Anti-trust laws are not enforced and consolidation, and the lack of competition that comes with it, is a problem in more and more industries. Not only does it stifle competition but in the financial sector for instance it leads to 'too big to fail'.
Until you reign in corporate money in politics, or somehow match it (which is impossible) you are going to get skewed politics. Both in terms of the legislation you see passed and in the candidates that get elected.
Until more people wake up and realize that corporate america is waging a battle in Washington against their best interests and supports groups and candidates willing to stand up then the problem will persist. Fact is a vote is more powerful than money. But not enough people care or are willing to put their self interest ahead of issues that motivate them (see the teabaggers as a great example, middle class folks carrying corporate Americas water).
But I do think the guy who penned the article is something of a pinhead. It is still a left - right battle for many reasons.
First and the most obvious is that nobody on the right is going to fight the corporations. Not one person. Not one advocacy group. Nobody. Not true on the left.
Secondly, social issues are not going to go away. The culture war is still being faught. Granted the battle gets less heated at times, but it has not gone away. Until gay marriage is settled, and until one side loses and accepts defeat on the abortion guestion, it will wage. That is a left-right fight.
First, thanks in large part to Obama we avoided a Depression ... and in March of '09 that was a very scary, very real possibility.
Secondly, we did get financial reform, health care reform, etc.
To blame Obama for not getting it all or not fighting hard or whatever I think is bunk. If Obama didn't want a fight then he should have just bagged health care. Why bother? Corporate America didn't want it, the Republicans didn't want it, so why spend the political capital and take the hits?
Some people need a civics lession. The President can't write and pass the laws himself. It takes a Congress. In that Congress, like it or not, and I don't, you need 60 votes to get anything out of the Senate. You want a 100% never fail progressive agenda to pass? Elect 60 progressive Senators.
Until you do, you will NEVER get all that you want.
I find it ironic that it is Clinton supporters like myself now tasked with defending this guy, when we were telling Obama's starry eyed supporters back in '08 ... that one guy wasn't going to change anything because the Republicans and the lobbyists and the industry associations were not going to let down or go home. They were going to fight.
And all we got back with this dreamy post-partisan crap.
America is very conservative on some things. Liberal on others. All and all I think we tend to be moderate. Probably even slightly left of center if you ask people on the street about specific issues, but I do think we are government from the center right in most instances.
On certain issues, right or wrong, the right just has easier arguements to make ( few will buck "getting tough on crime" for instance, even if it means unfair prison sentences) , so I think it skews government a bit.
Will hand the Hill to the Repubs in Nov, then maybe even the White House in '12, and cry, whine, and pout, that the Democrats - who you seem to hate - are not doing enough to thwart the Republicans on this and that.
We've seen this movie before. It was the first decade of this century.
You want a progressive in office? The get one nominated and get one elected. YOU CAN'T.
So you can either work with the center, and left center, while working overtime to bring the party AND MORE IMPORTANTLY the country over to your set of views, or you can run along, vote for Nader and take what you get.
As for men with the ladder racks. I can tell you, I am in construction, outside perhaps of union voters, there are not many hardhats who vote Democrat. There just are not. In the field, in management, it is Republican Republican Republican.
These men drive around in their trucks listening to Rush and they believe it all.
And lets not even go into how often I hear the 'n word' thrown around, especially when the subject of President Obama comes up.
What does she have to gripe about? She has a cushy, safe government job. SHe isn't competing in the private sector, having to worry about a lay off or her company going under. She has her kids in private school, she has it good. Yet she complains and gripes like a baby, and joins the crowd that really thinks Obama is stashing a 'Superman' cape somewhere and just not using it.
There is no superman cape, no magic wands, but there are Republicans, standing in the way, saying no, and looking to take over to do some serious harm.
And you can sort all this out in your jamies in front of 'puter?
How have heard people in politics, in DC, on cable shows, including the woman herself describe what sounds like a strong, important role, not just in starting this new agency, but in offer broader advice to the President.
Yet you're the expert now? You got this covered? You know what the low down is?
Excellent point ... on Maddow last night was was very upbeat and said not only have a say on the new agency but on broader policy as well. "She would be in the room" she said and be able to offer her advice.
I don't think things are as bleak as the media is saying.
The corporate media is still scared shitless of Republicans in general and therefore is more apt to pile on Democrats, and or, over estimate Republicans chances.
I remember back to 2006 when it was late summer and Dems had held a double digit generic lead in most polls for months, and Cook was out there saying not enough seats were in play and they might wing 10 or 12 or something like that. Plus, it was him or someone like him late in the game said, "democrats can still find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"
That is a little of what we see today. Underestimating dems, over estimating the GOP.
Dangerous in that it features people like Palin, and now O'Connell, who view politics in my opinion as a way to gain some level of fame, and turn that into money. In my heart of hearts, I have to believe that O'Connell is praying she will lose, be able to claim she was wrongly attacked, and then run off to write a book, to speaking gigs and appear on Fox "news".
Dangerous in that it features people like Jim Demint, who are true believers. They don't want the government enforcing laws, enforcing civil rights, they don't want regulation on business, and they don't want any accountibility for people with the power or money to influence our goverment.
Dangerous in that it features people like Rand Paul who are simply nuts.
I have been chided before for posting this here, but I truely believe if we let the Republicans ... who have become extremist to the extreme ... gain power we could at the very least see an invasion of Iran, or at worst the actual use of a NUKE. These people are driven, they are out of touch, they are crazed, and they don't care.
We are at a crossroads I think.
They are willing to fight and leave nothing on the table to gain power and get their way ... like gutting Medicare and Social Security, and labor unions. Democrats seem to be all out of fight, especially the liberal wing of the party.