RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Michael Moore: I Was the Most Hated Man in America Print
Thursday, 08 September 2011 15:36

Moore writes: "After the Oscar riot and the resulting persona-non-grata status I held as the most hated man in America, I decided to do what anyone in my position would do: make a movie suggesting the president of the United States is a war criminal."

Michael Moore. (photo: Scott McDermott/Guardian UK)
Michael Moore. (photo: Scott McDermott/Guardian UK)



Michael Moore: I Was the Most Hated Man in America

Michael Moore, The Guardian UK

08 September 11

 

In his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech, Michael Moore denounced President Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Overnight he became the most hated man in America. In an exclusive extract from his new book, "Here Comes Trouble," he tells of the bomb threats, bodyguards and how he fought back.

"'m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out [of him]. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my 'What Would Jesus Do?' band, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realise, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." - Glenn Beck, live on the Glenn Beck show, 17 May 2005

Wishes for my early demise seemed to be everywhere. They were certainly on the mind of CNN's Bill Hemmer one sunny July morning in 2004. Holding a microphone in front of my face on the floor of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, live on CNN, he asked me what I thought about how the American people were feeling about Michael Moore: "I've heard people say they wish Michael Moore were dead." Hemmer said it like he was simply stating the obvious, like, "of course they want to kill you!" He just assumed his audience already understood this truism, as surely as they accept that the sun rises in the east and corn comes on a cob.

To be fair to Hemmer, I was not unaware that my movies had made a lot of people mad. It was not unusual for fans to randomly come up and hug me and say, "I'm so happy you're still here!" They didn't mean in the building.

Why was I still alive? For more than a year there had been threats, intimidation, harassment and even assaults in broad daylight. It was the first year of the Iraq war, and I was told by a top security expert (who is often used by the federal government for assassination prevention) that "there is no one in America other than President Bush who is in more danger than you."

How on earth did this happen? Had I brought this on myself? Of course I had. And I remember the moment it all began.

It was the night of 23 March 2003. Four nights earlier, George Bush had invaded Iraq. This was an illegal, immoral, stupid invasion - but that was not how Americans saw it. More than 70% of the public backed the war. And on the fourth night of this very popular war, my film Bowling for Columbine was up for an Academy Award. I went to the ceremony but was not allowed, along with any of the nominees, to talk to the press while walking down the red carpet into Hollywood's Kodak Theatre. There was the fear that someone might say something - and in wartime we need everyone behind the war effort and on the same page.

The actress Diane Lane came on to the stage and read the list of nominees for best documentary. The envelope was opened, and she announced with unbridled glee that I had won the Oscar. The main floor, filled with the Oscar-nominated actors, directors and writers, leapt to its feet and gave me a very long standing ovation. I had asked the nominees from the other documentary films to join me on the stage in case I won, and they did. The ovation finally ended, and then I spoke: "I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction, yet we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts: we are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush. Shame on you! And anytime you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up! Thank you very much."

About halfway through these remarks, all hell broke loose. There were boos, very loud boos, from the upper floors and from backstage. (A few - Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep - tried to cheer me on from their seats, but they were no match.) The producer of the show ordered the orchestra to start playing to drown me out. The microphone started to descend into the floor. A giant screen with huge red letters began flashing in front of me: "YOUR TIME IS UP!" It was pandemonium, to say the least, and I was whisked off the stage.

A little known fact: the first two words every Oscar winner hears right after you win the Oscar and leave the stage come from two attractive young people in evening wear hired by the Academy to immediately greet you behind the curtain. So while calamity and chaos raged on in the Kodak, this young woman in her designer gown stood there, unaware of the danger she was in, and said the following word to me: "Champagne?" And she held out a flute of champagne.

The young man in his smart tuxedo standing next to her then immediately followed up with this: "Breathmint?" And he held out a breathmint.

Champagne and breathmint are the first two words all Oscar winners hear. But, lucky me, I got to hear a third. An angry stagehand came right up to the side of my head, screaming as loud as he could in my ear: "ASSHOLE!"

Other burly, pissed-off stagehands started toward me. I clutched my Oscar like a weapon, holding it like a lone man trapped and surrounded in the woods, his only hope being the torch he is swinging madly at the approaching vampires. All I felt at that moment was alone, that I was nothing more than a profound and total disappointment.

That night I couldn't sleep, so I got up and turned on the TV. For the next hour I watched the local TV stations do their Oscar night wrap-up shows - and as I flipped between the channels, I listened to one pundit after another question my sanity, criticise my speech and say, over and over, in essence: "I don't know what got into him!"

"He sure won't have an easy time in this town after that stunt!" "Who does he think will make another movie with him now?" "Talk about career suicide!" After an hour of this, I turned off the TV and went online, where there was more of the same, only worse - from all over America. I began to get sick. I could see the writing on the wall - it was curtains for me as a film-maker. I turned off the computer and I turned off the lights and I sat there in the chair in the dark, going over and over what I had done. Good job, Mike. And good riddance.

Bombarded With Hatred

When we got back to our home in northern Michigan, the local beautification committee had dumped three truckloads of horse manure waist-high in our driveway so that we wouldn't be able to enter our property - a property which, by the way, was freshly decorated with a dozen or so signs nailed to our trees: GET OUT! MOVE TO CUBA! COMMIE SCUM! TRAITOR! LEAVE NOW OR ELSE!

I had no intention of leaving.

The hate mail after the Oscar speech was so voluminous, it almost seemed as if Hallmark had opened a new division where greeting card writers were assigned the task of penning odes to my passing. ("For a Special Motherfucker ..." "Get Well Soon from Your Mysterious Car Accident!" "Here's to a Happy Stroke!")

The phone calls to my house were actually creepier. It's a whole different fright machine when a human voice is attached to the madness and you think: "This person literally risked arrest to say this over a phone line!" You had to admire the balls - or insanity - of that.

But the worst moments were when people came on to our property. These individuals would just walk down the driveway, always looking like rejects from the cast of Night of the Living Dead, never moving very fast, but always advancing with singleminded purposefulness. Few were actual haters; most were just crazy. We kept the sheriff's deputies busy until they finally suggested we might want to get our own security, or perhaps our own police force. Which we did.

We met with the head of the top security agency in the country, an elite outfit that did not hire ex-cops, nor any "tough guys" or bouncer-types. They preferred to use only Navy Seals and other ex-Special Forces. Guys who had a cool head and who could take you out with a piece of dental floss in a matter of nanoseconds. By the end of the year, due to the alarming increase of threats and attempts on me, I had nine ex-Seals surrounding me, round-the-clock.

Fahrenheit 9/11: The Fightback

After the Oscar riot and the resulting persona-non-grata status I held as the most hated man in America, I decided to do what anyone in my position would do: make a movie suggesting the president of the United States is a war criminal.

I mean, why take the easy road? It was already over for me, anyway. The studio that had promised to fund my next film had called up after the Oscar speech and said that they were backing out of their signed contract with me - if I didn't like it, I could go fuck myself. Fortunately, another studio picked up the deal but cautioned that perhaps I should be careful not to piss off the ticket-buying public. The owner of the studio had backed the invasion of Iraq. I told him I had already pissed off the ticket-buying public, so why don't we just make the best movie possible, straight from the heart - and, well, if nobody liked that, there was always straight-to-video.

In the midst of all this turmoil I began shooting Fahrenheit 9/11. I told everyone on my crew to operate as if this was going to be the last job we were ever going to have in the movie business. This wasn't meant to be an inspirational speech - I really believed that this was going to be it. And so we spent the next 11 months putting together our cinematic indictment of an administration and a country gone mad.

The release of the film in 2004, just a little more than a year after the start of the war, came at a time when the vast majority of Americans still backed the war. We premiered it at the Cannes film festival, where we were awarded the top prize, the Palme d'Or, by an international jury headed by Quentin Tarantino. It was the first time in nearly 50 years a documentary had won the prize.

This initial overwhelming response to Fahrenheit 9/11 spooked the Bush White House, convincing those in charge of his re-election campaign that a movie could be the tipping point that might bring them down. They hired a pollster to find out the effect the film would have on voters. After screening the movie with three different audiences in three separate cities, the news Karl Rove received was not good. The movie was not only giving a much-needed boost to the Democratic base (who were wild about the film), it was, oddly, having a distinct effect also on female Republican voters.

The studio's own polling had already confirmed that an amazing one-third of Republican voters - after watching the movie - said they would recommend the film to other people. But the White House pollster reported something even more dangerous - 10% of Republican females said that after watching Fahrenheit 9/11, they had decided to either vote for John Kerry or to just stay home. In an election that could be decided by only a few percentage points, this was devastating news.

The movie would go on to open at No 1 all across North America. And, to make matters worse for the White House, it opened at No 1 in all 50 states, even in the deep south. It opened at No 1 in military towns such as Fort Bragg. Soldiers and their families were going to see it and, by many accounts, it became the top bootleg watched by the troops in Iraq. It broke the box office record long held by the Star Wars film Return of the Jedi for the largest opening weekend ever for a film that opened on 1,000 screens or less. It was, in the verbiage of Variety, major boffo, a juggernaut.

And in doing all of that, it had made me a target.

The attacks on me that followed were like mad works of fiction, crazy, madeup stuff that I refused to respond to because I didn't want to dignify the noise. On TV, on the radio, in op-eds, on the internet - everywhere - it was suggested that Michael Moore hates America, he's a liar, a conspiracy nut and a croissant-eater. The campaign against me was meant to stop too many Republicans from seeing the film.

And it worked. Of course, it also didn't help that Kerry was a lousy candidate. Bush won by one state, Ohio.

There was a residual damage from all the hate speech generated toward me by the Republican pundits. It had the sad and tragic side-effect of unhinging the already slightly unglued. And so my life went from receiving scribbly little hate notes to fullout attempted physical assaults - and worse.

Living With Bodyguards

The ex-Navy Seals moved in with us. When I walked down a public sidewalk they would have to form a circle around me. At night they wore night-vision goggles and other special equipment that I'm convinced few people outside CIA headquarters have ever seen.

The agency protecting me had a threat assessment division. Their job was to investigate anyone who had made a credible threat against me. One day, I asked to see the file. The man in charge began reading me the list of names and the threats they had made and the level of threat that the agency believed each one posed. After he went through the first dozen, he stopped and asked: "Do you really want to keep going? There are 429 more."

I could no longer go out in public without an incident happening. It started with small stuff, such as people in a restaurant asking to be moved to a different table when I was seated next to them, or a taxi driver who would stop his cab in mid-traffic to scream at me. The verbal abuse soon turned physical, and the Seals were now on high alert. For security reasons, I will not go into too much detail here, partly on the advice of the agency and partly because I don't want to give these criminals any more of the attention they were seeking:

  • In Nashville, a man with a knife leapt up on the stage and started coming toward me. The Seal grabbed him from behind by his belt loop and collar and slung him off the front of the stage to the cement floor below. Someone had to mop up the blood after the Seals took him away.


  • In Fort Lauderdale, a man in a nice suit saw me on the sidewalk and went crazy. He took the lid off his hot, scalding coffee and threw it at my face. The Seal saw this happening but did not have the extra half-second needed to grab the guy, so he put his own face in front of mine and took the hit. The coffee burned his face so badly, we had to take him to the hospital (he had second-degree burns) - but not before the Seal took the man face down to the pavement, placing his knee painfully in the man's back, and putting him in cuffs.


  • In New York City, while I was holding a press conference outside one of the cinemas showing Fahrenheit 9/11, a man walking by saw me, became inflamed, and pulled the only weapon he had on him out of his pocket - a very sharp and pointed graphite pencil. As he lunged to stab me with it, the Seal saw him and, in the last split second, put his hand up between me and the oncoming pencil. The pencil went right into the Seal's hand. You ever see a Navy Seal get stabbed? The look on their face is the one we have when we discover we're out of shampoo. The pencil-stabber probably became a convert to the paperless society that day, once the Seal was done with him and his 16th-century writing device.

The Lone Bomber

And then there was Lee James Headley. Sitting alone at home in Ohio, Lee had big plans. The world, according to his diary, was dominated and being ruined by liberals. His comments read like the talking points of any given day's episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show. And so Lee made a list. It was a short list of the people who had to go. At the top of the list was his No. 1 target: "Michael Moore." Beside my name he wrote, "MARKED" (as in "marked for death," he would later explain).

Throughout the spring of 2004, Headley accumulated a huge amount of assault weapons, a cache of thousands of rounds of ammunition, and various bomb-making materials. He bought The Anarchist's Cookbook and the race-war novel The Turner Diaries. His notebooks contained diagrams of rocket launchers and bombs, and he would write over and over: "Fight, fight, fight, kill, kill, kill!"

But one night in 2004, he accidentally fired off a round inside his home from one of his AK-47s. A neighbour heard the shot and called the police. The cops arrived and found the treasure trove of weapons, ammo and bomb-making materials. And his hit list.

I got the call some days later from the security agency.

"We need to tell you that the police have in custody a man who was planning to blow up your house. You're in no danger now."

I got very quiet. I tried to process what I just heard: I'm ... in ... no ... danger ... now. For me, it was the final straw. I broke down. My wife was already in her own state of despair over the loss of the life we used to have. I asked myself again: what had I done to deserve this? Made a movie? A movie led someone to want to blow up my home? What happened to writing a letter to the editor?

As the months wore on, even after Bush's re-election, the constant drumbeat against me only intensified. When Glenn Beck said that he was thinking of killing me, he was neither fined by the broadcasting regulator nor arrested by the NYPD. He was, essentially, making a call to have me killed, and no one in the media at that time reported it.

And then a man trespassed on our property and left something outside our bedroom window when I wasn't home. It terrorised my wife. He even videotaped himself doing this.

When the police investigated, he said he was making a "documentary." He called it Shooting Michael Moore. And when you went to his website, and the words Shooting Michael Moore came on the screen, the sound of a gunshot went off. The media ate it up, and he was asked to appear on many TV shows (such as Fox News host Sean Hannity's). "Coming up next - he's giving Michael Moore a taste of his own medicine! Moore now has somebody after him!" (Cue SFX: KA-BOOM!) He then provided video and maps of how to illegally get on to our property.

I will not share with you the impact this had, at that time, on my personal life, but suffice it to say I would not wish this on anyone. More than once I have asked myself if all this work was really worth it. And, if I had it to do over again, would I? If I could take back that Oscar speech and just walk up on the stage and thank my agent and tuxedo designer and get off without another word, would I? If it meant that my family would not have to worry about their safety and that I would not be living in constant danger - well, I ask you, what would you do? You know what you would do.

President Bush to the Rescue

For the next two and a half years, I didn't leave the house much. From January 2005 to May 2007, I did not appear on a single TV show. I stopped going on college tours. I just took myself off the map. The previous year I had spoken at more than 50 campuses. For the two years following that, I spoke at only one. I stayed close to home and worked on some local town projects in Michigan where I lived. And then to my rescue rode President Bush. He said something that helped snap me out of it. I had heard him say it before, but this time when I heard him, I felt like he was speaking directly to me. He said: "If we give in to the terrorists, the terrorists win." And he was right. His terrorists were winning! Against me! What was I doing sitting inside the house? I opened up the blinds, folded up my pity party, and went back to work. I made three films in three years, threw myself into getting Barack Obama elected, and helped toss two Republican congressmen from Michigan out of office. I set up a popular website, and I was elected to the board of governors of the same Academy Awards that had booed me.

I chose not to give up. I wanted to give up, badly. Instead I got fit. If you take a punch at me now, I can assure you three things will happen: 1) You will break your hand. That's the beauty of spending just a half hour a day on your muscular-skeletal structure - it turns into kryptonite; 2) I will fall on you. I'm still working on my core and balance issues, so after you slug me I will tip over and crush you; 3) My Seals will spray mace or their own homemade concoction of jalapeño spider spray directly into your eye sockets while you are on the ground. As a pacifist, please accept my apologies in advance - and never, ever use violence against me or anyone else again.

Eventually I found myself back on The Tonight Show for the first time in a while. As I was leaving the stage, the guy who was operating the boom microphone approached me.

"You probably don't remember me," he said nervously. "I never thought I would ever see you again or get the chance to talk to you. I can't believe I get to do this."

Do what? I thought. I braced myself for the man's soon-to-be-broken hand.

"I never thought I'd get to apologise to you," he said, as a few tears started to come into his eyes. "I'm the guy who ruined your Oscar night. I'm the guy who yelled 'ASSHOLE' into your ear right after you came off the stage. I ... I ... [he tried to compose himself]. I thought you were attacking the president - but you were right. He did lie to us. And I've had to carry this with me now all these years, and I'm so sorry ..."

By now he was starting to fall apart, and all I could think to do was to reach out and give him a huge hug.

"It's OK, man," I said, a big smile on my face. "I accept your apology. But you do not need to apologise to me. You believed your president! You're supposed to believe your president! If we can't expect that as just the minimum from whoever's in office, then, shit, we're doomed."

"Thank you," he said, relieved. "Thank you for understanding."

"Understanding?" I said. "This isn't about understanding. I've told this funny story for years now, about the first two words you hear when you're an Oscar winner - and how I got to hear a bonus word! Man, don't take that story away from me! People love it!" He laughed, and I laughed.

"Yeah," he said, "there aren't many good stories like that."


Extracted from "Here Comes Trouble: Stories From My Life" by Michael Moore.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Elizabeth Warren's Moment Print
Thursday, 08 September 2011 14:45

Brent Budowsky writes: "Warren's candidacy will shatter one of the great myths of modern politics, a myth propagated by conservative Republicans, repeated ad nauseam by many pundits and believed by too-clever White House aides who all fail to understand that the message of progressive patriotic populists is the majority view of political independents."

Elizabeth Warren, former Assistant to the President and Special Adviser to the Secretary of Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (photo: Getty Images)
Elizabeth Warren, former Assistant to the President and Special Adviser to the Secretary of Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (photo: Getty Images)



Elizabeth Warren's Moment

By Brent Budowsky, The Hill

08 September 11

 

s President Obama prepares to offer a modest jobs program to a joint session of a Congress with unpopularity rivaling the disapproval numbers for Casey Anthony, the prospect of a progressive populist patriotic revival is emerging in Massachusetts.

I refer to Elizabeth Warren, one of the most brilliantly qualified candidates in modern history to be passed over for an important post, who appears poised to run for the Senate seat once held by the man we miss so much, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

While many of the so-called Tea Party politicians are apologists for financial abuses and would have better named themselves after the mercantilist cronies of King George III in 1776, Warren is the true heir to those who threw the tea into Boston Harbor.

Warren would be one of the strongest and most exciting candidates in 2012. Her candidacy, pardon the overused expression, would be a transforming political event. Her victory, which I believe is likely, might save control of the Senate for the Democrats.

Warren is a hero to American progressives. She offers the powerful voice of a principled and courageous woman in a political era I have called the beginning of a female century, in which women bid for leadership in every field of American life and world affairs.

Warren's candidacy will shatter one of the great myths of modern politics, a myth propagated by conservative Republicans, repeated ad nauseam by many pundits and believed by too-clever White House aides who all fail to understand that the message of progressive patriotic populists is the majority view of political independents.

In a nation where some are waging a war against workers, Warren will be a powerful voice for Made in America jobs, at fair wages, with good working conditions, and with great respect for the hardworking Americans of every race and background who want nothing more than a fair deal.

Massachusetts voters with credit cards will listen carefully and respectfully to Warren's call for common sense and simple fairness in credit and an end to abuses and rip-offs that hurt Americans every day, and keep the American economy down.

Massachusetts homeowners will listen carefully and respectfully to Warren's call for common sense and simple integrity in their relationships with banks and an end to the rip-offs and abuses that plague them.

Massachusetts veterans and military families will know that Warren is a fighter for their being treated in business like the heroes they are, and that it was Warren, working with their ultimate champion, Holly Petraeus, who placed the interests of military families at the heart of the consumer protection bureau many Republicans despise.

Men and women who run small businesses in Massachusetts will listen carefully and respectfully when Warren talks of championing their need to find capital on fair terms, paying fair interest, to grow their business and expand their workforce.

Massachusetts police, firefighters and teachers will know that Warren would be their voice in the Senate against those Republicans who attack their jobs, their benefits and their right to organize and who appear to treat them as enemies of the state, in state after state, when Republicans seize control.

Warren will be the real Democratic answer to the Tea Party right with her calm and principled voice that speaks with common sense and common courtesy about common interests of real Americans in a hard economy.

In Washington, Warren has the best enemies in town: those who profit from the rip-offs that Warren opposes. An armada of dirty money and dirty tactics will be arrayed against her.

Those who favor big change will support her in Massachusetts. Enlightened donors with big money will support her directly or earmark large donations through Majority PAC to answer attacks in an epic battle that has only just begun.


Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Tonight's Right-Wing Nut Tea Party Finals Print
Wednesday, 07 September 2011 18:31

Excerpt: "Some Democrats are quietly rooting for Perry or Bachmann, on the theory that they're so extreme that they'll bolster Obama's chances for a second term and make it easier for congressional Democrats to scare Independents into voting for a Democratic House and maybe even Senate. I understand the logic but I'd rather not take the chance. A Perry or Bachmann wouldn't just take us back to the 19th century. They'd take us back to the stone age."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



Tonight's Right-Wing Nut Tea Party Finals

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

07 September 11

 

Tonight's Republican Debate: The 19th Century or the Stone Age?

onight a bevy of Republican presidential hopefuls hope to emerge as finalists. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann will battle for the right-wing nut Tea Party finals. Mitt Romney and John Huntsman will position themselves for the moderate right-wing finals. The putative winners in both these rounds will take on each other in the months ahead.

Nonetheless, listen tonight (if you can bear it) for anything other than standard Republican boilerplate since the 1920s - a wistful desire to return to the era of President William McKinley, when the federal government was small, the Fed and the IRS had yet to be invented, state laws determined worker safety and hours, evolution was still considered contentious, immigrants were almost all European, big corporations and robber barons ran the government, the poor were desperate, and the rich were lived like old-world aristocrats.

In the late 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party had a brief flirtation with the twentieth century. Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller of New York, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, and presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon lent their support to such leftist adventures as Medicare and a clean environment. Eisenhower pushed for the greatest public-works project in the history of the United States - the National Defense Highway Act, which linked the nation together with four-lane (and occasionally six-lane) Interstate highways. The GOP also supported a large expansion of federally-supported higher education. And to many Republicans at the time, a marginal income tax rate of more than 70 percent on top incomes was not repugnant.

But the Republican Party that emerged in the 1970s began its march back to the 19th century. Ronald Reagan lent his charm and single-mindedness to the charge but the foundations had been laid long before. By the time Newt Gingrich and his regressive followers took over the House of Representatives in 1995, social conservatives, isolationists, libertarians, and corporatists had taken over the GOP once again.

Some Democrats are quietly rooting for Perry or Bachmann, on the theory that they're so extreme that they'll bolster Obama's chances for a second term and make it easier for congressional Democrats to scare Independents into voting for a Democratic House and maybe even Senate.

I understand the logic but I'd rather not take the chance. A Perry or Bachmann wouldn't just take us back to the 19th century. They'd take us back to the stone age.


Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What the Left Doesn't Understand About Obama Print
Sunday, 04 September 2011 20:13

Jonathan Chait begins: "This has been the summer that liberal discontent with Obama has finally crystallized. The frustration has been simmering for a while - through centrist appointments, bank bailouts and the defeat of the public option, to name a few examples."

Litter, after an Obama-Biden train stop in Baltimore days before the 2009 inauguration. (photo: Todd Heisler/NYT)
Litter, after an Obama-Biden train stop in Baltimore days before the 2009 inauguration. (photo: Todd Heisler/NYT)



What the Left Doesn't Understand About Obama

By Jonathan Chait, The New York Times

04 September 11

 

his has been the summer that liberal discontent with Obama has finally crystallized. The frustration has been simmering for a while - through centrist appointments, bank bailouts and the defeat of the public option, to name a few examples. But it has taken the debt-ceiling standoff and the threat of a double-dip recession to create a leftist critique of the president that stuck.

Obama's image as a weakling and sellout on domestic issues now centers on his alleged resistance, from the very first days of his presidency, to do whatever was necessary to heal the economy. "The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history," wrote the Emory professor Drew Westen in this newspaper, "was his handling of the stimulus." Just as the conservative repudiation of George W. Bush boiled down to "he spent too much," the liberal repudiation of Obama has settled on "he didn't spend enough."

There's truth in that. President Obama underestimated the depth of the crisis in 2009 and left himself with bad options in the event the economy failed to recover as quickly as he hoped. And yet the wave of criticism from the left over the stimulus is fundamentally flawed: it ignores the real choices Obama faced (and the progressive decisions he made) and wishes away any constraints upon his power.

The most common hallmark of the left's magical thinking is a failure to recognize that Congress is a separate, coequal branch of government consisting of members whose goals may differ from the president's. Congressional Republicans pursued a strategy of denying Obama support for any major element of his agenda, on the correct assumption that this would make it less popular and help the party win the 2010 elections. Only for roughly four months during Obama's term did Democrats have the 60 Senate votes they needed to overcome a filibuster. Moreover, Republican opposition has proved immune even to persistent and successful attempts by Obama to mobilize public opinion. Americans overwhelmingly favor deficit reduction that includes both spending and taxes and favor higher taxes on the rich in particular. Obama even made a series of crusading speeches on this theme. The result? Nada.

That kind of analysis, however, just feels wrong to liberals, who remember Bush steamrolling his agenda through Congress with no such complaints about obstructionism. Salon's Glenn Greenwald recently invoked "the panoply of domestic legislation - including Bush tax cuts, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Part D prescription drug entitlement - that Bush pushed through Congress in his first term."

Yes, Bush passed his tax cuts - by using a method called reconciliation, which can avoid a filibuster but can be used only on budget issues. On No Child Left Behind and Medicare, he cut deals expanding government, which the right-wing equivalents of Greenwald denounced as a massive sellout. Bush did have one episode where he tried to force through a major domestic reform against a Senate filibuster: his crusade to privatize Social Security. Just as liberals urge Obama to do today, Bush barnstormed the country, pounding his message and pressuring Democrats, whom he cast as obstructionists. The result? Nada, beyond the collapse of Bush's popularity.

Perhaps the oddest feature of the liberal indictment of Obama is its conclusion that Obama should have focused all his political capital on economic recovery. "He could likely have passed many small follow-up stimulative laws in 2009," Jon Walker of the popular blog Firedoglake wrote last month. "Instead, he pivoted away from the economic crisis because he wrongly ignored those who warned the crisis was going to get worse."

It's worth recalling that several weeks before Obama proposed an $800 billion stimulus, House Democrats had floated a $500 billion stimulus. (Oddly, this never resulted in liberals portraying Nancy Pelosi as a congenitally timid right-wing enabler.) At the time, Obama's $800 billion stimulus was seen by Congress, pundits and business leaders - that is to say, just about everybody who mattered - as mind-bogglingly large. News reports invariably described it as "huge," "massive" or other terms suggesting it was unrealistically large, even kind of pornographic. The favored cliché used to describe the reaction in Congress was "sticker shock."

Compounding the problem, Obama proposed his stimulus shortly after the Congressional Budget Office predicted deficits topping a trillion dollars. Even before Obama took office, and for months afterward, "everybody who mattered" insisted that the crisis required Obama to scale back the domestic initiatives he campaigned on, especially health care reform, but also cap-and-trade, financial regulation and so on. Colin Powell, a reliable barometer of elite opinion, warned in July of 2009: "I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president - and I've talked to some of his people about this - is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all. And we can't pay for it all."

Rather than deploy every ounce of his leverage to force moderate Republicans, whose votes he needed, to swallow a larger stimulus than they wanted, Obama clearly husbanded some of his political capital. Why? Because in the position of choosing between the agenda he came into office hoping to enact and the short-term imperative of economic rescue, he picked the former. At the time, this was the course liberals wanted and centrists opposed.

On two subsequent occasions, Obama faced this same choice. Last December, he could have refused to extend any of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000. Republicans vowed to let all the tax cuts expire if he did so. If Obama let this happen, it would have almost fully solved the long-term deficit problem, while at the same time setting back the recovery by raising taxes on middle-class and low-income workers. Obama decided to make a deal, extending all the Bush tax cuts and also securing a progressive payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment benefits, both forms of stimulus that Republicans would never have allowed without an extension of upper-bracket tax cuts in return.

There is a decent argument that the president should have refused this deal. But if you make that argument, you have to accept the likelihood that nearly a million fewer jobs would have been created and that we would have been at risk of a double-dip recession back then. Yet the liberal critics most exercised about Obama's failure to secure more stimulus were, for the most part, enraged when he did exactly that. Take Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under President Clinton. Last November, Reich pleaded for an extension of unemployment benefits, calling the plight of the jobless our "single newest and biggest social problem." When Obama made his bargain, Reich called it "an abomination," complaining that "the bits and pieces the president got in return" - including the unemployment benefits previously deemed vital - amounted to "peanuts."

And then, this summer, Obama let the GOP hold the debt-ceiling vote hostage to extract spending cuts. I think he should have called the Republicans' bluff and let them accept the risk of a financial meltdown. But the reason Obama chose to cut a deal is that calling their bluff might have resulted in catastrophe. And Obama made a point of back-loading the GOP's budget cuts so as not to contract the economy. He may have chosen wrongly, but he chose exactly the priorities liberals now insist he ignored - favoring economic recovery over long-term goals.

Liberal critics of Obama, just like conservative critics of Republican presidents, generally want both maximal partisan conflict and maximal legislative achievement. In the real world, those two things are often at odds. Hence the allure of magical thinking.


Jonathan Chait is a senior editor for The New Republic.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
They Hate Government, Until They Need It Print
Tuesday, 30 August 2011 18:59

Jesse Jackson writes: "As we honor the life and legacy of Dr. King and enshrine his likeness on the Mall, let us dream again, hope again, march again. The 1963 jobs and justice coalition, labor, civil rights activists, the religious - as well as youths - must reconvene for a summit and then nonviolently and massively take thousands of resumes to Washington. Put a real face on real needs."

So far, there's no reliable estimates for the damage done by Hurricane Irene, 08/28/11. (photo: AP)
So far, there's no reliable estimates for the damage done by Hurricane Irene, 08/28/11. (photo: AP)



They Hate Government, Until They Need It

By Jesse Jackson, Reader Supported News

30 August 11

 

rene has hit, leaving destruction in its wake. We could track Irene and prepare for it; we could not stop it. And now, states and localities, despite the secessionist mumblings of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, cannot pay to repair the damage. Representatives from North Carolina to Virginia to New Jersey, even those most vocal about slashing government spending, now call on Washington for help.

Conservatives scorn government until they need it.

The economic disaster is a manmade - not a natural - disaster. Some economists, mostly ignored, warned about it, but could not stop it. And now, it will take federal action to repair the damage.

Some 25 million Americans are in need of full-time work. Poverty is spreading, particularly among children. The hardest hit include what was an emerging middle class of African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities. Men and women who worked hard, got an education, found a good job, bought a house or a condominium, and were capturing a piece of the American Dream.

Then came the housing bust, and what Paul Krugman now calls the 'Lesser Depression.' Suddenly and shockingly, teachers, accountants, store managers, construction workers, nurses, state and local employees find themselves losing almost everything.

The Obama administration stanched the free fall of the economy. But even as the weather experts overestimated Irene's destructiveness, the economic experts, as Fed Chair Ben Bernanke just admitted, underestimated the scope of the economic damage.

Now the economy is stalled. President Barack Obama has announced that he will release a jobs agenda in September, a range of ideas that will include extending the payroll tax cut, extending unemployment insurance and investing in infrastructure. Republicans have already called those ideas dead on arrival. Conservatives embrace federal help after natural disasters, but scorn it in the wake of the manmade economic calamity.

Little is likely to happen - unless people get in motion. Those at the top need to hear from those suffering at the bottom. The unemployed need to march on Washington to demand work. People of faith need to protest against children without adequate food or shelter.

Some are conflicted. They fear that protest conflicts with politics. That protesting the lack of action will help elect Republicans who seem to be competing in a race to the bottom.

But that is not our history. In 1960, Martin Luther King supported Kennedy instead of Nixon to prevent America from going backward. Then he marched in the streets of Birmingham to pass the Civil Rights Act to move the nation ahead.

In 1964, Martin Luther King supported Johnson instead of Goldwater to prevent America from going backward. Then he marched in Selma to pass the Voting Rights Act to move the nation ahead.

For Dr. King, there was no conflict between voting strategically to prevent the triumph of reaction and leading a nonviolent mass movement to pressure a president to achieve profound social change.

When we in the movement struggled for social justice, we helped weak presidents become stronger. When we in the movement struggled for social justice, we helped good presidents become great.

Americans are sensibly dismayed at Washington's corruption. The banks get bailed out, while homeowners go under. The entrenched interests like Big Oil keep their subsidies; the unemployed go without work.

Dr. King understood how formidable entrenched power is, but he also understood the power of democracy. Only the people can break the logjam of powerful interests. Change comes not from the bottom up.

The pundits and the politicians are waiting for Obama. They will then report on the Republican reaction. The lobbyists will weigh in. Obstruction is the likely outcome.

This will change only when people are, in the words of Fannie Lou Hamer, "sick and tired of being sick and tired." The 'Lesser Depression' will not be solved from above. It will be solved when we overcome the depression of our spirit with the assertion of our humanity.

As we honor the life and legacy of Dr. King and enshrine his likeness on the Mall, let us dream again, hope again, march again. The 1963 jobs and justice coalition, labor, civil rights activists, the religious - as well as youths - must reconvene for a summit and then nonviolently and massively take thousands of resumes to Washington. Put a real face on real needs. We can change the course to inclusion again. As Dr. King would often say, what makes America great is that although America is not always right, we have the right to fight for the right. That is a special genius of our free and open democracy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 Next > End >>

Page 3397 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN