Brand Obama - Four More Years.

As far as I can see there are a hand full of important reasons for Obama's victory that we should keep in mind. We should never kid ourselves that the US is a shining beacon of democracy atop a hill. In this election the American ruling-class had largely no reason to initiate a seat change. This was reflected by the pressure on the Republican Party to churn out a saleable extremist candidate, only to dress up 'moderate' Mitt as 'reactionnaire' Romney - it was a cop-out from the start. I think we'll probably find from analysis of the campaign funding that Obama had a lot more institutional capital behind, while irrational types like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers poured cash into Romney's doomed campaign. This may indicate that the composition of capital may be even more important than the actual concentration of wealth. Romney was chosen given his record for stable continuity and adaptability, if he lost it wasn't a big deal - the real opportunity for the GOP is 2016 and I suspect that is well understood in the belly of the Republican beast.

There is some evidence to suggest that voter-turnout was actually lower than in 2008, with a difference of maybe 10 million votes give or take. I suspect that the majority of voters were mobilised on the basis of cultural fears of either candidate, while the liberal vote went automatically for the Democrats and the rest stayed home. This is the standard culture war theory of American politics. It's possible that the Tea Party voters were even put-off by Romney, difficult to say at this point. It was a matter of continuity, of maintaining the status quo. Here we find the slim majority of votes converged with an enormous exercise of financial power on the part of the bourgeoisie to bloat Obama's campaign chest, thereby enabling him to reach as many voters as possible. The lesser evilism of Michael Moore and Bill Maher triumphed as there was no perceived left-wing alternative to Obama. But it was more about the defeat of the Right, it was a negative victory and not positive in other words. Putting aside cultural issues, there is the materialist issue of immigration.

Much has been made of the changing ethnic makeup of America, specifically the burgeoning Latino-American population. It's even been predicted that the US will not be a majority white country in a matter of decades. It's worth noting that the impact this could have on the Republican Party, given that it's share of the Hispanic vote collapsed from 44% for Bush in 2004 to 27% in 2012. It was partly due to Romney's own inconsistency, his warming to the most reactionary positions on abortion and homosexuality could not reconcile the Catholic vote given his endorsement of racist policies on Mexican immigration. These votes eventually went to the Obama campaign. Bush had managed to appeal to a broad Catholic base with socially conservative positions on gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research. Notably Bush maintained a moderate position on immigration and even produced an absurd campaign ad in which he claimed to be proud of his 'Latino heritage'. So we've seen that this contradiction might only be resolved by burning a policy plank or two.

 

It remains to be seen whether or not the GOP will moderate it's positions in order to appeal to a much wider base. It's plausible that the Republicans will get crazier and crazier as their voters get whiter. But it is also possible that they will have to concede ground in order to gain greater influence. After all that is the major priority of the Party's primary constituent, namely the American bourgeoisie. This is an instance of the capitalist system undermining it's own interests ultimately. It was the US that has enforced an appalling economic programme on Mexico and Latin America, that has led to Hispanics migrating north just to earn a mediocre living. The militarisation of the border offers only a way to temporarily mobilise a shrinking white voter-base, but the question of Latin-American voter-base still looms large. It's out of the realm of the possible for the Republicans to seek to improve the economic conditions in Mexico in order to limit immigration. The same goes for the prospect of a unionisation of Mexican immigrants.

 

In either case these measures would improve the living standards of Latin-Americans, yet it's also the case that the rising number of Latinos may be inevitable. To put it briefly, America will be skin deep for many years to come. I digress, I've already noted that it was the logic of the lesser evil that was behind a great deal of left-wing support for Obama, but there's another angle here. The late Alexander Cockburn argued in 2010 that Obama may actually be more susceptible to left-wing pressure than Clinton, so the problem is that there's not much of a Left left in America to push the Democrats around. There may be some hope in the charged discourse we now live with thanks to Occupy Wall Street. For a long time it looked as though the era of a lively culture of organised and disciplined politics is dead in the US. We should not kid ourselves that with Occupy Wall Street this era will be reborn. We might hope that the discourse has been impregnated with a certain potential. Though there needs to be something more than a lively grass-roots base to win this thing.

Really Existing Democracy.

The incumbent President has come out of the Democratic National Convention smiling only to be confronted with upheaval in the Middle East. Yet the approval rating of the candidates, the atmospheric desperation and mediocre speeches of the Conventions are more or less irrelevant. As Mark Hanna would remind us "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember the second." Follow the money and you'll find the winner. It was Bush who outspent his opponents in 2000 and 2004, he didn't even need to win over enough votes - the cash was enough. When Obama got in there was a gap of over $400 million between his campaign and McCain's. Incidentally the Obama campaign won the award for the best marketing campaign of 2008. What's the situation in 2012? It was predicted that campaign contributions would exceed $1 billion. So far Romney had raised over $193 million whereas Obama had raised almost $350 million.

What does all of this signify? Well it's important to take from this that the United States is not really a democracy in the strict sense. Instead it might be better understood as a polyarchy. Polyarchy can be understood as a system in which a multiplicity of political parties - who represent a coterie of powerful interests - compete with one another to govern the society. The political class faces a dual constituency, in which the needs and wants of the poor come second to the needs and wants of the rich. The convergence of interests plays a huge role in political concessions and development in general. But we can debate the extent to which interests overlap and produce a particular outcome. After all, there is an opposition within capitalist relations between the interests of workers and bosses. The political processes may even be seen as purely managerial in this sense, the working-class has to be managed in such a way as to slot into a mandate.

It seems more or less compatible with Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of politics, where the political parties represent blocs of investors. The standard split in American politics can be drawn between high-tech capital intensive and low-tech labour intensive business, the latter being more nationally oriented than the former. The Republican Party responds to the interests of a specific slice of American capital, which seeks to drive down labour costs through anti-union measures and insulate itself from foreign competition. By contrast the Democratic Party was capable of the New Deal because it represented a portion of capital which could tolerate unionisation that would leave it unscathed. It's worth noting that the major support for Franklin Roosevelt came out of banking and oil. So the New Deal reforms could scathe the interests of industrialists to improve the living standards of workers because it did little to harm the interests of finance and energy.

There are said to be ten lobbyists for every member of Congress looking to shoot down any attempt at significant financial regulation. That's not all. The situation has worsened since then and the Obama campaign accepted over $745 million in 2008 and the campaign team went on to win an award for the best marketing campaign of 2008. Since then the Supreme Court has removed all obstacles to even greater corporate influence on elections and has legalised the unrestricted flow of corporate dough into the campaign war-chests. We shouldn't forget that the Bush administration set a major precedent in US history. Bush did not need to win over the electorate to attain office, the immense support from Big Business was enough and the US Supreme Court made sure the interests of Corporate America were not opposed in the election. At least there may be cause for celebration in the fact that the contributions have not yet reached $1 billion as predicted.

Democracy and Socialism.

In my essay on polyarchy I only addressed narrow questions of American liberal democracy with the Bush administration as a principle example. There are much more interesting questions raised by the concept. It's very easy to scrutinise the democratic institutions of capitalist society, but it is less clear what position should be drawn from such a critique. After all the notion of polyarchy picks away at the liberal ideal of representative democracy and seems to push us towards notions of a radical democracy. This is all especially relevant to socialists, who lack a theory of government - that's the breach that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' filled in the 20th Century. It's easy to dismiss vanguardism, but it's less clear where to head next if we want to retain our commitment to socialism. It could be that this is just a matter of transition. In defence of historical materialism GA Cohen wrote of communism as freedom from social structure. It's possible to see radical democracy as consistent with such a notion.

I turned to my friend Chris Horner on this matter and first made a few clarifications "Well, from a Marxist perspective, class is abolished altogether - after a transitional period (socialism) to a point at which class antagonism no longer exists: proletariat abolishes itself at the same time." Before adding "So the way Marx envisaged it was that democracy would be vastly enhanced by socialism - in the interests of the proletariat - and the bourgeoisie would be in the state of the current proletarians - i.e., unable to use economic power to enforce de facto 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'. Would this be polyarchy? Possibly, but only briefly." He went further to stress that Karl Marx was never all that clear about this, though all Marxists seem to see the class struggle continuing after the revolution for a period. I recall that Mao pointed out that the ruling party can take on the role of the ruling-class after the revolution and so opens up the need for a mass-movement to undermine the party-state apparatus.

It's worth noting that Karl Marx thought it would be much easier for the working-class to achieve victories, to some extent, through the fledgling Parliamentary institutions of Europe. The dichotomy between the promise of grass-roots democracy and a sort of Hobbesian reaffirmation of statehood. The former has the comforting appeal of ultra-leftism while the latter takes the contrarian line in its unreconstructed defence of a strong state. It seems pertinent that the vanguardists have little use for concepts such as polyarchy. Instead you might tend to find more simplistic talk of oligarchy and plutocracy. This is where the Left is problematically sectarian, its inability to sustain fine differences. Rousseau had seemed to favour an egalitarian variety of an 'elective aristocracy', which could be seen as a version of representative or delegative democracy. Then there's the accusation that this is just 'reformist' meandering out of the revolutionary project. Yet it's very clear that the capitalist system can only be overthrown through revolution.
 

