Web Letters: Past and Future

Your commentary is amazing. You criticize all of Obama's picks, yet you conclude that he is "too smart and perceptive to let this happen." Sounds like you haven't given up on your wishful thinking.

Roger Kenney

Arlington Heights, IL

Now that Obama has been elected president, the useful idiots are no longer useful.

tom harlen

Chicago, IL

Here we go again. As Act I of "Obama the Centrist" unfolds, all the progressives begin the handwringing, teeth-gnashing and weeping so familiar from the Clinton era. "But he said he was for ch... ch... ch... change... and... and... and this isn't change!"

What exactly is this disease infecting so many Americans on the so-called left? Maybe too many of you in the media establishment are simply too close to really see. There was nothing at all in Mr. Obama's run that would indicate anything other than what you see now merging, yet another creature of Wall Street.

You had opportunities. There were progressive candidates in and out of your precious Democratic party. They couldn't beg, buy or borrow coverage though, can they? These candidates told you he was a wolf in sheep's clothes, did they not?

Mark Deneen

Eureka, CA

Greider points out that anyone who expected Barack Obama to be a leftist will be disappointed by his choices for the cabinet positions, which are signs of continuity with the Clinton administration, and in the case of Gates, with the Bush administration. I think this is exactly right. Obama will not govern as a leftist, and probably cannot get rid of the center-left elements that dominate the democratic party. However, my response is a little different than Greider's.

Politics is about what we can do on the ground, and not merely about what we can imagine. Obama's power as president of the United States would be seriously compromised without the support of the Democratic Party apparatus that controls the Congress. Likewise, without the center-left adminstrators and politicians who were the foot soldiers of Clinton's government, Obama would have to reinvent the wheel, starting from scratch.

Barack Obama must believe that he can most effectively govern with and not against the expertise, and power, of people like Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. To defend Obama's campaign promises about change (a word that seemed to have lost all meaning this fall), we would have to believe that Obama sees mobilizing the knowledge, experience and, importantly, the phone-books of the Clintons and former Clinton advisers as the most effective way to further that change.

What looks like stasis in this case (the appointment of Washington insiders) could be the best route to the kind of changes that can be made by this sensitive, intelligent leader in the future. If this sounds overly cautious, I believe the alternative, which is to advocate change as an absolute necessity, on all fronts, from personnel to ideology, is irrational and unrealistic. Ideologies are not invented overnight, and neither can good political help be produced like a rabbit out of a hat.

Taking one more step in the same direction, I would say that Obama hopes to gain an even wider power base in Washington by finding support in unlikely places, including the Republican party. Without knowing any of the details of the case, the plan to keep Gates on in Defense sounds like an intelligent move, since it will reduce the strain on Obama and his people during their transition, and could facilitate their taking command of the military.

The kind of changes that I hope Barack Obama will effect in the next eight years are not the sort of things that can be achieved by a stroke of will. Turning our backs on the people who have made the last sixteen years of government possible would be a fatal mistake, comparable in its lack of realism to the anti-governmental fantasies of the right. To ask Obama not to work with Clinton-appointees or members of the economic establishment is to ask him to be unrealistic, and I believe that is not compatible with his program. In other words, as skeptical as I tend to be, in what has happened so far, I see no sign that we should lose faith in Obama's sober and responsible approach to leadership.

Before we criticize him for moving to the center, we must be sure that an advance on the left is possible. Enough of the outsider politics that denounces our most viable options.

Matico Josephson

New York, NY

Mr. Grieder's overstates the blame that Tim Geithner bears for the apparent failure of the initial bailout of AIG--Mr. Geithner was neither the ultimate decision-maker nor the primary advocate of the bailout of AIG. Mr. Grieder also overstates his case for the government taking over the US banking system: he may be correct, but that is a guess at this stage of the game, since the most recent model we can look to for guidance is seventy-five years old. The problems that have led to the crackup that has occurred were a long time in building, and are the fault of many diverse parties--Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hank Paulson, Christopher Cox, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Phil Gramm along with many other Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle, Wall Street investment vank managements, and on and on.

The problems are so broad, deep and systemic that Mr. Grieder's finger-pointing is not helpful. Suffice it to say that there were many authors of the calamity we face, and most of the Wall Street and Government leaders of the last decade have had a hand in it. What is needed now is an honest, humble and intellectually rigorous group of problem-solvers. To restrict that group only to those with no hand at all in Wall Street events of the last ten years would be self-defeating.

Robert C. Carmody

Manhasset, NY

What did you expect?

Obama hasn't developed a personal network of competent people. So he makes friends with the Democratic party power brokers, and they tell him to hire Clinton's friends.

The one that galls me the most is keeping Gates on as SecDef. Obama stormed to the head of the line, vowing to get us out of Iraq quickly and change Bush's failed Iraq policy. So what does he do? He adopts Bush's Iraq policy and keeps his Secretary of Defense.

"Change we can believe in"? My ass.

George McGovern

Chicago, IL

I am an 80-year-old political junkie, a liberal Democrat who basically buys into all the agenda items that "progressives" advocate and long for. I am also a faithful Nation reader and, finally, I respect William Grieder's opinions.

