I read this very interesting Opinion Peace published in the New York Times about how liberals may win policy fights to advance their agenda (Bill Scher, LiberalOasis.com). He compared the accomplishments of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Barack Obama describing their respective bargaining style. His point, I surmise, is that presently Liberals fight the corporations with venom instead of creating some sort of alliance with some of them in order to be able to stand a chance to win against the opposition which grasps every bit of benefit that comes with being on the corporations’ side. For, corporations are way too wealthy, too powerful for liberals to fight solely by electing a president and some congress officials and expect to prevail. Instead, we should reexamine Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson’s compromising style with the corporations and learn better from them. Just like Barack Obama did, but was perceived as conducting business as usual.
My take is that I agree with Bill Scher, I have been telling liberals the same thing. When Barack Obama did not go full nuclear on the banks in 2009, I kind of felt relieved, because I judged, (my opinion, I may be completely wrong), that it was not the time to break apart the banks, that any measure taken against them should be handled with gloves for the economy was too fragile. I did not expect the Dodd Frank to be stellar for I sensed that the banks and other financial institutions would try to influence it. The crisis reached its peak when big banks collapsed, what indications we had that by further breaking other big banks the crisis was not going to worsen, though, as my memory boils, I can’t remember that things couldn’t have been any worse at that time, maybe the state of complete hysteria could have lasted longer.
I want to say that I am against too big to fail, and the banks dangerous casino games, but I truly believe that Obama made the calculations of being soft with them to protect the economy. I am not saying that Obama was correct to use the casual tone with the banks; I trusted that he had other designs for later anytime he feels that the economy could sustain a drastic change in the financial sector. But Liberals don’t want to understand, they were after blood, Barack Obama was their dark night. Instead, Obama tried that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson style, do not fight the corporations, engage them until you have the mold you need to make changes.
The tea party people we derided as co-opted by big corporations, are just part of the fight the corporations are raging against liberals. There is no difference between the corporations and the teabaggers when it comes to their agenda, therefore there is no co-opt, but alliance of two parties that want the same thing for different reasons: For the teabaggers the goal is to get rid of this president they see as a threat to their long foolish comfortable belief, a powerful force with liberal leanings who could prove the conservatism wrong for good. For the corporation’s the goal is not to prove conservatism right or wrong but to eliminate the progressive agendas that keep menacing their privilege of having to do whatever they want.
The liberals are alienating the corporations, pushed them in drove to the other party. Maybe we should put our “thinking hat” (to quote Van Jones) and come up with a strategy to win seats and advance our agendas while working with a major segment of the economy that the corporations represent. I don’t know the way but I think it is wise to at least consider what Bill Scher attempted to tell us. We need to win, how are going to win? Otherwise, we will disappear.