You could interpret the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a sort of polyarchy given it's representative composition of prevailing economic interests. Chris went on to say "The range of opinions is represented (as they are in liberal society), but the bourgeoisie no longer has its hands on the levers of economic power. Ultimately a radical democracy develops in a context in which class no longer exists. Again, I wish Marx had said more about this, but maybe he was being wisely cautious. That doesn't mean socialists of all stripes shouldn't think hard about what a democracy actually is!" Another friend of mine once joked that the ultimate victory over capitalism will be signified by the lack of presence of officially socialist/communist parties, as well as the insignificant presence of tiny capitalist parties that will never take power. There's some truth in this as it points at hegemony and that's something that the polyarchy model definitely appeals to. This is where we need theory more than ever.

Democracy as a revolutionary Ideal.

In the work of Rousseau there is a tension between the democratic conception of general will as what the citizens of the state have decided together and the transcendental conception where general will is the incarnation of the citizens' common interest in abstraction from what any of them actually want. We might simply designate this as the tension as between the democratic and the vanguardist. The latter could be taken as a precursor to the Leninist response to the question "What is to be done?" But the former does not belong to any liberal monopoly as Marx took the state as a product of class antagonisms and a tool of domination rather than democratic governance. For the reason that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, inequalities and injustice are concealed behind a veil of formal equality, freedom and rights. The elections are free with a plurality of choices for a voter. But there is no standard of these choices, they could all be the same. Then there is the cynicism which opens up a gap between what people want and the votes they cast. This is more like really existing democracy than anything like the ideal itself.

In one instance, Rousseau lays down a criterion to which no existing state can legitimate itself and only through the transformation of these states can they come closer to the ideal. This is where Rousseau corresponds with the anarchist tradition. The legitimacy of the state is grounded on the right conditions and right procedures whereby citizen legislators converge on laws which correlate with the common interest. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Rousseau favoured an elective aristocracy as the best kind of government. Funnily enough, the elective aristocracy simultaneously has characteristics which overlap with those of the revolutionary vanguard and really existing democracy. It is an elected class which imposes and enforces the law, not much different from an administration really. We might see this as a bourgeois aspect of Rousseauian thought, but we could also see it as the eternal return of the same after a revolutionary break with the past. We should note that the structures of representation were few and limited in Rousseau's life time. He was dreaming of something that had not been seen since Ancient Greece.

It isn't much talked about the Greek experiment with participatory democracy came about after a long struggle which finally tipped in the favour of small farmers after the advent of iron-based equipment. The landowners had sought expansion through debt-bondage, which ensnared small farmers into arrangements that would leave them without land or freedom if they could not repay the loan. At the time iron was in abundance and the production process was simple to master, so it became very easy to produce iron weapons in Greece. The small farmers could then form militias, with the peasants serving as infantry and rowers on warships. The aristocracy had long had the monopoly on violence because it had held onto bronze. The convergence of such forces led to a series of popular uprisings which brought down a dictatorship and the successive aristocracy before going on to defeat the Spartans who intervened on the side of the aristocrats against the uprising. The radical democracy practiced in Athens was to last for almost two centuries.

The vision laid out in The Social Contract precedes the split between communist and anarchist thought. We find that this egalitarian vision seems to presuppose the abolition of the existing order at the time of which Rousseau was writing. Rousseau may not have seen the necessity of an intermediary phase of development before this kind of social order could be established. Moral freedom as non-subjection presupposes the elimination of dependency, whereby the individual becomes autonomous and can submit to a self-prescribed order. The attainment of civil freedom precedes this, it is the freedom guaranteed by its limits set by the general will. Out of this emerges moral freedom as a bi-product rather than the end goal of the established order. The general will being composed of our true interests, which means that our individual will slots into it and we remain autonomous. This could be interpreted as a kind of enlightened egoism, we pay taxes in order to maintain systems from which we all benefit and thereby we can go about our individual pursuits.

This could presuppose a democratic system insofar as it seems to lead us to the view that the citizenry should be bound by the laws which they participated in making. It wouldn't necessarily be so if we take the general will to be the abstraction of class interests from the class unconscious. It may be that the general will is initially the transcendental vanguard before it evolves into the democratic conception. The Rousseauian parallel being the transition from civil to moral freedom, though this is no teleology as the civil does not give way to the moral for the sake of it. Not like where socialism undoes itself in order to establish communism. The abolition of the existing order of things seems necessary to break apart the subjection of workers to dependency on capitalists. The working-class are rinsed of all value by capitalists and in return receive a small portion of the overall profits to live on. The capitalist class can discard people at whim, but they ultimately need people to squeeze dry. The breakdown of the dependency of the rich on the poor and the poor on the rich seems to be in accordance with the idea of communism in Capital - where Marx writes of communism as the rule of the associated producers. 

