So-Called Moderates Baffle Me

What the hell is a moderate? Honestly, not rhetorically, I'm genuinely asking that question. I don't understand the brand.

Now, I know I recently revealed that I've come to terms with the "left-right" ideology distraction, realizing that it pushes real issues aside. But that doesn't change the fact that most people cling to a label or a narrow category that generalizes their political persuasion. So, if I were to choose one to harp on, and I'm going to, it would definitely be the "moderate" ideology and the "moderate" individual."

Being a moderate offers nothing more than an arrogant cop-out to the world of politics. What is so extreme and excessive about feeling well grounded in regards to one's opinions and positions? Is there no right and wrong in the mind of a moderate? Are the conditions of America's health care system, the moral hazards of a guiltless and unpunished financial system, and our permanent war economy, issues that are just, kinda bad?

A counterargument I can imagine popping up in response to my remarks would be: But being a moderate is having an opinion and is being well grounded. It is being well grounded in sustaining an open-mindedness to the many answers in the face of an issue.

Countering the counterargument, I would say that there is and always will be, a right and a wrong. The moderate persuasion aims to conciliate the two, ignoring the problem. The moderates, like Barack Obama, want to keep the banking "fat cats" happy, regardless of what scathing remarks our President makes about their conduct and what illuminations he offers in regards to why he chose to run for president. They believe that the paper economy is the real economy in America, and without the bailouts, our economy would have collapsed. They don't see the difference between "our" economy, and the economy of credit-default swaps, predatory lending, detrimental market speculation, and all the other games the scoundrels on wall street are still playing and still getting away with.

This past Friday, December 11, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. As one who has not read the bill, I don't entirely know what to expect, nor should I fully doubt the intentions or the achievements of the Democratic Party in passing the bill. But, as one who has read what I trust to be a pretty good summary of the bill by the Associated Press, there's plenty of reason to do so.

The Republicans argued that the bill would "institutionalize bailouts," in other words, perpetuate the moral hazard that they helped create, by approving the bailouts in the second go around, and offering no solutions in the realm of regulation; remember, they hate regulation all together. Furthermore, in the AP report by Jim Kuhnhenn, it is revealed that "the bill would create a Financial Services Oversight Council made up of the Treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman and heads of regulatory agencies to monitor the financial markets for potential threats to nation's system." Try to swallow that one. It's tantamount to asking the giant HMO's to monitor their claims to make sure every paying American is receiving quality health care.

Reflecting on the fact that the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, was asleep at the wheel, so to speak, when the financial behemoths were destroying "our" economy, and our current Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, was head of New York's Federal Reserve bank, suffering from the same symptoms as Bernanke, why involve them? To back up my harsh criticism, I'll offer some citations from someone irrefutably credible: Robert Scheer, Editor & Chief of Truthdig.com. Mr. Scheer has been covering this mess since it first started making heads turn, and more recently, in his piece "Still Doing God's Work on Wall Street," Scheer explains:

"Geithner, now treasury secretary, was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), where he negotiated the deal to pay Goldman Sachs and the other top banks in full to cover their bad bets on securitized mortgages. Barofsky's report concluded that Geithner's scheme represented a "backdoor bailout" for the financial hustlers at the center of the market fiasco. Noting that Geithner denies that was his intention, the report states, "Irrespective of their stated intent, however, there is no question that the effect of FRBNY's decisions -- indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG -- was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG's counterparties."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has been naturally outspoken about the possible reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed:

"Before Ben Bernanke became the Fed chairman in 2006, he headed the council of economic advisers for President Bush - one of the most right-wing presidents in American history. He also sat on the Fed board of governors from 2002 to 2005. Perhaps more than anyone else, Bernanke was in a position to diagnose the impending economic disaster and take steps to stop it. Tragically, not only did he fail to prevent the economic collapse that we have experienced, he did not even warn the American people that it was coming until it was too late. Equally distressing, his actions since the crisis began may leave taxpayers holding the bag for an even bigger bailout in the future." Sanders goes on to lay out the duties of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve:

"As chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke has four main responsibilities: (1) to conduct monetary policy in a way that leads to maximum employment and stable prices; (2) to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions; (3) to contain systemic risk in financial markets; and (4) to protect consumers against deceptive and unfair financial products." Bernie Sanders says that Bernanke has been an "abysmal failure" in all four of those areas.

If one is to believe that another Chairman of the Fed would be trustworthy and responsible, why not halt the inclusion of that seat in the Oversight Counsil until a majority of Americans can once again sleep at night. As far as the Treasury Secretary inclusion is concerned, we've got a lot more to reform, say, the Executive branch, before we can stop that from happening. For now, all we can do is hope that Geithner is asked to resign before he does anymore damage to our wallets.

What did moderates of the 19th century, during the time of a robust anti-slavery movement, think of the issue? If they were anything like they are today, I would say that a majority of moderates believed slavery was immoral and should be abolished, but they didn't have the brass to do anything about it, nor were they sure of its ramifications in respect to the economy. As far as women's suffrage was concerned in the 20th century, moderate husbands probably felt that their own wives should have the right to voice their opinion via voting, but they doubted that the right would be granted in their own lifetime, so they definitely weren't going to do anything about it. They continuously voted for the Democrats who, for years, failed to answer the call of the women's rights movement. They ignored Eugene Debs five times. And now they belittle the political common sense of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, not because of their politics, but rather the politics of politics. Moderates and a majority of Americans, regardless of what stripe, have given into a two-party system that has cultivated pseudo-events (to use a phrase coined by Chris Hedges) out of political gatherings, gerrymandered a majority of the districts in every state like a territorial pack of wolves, and the system only answers to Mr. Big Bucks, while shouting a big "fuck you" to the American people.

Aghh...moderates: Who needs 'em?