Is Barack Obama a Corporatist?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Poll question: Is Barack Obama a Corporatist?

For the record, I don't have a solid opinion one way or another. The reason I ask the question is because I read http://www.arthurmag.com/2009/03/16/let-it-die-rushkoff-on-the-economy/">this Douglas Rushkoff article on the economy, and within the article came the following declaration:

President Obama may be smarter than most of us, but he’s still attempting to rescue the very institutions that robbed us in the first place. He’s not a socialist, as conservatives may be arguing, but he is a corporatist.

Exceptionally good article, by the way.


To avoid any confusion over the term, for purposes of this poll, let's use the urban dictionary's definition of corporatism: "A politico-economic system in which most power is held by large corporations, often mistakenly called capitalism. This is the current governing system of most of the world."


Again, if you're gonna flame, flame Douglas Rushkoff 'cause he is the one making the assertion. I'm just curious as to how many here agree with it.


Personally, I tend to believe that Obama is not a corporatist at heart, and that he is rescuing those institutions because he believes the alternative would be worse. He's gonna get critized either way, of course.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Hmmm...no one wants to go on record to K or R this thread.

So I'll do it.

Yes, he's a corporatist, I believe. I'd like to be wrong on this.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. I'm rec'ing it because its a good question.

First of all, I really like the guy, and I really think he's trying to do the right thing and make people happy as fast as he can, which means economic rescue. However, the question we really have to ask is if in preventing a more painful collapse, he's actually preventing deeper more systemic change that is overdue. Is he playing janitor and propping up a failed system? Or is it a stepping stone to moving us on toward something better? I just don't know, time will tell.

[Laelth]

40. That's certainly one complaint made against FDR, and it's a valid argument.

We might have had a real revolution in the US, socialists argue, had not FDR, the liberal, stepped in and preserved capitalism by saving it from its own excesses.

But that's what liberalism does. It uses the power of good government to protect capitalism from its own excesses by forcing the capitalist economy to bestow some benefit on the lower classes--to "share the wealth," as it were.

I think Obama is a liberal. If that means he's a "corporatist," so be it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[napoleon_in_rags]

45. I have no problem with FDRs form of liberalism, what I worry about is economic sustainability.

I would have no problems if things had sustained at New Deal levels. But can we deal with a system where every time we get things running again conservatives come in and bankrupt everybody, effectively pressing the reset button? That's what I worry about. I worry about that when I contrast us to China, or EU, or other places with less manic bipolar government. How can we compete against effective long term strategies when the longest term we can expect any economic policy to work is about 8 years before everything has to get burned to the ground again?

[emilyg]

4. Yes he is. I'm on record.

[Craftsman]

22. He is just like all of them

Term limits are needed

[wyldwolf]

32. I'll K&R it as an oddity. I'm curious to see how the thread plays out

[pnwmom]

3. Corporatist is an ambiguous, highly-charged term. And, no, he isn't. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

18. This is the correct answer ...

I'd personally leave off the "no he isn't" part because of the ambiguity of the term, but that's nitpicking.

The Rushkoff article referred to in the OP is written by someone who seriously wants me to believe that wages for less work were higher and that women in England were in better health during the Middle Ages.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Our "corporatist" label is equivalent to their "socialist" one.

Both are total nonsense and bear no relevance to the real world today.

[parasim]

5. I dunno... maybe he's a temporary corporatist.

You know, like when you gotta suck the venom out of a snake-bite victim to save them. It's the last hope and you risk your own life by taking the poison into your own mouth to save someone else.

I just hope he spits out that shit before swallowing.

[w4rma]

6. His entire economic team says he is a corporatist. (nt)

[Undercurrent]

7. No.

I think he leans more towards democratic capitalism.

Democratic capitalism is an economic ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy based predominantly on economic incentives through free markets, a democratic polity and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism.

This economic system supports a mainly capitalist market economy, with some limitations (i.e. regulations) created according to the will of the public (which is expressed through a democratic process).

[Zodiak]

8. By the definition in the OP, he is a corporatist

Practically all of our government on both sides of the aisle are corporatists in that they do not see any problem at all with the corporations having the most power in this country. Questioning that is considered political suicide for 90% of our elected government. By the time President Obama ends his Presidency, I suspect he will not be very corporatist any more...their very actions will cause him to lose faith in their ability to fairly wield that much power and he will look elsewhere for solutions.

Obama has a "flaw" most corporatists do not have...he actually cares; he just doesn't see another way outside of the Washington consensus as of yet. But I can feel his disappointment in the system in which he has placed so much faith.

[stillcool]

9. Let's see...what system of government ...

do we have? Doesn't that mean by definition that the President must be A "Corporatist"?

[Two Americas]

10. yes, of course

He is a politician in the US in 2009.

[annm4peace]

11. Sadly yes,

but he probably wouldn't have made it through the Democrat hoops otherwise.

but doesn't mean he won't open the door a little for those who aren't

[PBS Poll-435]

12. Weird

nt

[wyldwolf]

33. yes

[craigmatic]

13. he's a corporatist in the sense that he's trying to help corporations and thereby fix the economy

FDR was one too but repubs, corporation, and the wealthy all hated him because he was trying to save them from their own crushing greed.

[Laelth]

41. Hear, hear. Welcome to DU!

:dem:

-Laelth

[Cant trust em]

14. You don't get to be the President without being a corporatist to a large degree

Like it or not, corporations are not going away anytime soon. The best option we have is to limit their unbridled influence.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. "Government is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie"

to quote one very prominent 19th Century thinker.

Given that in modern capitalist society, the corporation is the major institution of commerce, it is patently absurd to imagine that the political leader of the world's leading capitalist economy would not be a "corporatist".

Unless one is an out an out unreconstructed Marxist or Anarchist- to simply participate on any meaningful level in the political process of capitalist society much less the political leader of the grandest capitalist society in the history of the world - by definition, "we are all corporatist today!"

[leftstreet]

16. I'm sorry, but are any politicians NOT corporatists?

Did I miss a meeting?

[eridani]

25. Kucinich, Sanders, Wellstone

Plus a majority of the members of the Progressive Caucus.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Maybe Kucinich and Sanders don't fit the definition

But according to the OP definition Wellstone was probably in the gray area and I'd say a lot of the Progressive Caucus are still corporatists.

[earth mom]

17. Yes and I've said so all along, but no one wanted to hear it. nt

[RoyGBiv]

19. Comment on Rushkoff ...

That article has problems.

As I said in the thread where I first ran across it over in the Economics forum, I want a source for his assertion that "Late Middle Ages workers were paid more for less work time than at any point in history. Women were taller in England in that era than they are today—an indication of their relative health."

He's got a "good old days" mentality going with that, and it comes across like most "good old days" laments. They sound good until you realize the good old days weren't that good.

I won't blanket flame Rushkoff. He's smart and a fine commentator on modern society, but for someone who is here arguing from a historical perspective, he's got an amazingly skewed sense of it.

[uponit7771]

20. Not willing to accept him being a corporatist but the people around him are IMHO

[pnwmom]

21. I changed my mind. By Rushkoff's definition, almost any sane person is a "corporatist."

I'm sorry, but I don't want to see an 80% decline in the stock market or to see 80% of banks close. I don't want to see a return to the trading practices, or the local currencies, of the middle ages.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Maybe Obama IS a corporatist, because I'm betting he doesn't agree with Rushkoff's solutions either.

[Maru Kitteh]

23. Quite happy to K and R.

[eridani]

24. Yes, he's a corporatist. However, he has demonstrated capacity for thinking outside the box

Also, I think he really does want input from American citizens about shaping his agenda. It bothers me that my senator said that she heard a lot more from opponents of the stimulus on the right than from either supporters or critics on the left.

[Kdillard]

27. That is sad but not surprising. Democrats seem to love

cutting down their own. Then act surprised when they don't get what they want and a Republican ends up getting back in power.

[dbmk]

26. Given the proposed budget and healthcare plans..

.. and the rehetoric in general, I can't see how anyone could call him a coorporatist. I would go as far as to call it idiotic.

He clearly has a bigger faith in the government than business to pull the US out of this one. And wants to rein in coorporate Americas influence on things. Every move made so far has been to that effect.

[CreekDog]

28. THIS is a good article? You really said that?

Here's what Ruskin said in what you call a "good" article:

"With any luck, the economy will never recover.

In a perfect world, the stock market would decline another 70 or 80 percent along with the shuttering of about that fraction of our nation’s banks. Yes, unemployment would rise as hundreds of thousands of formerly well-paid brokers and bankers lost their jobs; but at least they would no longer be extracting wealth at our expense. They would need to be fed, but that would be a lot cheaper than keeping them in the luxurious conditions they’re enjoying now. Even Bernie Madoff costs us less in jail than he does on Park Avenue.

Alas, I’m not being sarcastic."

Nevermind the collateral damage. What will the government pay out in FDIC backing if 70-80% of all banks fail?

Are you fucking out of your mind?

You lost me. I used to think you were pretty intelligent but you fell for words that tickle your ears.

:wtf:

[FlyingSquirrel]

44. Hey, I can think it's a good article without meaning that I swallowed it whole.

There are clear problems with it (as there are clear problems with this poll), however it was an interesting article which made me think and brought up some good points about the path that brought us where we are today.

As far as my intelligence goes, well I guess I'll just have to defer to your judgment since you are clearly an expert on how intelligent other people are.

:P

[jefferson_dem]

29. A "corporatist".

:rofl: Ooga booga...

[Jennicut]

31. Its a capitalistic society....what else would he be? He is no socialist.

As much as many people want this country to be more socialist its not and he would never have gotten elected if he was a real socialist. Hence the reason why Dennis Kucinich has no chance in the primaries.

[tbyg52]

34. As things stand, it's hard (maybe impossible) to be a politician and *not* be a "corporatist." nt

[OneBlueSky]

35. yes, but he wishes there was a way he didn't have to be . . .

who knows . . . he may yet find one . . . but for now, he's operating within the existing capitalist/corporatist system because that's all there is . . . trying to go against it would be fruitless at this point . . .

but if he achieves some measure of success, we may find him taking some baby steps to take on the corporations . . . conversely, that may also happens if there is little or NO success, and the economy continues to swirl around the porcelain facility . . . that scenario would also provide an opening . . .

we shall see . . . we shall see . . . we shall see . . .

[Marrah_G]

36. I'm not sure there is a clear way to define a corporatist.

He certainly is not a socialist.

He is more of a moderate centrist, imho.

I feel for people who put him on a pedestal of their own making.

Lately I've found myself repeating " at least he isn't Palin/McCain" more then I would like.

[BeyondGeography]

37. He's a communist corporatist

[Hansel]

38. Obama is pragmatic and knows that if we take

our financial industry down, that we, as a nation, are done. The domino effect would be breathtaking.

The financial institution did not rob us, SOME of the people running it and working in it did. He needs to rescue the healthy parts and drown the rest. AIG is not just one big business. It's made up of many businesses. Most of the large financial institutions, if not all, are. AIG has healthy businesses that can be salvaged and jobs can be saved. I think that is Obama's number one priority. He is not doing this for the sake of corporatism. He's doing it because the American people need jobs and having a healthy economy is the way to do that.

Think of AIG as a big shopping mall. One of the stores (say Smiths)is full of corrupt managers and employees and ends up needing huge bailouts to survive. Every other business in the mall is profitable and doing just fine. You can shut Smiths down or bail it out, but you would not shut down the mall because Smith's went under. That would put all of those people out of work, decrease tax revenue, and create a vacate building for no reason.

The difference between the mall and AIG is that the mall doesn't own every business. AIG does so Smiths is hurting AIG overall, but the rest of their businesses are all still doing fine. Obama wants to save those businesses which is a laudable and necessary goal.

Douglas Rushkoff either is too incompetent to be commenting on this or he's being disingenuous and has an ax to grind with Obama or something. But his statement is far too simplistic and grossly over-generalized.

[Laelth]

39. I don't think so.

I grant that Rushkoff's essay is quite intriguing, and I agree that Obama is no socialist. To me, Obama seems like a liberal ... one who wishes to use the power of good government to save capitalism from its own excesses.

So far, I am very pleased with the President.

:dem:

-Laelth

[debbierlus]

42. I will go on record - Obama is a corporatist

Just look at his economic appointments -

And, he wants to mandate health insurance instead of creating a single payer health care system (he was FOR single payer before he was against it). Progressives had to threaten protest to get a tiny seat at the table while the industry insiders assembled en masse.

[Zomby Woof]

43. As a rule

Anyone who uses the word "corporatist" (which doesn't even exist) cannot be taken seriously.