OPINION & EDITORIAL
Obama’s corporate crush
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- Every human deserves humanity (February 27, 2008)
- Dane's sister could bring benefit (February 20, 2008)
- Reps, Dems snuggle with each other, status quo (February 13, 2008)
- Animal torture: Another shameful UW insitution (February 6, 2008)
- Edwards lesser of three evils (January 21, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Obama: Visionary, not fraudulent (September 19, 2007)
- 'Unity' Obama's talk, not his walk (February 27, 2008)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- The audacity of open, transparent government (December 11, 2007)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The fact that Barack Obama isn’t much of a progressive should be considered a truism by now. But even among those who will admit as much, few would question his essential righteousness or purity of intentions. His political lapses are necessary to get elected, his leftist apologists will say. Give him time, and the real Obama — the one reminiscent of his commendable past of activism on the streets of Chicago — will win out.
This argument, quite simply, has been bled to death. More than a year into the campaign, the Illinois senator has been unable to substantively distinguish his platform from his seminally centrist opponent. He has morphed into a reliable sellout, and nowhere does this shine through more clearly than on his pro-corporate economic record.
His distinctly un-universal health care plan is especially notable in an era when the times are finally favorable for real change on the issue. It would leave millions uninsured and leave the essential parts of the existing for-profit system in place. It’s not a plan the insurance companies are complaining about, and that should be telling.
House Resolution 676 — the single-payer bill introduced by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich and supported by at least 75 other congressmen — was opposed by both Mr. Obama and his corporate supporters. The plan would have eliminated billions of dollars of administrative costs that accompany the health care business, making total costs cheaper for most Americans.
The senator’s support for Tort “reform” is similarly lamentable. In 2005, he joined Senate Republicans to pass the
Class Action Fairness Act, which limits the ability to sue in state courts. The proposal — long supported by the Bush administration — forces cases into less sympathetic, backlogged, Republican-dominated federal courts, where banking and crediting interests have a much easier time winning. The bill was vigorously opposed by consumer advocacy and civil rights groups, who convinced most Senate Democrats — including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton — to vote against it.
This vote is consistent with his behavior in the Illinois Senate, in which Mr. Obama voted to cap the damages that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. In effect, the bill overrides the decisions of juries, mandating that the compensation for pain and suffering is not too high and best decided by the Legislature.
Mr. Obama’s support for the recent bankruptcy bill — a splendid gift for big business — is also problematic. He
even voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. The amendment would have been at least some consolation for those concerned with the increasingly out-of-control, predatory lending industry. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Obama once again found himself a minority in his own party.
The senator has also proven himself a friend of the mining industry, having voted against the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act last year. The bill would have mandated environmentally sound clean-up around sites and protected the health of citizens in Western states with a large mining industry. CBS News later reported that a close Obama advisor is a lobbyist for several mining companies.
But at least he’s against NAFTA, right? Sort of. Unlike Ms. Clinton and the administration of her husband, Mr. Obama has been publicly skeptical about the free-trade agreement, stating, “I don’t think NAFTA is good for Americans, and I never have.” Campaigning hard in working-class Ohio — a state hit hard by rising unemployment and collapsing wages — Mr. Obama assured assembly-line workers that his administration would protect Americans from greedy corporate outsourcing.
But recent events have shown that this is less a strain of economic populism than political opportunism. After another round of lambasting NAFTA, an Obama advisor quietly contacted officials in the Canadian government to assure them that the senator’s talk about renegotiating trade agreements was just “campaign rhetoric.” Canadian businessmen “shouldn’t worry,” the advisor said. You’d have to be rather gullible to believe anything the senator says about free trade after this.
Some may accuse me of being overly cynical and expecting too much. But is it really too much to ask for a candidate who offers some substance to protect working-class families from the current neo-liberal storm? Or at least one who doesn’t consistently side with corporate interests?
It’s a shame, too. Mr. Obama — a guy with laudable left-wing credentials — has amassed an impressive coalition of progressive Americans unlike anything we’ve seen in some time. The only hope I can see for his presidency is if his distinctly energized supporters remain active and push their candidate leftward. As his political record has shown, we can’t rely on Mr. Obama himself.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in history and Spanish.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 7:48am):
Thank you, Paul Krugman.
Has anyone on the Herald staff NOT written a critical article on Obama?
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 8:45am):
Forget it, Kyle, Hillary's back. All hope is lost. Time to get back to political apathy... same as it ever was.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 10:31am):
oh man, just wait till the Obamaniacs catch wind of this, and huff and puff and come up with countless excuses for why the emperor has no clothes.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 10:39am):
obama isn't far left enough for the author...that should tell us all we need to know about both of them.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 11:42am):
"an Obama advisor quietly contacted officials in the Canadian government to assure them that the senatorâs talk about renegotiating trade agreements was just âcampaign rhetoric.â Canadian businessmen âshouldnât worry,â the advisor said."
If this was a Clinton advisor instead of an Obama advisor, it'd be a total shit storm. How can people deny that the press has gone easy on Barack Obama??
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 12:03pm):
Seriously Kyle if you would like the government to make all of your decisions, then please do everyone a favor and move to Cuba. I heard Raul(?) is better than ole Castro. Nobody will miss you!
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 12:23pm):
I'm sure that Kyle fancies himself one of the elete intellectuals who would be running the government which would be making all decisions for the lumpenproletariat. Kyle will be giving orders, not taking them.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 12:27pm):
Obama in fact voted against the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform bill - See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 12:33pm):
Who's the Communist Party candidate this year? Maybe you should write an endorsement article for him, Kyle.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 12:42pm):
hahaha you're a Paul Krugman wannabe.
Get over yourself. This is probably your 8th anti obama opinion piece this year. How about you complain about something else now?? No one cares what you have to say when you've said it 10 times already.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 12:50pm):
This article is unbelievably flawed and unworthy of the Herald.
"Itâs not a plan the insurance companies are complaining about, and that should be telling."
Clearly false logic. This is Obama's strength; sources have suggested him to be a genius and it lies in his ability, as he constantly campaigns, to unite. Because he has a plan that works for everyone he should be lambasted? Absurd reasoning from someone who seems to feel that American liberals are socialists who are completely against industry. I am a clear liberal yet dont have this desire to "stick it to the insurance companies" as you seem to feel a Democrat must to pass legitimate health care legislation.
But going on "an Obama advisor quietly contacted officials in the Canadian government to assure them that the senatorâs talk about renegotiating trade agreements was just âcampaign rhetoric.â"
Please do not put something in quotations that is not a direct quote. These words were never spoken and the source material should be referenced. While I agree that the message to the Canadians in that meeting was not very heart-warming, the term "campaign rhetoric" was never used.
Your youth is demonstrated in this piece. By going through the detailed voting record of a senator who has served less than one term and who has been running for President for more than a year of it is rediculous. Politics is a dirty game where votes and support are exchanged back and forth and thus taking one vote on one small issue and defining a politician by it is a bad thing, although done way too often.
I expect better from the Herald opinion section.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 1:52pm):
The Canada/NAFTA story is a lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJJ88HTiX8
Yes, they had a meeting, but the rumors about the content of that meeting are just that--rumors.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 2:24pm):
to 1:52, BS.
it's not rumors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1MPmrZxA2M
Obama was conveniently "unaware the meeting had taken place" when he said it was untrue. Now it apparently is true.
Hmmm....
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 2:50pm):
Three responses which have been posted repeatedly here:
1) OMG Obama is the greatest no matter what you say (or he does)
2) OMG Communism! Go to Cuba!
3) You wanna be Krugman, because anyone who might share an opinion with Krugman obviously wants to be him!
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 3:58pm):
12:50 says:
"I expect better from the Herald opinion section"
You do? Whatever gave you that expectation? Have you actually ever read the BH op-ed section before? Admittedly, it actually has gotten better since Verstandig's reign ended a few years back (they're up to three letters to the editor per semester now! Woo!) but it's still not anything that inspires expectations of quality.
Anonymous (March 5, 2008 @ 5:53pm):
"Campaigning hard in working-class Ohio â a state hit hard by rising unemployment and collapsing wages â Mr. Obama assured assembly-line workers that his administration would protect Americans from greedy corporate outsourcing."
Ohio has not been hit hard by rising unemployment or collapsing wages. In December 1993 (the month before NAFTA went into effect), Ohio's unemployment rate was 6.5%. The highest it's been since 1994 is 6.2%. When our economy was at its best, unemployment was 3.9% in February of 2001. It's currently at 5.8%, significantly lower than in the pre-NAFTA era.
Furthermore, 283,500 workers earn their living in Ohio in the export sector. By restricting trade, these jobs will be put at risk.
All together now- Free trade is good for America. No matter how you slice it, Americans are better off from free trade. Not all Americans have benefited, but far more would suffer from restricting trade than from keeping it open.
In case you think free trade only benefits the rich: median household income is up 33% since 1994. That's median, not average. Clearly, not all the benefits are going to the rich.
Anti-capitalists conveniently ignore the facts about our economic prosperity, and fail to consider the poverty that the alternative (socialism) would bring.
-Corey Sheahan
Kyle Szarzynski (March 5, 2008 @ 11:08pm):
To Corey: If you were concerned with accuracy, you would have used the mean income as the measure of the effect free trade has on Americans. In fact, real wages have declined by about $1.40 since the 70's (a 10% decrease), even as CEOs and sectors of the upper-middle class got wealthier (in turn, concealing the fact that most workers lost MORE than 10% of their total income). NAFTA was only part of the neoliberal trend of the past 30 years that has constituted a reversal of the gains of the New Deal Era.
True, unemployment has remained consistently low. But the jobs that have replaced the auto and steel plant employment have been lower-paying service sector jobs, as the above statistics demonstrate.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 12:12am):
Kyle's busy working on a way to clone Eugene V. Debs from a sample of his DNA, a socialist version of Jurassic Park.
Corey Sheahan (March 6, 2008 @ 2:28am):
Kyle: this isn't the forum. I'll shoot you an e-mail. In the mean time, I want you to ask yourself this - If capitalism is so bad, what's the alternative? Socialism? Give me one - just one - example of a socialist nation improving the welfare of its people over any given length of time.
It's easy to do for capitalism; it's nearly impossible to do so for socialism.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
