Psychopolitik 2.0

Matt Yglesias had a post about think tanks, mainly about how the Right has plenty of them already & the progressive ones were established as responses.  I pointed out a less mainstream one in comments &, well…:

The term “market anarchism” is a dead tell that it’s a right-wing group. Proudhon, for example, wouldn’t be associated with “market” anything. Those idiots are followers of Gustave de Molinari . So we’re firmly in Bob Roddis* territory here.

This logic sounds familiar…

(* - I added the Bob Roddis link so you can tell who he’s talking about.  I’d never heard of him until I did a search.)

Edit: I didn’t want to turn it into an argument.  Honestly, I more wanted to see Matt’s reaction, considering unlike most of the prog bloggers he’s actually encountered a left-libertarian before on a serious issue.  Didn’t even intend on this becoming a subject of a post.  I brought up the Labor Theory of Value as an example of something a right-wing group wouldn’t support & got this response from a commenter:

Actually Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner were both right-wing anarchist who adhered to the labor theory of value. It looks like these guys are mostly Rothbard fans, and Rothbard was influenced by both of those guys. Of course, being a good little Austrian, Rothbard rejected LTV himself. But I guess those guys didn’t get that memo.

Benjamin Tucker: right-winger.  You know, that guy that said of his own philosophy that “it wants to deprive capital of its reward”…

Joe Stack’s daughter is a fucking idiot:

The daughter of the man who carried out a suicide plane attack against the IRS in Texas said she considered her father a hero for standing up to “the system” but said the attack that killed a government worker and injured 12 was “inappropriate” and “wrong.”

“His last actions, the suicide, the catastrophe that caused injuries and death, that was wrong,” Samantha Bell, Stack’s daughter from his first marriage, told “Good Morning America” in a morning television exclusive telephone interview that aired today. “But if nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice, then nothing will ever be accomplished. But I do not agree with his last action with what he did. But I do agree about the government.”

When “Good Morning America” asked if she considered her father a “hero,” Bell, 38, said, “Yes, because now maybe people will listen.” (emphasis mine)

Um, yeah, and jihadis have a point about US foreign policy buried in their pro-murder screeds too, how’d that work out?

The irrationality of this is almost too offensive for words.  Really, Samantha?  Murder-suicide is a helpful way of getting people to acknowledge your issues, take them into consideration, & potentially do something about them?

Shorter Ed Kilgore: “Libertarians are just a bunch of Rand-quoting misanthropes.   They’re also inherently sympathetic towards a movement of the rabidly God-’n'-Country obsessed.”

What little participation by “libertarians” in the Tea Party stuff can be explained rather easily, at least from my reading of their activities.  Some percentage are people wading fruitlessly into those waters in attempts to clarify to the unfocused angry what the real problem with government is.  The rest are only calling themselves “libertarians” because they think it sounds cool, when they’re really just hard-right Republicans.

I’ve been linking to the observations of others concerning this (at least until I got bored with it for awhile), as examples of why I haven’t taken any movement using the word “tea” as more than a laughing stock since Tom Knapp dropped his (completely ideologically unrelated) concept.  The only place I can recall seeing “libertarian” sympathy for the Tea Party remaining is at a certain site that has gone missing from my blogroll.

MTV believes in it, having acknowledged that the “M” now stands for Mediocre instead of Music.  Obama, on the other hand, does not…:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

WTF…really?  Comparing politically connected megabankers to pro athletes, that’s all you have?  Is this a joke?  Last time I checked, the gambling debts of athletes weren’t backstopped by the rest of the public at gunpoint, otherwise that incident Gilbert Arenas let his Desert Eagle soar over would’ve worked out much differently.

It’s not the money, Barry.  It’s how they get it.  If the banksters ran their companies in a reasonable manner & didn’t take silly system-crushing risks then their pay wouldn’t have even shown up in the news.  But they didn’t.  They took the government up on the implied cushion & took a one-way trip to Moral Hazardistan.  That these companies even still exist is an insult.

“That is part of the free-market system”…ridiculous.

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.

Funny.  He puts someone in at Treasury that recommended AIG try to cover their tracks, retains Bernanke (a friggin’ Bush appointee) at the Fed, and to this day defends the bailouts, now going as far as to say big bonuses at the banks that were kept alive with our money are no big deal.  Yet despite all this, he is (& still will be no matter what) painted as the 2nd coming of Che Guevara.

Simple question: how much does someone have to vigorously defend state-capitalism at all costs before it is finally admitted that they’re a capitalist?

I will be struck by lightning and survive, twice,  while simultaneously standing on my head perched atop a fencepost and holding the jackpot tickets for both Powerball AND Mega Millions, before anyone — ANYONE!! — with the last name “Bush” wins any position in the US higher than dogcatcher again.  I don’t care if it’s 2026 & it’s Reggie Bush running for mayor of New Orleans after having suddenly rattled off a career of beyond-a-doubt Hall of Fame numbers & multiple Super Bowl rings AND MVP awards, during which he donates virtually his entire NFL salary to local charities, in the time between now & then.  Even if on top of all that at one point during his campaign he were to rush into a burning building and carry out disabled children trapped inside.   Nah.Gan.Ha.Pen.

Now that that is out of the way, go play outside.

Psst…somehow I doubt that is what they meant.  I know that isn’t what I mean at least:

[A]s my liberal friends all seem to be indignantly announcing in the aftermath of the Citizens United ruling, corporations aren’t really people! They’re creatures of statute, and “corporate personhood” is just a convenient legal fiction.  Which is fair enough, but also seems to miss the point rather spectacularly. […]

Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy.

The Left, both anti-state & otherwise, points out the conflation of a legal mechanism for organizing for a common interest, which includes benefits that effectively subsidize such organizations exponentially with size, with a person who cannot claim such benefits on their own.  Julian Sanchez, in response, insinuates an ad absurdium conclusion that cancels out individual rights immediately upon people forming any sort of collective…

How a Cato Institute fellow isn’t familiar with the point of such a basic, common critique (hint: “limited liability”), I have no idea.

Shorter US Supreme Court: “Yeah, we know the band-aid was applied over a gaping ax wound.  That band-aid still has to come off”:

Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections. The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines.

It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.  The ruling will transform the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in this year’s congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.  “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

Anyone with two functioning eyes knows that nothing has actually changed here.  Corporate interests have been getting along just fine in the time between the passage of McCain-Feingold, and in fact never left their previous perch.  Besides, preventing someone from running a campaign ad was about as obvious a 1st Amendment violation as you could possibly get.  Taken in context, the particular case was open & shut.

Here’s the rub: the context itself is what’s truly wrong.

Unless you are willing to argue that you can conjure up human life from paper & ink (in which case, you should head your magical ass to Vegas and make some real money), a corporation is not a person.  It is a legal construct, the functional purpose of which is to deflect responsibility for what a business does from the people who actually control it, offloading costs on the rest of the population by way of government favors.  Their direct influence on campaigns is, for the most part, for the purpose of blocking any proposed salve to those affected by their actions*, no matter how piddling the crumbs in comparison to what they receive.  The thought that maybe those efforts are the only thing standing between them & revolt never enters into it, the brains of their owners only function as far as the next quarterly profits report.

Yet the law treats corporations as if they think, eat, breathe, laugh, love, fuck.

Is it constitutional for the government to restrict what a person can say?  Obviously not.  This is what makes the complaints about this from within the “mainstream” so amusing.  They entirely gloss over the root of the issue to instead gripe about the Court not taking into account results when ruling — which, according to their job description, they’re not supposed to do anyway.

That said…no, the federal courts are not a matter of who is closer to the Constitution.  They’re a matter of who gets to pick, and how close they can come to putting in people who agree with them, period.  In an alternate reality where I didn’t reject politics out of hand, and somehow ended up in position to do anything about this, I would be brutally honest about what I’d be looking for, and if the opposition threw a hissy fit over it, whatever.  At least this charade wouldn’t exist.

