1. "We are not in business for our health." A statement attributed to J. P. Morgan, when fellow parishioners in New York's Trinity Church criticized him for "investing" Church funds in lucrative East Side slum property. Capitalists have never been in business for anybody's health and today that is most evident for pharmaceutical firms and insurance companies.

2. "What do I care about the law. Ain't I got the power." A quote from the early great Robber Baron, Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose most recent relatives designed designer clothes and, in the case of Wyatt Cooper of CNN, have become TV news people. Vanderbilt's statement gives us insight into the capitalist class view of legality, namely that it is something to manipulate and enforce to increase capitalist wealth and power and to undermine and where possible ignore when it seeks to regulate or limit capitalist wealth and power.

3. "The Public be damned!" A quote attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt's son, William, in response to popular criticism of his creation of a private monopoly in New York Street transit and his subsequent doubling of the fares. Today capitalists have PR firms to make sure that they are never caught saying the public be damned but their policies in most areas continue in that vein.

William by the way, was very badly treated by his father until, he won dad over by cheating (according to anti-monopoly scholars) union army cavalry stationed on Staten Island during the Civil War on the price of hay that he was selling them from a farm. Then his father finally respected him and took him into the business.

4. "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." A very famous quote attributed to Robber Baron Jay Gould, whose fellow big capitalists called the "Mephistopheles of Wall Street." Actually, the struggle to unite the working class, to fight against all forms of racist and other prejudices, is an attempt to prevent Gould's boast from being carried forward in policy, which capitalists in their use of scabs, immigrants and minorities to break strikes, along with police and militia drawn from the working class, have done many times in the past, especially before the enactment of federal labor laws in the 1930s.

5. "In a Republican district I was a Republican. In a Democratic district, I was a Democrat. But I was always for Erie." Another quote from Jay Gould explaining his and most capitalists approach to politics. The Erie Railroad was a company he both controlled and used in a number of wildly corrupt activities in the 1870s. The quote shows the capitalist class conception of representative government and its approach to non Communist, non socialist political parties. At one point, Gould and Cornelius Vanderbilt were bribing New York state legislators hand over fist in a battle to obtain railroad franchises. The cost of bribes got so high that they actually held a meeting in Albany to fix the price of bribes(a sort of bribe cap) to protect both of their interests.

6. "God gave me my money." A quote attributed to a frustrated John D. Rockefeller in response to critical inquiries about how he had attained his wealth. Rockefeller was a religious man, but the quote gives us insight into the capitalist view of religion, as a justification for inequality and exploitation. Rockefeller endowed religious and secular charities, practicing what Andrew Carnegie, a fellow great capitalist called the "gospel of wealth," that is, charity from the rich as a substitute for public social programs. Tax reform led by political progressives also led Rockefeller and other like minded big capitalists to set up foundations which enabled them to spend monies for charitable purposes that they would in large part have to turn over to the government and also provide them with good PR.

7. "Character." The response that J.P. Morgan near the end of his life gave to a congressional committee in 1911 investigating his enormous finance capitalist empire. Morgan probably believed it. Like the great capitalists who called themselves "captains of industry" and "industrial statesmen," he saw himself as superior not only to workers but to small businessmen, professionals, politicians in the great market struggle of life and the corporations he create. For the great capitalists, the wealth they garnered was proof of their moral superiority. When Morgan died in 1913, the syndicate of industrial/bank capital that was the Morgan interests controlled an estimated 13% of the investment capital of the world. Today, corporate leaders and even many of their small imitators have adopted the military term CEO to replace the nineteenth century "captain of industry."

8. "What good is ten million if you can't have real money." A statement from Jesse Livermore explaining his suicide in the 1930s. Livermore was a famous Wall Street speculator of the 1920s who lost most of his wealth in the depression. At the time of his suicide, creditors were closing in but he still possessed 10 million. This shows in effect the difference between what capitalists and workers (including those who call themselves middle class) think about money. I don't know what Livermore would have said when he heard that John McCain defined being rich today as having a $5 million annual income, although McCain (who didn't deal with total assets of course) would probably see men like Livermore as the kind of "entrepreneur" on whom American progress and prosperity was based(the way men like Livermore were seen in mass media before the great depression). Certainly he would do what he could to keep Livermore's taxes as low as possible and to bail him out financially. regardless of what that meant for taxpayers,

9. "There are no social classes in America. Only the middle class." A wildly irrational statement, proclaiming in effect a capitalist "classless society" attributed to Herbert Hoover in the 1920s(as President, Hoover found out the hard way that there was a working class which would not passively accept his platitudes that "the economy is fundamentally sound" and federal relief "would rot the moral fiber of the people" as the depression deepened). While Hoover was not in the same league as Rockefeller, Morgan, or the Vanderbilts, he was a very wealthy and successful capitalist who hung unto his wealth even as he lost the presidency. Unfortunately, capitalists, in the U.S. particularly continue to use the term "middle class" in the sense that Hoover did to spread a false consciousness among workers that their interests lie with their employers and that government taxation, minorities, undocumented workers, and the poor are the result of their economic problems

10. "Take the money and run." A term that was the title of a Woody Allen movie which connects many dots over the centuries of the capitalist mode of production. In pursuit of greater markets and cheaper natural resources and labor, capitalists have always taken the money and run, explaining that this was the road to progress and prosperity, whether they called it "free trade" as they did in the 19th century or "globalization" and "outsourcing" as they do today. It is as much a truism as the Communist Manifesto's call for the workers of the world to unite because they have nothing to lose but their chains.

With Barack Obama’s victory in the American presidential elections there are expectations of changes in US policy in Iraq, involving a substantial reduction of force levels. In the so-called Obama–Biden plan for Iraq, this is expressed as follows:

“The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months… Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism…
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction… As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.”

So, the US forces will withdraw in large numbers, but beyond that, and of interest to those who care for Iraq itself, can Obama realistically hope to achieve anything other than a unilateral withdrawal, such as the ambitious reconciliation aims outlined above? Much of the answer to this question has to do with the issue of leverage. In this regard, the Obama–Biden plan embodies several basic assumptions about the motives of the Iraqi leadership that were set forward more comprehensively in a report by the Center for a New American Security in June this year, authored by Colin Kahl, Michèle Flournoy and Shawn Brimley, and titled Shaping the Iraq Inheritance. Put briefly, the Democratic view is that Nuri al-Maliki has a strong desire to keep US forces a little longer in Iraq so that they can help him strengthen his position (by “rebuilding” the Iraqi army); accordingly the US should be in a position to offer an extended stay (or a “residual force”/more training and advisers) as some kind of bonus to Maliki. This theory is described in the report by Kahl et al. as “conditional engagement”.

What appears to be missing in these assumptions is an appreciation of some of what happened in Iraq in 2007. This is not to suggest that “the surge” was such a wonderful success. So far, no significant political institutional reform has materialised as a result of the decline in violence; without this kind of political reform “the surge” in itself is worthless because it is based on temporary stop-gap measures like an infusion of US troops and the bribing of armed militants. However, Nuri al-Maliki the person has been enormously strengthened by the surge. A year and a half ago, any suggestion that Maliki would be the next strongman of Iraq would be met by ridicule. Today, his emergence as a powerful figure with an increasingly independent position vis-à-vis his political coalition partners is an undeniable fact. The Iraqi army is stronger than at any point since 2003 and is becoming a potential tool of repression that many other authoritarian rulers in the region are envious of. And Maliki has rediscovered an ideological superstructure that is making him increasingly immune against criticism at home: using the language of centralism, Iraqi nationalism and at times anti-federalism, he has become independent enough to challenge even some of his longstanding coalition partners such as the Kurds and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).

When it comes to the leverage of the next US administration in Iraq the question is not so much about the “objective” strength of the Iraqi army but rather about what Nuri al-Maliki perceives to be his room for manoeuvre. In that regard, he seems increasingly tied to a nationalist discourse of Iraqi sovereignty that takes a critical line with regard to foreign interference. Hence, it seems more and more likely that if faced with an Obama offer of “conditional engagement” Maliki's most likely response would be essentially that Iraq is an independent country which is not willing to be bullied into constitutional reforms at the behest of foreigners. He would be thankful to the Americans for their support their support so far in making him a strong ruler, but he would feel strong enough to decline the offer of extended support if this comes with too many strings attached: a SOFA, maybe, but no more than that. He might hope to see his electoral base boosted in local and parliamentary elections, or he could turn to the army and other security forces where he has an increasing number of friends. Failing that, he could always turn to Iran – it may be symptomatic in this regard that the pro-Iranian Daawa/Tanzim al-Iraq is part of Maliki’s new coalition for the local elections even if ISCI apparently plans to run separately.

What are the alternatives to “conditional engagement” in the Democratic camp? What if Maliki feels stronger than US politicians think he is? The Biden scheme of a grand compromise on federalism has few supporters in Iraq south of Kurdistan, although Iran might be interested in the regional aspect of a “Dayton-style” settlement where it might exploit the desire of Obama to mark a contrast to the Bush administration’s tough line. If Obama goes to the opposite extreme in terms of offering Iran a regional role, Iran would emerge stronger than ever and could use its influence with the Maliki government to effectively control oil reserves similar in scale to those of Saudi Arabia. However, other pro-Obama groups have worked out policy suggestions that are far better grounded in Iraqi realities than the schemes of Biden, for example the report Iraq’s Political Transition After the Surge by Brian Katulis, Marc Lynch and Peter Juul. But they, too, stake their entire argument on an assumption about the Maliki government’s perception that may turn out to be incorrect. Their thesis is quite the opposite of that of Kahl et al.: only the prospect of an early US withdrawal can focus minds on the Iraqi side and will force them to make compromises – not out of any altruistic motives, but because those in power supposedly will feel they need such compromises in order to survive in their current positions. Again, it seems likely that Maliki, who as early as in 2007 spoke of national reconciliation as something that had already been accomplished, may not see the need for any wide-ranging reform.

There are two other Iraq alternatives that have received only limited attention by Democratic policy-makers. The first one is exceedingly straightforward and would consist of singling out the 2009 parliamentary elections as the key to reform and Iraq’s last chance to repair itself (the new parliament would then appoint a more representative constitutional revision committee than the current one). The United States could focus all its energies on making those elections as inclusive and free and fair as possible, and in doing so would be quite immune against accusations of meddling in Iraqi affairs. The second alternative is more radical, and builds on the idea of an externally induced shock as well as exploiting US leverage where it still exists: Kurdistan. Political scientist Liam Anderson has earlier proposed an internationally guaranteed “autonomy plus” status for Kurdistan along the lines of the Åland Islands in Finland; by building on this idea one might also create a corollary involving Kurdish withdrawal from the constitutional process in the rest of Iraq, where much of the problem has been artificial alliances between the two biggest Kurdish parties and pro-federal Shiite politicians that enjoy only limited backing in the constituencies they purport to represent, and where what is needed is radical recalibration and constitutional reform directed by Iraqis who are more representative and who can offer resistance to the attempt by the Kurds to impose a pro-federal agenda on all of Iraq. Both these approaches come with the advantage that they are much more difficult for Nuri al-Maliki to simply reject and therefore also involve a greater degree of real US leverage.

Paul Krugman, among my favorite political commentators, has spoken forthrightly of how during the past few years we have had"monsters" in office, naming Tom Delay, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. He complains that until recently, if an observer simply called them what they are, he or she was termed"shrill." (h/t Daily Kos).

I could not agree more. But I'd like to take this discussion out of the realm of commentary and into that of action.

It is unacceptable that television news brings Tom Delay and Karl Rove on as bona fide political commentators, when both are criminals. The same thing goes for Oliver North. Delay has been indicted on corruption charges and had to step down from his seat in Congress. Rove led a campaign to have the press out a covert CIA operative who was attempting to stop Iranian nuclear proliferation, essentially blowing her cover and that of her contacts to Tehran (i.e. he is a traitor).

There was a time when individuals so tainted with crime made themselves unacceptable in polite society, including on television.

Instead, these monsters are being given air time. CNN brought Delay on to accuse Barack Obama of being a"Marxist." To have that shameless embezzler given a platform to smear an honorable man just made my blood boil.

Folks, we need an organization that can blanket the corporate media with emails of complaint every time they bring on a criminal and parade him as a legitimate commentator. If they blow us off, it would be time to get up some advertiser boycotts.

This rehabilitation-by-media of criminals is one way the country keeps being shifted to the right every time the people find their voice. The Right gives a comfy perch on television to looney embezzlers and burglars and then wages campaigns with big money behind them to discredit even centrist leaders not in their back pockets.

I do not advocate criminalizing politics. I am not saying anything glib, such that all Bush administration figures are ipso facto criminals and should be denied a public voice. The United States government is a large bureaucracy and lots of civil servants and military have to serve whatever administration the public votes in. There are and were people on Bush's National Security Council, e.g., who are honorable and trying to do their best by the United States.

All that I am saying is that where someone has to resign in disgrace and is actually indicted on serious corruption charges, like Delay, that should make that individual poison to television news! The Rove case is a little trickier, since he has not been indicted. But the Fitzgerald investigation showed that he tried to do something that was technically illegal. Presidential pardons also muddy these waters. Elliot Abrams lied to Congress over the Iran-Contra affair, but was pardoned by Bush senior and then actually let onto the National Security Council by W.! But a responsible citizen watchdog group could surely come up with a fair gauge of gross criminal or ethics violations that should put the individual out of the business of commenting on daily politics to millions of viewers.

Note that corporate media is much more careful about sexual scandal than it is about other kinds of crime. A politician or public figure so much as accused of sexual impropriety is often considered off limits (CNN's Aaron Brown once sidelined Scott Ritter that way, over a date gone bad). Presumably this caution derives in part from fear of the emails they would get, and threats of advertiser boycotts, from the relgious Right.

Liberals have let themselves be walked all over by the Right, which is mostly much better funded and organized than the American Left, for too long. In part, it is because we are tolerant of a wide range of speech in a way that the Right is not. But I am not arguing for restricting the range of speech. People with Delay's or Rove's views deserve a hearing in the public sphere. It is just that we have no obligation to give a soapbox to monsters and criminals.

So the next time you see CNN or ABC, e.g., interview Tom Delay with a straight face, send a protest email and scream bloody murder and notice which corporation paid for Delay to be on the public airwaves. But better yet, can't we form a facebook page for this with alerts, and get organized about it?