of wealth from one group to anotherover half their wealth, mostly in the form of real estate, largely from black hands to white hands, from vulnerable families to faceless real estate trusts."