General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChamber Of Commerce Head Criticizes 'Economic Populist' Elizabeth Warren
The Chamber(pot) of Commerce Head says 'Economic Populist' like its a bad thing.
"Today we're hearing a lot of talk about so-called economic populism. Its advocates claim they are standing up for the average citizen - but what they really stand for is the unbridled growth of the central government and a state-run economy," Donohue said a speech about American business to the Chamber.
Donohue then told reporters that Warren was one of many "economic populists running around in the Congress" who he said favored more regulation, and even government control, of U.S. companies.
Warren is "a very pleasant woman if you sit down and have a cup of tea with her, or a drink, but we don't share her views on the economy and on where the American economic system ought to be headed," he said at a news conference.
"we don't share her views on the economy" - Of course you don't. You the "top business lobbyist" are not paid to agree with what is good for the American public... you're only interested in profits for wall street, as opposed to general welfare for main street.
"he did not think most Americans shared the views of Warren" - Did I happen to mention that whole "top business lobbyist" and not being paid to agree with what is good for the American public thing? Just sayin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/chamber-elizabeth-warren_n_6472606.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Veilex
(1,555 posts)If he objects to what you're doing, chances are, you're doing the right thing.
btrflykng9
(287 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Actually, Economic Populism is a view
shared by most Americans.
That old canard.
Big Gubmint gonna take our freedums!
They hate our success!
So by extension, if he supports Hillary
we should assume Hillary will slash regulations?
Indeed, everything is fine.
Don't question us...go back to your McJob.
Eventually, the wealth will trickle down to you too...
at $7 an hour
jwirr
(39,215 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Seems to me we are at stage three.
Faux pas
(14,699 posts)if she's pissed them off, she must be doing something right
Scuba
(53,475 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)SpearthrowerOwl
(71 posts)To criticize someone for being an "economic populist" is to feel that economic issues should not be subject to democracy. This has been the view of elites since at least as far back as the American Revolution.
Quoting James Madison -- the most important Founding Father -- from Federalist #10:
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail
. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice."
Madison sees innate contradictions between democracy and capitalism. Justice, for Madison, is a euphemism for a technocratic solutions to policy making benevolent elites exercising impartiality. This is precisely what American revolutionaries were trying to escape during the American Revolution. If you dont have a seat at the table, then youre on the menu. Democracy is important precisely because alternatives have proven so detrimental to the well-being of the people. Issues of taxation are not elite issues, theyre issues for the whole community.
Unsurprisingly, most serious economic issues ARE OFF THE TABLE in the political system of the United States; democracy here is extremely limited. And as Madison's musings indicated, it's that way by design. This is the essential ideological content of the United States: it's far from a "neutral, enlightened state."
Veilex
(1,555 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)How the nation's press were magically transformed from watchdogs into lapdogs :
The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto)
The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971
Introduction
In 1971, Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powells nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powells legal objectivity. [font color="red"]Anderson cautioned that Powell might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice in behalf of business interests.[/font color]
Though Powells memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administrations hands-off business philosophy.
Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building a focus we share, though often with sharply contrasting goals.* (See our endnote for more on this.)
So did Powells political views influence his judicial decisions? The evidence is mixed. [font color="red"]Powell did embrace expansion of corporate privilege and wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a 1978 decision that effectively invented a First Amendment right for corporations to influence ballot questions.[/font color] On social issues, he was a moderate, whose votes often surprised his backers.
CONTINUED...
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
This story continues through today, where we have Chief Justice John Roberts shepherding corporate friendly law through the court, let alone appointing nothing but BFEE-friendly pukes to the FISA Court, and the press working mightily to move on to the next shiny object. Of course, Congress and the Administration do their bit to advance the interests of Corporate America, Wall Street, and War Inc, unchecked by public awareness.
From Andrew Lohrey's introduction to the 1995 edition of "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty" by Alex Carey:
Not only does there seem to be widespread social fragmentation and disillusionment with democracy in the United States, but the possibility of reversing this sense of alienation appears to many of us to be already lost. Any Democrat president who wants to institute the desperately needed reforms in health, welfare and the environment faces one of two options. he can stick by his reform program and suffer a loss of public confidence through orchestrated campaigns to publicly portray him as 'too liberal' and ineffectual (the Carter image) or too indecisive or sexually indiscreet (the Clinton image). Alternatively, a reforming Democrat president can move further to the Right, forget his promises and become part of the propaganda campaign. [font color="blue"]Given the history of democratic propaganda in the United States, some of us doubt that another Roosevelt or New Deal is possible. The political system is now so attuned to business interests that this kind of reformer could no longer institute the substantial health, welfare, education, environmental and employment reforms the country needs.[/font color]