FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Mitt’s Bad Week

by ROB URIE

It was Spring of 2010, less than a year after the official end of the last recession but still deep in the throes of the Great Recession, that Barack Obama’s ‘deficit commission’ met for the first time. With close to twenty-five million people unemployed or underemployed and the number living in extreme poverty rising quickly, Mr. Obama’s central economic concern was cutting government spending. ‘Entitlements,’ rather than bankers, militarists and tax cheats, were bankrupting the country. And the co-Chairs of the commission he appointed had the solution: cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and corporate taxes and reduce government regulation of business.

With the faux surprise and opportunistic rants that met Mitt Romney’s 47% ‘dependent / victims’ comments, who noticed that none in his audience challenged them? And who among those who have read similar statements (link) from Barack Obama’s ‘deficit’ commission believes that Mr. Obama’s big-money supporters are of different mindsets than Mr. Romney’s? It was these very same people in Mr. Romney’s audience who Barack Obama had dedicated his first term in office to serving. And in fact, Mr. Romney’s comments were only the proverbial tip of the iceberg when it comes to the divergent descriptions of reality that the ruling class adheres to.

Within the cloistered walls of Manhattan and official Washington the belief system that sustains the true ‘dependent’ class of bankers, corporate executives and their servants in government finds unfettered voice. The Federal government caused the housing crisis by forcing bankers to make home loans to poor people. The Federal government caused the Great Recession by incurring too much debt in order to sustain the ‘entitlement’ classes. Excessive regulation caused the financial meltdown of 2008. The unemployed are so because unemployment benefits provide them with comfortable lives without their having to work. The rich are rich because they’ve worked harder for it than everyone else.

The self-satisfied declamations against Mr. Romney’s comments by Democrats and their supporters depend on near complete ignorance of Mr. Obama’s actual policies while in office. Who in Mr. Romney’s audience, including Mr. Romney, benefited from the unconditional bank bailouts that Obama Generals Geithner, Summers and Bernanke orchestrated? Who among them stand to benefit from Mr. Obama’s top-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement that seals the power of international capital over labor and environmental regulations? And who among them stand to benefit from Mr. Obama’s build-out of the domestic infrastructure of surveillance, policing and the legal framework needed to crush rebellion? As Mitt Romney is in the process of demonstrating, it is clearly Barack Obama who is the more effective tool for promoting ruling class interests.

Mr. Romney’s critics don’t appear to have asked why the ruling class has such fundamentally different explanations of the state of the world than many of the rest of us? Part of the answer is undoubtedly that people who spend their lives at $50,00 per plate fundraisers communicate almost exclusively with other people who spend their lives at $50,000 per plate fundraisers. The views developed in such rarified confines are not very often put to a test. How many of these same fundraisers has Mr. Obama held? And Mr. Romney’s comments certainly appear self-serving, conceived to salve the psyches of a class who in 2008 may have felt at some risk of seeing their wealth and prestige disappear in a puff of smoke in the financial meltdown of that year. But between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, who was it that unconditionally revived their fortunes with bank bailouts while leaving twenty-five million people under / unemployed and forty-six million so poor they qualify for food stamps?

Mitt Romney’s public persona is exactly as he is—a deeply clueless aristocrat born to wealth and power who’s political interests lie exclusively with those of his class (and race). And his views, as with those of his class, are based on his experience of the world. That many of the rest of us, including Barack Obama, have lived experience quite different from Mr. Romney’s provides us with perspectives different from his. And therein lies the rub—which can better sell the agenda of the ruling class: a conspicuously clueless aristocrat who wears his self-interest on his sleeve or a skilled technocrat who can speak the language of ‘the people’ while serving these same interests? A quick speculation is, with the internal contradictions embedded in current historical / economic circumstance, a Romney Presidency would sink the fortunes of the ruling class for at least a generation. And the downside, in which a lot of poor and working class people would disproportionately suffer from such an outcome, faces the fact that we are several decades into declining circumstance—at what point is open rebellion forced?

This last question isn’t rhetorical—as a participant in the Occupy Wall Street actions this past week, the outsized police presence was testament to a ruling class in a developed stage of panic. I’m referring not just to the number of police but also to the defensive infrastructure that was built to protect the ruling class institutions in lower Manhattan—fortifications fifteen deep around the Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve Bank. And while it is unwise to frame reality by one’s political opposition, some in the ruling class are obviously taking the threat of effective rebellion seriously. Barack Obama can apparently pass warm gas about ‘inclusion’ and his liberal and progressive minions seem to forget his actual policies. And when Mitt Romney says straightforwardly what Barack Obama’s big-money supporters believe it is used as a political ‘gotcha’ against Mr. Romney rather than the education in class struggle that it is.

Democrats and their supporters seem to want to continue their role of recent decades as constructive functionaries in a system designed to facilitate and perpetuate the fortunes of an economic elite, a ruling class, which has found ever more effective ways of siphoning off the wealth created by working people and nature while increasing their domination and control over our lives. The results are the largest and most oppressive prison system in the world, the greatest concentration of wealth in the fewest hands in human history, the largest and most deadly military in human history, used to promote the fortunes of the ruling class, and environmental catastrophe.

Discussion of taxation and dependency, which was the departure point of Mr. Romney’s comments, presupposes just, or at least politically defensible, income distribution. And income distribution is an outcome of political ‘negotiation,’ not a fact of nature. The argument put forward by Mr. Romney and his class, with full support from Barack Obama (why else the unconditional bank bailouts?), is that the income it receives is all of the evidence of its social product needed. But all it is evidence of is who won the political negotiation, not who produced the social value. Through his policies Barack Obama has made the rich richer (link) and left liberals and progressives to plea with the rich to give a bit of it back out of ‘kindness.’ Meanwhile, as evidenced by increasing surveillance, militarization of the police and removal of legal restraints, the ruling class is moving ahead with its plans for the next round of ‘negotiations.’

Mitt Romney’s views, and those of his class, are emblematic of the extreme class division that comes with extreme income and wealth division. His lack of political skill is very much a function of his class privilege—he conspicuously has never had to explain himself, witness his refusal to release his tax returns, or his views. But his actual policies would look as much like Barack Obama’s as Barack Obama’s do like George W. Bush’s. Defenders of Mr. Obama’s signature achievement, his scheme to force people to buy health insurance from private insurers that have no intention of willfully paying claims, have Mitt Romney to thank for it—it was his plan. And how would Barack Obama’s unconditional and ongoing bailouts of corrupt bankers have gone over if Wall Street McMoneybags Romney had engineered them? The real choice isn’t what either party is claiming it is. The real choice is between the existing political economy and one that at least stands a chance of working. And neither party is offering that choice.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist in New York.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail