Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources..., 2005-08-08 13:21:35 | Main | bedtime stories for the kids..., 2005-08-08 20:27:22

    circular firing squads:

    I've been thinking a bit about utter failure:

    This party had a methodology that worked well enough in 1992, failed in 1994, partially failed in 1996, had some success due to oppositional overreach in 1998, and is looking at three straight electoral failures in a row against an opponent who does not care about the future health of the United States beyond that of electoral considerations. Something is wrong as I noted yesterday, and the old methods are not working.

    The GOP happily tolerates its "kooks", from Jerry Falwell to Grover Norquist, and the Democrats are the first ones to eat their own. I'd suggest that the Democratic political bosses and their adherents from the so-called "center" respond like the GOP's reactionaries did, but watching them sputter and fume along with David Horowitz about how me and my ilk are fifth columnist terrorist coddlers remains an amusing sideshow. Someday they might look at the polls and figure out that competing with the GOP for the biggest dick award isn't exactly a winning strategy.

    The Center for American Progress's endless lists of mild technocratic reforms for the nanny state lack vision, but at least they occasionally tolerate a guest column on the NLRB's dessimation of labor rights. Then there's that corporate-liberal resignation, "unless we figure out a way to get them on our side" nothing can be done. It's some of the saddest shit I've ever seen. I was never much of a fan of Howard and the Deaniacs' politics, but at least they seemed to have sort of a remote faith in democracy.

    If our elections were less like beer commercials maybe we wouldn't need to pass everything by big business for a line item veto - where they're not simply writing the legislation to begin with. But you can't reform that until you fire the sanctimonious windbags writing the beer commercials because there's too much money to be had in political advertising. And you can't fire the fourth estate, you compete in it, which leaves you largely left to either shuffle the deck chairs or enlist the international solidarity of everybody else who's sick to the teeth of Rupert Murdoch's bony handed bullshit and try competing.

:: posted by buermann @ 2005-08-08 17:15:39 CST | link

      You know, we, loosely speaking, aren't going to be getting remotely what we want under any of the present circumstances and they do take everything we have to offer as an entitlement. Plus, the moral burden of supporting a party that's guaranteed to really hurt people here and kill them somewhere else is pretty onerous. Now I've been a kook for a long time :-) but it's gotten old and I had my last straw in the last election. If playing Mr. Nice Guy is only going to get me harangued by lib'ruls and DLC wingnuts, I may as well set about making their nasty allegations true. I've grown kind of fond of being called a Nader fellatin' Neo-Marxist masturbator and I want to get real about making sure New Democrats lose elections. An obstructionist minority party that's actually in opposition would do more for what I hold dear than one in which everyone has been forcibly wedded to serial loser Lieberman-lickers.

    posted by Harry @ 2005-08-09 04:20:35 | link

      There's a solid block of around maybe 20-30 Democrats between the House and Senate that keep voting for their corporate campaign contributions/the DLC platform, a couple good swift kicks to the nuts of those fuckers and you might have an obstructionist party.

      Otherwise the centrists bitching and moaning about how small my dick doesn't bother me much, I just point back to the CFR polls and tell em to suck it.

    posted by buermann @ 2005-08-09 10:26:04 | link

      buermann, I'd say that there is a guaranteed minimum of 50 House Democrats who are going to act directly against their constituents' interest at any given time. The others give them cover out of collegiality. It's like an informal cartel arrangement. I suspect they horse trade when it looks likely that an "Aye" vote would be pushing things too far in some districts.

      For the really, really bad things, there are almost always even more than 50. 167 for GATT, 102 for NAFTA, 92 for AGOA, 145 for Patriot I, 43 -- unbelievably -- for Patriot II, 53 for Effective Death, etc and so on, with CAFTA being an unusual break from evil business as usual. I bet I could go through all the roll call votes on significant legislation for the last 15 years and find the same thing. The Senate is even worse. When it's essential that something pass resoundingly, regardless of how it affects electoral chances, a sinecure is arranged. Daschle's (D-Usury) recent history is a good example of a man who took a dive and cashed in.

      That said, I like the idea of giving that bloc you mentioned a solid kick -- pour encourager les autres.

    posted by Harry @ 2005-08-09 23:30:32 | link

      If we're going to go back to NAFTA I feel it necessary to point out that I was angry at GHW for upsetting Perot's campaign bid. Going back a little further I was always a big fan of Garfield the Ambidextrous, if that helps.

      I was thinking of CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill, given that pork is always unanimous pork I thought it something that those two pseudo-policy pork bills met some resistance from somebody. Go back five years and see above.

      Either way I was suggesting that supporting independent broadcast media would be more worthwhile than giving to political campaigns. So far as politics goes I can't even imagine what it'd take to get rid of my corrupt fuckbomb mayor daley without getting some corrupt jacknut with better accountants in return. I'm probably completely wrong, on the other hand, about the whole lot of it, and just talking to my neighbors would work better, so long as nobody drew their pistols.

    posted by buermann @ 2005-08-10 03:53:48 | link

      I was going to go all the way back to the pleistocene, but thought that would be pushing the enevelope a bit. NAFTA's "graduating class" is still running things, however. I think of it as the point where the Democrats gave up any pretense of maintaining reciprocity with labor. And anway, shouldn't you still be pissed off about the Haymarket Martyrs?!

      I do agree that independent broadcast media is a better investment. Sorry I was so slow on the uptake about CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill.

      I give up talking to my neighbors, attending town meetings and the like on a regular basis, pistols or no. The last time I tried, I was told The Economist is one of those liberal, Bush-hating journals, and that I should try to get less baised news.

    posted by Harry @ 2005-08-10 08:18:31 | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: