I have to hand it to Chris Hayes, he's going ballistically Left as he started his program this morning with Naomi Klein and Van Jones, and while Jones is still spinning for his old boss, Klein was straightforward regarding her progressive ideology, and she slammed Obama for not going to the mat for the cause, although I don't know what more she thinks Obama could have done without the power of dictator -- I feel as if he's tried as hard as he can to implement the progressive agenda, and now he has to get reelected to finish the job. Even though I disgree with just about everything coming from Klein's brain, I respect her courage.
I actually agree with Jones, Klein, and all the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters who protest government/corporate enmeshment -- however, I don't agree with their ironic call for more government intervention. I suppose what Klein, Jones and others are saying is they want a State that really, really places controls on corporations and manages the economy, though not for the benefit of favorite corporations but, rather, for the middle class and the poor. If they could be clearer about this point and how that can be accomplished, I'd have more respect.
Later on the show, PBS's Maria Hinojosa and The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney, the token Center-Right guest, also joined the conversation which during the first hour centered on OWS. Carney missed several opportunities to carry the free market ball further, but he was either drowned out by snark or he just doesn't believe in radical changes that would make a free market possible.
OWS was presented as a more advanced version of the Tea Party, a democratic effort to empower the people. I see an effort here to co-opt the TP movement, then change the direction leftward. The conversation moved to the problem of student loan debt. The question was why were banks bailed out, yet no government action has been taken to bail out students drowning in debt. The panel agreed that government has been complicit, along with society, in pushing kids to get college degrees, and now that they have degrees, they're drowning in debt and can't find jobs. Chris and the gang were careful not to present solutions, as have the OWS protesters been reluctant to show their hands when it comes to what they want government to do. The implication are pretty clear, though.
There were allusions to more control over banks, but what these controls entail is not clear. The implication regarding student debt is that students need a bailout, and they need jobs. I don't know what type of degrees these students have who can't find jobs, and many on the Right have suggested that the degrees are not in engineering and science, but rather mostly useless degrees in art, philosophy or social work, or something less marketable in the global economy.
A problem with Haye's show is that he and his guests bring up problem after problem, but very few of the problems are given much honest scrutiny unless it's a slamdunk case against the Right -- effects aren't traced backwards to causes -- so the moral rhetoric is specious, The problems as presented by Chris and his guests appear to be morally reprehensible, but when you think for a moment and consider the nuances, many of the problems can be traced back to government intervention, unintended consequences, then more government intervention to deal with the consequences, then more unintended consequences, on and on.
A recurring tactic used by the Leftists on Haye's show is to divert criticism against the Left by saying the Right does it too. When Solydra was brought up, the defense was that Southern Company has also received subsidies, but since Southern Company is supported by rightwing, southern politicians, the Right doesn't see this as a problem. They showed a clip of a representative from the South, Gingrey, claiming that Southern Company is an established company that became successful on its own, and that Solyndra is a rsiky company that requires subsidies to exist. This is where Carney had a chance to end this specious argument -- end all subsidies to all private companies and allow the free market to work.
It's impossible to address all the issues brought up on Haye's show, and this appears to be a tactic on the Left -- bombard opponents with issue after issue, making moral claims, and when one claim is attacked for lack of clarity, add ten more moral claims. The left is attempting to overload the system so that a general zeitgeist is formed which makes a general statement that capitalism has oppressed the middle class and the poor and while government has been complicit, now mobilization of the people should demand the creation of the government and system necessary to achieve social justice. Within this general statement are a thousand unexamined issues and false assumptions. Emotion and politically correct morality are overwhelming reason and the slow process of intellectual explication. Haye's show follows his rapid fire style through the use of uzi-issues fired non-stop. Reason and comprehensive intellectual investigation of unsubstantiated claims are the victims. The OWS protesters are using the same tactic -- thousands of complaints but very little reasonable study of cause and effect. Except, as I said, when the situation is a slam-dunk case against Republican hypocrisy, then the time is taken to study cause and effect so that it's clear Republicans are in the wrong.
A much better approach, and one Carney attempted to implement at times, is to move past Right and Left and trace the effect of government/corporate enmeshment back to original causes, and realise that in doing so both Democrats and Republicans will be found guilty. Hayes said the OWS movement is claiming to rise above Left and Right, and I sincerely hope this is true, but the real question is whether they will rise above statism and begin searching for private solutions. In order to achieve real empowerment of the people, dependence on the State has to be broken, but so far all indications point toward more statism not less. I get the impression that the Left wants the State to regulate corporations disliked by Left, but still support and subsidize correct business interests, like businesses in the green energy industry. If the OWS is about creating a State preferred by the Left, while violating the rights of everyone not on board with the progressive agenda, then it's just a form of direct democracy which will destroy America. If the OWS movement really wants to empower of the private sector, then I'm all for it.