Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine
I wrote The Shock Doctrine in the hopes that it would make us all better prepared for the next big shock. Well, that shock has certainly arrived, along with gloves-off attempts to use it to push through radical pro-corporate policies (which of course will further enrich the very players who created the market crisis in the first place...).
The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.
It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right's ability to use this crisis — created by deregulation and privatization — to demand more of the same. Don't forget that Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, is still riding the wave of success from its offshore drilling campaign, "Drill Here, Drill Now!" Just four months ago, offshore drilling was not even on the political radar and now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed supportive legislation. Gingrich is holding an event this Saturday, September 27 that will be broadcast on satellite television to shore up public support for these controversial policies.
What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."
We have seen this many times before, in this country and around the world. But here's the thing: these opportunistic tactics can only work if we let them. They work when we respond to crisis by regressing, wanting to believe in "strong leaders" - even if they are the same strong leaders who used the September 11 attacks to push through the Patriot Act and launch the illegal war in Iraq.
So let's be absolutely clear: there are no saviors who are going to look out for us in this crisis. Certainly not Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout (which is actually a stick up). The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant.
This article was first posted on The Huffington Post.
Naomi Klein is a strong supporter of The Indypendent. To see a short video clip about what she had to say earlier this year, click here.




Comments
amen, sister.
What's Klein's opinion on the shock doctrine of the New Deal? Why is more choice in where one may send their child to get their compulsory education bad? How does she feel about the fact that the US has the second highest corporate income tax in the developed world or explain why many European countries have lowered their corporate tax rate and had both an increase in business as well as tax inflow? Why is giving people the option to opt out of SSI bad? Why is drilling offshore bad?
The subsidies given to the oil industry are bad but the drilling should be a matter of property rights. The securing of the board is anti-freedom and the proposed bailout is wrong... but for economic reasons moreso than the fact it's fascistic... though that should not be ignored. It will only prolong the necessary malinvestment liquidation by artificially inflating prices.
Force used to extract something from one person and give it to another and keeping consenting adults from performing voluntary transactions are wrong regardless of its intent or who it supposedly helps. Taxing the rich to pay the rich is just as wrong as taxing the rich to give to the poor. It's all theft.
I have a question; looks like they will go against the majority and pass a bailout bill.
1st admendment says if the majority signs a petition to repeal a bill the goverment must do it.
I have read that if the Goverment ignores the petition the people have the right to not support the govermen through taxes.
does anyone no if that is correct?
then there is always the second admendment, also.
Add new comment