Re: [xmca] US discovers capitalism doesn't work

Hi Jenny,
You might find something that grabs you as useful for your script in
the following conversation (it's a weekly e-column responding to the
political talk shows).
Others might also enjoy it.
Lois

Lois Holzman, Director
East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy
920 Broadway, 14th floor
New York NY 10010
tel. 212.941.8906 ext. 324
fax 212.941.0511
lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
www.eastsideinstitute.org
www.performingtheworld.org
www.loisholzman.net

>
>
>
> WHAT OBAMA SHOULD DO NOW
> Sunday, September 14, 2008
>
> Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and
> philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss
> them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 14,
> 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with
> George Stephanopoulos."
>
> Due to technical difficulties, the entire Talk Talk is printed below
> and is not available on our website www.independentvoting.org at
> this time.
> Salit: Suppose we take a stab at unpackaging a question that
> everybody was talking about on the talk shows this morning. Is the
> Obama camp having trouble handling Sarah Palin?
>
> Newman: Sarah Palin is not running for President of the United
> States, but for vice president. Does her selection have to be
> "handled?" Yes. It was a historic event. The Republicans put a woman
> on the ticket. If I were Obama's advisor I would say make the
> response tedious. Say Congratulations to the Republican Party for
> being the second major political party to nominate a woman as vice
> president.
>
> Salit: And ...
>
> Newman: And that's the end of it. It reminds the public that the
> Democratic Party nominated the first African American and that's a
> good thing. Now, says Obama, Let's talk about the American people
> and our policies. Let's talk about John McCain and our two parties.
> As I've said for a long time, the Democrats win if they can make
> this into a party election. The Republican Party has been in power
> for the last eight years and the American people don't like what
> they've done with it. End of story. You have to reduce Sarah Palin
> to the insignificance of the vice presidency.
>
> Salit: Alright. So, how close to that did they get?
>
> Newman: Oh, I don't know what the measure is. It's hard to say.
> That's going to be decided by what happens in the next few weeks.
>
> Salit: When Chris Matthews asked the Matthews Meter question, "Who
> won the week - Obama or McCain?" they said McCain, 11-1. I would
> have answered "Obama." And the reason I would have answered Obama is
> that, in large measure, all you could do this week was let the Palin
> thing play out. It was going to be the headliner no matter what.
> It's the week after the Republican Convention, and she is a woman
> and she is a new face. Sometimes you just have to let the other side
> make their play.
>
> Newman: I think who won the week was Palin.
>
> Salit: OK. How did you react to the Charlie Gibson interview with
> Palin?
>
> Newman: As an interview. It was just another interview of a newcomer
> onto the national stage.
>
> Salit: On "The Chris Matthews Show" it was reported, not a big
> revelation here, that numbers of people in the Democratic Party,
> meaning within the political class in the Democratic Party ...
>
> Newman: Yes...
>
> Salit: ...are concerned that Obama has "lost some of his fire." They
> say he had his voice when he was running against the Clintons. He
> had a passion. He was on message. He was sharp. He had a drive that
> matched the moment. Now, having won that, having beaten the
> Clintons, having gotten the nomination, and now being up against
> McCain, he doesn't seem to have that same passion or that precision
> of message. Is that a fair characterization? Or is it just the
> anxieties of the Democrats as we move into the final seven weeks of
> the campaign for the presidency?
>
> Newman: I'd approach this as a psychotherapist for a moment. Who are
> you ultimately going to be more passionately fired up in opposition
> to - if you're in opposition at all? Your family? Your mother who
> raised you? Or someone you've been dating for a week and a half?
>
> Salit: Your family.
>
> Newman: Of course. And, it's a good thing that he's more passionate
> in his opposition to the Democratic Party. The corruption that you
> have to defeat first has to be the corruption of your own party.
> That's what really shows some courage. Running against Clinton was
> enormously courageous.
>
> Salit: Yes.
>
> Newman: Running against McCain inspires less passion. McCain isn't
> Bush. He's just an extension of Bush.
>
> Salit: Right.
>
> Newman: Palin isn't on her own. She's just an extension of McCain.
>
> Salit: Right.
>
> Newman: So, there's going to be a difference, not only in the degree
> of passion, but in the kind of passion. Real courage was required in
> taking on the Clintons and the entire Democratic machine. Obama
> passed that test. It's relatively easy to criticize the Republican
> Party, as even McCain is trying to project. The whole of the
> American people are against the Republican machine. Now, have McCain
> and Palin gone up against the Republican Party? No. In fact, McCain
> has totally tailored his positions, totally remade himself to be
> more of a regular Republican.
>
> Salit: That's the 2008 John McCain.
>
> Newman: That's where he's caved. That's what he's caved on. In 2000,
> he ran against Bush and said I'm not a regular Republican. He lost
> that fight. Now, he's a regular Republican, with an occasional
> maverick sound bite. And for all of her outsider gloss, Palin is
> following his lead. She is a regular Republican, too.
>
> Salit: That's not what you'd call a profile in courage.
>
> Newman: No, that's a profile, somewhere between changing your mind
> and rank opportunism.
>
> Salit: OK.
>
> Newman: If that were properly presented, Obama would diminish
> McCain's maverick appeal. Now, the reason Obama's hesitant to take
> that on, of course, is he doesn't want to offend the regular
> Democrats who make up a portion of his base.
>
> Salit: Yes.
>
> Newman: But, I still think there's a way of doing that.
>
> Salit: Break it down for me.
>
> Newman: There's a way of saying this which glorifies the Democrats.
> Obama says, Look, our party knew that we had to go through a very
> difficult but clarifying process if we were going to be prepared to
> take on the presidency. We did that. It was very difficult. And I
> know some people felt their toes were stepped on. But we took that
> on and thanks to the independents who backed us, and thanks to our
> ranks, and thanks the younger generation, we cleaned up our house.
>
> Salit: Yes.
>
> Newman: And we will finish that job. The Republicans never cleaned
> house. They're not willing to step out and say, in general, we've
> done a disastrous job, although it's apparent that they have done a
> disastrous job. The American people know that. So, if you want to
> consider who has genuinely taken on their party, look at that.
> That's my record, says Barack. I led the way in that. John McCain
> tried to take on his own party in 2000 and he failed. I tried in
> 2008 and I succeeded.
>
> Salit: I think it works. And my prediction is that McCain's going to
> try to make that a topic in the first debate coming up in two weeks.
>
> Newman: How?
>
> Salit: Because his only hope of winning is to claim the mantle of
> the insurgent. That's why his convention speech was 'I've stood up
> to the Republican Party. The Republican Party lost the trust of the
> American people. I've stood up to the anti-change forces.'
>
> Newman: Well, if I were Obama, I'd say John, that's what you did in
> 2000 and you got beaten. Now you've remade yourself. You're a
> regular Republican who supports the policies of George W. Bush. You
> didn't change your party, your party changed you. I changed my
> party. I succeeded where you failed. And that's why I'm more
> qualified to be president. Because the American people want change.
> And I have a record of change.
>
> Salit: Here's how I would characterize the debate within the
> Democratic Party about how to handle this very dynamic. I think
> there is a strong constituency inside the Democratic Party for Obama
> to simply hammer at what you might call "the issues." John McCain is
> tied to George Bush. George Bush ran the war. George Bush ran the
> economy into the ground. Ordinary Americans are suffering for lack
> of health care, for lack of jobs, from poor education, from a lack
> of affordable housing, and so forth. We're not competitive in the
> world. The Democratic Party is going to change that. In effect,
> Fred, I would say, their argument is to skip over the point that
> you're making here about Obama having taken on his party, taken on
> the establishment, taken a risk and gone through that process, and
> having the party come together around that. This other strategy that
> I'm describing, the traditional Democratic strategy, is what the
> Democrats go to, and what they've gone to. It was the Kerry
> strategy. It was the Gore strategy. You go to the American people on
> the basis of what's in their economic interests and what's in their
> social policy interests and you draw those distinctions and that's
> how you win the election. There's only one problem. They lost both
> of those elections with that strategy.
>
> Newman: But the American people have already spoken on the issues.
> They don't like the way things are being run, they don't like the
> foreign policy, they don't like the domestic policy, they don't like
> the educational policy.
>
> Salit: Right.
>
> Newman: They don't like the current healthcare policy. The American
> people have spoken on that. So who do they think they're talking to?
>
> Salit: Well, they're talking to the "undecideds."
>
> Newman: The undecideds, though, as I understand it, are undecided
> because they aren't yet clear on who is the best person to do
> something about the things that they're concerned about.
>
> Salit: Not on the question about what needs to be done.
>
> Newman: Yes.
>
> Salit: OK. So the question is who is the best person to do it. The
> Democrats' argument is the person who's the best person is the one
> who has the right policies. That's a different way to approach the
> issue than what you're describing. I feel close to what you're
> saying, but that's how the traditional Democrats package it. That's
> their argument. The way you sell the person is you sell the
> policies. Meanwhile, at the moment, what the Republicans are doing
> is selling the person. They're not selling the policies. They can't.
> The policies are a disaster. Just pick up a newspaper. Still, there
> is close to half the country, in spite of the failed policies of the
> Bush administration, who consider themselves conservatives. And
> McCain has put together a package that appeals to them. I'm not
> Bush, so you're not going to get the problems from Bush. But I am a
> conservative, and so you don't have to fear that I'm going to change
> things in a way that violates that.
>
> Newman: So, I still don't get it.
>
> Salit: You don't get the old strategic thinking from the Democrats?
>
> Newman: No, because the issue is whose policy is preferred at this
> point in time. Well, nobody quite knows because the choice is about
> who to trust on the articulation of what they're going to do.
>
> Salit: Right.
>
> Newman: So, defining policies doesn't make a difference, if I
> understand that reasoning.
>
> Salit: Yes.
>
> Newman: So, why would the Democrats who, as you correctly point out,
> have been defeated by George Bush twice - why would they go back to
> that? I don't understand the reasoning.
>
> Salit: Ultimately their reasoning, the old guard's reasoning, is
> party-based in the following sense. The Democrats' registration has
> grown. Their numbers have grown on the ground.
>
> Newman: Right.
>
> Salit: The Obama campaign put together a superb grassroots
> infrastructure. You couple that with the Democratic Party's machine
> and they think - this is what I expect their reasoning is - they can
> just simply pull it off on the ground. I'm not saying that they
> think they don't have to do stuff and that he doesn't have to
> articulate stuff in the debates and in their commercials and so
> forth. But, ultimately, the thing turns on their capacity to put it
> together on the ground.
>
> Newman: But that's a separate question. You just changed the topic
> in the middle of the discussion. Because one has to do with what you
> have to do to get elected and the other has to do with what you have
> to do to effect change that the American people want. And they're
> two totally separate questions.
>
> Salit: Yes. But you have to sell to the American people that you can
> effect a change that the American people want. Presumably, that's
> the issue that's on the table now.
>
> Newman: Yes.
>
> Salit: OK.
>
> Newman: I think Obama is most effective when he says I have some
> experience, but I also have a connection to a new wave of Americans,
> young Americans, Americans who want to see political change. They
> don't care what party you're in and I have a connection to them.
> I've worked with them. I'm a community organizer.
>
> Salit: Yes.
>
> Newman: And people say to Obama, how can you prove that? And, he
> could say I just ran a campaign against the hardcore establishment
> of one of the two major parties and I won. John McCain ran that kind
> of campaign eight years ago. And he lost. He lost the Republican
> primary in 2000 for a reason. It wasn't a popularity contest. He
> lost because the kind of party the Republicans were looking for was
> expressed by George Bush, not by John McCain.
>
> Salit: OK.
>
> Newman: Everybody knows that John McCain went to the right wing of
> his party this time because that was the way to win. I'm not
> condemning that. But that doesn't produce change.
>
> Salit: Correct.
>
> Newman: It might produce victory but it doesn't produce change.
> Obama has to make his appeal to the new generation. That's not
> taking McCain on for his age, because the age that we're talking
> about is not his. It's the age of the new electorate that's relevant.
>
> Salit: Let me shift gears to Alan Greenspan's comments about the
> state of the U.S. economy. He says we've never seen the degree of
> connectedness on a global scale as we have today, and that's why the
> current level of government intervention into the markets is
> necessary.
>
> Newman: Yes.
>
> Salit: And, he adds, the very factors of globalization which have
> been so beneficial and have taken millions of people out of poverty
> around the world are the same factors that make it the case that
> there needs to be a market correction. Put in the most positive
> light, from his standpoint, that's what we're seeing now.
> Globalization produced huge levels of growth which benefited
> millions and millions of ordinary people around the world. Now we're
> seeing a correction and a reorganization going on.
>
> Newman: OK.
>
> Salit: Is that an accurate framing? Is there anything left out, in
> your view, of that account?
>
> Newman: Well, Greenspan's a very smart man. But is he really saying,
> Alright children, let me teach you a basic law of physics. Every
> action has an equal and opposite reaction? Now, what is it he wants
> to do about it? I didn't hear him say.
>
> Salit: Nor did I. All he says is that the main thing that the
> American government should do is take whatever steps it needs to
> take in order to stabilize the price of housing. Once the price of
> housing is stabilized, and that's what all the intervention is
> about, then things will settle out and the market will take care of
> the rest.
>
> Newman: What if that doesn't happen? What if the correction for
> globalization turns out to be so vast that it undermines the very
> stability of the world economic system?
>
> Salit: Then it wouldn't be a correction, it would be a destruction.
>
> Newman: I didn't hear him reassuring us with specificity that this
> whole globalization thing was so well thought through that
> destruction couldn't possibly happen. And I don't think it was. I
> think there was a huge amount of money to be made. And, as always,
> when finance capitalists see huge money to be made, they go ahead
> and make it - without much thought about what the consequences might
> be. So, for example, at the risk of oversimplification, people who
> are saying that it's alright to bail out the finance industry
> because it's a worldwide system and that's different than bailing
> out the automotive industry...
>
> Salit: Yes...
>
> Newman: ...I would say there's a sleight of hand in there. It's
> alright if that represents your going-forward values.
>
> Salit: Yes.
>
> Newman: If you want to make sure the banks and financial system get
> bolstered on the grounds that that has to do with everybody and the
> automotive industry doesn't get protected in the same way because
> that that doesn't involve everybody in the same way...
>
> Salit: Right...
>
> Newman: Well, that seems a little tricky to me, because it depends
> on who you mean by "everybody" and how you relate to "everybody."
> It's not that I can't see the sense of the argument. The financial
> markets do have applicability to everyone, but not everyone in the
> same way. So, I'd say Greenspan tells less than the whole story. I
> almost agree with him. But it's less than the whole story.
>
> Salit: A good way to put it. Thanks, Fred.
>
> Forward this email to a friend!
>
> This email was sent to lholzdan@aol.com by national@cuip.org.
> Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™
> | Privacy Policy.
> Email Marketing by
>
> Committee for a Unified Independent Party | 225 Broadway, Suite 2010
> | New York | NY | 10007
>
>

On Sep 22, 2008, at 1:54 PM, jmgdo@berkeley.edu wrote:

> We too are planning to get out this weekend as part of MoveOn's push
> to
> increase voter turnout. I get the sense, however, that we are left
> fairly
> on our own with regard to what script to use. Any suggestions would be
> most appreciated.
>
> Jenny
>
>> A lot of local folks are going out to work, Peg. As an experienced
>> door to
>> door canvasser,
>> what is the best way to get the message across?
>> mike
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And, if you are canvassing door to door, all too often you find
>>> that the
>>> political translation seems to be "forget about voting on November
>>> 4th,
>>> it's
>>> no use." Who'll win if there's a low turnout? You know.
>>> Determinism
>>> is
>>> in
>>> danger of trumping hope. So, please, GOTV!
>>> PG
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> ]
>>>> On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:36 PM
>>>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] US discovers capitalism doesn't work
>>>>
>>>> I'm seeing one advance on the ideological front: It is now a
>>>> commonplace observation in the mainstream media that what we're
>>>> seeing
>>>> is a system in which "profits are being privatized, while losses
>>>> are
>>>> being socialized."
>>>>
>>>> As for Martin's observations on the consciousness of
>>>> participants: It
>>>> reminds me of a class I had in law school in which the Professor
>>>> characterized as "Marxist" an interpretation that attributed market
>>>> failures to corruption and criminality (not acting according to the
>>>> norms of the system). I protested, of course, that such is ANYTHING
>>> BUT
>>>> a Marxist analysis. Marxism is more concerned with how capitalism
>>>> operates when the players ARE playing by its rules.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting analysis, Martin.
>>>>> Part of what fascinates me is watching the Republicans argue
>>>>> against
>>>>> raising taxes while coming up with a scheme to solve the problem
>>> that
>>>>> will make ordinary citizens pay for their profits..... but they
>>>>> will
>>>>> be out of town before anyone can deal with the situation
>>> effectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> A story on Yahoo today says for the first time, what is most
>>>> worrisome
>>>>> about how this will effect the outcome of the upcoming election:
>>>>> The
>>>>> rascism of a large part of the electorate may well be sufficient
>>>>> to
>>>>> ensure a Republican victory even as them whats been the leaders in
>>>>> this long term disaster blame "Washington insiders." - A
>>>>> Stanford U
>>>> poll study.
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that we ought to mark here the events of the past
>>>> week
>>>>>> in the US, as they throw light on the kind of social reality in
>>>> which
>>>>>> many of us live. I'm certainly no economist, but this is what I
>>>> think
>>>>>> I've figured out so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bunch of smart bankers figured out how to turn debt, especially
>>>>>> mortgage debt, into a commodity. They arranged to package it and
>>>>>> label it as high quality, with some dubious auditing. They
>>>>>> arranged
>>>>>> to market it to individual and corporate investors. And then they
>>>> set
>>>>>> about mass producing this new commodity, by exploiting the people
>>>>>> whose debt they could purchase.
>>>>>> They advertized easy credit to naïve would-be home owners. This
>>>>>> pushed up house prices, but this was fine because it created more
>>>>>> demand for mortgages and these loans were for higher amounts, so
>>> the
>>>>>> size of the debts was doubly increased. They sold credit with one
>>>>>> hand while with the other hand they sold the debt this created. A
>>>>>> win-win situation, seemingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Several things went wrong at the same time. The price of housing
>>> got
>>>>>> so high that the demand to buy it dried up. The mortgage
>>>>>> contracts
>>>>>> turned out to be so grossly exploitative that the people bound by
>>>>>> them were simply squeezed dry. So the value of the new
>>>>>> commodities
>>>>>> fell into doubt, and the banks found they could no longer sell
>>> them.
>>>>>> They were over-stocked with goods that were no longer wanted, and
>>>>>> overnight a vast amount of value simply disappeared. The banks
>>>>>> woke
>>>>>> up to discover that they could no longer pay their own debts, to
>>> one
>>>>>> another, to industry, or to investors. The country woke up to
>>>>>> find
>>>>>> their savings disappearing, their currency falling, their homes
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> worth what they paid for them, their credit revoked, and their
>>>>>> jobs
>>>>>> on the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now the federal government has stepped in, and will buy these
>>>>>> unwanted commodities from the banks for a total of perhaps $500
>>>>>> billion. The banks will get real cash in its place and will be
>>>>>> able
>>>>>> to do business again. The government will hope to squeeze some
>>> value
>>>>>> from the mortgage holders, presumably on less onerous terms, in
>>>> order
>>>>>> to get something back for its purchase. The wheels of capitalism
>>>> will
>>>>>> turn again, and the crisis may be over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This at least is the picture that is now visible, on the basis of
>>>>>> data collected by government agencies and reporting by the media.
>>>> But
>>>>>> the participants in all this were able to see only a small part
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what they were doing, and understood what they saw only poorly.
>>> Part
>>>>>> of this was wishful thinking and deception, but it was also a
>>> result
>>>>>> of the positioning of the various actors and the ways capitalist
>>>>>> economies take on a life of their own, escaping both the needs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the intentions of we who inhabit them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a fascinating situation, enough for a dozen good
>>> dissertations.
>>>>>> Alexandra Michel and Stanton Wortham, who were at ISCAR, are
>>>>>> publishing a book based on their study of the contrasting
>>>>>> cultures
>>>> of
>>>>>> two investment banks. I hope they will extend their work to
>>>>>> include
>>>>>> what is going on today.
>>>>>> To me it would be especially interesting to explore the
>>>> psychological
>>>>>> dimension – how desires are created and manipulated, how
>>> perceptions
>>>>>> of risk and probability are changed, how people act in a time of
>>>> such
>>>>>> instability.
>>>>>> But it also shows how modern society, civilized and modern and
>>>>>> advanced, is a house of cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony Whitson
>>>> UD School of Education
>>>> NEWARK DE 19716
>>>>
>>>> twhitson@udel.edu
>>>> _______________________________
>>>>
>>>> "those who fail to reread
>>>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
> --
> Jenny Langer-Osuna
> Doctoral Candidate
> University of California, Berkeley
> 919-765-5592 H
> 786-270-8471 C
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Sep 22 20:49 PDT 2008