babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Would Martin Luther King support Barack Obama?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Would Martin Luther King support Barack Obama?
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 07 January 2008 10:08 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Moderators, if you think this message fits better in the anti-racism forum, feel free to move it.

The following Video on Barack Obama from The Guardian website, in which Obama invokes Dr. King in his speech, leads me to wonder Dr. King would actually support Barack Obama if he were alive today.

How much of a change is Barack Obama?

Given that Barack Obama's politics are significantly to the right of where Dr. King's politics moved during the last year of his life, I have serious doubts as to whether Dr. King would support Barack Obama's bid for president if he were alive today.

[ 07 January 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 08 January 2008 02:41 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think King would more likely have supported Kucinich or Edwards.

Obama actually comes across as very "[Bill] Clintonesque" to me, he's a charismatic leader who allows you to believe what you want.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 08 January 2008 03:09 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't see how it's anti-racism related, but anyways...

I think the Bill Clinton comparison can only go so far, and can only be applied in so far as both are good at delivering a speech. If you look at Bill Clinton's entire career you'll see that he's been a politician his entire life. And you'll see that he's been a centrist his entire life, he was against the Vietnam War, but I think that was out of a sense of self-preservation more than anything else.

I think what most people on the left have a problem with in Obama is that he's not a divisive, polarizing character. They want hell fire and brimestone and Obama isn't going to give it to them. They'd be far more comfortable if he just denounced everyone and everything instead of calling for unity in trying to achieve a progressive goal. That's why they prefer Edwards or the further left they are Kucinich. Both of the latter two take the time to denounce the enemy when presenting their programme, whereas Obama says that some of "the enemy" can be worked with, and if they can't then his progressive goals will be perused regardless of.

And dare I say many who prefer the more combative approach are afraid that he may actually succeed in his approach. It's interesting that MLK has been raised though, because MLK was traditionally criticized by radical thinking people, including other civil rights leaders like Malcolm X, as being too inclusive and compromising. Yet if one looks at both of their legacies, its clear that the comprising and inclusive MLK has had a far more effective legacy. Sorry folks but a real "liberal crusader" like Edwards, while important, simply won't get it done because there isn't a liberal majority in the country. Unfortunately most people see themselves as "moderate" (centrist) so therefore an inclusive message of change is going to be far more appealing to them than a hell fire and brimstone message of change.

[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 January 2008 03:15 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From: Blueprint For Change: Obama's Plan For America

excerpt:


Plan to Strengthen Civil Rights

Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement
Obama will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division.

Combat Employment Discrimination
Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

End Deceptive Voting Practices
Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.

End Racial Profiling
Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support
Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities
Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.

Expand Use of Drug Courts
Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

excerpt:

Labor
Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers’ rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.

Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers.

Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.

Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.

Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.

Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

(there's more)


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 08 January 2008 07:34 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see why King wouldn't have supported Obama. There are plenty of USians to the left of King who have been taken in by B.O.

And quite a few Canadians as well.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 08 January 2008 08:53 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's classy. I'm surprised you didn't use his middle name while you were at it.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 January 2008 09:31 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
That's classy. I'm surprised you didn't use his middle name while you were at it.
good one!

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 09 January 2008 12:33 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did MLK actually endorse any presidential candidate in his own time? Not that I'm aware of.

So I thinks it's pretty specious to ask the question of whether he'd endorse Obama.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 09 January 2008 12:56 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
not sure King endorsed anyone (worth looking up), because JFK did not look particularly promising for his cause in 1960, and really had to be pushed by the worst of the Southern police actions in the early 1960s to force federal intervention

MLK had to love the early LBJ and be thrilled that Goldwater was crushed in 1964 ; but by 1968, Viet Nam had radicalized him to some degree, and a Humphrey endorsement -- despite his sterling civil rights voting record -- sems very unlikely, had MLK lived to be asked for it

that said, today he might be a Clinton man, after Bill had 8 years in power to lobby him; who knows ? MLK would be in his 80s now and probably more a totemic figure than an active pol ...

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 09 January 2008 01:00 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
its clear that the comprising and inclusive MLK has had a far more effective legacy.

You mean in the way that white liberals have been able to adopt/portray him as "one of their own" - a sort of black John Locke - and ignore his less savoury (to them) opinions on things like capitalism, class division, the genocide of black people, etc. It's true, that will get you a national holiday a lot faster than the other thing...


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 09 January 2008 01:07 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK,
but don't underplay his disputes with the Left, either:

MLK clearly broke with the black nationalists spilling out on the racial left (Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, etc), on the issue of non-violence;

and of course his entire political agenda is infused with Biblical imagery and Christian teaching, which were barely tolerated in a condescending kind of way by the New Left and its various successors in identity politics

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 09 January 2008 03:36 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
OK,
but don't underplay his disputes with the Left, either:

MLK clearly broke with the black nationalists spilling out on the racial left (Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, etc), on the issue of non-violence;

and of course his entire political agenda is infused with Biblical imagery and Christian teaching, which were barely tolerated in a condescending kind of way by the New Left and its various successors in identity politics

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]


I didn't. The point is that his "legacy" has been more "influential" by virtue of it not really being his legacy. The continuing effect of his movement is largely a function of how much of it was edited out to fit a white, bourgeois liberal-democratic capitalist mindset.

The split over violence - for example - doesn't dissociate him from The Left unless we assume that The Left is inherently violent.

On the religious side, Malcolm X, who you cite as "the left" that King broke with, was a Muslim. Moreover, there is a long tradition of Christian leftism/socialism in the US. The Socialist Party had wide support from agrarian Pentacostals in the U.S. south and southwest even before WWI. Historically, the Democratic Party garnered support from poor (and definitely religious) blacks AND whites in the South. The Biblical stories of liberation (Exodus) and the anti-establishment iconclasm of Jesus have been a significant part of the American left for a long time, especially among African Americans. King wasn't exactly charting new ground.

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 January 2008 03:50 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
King was a socialist and probably admired Bobby Kennedy somewhat for his stand against organized crime. I think what put King over the top for "national holiday" candidacy was his support of organzing black southern garbage workers. King wanted to turn the civil rights movement on the Northern States. And then he began speaking out against the war Viet Nam while the cold war was in high gear. A black socialist would be especially despicable for the hawks then. Obama is safe as long as he doesn't start talking about nationalising things or cutting the rich off welfare.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 09 January 2008 03:57 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
King was a socialist

hmmmm, I dunno... source?

re Malcolm X being a Muslim, and hence not on the Left;
well, why not?

his political style and language ("Plymouth Rock landed on us... ")were very similar to the black Left that followed in the 60s,in particular some of the Panthers

and no, I equated violence with explicit comments of Malcolm X that MLK objected to, and not with the Left generally ...

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 09 January 2008 04:08 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[QB]re Malcolm X being a Muslim, and hence not on the Left;
well, why not?

I didn't say he wasn't on the left. YOU argued that King's religious tone somehow seperated him from the Left. My point is that religiousness has existed on the Left for a long time - especially among African Americans.

quote:
and no, I equated violence with explicit comments of Malcolm X that MLK objected to, and not with the Left generally ...

You could have been more clear, then. You began by speaking of King's disputes with the Left, and then went on to use his choice of non-violence as an example. That's what the colon after your first sentence usually means.

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 January 2008 04:09 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:

I dunno... source?


We recognize our own, like the scribbling of the fish symbol in sand?

quote:
How many know the King who told the SCLC that "the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people," King elaborated for his colleagues. "And one day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you beging to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalistic economy."

"We are called upon," King told his fellow civil rights activists, ''to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day," he argued, "we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that [radical] questions must be raised.....'Who owns the oil'...'Who owns the iron ore?'...'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'


Amen brother!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 09 January 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I read somewhere that MLK was becoming increasingly radical - and then he was killed.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 09 January 2008 09:46 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think he was becoming increasingly mainstream actually, and I remember those times. I'm not saying that he gave up any of his principles, but that American society came around to some of his. Remember that really he wanted black Americans to become part of the middle-class mainstream, and a lot of white Americans agreed with that. As other posters pointed out, he was by far the most marketable black leader of his day. There were a lot of really over-the-top people in the 60's, and King sounded pretty tame compared to them.

Really his big falling out with LBJ was over the Vietnam War. If not for that they might well have gotten along a lot better, given that LBJ did deliver on many issues that King advocated for.

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 09 January 2008 10:59 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brookmere:
I think he was becoming increasingly mainstream actually, and I remember those times. I'm not saying that he gave up any of his principles, but that American society came around to some of his. Remember that r
[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

well, I guess the time has come to unearth some evidence. I'll get back to you ....


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 09 January 2008 01:37 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

You mean in the way that white liberals have been able to adopt/portray him as "one of their own" - a sort of black John Locke - and ignore his less savoury (to them) opinions on things like capitalism, class division, the genocide of black people, etc. It's true, that will get you a national holiday a lot faster than the other thing...


Uh, no, I mean when it comes to civil rights and integration. As others have said I know he had some socialistic ideas when it came to economics, and like others have said, he probably would've gotten on better with LBJ because they both supported the "Great Society" programmes had Vietnam not been an issue. But that's neither here nor there as it relates to a discussion about legal equality because he clearly proposed solutions within a constitutional and liberal democratic framework. He proposed integration and constitutionality (now that I think of it, not sure how John Locke is relevant since he was a pretty blatant racist from such a time when such thinking was common place), which right-wing radicals opposed and which yes liberals have embraced. Left wing radicals opposed him too, but for other reasons, ie: Malcolm X proposed separatism and black consciousness as a means of achieving equality. He proposed that only when those two things happened then true equality could happen.

quote:
I'm not saying that he gave up any of his principles, but that American society came around to some of his. Remember that really he wanted black Americans to become part of the middle-class mainstream, and a lot of white Americans agreed with that

Yes, this is exactly what I meant.

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 January 2008 02:25 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
King was a non-denominational socialist. he certainly became more openly radical as he got older.

The Poor Peoples' March on Washington was the subject of contempt among Washington elites, but he organized it anyway.

The same was true of the garbage workers' strike, which to formalist wasn't a "civil rights" issue at all, but a verboten "class" issue.

Barack Obama is well to the right of King, but Obama could not have successfully run as a black candidate in 1968 without King's approval.

Obama's capacity to provide absolution to American whites could occur only if he were King's candidate. Otherwise, an unkind word from King would have caused Obama to implode.

Obama's transformational potential exists because he allows whites to vote for him without threatening the status quo very much. The Tiger Woods set is comfortable with Obama.

Still, his capacity to alter forever the racial dynamic in the US is an important point in his favour.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 09 January 2008 02:40 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
King was a non-denominational socialist. he certainly became more openly radical as he got older.

True. Some have even wondered whether his shift from less threatening religious based activism to more openly political musing about the state of racism throughout America might have led to his assassination. Since we'll never know though, that'll have to remain in the conspiracy theory category.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 January 2008 09:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's true for what was the decade of assassinations. And some have asked, what are the odds that three Bush family biographers would choose suicide? Extreme Ways are back again
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 January 2008 10:57 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
That's true for what was the decade of assassinations. And some have asked, what are the odds that three Bush family biographers would choose suicide? Extreme Ways are back again

Could you detail this a bit as diak up does not permit youtube viewing.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 January 2008 12:42 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Could you detail this a bit as diak up does not permit youtube viewing.


It was meant to imply that what we have is an illusion of democracy since the end of the cold war. MLK's vision for a society thriving with human rights and equality hasn't been achieved. Instead, wars of aggression and environmental destruction rein merrily with globalizing capitalism. The world was betrayed by promises of peace and widespread prosperity with the dissolution of the USSR. Capitalism was fascism with the mask on.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 10 January 2008 02:06 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
King was a non-denominational socialist. he certainly became more openly radical as he got older.

I would argue that the major achievements of the civil rights movement (the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965), opened up political space for King to become more radical and start addressing economic issues.

Until the south was desegregated and blacks were guaranteed voting rights, King could not forcibly speak out on economic issues without serious risk of compromising the ablity to achieve these two primary goals. King needed the support of white northern liberals to help pressure the US government to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. He also needed to remain moderate enough so that the US government wouldn't completely dismiss the civil rights movement.

Of course, once the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act were enshrined into the US constitution, King could turn his attention to the economic plight of African-American, in particular, and poor Amercians in general. It's unclear whether King would have become more radical earlier had African-Americans not had to overcome the dual obstacles of segregation and disenfranchisement. However, I think it is clear that the twin obstacles of segregation and disenfranchisement did produce serious obstacles to King becoming radical if he hoped to also succeed to overcome these obstacles. And also, given that MLK's assasination may well have been in response to his increasing radicalization, it seems as though becoming more radical posed a great risk to MLK at any point in his career as a civil rights leader.

[ 10 January 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 10 January 2008 04:14 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
I would argue that the major achievements of the civil rights movement (the 14th and 15th ammendments to the US constitution), opened up political space for King to become more radical and start addressing economic issues.

[SNIP]

Of course, once the 14th and 15th ammendments were enshrined into the US constitution, King could turn his attention to the economic plight of African-American...


The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment (which gave African American men the right to vote) was ratified in 1870.

[ 10 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 10 January 2008 07:47 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope this isn't too far off-topic. Here's Louis Proyect (internet-renowned trotskyist commentator - I think he's fairly astute) on Obama and economic policy

a sample:

quote:
Although it is not widely understood, Obama is pretty much committed to the neoclassical economics outlook of his home-town University of Chicago. Since becoming Senator, he has relied on the advice of a professor named Austan Goolsbee, who calls himself “a centrist, market economist” (Washington Times, July 16, 2007).

Goolsbee has been a columnist for Slate.com and the NY Times, as well as a standup comedian. His economics are not meant as a joke, as I understand it. His columns are written very much in the same vein as fellow U. of Chicago neoclassical economist Steven Levitt’s “Freakonomics,” examining everyday problems such as “Why you get stuck for hours at O’Hare.” Most are fairly uncontroversial except for the swipe he took at Michael Moore’s “Sicko”, whose single-payer recommendations violate his free market principles.

Another adviser with a particular interest in health care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist who was also an adviser to Bill Clinton–surprise, surprise. Cutler wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that “The rising cost … of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained.”



From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 January 2008 08:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They seem to be similar to those who advised Clinton, including several undersecretaries from Clinton's administration:


quote:
``They're all top-notch economists,'' said Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor and former chief White House economist for President George W. Bush. ``Their views are left of the political center, as one would expect, but only slightly.''

A trio of seasoned Washington hands bolsters the academics: Karen Kornbluh, policy director in Obama's Senate office; Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington, and a former senior economic adviser in the Clinton administration; and Michael Froman, the chief of staff for former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin who now works with his old boss at Citigroup Inc.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=a7Zdp3HDltW4


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 10 January 2008 08:30 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
They seem to be similar to those who advised Clinton, including several undersecretaries from Clinton's administration:

Yeah, that's more or less what Proyect is saying. But he doesn't see that as a positive!


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 January 2008 10:36 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is that because he has run an economy himself and done better than the Clinton Administration did?

Or is he just some ideological "revolutionary" who has never achieved anything in the economic realm?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 January 2008 11:18 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Is that because he has run an economy himself and done better than the Clinton Administration did?

There was nothing magical about Clinton's job creation record. What they did was change the accounting rules so as to uncook the books in Washington and pull them out of recession. They did it on the quiet so as not to arouse sleeping far right ideologues. But that's okay, because the economy was doomed anyway with this bunch running the country like a banana republic.

Ultra right-wing ideologues in both parties can hardly wait for a change in cosmetic government so they can begin bombing Iran. And Liberal Democrats won't dare to cut the rich off welfare. The two old line parties share a lot in common. It's a plutocracy, Jeff. Same as here but with a lot more money involved.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 January 2008 12:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, we start with a Trotskist economist criticizing Obama from using Clinton era economists, and now "Fidel" agrees, "there's no miracle" in the fact that Clinton's government reduced the debt and created lots of good jobs.

I'll go with the Clinton group. Deeds speak, rhetoric is for just chatter.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 January 2008 01:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I'll go with the Clinton group. Deeds speak, rhetoric is for just chatter.

They're all the same group in a plutocracy, Jeff. They vote like we do so as not to elect a bunch of right-wing whackos. Cosmetic government under Clinton was about as far to the left as Eisenhower's was, Clinton admitted this himself. The struggle for democracy in the U.S.S.A and around the world continues.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 January 2008 01:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I get it. We should believe in fairy tales. Because the US is far from perfect, it follows that Communist economists know better.

Go back to Russia. (Oh sorry! that's no longer possible!)

Seriously, if there had ever been a Communist economy that worked, these guys could be taken seriously. Fidel, too!


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 10 January 2008 01:41 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel and Jeff House you guys can highjack any thread. We get it; Fidel hates americans and jeff hates communists. Enough said we know already.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 10 January 2008 02:44 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Proyect - and he's not an economist, as far as I know- argues that Obama is far from "progessive" and he supports this with some information about Obama's economic advisors.

I thought it might be interesting to discuss Obama's economic policies .....


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 10 January 2008 02:55 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Is that because he has run an economy himself and done better than the Clinton Administration did?

Well, the implicit principle operative here, if consistently applied, would certainly limit the number of people who are allowed to discuss economics!

ETA: But I hope we can we talk about Obama's economic policies nonetheless.

[ 10 January 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 January 2008 03:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I get it. We should believe in fairy tales. Because the US is far from perfect, it follows that Communist economists know better.

The only thing that ever worked in the U.S. since the collapse of leave it to the market capitalism in 1929 has been socialism, Jeff. And where 'ere Friedman's Chicago School dropouts have tried to revive laissez-faire, the ideology has either failed or barely worked in market after market where tried. Every time a credit bubble bursts down there and here, Americans and Canadians can thank goodness for Soviet-style soft budgets and public job creation to prop up weak market ideology.

The new Liberal capitalism is so popular that they have to force it on countries like Russia in top-down revolutions while moving to bribe Duma bureaucrats into Latin Americanizing the Russian economy further in 2003. Nice try, CIA and western oligarchs, but it didn't work, did it!!!

quote:
[qb]Go back to Russia...[QB]

Admit it, Jeff. You would never choose to live without socialism. It's why you'll never cash-in your OHIP card at the border and move to a U.S. right-to-work state. chow, gringo


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 10 January 2008 05:43 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment (which gave African American men the right to vote) was ratified in 1870.
[ 10 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Oops, I goofed. The legislation that was passed in '64 and '65 was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I've modified my previous post accordingly.

[ 10 January 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca