Robert Scheer
Go ahead and support Hillary
Clinton, those of you for whom having the first female president is the top
priority. […] Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a principled and electable person, is not
available, and political integrity be damned.
Just admit that you will be
voting for someone to be president of the world’s most powerful nation who has
not only been profoundly wrong on the two most pressing issues of our
time—economic injustice and the ravages of unbridled militarism—but, what is
more significant, seems hopelessly incapable of learning from her dangerous
errors in judgment.
Like her husband, she is
certainly smart enough to avoid advocating what President Obama has aptly
termed “stupid stuff.” However, the good intentions of the Clintons are trumped
by opportunism every time.
For confirmation of the
Margaret Thatcher hawkish side of Clinton, simply refer to her book “Hard
Choices,” which clearly is biased against choosing the more peaceful course and
instead betrays a bellicose posturing that seems to harken back to the
Goldwater Girl days that reflected her earliest political instincts.
What one finds is a litany of
macho bleating in defense of bombing nations into freedom, leaving them fatally
torn—Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Honestly, wasn’t Hillary Clinton’s record
as secretary of state horridly devoid of accomplishment compared with that of
John Kerry, who achieved long-overdue normalization of relations with Iran and
with Cuba, to name two stunning accomplishments?
But it is in matters of
economic policy—driving this election—where the failure of the Clintons is the
most obvious, and where Hillary Clinton seems to be even less conflicted than
her husband in serving the super rich at the expense of the middle class.
A continued deep deception in
such matters was once again on full display in her major policy statement
printed Thursday on Bloomberg. In an article headlined “My Plan to Prevent the
Next Crash,” Hillary began by blaming it all on nefarious Republicans led by
President George W. Bush.
Of course, the Republicans
have been terrible in their zeal to unleash Wall Street greed ever since the
moderate Republicanism of Dwight Eisenhower came to be replaced by its
opposite, the Reagan Revolution.
But the reality is that Ronald
Reagan presided over the savings-and-loan scandal and as a result was compelled
to tighten banking regulations rather than obliterate them. It remained for
President Clinton, in his patented zeal to obfuscate meaningful political
debate with triangulation, to enshrine into federal law that primitive pro-Wall
Street ideology.
One key piece of that betrayal
was the reversal of the New Deal wall between commercial and consumer banking,
codified in the Glass-Steagall Act, which Franklin Roosevelt had signed into
law. When Bill Clinton betrayed the legacy of FDR by signing the so-called
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, he handed the pen used in the
signing to a beaming Sandy Weill, whose Citigroup had breached that wall and
commingled the savings of ordinary folks with the assets of private hustlers—a
swindle made legal by Clinton’s approval of the legislation.
Hillary Clinton, in her
statement this week, made clear that in opposition to positions taken by Bernie
Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and even John McCain she will not revive Roosevelt’s
sensible restriction if she is elected.
Instead, Clinton blamed
Republicans for the fact that “In the years before the crash, as financial
firms piled risk upon risk, regulators in Washington couldn’t or wouldn’t keep
up.” How convenient to ignore that Citigroup, the result of a merger made
legitimate by her husband, was one of the prime offenders in piling up those
risks before taxpayers provided $300 million in relief.
Brooksley Born, a head of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Clinton’s second term, made a heroic
effort to regulate the nefarious marketing of dubious mortgage debt securities
until Bill Clinton betrayed her by signing off on legislation that explicitly
banned any regulation of those suspect mortgage derivatives, involving many
trillions of dollars.
It was that president’s
parting gift to the banks but also to his wife, whose Senate career would come
to be lavishly supported by Wall Street’s mega-rich leaders. They are now quite
happy to back a woman for president, as long as it’s not someone like Brooksley
Born or Elizabeth Warren who is serious in her concern for the millions of
women whose lives were impoverished by Hillary Clinton’s banking buddies.
No comments:
Post a Comment