Write your own caption. From a recent rock festival. What’s the political analogy?
Large standing military and security forces have troubled ruling regimes from the dimmest tribal pasts down to today. Governing ideology doesn’t matter: totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist, Mao-ist or American corporatist democracy/demotic – all rely on and are often threatened by these – in political science terms – ‘power institutions.’
What’s most discomforting to you? The Administration starts its 4th year of protracted, partisan trench warfare. Somehow it forgot that Catholic bishops and their friends nearly derailed the entire health care boondoggle over abortion issues. How precisely does one forget that searing experience?
Obama apologists claim re-energizing a new ideological front against them was the goal all along. Or if not the goal, they quickly add, don’t worry. Rick Santorum benefits – genius kung fu.
All of which tells us that Obama and Friends really don’t understand contemporary politics and our polity. Still. At this late date. Their calculations remain small, traditional, rooted in the Old Consensus.
Galvanizing reluctantly dormant social wedge issue politics will not serve to improve participatory political pluralism. Such easily avoided political malpractice energizes the most anti-liberal democratic, anti-Enightenment forces and gives them legitimacy.
Whether it temporarily benefits the electoral fate of a single individual is completely besides the point. Only neophytes look at this in the temporary tweet blip landscape. Giving voice to these forces needlessly will de-stablize and echo in politics beyond today’s 24 news cycle. Amateurs may think this is just a hornets nest within Rightist circles (a) today’s Movement began as ‘just a hornets nest’; (b) MSNBC, San Francisco and the Upper West Side are not the only Democratic weathervanes.
Obama by necessity is not only his own political agent. He — as any president — serves as steward for the fabric and weal of society. Some compromises and concessions are the oxygen for participatory democracy. When that itself is under siege and question, all the more reason to avoid such a Freshman Unforced Error.
Astute observers of American culture and politics know this to be true. This unnecessary political fumble? An augur. And reminder of what ‘victory’ will mean.
Team Obama heralds today’s settlement among 5 banks, the feds and 49 states. $25 billion “to help hard working Americans”. Were that it so.
Under terms of the settlement, the five lenders won’t have to pay out the bulk of the $25 billion. Some $17 billion represents credits applied toward targets lenders have to modify some of the loans on their books. Some of those modifications would have happened anyway. Based on a complex formula, bankers will earn credits on a sliding scale depending on the type of modification. The least costly refinancing methods might earn a lender as little as a nickel on a dollar; the costliest would generate a dollar-for-dollar credit.
And so on. Our old friendly acquaintance Liz Warren observes she “hopes [the settlement] is the beginning, not the end” of efforts to hold banks accountable for their destructive duplicities. Fake sincerity is equally grating, whether from Obama’s toothy visage or Mitt’s coiffed animatronics.
The settlement marks another kind of accounting transfer labeled as a ‘payment’. Mostly, money is merely moved from account to another. In that scheme of faux payments, California wins big. “$18 billion” in “payments” out of the “$25 billion paid”.
The real beneficiaries — as we know — are in fact the banks, not American citizens. A few specific Americans will benefit from the settlement’s narrow targeting. But the banks pay out almost nothing.
The State AGs posture saying the real victory is that banks will run the foreclosure mills with less blatant disdain for maintaining mere pretenses. Appearances must be maintained – that’s our victory. Americans who were evicted by bank fraud within a specific window – Jan 1, 2008-Dec. 2011 – will receive. . . $1,500. But hey, banking executives obtain some protection for liability. Turn that frown upside down!
What Barry announced is actually what Mitt Romney has been promising – expedite foreclosures, clear them out, fix ‘em up and sell/rent. Realtors are on board with that. The liquid class are too, expanding holdings, buying at the bottom. Banks can now begin clearing overhang, improve their balance sheets. All needed, we are told, to improve the economy and get lending going again.
Except, of course, banks have essentially free money (ours, in almost zero interest accounts) and from the fed. And lend it out at obscene multiples – forget about gouging us using our money with debit card fees. Moreover, the banks’ current balance sheets are almost wholly separate from corporate America’s refusal to invest or spend over $2 trillion in idle cash. So let’s stop lying to ourselves.
Americans are trapped in upside down mortgages to the tune of $750 billion. This settlement will not apply to more than 5% of that market malfunction. And contrary to what politicians say, the very (slight) incentives in the Settlement further encourage banks not to help those remaining trapped underwater, even (especially) if completely current.
Those Americans and others are left behind, drowned out by photo ops and press conferences. Their distress and its resolution will have far greater impact on (a) returning economic growth; (b) a vibrant (as opposed to moribund functional) real estate market; and (c) ultimately the banks’ own well being. How inconvenient of them.
No one here likely would argue that a functioning real estate market responding to true market signals isn’t essential for the economy. Healthy (but not predatory) banking still eludes us, too.
Because that, ladies and gentlemen, is just what went down – millions of Americans thrown under the bus for optics and the possibility — maybe — of helping bank balance sheets.
Interesting to hear some conversations among the permanent Republican/Movement D.C. class begin to mutter that *they* would be better off with an Obama victory. He is fundraising gold. The 501(c)(4)s, consulting firms and the like have never seen profits or budgets like this. Hillary in pants suits, toting Vince Foster wrapped in a rug from love nest to public park days? Chump change. Obama has made them personally wealthy.
The reasoning is simple. A second term by definition peters out in less than 18 months. He’s already a convulsive caver. Besides, Obama is thumbs up on the bombing brown people front. Sam’s recent comment about the British tourists deported simply for using British slang about partying in America on Twitter gets a grudging nod for abusing executive power.
The car wreck in leadership fighting across the House and Senate Republican minority? More time to get ducks in a row. Assuming they at least hold on the House.
A Romney presidency by contrast presents unknowns. Access is everything. Which of them will be able return to the roles they were accustomed to under Bush? Feelings are running hard now. Robo calls that Romney is against kosher food won’t be forgotten. Worse? How will he govern? Like GHWB and propose something crazy and sensible like the ADA? Sununu, Romney’s attack dog, after all as GHWB CoS famously said “We have mortgages, not ideologies.”
The country and even government may be in decadent disarray. The above may be idle musing. Tribalism may trump all in a clear need to witness ‘destruction’. But Obama’s unquestionably been very very good to a surprising strata.
And self interest? What could be more emblematic of our times?
And it still won’t end. Neither Romney nor Gingrich left any rhetorical or robo call tactical nuclear device undetonated. Every canine in the American Southeast has tinnitus from the whistles. There’s no ’11′ on the dial. It’s astonishing.
In one sense it’s 2008 again but not HRC/Boy King. Huckabee recall took his grudge match with McCain to the bitter-most end. And he got a sweet TV deal and a new Florida bling-worthy crib out of it. Not bad for a few months of real work.
Newt’s already outside the Huckabee zone, denouncing justifiably the (remarkably feeble) ‘Republican establishment’. Besides, Fox wouldn’t be the end goal. Newt’s closing in on 70 and got ‘F U’ money already. And Ailes for his part has Glenn Beck’s rise and fall as fresh, cautionary memory. Although, Newt probably could rock a blackboard into Salvador Dali territory.
So how far can pique take Newt? He declared in his defiant (but undeniably weaker from exhaustion) election night he’s going on to every state. The New Newt MK XX’s a populist now. And wants moderates and Democrats (?) to join him. It’s so ON with the ‘Establishment’.
Veteran Newt watchers can place bets on how soon he petulantly turns on ‘Republicans’ in general. A small line, easily crossed any morning with a low sugar balance. From there, Americans themselves are unworthy of his genius? That only he can reclaim ‘American Civilization’ by ‘revolution’? He’s already thinking that right now.
What we wonder is what’s left for Romney or Gingrich to say? What attack left unsaid? What sleezy robo call unmade?
The Romney and Newt Florida election nite speeches make clear it’s Newt who retains the initiative to further radicalization. He alone would unhesitatingly hand out gasoline with glee. To burn his last bridge behind. How embarrassing should he discover he’s down to his last match. And simply whiffs out.
What do you think? Will Newt bow to traditional political realities? Or pursue his radicalism to its internally logical end?
If today’s GOP primary was a Japanese horror supernatural anime (all rights with respective owners). In both the Movement and Japanese imagination, conveniently blonde hair plays an outsized role. We think Ms. Base Babe definitely should pack, and it’s nice the pointy-headed-liberal here is wearing glasses. Probably went to a better school than Newt.
Issue No.1s are always tricky – introducing the main characters and the hero’s initial journey. While keeping a menace on the horizon. So did we miss anyone? Possibly in the Campbell tradition, the older mentor who must die for the hero to move on. That came to mind.
Leave suggestions for Issue No. 2 below.
Life sometimes offers tableaux of quirky juxtapositions if we look. Take last nite’s crushingly dull GOP primary debate. Serendipity turned a rote debate into a biting mashup with campy social commentary.
We bailed on the debate 10 minutes in. Scanning cable, the universe began to speak. A previously ignored channel (Movieplex? Plexamovie? Realplex?) ran the 1967 classic “Valley of the Dolls” (“dolls” referring to barbiturates). The movie (and underlying book) follow 3 single women in post-war New York showbiz from innocent enthusiasm, staggering quantities of alcohol, the aforementioned ‘dolls’ to swinging Hollywood and . . . nobody really comes to a good end. Perfect for the debate.
We switched back and forth between the two. “Dolls” is widely celebrated as so awful it might be surreal art. The Republican debate as backing track gave it a certain gravitas, too. For example, one of the 3 women, “Neely” (played by Patty Duke (who used to have her own show for kids who don’t remember B&W TV) and said loosely to be based on Judy Garland) is undeniably gifted. But also fantastically self-destructive, grandiose, destructive, untruthful, unfaithful and manipulative.
Did we mention destructive? So basically Newt. Oh universe, it’s as if you were watching CNN, too.
When Neely began a scene of drug-fuelled lunacy (including a spell in the pre-Betty Ford celeb rehab ‘sanitarium’) time to watch the debate for Newtisms. Sadly, Newt couldn’t match Patty Duke’s scenery chewing firepower. Not that we’d suggest anyone debate nationally on drugs, alcohol and grandiosity. Although at least one of them worked for Newt before.
One of Neely’s friends, Anne, proper, from New England and money, tried to fit in. Swing with the show business thing. She barely saves her life by fleeing Hollywood and embracing New ENgland home, family and friends. Her screen time? Cue to check in on Mitt.
Romney’s expectations are now so low that simply showing some signs of life makes people grant him a round. (Bachmann’s debate coach, written up on the WaPo as the “Candidate Whisperer” during her rise and despised deeply by her staff and inner circle also got alot of perhaps undeserved credit – what can 2 days on the job really do?). Still, Romney exposed Newt as the Pander Bear, a new port for South Carolina, a new ‘moon colony’ for the space coast.
Finally, the lovely Sharon Tate is Jennifer, the third friend in the triumvirate. We exclude her from this exercise with the heartbreaking knowledge we all have of what was to come shortly. Especially given the character’s tragic end.
Switching channels – while not instant – created strange sentence hand offs – A “Dolls” character begins to rant against ‘show business’ which segues naturally on CNN into media denunciation. Declarations of “I am not going to apologize for my talent!” are a smooth handover to “I am proud to have made money with LBOs”, etc. When Neely becomes particularly drug dependent and screaming for help, her agent’s prescription for tough love cued up Ron Paul, albeit less avuncular – Neely just needs to shut down the Federal Reserve.
The nite’s best line may belong to the Concierge of the Situation Room to Ron Paul: “What do you do when Raoul Castro calls?” “Ask him why he’s calling.”
With just a little work on the beats, it was almost Clouseau-level: “Does your dewg bite?” “No” GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRR “I thought you said your dewg does not bite!” “That’s not my dog.”
What’s the best way you’ve ever watched a debate?
Newt’s many faults are discussed everywhere.
So it’s impressive how little people get Newt. Even while talking about him ad nauseum.
Newt’s actually a chemist, of a sort. His favored (and necessary) efforts are to turn politics into their most gaseous state, that is to say radicalized and unpredictable. Amorphous. In this sense he truly is the anti-Romney and vice versa.
As a chemist, Newton Leroy Gingrich’s accelerant always is expediency. Look at the major events of his life. Expediency defines him from his first divorce through his calamitous years as Speaker to now running against LBOs and runaway judges. (An old acquaintance helped write that 52 page whackadoodle thing; if our experience writing for Newt is any guide he skimmed the intro then scrawled “Good effort, keep pushing. Newt.”)
Years from now, will people really know we ever had a ‘Great Recession?’ How? Will those two words resonate a concrete sense of time and crisis? Or be just another meme football, drawing meaning from shadows cast by shifting contexts?
They can’t know because we today refuse to talk about the Great Recession in its granular reality. We’re a people compulsively determined to pretend it’s not happening.
Of course, there’s ‘talk’. Our lives every day are filled with tactical fluff. Snarky tweets. Cable news opinion – millionaire teleprompter readers solemnly reading economic numbers like a professional sports summary. The next Obama sound byte merges with the next Republican Debate in a vortex of detachment.
Ephemera. All of it flitting like lifespans of summer fireflies. Easily interchangeable by . . . Tebow, crashed cruise ships, whether Vanity Fair some magazine bleats is Zooey Deschanel ‘over’? And so on.
That is not how (healthy) societies memorialize and create legacies about one of the great catastrophes of the modern era, the Great Recession.
Recent Comments