The Urgency of a Teddy Roosevelt Moment (Guest Voice)
WASHINGTON — “Populism” is the most overused and misused word in the lexicon of commentary. But thanks to a reckless decision by Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court and also the greed of the nation’s financial barons, we have reached a true populist moment in American politics.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last week giving American corporations the right to unlimited political spending was an astonishing display of judicial arrogance, overreach and unjustified activism.
Turning its back on a century of practice and decades of precedent, a narrow right-wing majority on the court decided to change the American political system by tilting it decisively in favor of corporate interests.
An unusually blunt headline in Friday’s print edition of The New York Times told the story succinctly: “Lobbies’ New Power: Cross Us, and Our Cash Will Bury You.”
Think of this rather persuasive moment in a chat between a corporate lobbyist and a senator: “Are you going to block that taxpayer bailout we want? Well, I’m really sorry, but we’re going to have to run $2 million worth of really vicious ads against you.” The same exchange might take place on tax breaks, consumer protections, environmental rules and worker safeguards.
Defenders of this vast expansion of corporate influence piously claim it’s about “free speech.” But since when is a corporation, a creation of laws passed by governments, entitled to the same rights as an individual citizen? This ruling will give large business entities far more power than any individual, unless you happen to be Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates.
The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt. It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It’s time for a new populist-progressive alliance.
This court ruling should also challenge the fake populism we have seen on display of late. It disguises a defense of the interests of the powerful behind crowd-pleasing rhetoric against “Washington,” “taxes” and, yes, “Obama.”
President Obama has helped feed this faux populist revolt by failing to understand until recently how deeply frustrated politically moderate, middle-class Americans are over policies that bailed out the banks while leaving behind millions of unemployed and millions more alarmed about their economic futures.
If average voters came to see government primarily as an instrument of the banks, why should they believe that the same government could help them on matters of health care and employment? This problem was aggravated by puffed-up, self-involved U.S. senators who conspired to make the legislative process look as ugly and chaotic as possible.
Obama began taking a turn toward populism before the results of the Massachusetts Senate race rolled in. Republican Scott Brown’s victory made the new turn imperative.
The president has now offered a modest tax on the big financial institutions to cover the costs of bailouts, and a tougher approach to banks that will limit their size and their capacity to make economy-wrecking financial bets. It’s a decent start, and it’s about time.
Next will come legislation to turn back the Supreme Court’s effort to undermine American democracy. Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen are working with the White House on a measure to rein in the reach of the Supreme Court ruling.
Their bill is still being written, but the ideas they’re considering include prohibiting political spending by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists, or make most of their income abroad.
And shouldn’t shareholders have the right to vote before a corporation spends money on politics? Do we want foreign-owned corporations, especially those owned by foreign governments, to exercise an undue influence in our politics? Imagine what an enterprise owned or influenced by the Chinese or Russian governments might try to do to a politician who campaigns too ardently for human rights?
My favorite idea: Requiring CEOs to appear in ads their corporations sponsor, exactly as politicians have to do. (“I’m Joe Smith, the CEO of Acme Consolidated Megacorporation, and I approve this message.”)
President Obama was right to invoke Teddy Roosevelt in his radio address on Saturday. American democracy and the square deal in government for which TR battled are in jeopardy.
This copyrighted column is licensed to run on TMV in full. (c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
19 Responses to “The Urgency of a Teddy Roosevelt Moment (Guest Voice)”
“The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last week giving American corporations the right to unlimited political spending was an astonishing display of judicial arrogance, overreach and unjustified activism.”
**********
Yes and there are remedies within both the Legislative and Executive branches to stop it in its tracks. I won't belabor the 14th Amendment or powers of the Commander-In-Chief in time of war to stop foreign infiltration into our political system.
Yes, SCOTUS overreached and I think someone[s] need to face impeachment.
EJ Dionne in the Washington Post calls for a 'revolt' by the elites against an extension of Freedom of Speech. You can't make this stuff up. Jon Stewart isn't this funny.
The same people using corporate money and power and back room deals to ram ObamaCare down our throats are going to declare themselves 'populists'. I wonder if EJ is going to put a picture of himself in a pickup truck next to his byline?
Dionne also points out that in fact a corporation is not like an individual or non-profits that are in fact free associations of individuals. For all of those free speech and unlimited spending (If you insist on equating spending with speech.) would make sense. But to grant full constitutional rights to a legally established economic entity whose sole purpose is to maximize its profit just isn't the same thing.
And yes, extortion is going to be a new growth industry in Washington, D.C.
Now now, I'm sure the President who cut a secret deal with Big Pharma for a $ 150,000,000 corporate advertising campaign for his signature legislation will protect us from all corrupting influences of evil corporate funds used to influence legislation.
How can anyone still fall for this nonsense?
Big Pharma owns both sides. The only people our politicians don't have to answer to is the people. In our ignorance, we believe electing D's instead of R's is “change”. Divide and conquer….then steal.
Teddy Roosevelt was a great American. He had heart, vision, brains, and backbone. If he was around today he would have no use for the republican party, neither would Eisenhower, neither would Reagan for that matter and Reagan wasn't even close to being in the same league as the other two. Teddy would be particularly disgusted and shocked by the recent treasonous supreme ct. ruling – as should any American worth their salt.
I think it would be fair to say that these men would have no use for either party. Most of the leaders in Congress are bought and paid for anyway, simply take a look at where they get their money and how they vote. Its just that now we get to watch them take fundraising to the extreme.
However, they would have even less use for the Democratic party.
Schadenfruede, do you think you're going to rope in people to your ilk by flaunting the main character from Rocky Horror Picture Show as your avatar? You think the gay crowd will come flocking to your rehearsed and clone-ish rhetoric because of a picture?
You guys are funny. You really have lost the ability to judge people's minds and the base you hope to rope in. You forget, the people left of center are statistically more educated and as such still have somewhat open and malleable minds outside their multitudes of varying ecletic peculiarities. Having a somewhat open and searching mind doesn't allow simple techniques like avatars or handles to rein people in like in what remains of your base. You know, the “poor republicans” Every time I hear that phrase I nearly collapse with laughter. Never could there be a more revealing label of wholesale stupidity. It's equivalent is like calling yourself a “sheep for wolves” or “a staff of wheat for combines!” or “ants who love magnifying glasses!”.
lol….
So yeah, I see how you could misjudge and believe that you could pull literally anything and get away with it..lol..
Sil – you are making a fundamental and basic misinterpretation about my screen name and avatar.
Neither serves any purpose other than to amuse myself.
It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You're there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
Neither serves any purpose other than to amuse myself”
When the left has to resort to attacking our icons, I know the battle is won (not the war however).
What next an icon approval panel? Frank, stay amused, the other side will be abused by your humor.
dduck12
“When the left has to resort to attacking our icons, I know the battle is won (not the war however).”
What battle or war is that? The one where George Soros drowns out your voice so no one can hear your cries of injustice?
Seeing this issue as political is extremely short-sighted. If I had the ability to send 50 comments into every thread to which you “spoke your mind,” would you think that fair. I know those who run TMV would not allow it. Maybe if I paid them I could bury your single comment in a sea of personal attacks about you.
That's the essence of this problem, speech is not money. Money is volume that drowns out democratic debate. If you find that a victory for your “side,” tell me again what side is that? If shouting you down is now consider a proper democratic tactic, then the storm trooper tactics of 1930s Germany now have a home in America.
I rather you have rights to not only speak, but also TO BE HEARD.
I rather you have rights to not only speak, but also TO BE HEARD.'
If you read my posts on various threads, you would (well maybe not you) would see that I am dead set against what the Supremes ruled. I find that this potentially will be an even more annoying and an intrusion on my privacy and my right to pursue happiness. OK.
Now, above, I was pulling Sil's oily leg and encouraging “freedom of icons”. I'm sure that's in the constitution or at least in one of O's campaign speeches.
Have some coffee and wake up.
Leg pull acknowledged.
Coffee onboard
BTW Mr duck
that avatar of yours doesn't look very American to me either. Hope you didn't get it through a corporate sponsorship…
look very American to me either”
It is the most American you can get. It is Duckman (the series, the greatest, cynical rant) standing next to Cornfed, his detective side kick, and secretarys Fluffy and Uranus. (If that show was still on, I would be off this forum.)
“EJ Dionne in the Washington Post calls for a 'revolt' by the elites against an extension of Freedom of Speech.”
It's not an extension, actually, just a correct protection of it. The Constitution protects the freedom of speech, and the Court ruled in defense of the freedom and of the Constitution.
All the corporation-bashing by the Left these past few days has been demented. The source of the speech is irrevelent; so many boneheads on the Left know nothing of logic (other than related terms of logical fallacies, which they freely misuse!). It's an additional laugh to note how their ridiculous as well as diseased obscession with “corporate personhood” is expressed at the same time they routinely personify the corporations they demonize. More importantly to higher-quality minds is their negligent and additionally ironic as well as ridiculous behavior, as they demonize corporations, business, and capitalism. They ignore all the other non-natural-person parties and agents involved in politics that would have to be prevented from engaging in political speech and otherwise kept out of politics in addition to corporations, if they were to be consistently wrong: it would require exclusion of groups like labor unions, political groups like Greenpeace, and of course political parties(!). In their demented hatred of corporations, they show remarkable and even amazing tunnel vision, in other words, or are remarkably inconsistent (though not surprisingly so, given who and what they are).
At least they haven't responded with typical lefty nonsense about demanding public funding for elections, favoring lefty candidates (no doubt excluding the non-PC candidates who weren't token opposition), and probably involving left to far-left political groups misnamed Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs).
Dionne is a chump who gets things wrong again, as usual. On “Ring of Fire” (far left talk radio show) this weekend, there was discussion of George Will as a “cartoon commentator,” whose role or importance is highly overrated or overvalued. That term and its meaning certainly applies to Dionne and other lefties like him (and righties in DC, and “righties” [sic] like Frum these days, for that matter).