Liberalism restored: Obama's regulatory "revolution"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama isn't "doing all kinds of crazy stuff that risks destroying America," as Bill Kristol claims, echoing a common Republican talking point that Obama himself ridiculed at last Friday's Q&A -- and Kristol just proved his point -- but he is leading what TNR's John Judis calls "The Quiet Revolution":

[T]here is one extremely consequential area where Obama has done just about everything a liberal could ask for -- but done it so quietly that almost no one, including most liberals, has noticed. Obama's three Republican predecessors were all committed to weakening or even destroying the country's regulatory apparatus: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other agencies that are supposed to protect workers and consumers by regulating business practices. Now Obama is seeking to rebuild these battered institutions. In doing so, he isn't simply improving the effectiveness of various government offices or making scattered progress on a few issues; he is resuscitating an entire philosophy of government with roots in the Progressive era of the early twentieth century. Taken as a whole, Obama's revival of these agencies is arguably the most significant accomplishment of his first year in office.

This isn't so much about change as it is about restoration, about the recovery of the American liberalism of the last century, about equilibrium, about the possibility of a good, just, and decent society.

It's a "revolution," of sorts, but more accurately it's rejection of the neo-liberal anti-government movement that has come to dominate American conservatism since 1964, a movement that has torn apart the social fabric of the nation and replaced it with a neo-Darwinian "free" market propped up and promoted by a state rendered largely impotent, by a state that exists solely to protect the "winners" from the "losers," and when necessary to bail out those "winners."

Now, Republicans will still cry "Socialism!" or "Fascism!" or whatever other lie/smear they dream up, but this restoration is an effort to free the American people from the false freedom of the unregulated market. There's nothing totalitarian about it. As Obama's policies clearly show, it is an effort designed to save America, not to destroy it.

Speculative energy trading

By Creature

Yes, it's the nub of the problem. Great, that someone wants to do something about it. But, why has it taken this long? It's not that we can't fix problems in this country, it's that the inertia (and lies) involved in getting there that is so damn frustrating.

Amy Goodman interviews author Mark Schapiro

By LindaBeth

Today's Democracy Now! features an interview with Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power author Mark Schapiro. The whole interview is well worth the listen/watch.

Two things from the interview stuck out at me.

1) The relationship between universal health care and aptness toward regulation of toxic chemicals/testing for toxicity. When our taxes fund the cost of health care, regulating business in order to not poison us through toxic chemicals in things like toys, cosmetics, and the basic materials goods are made up, is to all of our benefit because it affects all of our pocketbooks vis-a-vis tax dollars. It's screwy that we should care about communal health only when we as a society are paying for it, but it makes total sense that society has an interest in regulating companies to keep people healthy because society pays for health costs. There is an economic incentive for companies to be regulated in this way, not just the public health concern (which ought to be enough).

From the transcript:

Well, when the debates began in Europe, one of the—you’ve identified the exact huge motivating force in Europe. The European states pay for healthcare of their citizens. [...] So it’s an enormous financial investment in the health of their citizens, and whereas in America, you know, God forbid something happens to any of us, basically we’re basically on our own. And so, one, we’re on our own financially, which is very difficult. And politically speaking, it creates a less receptive political atmosphere, because there’s not the economic incentive.

2) The equality factor in advocating regulation. I hear the argument that "people" should just be "more aware" and "take responsibility" for the products they buy. Well, that is often easier said than done. But to make that your argument also begs a position of economic privilege. Schapiro said it nicely (emphasis added):

Yeah, there are companies that are ahead of the curve here. I mean, you know, there’s big changes in the market now. And I’m not going to use one name or another, because I don’t want them to offer me some sort of gig afterward. But yes, of course, there are companies in America. Obviously, we have a changing atmosphere here in America, in terms of consumers becoming more aware of these issues.

But I would say one key element of that is, yes, the market moves forward, huge market, organic this and that is growing dramatically—natural products, less toxic ingredients, more green, etc., etc. But there is a very key difference between the market moving those forces and laws. And if you don’t have a law, what you have is a market, that if people have the money and the knowledge, they can actually go seek out the products. And I’m sure people can figure out how to do that. But if you have a law, people—it makes it far more equitable, because everybody gets the same protections, whether you have the resources or the knowledge to pursue the alternatives.

This is a key point: being protected shouldn't be a function of privilege, but a function of being human.

I encourage you to watch or listen to the whole interview, and I know I will be checking out his book.

(Cross-posted to Speak Truth to Power)

Excellent Bethany McLean interview on PBS' NOW

By LindaBeth

On this week's NOW, host David Brancaccio interviews Bethany McLean (the journalist who broke Enron) about the current financial crisis. I thought it was a really excellent interview, very clear and detailed, and tries to address the complexity of the issues involved.



Also, her February Vanity Fair article can be found here.

(Cross-posted to Speak Truth to Power.)

Another disaster on Bush's watch

By Creature

Like Hilzoy, I'm late getting to the coal-ash-sludge spill disaster playing out in Tennessee. A disaster they are now calling the "largest environmental disaster of its kind in the United States." Now, I'm not yet sure if we can lay the "largest environmental disaster of its kind in the United States" at George W. Bush's feet, but I would not be surprised to hear the words "no one could have predicted" coming out of some Bush official's mouth somewhere and soon.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)