Greenwald weighs in on the bailout

[solarbird]

Glenn Greenwald, wandering just a bit outside his usual territory, describes the bailout, calling it a "pitchfork moment," and how it's been assumed as a good as a whole by Congress and the political media. He gives direct comparison to the war and to various executive power expansions and the surveillance state, and complains about, well, some of the things I and people I've pointed to have cone on about:

Third, what's probably most amazing of all is the contrast between how gargantuan all of this is and the complete absence of debate or disagreement over what's taking place. It's not just that, as usual, Democrats and Republicans are embracing the same core premises ("this is regrettable but necessary"). It's that there's almost no real discussion of what happened, who is responsible, and what the consequences are. It's basically as though the elite class is getting together and discussing this all in whispers, coordinating their views, and releasing just enough information to keep the stupid masses content and calm.

Can anyone point to any discussion of what the implications are for having the Federal Government seize control of the largest and most powerful insurance company in the country, as well as virtually the entire mortgage industry and other key swaths of financial services? Haven't we heard all these years that national health care was an extremely risky and dangerous undertaking because of what happens when the Federal Government gets too involved in an industry? What happened in the last month dwarfs all of that by many magnitudes.

The Treasury Secretary is dictating to these companies how they should be run and who should run them. The Federal Government now controls what were -- up until last month -- vast private assets. These are extreme -- truly radical -- changes to how our society functions. Does anyone have any disagreement with any of it or is anyone alarmed by what the consequences are -- not the economic consequences but the consequences of so radically changing how things function so fundamentally and so quickly?

[...]

But there's virtually no discussion of that in America's dominant media outlets. All one hears is that everything that is happening is necessary to save us all from economic doom. And what's most amazing about that is that the Natural, Unchallenged Consensus That Nobody Questions can shift drastically in a matter of days and still nobody questions anything. ...

The way it works is that Bush officials decree how things will be, and then everyone -- from Congressional Democrats to the Serious Pundits -- jump uncritically and obediently on board, even if they were on board with the complete opposite approach just days earlier, and then all real dissent vanishes. That's how the country in general works.

He links to the current plans, noting that as a direct statement in the bill, that "this authorizes Hank Paulson to transfer $700 billion of taxpayer money to private industry in his sole discretion, and nobody has the right or ability to review or challenge any decision he makes." Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Comments

[smarier.livejournal.com]

King George

Let see in ~50 days if he calls the elections null and void.

[solarbird]

He won't do anything of the sort. While Mr. Bush is a severe problem, the political class - elected by and for said political class - is by far the bigger problem.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Unlikely, but is there any precedent for delaying them?

[solarbird]

Not even during the Civil War.

[niac.livejournal.com]

So what do we do about it? I don't see what can be done to help. What's your point of view?

[solarbird]

City-by-city protests are being organised here. As I personally continue to think that both major parties are part of the problem, I have made my opinions known previously; however, wrog would certainly disagree.

[wrog]

Um, what?
I have never tried to claim that there aren't Democrats who are part of the problem. And I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from protesting.

[solarbird]

I have never tried to claim that there aren't Democrats who are part of the problem.
My opinions about what to do - particularly in the larger sense. And my opinion about the salvagability of the Democratic party.

And I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from protesting.
The implication that you would was unintended.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The government had to step in. The problem is that we're getting a bailout instead of a true nationalization for the benefit of the public. Senator Bernie Sanders has a good take at the kind of thing we should be doing instead, though he probably doesn't go far enough.

Basically, we need FDR, and instead we have Hoover.

Edit to add: in its current form, this will fail. So the next president is going to have to act again (and Bush will likely have to do more before he relieves us of his presence in January). While Obama and Biden certainly have their unsavory ties to the banking industry, I trust their instincts. I think they'll do the right thing in a crisis. Obama has already shifted his public statements to be less Rubin, more Roosevelt. Roosevelt's a good analogy because he campaigned as an establishment figure and governed as a pragmatic but extensive reformer who wasn't afraid to take on private interests that didn't have the public interest in mind.

[stolen-tea.livejournal.com]

(Hiya! Friending 'cause I saw enough links to your commentary that I've been periodically following your LJ, and this way is less silly. Also, I like the flowers.)