As a business communicator, I admire a good marketing plan. For example, when Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign developed their ad targeting women, I was impressed. “I believe there’s an athlete in everyone,” one woman says in the signature ad. It helped move me off the couch to start jogging; I still buy Nike shoes. And it’s helped Nike weather troubles with athlete endorsements and factory conditions in Asia.
Since I’ve written a few marketing plans myself throughout the years, I’ve learned to spot them in action. And I’d been saying, “There has to be a marketing plan for conservative political interests somewhere,” when I stumbled across an article in August 2011, acknowledging the 40th anniversary of something called the Powell Memorandum. (Read the document here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/) This memorandum, penned by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, is the blueprint for American political history during the last 40 years.
Written in 1971 when Powell was working as an attorney and sitting on the board of 11 corporations, it outlines for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce an extensive list of tactics to protect the interests of America’s largest corporate citizens. Paranoid about liberal activism in the 60s, Powell believed corporate America should exercise much more political influence. His tactics include shaping the political environment within higher and secondary education via: staff appointments, speakers, textbooks and curriculum, especially in graduate schools of business.
With regard to the wider public, Powell suggested developing think tanks to craft research and messages designed to favor big business. To disseminate them, television, radio, print publications, books, journals and paid advertisements should all be used. Consequently, today most major media is owned by corporate conglomerates.
Finally, Powell suggested corporate powers turn their efforts to the political and judicial arenas. The key to this strategy was money – to both parties, with efforts targeted to wean Democrats from union influence. Yet over time, more dollars began to flow to conservative political challengers.
In a web article about the Powell Memorandum, Bill Moyers and Company posted an excerpt from Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson’s book Winner-Take-All Politics: (http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/2/) “By the end of the 1978 campaign, more than 60 percent of corporate contributions had gone to Republicans, both GOP challengers and Republican incumbents fighting off liberal Democrats. A new era of campaign finance was born: Not only were corporate contributions growing ever bigger, Democrats had to work harder for them. More and more, to receive business largesse, they had to do more than hold power; they had to wield it in ways that business liked.”
The height of this plan’s success was the current Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, unleashing loads of corporate cash into the current election.
Great American businessmen have long understood that a business cannot survive without customers. Henry Ford made sure to pay his employees a wage large enough to allow them to buy the cars they helped make.
But unfortunately, current corporate leaders (And I’m talking about large international companies, not small Main Street businesses.) have lost sight of their place in the American community, squeezing larger profits via staff cuts, government subsidies, tax breaks and public contracts without giving back via taxes and living wages to employees. Their leaders do not acknowledge responsibility for the common good.
As Hacker and Pierson’s book points out, this corporate agenda provides money to both political parties. Yet the majority now flows to Republican politicians, represented at the top by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
So no matter what you may feel about President Barack Obama, if you’re part of the 99 percent, following the money means you have a better shot with the incumbent. That’s your choice – corporate capitalists or the common good.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Will we make an informed choice?
Ok, I admit it. I’m ticked off about the debate. Why?
Not because media pundits, who live for a good figurative shoving match, gave Round 1 to Romney. I’m angry because I see an unengaged citizenry refusing to acknowledge this stuff matters.
What set me off? Facebook.
Yeah, I know it’s a social networking site. People routinely post stupid things. I annoy people by sharing articles with an alternative perspective on politics and religion. I’m well aware most are probably ignored. But as one of my college professors used to say, “Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.” Sometimes I get a person’s attention.
But I blew a gasket the morning after the debate because too many intelligent people I know refused to watch. Really, you’re going to opt for Honey Boo Boo?
Is it any wonder the American people get nothing from their representation in government?
The whole idea of a democracy is citizen involvement, but when citizens refuse to do their work, they have no right to complain about the product. Americans only want to show up every four years for the main event – the election of the President. And then the best we bring is some vague impression of who is “likeable” or “presidential.”
If we know anything about policy or the issues, it probably comes from an ad – TV or direct mail, like the one I received from the Romney campaign recently.
In the past year, both my husband and I were inexplicably registered as Republicans. The only response I got when I marched into the auditor’s office to correct that error was a shrug and a “wishful thinking, I guess.”
As a consequence, we now get Obama and Romney campaign literature. I tend to toss both, preferring to use my own research to evaluate records. However, this flier caught my attention, first, with a large photo of president Obama.
Next came the headline: “President Obama will continue to grow government. More runaway spending. High taxes. More jobs lost.”
That stopped me before I made it to the trash can because these claims are wrong.
First, let’s take the claim President Obama has grown government with runaway spending.
As Factcheck.org notes: “The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ Yet this article goes on to explain at length the complexity of government spending and our current situation, making it clear no one party is to blame.
Second, will taxes increase under President Obama? Well, as this article on Think Progress notes, income taxes under Obama are at an historic low. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/?mobile=nc%C2%A0 Factcheck backs that up. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/
And in the future? Well, the Romney flier didn’t specify which taxes, but I’d guess they are including the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Again, I’ll defer to Factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/. Brooks Jackson writes: “In short, there are too many moving parts in both the ACA and in earlier tax laws to make simple comparisons that are valid for all purposes. . . . Despite all these uncertainties, one thing is abundantly clear. There’s no way the ACA’s tax and other revenue increases come close to being the largest in U.S. history.”
Finally, declaring President Obama will lose more jobs denies reality given reports this month that indicate he may finish this term with net job creation, as this Bloomberg article outlines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/payroll-revisions-signal-economy-has-created-jobs-under-obama.html The Romney ad’s claim also makes no reference to the horrible economic conditions President Obama inherited. To deny his efforts to prevent greater economic turmoil is to deny reality.
But then acknowledging reality would mean admitting policies under the previous Republican administration led to the current economic uncertainty.
As Stephen Colbert once said, “It is a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.” Unfortunately too many citizens pretend what they do won’t make any difference, so they can watch crappy reality TV without guilt.
If you plan to vote, do your homework.
Not because media pundits, who live for a good figurative shoving match, gave Round 1 to Romney. I’m angry because I see an unengaged citizenry refusing to acknowledge this stuff matters.
What set me off? Facebook.
Yeah, I know it’s a social networking site. People routinely post stupid things. I annoy people by sharing articles with an alternative perspective on politics and religion. I’m well aware most are probably ignored. But as one of my college professors used to say, “Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.” Sometimes I get a person’s attention.
But I blew a gasket the morning after the debate because too many intelligent people I know refused to watch. Really, you’re going to opt for Honey Boo Boo?
Is it any wonder the American people get nothing from their representation in government?
The whole idea of a democracy is citizen involvement, but when citizens refuse to do their work, they have no right to complain about the product. Americans only want to show up every four years for the main event – the election of the President. And then the best we bring is some vague impression of who is “likeable” or “presidential.”
If we know anything about policy or the issues, it probably comes from an ad – TV or direct mail, like the one I received from the Romney campaign recently.
In the past year, both my husband and I were inexplicably registered as Republicans. The only response I got when I marched into the auditor’s office to correct that error was a shrug and a “wishful thinking, I guess.”
As a consequence, we now get Obama and Romney campaign literature. I tend to toss both, preferring to use my own research to evaluate records. However, this flier caught my attention, first, with a large photo of president Obama.
Next came the headline: “President Obama will continue to grow government. More runaway spending. High taxes. More jobs lost.”
That stopped me before I made it to the trash can because these claims are wrong.
First, let’s take the claim President Obama has grown government with runaway spending.
As Factcheck.org notes: “The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ Yet this article goes on to explain at length the complexity of government spending and our current situation, making it clear no one party is to blame.
Second, will taxes increase under President Obama? Well, as this article on Think Progress notes, income taxes under Obama are at an historic low. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/?mobile=nc%C2%A0 Factcheck backs that up. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/
And in the future? Well, the Romney flier didn’t specify which taxes, but I’d guess they are including the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Again, I’ll defer to Factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/. Brooks Jackson writes: “In short, there are too many moving parts in both the ACA and in earlier tax laws to make simple comparisons that are valid for all purposes. . . . Despite all these uncertainties, one thing is abundantly clear. There’s no way the ACA’s tax and other revenue increases come close to being the largest in U.S. history.”
Finally, declaring President Obama will lose more jobs denies reality given reports this month that indicate he may finish this term with net job creation, as this Bloomberg article outlines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/payroll-revisions-signal-economy-has-created-jobs-under-obama.html The Romney ad’s claim also makes no reference to the horrible economic conditions President Obama inherited. To deny his efforts to prevent greater economic turmoil is to deny reality.
But then acknowledging reality would mean admitting policies under the previous Republican administration led to the current economic uncertainty.
As Stephen Colbert once said, “It is a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.” Unfortunately too many citizens pretend what they do won’t make any difference, so they can watch crappy reality TV without guilt.
If you plan to vote, do your homework.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
What's changed since 2008?
As a 2008 volunteer, I get mailings from Obama for America.
Last week, the mailing envelope was a 12x18-inch poster headlined: CHANGE IS.
Beneath that was a black and white portrait of President Obama. And under the photo was a list of eleven accomplishments. They included:
Equal Pay for Equal Work
Saving the U.S. auto industry
Credit card reform
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Affordable Care Act
Student loan reform
Wall Street reform
Middle-class tax cuts
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Raising fuel efficiency standards
Ending the war in Iraq
Since I track the president’s record, I’d add the destruction of Al-Quaida and its leader Osama Bin Laden.
Overall, the list just hits the highlights.
How many items were you aware of? How many of these items have made a difference in your life? I’d venture a guess that most of us have seen benefits from almost all of them, whether we’ll admit it or not.
Unfortunately, our mainstream corporate media has failed to cover the actual policies this administration has championed – mainly because they do not overwhelmingly benefit corporate media owners’ interests. Citizen ignorance is their friend.
Why? If you do not understand the Affordable Care Act, maybe you won’t support it – even though it allows your college graduate to stay on your insurance plan while he or she searches for a job.
If you’re ignorant, you won’t support it even though now your insurer can’t cut you off when you hit a certain dollar amount spent to cover your pre-existing condition. Ignorance will allow you to oppose it despite the fact your premiums would have increased more drastically had ACA not been passed.
The fact is that with a higher number of U.S. citizens insured, many of them healthy young people, ACA is already bending the cost curve down. But even with ACA, we’re barely making a dent in rising healthcare costs. We could more effectively control costs and care for people with either a single payer system (like Medicare) or socialized medicine (like the Veteran’s Administration), both of which could be expanded.
Yet, as journalist Chris Hedges points out in a recent column on healthcare, “. . . as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages.”
Plenty of people I’ve met are also unaware President Obama cut middle class taxes during the worst of the recession. Media didn’t report it that way; instead they reported he wants to “raise taxes,” even though he only wants to raise tax rates on wealthy individuals and large multinational corporations. He’s also decreased the deficit and cut more government spending than his predecessor.
This president has a long list of accomplishments, but listening to media reports you’d think we have seen no change. Where is this “liberal media bias” I hear about?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again -- the first step to deciding who to vote for is to do your homework. Quit voting on emotion, turn off the TV and radio, and read. And know who pays for your sources. Otherwise you’re just a cog in the corporate machine, and nothing will change.
Because change is not just up to the president; it comes down to us.
Last week, the mailing envelope was a 12x18-inch poster headlined: CHANGE IS.
Beneath that was a black and white portrait of President Obama. And under the photo was a list of eleven accomplishments. They included:
Equal Pay for Equal Work
Saving the U.S. auto industry
Credit card reform
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Affordable Care Act
Student loan reform
Wall Street reform
Middle-class tax cuts
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Raising fuel efficiency standards
Ending the war in Iraq
Since I track the president’s record, I’d add the destruction of Al-Quaida and its leader Osama Bin Laden.
Overall, the list just hits the highlights.
How many items were you aware of? How many of these items have made a difference in your life? I’d venture a guess that most of us have seen benefits from almost all of them, whether we’ll admit it or not.
Unfortunately, our mainstream corporate media has failed to cover the actual policies this administration has championed – mainly because they do not overwhelmingly benefit corporate media owners’ interests. Citizen ignorance is their friend.
Why? If you do not understand the Affordable Care Act, maybe you won’t support it – even though it allows your college graduate to stay on your insurance plan while he or she searches for a job.
If you’re ignorant, you won’t support it even though now your insurer can’t cut you off when you hit a certain dollar amount spent to cover your pre-existing condition. Ignorance will allow you to oppose it despite the fact your premiums would have increased more drastically had ACA not been passed.
The fact is that with a higher number of U.S. citizens insured, many of them healthy young people, ACA is already bending the cost curve down. But even with ACA, we’re barely making a dent in rising healthcare costs. We could more effectively control costs and care for people with either a single payer system (like Medicare) or socialized medicine (like the Veteran’s Administration), both of which could be expanded.
Yet, as journalist Chris Hedges points out in a recent column on healthcare, “. . . as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages.”
Plenty of people I’ve met are also unaware President Obama cut middle class taxes during the worst of the recession. Media didn’t report it that way; instead they reported he wants to “raise taxes,” even though he only wants to raise tax rates on wealthy individuals and large multinational corporations. He’s also decreased the deficit and cut more government spending than his predecessor.
This president has a long list of accomplishments, but listening to media reports you’d think we have seen no change. Where is this “liberal media bias” I hear about?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again -- the first step to deciding who to vote for is to do your homework. Quit voting on emotion, turn off the TV and radio, and read. And know who pays for your sources. Otherwise you’re just a cog in the corporate machine, and nothing will change.
Because change is not just up to the president; it comes down to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
