Have we won a reprieve? By the “logic” of Keith Olbermann and his trusty liberal pundits, the answer must be Yes: Joe Biden won’t be Obama’s VP choice and neither will Evan Bayh (whew?) or (alas) Bill Richardson. They all have scheduled speakers’ spots on the Wednesday night when “the next Vice President of the United States” will address the Democratic delegates assembled in Denver. Note that Chris Dodd isn’t on the list. That could be a hopeful sign – especially if he isn’t forced to deep six his opposition to Bush’s War on the Constitution or his proposal for a carbon tax in order to accommodate Obama’s rightward surge.
If only Obama would stay on vacation! It makes it easier to hope he wins when he doesn’t say or do anything. Better to let the doddering John McCain sink himself. That’s what McCain has been doing -- with Georgia on his mind, and with his handlers finding it increasingly difficult to stifle his “straight talking,” “maverick” mouth. On Georgia, see this piece in The San Francisco Chronicle by Robert Scheer and, better yet, this one by Seumus Milne in The Guardian. Bill Clinton’s chickens from Kosovo are coming home to roost! Will the Democrats notice? There is no sign of it.
Neither are these same Democrats able to look beyond their noses at the latest from the “vast right wing conspiracy” – hack writer Jerome Corsi’s attack book, Obama Nation. The swift-boater is back, this time with a synoptic gospel compiled from the dregs of talk radio. Obama et. al. have been quick with rebuttals, so maybe the danger will pass. But will the Democrats be concerned that they too are guilty – by (intimate) association? Not likely. This is all the more ironic at a moment when John Edwards’ inexplicably thoughtless intimacies have helped to accelerate the party’s turn to the right.
The editor-in-chief of Corsi’s publisher, Threshold Editions (an imprint of Simon and Shuster, which is owned, in turn, by “liberal” CBS) is Dick Cheney’s co-thinker and girl Friday, Mary Matalin, loving wife of Bill and Hillary’s celebrated attack dog, James Carville (of “it’s the economy, stupid” fame). It’s not news that that hideously gruesome twosome work both sides of the street. Neither should it be news that the street is so narrow that cohabitation can and does take place across it. But, of course, it is news to most Democrats and especially to those diehard Hillary fans whom the Obamamaniacs will be mightily placating at Denver and in the following weeks.
That’s why we should savor this moment – with Obama away and with a chance (still) of a Vice Presidential choice of someone with comparatively decent politics. Once the nauseatingly over-produced infomercial they call a convention starts, it will become necessary, as Nietzsche might say, resolutely to turn away one’s gaze.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Say It Isn't Joe
The speculation now that John McCain declared that being for “choice” isn’t automatically a disqualification for being his running mate, is that former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge is first in line for the job. It was Ridge who, to secure the Homeland, invented color-coding. Notwithstanding that display of genius, a Ridge candidacy would be good news for Barack Obama. After all, he almost got the nod in 2000; presumably on the grounds that he’d make George Bush look good by comparison. But I’ll bet it’s not going to be him, and it won’t be the repellent Mitt Romney either. No such luck.
It’ll be even better. It’s a long shot, but I still think Joe Lieberman will be John McCain’s running mate. If so, I will personally thank G-d. Lieberman’s position on abortion will tick off the McCain “base” as much as Ridge’s will. And if that isn’t enough, don’t forget that he’s even worse than a Mormon; he is of the race that killed Our Lord. On the other hand, the Christian Right, eager to be raptured away, will not hold it against him that he is a de facto Israeli agent, and they’re sure to like the fact that he is a sanctimonious twit. But, thanks to Cheney and Bush, even the most benighted evangelicals are becoming war weary, and Lieberman’s bellicosity is limitless. “Conservatives” of all stripes will rejoice in the fact that Lieberman is not above using traditional anti-Semitic slurs against Obama; for them, Muslims, especially secret Muslims, are the new Jews. Nevertheless, I think Lieberman will cost McCain votes. His anti-Muslim bigotry and his overt religiosity will not cancel out his position on abortion and his war mongering. In the end, Lieberman will therefore appeal only to hapless “independents,” hankering for “bipartisanship,” and to the ever-diminishing ranks of reckless neo-cons. This prospect makes it a lot easier for those of us who don’t want to vote for the lesser evil and his coterie of Clintonites to cast protest votes.
* *
Then, there’s the other, much less evil, Joe. Inside tipsters – for example, the pundits on “Countdown” last night (August 13) – now think that Barack Obama is going to name Joe Biden to be his running mate. That cloud too has a silver lining: if Obama does this, then Biden won’t be Secretary of State. But it is a dispiriting prospect nevertheless, even for those of us who harbor no illusions about Obama.
The pundits’ speculation is based on the naming of former Virginia governor Mark Warner to give the keynote address at the Denver infomercial later this month. Supposedly, that takes Virginia’s current governor, Tim Kaine, off the list; apparently, on the grounds that you can’t have more than one Virginian speaking in prime time. How far we’ve come since the Constitutional Convention!
In any case, between Biden and Kaine, even I’d have to go for Biden. And I’d certainly go for him over Evan Bayh – an even more ardent Bush aider and abettor than Hillary Clinton. As he pursues the office, Biden’s motto should be: “Better than Bayh.” Bayh was an ardent supporter of the Bush War in Iraq. Then, when he had the wits to see that the war had gone sour, he turned on the way the war was being waged, not the war itself. Shades of John McCain! Bayh is a Democratic Leadership Council, New Democrat Coalition, National Endowment for Democracy type of Democrat. This side of Joe Lieberman, it doesn’t get much worse. Moreover, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, he looks like the guy whose picture comes with the photo frame you buy in the drug store. In other words, vote-grabbing charisma is not his strength.