Having said all, that I am getting really annoyed at the progressive angst being unfurled here and on the web before Obama even takes office. The "progressive agenda" is somewhat like "the Kingdom of Heaven": greatly to be desired but capable only of a "best approximation" in real life, given the basic limitations of a self-interested human nature.

Let's just take Geithner and other "old Clinton hands" and ask whether or not they might just be capable of learning from past mistakes and changing their minds in accordance with changing circumstances. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt on how they will perform under a different Democratic president who manifestly has a lot going for him?

Disgruntled progressives could not or would not have elected Obama, who was, after all, the last Democrat standing in the primaries. My guess is that only Dennis Kucinich would have been the favorite choice of progressives--all the "correct" policies and none of the leadership qualities that go with being president.

Frankly, a lot of progressive purists are sounding like Chicken Little to me. "O My God I knew Obama wouldn't be what we needed and hoped for." For Pete's sake, can't we at least wait until he is inaugurated and takes office and actually has the responsibility for righting this badly sinking ship of state before we start harping on all the reasons why he is going to be a huge disappointment?

Conservatives and "center Democrats" have had thirty years to screw over the American psyche with their warped and dangerous ideology and reckless policies and it will be difficult for any new Democratic president to straighten things out even in eight years. I think we have a right to expect that in four years the country will be in way better shape than it was left by Bush and that Obama will be easily re-elected with a Democratic Congress and keep going on changing the political oxygen we breath. There will still be disappointments. The goal of perfection is nice to shoot for but foolish to expect fulfilled completely.

Take it from an old progressive Democrat: Lighten up. Americans have done the right thing and elected Obama. Now let him do his job for a few months before you start panicking.

David Cook

Menomonie, WI

All significant change has always come from "Washington insiders" (Lyndon Johnson) or extremmely "political" presidents: Lincoln, FDR. "Outsiders" cannot truly make a dent: Jimmy Carter. The changes that BO is making are significant in terms of re-establihing the basic foundations of effective government and financial policy. Without those foundations, there's nowhere positive to go.

Allen Bourque

Ashland, MA

Greider says, referring to the financial crisis: "The black hole is too large even for Washington to fill."

Possibly true, and we shall see...

But that same is definately the case with the questioin of healthcare costs, and is the reason that any universal system, public or private, is a guaranteed disaster.

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA

This is exactly why I did not vote for Obama. I knew he was going to win, but I listened to him speak, during debates and at his rallies. He talked a lot of change and moving past the status quo, all the political rhetoric one expects on the campaign trail, but I knew then as we are seeing now, that it was mostly rhetoric. He never wanted to end the wars, just shift the players around. He never spoke of the poor working class and the poverty in this country, he only spoke of the middle class and on taxing those who made over $250,000. But because (and rightfully so) no one wanted to extend to W.'s third term, the majority of Americans jumped on board of the Democratic party bandwagon to beat McCain. It was all on blind faith though. Even groups like moveon.org who pushed so hard for Obama to win, they never really told the supporters what he was truly about.

As for the bailouts now and Citigroup, who stand to get a $300 billion bailout, for those of you unaware, they recently paid the New York Mets $400 Billion dollars to have their new baseball stadium call CITI Park! Do you see who our government decides to bailout! Meanwhile home owners all over this country are still losing their homes. But it's okay to bailout banks and insurance companies who go on excessive vacations (more than once already and working on their third bailout, AIG) and paying astronomical fees to have their name brand plastered all over baseball stadiums. It's okay for our government to bailout Wall St. companies that are still paying their CEOs insane amounts of bonus money! These are the groups and groups of people who are obviously important to our government, but not the American taxpayers who are becoming poorer and poorer, losing their jobs and ending up on the streets!

No matter who you voted for, we can not let this continue to happen. I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, right now, even though he might as well be the Clintons at this point, but We the People need to make sure we do not drop the ball yet again! We have to be vocal critics of this administration. We have to speak up and speak out against any and all injustices that continue. We the people need to make sure the promise of Change that so many of you voted for was not just political rhetoric to win an election!

Let's all hope for the best, but let us not just sit there watching from the sidelines, let us all play an active role in helping this country move forward in a peaceful and economically sound direction.

kristofer PASSAGGIO

http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
North Hollywood, CA

I think it was pretty clear from the very beginning of Obama's campaign that he was part of the economic establishment, and it is why I voted for Nader. I knew that Nader was not going to win, but it didn't matter because the winner, Republican or Democrat, would carry on the same failed economic policies. I do think with Obama the rule of law may prevail, and torture, along with other abuses, will be eliminated. However, there is no real difference between Obama and McCain on economic issues. Both major political parties have bought into "globalization" and "free trade." Both major political parties lack the competence to deal with economic issues. The only purpose of "free trade" is to drive down wages by letting workers in "formerly" developed countries compete with workers in underdeveloped countries for lower wages. It wasn't really "tree trade," because it was fashionable to concentrate manufacturing in developing countries like China and India and sell these products to "formerly" developed countries like the US. The basic problem with this economic fashion is that the workers in "formerly" developed counties were also the market, and without the high wages , along with disposable income to purchase goods, the market disappears. You can give all the money you want to financial institutions, because, credit or no credit, no well-paying jobs and no buying houses, cars, or anything. The American market is dead, and will remain dead, until it is rebuilt behind a wall of tariffs. There is no American market without the American worker.

Pervis James Casey

Riverside, CA

I appreciate Wm. Greider's article on Mr. Geithner; but I was taught in business school never to criticize unless you also offered recommendations. So, who would Mr. Greider recommend as Mr. Obama's economic team? The criteria are: (1) qualified to handle the current state of affairs, (2) shares Mr. Obama's vision for the short and long term and (3) a team player that can work with all members of the new admisitration.

John Holley

Wilsonville, OR

William Greider is right on the "money."

Ever since I got home from work yesterday I have been steamed, irritated, felt like I had been kicked in the head, and you can describe a negative feeling and it would describe my feelings.

Although Dubya is technically still in charge, it seems as if Obama supports all these bailouts. What set me off about CitiGroup is that after reading about the bailout which I am paying for I opened a letter from CitiBank. Just from the look of the envelope, I had a negative feeling. In short, it was form letter informing me of some changes. It did not matter that I have a perfect payment history with the company, my purchase interest rate is going up to 15 percent. My outstanding balance for the credit card is less than half of my credit line. I believe my present interest rate is either 9 or 11 percent.

This is what us citizens get for giving those greedy bastartds our tax money, which will no doubt allow the powers in charge to continue their excessive life styles.

As an aside, Citi now owns my mortgate, which has always been paid on time. I'm concerned that they will figure a way to screw me on that, as well. Citi was very magnanimous in advising me that I can opt out of the new rules and interest rate. If I do opt out, they will cancel my card once it expires, which is in four or five months. That is the only good news. I only wish that every card-holder would opt out. This way Citi will not be able to steal all that interest from the taxpayer.

You are right, Obama is not the leader we hoped he would be.

morton rivkind

Yuma, AZ

My question is this, "Where were you during the primary?" Obama was surrounded by most of Bill Clinton's people. One only had to look at them to know exactly what Obama's presidency will be like. The same went for Bush, one only had to see who he surrounded himself with to know what and how bad his presidency was going to be.

I have to shake my head with disbelief in so many people complaining about Obama when he is doing exactly what he said he would do if elected--bipartisanship . (Personally, I don't think that will be effective at this time.) I will say it again as I have many times before, Obama is not now nor has he ever been progressive.

Audrey Hannifin

Denver, CO

William Greider has again hit the nail on the head. Obama, through choosing Timothy Geithner for secretary of the treasury and Larry Summers as chief economic adviser, appears to have boxed himself into old incremental ideas that will not work to reverse the current financial meltdown.

In a previous article Mr. Greider brilliantly proposed the use of FDR's bank holiday to hold banks accountable for their balance sheets. Obama's picks will no doubt discredit this idea, as this cleanup of bank balance sheets would cost their friends on Wall Street dearly.

Obama's picks will also vehemently oppose the creation of currency without borrowing from the banks. The banks will mount an all-out defense of their monopoly on the creation of credit and currency. The founders made the creation of credit and currency the sovereign right of the country. The banks are now unwilling and/or not able to create currency and credit through their own balance sheets, due to their own malfeasance and greed. It is past time that the US Treasury be allowed to print money without debt to restore the financial system to health.

Printing money without borrowing it leaves existing money in the system. Borrowing money to spend only takes the money from one pocket and puts it in another. By printing money, not borrowing it, the money can be used to clean up the financial industry while not burdening the taxpayer with the interest of borrowing. As long as the printed money only replaces money that is being destroyed, it won't contribute to inflation. When the economy gets back to health, the money can be withdrawn gradually through higher taxes and further de-leveraging of the financial system.

Obama says he is reading Lincoln. Maybe he will get to the part were Lincoln, when confronted with usurious interest rates to pay for the Civil War, did what any real patriot would do: he just printed the money, he did not borrow it. They were called "greenbacks."

Michael McKinlay

Hercules, CA

William Greider is right--that things are looking a bit right.

The Obama administration is not going to be able to triangulate the popular anger out of this looting of our economy.

The rant by Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning with Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee reminded me of the outburst of Howard Beale in the film Network, or of Warren Beatty's "Bulworth".

Dylan is absolutely correct: we (the people) are all becoming very angered with the issues of fairness, restitution and renewal of "our" economy!

While Dylan's rant is highly emotive, starting one-third through the video, he does bring up the key point that this looting was only "not illegal" because the crooks actually changed the laws by bribing Congress in the last two administrations to make their looting a legal "smash and grab."

Boy, George Ackerlof certainly had it right in 2001 when he tagged the Bush administration economic policies as "not normal government policy, but a form of looting."

Let's "hope" that this Bush era corporate financial empire's looting is not something that the experienced Wall Street people of the Obama administration feel the need to maintain continuity on!

Alan MacDonald

Sanford, ME