You Might Also Enjoy

robertreich.org — By now, in these last remaining days before the election of 2012, we have learned enough about the beliefs of the Republican presidential candidate to see them as a worldview all its own – a kind of creed that explains Mitt Romney. Those who say he has no principles are selling him short. Despite its contradictions and ellipses, Romneyism has an internal coherence. It is different from conservatism, because it does not intend to conserve or protect any particular institutions or values. It is also distinct from Republicanism, in that it is not rooted in traditional small-town American values, nationalism, or states’ rights. The ten guiding principles of Romneyism are.

more »

huffingtonpost.com — The enormity of last week's super-storm is just beginning to sink into political consciousness. Hurricane Sandy should transform what Americans expect from their government, and give the party of government activism new force.

As soon as the election is behind us, the country faces a major struggle over what the super-storm portends and requires. But that struggle will be as much within the Democratic Party as between Democrats and the right, because of the deadweight of austerity politics.

more »

thenation.com — At a moment when political minds are fixed anxiously on Washington, it’s useful to remember where the real power resides. In this election, wealthy corporations and individuals have shown yet again how they can purchase politicians and pervert the democratic process. Progressives have no choice but to try to counter these forces through massive ground operations at election time, but that doesn’t always work—and even when it does, the rigged game always begins anew the day after, with corporate lobbyists working their magic on many of the same officials progressives just knocked themselves out to elect. So why not take the fight to the businesses and billionaires who are pulling the strings?

more »

economix.blogs.nytimes.com — Prominent voices within the financial sector are increasingly insisting on one point: We have ended “too big to fail.” The idea is simple: through a combination of legislation (the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010) and supportive regulation (particularly regarding how big banks would be handled in the event of “liquidation”), very large financial institutions are no longer perceived by investors to be too big to fail. Unfortunately, while tempting, this idea is completely at odds with the facts. The market perception that some financial institutions are “too big to fail” is alive and well. If you want to remove that perception, you need to break up our biggest banks.

more »