I somewhat agree with the following views from Norman Pollack, East Lansing, Michigan, regarding the NYT, though for me the capital issues not discussed by the NYT, Obama, or (gasp) Romney, are different. Maybe it is the US public which needs to change itself: how far are we willing to share our resources with each other and with the world, how far are we willing to decrease the insane level of defense spending that drives much of our economy (jobs), how far are we willing to raise the minimum wage so that not only consumption levels rise (almost 70% of our economy, remember, and presently hobbled by debt), because low wage earners would have a chance to spend more time with their family, support their children a little bit more, rather than run after another job without security, benefits or pension???? Of course, this supposes a massive change of tax and financial policies and a will. It also supposes another view of market economics: it’s not a religion, for g-d’s sake, it’s a tool. Text from Norman Pollack:

The Times marches on, consistent in its support of Mr. Obama without conceding his liabilities. Granted everything negative one might say of his opponent, it still must be noted that this is a conflict between the Far Right and the Near Right, with Obama’s record and even rhetoric forfeiting a Centrist position from his first day in office, when joined by Geithner and Summers.

Romney’s Far Right stance at least is recognizable, and thus easier to oppose: a traditional market fundamentalism joined to retrograde cultural positions, all wrapped in late 19th century social Darwinism. Obama is another matter. Even last night, his probusiness credentials burnished brightly, as in proudly proclaiming, I love free enterprise, and, I want more oil drilling and the use of coal. The record, which The Times always downplays, is one of failure in serious financial regulation, failure in the regulatory agencies generally, such as FDA and the Interior Department, failure in civil liberties (never once mentioned in the debate), failure in job creation, failure in environmental regulation, failure in response to climate change, and so on.

One is free to support Obama, of course, but it would be helpful to do so without illusion or window dressing. We often use sports metaphors to describe political reality–here, winners and losers and score cards. Last nigh there was no winner, rather, a loser-loser situation, with neither candidate demonstrating a progressive social vision.