In Obama We Trust

Glenn Greenwald comments on the prevailing democratic liberal stance as we near Obama's nomination to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court: "Obama's choice [is] a good one by virtue of the fact that it's Obama choice."

This is a perfect summation of what remains the prevailing attitude regarding Obama. It was also the attitude toward Bill Clinton, welcomed by Party Liberals after Reagan and Bush 1. (I was excoriated by liberal friends for criticizing Clinton in the 90s. Friends were often enraged that I dare charge Clinton with doing some of the very things Bush and Reagan had.)

Glenn Greenwald points out, first, the obvious absurdity in this, second, the double standard of Democrats, and, third, the lack of thought, which is what should concern us the most — the sheer unwillingness to think that characterizes mainstream and conservative ideology in the US today.

That mainstream and right-wing (and plenty of the left) are devoured by a Cult of Personality shouldn't surprise us. The United States is today an Oligarchy with Cults of Personality at the core of a Religion of Obedience. Americans idolize actors, sports stars and select billionaires (currently a little out of favor with the Wall Street debacle). The growth in actors (Franken, Reagan, Schwarzenegger), sports stars (less common, but Bunning comes to mind), and billionaires (Bloomberg, Frist, Whitman, Fiorina) is a symptom of the relation between power, money and fame.

ll of this obliterates the need of voters, the public, to examine, reflect, think — which is precisely what is desired by those in power. We are expected to obey, and more than any other industrial democracy, we Americans do.

This is further reflected in so-called institutions of higher learning, most notably Harvard, where we are expected to accept so and so's diktats for absolutely no other reason than the fact that he or she is at Harvard or Yale or Stanford. Conservatives are not upset so much by the mindless obedience to academic authority as they are to what they perceive (mistakenly) as the liberal leaning of that authority.

Edward Said captured this all beautifully with his essay on the countervailing role of the true intellectual (Chomsky, Baldwin, de Beauvoir, Galbraith, Malcolm X and, I will add, Greenwald) — Representations of the Intellectual.

Why is the problem so severe in the US (and to a lesser extent Britain)? The US is in an essentially defensive posture today. It has seen its peak, its best of times. Those benefiting from the best of times now seek primarily to defend against decline. It's an old story.

Leathery Toad Channels Bart Simpson Before Congress

The economic war criminal Alan Greenspan was uncharacteristically intelligible in what will likely be the closest he offers by way of an apology. Greenspan joins Robert Rubin, William Donaldson, Henry Paulson and the cast of thousands in substantially avoiding any admission of his own role in an economic disaster for which WE THE PEOPLE will be held to account.

Greenspan effectively said, "I can't help feeling partly responsible." This is one of the leading advocates of deregulation in the history of modern economics.

Still the media faun all over him, just as they do with all of these arrogant shits. Charlie Rose had "Ace" Greenberg on last night (October 22nd). Now, Rose's specialty is grovelling before those whom he admires or with whom he agrees and being obnoxious to any others. But Rose outdid himself, even compared to recent interviews with Warren Buffett and Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg (no relation to "Ace").

The New York Times, meanwhile, invited Myron Scholes (vide Wikipedia) of Long Term Capital Management notoriety to suggest questions for Obama and McCain — no mention of Scholes's vested interest in covering up the roots of this absurd, obscene bailout.

And NPR interviewed William Donaldson, former head of the SEC and also a major advocate of deregulation. NPR accepted at face value Donaldson's claim that he voted for more regulation while at the SEC. Presumably that translates as "There was this one time I voted for spending less on coffee at our daily briefings". Donaldson was at the helm when the SEC released Goldman Sachs (then headed by Henry Paulson) and other investment firms from the "net capital rule" in April, 2004, effectively allowing the firms to go into unlimited debt.

Likewise, Robert Rubin (also from Goldman Sachs), now advising the Obama campaign, advocated for deregulation while Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton years.

See the connections?

It's as if the captain of the Titanic had survived and instantly been offered the command of another great passenger liner by his buddies formerly in the navy with him.

In truth, this should come as no surprise. Ours is an authority-driven society. Thus, a degree from Harvard Business School can mask a multitude of sins.

We have a hybridized Buddy-Authority System (BAS). The figures in positions of authority are all buddies. They cover for one another. And they make damn sure that major media figures are also buddies, thus ensuring friendly media coverage — as if the air of authority were not already sufficient to intimidate weak-minded, not particularly well-educated journalists. Not that these journalists don't have excellent credentials — they have their equivalents of the Harvard MBA — but the notion of actually digging for truth is utterly alien to them, particularly when doing so threatens access, buddy status, or professional acceptance.

Again, no surprise. It was ever thus. The Brits couldn't conceive that Kim Philby was a spy. "He's an old Etonian! We were at Oxford together! Pish posh." And Caesar: "Et tu, Brute?"

At the head of this was the God Greenspan. We have to wonder, "Is there any depth to which conditions could descend which would prompt genuine doubt about Greenspan and his ilk?"

Fortunately, in the midst of these yea-sayers, there are the intellectuals, in the sense that Edward Said meant — the real questioners, the Mark Twains or Chomskys or Galbraiths. (See Representations of the Intellectual, 1996)

Would that Galbraith were still alive. In his last years, he wrote on precisely the phenomenon we are now witnessing (A Short History of Financial Euphoria, 1990 and 1993):

In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. . . . In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong. . . . There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth.