Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIf Reid Were Rove
The state of American politics is dismal.
To begin with, there are no third choices. And, truthfully, there's hardly a second one either.
If you had asked me prior to 2001, I would have echoed the long-held sentiment in American politics that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. That the choice was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. That both parties were fully owned corporate subsidiaries - the only difference being which corporate masters were at the helm.
Then Bush happened. The truth, of course, is that Bushism - regressivism - had been around for quite a while, at least since Reagan, but without the unholy combination of Rovian brashness, a national security fright, and all branches of the government being in the hands of the same set of scary monsters. In my book, this was something rather different - both in terms of scale and kind - and made for what appeared to be a substantial distinction between Democrats and Republicans for maybe the first time ever in the course of my life.
A distinction, yes, if only a sort of backhanded one, though. That is to say, the gap opened up purely because the Republicans moved so far to the right, not because of any progressive renaissance in the Democratic Party. In fact, the Democrats moved to their right as well, just not as far, not from the same starting place, and not all of them. And so, once the Texas Tornado moved to town, we got the incredibly irresponsible tax transfers (disingenuously labeled tax cuts), the insanely brutal Iraq war, neglect then exacerbation of global warming, and so on, with about half the Democrats in Congress going along for each of these rides.
That wasn't a huge shock. Democrats have been in retreat since 1980, and the context from 2002 to 2006 was not one which particularly rewarded boldness or dissent. Since then, however, conditions have changed. George Bush's job approval is starting to fall below the 30 percent mark with some consistency. His war and his credibility are completely shot. There is a lot of anger out there, and probably the only reason the movement for impeachment isn't stronger is because many people figure it's not worth it with 'just' a year and a half to go.
But also because even if you could take down Bush and Cheney, you'd be left with... Nancy Pelosi, leader of a Congress that has miraculously managed to be less popular than George Bush only five months into their term, demonized female Democrat from San Francisco (and therefore - hint, hint - probably a lesbian!, in addition to being, gulp, a liberal!), and something less than an inspiring political figure in terms of either substance or style. If Cheney is Bush's insurance policy, Pelosi is both of theirs.
But I digress. How in the world could a Democratic Congress manage to earn a 23 percent favorability rating in just six short months, without even doing anything? Perhaps by not doing anything? Nothing, that is, except, of course capitulating on the single issue that enrages the American public the most, and that most explains the rout of 2006 that gave them their very majority. It was one thing for Democrats to melt like a snow cone in Riyadh when conditions were not terribly favorable to playing the role of principled opposition (although please don't get me started on how failing to oppose on principle actually leads to a vicious cycle which encourages more violations of principle later). But this is something quite different.
The sad fact is that Democrats are frightened of the shadows of their shadows. On an overcast day. Which leads to the even sadder fact that American voters effectively have two bold selections from which to choose when they step into a voting booth. There is the truly disastrous party and then there is the merely embarrassing party. There is the party that is destroying when it isn't pathetically bumbling, and then there is the party that facilitates whatever the other guys want (hey, you don't even have to say 'please', either!). Tweedledee and Tweedledum, my handbag! In any given election, American voters can choose between really evil monsters, on the one hand, and a third-cup-out-of-the-same-depleted-tea-bag anemic approximation of evil monsters, on the other. Who says there's no real choice in American politics?!
Karl Rove knows where on the human body one finds the jugular vein. (Hint to Democrats: it's not located in the pinky finger, not that you've particularly attacked GOP pinkies, anyhow.) He and his ilk are completely and utterly unscrupulous about destroying any obstacles that block their attempts to obtain and wield power, and that certainly includes knocking over democracy, the Constitution, and truth, not to mention American soldiers and Iraqi citizens, should any of those have the bad fortune to find themselves on the wrong end of Dick Cheney's bourbon-fueled shotgun.
The list of their power-seeking crimes is as big as George Bush's personal library is small, but it is worthwhile to consider some of the highlights. Of course, the endless exploitation of 9/11 is highest on that list, with perhaps 9/11 itself at the top, depending on your conspiratorial cup of tea. It seems pretty clear that the presidential elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004, in the former case by employing the partisan majority of the highest court of 'justice' in the land to seize power. That alone is certainly one helluva set of seriously tawdry politics, for any polity calling itself a democracy.
Once in office, everything was politicized, in the most crass terms imaginable. Especially Iraq. My guess is that each of the principals in the Bush administration had their various reasons for wanting to invade, whether that was war profiteering, Likud puppeteering, Iraqi exile racketeering, Pentagon engineering, or anti-parental domineering. For Rove, though, it would seem that it was all about power (and some good old fashioned Democratic Party smearing). Thinking the war would be a piece of cake, I'm quite sure they believed that Iraq would help Bush in 2004, dominate domestic politics (e.g., Social Security plundering) and allow Republicans to establish the generational juggernaut that Professor Rove dreamed about late at night, up in his laboratory.
And so, for starters, they scheduled the war 'authorization' vote in October 2002, right before an election, one of the most crass displays imaginable of one of the most cynical ploys conceivable - that of exploiting national security issues for nakedly political purposes. From there it only went downhill. During that race, Rove and the GOP (almost none of whom, of course, had bothered to show up for duty in Vietnam) smeared Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam vet, with advertisements morphing his face into that of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Of course, politics has rarely been a sport for the feint of heart. Just the same, this sort of thing would never have happened a generation ago. Nixon would not have gone that far, and McCarthy was clobbered when he did.
What was Cleland's alleged crime? Therein lies another tale of the politicization of national security. After 9/11, Democrats proposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security in the federal government. Bush rejected the idea. Then he changed his mind, and all of a sudden it was his program, and if you didn't vote for it, your face got morphed into bin Laden's or Saddam's. Never mind that the administration had meanwhile loaded the bill up with union-busting language, killing the labor rights of tens of thousands of federal employees and making them newly vulnerable to whatever management wanted to do to them. Provided morality is a foreign country to you, you have to admire this bit of engineering for its sheer craftsmanship in cynical politicking, not to mention its ultimate effectiveness. On the other hand, if you do have moral qualms about how politics is practiced, few prior episodes could be more nauseating.
We could go on and on because, frankly, they've gone on and on. Who could forget the swift-boating of John Kerry, or the Republican convention Band-Aids mocking his purple hearts? Who could forget Bush saying that al Qaeda was hoping the Democrats would win the elections of 2004 and 2006? These and other similar depredations are the actions of cancer cells on the parasites attached to the bloodsuckers affixed to the bottom-feeders in the skankiest swamp of American politics. Assuming we can survive it, this era will surely be known to history for the radical cheapening of the national discourse we've all witnessed firsthand.
Unfortunately, however, such tactics happen to be pretty effective. And especially so when the national press and the poorly-labeled opposition party cower in the corner rather than scream bloody murder at the degradation of American politics. So the GOP and its Rovian cancer have been 'winning' elections and, with rare exception, getting just about everything else they want, legislatively and otherwise. That is pretty much the very definition of success in politics, and so - unless you were fortunate enough that your mama raised you to have better manners - that's, unfortunately, what you're gonna do.
What if Democrats did the same? What if they practiced the take-no-prisoner school of politics, same as the GOP? What if their only interest was in winning - ethics, the Constitution, the public interest be damned? What if, in short, Harry Reid (or Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi) played the game of politics just like Karl Rove does? What if they played for keeps?
Have you heard about the two American soldiers captured and gone missing in Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. Well, if Reid were Rove, you'd never hear the end of it. It would be a national obsession, just like OJ and Natalee Holloway and Paris Hilton and god-help-us-whoever-is-the-personal-story-blown-completely-out-of-proportion-du-jour - and, indeed, just like the American hostages in Iran were, all the way back in the hopelessly naive days before Reagan. It would be all hostage, all the time. 'News'casts, especially some lefty equivalent of Fox that knew where its corporate bread was buttered, would keep a relentless clock running, and you'd never hear the end of "America Held Hostage, Day 43!", as if two soldiers were an entire country of 300 million. The president would be increasingly portrayed as weak and ineffective as he was unable to rescue these two heroes. Of course, that would mean that he would lash out with some act of semi-random violence in order to be seen to be doing something, anything, probably the only result of which would be a boatload of senseless violence and death, likely to include the two soldiers themselves. But when practicing cynical politics, one doesn't worry about such trivialities. If Reid were Rove, the only consideration would be winning, and American hostages make lovely tools for that purpose.
Did you hear the one about how Al Hurra television, the US government's $63 million propaganda organ in the Middle East, unwittingly allowed terrorists to broadcast their violent message on its airwaves, because none of the Americans running the thing, er, spoke Arabic? No? You haven't? Well, if Reid were Rove you'd never hear the end of that one, a screw-up so egregious that even the obsequious mainstream media ran a headline saying, "U.S. Government Gave Airtime to Terrorists, Official Admits". (Of course, if this had happened seven years earlier the headline would not have been "U.S. Government...", but rather "Clinton Administration Gave Airtime to Terrorists" - but that's another story.) If Reid were Rove, George Bush, who is so inept that he has actually managed to gain a reputation for idiocy even from a sympathetic press and a do-nothing and say-nothing 'opposition' (why don't we just get it over with already and call it the Democratic Pastry instead of the Democratic Party?), would be made to appear even more the buffoon for allowing this to happen on his watch. If Reid were Rove, the David Lettermans of this country would have a hold on this story like a pit bull chomping on a pair of jeans marinated in chicken grease. With a juicy leg inside.
If Reid were Rove, we'd see constant examples of Bush making a fool of himself on national security issues, and we would have seen them in 2004, when they counted. We'd see Bush promising to get bin Laden "dead or alive", then we'd see clips of bin Laden mocking Bush, six years later. We'd see Bush in 2002 saying "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." Then we'd see Bush this year at the Coast Guard graduation ceremony talking about all the bad things bin Laden has been cooking up. You know, about how he was only two or three weeks away from blowing up some passenger airplanes bound for America in what Bush described as "the most ambitious known al Qaeda threat to the homeland since 9/11". About how bin Laden is, according to Bush in this same speech, sending his best generals to Iraq to kill the American troops Bush put in harm's way there.
If Reid were Rove, Democrats would make sure we saw endless loops of the president looking under his desk for the missing WMD and turning their absence into a joke. Then we'd be reminded that over 3500 Americans have gone to Iraq, supposedly to protect us from those WMD, and have since returned in body bags. While the president who sent them there clowns. Maybe it's just me, but somehow, I don't think the White House attempt at humor would appear quite so funny in 2007.
If Reid were Rove, Americans would know that the very same government that claims to be fighting a war against terrorism is now harboring a terrorist who has bragged about blowing up an airliner and killing the 73 people on board, and who has similarly touted his accomplishments in bombing busy nightclubs and hotels.
If Reid were Rove, you'd never hear the end of how Bush's wondrous Department of Homeland Security (which, we'd be reminded, doesn't include the CIA or the FBI) allowed a guy to enter the country carrying a deadly strain of tuberculosis, even though he was on the no-fly list. We'd be asked over and over again how we could expect to be safe from terrorism with a government that can't even deal with a known medical threat crossing our borders.
In fact, if Reid were Rove, we'd be reminded that today is Day 2098 of the unsolved anthrax attack from 2001. And that tomorrow is Day 2099. And that the next day is...
If Reid were Rove, stories about small communities across America holding bake sales in order to buy armor for their kids going off to the war in Iraq would be seared into our collective consciousness. And then we'd be reminded of the no-bid contracts Halliburton got for Iraq, how the Vice President arranged those, how he still has financial interests in the company, and all the sordid details of the corruption and failure to perform in which it has indulged.
If Reid were Rove, you'd know Jack Abramoff so well by now that you'd feel like he was a (very unwanted) member of your family.
If Reid were Rove, we'd see images of Bush with a guitar in hand as New Orleans drowned, morphing into visions of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. We'd watch jumpy repeat cuts of Bush saying "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" over and over again, like some sort of video scratch track.
If Reid were Rove, every American taxpayer would know that their share of the national debt was now up to $60,000 and rapidly rising, and that Bush inherited the country's largest surplus ever and immediately turned it into the largest deficit ever. We'd see images of working Americans buried under their tax bills. We'd be constantly told what portion of those cuts went to the rich, and how much they made from them. We'd see the nationalist and xenophobia cards played shamelessly as Americans were reminded how much of the country is now owned by China and Japan (to the accompaniment of ominous chords on a soundtrack). Then we'd be snidely informed that, "Bureaucrats in the government think our record-setting debt of $9 trillion is okay because it is not a historically high ratio against GDP. Whatever that means."
And if Reid were Rove, every American would know the roll call of dishonor, being reminded of how Bush's daddy got him into the safe Texas Air National Guard, how Ashcroft took seven draft deferments, how Cheney took five and how Wolfowitz and almost all the rest never served. We'd see Cheney - or an actor playing him - repeat over and over "I had better things to do in the Sixties than fight in Vietnam". Like Michael Dukakis's little soiree in a tank, or John Kerry's oblivious I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it line, this would be made to haunt Cheney from here to oblivion.
And so on, and so forth, if Reid were Rove.
But Reid is not Rove, and so you don't see any of this, and you're not likely to. Is it because Democrats are morally superior to the GOP and to conservatives when it comes to the game of politics? To their credit, yes. Who could not be, when compared to these human horror movies of the right? But there's more to the story, as well. Democrats are also embarrassing wimps, afraid to throw a punch, and often even to block one. And, they are complicit in far too many ways in the depravities of the right, even if they mostly just go along for the ride.
Would we want them to act as the GOP has, destroying the fabric of American democracy in a relentless pursuit of power at any cost? Yes and no. Unfortunately, this is not a question with simple black and white answers. It is, in fact, another variation of the age-old ends-versus-means conundrum. My general answer to the question is an emphatic no - American democracy, such as it is, is tattered enough from the regressive movement's assaults of the last quarter-century, and even if that weren't the case, anything that further diminishes it is almost assuredly a bad thing.
That said, we need to be cognizant of the clear fact that if these guys aren't stopped, there won't be anything left to defend. And stopped soon, for that matter. For the four years after 9/11, I had the sick feeling that this country was about one terrorist attack - one burning of the Reichstag - away from a full-on fascist regime lasting from here to eternity. That may still be the case, though it is also clear that the American public has wised up, at least somewhat.
But, the thing is, the situation is analogous to Europe in the late 30s, I'd say (and if we can thank the Nazis for anything, we can certainly thank them for the wealth of historical metaphors they bequeathed us, although we of course manage to misapply them as often as not). That is to say, you may hate war, and you may even be a subscriber to pacifism, but once Hitler puts his Wehrmacht on a roll, you have only two choices, war or fascism. And, for that matter, often even the former was a long-odds crap shoot - meaning that you could wind up with both: (a losing) war, only to be followed by the further joys of occupation and fascism. Ask the French or the Poles.
Bush is no Hitler, though Cheney fairly salivates in that direction. There may be a difference in scale between invading all of Europe and invading Iraq, and between the Gestapo and Guantánamo, but it is not a difference of kind. And, of course, we're not done yet.
Which means that, no, as a matter of fact, in this scenario I don't want the Democrats to continue doing their very best Neville Chamberlain impressions. We've all seen that movie, and we know how it ends.
Even worse than the abject failure of the Democrats in Congress to protect us from these monsters is that, truthfully, they really wouldn't have to resort to being Roves or Cheneys to go up against Rove and Cheney. At this point, I wouldn't mind a bit seeing them take some of the shots suggested above. (Especially because, unlike the GOP transgressions, these jabs are based in factual and moral truth. There's a world of difference between pointing out Cheney's Vietnam record and repeating back his own words about that, on the one hand, and turning Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden, on the other.)
But if squeamishness is an issue, that sort of skirmishing isn't even particularly necessary. Even if the Democrats don't have the stomach for hardball politics, how about just using the institutional powers given to them for just this purpose by an angry public in the last election? Watching the party fold a powerfully winning hand on the war appropriations bill last month was a sickening visage. Bush needed that money for his dramatically unpopular war - why not continue sending him the same bill (which gave him the money, after all, along with Congressional strings attached) and let him keep vetoing it? This despised and mistrusted president couldn't plausibly claim Democrats were withholding funding for the troops as he kept vetoing that very thing.
And while we're talking here about simple institutional remedies to the current nightmare, how about just passing some good old fashioned legislation? That is what Congress is for, isn't it? Why can't the Democrats just keep sending the White House bill after bill of popular legislation - stripped of all earmarks and other distractions - and let Bush cast veto after veto of laws and programs the public wants? Healthcare, environmental protection, reform of government corruption, progressive tax reform, workplace protections, college funding, stem cell research, et cetera, et cetera, and yet cetera. If you can't get these into law, at the very least the public should know just which party is blocking the legislation they favor. Make these guys own their unpopular ideas, and make them pay for them!
Ah, but you're no doubt thinking, there's the prospect of the dreaded filibuster to worry about (careful, now - you're channeling Harry Reid here). And it's true - since the Democrats took control of Congress in January, the GOP has repeatedly used the threat of a filibuster to block consideration of important legislation. But, hey Harry, why do you keep playing that game? Why not revert to the old system, in which a minority had to actually filibuster - rather than just threaten to do so - in order to block business in the Senate? Make them pay for their obstinance. Make them own their regressive and unpopular ideas. Do Republicans really want to be seen fighting bravely for days on end to ensure that the Senate does not actually discuss what to do about an unpopular war? Do they think blocking even the discussion of potential solutions would make them look good? Do they really want to stand in the well of the Senate like Jimmy Stewart, disheveled and covered in ten o'clock shadows, defending the principle that there cannot be any discussion of a no-confidence motion on Alberto Gonzales? Well then, for goodness sake, let them! Heck, it'd be worth it just to see Trent Lott's plasto-hair get mussed!
And while we're talking about the lovely Alberto here, what in the world does the guy have to do for Democrats to impeach him?! That's done in the house, anyhow, where there's no filibuster, where the Democrats have a healthy majority, and where majorities do what ever they want to minorities. Does Gonzales need to get caught with a congressional page in his office, pants down at his ankles? And would it have to be a male page, at that, for Pelosi to find sufficient grounds to allow impeachment proceedings to go forward? How many administration officials have to appear before Congress and lie before Democrats use this power in a case screaming out for it as if it were a stadium full of Beatles fans, circa 1964? How many have to come and demonstrate their contempt of Congress with displays of their suddenly porous memories? How many of Karl Rove's email messages have to get deleted before something actually happens?
And what about the Congressional power of the purse? Hey, Dingbat Dems - yeah, you guys over there by that bag of hammers - wake up! First of all, you shouldn't be funding GOP pet projects anyhow, because they suck. But even if you can't find it within yourselves to pull the trigger for that reason, how about at least exercising a little leverage to get what you want in return? Maybe if you spiked an absurdly jive 'missile defense' boondoggle or two every once in a while, Rove's missing emails would suddenly and miraculously reappear, eh? You getting my meaning here?
Probably not.
What's most astonishing about the Democrats is that they are so beaten down, so practiced in the art of capitulation, so used to identifying with their tormentors in some sort of twisted political version of the Stockholm syndrome, that they can't even manage to serve their core personal interests anymore. You gotta figure that the Joe Bidens and the Steny Hoyers of this world could at least pull off the one thing politicians are best known for, at the expense of all else. You'd think that they could minimally protect their jobs, whatever that took. And yet they stand by watching, mouths agape, like passengers on a train that just passed their intended station, as the GOP rigs elections, and when that isn't enough then uses the Justice Department to steal them even more efficiently still. Good one, fellas! Maybe a brief chat with Tom Daschle would be instructive here. Sure, he's a nice guy. But he's also a former senator, too. Get it?
If Reid were Rove, this shit would never happen. If Reid were Rove, Republicans would tremble at the prospect of indulging their worst tendencies, however tempting, knowing that a mountain of woe would be dumped on their heads were they to trash the institutions of American democracy, knowing that they would be ridiculed mercilessly if they tried hawking their unpatriotic and hypocritical lies, knowing that they would be pummeled into ER cases with do not resuscitate orders if they advocated politics which were in fact detrimental to most voters, in order to benefit elites. If Reid were Rove, the Republican Party would either change its politics, or it would have representation in Congress truly proportional to the one-half of one percent of Americans whose interests it actually represents. If Reid were Rove, there'd be some Republican clown - maybe Joe Lieberman - from Greenich, Connecticut in the House, and that'd be the entirety of the national GOP congressional delegation.
If Reid were Rove, life would have been a lot happier this last quarter century, and there'd be a lot of people alive today who aren't otherwise.
But, then again, if Reid had been Rove all these years, there would never have been any Rove in the first place.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (mailto:dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
47 Comments so far
Show AllO.K. But seriously people, it's "Martial Law"
Breaking news.....Breaking news......Paris Hilton has joined the race for the White House! George Bush has decided to resign as President because he's had enough of this lying and Dick Cheney has declared marshal law as the only choice available as Karl Rove prepares to push the button. God have mercy on US!
If Democrats can become convinced that Democrats are just the same as Republicans, why then doesn't it work the other way around ?
Why isn't it possible to point out that Democrats do everything that Republicans wish for, so they might just as well vote for them ?
I think that as much as it is useful to point out the problems of the Democratic Party, it nevertheless remains the most important to fight the Republican Party until it withers away and merges with the Democrats.
This has recently happened here in South Africa, where the former National Party has shrivelled away, and after it merged with its former arch-enemy the ANC, it had completely disappeared. It can happen: these people are in politics only for themselves so to them it does not matter to which party they belong, as long as they can have a place at the trough.
Many fanatical Republicans would be all too happy to switch allegiance if it would give them the opportunity to stay in power for an extended period.
This could all happen. As an outsider I am just amazed how you Americans continue to take a party that is full of complete extremists seriously. Really, in a normal democratic society with a well-informed citizenry, an extremist party like the Republicans would only get 10% support at most.
Juanito de Vallarta June 23rd, 2007 1:32 pm
You fucking do the math. Bush's approval rating is down to 26% and falling. Congress is even lower. Why? Because they won't confront the Chimp on the basic issues that the American people are concerned about - Iraq, health care, etc. These bought-and-paid-for corporate whores will do anything to stop any sensible solution to our problems.
"These and other similar depredations are the actions of cancer cells on the parasites attached to the bloodsuckers affixed to the bottom-feeders in the skankiest swamp of American politics. Assuming we can survive it, this era will surely be known to history for the radical cheapening of the national discourse we've all witnessed firsthand."
Perhaps not the most poetic but, Amen Brother. Karl Rove is a scumbag who will, upon his death, descend to a part of hell most of us cannot even conceive of.
segdeha.......
Glad I made you laugh. What you suggest is what I suggest, too, hence "get active".
LET'S ALL PANIC AND VOTE REPUBLICRAT!!!
My concern after reading Mr. Green's comments is that he may have to go back to 2nd and 3rd grade for a brush up on his arithmatic skills. Now I don't want to simply single him out, because I've heard this arithmaphobia from numerous others who share my progressive persuasion. The Senate at 49-49-2 is hardly a mandate for the level of social change and the Bush-backlash for which we all yearn. I have got to believe the basic math of the current situation requires that Mr. Green and the rest of us get behind and steer the current House and Senate leadership (as lame as they appear at moments), not alienate it. It's not until we at least elect a Democrat to the White House, can substantial change be expected; do the math. Democrats cannot continue to eat their young; the Republicans look so much better at now, anyway.
In a way, there is a striking resemblance in that both of them do kinda look like "tirdblossoms."
Mel Brooks?? History of The World PartII ??
