Home | About | Donate

Wary of Trump, Business Leaders Are Flocking to Clinton-Style Neoliberalism


Wary of Trump, Business Leaders Are Flocking to Clinton-Style Neoliberalism

Jake Johnson

Elections are, in the words of Noam Chomsky, "occasions on which segments of private sector power coalesce to invest to control the state."

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, this description of corporate decision-making has become increasingly profound, with floods of dark money filling the coffers of political campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels.


Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.


The rush of corpratists to the neo-liberal/neo-con Democratic Party has been going on a hell of a lot longer then Trumps run for the US Presidency.


I've never seen such a carnival side show as this election. Sheesh, what is a po old Uncle Po to do? If I voted for Trump or Kill, I'd have to spend an hour scrubbing my voting hand with a stiff bristled brush and comet cleanser (soft scrub wouldn't do) just to remove the stink and guilt. I know, do a protest vote, Jill Stein, Bernie, Kshama Sawant. Write in Eat Sh** and Die! None of it gives me any satisfaction because, as Greer alludes to below, none of the elite cliques feel they even have to pay attention to what the masses think. The real show might not be the election but the coming turmoil.




Excellent analysis, Mr. Johnson.

From the article:

"As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2014, "Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, redefined the job in ways that promoted the interests of U.S. business. She said she wanted her portfolio to include helping U.S. businesses flourish overseas so as to promote the economic recovery back home."

And since there ain't no business like the War Business (given its annual claim to 50% of the discretionary U.S. budget), few clamor for war more than Mrs. Clinton, the not exactly honorable water-carrier for the MIC and assorted Dark interests.

Apart from the warrior archetype, patriarchal capitalism also exalts the "Successful Businessman." So powerful is this archetype that HOW the individual succeeds is never placed into question.

"(Unsurprisingly, given his consistency and principled support for social democracy, Bernie Sanders is viewed more negatively by business leaders than both Trump and Clinton.)"

That's why all the right wing lunatics RAIL against Sanders accusing him of wanting to "give it all away" to the "poor and undeserving." However, these same groups never make as much as a whisper when phenomenal sums are lost to, or sent to all the corporations receiving gigantic tax breaks and so-called "incentives," or all the money lost on Wall St. doing its high speed trades without a penny of taxes on any of it; or when corporations offshore their so-called locations in order to avoid paying taxes, etc.

It's only when the poor struggling mother needs help with Head Start or the kid with college loans asks for debt relief that these "businessman worshiping" elites cry "Foul!"

This, of course, is the obvious conclusion:

"While Trump represents an angry and largely incoherent rebuke of the establishment and Sanders embodies an inspiring alternative to stale corporate liberalism — which has, as Doug Henwood has written, shown itself to be the enemy of "even mild social democracy" — Clinton represents more politics and economics as usual."

It's funny how this forum's closet Trump supporters somehow don't recognize themselves as fitting the STEREOTYPE of those in his camp!


From the article:

"It was Democrats, not Republicans, who ultimately dealt the death blow to "welfare as we know it," doubling deep poverty and harming the very people they claim to represent. It was Democrats who deregulated Wall Street, laying waste to Glass-Steagall and other protections against corporate plunder. It was a Democrat who signed NAFTA into law, just as it is a Democrat who is pushing for the corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership."

All given to us by Bill Clinton. Hillary will bring much of the same.

Congressmen spend between 40-80% of their time on the phone raising $. Full Stop. This is super wrong and has to change, through publicly financed campaigns. No need for any further studies.


I agree with Sioux Rose ----excellent analysis Jake Johnson.


"While Republicans have long been shameless about their subservience to the corporate sector, Democrats have attempted to shroud their party's neoliberal bent with "party of the people" rhetoric, ensuring voters that the needs of the most vulnerable will always occupy the center of the Democratic agenda.

Since the 1990s, and particularly this year, the facade has gradually been laid bare."

Yes, the facade has been laid bare for those who choose to see. I suppose that can be seen as a bit of positive news in this dystopian-like "election cycle".

The tentacles of corporate control in this country that are enmeshed with the Clintons and the DNC reach deep and wide. And this control is not limited to the corporate/business world.

Hillary Clinton received endorsements from big green groups and other advocacy groups including several large unions and the Human Rights Campaign.

The first big green group to endorse HC was the League of Conservation Voters who inexcusably made that endorsement in November after only one debate and before the first vote in the democratic primaries was cast.

Several other big greens have followed suit including the latest from the Sierra club.

While I do not agree with everything in article linked below, it is a concise summary of how rigged politics distort (and “eclipse”) policy:

From article:
“The Clintons have very deep roots in big-money interests and the private donor class, both of which are also strong financial backers of these advocacy groups. It is very possible that these groups are afraid that their donors would revolt if they back Bernie over Hillary, thus are choosing money over principle.”


When posters demonize the Green Groups without offering any backstory, I find that troubling since this practice comports with precisely what the Koch Brothers (and their ilk) would like to see happen.

The real problem is that the election process is so absolutely controlled insofar as what it allows in the way of an outcome.

Many of us are all too aware of all of the machinations used to make sure that Sanders could not win.

Therefore, in this artificially (albeit powerfully) limited choice pool, what do Green Groups face in the way of forced choice?

A Trump who pretends that Global Warming is a hoax, or a Democrat who gives it at least SOME attention and passes SOME policies oriented towards funding wiser (non-fossil fuel) technologies?

It's not as if these Green Groups have much in the way of choice since if they put their influence behind Jill Stein, that will likely result in a large enough segment supporting Jill Stein to grant Trump the throne.

It's a LOUSY situation which is the FRUIT of a callous political calculus. THAT is not the fault of Green Groups. They do their best within a heavily compromised system based itself on major systemic corruptions.


We have two options as a nation: either stop the hoggist, greed capitalism from further concentrating future wealth-creating, income-producing capital assets among the 1 percent who now OWN it all and empower EVERY child, woman and man to acquire personal OWNERSHIP interests in future capital asset formation without the requirement of past savings by using INSURED, INTEREST-FREE capital, repayable out of the future earnings of the investments in the growth of our economy OR tighten the serfdom job and wage slavery, as well as consumer debt slavery, that the current system has trapped us all in, ending in the complete dominance and control by the wealthy OWNERSHIP class who seeks to OWN the FUTURE.


They sure are, because when Goldman Sachs talks Hillary LISTENS!


"Green" and "progressive" are two terms that need to be qualified whenever they are used.

The art of greenwashing has been refined to the point that we need to drill down to the money trail and track record of anybody or organization claiming to be "green".

Same with the term "progressive". Wall Street's stamp of approval is all over LGBTQ legislation because more LGBTQ rights expand many of Wall Street's profit centers, including its marriage industrial complex revenue..


This author points that out, btw.


The term Neoliberalism is confusing for most people, when a more accurate description would be Libertarianism. Professor Noam Chomsky has even stated this. There is nothing liberal in this economic philosophy, unless it's about liberally allowing the corporate and banking elites to have liberal control of government.


All manner of tactics are being used to ensure Clinton the Presidency. The Attonery General has filed a motion that would delay the release of EMAILS relating to the Clinton Foundation and conflict of interest for some 27 months, this coming soon after a meeting between Attorney General Lynch and Ms Clinton.


Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.

If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.


There has been a concerted effort of late to obscure, erase, cloud, and confuse people about the term "neoliberalism", which is very simply a term synonymous with economic globalism.

Ask yourself, "who in this election would benefit from the word neoliberal disappearing"?


This poll says Trump is winning:


Judging from the way Clinton and the DNC are phucking over Bernie's four Platform members (according to Bill McKibbon) I'd say she's so smug since she know a close election can be bought by Diebold and other computer voting machines like in 2000 (as documented by thebradblog.com.)

But watch out DNC!
It's Bernie or Trump.
Just like the unforeseen Brexit vote, you may lose another branch of government if you piss off Sanders.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Bill McKibbon understated the degree to which the DNC and Hillary's platform group have signaled Sanders' platform group to suck it up.


Yep, and there is also a critical factor that should have been examined and discussed years ago. Bill Clinton not only ended actual welfare in 1996, but took the first steps to similarly dismantle Social Security, starting with the disabled. (In fact, by 2000, the disabled had become the fastest-growing group of homeless people.) In doing so, he deeply split the Dem voting base apart. This voting base had long consisted of the "masses" -- poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, for the common good. Clinton threw the poor off the cliff, and in response, the media marketed to liberals raised the banner of middle class elitism, utterly alienating the poor (and those who get why it matters). It was hoped that this split could be repaired during the years of this administration, but that didn't happen.

Democrats could not have made a worse choice than another Clinton. Voters rejected the neoliberal Clinton agenda with Gore in 2000, rejected it again in 2008, and even more Democrats reject it in 2016. Liberals continue to implicitly maintain the myth that our deregulated corporate state is so successful that everyone is able to work, there are jobs for all, therefore no need for poverty relief. This confirmed the permanent nature of both the class war, middle class vs. the poor, and the split-up of the Dem voting base. Business leaders flock to whichever candidate offers them the best deal. No question, Clinton is desperate for their (and their followers') votes, since so many Dem voters deeply oppose her.

Trump is the most dangerous thing that this batch of Republicans have done to America, and Clinton is the best thing that ever happened to Trump.


"...Trump represents an angry and largely incoherent rebuke of the establishment..."

Johnson's characterization reminds me of a former colleague, who, in moments of utter frustration, would stand up in the middle of the office and scream, "Somebody do something--even if it's wrong!"