We can see the differences with Rousseau's vision and the really existing democracies in which we live. It seems utopian and potentially totalitarian to us. Opposition to the framework itself would not be tolerated for the reason that it would undermine the entire framework. But this is true of a liberal democracy, the entire structure cannot be undermined by opposition to the fundamentals of capitalism. There is opposition to the extent that the system can extend itself into, the competition of parties just embody the contours of interests amongst the ruling-class. You can't simply establish a competing social order from within a liberal society. Unlike in the liberal framework there is no exception for an exploitative minority or exploited majority. The exception might only be implicit, as the space carved out for slavery was by the "natural inferiority" of slaves accepted at the time. Equality and freedom were for a specific set of men. This is where the other exception comes in less implicit form, JS Mill wrote of the 'tyranny of the majority' in defence of the forms of subjection which Rousseau wanted to eliminate.

In a rare discussion on Newsnight in 2010 about socialism Tony Benn praised democracy as the most revolutionary idea of all. The reasoning being that it is a way for working-class people to participate in the decisions which have long been monopolised by the rich and the powerful. This huge concentration of economic power exists outside of the formal structures of Parliamentary democracy has to be fought against. This is the reason that Bennism - if it can described as a coherent set of ideas - is a blended mix of democratic socialism and syndicalism. The role of the trade union in the building of workers' control of the means of production in gradual democratic steps rather than the revolutionary seizure. So the ballot box becomes a part of an arsenal of weapons that the working-class can reach for in the battle to emancipate itself. The radical democracy proposed by Benn and others may not pose as a sufficiently practical alternative to the representative model of advanced capitalist societies. But it remains a cutting tool of critique in a time ripe for change.

The League of Ugly Gentlemen.

The Time for Populism.

The very suggestion that there is a ruling-class might be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". It would no doubt be met with rage from some who would unroll the accusation that this is just a backward attempt to take us back to the politics of class. Because apparently we have moved beyond class and into an age where all the old battles have been won. Nothing will ever change for the reason that all the necessary changes have already been accomplished. Even as the British elite hold around £4 trillion in the form of antiques, paintings and pensions, to speak of 'class' is to resurrect flat-earth politics. This huge concentration of wealth in a few hands is not unique to our little island. The total liquid wealth of the global rich (around 10 million people) came to $40 trillion in 2009 and it has been increasing in spite of the crisis. In the advanced capitalism of today, we are led to believe, the class structure has been obliterated and the individual now rises in accordance with their own merit, specifically talents and work ethic.

There was an interesting study covered in the New Scientist on the matter of a global ruling-class. In an analysis of the relations between 43,000 multinational corporations it has become evident that a relatively small group of companies that hold onto a disproportionate amount of power in the global economy. The work revealed a core of 1,318 companies with interlocking ownerships. On average each of these companies had connected to around 20 other companies. These 1,318 companies represented 20% of global operating revenues and it appears that the 1,318 own through shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing corporations - representing a further 60% of global revenues. The team went further to untangle the network and found that just less than 150 companies control 40% of the wealth in the entire network. The dominant companies include Barclay's Bank, JP Morgan Chase & Co and Goldman Sachs. In light of all of this can we really maintain that the idea of a ruling-class is so outlandish? 

The British elites still carry some of the remnants of the privileged position that they held in the old feudal power-structure. Consequently, the political class has not yet gotten used to ratifications, not even at the symbolic level which the Americans "enjoy" so much. This is the reason that the Americans have a much stronger Freedom of Information act than Britain. Of course, the US has a sophisticated network of mass-media and public relations which muddies the water to keep a great deal of Americans in the dark. There is a similar network in Britain, except we lack the same formidable free access to information. The consequence is that the insights into the political and ruling-class are much more difficult to come by. Occasionally the information seeps out of the liberal end of the mass-media press, to the chagrin of the reactionary gutter-press who would rather announce the triumph of socialism than acknowledge the bitter truth of class and deplore the horrors of capitalism. The discourse is casually limited by the influences and interests that ensnare the media.

So we know that the Conservative Party received £7.3 million in the campaign for 2010, while Labour received around £5.3 million. Since David Cameron became party leader we know that the Party has received £42 million from financial institutions, over half of the total donations that the Party received altogether. This is chicken feed compared to the US elections where the outcome is always pre-bought, Obama received around $750 million which is $400 million more than his opponent. In 2012 it seems we will see campaign contributions surpass $2 billion thanks to a decision by the US Supreme Court. We should view the corporate circus run-amok in the American government with wary eyes in Britain. The tales of the links between Tories and the private sector should not surprise anyone, nor should the proximity of lobbyists to power even at the highest level in this country. Out of the convergence of interests invested in the state we find policy emerges, there is a potential for political stagnation as well as radical change. Right now the situation is one of stagnancy.

The Labour Party has often been thought incompatible with the Conservative Party for the reason that the former is embedded in the labour movement, whereas the latter has long been the party of business. It has to be noted that the decline of trade unions in this country as a political force has made it possible for Big Business to share the Labour Party with them. As long as the unions are powerless then it is possible for Big Business to dominate the Party, the clashes of interests can be easily managed. It has to be noted that the industries unscathed by union-influence at all are impervious to the decisions of militants and moderates alike in the labour movement. This is the reason that it is perfectly possible for financial institutions to hold out for the Labour Party. The financial colossus cannot be broken by the labour movement and it cannot be stopped from leaping from Labour to Conservative whenever it has to. The commentariat don't like to say that the Con-Dem Coalition could have easily been the Lab-Con Coalition.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, the overall effect of the Treasury's new plans will be to reduce the incomes of those in the bottom 30% of earners and to benefit those in the top 60%. The top 60% would include the 10% of the population who own £4 trillion in wealth already and this is the primary constituency of the Coalition. It is not that the government is incapable of serving the people, it is that the government has a dual constituency torn between the interests of working-class people and the elites. So any appeal to one has to be made to the other at the same time, often on the terms of the constituents with greater clout and influence. This is the reason that David Cameron will talk of "muscular liberalism" and the "failure" of multiculturalism as an appeal to working-class people riled up by the press about Muslims and immigration. It is perfectly compatible with the austerity measures which are set to destroy what was accomplished in the immediate aftermath of World War II. To put it crudely the economic policies appeal to a particular base while the social policies and political rhetoric appeal to the masses.

Obamarama - the Republican Drama.

Starve the Beast.

The talks between the Democratic administration and the Republican leadership have broken down just days before the deadline for the decision on the ceiling on borrowing for $14.3 trillion. There is the real possibility of an American default for the first time in the country's history. The results of which could be catastrophic for the US economy and other economies around the world. The shock-jocks and attack dogs have been out of control for years. We can hear Rush Limbaugh yelling that the GOP can't cave in or Obama will be re-elected in 2012. The negotiations will effect the next 10 years of American life, which might be the reason for the stalemate initiated by the Republicans as there could be a Republican administration in office by then. The policies initiated in the next 10 years will effect the pretext for a second Republican term in 2020. A huge surplus would provide the means for another round of tax-cuts, which would in turn create another deficit and the means to cut even further into programmes for the poor.

Just a couple of days ago Larry Elliot thought that the Republicans are not serious about tipping the US economy over the edge and taking the global economy down into recession once more. Rather the GOP will push this as far as they can and walk away after Obama has made major concessions (which he already has). The GOP will allow the debt-ceiling to be raised but in a way which is satisfying for the Tea Party. If the government was actually shut down as it was briefly in the 1990s it functioned to make Bill Clinton look like a statesman and raised his popularity among the electorate. Today 67% of Americans support Obama in his approach to taxes and spending on this issue. It is possible that the Republicans are looking to walk a fine line between a disaster which would only benefit the Democrats and a cop-out that will leave the Tea Party outraged. It is a serious possibility that the GOP are willing to instigate an economic crisis for indirect political gains, Obama has conceded an awful lot already and there will be a Republican administration in office by 2017.

The organs of the Republican machine have been about a "Starve the Beast" fiscal strategy for a long time, which differs from Goldwater conservatism in that taxes are cut in order to secure lower levels of spending. The approach actually generates huge amounts of debt as spending easily exceeds tax-revenues that have been slashed to bits for the benefit of about 1% of Americans. But this is part of the grand plan as the debt then acts as a means to call for more spending cuts. Keep in mind the huge changes in fiscal policy over the past few decades. In 1950 taxes on corporate profits accounted for 38% of tax revenue and by the 1990s it had been shrunk to 10%. Over the same time period income tax for the highest earners was chiseled from 91% in the 1950s to 28% in the 80s, with the 1990s marked out by a moderate tax increase. Now there is a moderate tax rise on the table, as the Democrats are arguing for a ratio of 83:17 cuts to taxes in tackling the debt whereas Republicans think a ratio of 85:15 is optimal. The narcissism of fine distinctions if there ever was one.

The Starved Beast.

So we now know how to contextualise John Boehner when he said "In the end, we couldn't connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country." Keep in mind, Boehner is the man who personally handed out checks on the floor of the House to sway a vote on tobacco subsidies and backed the bailouts as he was in the pocket of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. The "Gang of Six" which Boehner belongs to has put forward a plan to cut $3 trillion in spending and to reduce marginal rates in order to relieve the rich of about $1.5 trillion in taxes. The plan aims to reform social security in that the costs of living will be shifted to the extent that the benefits the elderly receive today will be reduced as they get older and older. It is likely that this would lead to a huge rise in impoverished retirees. The premise of necessity of this deal provides a means through which cuts in social security and health-care can be imposed without any fuss from the public. This is the work of the Wall Street wing of the Democrats and the Republican Party as a whole.

At a time when around 45% of Americans oppose tax-cuts for the rich and 55% oppose tax-cuts for corporations, according to a recent Gallup poll. 71% of Americans and 51% of Republicans are opposed to the way the GOP have acted. It's no wonder when you think about. The American tax-payer pays more income tax than General Electric did from 2008 to 2010, when the company paid no taxes and received $4.7 billion from the IRS as it pocketed $7.7 billion in profits. The company has a team of lawyers and accountants working around the clock on ways for GE to avoid taxes altogether. The asses of non-financial companies are sitting on a cushion stuffed with $2 trillion in inert dollars that produce nothing and only earn a minuscule interest. Just 10% of that sum could be used to pump $200 billion into the US economy. Naturally, the Republicans continue to run with the line that the average corporation is overtaxed and actually pays the majority of taxes in the country.

As Ralph Nader has pointed out the 35% statutory tax rate for corporations is an absolute joke. Most corporations are adept at avoiding taxes and do so on a massive scale. These corporations include: American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell, International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo and Yahoo. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice "from 2008 through 2010, these 12 companies reported $171 billion in pre-tax US profits. But as a group, their federal income taxes were negative: $2.5 billion." The actual 35% rate would have raised $59 billion if it had been implemented properly. The highest rate was paid by ExxonMobil over three years it paid over 14%, whilst its net tax rate was a minuscule 0.4% on $9.9 billion in pre-tax profits. Since Obama took office in 2009 as of 2011 there has been a 40% increase in corporate profits. These are the same crowd who'll benefit most out of the "Gang of Six" proposal.

Obamarama - the Deficit Drama.

The Narcissism of Fine Distinctions.

Every serious commentator on US politics is aware of the fact that if you want to know who is about to win the election you should take a close look at campaign funding. Follow the money and you'll separate the loser from the winner in no time. It is the norm in the US that the President is elected from the campaign that receives the most cash. The campaign to re-elect Obama has raised $86 million in the first quarter and the Republican nominees are still in a state of disarray. The GOP is still split between the rightist wing-nut of Bachmann and the unsellable Mormon 'moderatism' of Romney, neither candidate is a realistic contender and collectively the GOP candidates have raised $35 million. There is still time and we'll see if the Republicans can make any headway in coming months, but my guts see a second term for Obama. The current issue of the debt-ceiling has raised signs of what we might see on the campaign trail as well as from the prospective second term for the Democrats.

As pointed out by Shawn Whitney there is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. It is only a minor dispute over the extent to which the rich should contribute to the debt reduction plan. Obama has insisted that there will be trillions of dollars in cuts, no doubt to health-care, welfare and social security without scathing the bloated military budget. The military-industrial complex is untouchable because it functions as corporate welfare, whereas 'handouts' for the poor and elderly is too costly for the state to maintain apparently. Obama has tried to win over the Republicans with a round of spending cuts that amount to $4 trillion, though that much could have been raised had the Bush tax-cuts never been renewed under Obama. The Bush tax-cuts which cost the Treasury trillions of dollars over the last 10 years, at first it benefited many Americans but the number dwindled under the Bushites until only the richest Americans reaped the rewards. That's a real sunset policy!

The coalition government of the UK is running with a ratio of 80:20 in spending cuts to taxes, whereas Republicans found a ratio of 85:15 optimal and then walked out of negotiations after the Democrats only conceded 83:17. The kind of changes needed to make up that 17% would mostly come in the form of closing loopholes in the system. There are Republicans who want 100% spending cuts and no tax increases at all. The stalemate raised the prospect of a forced default on America's debts. Even conservatives have criticised the GOP line on the debt-ceiling as childish and ridiculous because they recognise it is not in the interest of the Republican Party to push for an economic disaster. But it is not the first time that politicians have created fiscal crises in order to initiate a wave of market reforms and austerity measures. This is especially true of the "Starve the Beast" approach of conservative strategists, which is a way of increasing debt to provide a pretext for more cuts to services that assist the poor.

The fact that the Democrats conceded almost the entire plan and it wasn't enough for the Republicans is indicative of the dramatic shift in politics that has occurred in the US over the last 40 years. The Democrats are now what used to be considered moderate Republicans while the Republicans have become even more extreme. In the words of Bill Maher "The Democrats have moved to the Right and the Republicans have moved into a mental hospital." To be even more blunt the American political system is a lot like a plane with two right wings. Noam Chomsky once distinguished between the Republicans and Democrats by noting that the GOP represent the business community in general whilst the Democrats are for Big Business specifically. The White House is looking to gain a 'moderate' platform for 2012, meanwhile the Left and the social democrats can go hang. The Democrats are aware that there is nowhere for the 'moderates' to run and Obama's real problem is how to win over enough of the 'crazies' to prop up a platform crafted for the ultra-rich.

Newt Conservatism for 2012.

The Year of the Newt?

The sins of Newt Gingrich, who would remind us all that marriage is between one man and one woman, include: abandoning your wife riddled with cancer on her hospital bed to fuck the brains out of your next wife whom you later cheat on whilst moralising about the outrageous infidelities of President Clinton - which saved social security. The Newt has been "rehabilitated" in recent years, propelling himself forward on fiscal conservative rhetoric and the discovery of Catholicism. Ultimately this has led Newt to announce his new ambition to succeed Obama as President. Gingrich is the embodiment of the contradictions of American conservatism, strident populism against liberals and intellectuals whilst also a defender of liberalism for the rich. Market liberalism complete with the muscle to stamp on feminists and progressives everywhere. Newt conservatism is really free-markets for the poor and the vulnerable, 'Big Government' for the benefit of business and the mega-rich.

The recent scandal in the news about the $500,000 Newt Gingrich carries in debts to Tiffany's has given liberals room to challenge his "fiscal conservatism". Sadly the way Newt has run Georgia is overlooked, the huge amount of federal subsidies that are poured into Lockheed in Cobb County, Georgia are hardly a state secret. Incidentally Cobb County is almost the biggest recipient of federal subsidies in the US. It would seem criticism of Gingrich's maxed out credit cards is of high value in an age of personalised politics. Similarly the most damaging attacks on the Obama administration from the GOP have been made along personal lines, e.g. Obama is an illegal alien from Kenya and so on. It doesn't take a sophisticated analysis of any kind to support such vilification, merely a few quotes deprived of context, outright lies and crude historical analogies. The liberals will prefer to play the game of trying to stick the "hypocrite" label on the Newt, as if that is the only thing wrong with Newt Gingrich and his particular brand of conservatism.

Federal money on welfare, social security and health-care were fair game to be cut under these conservatives.  Just as in Arizona Jan Brewer and John McCain have cut funding for education and health-care, setting up "death panels" in the state of Arizona. At the same time Brewer has increased the funding for border security and pandering to racist fears with Arizona SB1070, a bill on illegal immigration that could have been drawn up by the American Nazi Party. Even if the Republican resurgence last November does lead to decreasing the size of the government it would only be the transference of power from the state sector to the private sector. In other words, greater power would be moved from bureaucrats and elected representatives in Washington to bureaucrats in corporate blocks of offices. All the while the richest citizens would be enriched even more through regressive tax-cuts, whilst the majority of the population has been hit hard by the recession and has yet to recover.

As part of the Republican resurgence in 2010, John Boehner has resurfaced and risen to Speaker of the House. We might think of Boehner as the sidekick to the Newt, though he could be summed up as just another brash hack for corporate interests. He actually went as far as personally handing out checks for the tobacco industry in Congress to sway an upcoming vote on tobacco subsidies. Boehner also represents the interests of Goldman Sachs, among lots of other companies, which might explain why he voted for the bailouts in 2008. The extent to which Boehner will act to cut public spending and shrink the deficit is highly questionable. Boehner has supported the Bush tax-cuts and the renewal of them by the Obama administration, effectively subsidising the wealthiest of Americans, providing a pretext for yet more cutting in the long term. This is the "starve the beast" mantra of the Republican machine, which would distinguish the Newt from a conservative like Barry Goldwater in that the aim is to increase debt in order to justify further cuts.

The Newt still adheres to the trickle-down theory and will initiate even more tax-cuts, especially for the rich, if he takes office in 2012. Apparently it wasn't enough that the richest 1% of Americans have seen taxes cut from 91% in the 50s down to 28% in the 80s, before they were raised to around 36% in the 1990s. Gingrich wants to eliminate the capital gains tax and abolish inheritance tax, as well as cuts to corporation tax and a shift to a flat tax of 15%. This would cost the Treasury billions, increase debt, hit the poor hardest and leave the fat cats even more bloated than before. Typically the language used by his PR team is vague, with references to a "balanced budget" with no clear laid out plans to make the cuts which will decrease the debt - e.g. defence spending. Instead we can read plenty of platitudes about helping Americans, keeping to national values and letting the fucking Muslims know how it is. Not to mention plenty of talk of 'reform' in regards to entitlements and health-care.

The American people are disillusioned by the hopeless state of the union and as a result the GOP has been able to mobilise a conservative base on family values and gun rights. As the low voter turn out converged with the interests of capital there has been a striking shift away from social democracy and the New Deal. In the mid-term elections of 2010 75% of the population made up 37% of the vote, these are the Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year and typically lean to the Democrats. Just compare this with the 26% of the vote which consisted of the 10% of Americans who make $100,000 a year and lean to the Republicans. Although it is true that a strong Democratic tendency does not necessarily mean that the US is a liberal or left-wing country, because the Democrats are a right-wing party and at best predominantly "moderate" conservative. In the simplistic worldview put forward by the media there is no room for the class dynamic of American elections.

New Gingrich is a part of the Republican tradition of right-wing populism which mobilises the South as a conservative Christian base against the bi-coastal liberal elites of the North. The way he has consistently ran on a platform of baiting the poor against one another, like the way he has called for poor children to be taken from their mothers and placed in orphanages. The way in which he has referred to Obama as a "food-stamp President" is a similar form of baiting, to utilise the racist imagery of black people as a bunch of free-loaders and dangerous criminals against the first administration led by an African-American. He has managed to rehabilitate himself since the sex scandal which scuppered his chances of running for President against the Democrats 10 years ago. His discovery of the Roman Catholic faith in 2009 was a major part of that rehabilitation. But it remains unclear whether such cynical gestures and self-serving spin will pay-off for him and there is still no clear forerunner for the Republican nomination right now.

Thought Food for an American democrat.

 

You might say that the democratic process in the United States is deeply flawed, but I would go further to say that the American political system might be best described as a polyarchy. There are only two choices in a business-run system whereby the candidate who spends the most on advertising, and by extension receives the most funding from corporations, is the most likely to win the election. We saw this in 2008 when Barack Obama beat John McCain in the race to succeed George Bush. Obama had received over $745 million in campaign contributions, predominantly from the same corporations which backed Bush, whilst McCain received just $368 million. Similarly George Bush received nearly $40 million more than John Kerry in 2004 and about $70 million more than Al Gore in 2000. It is worth noting that Bush did not even need to win over the voters in 2000 to win, Corporate America backed him and that was good enough for him to take office.

It has been said that the United States is fundamentally a "conservative country" and furthermore that it is only the bi-coastal elites who are liberals. Similarly there is the notion of the liberal media and the contention that the Left is an elite operation reviled on Main Street America. The Republican Party has repeatedly reinvigorated itself by engineering populist rebellions of the white working-class against liberals in government and in the media. It is true that the most prominent leftists are intellectuals, but that is not necessarily a sign of the dissonance of radical ideas and the American working-class. On social issues the white working-class, who vote, tend to lean right-wards opposing same-sex marriage, gun control, abortion, immigration, secularism, political correctness and multiculturalism. It is typically the wealthy who vote according to the economic policy of the candidates. Though a crude version of economics is often presented to the working-classes in order to swing votes.

The assassination attempt and shooting spree in Tucson came just days after the GOP gained control of Congress from the Democrats on a torrent of right-wing populism against the state. The new speaker John Boehner made a point of reading the Constitution out loud to Congress. The fundamentalist and fetishistic reading of the Constitution is a way for Republicans to shoot down legislation which is "unconstitutional", e.g. health-care reform. Of course, subsidies to corporations and bailouts for banks are perfectly constitutional - that goes without saying. The Democrats pose a luke-warm opposition, at best, to the blatantly pro-business agenda of the GOP. But the Democrats have also been subject to a tremendous amount of lobbying from the health insurance industry, which might explain why "Obama-care" obligates Americans to buy health insurance and are fined if they don't do so. As a consequence the health-care reforms championed by Democrats are easily lampooned by Republicans and the populace is easily disillusioned by such mediocrity.

As the public is disillusioned by the meaningless and hopeless state of the union, the GOP has been able to mobilise a conservative base on family values and gun rights. A combination of low voting turn-out and the convergence of capital has led to a lurch away from the New Deal. 75% of the American population made up 37% of the vote at the mid-term elections in 2010, these are the Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year and lean to the Democratic Party. Compare this with the 26% of the vote consisting of the 10% of Americans who earn over 100,000 a year and typically vote Republican. The class dynamic of American elections is constantly ignored and the media resort to the view that the US is simply a conservative country. Although it is true that a strong Democratic tendency does not necessarily mean that the US is a liberal or left-wing country, because the Democrats have a strong conservative wing whilst liberals like Dennis Kucinich are left marginalised.

As the American people will once again be called to do their civic duty in 2012 it's worth noting that the Supreme Court squashed hopes of campaign finance reform and now it looks like campaign funding might rise to over $1 billion next year. Democracy as a concept has been corrupted to the point that Hugo Chavez could be considered a despot and George Bush a democratically elected leader. In the former usage democracy in a developing country is characterised by obedience to the interests of the US. In the latter usage the way people come out to vote for a leader, one of only two meaningless choices which has effectively been determined by a business-run system. Democracy has been lost as an ideal of mass-participation and self-rule. Everywhere we see signs that the American people are thoroughly enraged and for good reasons. The task at hand is how to articulate those concerns and act on them. To put it bluntly America is well overdue for a rebellion, which Thomas Jefferson thought the country should not go without for even 20 years.