So if it’s between Kaine, Bayh and Biden, as the media reports, then Biden is surely the best (least bad) of the lot. But why not Bill Richardson? His anti-war position is better than Obama’s, not worse; he has “executive experience”; and his foreign policy credentials rival Biden’s. Or, if Obama feels that it would be too much for two “persons of color” to be on the ticket, why not Chris Dodd? In many respects, his politics are as good or better than Richardson’s. For that matter, why not do as Dick Cheney did in 2000 when he was assigned the task of finding a running mate for the Bush boy; let Caroline Kennedy pick herself. The irony would be lovely, especially for die-hard Hillary supporters. In our dynastic political system, a Kennedy on the ticket could well be a vote getter. Meanwhile, compared to Joe Biden, better the devil we don’t know.
[Now that John Edwards has permanently disqualified himself, we have no chance of electing a VP significantly to the left of Obama. I condemn him for it. I feel betrayed. But then I don’t understand the appeal of a party girl turned New Age floozy – especially when a woman of worth is waiting at home. On the other hand, I perfectly understand the appeal of all those trashy bimbos and of that zaftig, racé twenty-something. That was Bill Clinton’s finest, most human, moment.]
Would Hillary be worse than “Plagiarism Joe”? I used to think so. But that was mainly because she promised a full-scale Clinton Restoration. My other reason was that I believe that the Clintons deserve to be defeated abjectly -- it is the least we can do since they will never be brought to justice for their actionable crimes (murderous sanctions, encouragement of ethnic cleansing, wanton bombing, etc.), and never called to account for the political harms they’ve done. But this second reason has vanished as Obamamaniacs fall over each other making nice to that gruesome couple; and the first reason has very nearly vanished too as all but the most vicious of the old Clinton hands (Richard Holbrooke, for example) have already been incorporated into the Obama fold. So it’s not at all clear that Biden would be a better VP than Hillary. She’s off the list, however, so the question is moot. Go Joe!
Meanwhile, for the next few days (or hours?), there is still a chance, albeit a vanishingly small one, that Obama will “think outside the box” for once – and select somebody with better politics than his, or at least better politics than he’s willing to own up to. [Unlike the Clintons, who have been running for President for too long, I think Obama still knows better.] I’m not holding my breath, however.
It’ll be even better. It’s a long shot, but I still think Joe Lieberman will be John McCain’s running mate. If so, I will personally thank G-d. Lieberman’s position on abortion will tick off the McCain “base” as much as Ridge’s will. And if that isn’t enough, don’t forget that he’s even worse than a Mormon; he is of the race that killed Our Lord. On the other hand, the Christian Right, eager to be raptured away, will not hold it against him that he is a de facto Israeli agent, and they’re sure to like the fact that he is a sanctimonious twit. But, thanks to Cheney and Bush, even the most benighted evangelicals are becoming war weary, and Lieberman’s bellicosity is limitless. “Conservatives” of all stripes will rejoice in the fact that Lieberman is not above using traditional anti-Semitic slurs against Obama; for them, Muslims, especially secret Muslims, are the new Jews. Nevertheless, I think Lieberman will cost McCain votes. His anti-Muslim bigotry and his overt religiosity will not cancel out his position on abortion and his war mongering. In the end, Lieberman will therefore appeal only to hapless “independents,” hankering for “bipartisanship,” and to the ever-diminishing ranks of reckless neo-cons. This prospect makes it a lot easier for those of us who don’t want to vote for the lesser evil and his coterie of Clintonites to cast protest votes.
* *
Then, there’s the other, much less evil, Joe. Inside tipsters – for example, the pundits on “Countdown” last night (August 13) – now think that Barack Obama is going to name Joe Biden to be his running mate. That cloud too has a silver lining: if Obama does this, then Biden won’t be Secretary of State. But it is a dispiriting prospect nevertheless, even for those of us who harbor no illusions about Obama.
The pundits’ speculation is based on the naming of former Virginia governor Mark Warner to give the keynote address at the Denver infomercial later this month. Supposedly, that takes Virginia’s current governor, Tim Kaine, off the list; apparently, on the grounds that you can’t have more than one Virginian speaking in prime time. How far we’ve come since the Constitutional Convention!
In any case, between Biden and Kaine, even I’d have to go for Biden. And I’d certainly go for him over Evan Bayh – an even more ardent Bush aider and abettor than Hillary Clinton. As he pursues the office, Biden’s motto should be: “Better than Bayh.” Bayh was an ardent supporter of the Bush War in Iraq. Then, when he had the wits to see that the war had gone sour, he turned on the way the war was being waged, not the war itself. Shades of John McCain! Bayh is a Democratic Leadership Council, New Democrat Coalition, National Endowment for Democracy type of Democrat. This side of Joe Lieberman, it doesn’t get much worse. Moreover, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, he looks like the guy whose picture comes with the photo frame you buy in the drug store. In other words, vote-grabbing charisma is not his strength.
So if it’s between Kaine, Bayh and Biden, as the media reports, then Biden is surely the best (least bad) of the lot. But why not Bill Richardson? His anti-war position is better than Obama’s, not worse; he has “executive experience”; and his foreign policy credentials rival Biden’s. Or, if Obama feels that it would be too much for two “persons of color” to be on the ticket, why not Chris Dodd? In many respects, his politics are as good or better than Richardson’s. For that matter, why not do as Dick Cheney did in 2000 when he was assigned the task of finding a running mate for the Bush boy; let Caroline Kennedy pick herself. The irony would be lovely, especially for die-hard Hillary supporters. In our dynastic political system, a Kennedy on the ticket could well be a vote getter. Meanwhile, compared to Joe Biden, better the devil we don’t know.
[Now that John Edwards has permanently disqualified himself, we have no chance of electing a VP significantly to the left of Obama. I condemn him for it. I feel betrayed. But then I don’t understand the appeal of a party girl turned New Age floozy – especially when a woman of worth is waiting at home. On the other hand, I perfectly understand the appeal of all those trashy bimbos and of that zaftig, racé twenty-something. That was Bill Clinton’s finest, most human, moment.]
Would Hillary be worse than “Plagiarism Joe”? I used to think so. But that was mainly because she promised a full-scale Clinton Restoration. My other reason was that I believe that the Clintons deserve to be defeated abjectly -- it is the least we can do since they will never be brought to justice for their actionable crimes (murderous sanctions, encouragement of ethnic cleansing, wanton bombing, etc.), and never called to account for the political harms they’ve done. But this second reason has vanished as Obamamaniacs fall over each other making nice to that gruesome couple; and the first reason has very nearly vanished too as all but the most vicious of the old Clinton hands (Richard Holbrooke, for example) have already been incorporated into the Obama fold. So it’s not at all clear that Biden would be a better VP than Hillary. She’s off the list, however, so the question is moot. Go Joe!
Meanwhile, for the next few days (or hours?), there is still a chance, albeit a vanishingly small one, that Obama will “think outside the box” for once – and select somebody with better politics than his, or at least better politics than he’s willing to own up to. [Unlike the Clintons, who have been running for President for too long, I think Obama still knows better.] I’m not holding my breath, however.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Hart Throbs
During the primary season, the reincarnation of Gary Hart, circa 1988, was Barack Obama – the Rorschach Man, the proponent of vague “new ideas.” Now, of course, it’s a lot clearer what those ideas were; as I’ve been writing all along, they’re the old Clintonite ideas of the Democratic center-right. This fact has yet to dawn on most Obamamaniacs, but it is nevertheless beyond dispute. Therefore Obama is no longer the Gary Hart of 2008; he’s a 2008 version of what Gary Hart would have become had he stayed in the 1988 race longer -- a mainstream Democrat.
However Hart’s spirit lingers, finding its way into another flesh and blood Democrat. This time, though, it isn’t Hart’s vacuity that is back but his self-destructive “narcissism” (as the offending party himself calls it). Sadly, for those of us who saw the present conjuncture as an opportunity for real change (not the “plus ça change…” Obama offers), the new Hart avatar is John Edwards.
It was never likely that that Obama would choose Edwards to be his running-mate. If Obama has it in him to look to his left, he has so far shown no sign of it. But John Edwards, and Elizabeth Edwards too, might have played a major role in the Obama campaign and in the coming Obama administration. Perhaps Elizabeth still will. But now, having “confessed” to an extra-marital affair after disparaging both the very idea and the messenger who brought it to public attention, John Edwards is toast.
[What does it say about our political culture that some of our best investigative reporting comes from the tabloids, just as some of our most cogent commentary comes from the celebrities – Paris Hilton, most recently -- they cover. As I wrote when the story “broke,” if The National Enquirer says it, it’s probably true. The contrast with The New York Times could hardly be starker.]
What rankles is not just the infidelity. It’s not even the cover up – the denials since The Enquirer caught Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel with Rielle Hunter and her baby on July 22. “Face it, they’re all crazy; they all do it,” as the Two Thousand Year Old Man (Mel Brooks) put it. “And,” he added, “if they don’t do it to their wives and girl friends, they do it to the country.” That pretty much explains Kennedy, who was President at the time those wise words were uttered – back in the golden days of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Kennedy did it with the discretion of a bunny rabbit. [In Havana Nocturne: How the Mob Owned Cuba….And Then Lost It to the Revolution, T.J. English describes a particularly exotic orgy arranged for Kennedy in Havana by mobsters who watched but, to their everlasting regret, didn’t film. As we know from many sources, Kennedy’s appetites were insatiable and his exploits legion.] It also explains Nixon, who seems to have been utterly sexless in his declining years, and who most certainly did it to the country. These are the extreme cases, but rare is the American President who didn’t have a paramour or several. If we start with the Roosevelt era, the only ones about whom there is any doubt are, by my reckoning, Truman, Ford, Carter and the second Bush. Given that the Two Thousand Year Old Man was very wise, Bush is the only one I’m really confident about -- on the grounds that he surpasses even Nixon in doing it to the country.
Why, then, is Edwards special? It isn’t just that, being more left than any other major national figure, he’s more on the corporate media’s ignore and/or ridicule list. That explains why they did their best to marginalize his campaign while he still had a chance. But the “quality press” remained mute on this one for as long as they could; they behaved like the “gentlemen” of the Kennedy’s era.
The problem, much like with his famous haircut and his oversized house, is hypocrisy. Edwards flaunted his family. Who can blame him? Elizabeth is more estimable than he. Of course, she is also terminally ill. Thus it took not only a level of recklessness of Kennedyesque proportions but also crass thoughtlessness to do it to somebody else while running for office. In a better world, it would only be the betrayal of the wife, not the fact of the affair itself, that mattered. We’re not there yet. Much has changed since “the sexual revolution” Kennedy never lived to see, but American puritanism has not gone away; not, at least, where political figures are concerned. America is not now and probably never will be like Mitterand’s or Sarkozy’s France. Gary Hart found this out, if he didn’t already know, when he and Donna Rice were caught doing it on The Monkey Business. Two decades later, it is the same. But even if it were not, it would still be the case that Edwards acted disgracefully.
Hart all but dared reporters to find him out; it was as if he longed (unconsciously?) to be discovered. Edwards now claims that, though he lied before (or, rather, only told most of the truth), he told the whole truth on ABC last night. If so, Hunter’s baby is not his, and his affair with her ended in 2006. Perhaps, but the story reeks of implausibilities. Now that even The New York Times is on his case, if he is holding something back, it’s sure to be discovered and turned into legitimate news – just as it was with Gary Hart, who was also outed by The National Enquirer. Edwards is toast for now; if he wasn’t completely forthcoming last night, he’ll be toast forever. That bodes ill not just for him, but for us too – that is, for those of us who were counting on more than just restoring the United States to the level of malign neglect and international criminality that characterized the Clinton era.
However Hart’s spirit lingers, finding its way into another flesh and blood Democrat. This time, though, it isn’t Hart’s vacuity that is back but his self-destructive “narcissism” (as the offending party himself calls it). Sadly, for those of us who saw the present conjuncture as an opportunity for real change (not the “plus ça change…” Obama offers), the new Hart avatar is John Edwards.
It was never likely that that Obama would choose Edwards to be his running-mate. If Obama has it in him to look to his left, he has so far shown no sign of it. But John Edwards, and Elizabeth Edwards too, might have played a major role in the Obama campaign and in the coming Obama administration. Perhaps Elizabeth still will. But now, having “confessed” to an extra-marital affair after disparaging both the very idea and the messenger who brought it to public attention, John Edwards is toast.
[What does it say about our political culture that some of our best investigative reporting comes from the tabloids, just as some of our most cogent commentary comes from the celebrities – Paris Hilton, most recently -- they cover. As I wrote when the story “broke,” if The National Enquirer says it, it’s probably true. The contrast with The New York Times could hardly be starker.]
What rankles is not just the infidelity. It’s not even the cover up – the denials since The Enquirer caught Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel with Rielle Hunter and her baby on July 22. “Face it, they’re all crazy; they all do it,” as the Two Thousand Year Old Man (Mel Brooks) put it. “And,” he added, “if they don’t do it to their wives and girl friends, they do it to the country.” That pretty much explains Kennedy, who was President at the time those wise words were uttered – back in the golden days of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Kennedy did it with the discretion of a bunny rabbit. [In Havana Nocturne: How the Mob Owned Cuba….And Then Lost It to the Revolution, T.J. English describes a particularly exotic orgy arranged for Kennedy in Havana by mobsters who watched but, to their everlasting regret, didn’t film. As we know from many sources, Kennedy’s appetites were insatiable and his exploits legion.] It also explains Nixon, who seems to have been utterly sexless in his declining years, and who most certainly did it to the country. These are the extreme cases, but rare is the American President who didn’t have a paramour or several. If we start with the Roosevelt era, the only ones about whom there is any doubt are, by my reckoning, Truman, Ford, Carter and the second Bush. Given that the Two Thousand Year Old Man was very wise, Bush is the only one I’m really confident about -- on the grounds that he surpasses even Nixon in doing it to the country.
Why, then, is Edwards special? It isn’t just that, being more left than any other major national figure, he’s more on the corporate media’s ignore and/or ridicule list. That explains why they did their best to marginalize his campaign while he still had a chance. But the “quality press” remained mute on this one for as long as they could; they behaved like the “gentlemen” of the Kennedy’s era.
The problem, much like with his famous haircut and his oversized house, is hypocrisy. Edwards flaunted his family. Who can blame him? Elizabeth is more estimable than he. Of course, she is also terminally ill. Thus it took not only a level of recklessness of Kennedyesque proportions but also crass thoughtlessness to do it to somebody else while running for office. In a better world, it would only be the betrayal of the wife, not the fact of the affair itself, that mattered. We’re not there yet. Much has changed since “the sexual revolution” Kennedy never lived to see, but American puritanism has not gone away; not, at least, where political figures are concerned. America is not now and probably never will be like Mitterand’s or Sarkozy’s France. Gary Hart found this out, if he didn’t already know, when he and Donna Rice were caught doing it on The Monkey Business. Two decades later, it is the same. But even if it were not, it would still be the case that Edwards acted disgracefully.
Hart all but dared reporters to find him out; it was as if he longed (unconsciously?) to be discovered. Edwards now claims that, though he lied before (or, rather, only told most of the truth), he told the whole truth on ABC last night. If so, Hunter’s baby is not his, and his affair with her ended in 2006. Perhaps, but the story reeks of implausibilities. Now that even The New York Times is on his case, if he is holding something back, it’s sure to be discovered and turned into legitimate news – just as it was with Gary Hart, who was also outed by The National Enquirer. Edwards is toast for now; if he wasn’t completely forthcoming last night, he’ll be toast forever. That bodes ill not just for him, but for us too – that is, for those of us who were counting on more than just restoring the United States to the level of malign neglect and international criminality that characterized the Clinton era.
An Olympic Prelude
Over the next few weeks, TV viewers in the United States will witness three unseemly and over-produced corporate infomercials with nauseatingly nationalist overtones – the Olympics, and then the Democratic and Republican conventions. The Olympics especially, but also the conventions are worthy events in principle. However now, even more than in the past, they have become corrupted in this corporate dominated phase of late capitalism. It is ironic that the theme of all three is “change” – a new role in the world for China, a new direction for the United States. Even the Republicans will be singing that tune, hard as it is to imagine. [That John McCain, the “wrinkly, white haired dude,” could be promoted as a candidate of change is grotesque. It reveals much about the state of our political culture that it was Paris Hilton, not some Democratic bigwig or media pundit, who forced this plain fact into the news.] For the Republicans, talk of change is likely to fool no one. But the facts belie the pretense for the others as well. For the Chinese as much as for the Democratic Party, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same).
At least, in the Chinese case, the unholy alliance -- of international (mainly American) corporate sleaze and “Communist” capitalist-roaders -- has a glorious history to exploit. It hardly makes up for recent Chinese history, however. As everyone knows, there is the problem of state enforced Han Chinese chauvinism towards ethnic minorities within China and in Tibet, exacerbated by an enduring illiberalism that dwarfs even the most criminal excesses of Dick Cheney and George Bush. But, for those of us who still believe that a better world is possible, the Chinese state must also be held accountable for ending the historical project of building (real, small-c) communism – a turn of events made even worse by the fact that China has retained the worst features of (big-C) Communist governance. But, however awful the Chinese state now is, they’ll always have the Ming dynasty. Unfortunately for those of us who feel obliged to watch the Obama and McCain infomercials, our semi-official capitalist-road parties have nothing comparable to China’s ancient glories to conjure up. After all, as George Bernard Shaw once quipped, America [unlike China] passed from barbarism to decadence without any intervening period of civilization.
But there will be “drama,” at least in the Democratic case. We can watch the dynamic between the Obama forces and the Clintons, oblivious to the plain fact that it is of no intrinsic interest whatsoever. Count on the cable networks to make us think otherwise. The stage is set: the Clintons have emerged from the primary season with their sense of entitlement intact, and the Obamaniacs are determined to make nice to them and their supporters. Will they succeed? All that is clear, at this point, is that those of us with the stomach for it, will watch Hillary orate in prime time one day and Bill the next. Unless the convention is profoundly disrupted, as it should be, that’s about as interesting as it will get – until Obama finally gets to orate before tens of thousands of supporters too.
Meanwhile, don’t count on seeing much of Jimmy Carter. When it comes to honoring former Presidents, the Pelosiite (i.e. later day Clintonite = Obamaite) leadership of the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, prefer those whose crimes are of historical dimensions (the Iraq sanctions, the ethnic-cleansing “humanitarian interventions” in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, the reckless bombing campaigns) to those who, have reached a point where they can safely state the obvious about Israel/Palestine and other “inconvenient” truths. The latter are best neither seen nor heard.
At least, in the Chinese case, the unholy alliance -- of international (mainly American) corporate sleaze and “Communist” capitalist-roaders -- has a glorious history to exploit. It hardly makes up for recent Chinese history, however. As everyone knows, there is the problem of state enforced Han Chinese chauvinism towards ethnic minorities within China and in Tibet, exacerbated by an enduring illiberalism that dwarfs even the most criminal excesses of Dick Cheney and George Bush. But, for those of us who still believe that a better world is possible, the Chinese state must also be held accountable for ending the historical project of building (real, small-c) communism – a turn of events made even worse by the fact that China has retained the worst features of (big-C) Communist governance. But, however awful the Chinese state now is, they’ll always have the Ming dynasty. Unfortunately for those of us who feel obliged to watch the Obama and McCain infomercials, our semi-official capitalist-road parties have nothing comparable to China’s ancient glories to conjure up. After all, as George Bernard Shaw once quipped, America [unlike China] passed from barbarism to decadence without any intervening period of civilization.
But there will be “drama,” at least in the Democratic case. We can watch the dynamic between the Obama forces and the Clintons, oblivious to the plain fact that it is of no intrinsic interest whatsoever. Count on the cable networks to make us think otherwise. The stage is set: the Clintons have emerged from the primary season with their sense of entitlement intact, and the Obamaniacs are determined to make nice to them and their supporters. Will they succeed? All that is clear, at this point, is that those of us with the stomach for it, will watch Hillary orate in prime time one day and Bill the next. Unless the convention is profoundly disrupted, as it should be, that’s about as interesting as it will get – until Obama finally gets to orate before tens of thousands of supporters too.
Meanwhile, don’t count on seeing much of Jimmy Carter. When it comes to honoring former Presidents, the Pelosiite (i.e. later day Clintonite = Obamaite) leadership of the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, prefer those whose crimes are of historical dimensions (the Iraq sanctions, the ethnic-cleansing “humanitarian interventions” in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, the reckless bombing campaigns) to those who, have reached a point where they can safely state the obvious about Israel/Palestine and other “inconvenient” truths. The latter are best neither seen nor heard.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Right and Wrong
According to a report in the August 4 Washington Post, low wage workers prefer Democrats to Republicans by a two to one margin, but are skeptical that either Barack Obama or John McCain will “fix” the economy or the health care system. The full Kaiser-Harvard-Post survey results are here. Thus low wage workers have it about right – they’re on to the Democrats, the “talk left, act right” POP, the Party of Pusillanimity (or, what comes to the same thing, Pelosiism).
On the other hand, this morning (August 4) on National Public Radio, Cokie Roberts, the doyenne of conventional wisdom, reports that while McCain has set out to tear Obama down by any means necessary – because there’s no other way he can win in November – the Obama campaign has decided to speak no ill of McCain himself, but only to focus on his political affinities with George Bush. She’s probably right about the Obama campaign; after all Cokie does have her ear to the ground. But then the Obama campaign is WRONG – dangerously wrong – and it’s part of a larger pattern.
This is not to say that there may not be some electoral advantage to taking the “high road” or at least appearing to be above “negative” campaigning. Obama’s stance, if he can stick to it as the Republicans descend even deeper into despicability, may help him win by an even larger margin than he otherwise would. But the message is wrong.
As I’ve argued many times before, had the United States learned the lessons of Vietnam, it would be unthinkable that the likes of a John McCain would be able to have insinuated himself into the political class at all, much less be the standard bearer of one of our two semi-official parties. It would also be likely that today, the standard bearer for “hope” and “change we can believe in” would be better than Barack Obama (or, alternatively, Barack Obama would be better than he now is; after all, he plainly knows better.)
That’s why it is important that the United States acknowledge that it has lost the Bush Wars, the better to fall into an Iraq Syndrome more profound and more salutary than the Vietnam Syndrome. Standing on the shoulders of all his predecessors since Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton finally succeeded in quashing that impediment to America’s imperial predations. It is sorely missed. It was our best hope for a soft landing as the American empire succumbs to the inevitable realities of economic turbulence and environmental disaster, as the irrationalities of an overripe capitalist system work their effects. But it can be revived. Needless to say, Obama is embarked on the opposite course, and so is the Obama friendly media. [Not incidentally, that media is also, simultaneously, shamefacedly McCain friendly.]
Thus instead of deriding McCain as a former volunteer napalmist, they praise him as a former prisoner of war. Instead of deriding McCain for promoting reaction, they praise him as a “maverick.” They look past as many of his flip-flops and blunders as they can, and ignore the plain fact that the man is a doddering nincompoop whose moral and intellectual capacities rival those of our present Commander-in-Chief and his Regent Dick, the Prince of Darkness. It is all of a piece with keeping combat troops in Iraq for even longer than eighteen months if “need” be, and for keeping non-combat troops and “contractors” (mercenaries) there indefinitely. It is yet another symptom of the fundamental error that leads Obama to want to squander yet more human and material resources in the Afghan theater of the so-called War on Terror. Obama’s objective is to “pay any price, bear any burden,” to defeat the specter of abject defeat. It’s a losing strategy in the long run, even if it does help him defeat the racial innuendoes and made up slurs that McCain, or his (unofficial) functionaries, have already begun to level. True to pattern, though, it will keep the country on a disastrously wrong course – not just morally but from a prudential point of view as well.
Low wage workers understand this. They realize that while Obama is a lesser evil – look at the alternative! –only fools would see him as an “agent of hope.” Those fools would be the people whose views Cokie Roberts articulates – the complacent and (morally and intellectually) corrupt beneficiaries of the system in place.
On the other hand, this morning (August 4) on National Public Radio, Cokie Roberts, the doyenne of conventional wisdom, reports that while McCain has set out to tear Obama down by any means necessary – because there’s no other way he can win in November – the Obama campaign has decided to speak no ill of McCain himself, but only to focus on his political affinities with George Bush. She’s probably right about the Obama campaign; after all Cokie does have her ear to the ground. But then the Obama campaign is WRONG – dangerously wrong – and it’s part of a larger pattern.
This is not to say that there may not be some electoral advantage to taking the “high road” or at least appearing to be above “negative” campaigning. Obama’s stance, if he can stick to it as the Republicans descend even deeper into despicability, may help him win by an even larger margin than he otherwise would. But the message is wrong.
As I’ve argued many times before, had the United States learned the lessons of Vietnam, it would be unthinkable that the likes of a John McCain would be able to have insinuated himself into the political class at all, much less be the standard bearer of one of our two semi-official parties. It would also be likely that today, the standard bearer for “hope” and “change we can believe in” would be better than Barack Obama (or, alternatively, Barack Obama would be better than he now is; after all, he plainly knows better.)
That’s why it is important that the United States acknowledge that it has lost the Bush Wars, the better to fall into an Iraq Syndrome more profound and more salutary than the Vietnam Syndrome. Standing on the shoulders of all his predecessors since Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton finally succeeded in quashing that impediment to America’s imperial predations. It is sorely missed. It was our best hope for a soft landing as the American empire succumbs to the inevitable realities of economic turbulence and environmental disaster, as the irrationalities of an overripe capitalist system work their effects. But it can be revived. Needless to say, Obama is embarked on the opposite course, and so is the Obama friendly media. [Not incidentally, that media is also, simultaneously, shamefacedly McCain friendly.]
Thus instead of deriding McCain as a former volunteer napalmist, they praise him as a former prisoner of war. Instead of deriding McCain for promoting reaction, they praise him as a “maverick.” They look past as many of his flip-flops and blunders as they can, and ignore the plain fact that the man is a doddering nincompoop whose moral and intellectual capacities rival those of our present Commander-in-Chief and his Regent Dick, the Prince of Darkness. It is all of a piece with keeping combat troops in Iraq for even longer than eighteen months if “need” be, and for keeping non-combat troops and “contractors” (mercenaries) there indefinitely. It is yet another symptom of the fundamental error that leads Obama to want to squander yet more human and material resources in the Afghan theater of the so-called War on Terror. Obama’s objective is to “pay any price, bear any burden,” to defeat the specter of abject defeat. It’s a losing strategy in the long run, even if it does help him defeat the racial innuendoes and made up slurs that McCain, or his (unofficial) functionaries, have already begun to level. True to pattern, though, it will keep the country on a disastrously wrong course – not just morally but from a prudential point of view as well.
Low wage workers understand this. They realize that while Obama is a lesser evil – look at the alternative! –only fools would see him as an “agent of hope.” Those fools would be the people whose views Cokie Roberts articulates – the complacent and (morally and intellectually) corrupt beneficiaries of the system in place.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Bad and Badder
Hegel famously remarked that all great political movements develop left and right wings. [I am referring, of course, to the philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, not Obama’s traveling companion and potential running mate Chuck (R, Nebraska). The latter spells his name differently and never thinks dialectically.] Hegel’s observation pertains to mediocre political movements as well. Clintonism – that peculiarly Democratic version of imperialist and neo-liberal politics – is an example.
The institutional home of orthodox Clintonism is still the Democratic Leadership Council with its affiliated “think tank,” the (misleadingly named) Progressive Policy Institute. The center is holding, but not very well – thanks mainly to disgust with the Bush government. It has dawned on many voters that there are many affinities between orthodox Clintonism and Bush’s policies, notwithstanding the Bush government’s incompetence and its dull-headed unilateralism. Voters are coming to realize that differences on cultural and social questions don’t matter as much as they seemed to a decade ago, and that on the traditional axes of political life, there is just not enough difference. There is also the fact that, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton, the standard bearer of orthodox Clintonism, was obliged to veer slightly to the left. Moreover, centrist Clintonism is bound to take an Obamaistic turn. No one quite knows what that portends – beyond “change” and “hope” and other vacuous aspirations. The principle of plus ça change governs, of course; but, even so, new people are likely to implement more than merely cosmetic changes. With respect to “national security” policy, some inkling of what we can expect is offered in the current New York Review by Samantha Power,a likely Obama functionary. If she is right, under Obama’s leadership, Clintonism is likely to morph into a kind of neo-Trumanism – a more imaginative imperialism, based on professional military power and (multilateral) institution building. It is significant that, in recent years, Harry Truman, architect of the Cold War and founder of the national security state -- the only Commander in Chief ever to have dropped nuclear weapons on human populations -- has been venerated by centrist Clintonites with as much zeal as Republicans (and many Democrats too) venerate the right-wing actor and anti-New Deal militant Ronald Reagan.
I have called left Clintonism “Pelosiism,” and analyzed its mischievousness in countless entries. Pelosiites talk left and act – Clintonite. They are enablers. There are perhaps a dozen genuine progressives in the Progressive Caucus; the rest are out and out Pelosiites. Thanks to the 2006 elections, when the Democrats snookered anti-war voters into thinking that a vote for a Democrat was an anti-war vote, the ranks of the Pelosiites have swelled somewhat – not so much because many real or phony progressives were elected (the Pelosiite leadership saw to it that only a very few ran), but because many centrist Clintonites, seeing which way the wind is blowing, have edged every so slightly out of the center and into the Pelosiite fold.
Then, overlapping with the DLC, there are the Blue Dog Democrats, the Clintonite right. In his most recent entry at salon.com, Glenn Greenwald makes a convincing case for booting as many of them as possible out of office. His arguments are persuasive. The one thing all Clintonites have in common is opportunism; they “triangulate” at every opportunity. Pelosiites and orthodox Clintonites (including Obama and his advisors) are friendly to imperialism and militarism and pro-corporate by nature. But the Blue Dog Democrats drag them even further to the right. The chances of forcing the coming Obama administration to steer a better course would be enhanced if the influence of the Blue Dogs within the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, were diminished. But even if Obama can’t be changed for the better, rank-and-file Democrats in the House and Senate will legislate and investigate better (less badly), the fewer right-wing Clintonites there are.
The institutional home of orthodox Clintonism is still the Democratic Leadership Council with its affiliated “think tank,” the (misleadingly named) Progressive Policy Institute. The center is holding, but not very well – thanks mainly to disgust with the Bush government. It has dawned on many voters that there are many affinities between orthodox Clintonism and Bush’s policies, notwithstanding the Bush government’s incompetence and its dull-headed unilateralism. Voters are coming to realize that differences on cultural and social questions don’t matter as much as they seemed to a decade ago, and that on the traditional axes of political life, there is just not enough difference. There is also the fact that, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton, the standard bearer of orthodox Clintonism, was obliged to veer slightly to the left. Moreover, centrist Clintonism is bound to take an Obamaistic turn. No one quite knows what that portends – beyond “change” and “hope” and other vacuous aspirations. The principle of plus ça change governs, of course; but, even so, new people are likely to implement more than merely cosmetic changes. With respect to “national security” policy, some inkling of what we can expect is offered in the current New York Review by Samantha Power,a likely Obama functionary. If she is right, under Obama’s leadership, Clintonism is likely to morph into a kind of neo-Trumanism – a more imaginative imperialism, based on professional military power and (multilateral) institution building. It is significant that, in recent years, Harry Truman, architect of the Cold War and founder of the national security state -- the only Commander in Chief ever to have dropped nuclear weapons on human populations -- has been venerated by centrist Clintonites with as much zeal as Republicans (and many Democrats too) venerate the right-wing actor and anti-New Deal militant Ronald Reagan.
I have called left Clintonism “Pelosiism,” and analyzed its mischievousness in countless entries. Pelosiites talk left and act – Clintonite. They are enablers. There are perhaps a dozen genuine progressives in the Progressive Caucus; the rest are out and out Pelosiites. Thanks to the 2006 elections, when the Democrats snookered anti-war voters into thinking that a vote for a Democrat was an anti-war vote, the ranks of the Pelosiites have swelled somewhat – not so much because many real or phony progressives were elected (the Pelosiite leadership saw to it that only a very few ran), but because many centrist Clintonites, seeing which way the wind is blowing, have edged every so slightly out of the center and into the Pelosiite fold.
Then, overlapping with the DLC, there are the Blue Dog Democrats, the Clintonite right. In his most recent entry at salon.com, Glenn Greenwald makes a convincing case for booting as many of them as possible out of office. His arguments are persuasive. The one thing all Clintonites have in common is opportunism; they “triangulate” at every opportunity. Pelosiites and orthodox Clintonites (including Obama and his advisors) are friendly to imperialism and militarism and pro-corporate by nature. But the Blue Dog Democrats drag them even further to the right. The chances of forcing the coming Obama administration to steer a better course would be enhanced if the influence of the Blue Dogs within the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, were diminished. But even if Obama can’t be changed for the better, rank-and-file Democrats in the House and Senate will legislate and investigate better (less badly), the fewer right-wing Clintonites there are.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Reliable Sources
As I’ve argued many times before, in not nominating John Edwards, the Democrats missed a rare historical opportunity to change course (albeit slightly) for the better. But maybe it’s a good thing, from a lesser evil point of view, that the opportunity was missed. I say this because it seems that Edwards may have a Gary Hart streak; one that, were he the nominee, might land John McCain in the Oval Office. Even if Edwards did nothing remotely sleazy, count on the Republican sleaze machine to work full time to convey the impression that he did. They know that for a sizeable portion of the American electorate, “there’s nothing true nor false but seeming makes it so.” Witness their repeated insinuations that (JC and Yahweh forbid!) Barack Hussein Obama is a “secret Muslim,” a “charge” sure to rile America’s growing ranks of Islamophobes.
The story does seem preposterous. Would Edwards have had an affair just in time for the primary season? He’s no dummy, after all; he understands that this isn’t France and that there’s more than a little (thoroughly justifiable) sympathy out there for his wife. But even if he had an affair, a “love child” is a bit much. And don’t forget the cover up – getting a campaign aid named (ironically) Andrew Young to claim paternity and then to move the mother and child into the gated North Carolina community where he lives with his wife and children. This exceeds Gary Hart. But The National Enquirer, the tabloid that broke the story, is a more reliable source than our so-called quality press, especially in matters of this sort – they were the ones who broke the story on Hart! Now the affair is beginning even to find its way into the mainstream media. There is some comfort in the fact that The Enquirer’s story was “confirmed” Friday night on Fox News. That supports disbelief. On the other hand, the quality press abroad -- here, for example -- does seem to have picked up the story. That lends it credibility.
Elizabeth Edwards, who would have made a better President even than John, doesn’t need this. Neither do those of us who still harbor the hope that Obama might nominate a VP with better politics than his own. Most likely, that won’t be anybody; now it almost certainly won’t be Edwards. Unless the allegation is false, which is unlikely -- or even if it is, unless the rumor gets definitely squelched, which is all but impossible -- Edwards will likely have no role at all in an Obama administration. That will be our loss.
The story does seem preposterous. Would Edwards have had an affair just in time for the primary season? He’s no dummy, after all; he understands that this isn’t France and that there’s more than a little (thoroughly justifiable) sympathy out there for his wife. But even if he had an affair, a “love child” is a bit much. And don’t forget the cover up – getting a campaign aid named (ironically) Andrew Young to claim paternity and then to move the mother and child into the gated North Carolina community where he lives with his wife and children. This exceeds Gary Hart. But The National Enquirer, the tabloid that broke the story, is a more reliable source than our so-called quality press, especially in matters of this sort – they were the ones who broke the story on Hart! Now the affair is beginning even to find its way into the mainstream media. There is some comfort in the fact that The Enquirer’s story was “confirmed” Friday night on Fox News. That supports disbelief. On the other hand, the quality press abroad -- here, for example -- does seem to have picked up the story. That lends it credibility.
Elizabeth Edwards, who would have made a better President even than John, doesn’t need this. Neither do those of us who still harbor the hope that Obama might nominate a VP with better politics than his own. Most likely, that won’t be anybody; now it almost certainly won’t be Edwards. Unless the allegation is false, which is unlikely -- or even if it is, unless the rumor gets definitely squelched, which is all but impossible -- Edwards will likely have no role at all in an Obama administration. That will be our loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)