With Apologies to Greil Marcus, Here Comes the "New Weird America"
To be perfectly honest, I've felt little beyond weird, foreboding vibes since BHO's election. I kind of lead a catharsis-less life, tho, so that's not unusual. (Election Night did induce vomiting, if that means anything to anybody.)
That said, I'm completely enthralled by the new constellation, or the new conjuncture, or whatever-the-crap people want to call this moment besides "this moment." There is a Weird New series of questions floating out there in front of an insipid, Weird New Government - questions that pertain as much to the changing fate of neoliberalism as they pertain to the office of the presidency. Here goes:
1) Will Max Baucus lead us to universal health coverage for every damn man, woman and little woman/man? Avowed health-wonk-jedi Ezra Klein has been way out front, early and often, in profiling Committee Chairman Baucus and "bringing it" with the live coverage of the opening salvos. See for yourself.
2) Can a weak dollar, an energy crisis and a progressive government somehow cause manufacturing to "come back" to the USA in general, and bolster the labor movement in particular? Is it right to think of labor-management partnership when talk emerges of a cabinet-level "automotive czar"? Probably not, right? For some union activists, the question of manufacturing is fraught with a wide array of both hopeful and depressing connotations. If nothing else, the collision of the EFCA debate and the ongoing Detroit bailout guarantees that the media discourse around the labor movement will continue in the reified form of Movement conservatives and centrist pundits' endless riffing on "Big Labor" as a special interest akin to the gun lobby or evangelical christianity. Can somebody, for chrissakes, maybe once interview somebody from a labor union when they're talking about the labor movement?
3) Is Hank Paulson's recent bailout two-step a positive thing? We've moved from the so-called TARP initiative involving govt buyouts of "toxic" assets, to a new strategy of buying up preferred (but non-voting?!?) shares of bank stock. This sounds more like "nationalizing the banks," and thus might seem sensible to some of us. But at the same time, Paulson is certainly "calling an audible" when it comes to how the bailout and the buy-backs were framed. And while I am for nationalizing just about everything (including my hair and teeth), it would be nice if "our" stock in the banks allowed "us" some sort of authority vis a vis corporate governance.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
hey, I've been waiting for you to come in with some commentary on this. I like your 'Weird New Government' framework. Do you foresee a Weird New Deal? (you don't have to answer that)
on 2), people in Ireland are very interested in Obama's supposed protectionist stance because of our reliance on US direct investment. one view that's emerging is that it would probably be too costly, both in political and economic terms, to "bring back" manufacturing to US shores. then again, that's from an external perspective - domestically, it might be too costly for him not to do that? I'd be interested to know what the US labor movement's opinion (at whatever level) is on that issue.
3) I presume the non-voting element is because of American distrust of government control of private industry - I think it was Paulson who said a few weeks back that the very idea of government taking a stake in private companies was anathema to all Americans, or something along those lines, and I laughed. it's probably true, though, as little sense it makes to most Europeans.
1) Don't know, will read up.
2) Based on my reading of the letters to the editor of USA Today, *pause for laughter* there's a decent chance that a good many Americans believe that the UAW caused automaker woes and that it is (finally) time to crack down on the greedy unions.
Talk about weird, but is there a possibility of a pro-industry, pro-universal health care, anti-union alliance coming to the fore? You know that if health care is "done" before EFCA, we'll hear a lot (more) about how unions are irrelevant and unnecessary.
3) Lex and Gabba, I don't think the American public at large has anything against the gov't owning a piece of banks. I'd be willing to lay money that Joe six-pack would think it only natural that the gov't have some sort of say, if they are going to be laying the tax dollars down. It's Charlie three-piece who abhors the idea, and since Charlie three-piece still owns our government, Paulson must come out and assure "everyone" that the money will come without strings attached, lest we become like Europe with the high unemployment and sluggish economies.
It is an article of faith here that socialism has been a proven failure every where it has been tried and any government involvement necessarily destroys the will of man. I get the sense that most Americans envision someone like the brother-in-law in Keeping Up Appearances when they think of your average European worker. In fact, I was hearing just yesterday that any government involvement in the auto industry, including forking over large sums of cash, will necessarily lead to a auto industry that resembles the
British auto industry in the 1970 and '80s. Not the German or Japanese industries, but the British.
"I get the sense that most Americans envision someone like the brother-in-law in Keeping Up Appearances when they think of your average European worker"
ha! Onslow!
first Life on Mars, and now Keeping Up Appearances - where does this knowledge of BBC television come from?
I just checked on Wikipedia that Onslow was, in fact, unemployed and he also drove a Ford Cortina which kept backfiring.
Before you get too excited, GGH, it's dave who envisions that most Americans view European workers through the prism of Keeping Up Appearances. Most Americans have no idea what the fuck dave is talking about.
But the Beeb references come from our erstwhile cable providers who make sure that BBC America is piped in, toasty fresh, to our homes. But only dave is watching.
I s'pose I should answer lips' questions too:
1) Who the fuck cares? We're having a conversation about how we'll implement universal health care instead of if we'll have it! That's fucking HUGE!
2) That's above my pay (I was always a meso/organizations guy), but I do have some thoughts on what dave said, for later.
3) No, it's not a good thing. Not because of its quasi-nationalization aspect (you know how much I love me some nationalizing!), but because it's yet another example of Bush-style executive unaccountability. I'm sick of the executive pulling bait-and-switches and generally saying "fuck you" to any framework that has been agreed upon with the legislature. And I'll be just as pissed if Obama pulls that sort of shit.
Agree with Wobs' third point, but that doesn't mean I think the original plan is better than the new one.
Wobs, I'm not saying Americans actually picture Onslow...jeebus. Rather that Onslow is the type of guy they picture. Unemployed, fat, lazy, not particularly concerned with getting off the dole. I mean if you want to throw in a little striking French farmer, go right ahead, but European workers are used as a contrast with American workers in the negative. Will grant that, if American workers think of European workers at all, the image isn't that strong, but for heaven's sake, you know me better than to think I that believe everyone is watching Brit comedies on PBS.
Of course I know that about you, but when I have a witty riposte to make, I can't let "facts" get in the way of that!
Just be glad I'm not in charge of foreign policy!
Post a Comment