BTW:

In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.

The ruling will almost certainly allow labor unions to spend more freely in political campaigns also and it posed a threat to similar limits that had been imposed in about half of the country’s 50 states. (emphasis mine)

That this isn’t seen as a plus for the mainstream Left shows just how choked blue it has been.  Is it any wonder the Wobblies didn’t bother?

(* - yes, I know the specific case involved an ideological group rather than a business lobby, but the point remains.  The bulk of the screaming concerns business interests, so that’s what I address)

It cannot, must not, be ignored: there are people among us, hidden in plain sight, who due to their ideology, fueled by a twisted interpretation of religion that rejects the pluralism that liberal Western society holds so dear, see no qualms in killing in the name of God.

I am, of course, talking about American military weapons manufacturers:

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.  The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”  Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.” (emphasis mine)

Y’know, when Jesus walked the earth, the imperialists were on the other side…

Psst…kinda late on that ain’tcha?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will face a congressional grilling later this month about the suppression of details on deals that funneled billions to big investment banks while he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Lawmakers reacted angrily Friday to revelations in e-mails sent in late 2008 and early 2009 between lawyers for the New York Fed and American International Group Inc. The exchanges show the New York Fed wanted AIG to withhold information about deals that sent billions from the taxpayer bailout of AIG to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Societe Generale and other major banks.

“The lack of transparency and accountability is disturbing enough, but the outstanding question is why the (New York Fed) didn’t fight for a better deal for the American taxpayer,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who first obtained the e-mails.

Time that Tim Geithner has been in his current position: 348 days.  Yet the Republicans are all of a sudden acting all “WTF, this guy is a corporate tool!” now.  Excuse me while I laugh my ass off…

Note that Issa states his pseudo-criticism in terms of a “better deal” on the standard robbery us plebes endure sans high-powered corporate lawyers and tax prep dorks.  As if having a smaller amount stolen is an improvement, when the just thing to do was give them nothing.  That alone, even without the context of who first engineered this round of handouts, should put the lie to the portrayal of noble motive for questioning.  As usual, “polarization” is pure fiction, all each “side” cares about is having the drivers seat for the next round; actually stopping the car, let alone turning around, is never a realistic option.  AIG was and is for all intents and purposes a shell, a corpse fitted with a funnel for the people dumb enough to place bets with them to get their money back.  Geithner wanted to hold back on information?  No DUH!  This system cannot survive with full transparency, too much risk of mass WTFs.

I know that the naive activist base of the Democratic party is demoralized, largely by the failure of the public government option in health care reform.  I can’t help but ask though, what took you so long?  Seriously, Black Reagan picking someone like Geithner for Treasury didn’t clue you in as to the depth or lack thereof of his left allegiance?  Actually, to be honest, him making it to moving day without being _______d should’ve been all the red flag you needed.  Yeah I said it.

Look, if you take away nothing else from my snockered ass, take in the following: As long as the question is what Giant Faceless Bank X gets or does, and not why the hell Giant Faceless Bank X exists at all (considering the bulk of their business is actually gambling, which sucks because at least the places more open about it have liquor and strippers to salve your losses), you’re missing the damn point.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a date with the floor…

As if right on cue, the favorable reviews start pouring in from Republicans for Obama’s defense of that bankrupt concept known as American exceptionalism:

By using his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech Thursday to justify expanding the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama won over some Republican critics at home, even as he preached messages of multilateralism, diplomacy and civil disobedience that resonate in anti-war circles around the world.

The author of this article doesn’t seem too familiar with how American right-wingers tend to think these days.  See, those terms that she thinks are sops to the Left have unspoken addenda to our permanent war lobby, which can be summed up as “it’s only OK if it helps U.S. interests, by which we mean our own personal interests”.   It has been obvious for decades that if it is assumed to serve a self-interest then they will support the most blatant of oppressors & murderers and completely ignore even the slightest parameters set in “international law”, so invoking”multilateralism” for example doesn’t have the bite you’d think.

The president even invoked one of the favorite qualifiers of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose legacy he campaigned against last year. Obama said, “Evil does exist in the world.”

As if anyone who questions the tactics and/or motives of the U.S. is claiming that the world is perfect.  Of course there are people that take great joy in causing the suffering of others, the issue is evaluating what is done about it in terms of cost/benefit.  A world of perfect heroes is that of cartoons, not reality.

Obama called on other nations to step up their commitments to U.N. peacekeeping efforts, nuclear disarmament and imposing serious sanctions on regimes that pose a threat to world stability.

“It is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system,” he said. “Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”

You can talk all the disarmament you want, but it means nothing when it all boils down to “you first”.   Merely suspecting another country of starting the process to make them gets the “all options are on the table” threat, and even when they don’t they get accused of it anyway and threatened with invasion.   As for sanctions, the concept assumes that the regime in question gives a fuck about the well-being of its subjects — needless to say, neither one Obama name-checked fits that description.

Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives and an ever-possible presidential candidate, said on WNYC radio that Obama’s speech was “actually very good.”  Gingrich said “having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn’t be able to have a peace prize, without having force. … I thought in some ways it’s a very historic speech.”

See what I mean about the “be grateful, you damn hippies!” sentiment?  As if invoking WW2 in relation to absolutely everything wasn’t pitiful enough on its face, some of their own were playing both sides of that fence at the time.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered similar praise through his spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier: “As President Reagan said, Republicans believe in peace through strength, and we were pleased that today President Obama addressed and defended our mission in Afghanistan, where success is the only option.”

What’s the definition of “success” in use here?

• Stabilize the country?  In what form?  Arguably Afghanistan has never been stable as long as it has been in existence.  Leave aside that this would involve even more “nation building” than we’re currently engaging in.
• Get Bin Laden?  There have been accounts that he’s not even in the country anymore, having crossed into Pakistan.  Staying in Afghanistan because of Bin Laden is like the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under a streetlight despite having lost them before he got to it.
• Wipe out al-qaeda?  Same problem, they’ve dispersed.  How does fighting in one nation deal with a group that is international?

The reasoning for this remark is obvious: it’s not strategy, but mere emotion.  Defining an actual goal is counter-productive because it’d mean a possibility of not achieving it, which implies vulnerability.  To people like Boehner, the U.S. is perfection, period, end of story.

So, what explains the conflict of pretty much defending belligerence while accepting the Peace Prize?

Scholars were intrigued by the duality of Obama’s speech and his underlying thinking.

“Evil in the world? ‘Just war’? What was hovering over this speech was ‘W,’ ” said Aaron David Miller, of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, using a nickname for Bush.  “It’s an exquisite-but-must-be-painful irony for him to accept. He couldn’t come to Oslo and give any other speech than the one he gave.”

One explanation, Miller said, was political expediency: “You stand up to the Euros and tree-huggers, you co-opt the Republicans and you set to rest the notion of the Kumbaya, tree-hugger president, to remain politically relevant. (emphasis mine)

As usual.  You want to be treated seriously, you must bash those Birkenstock-wearing, half-skim-latte-made-from-fair-trade-beans-sipping, tree-hugging, patchouli-smelling irrational dirty fucking hippies in the skull.  Start pointing out such simple concepts as “people generally want to be left alone”, and arguing that those apply to foreigners, and you are automatically one of Them, a soft-headed Unserious Librul.

When it comes to foreign policy & questions of war, being listened to is out of the question for the Left.  At least solace can be taken in being correct.

Edit: look who else likes the speech…

Edit @ 1039pm 121109: Glennzilla goes there:

Why are the Bush-following conservatives who ran the country for the last eight years and whose foreign policy ideas are supposedly so discredited  — including some of the nation’s hardest-core neocons — finding so much to cheer in the so-called Obama Doctrine?

How could liberals and conservatives — who have long claimed to possess such vehemently divergent and irreconcilable worldviews on foreign policy — both simultaneously adore the same comprehensive expression of foreign policy?

Somehow I doubt he’ll get many coherent answers.