This article is a rebuttal to a piece which appeared in the Weekly Standard, entitled American Oligarchy. It seems to have ruffled my feathers a bit, as you'll see in my rebuttal.

This article had so much potential. Really, it did. Sure, it passed over important details like how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is part of the problem, not part of the solution, but still... I mean most folks know that when the IMF comes "to the rescue" the measures that are forced upon the recipient of the "aid" are largely measures which favor - who else - the oligarchs (where in this case oligarchs is a fancy word for multi-national corporate interests).

The "reforms" required by the IMF include things like eviscerating the public sector, whittling away at pensions, mass privatizations via selling off public sector assets at pennies on the dollar (guess who's buying? yep, the oligarchs), and so forth. After these "austerity measures" are forced down the workers' throats, then the IMF forces a "free market" upon the recipient country - which is a euphemism for allowing multinational corporate interests to dump their (often subsidized) goods into the country at hand, so that the country's indigenous industries and farmers are quickly out of work. But, okay, we'll ignore the fact that this article glossed over these important details and let it slide.

But what I can't ignore is that the article then proceeds into the realm of half-truths, assumptions, and partisan fibs. I suppose I should consider the source and not be surprised, but still - I honestly felt this article might rise above the typical Weekly Standard fare. First, the author rightly points out that the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 (via passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) was signed by Bill Clinton. That's true. What he doesn't mention is that the Act is named after - yeah you might guess from the title - former Senator Phill Gramm (R), Rep. Jim Leach (R), and Thomas Bliley (R). Notice all the R's after those names? Yep, that means they were Republicans.

In 1999, republicans controlled both the house and the senate. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which the republicans coined the "financial services modernization act" in an Orwellian use of double-speak) was the brilliant idea of the Republicans. Now, it's true that it would not have passed without some key democratic votes in the house nor without Clinton's signature, but for the author to pretend that this bill should be pinned mainly on democrats is flat out propaganda. It's not just propaganda, it's Weekly Standardesque propaganda.

Finally, there are some whoppers in this article not just in the way of fibs, but also in assumptions. I like the way the author sort of casually asserts (with no proof or evidence whatsoever) that certain zip codes are more likely to be democratic, and (more importantly) that certain types of people in certain industries live in said zip codes. Huh? I assert that you're full of baloney. Assertions and assumptions are cheap. Show me some facts, please.

All that aside, the real problem with this article is the attempt at revising historical facts; the rampant revisionism in modern conservative writing and talk radio is a bit scary. Recognizing that oil spills, financial meltdowns, bailouts, and mining accidents are making the public acutely aware of corporate misbehavior and the absence of accountability on any level for corporations, conservatives seem to want to backpedal to try to revise history so that the public doesn't (correctly) pin these problems on the mass-scale deregulation that the conservatives have advocated vociferously for the last 4 decades or more.

Seriously, trying to tell the public that republicans are not the party of the oligarchs is a bit laughable. I suppose laughter really is the best medicine.