Is democratic capitalism in danger?

“In the quest for growth, many countries have neglected to build a reliable system of social security that will help citizens buffer the market's volatility.(...) Democratic capitalism’s greatest problem is not that it will destroy itself economically, as Marx would have it — but that it may lose its political support.” Raghuram Rajan 

David Seaton's News Links

Professor Rajan's idea that capitalism might lose its "democratic support" unless it protected its citizens with a reliable social net just wont leave me alone, I keep coming back to it over and over again... especially when the entire system's trend at this moment seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction: leaning toward reducing not enlarging "entitlements" and the worse things get, the more cuts are being put on the table and the more entitlements are being taken off.

What exactly would "democratic capitalism, may lose its political support” mean?

I take it to mean that under extreme pressure, a large number of citizens would be giving a serious look to other economic systems, specifically "democratic socialism", and they might be tempted to organize democratically to achieve that.

If that were the case: what tools would the corporate system need to protect its version of capitalism from democracy?

If you take that that question to form a paradigm, many disparate things in our political system begin to cluster together in interesting patterns.

Look at the following snippets for a sample of what I mean:

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation's biggest companies. AP

 And of course we already had this:

Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.(...) The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. NYT - January 21, 2010

 You might say we are looking at a concerted plan of action:

The Supreme Court, which winds up its term Monday, has once again shown itself to be highly skeptical of large lawsuits against big business, regardless of whether the suits are intended to protect workers, consumers or the environment. This year, a 5-4 conservative majority gave companies a stronger shield against class-action claims from consumers who said they were cheated and from employees who said they were victims of discrimination. The same five justices also blocked lawsuits against the makers of generic drugs for failing to warn patients of new dangers. And in a unanimous decision, the high court killed a broad lawsuit that sought to force the major power producers to limit the carbon pollution linked to global warming. LAT

 Now stir this into the mix:

The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did. Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further. Editorial - New York Times

Reading the above as if were one text, it would seem to me that the great and the good are expecting things to not only stay rough for a long time, but to get a lot rougher and the war on terrorism, like the war on drugs, and all the other endless wars that America finds itself engaged in have been a vary practical workbench for developing some extremely useful tools, if and when "democratic capitalism" ever lost its "political support". DS

Problems with moving on and turning the page

David Seaton's News Links

I haven't blogged for several days, in great part because on one hand I have been curing a horrible flu-type cold and was reserving my energy, I must confess, for things I get paid for; and on the other hand because the Supreme Court decision that I have devoted my last posts to, depresses me so much.

Between the cold and the black dog. I haven't written anything at all.

"Turn the page", some will say, "move on", others will say and "suck it up" or "get a life", might also be typical pieces of advice in such circumstances. I would like to take that advice, but I'm having trouble doing so.

I can't stop thinking about it. The United States' policies and politics are not just an American problem, they are a world problem: read this little snippet:

Republicans already counting the seats they will pick up this fall should keep in mind Obama has a big card yet to play. Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program and impose the "crippling" sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war. And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate. Pat Buchanan

I chose that comment because of its "in a nutshell" brevity, but I could easily quote dozens of articles any day of the year from the left or the right that would illustrate the point as well if not as quickly. The American political process has a direct and immediate effect on the lives of  every living creature on the face of the earth. That process is in the hands of a very few men and women who get elected to that position in extraordinarily expensive campaigns.  The Supremes have just handed that process, lock, stock and barrel to the world's multinational corporations and their bottomless pockets. Who exactly are these people that will control public opinion and the lawmakers, even at a local level?

The skinny is that the future of the United States, the fate of its people and peace and welfare of the peoples of all the rest of world hinges on the opacity of American campaign financing and the falsifying of public opinion known as "AstroTurfing".

In a sense what is hanging in the balance is the mental health of the American public, subjected to an endless and Orwellian flood of spurious news, reports, rumors, slander and false issues that will make clear thinking and policy making next to impossible... if they aren't already.

Unless something happens to change this ruling every political decision that will be taken by the United States in the future will be molded by it. Nothing less than government: of the people, by the people, for the people will have perished in the United States, if, hopefully, not the earth.

I can't think of anything that represented such a defining, yet unnecessary, political moment since Weimar Germany's chancellor, Franz Von Papen empowered Adolph Hitler.

I'm sorry, but I find all the other news I'm reading these days just so much background static to this breathtaking ruling. The only other commentator that seems to have his knickers in as much of twist as I do is Michael Moore. The newspaper "opinion makers" appear to have "moved on".

The way I feel reminds me of something I wrote awhile back:

I remember once many years ago sitting on the terrace of a bar overlooking the rugged coast of Spain. I was nursing a drink and watching the tiny cars miles away as they zipped around the hairpin turns on the cliffhanging coastal highway... the others at the table were engrossed in conversation with their backs to the sea and I was the only one watching the distant road. My attention was drawn to a small Mini Cooper that was coming down the mountain, way too fast... my friends were all looking in my direction and talking as the tiny car, miles away, crashed through a guard rail and hurtled some 500 feet into the Mediterranean... I was the only one who saw them die... all my friends suddenly were staring at me as I vomited all over the table. I feel a bit like that now.

DS

What if terrorists destroy Washington? - Los Angeles Times

David Seaton's News Links

Americans love to frighten themselves, anything will serve for this purpose: cholesterol, spinach, Armageddon..you name it. This enjoyment of being worried sick about anything and everything is a famous, American national trait; like French women eating all they want and staying thin. So there is a tendency to discount American hysteria. But, in the case presented in the article quoted below, its author, Yale professor, Bruce Ackerman, is really on to something. Wiping out the US political class at one blow would be so devastating, would so surely lead to a military coup d'etat, that if Osama doesn't ever try it than HE is just another American neurosis. DS

Abstract: The news media, politicians and observers are scrambling to speculate on how Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) medical emergency might change the composition of the Senate. But if the health of just 1% of one-half of one of the federal government's three branches can cause this much concern, what might happen in a real emergency? Specifically, imagine how the United States would react — or not — if terrorists succeeded in destroying Washington and, with it, all or most of the government. Chillingly, the Senate, which generated so much speculation this week, is actually in a better position to resume functioning than the other branches.(...) This isn't true of the House or the presidency. Under present House rules enacted in 2005, a tiny number of survivors could exercise power for months, even if they were formerly from the minority party. Moreover, their newly elected speaker could succeed to the presidency if an attack took both the president and vice president. Worse yet, the constitutional status of the speaker-turned-president would be problematic. The Constitution says a majority of each house "shall constitute a quorum to do business." It is a fair question whether the existing House rules, granting a rump the power to legislate after a terrorist attack, conform to this requirement. Under ordinary circumstances, we'd leave a question like that to the courts, but what if the Supreme Court were also swept away? Under existing law, the president has the power to give justices recess appointments that expire at the end of the congressional session. The acting president could well be in a position to pack the very court that would judge his or her own status. READ IT ALL