Skip to main content

To President Obama and Secretary Clinton: In the name of god, go

Dear Secretary Clinton and President Obama:

On April 20, 1653, Oliver Cromwell spoke these words to the Long Parliament:

“You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing…. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go.”

Secretary Clinton, you are rightly being blamed for the electoral tragedy that has befallen our country. The country wanted change and you offered continuity. You prided yourself on the neoliberal economic policies of your husband, President Bill Clinton, which have driven our country into stagnation and despair. Your rejection in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania speaks to a greater rejection of the economic policies you, your husband, and your Third Way associates imposed on the party of Franklin Roosevelt.

President Obama, you too deserve enormous blame. You wasted the historic opportunity at the beginning of your presidency to break with neoliberal economics. Instead, you pushed Obamacare with its expensive sub-standard insurance that is punitively imposed on the self-employed. Donald Trump benefited enormously from the premium increase notices that were received up and down the country in the week before the election. And at the end, you pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, another neoliberal globalization agreement, which ceded the economic argument to Mr. Trump. Your charm and intelligence are no substitute for the economic change we need, you promised, and then reneged on.

Cromwell’s words apply to both of you. Heed them and be gone.

Sincerely,

Tom Palley

Comments

  1. While I'm in broad agreement with the letter, I think Palley is being too hard on Obama and the Clintons given that they were only following the policies recommended by their advisors, who are themselves a fairly narrow policy and advocacy circle. So the letter should in fact be addressed to the following list of names:

    Ben Bernanke
    Tim Geithner
    Brad DeLong
    Paul Krugman
    Robert Rubin
    Larry Summers
    Mark Thoma
    Laura Tyson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Krugman never advised the Clintons. He resented that in the 1990s, and that they had Reich and Tyson, people he derided as Pop Internationalists. Reich remains a progressive. Bernanke was a Bush appointee both to the CEA and the Fed. And the Clintons and Obama are responsible for the economists they appoint. There is little doubt that they have neoliberal proclivities.

      Delete
    2. Reich and Tyson were never as influential in the Clinton administration as Rubin and Summers, who share the same pro-globalization stance as Krugman. And while Tyson was open-minded on industrial policy, she didn't come out then in opposition to NAFTA and similar trade deals, which is why I've put her in the group. Bernanke may not have been appointed by Obama, but they had no significant policy clashes, public or private, during the time that they overlapped in the White House and Fed.

      I agree completely that the Clintons and Obama have neoliberal proclivities, but these proclivities did not spring up out of thin air. The interesting historical what-if question is if instead of the above crew, what would have happened if people like Reich, Jared Bernstein and Jamie Galbraith had been able to spend more time discussing policy with the Clintons and Obama. Who you are is who you talk to...

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the 'Classical Dichotomy'?

A few brief comments on Brexit and the postmortem of the European Union

Another end of the world is possible
There will be a lot of postmortems for the European Union (EU) after Brexit. Many will suggest that this was a victory against the neoliberal policies of the European Union. See, for example, the first three paragraphs of Paul Mason's column here. And it is true, large contingents of working class people, that have suffered with 'free-market' economics, voted for leaving the union. The union, rightly or wrongly, has been seen as undemocratic and responsible for the economics woes of Europe.

The problem is that while it is true that the EU leaders have been part of the problem and have pursued the neoliberal policies within the framework of the union, sometimes with treaties like the Fiscal Compact, it is far from clear that Brexit and the possible demise of the union, if the fever spreads to France, Germany and other countries with their populations demanding their own referenda, will lead to the abandonment of neoliberal policies. Aust…

A brief note on Venezuela and the turn to the right in Latin America

So besides the coup in Brazil (which was all but confirmed by the last revelations, if you had any doubts), and the electoral victory of Macri in Argentina, the crisis in Venezuela is reaching a critical level, and it would not be surprising if the Maduro administration is recalled, even though right now the referendum is not scheduled yet.

The economy in Venezuela has collapsed (GDP has fallen by about 14% or so in the last two years), inflation has accelerated (to three digit levels; 450% or so according to the IMF), there are shortages of essential goods, recurrent energy blackouts, and all of these aggravated by persistent violence. Contrary to what the press suggests, these events are not new or specific to left of center governments. Similar events occurred in the late 1980s, in the infamous Caracazo, when the fall in oil prices caused an external crisis, inflation, and food shortages, which eventually, after the announcement of a neoliberal economic package that included the i…