Sounds like a great script........
this was a center-right country to begin with,for reasons well understood by the folks who gather here.on top of that,after 20 years of disgraceful right-wing talk radio,made possible by bi-partisan sponsored media-consolidation,our national language of empowerment sounds much the way a public toilet smells.if reid were rove may be a tantilizing question,for sure.another might be how many lives would clinton,obama,edwards,and dodd need to have,before they would feel comfortable enough to live one as a practicing progressive,and not merely an editorial one?
MR. GREEN MISUNDERSTANDS THE LESSONS ROVE HAS TO TEACH US. You don't have to join him in the gutter to fight to win. You don't have to lie and assassinate the character of our opponents- they do that quite nicely on their own, thank you very much-- to win....
No the lesson Rove can teach is one that FDR knew-- the best defense is a good offense. Take your opponents strong points and turn them into weaknesses. The GOP on national security is a great example. If every opportunity were taken to hammer on the ways we are less safe now, 2008 would be a shoe in.
And our great advantage is, unlike the GOP we can do that by telling the truth/
The bottom line is 27 years after Reagan, it is the GOP that has a bleak view of the country's future. Endless war, endless suspension of the Constitution, endless police state in an economy that is in the 7th year of a jobless recovery with no end of that in sight either. The government of the world's most powerful nation just sitting by waiting for global climate change to flood our coastal cities.
A forward looking Democrat- not the timorous misleaders of today's party-- a Progressive Democrat is the one who can honestly say "It's morning in America!"
DISCARD THE PREVIOUS POST
Professor Green essay is profound, erudite and with the right dose of the comedy of the absurd. But it fails in one important issue - a more thorough explanation of the complicity and acquiesence of the Democrats. This can be traced directly to the effect and influence of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. It was Clinton who, in his quest to win at any cost, figured that it is best to co-opt Republican "ideas" and "issues", lace them with a pseudo-liberal twist and call this a "centrist position" It is this centrist position that has left Democrats, even with their recent victory, politically, intelectually and philosophically discombobulated. As Stepren Colbert puts it, "we are at war, pick a side"
Lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton, pandering to the rah-rah Republicans, who signed (and later bragged about) the welfare bill - a legislation that pushed over 5million more below the poverty line; it was Bill Clinton who signed (and later bragged about it to a black church congregation)the crime bill - a legislation that has exploded the number of the incacerated (a disproportionate number of whom are blacks, by the way).
Against this backdrop, "If Reid were Rove" is really a distinction "without a dimes worth of difference" To replace one spin with another is merely a simulacrum of the phony debates that masquerades as politcal discourse in our congress and popular media. No amount of sloganeering or gestapo politiking can replace concrete and coherent philosophical/political principles and the moral and intellectual fortitude to fight for them. To lament the fact that Reid or Pelosi is not Rove (and frankly, I shudder at the idea of these two imbeciles and dimwits becoming a Rove) is an indulgence in false consciouseness. Progressives should rather be thinking and planning for the impeachment (by ballot) of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Leiberman and the rest of their ilk in 2008 rather than waste our energies on a thoroughly discredited bunch of fascists and megalomaniacs.
Which brings me to the prospect of Hillary Clinton as President in '08. Progressives, be forwarned, this will be a disaster much more disappointing than the Bush years. Hillary Clinton, unlike Bill who at at the very least is intelectually more adept and has some core beliefis,(he stood up the Newt and the Contract with America, didn't he?) is the centrist without a center. Remember she was for the before she was against it; remember she folded her tent, without a wimper, after the shoutfest about her Healthcare proposal; remember she was for (or silent about) the Bush tax cuts - the most cruel class warfare perperated on the poor and middle class - that resulted the greatest income disparity in contemporary American history.
After 8yrs in congress, she has mastered the art of political equivocation and intellectual vacuousness is now squarely in the pockets of big business (She is now among the largest receipient of insurance/pharmaceutical political bribes).
As a card-carrying lefty and at the risk of offending liberals, I would rather see a Republican president with a veto-proof majority of the right Democrates in the House and Senate. I prefer the devil unmasked to the devil in an angelic garb.
Professor Green essay is profound, erudite and with the right dose of the comedy of the absurd. But it fails in one important issue - a more thorough explanation of the complicity and acquiesence of the Democrats. This can be traced directly to the effect and influence of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. It was Clinton who, in his quest to win at any cost, figured that it is best to co-opt Republican "ideas" and "issues", lace them with a pseudo-liberal twist and call this a "centrist position" It is this centrist position that has left Democrats, even with their recent victory, politically, intelectually and philosophically discombobulated. As Stepren Colbert puts it, "we are at war, pick a side"
Lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton, pandering to the rah-rah Republicans, who signed (and later bragged about) the welfare bill - a legislation that pushed over 5million more below the poverty line; it was Bill Clinton who signed (and later bragged about it to a black church congregation)the crime bill - a legislation that has exploded the number of the incacerated (a disproportionate number of whom are blacks, by the way).
Against this backdrop, "If Reid were Rove" is really a distinction "without a dimes worth of difference" To replace one spin with another is merely a simulacrum of the phony debates that masquerades as politcal discourse in our congress and popular media. No amount of sloganeering or gestapo politiking can replace concrete and coherent philosophical/political principles and the moral and intellectual fortitude to fight for them. To lament the fact that Reid or Pelosi is not Rove (and frankly, I shudder at the idea of these two imbeciles and dimwits becoming a Rove) is an indulgence in false consciouseness. Progressives should rather be thinking and planning for the impeachment (by ballot) of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Leiberman and the rest of their ilk in 2008 rather than waste our energies on a thoroughly discredited bunch of fascists and megalomaniacs.
Which brings me to the prospect of Hillary Clinton as President in '08. Progressives, be forwarned, this will be a disaster much more disappointing than the Bush years. Hillary Clinton, unlike Bill who at at the very least is intelectually more adept and has some core beliefis,(he stood up the Newt and the Contract with America, didn't he?) is the centrist without a center. After 8yrs in congress, she has mastered the art of equivocation and is now squarely in the pockets of big business (She is now among the largest receipient of insurance/pharmaceutical political bribes).
As a card-carrying lefty and at the risk of offending liberals, I would rather see a Republican president with a large majority of the right Democrates in the House and Senate. I prefer the devil unmasked than the devil in an angelic garb.
"Is it going to take a revolution to get the Dems off their butts? Maybe so. Make phone calls, send emails, get active."
This made me laugh. Since when did a revolution consist of phone calls and emails? Maybe it's time for some good old fashioned civil disobedience? The System only wants our obedience. If we refuse, then they will be forced to deal with alternate voices, but not until then.
Question to the author:
What kind of "feint" is the feint of heart?
LeeAnn G, I appreciated your comment on the difference between "feint" and "faint" as I had also noticed the misuse. It makes about as much sense as worrying about which of a hundred methods to take back our country will work. Face the fact, people, that it will take an enormous happening for most Americans to get out of their comfortable habits of shopping for new gadgets, planning vacations, watching sports and game shows, and keeping ahead of the bill collectors just to name a few distractions. We can only hope it will not be a (nucular)-Bush (nuclear)-LeeAnn, conflagration, or a total breakdown of our system of debt resulting in depression that will bring about changes.
"Just watch for a "black op" attack on something..."
It's already happened: the unsolved anthrax attack from 2001.
That was just for practice.
Why don't bloggers and pundits talk about the motives behind the Iraq war and how much richer Cheney and his friends are as a result of it? The most treasonous act an American leader can commit against his fellow Americans is send them off to die in a pointless war so he can make a quick buck. Cheney and his other draft-dodging Friends are laughing their asses all the way to the bank while the rest of the country deals with the ravages of this stupid war.
"Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear" - Albert Camus
"The state of American politics is dismal."
You're very kind, Mr. Green. Dismal doesn't even come close to scratching the surface.
Here's an idea:
Send a couple of tennis balls to every Democrat in the Congress and the Senate.
It's just what they need and they may even get the message.
As Andrew Bacevich has written -- and as I keep quoting and requoting in this forum:
"Democrats bemoan the failures of the Bush Administration, and with good cause. Yet none of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of checks and balances. In this regard, the views of Republicans and Democrats align precisely. The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."
And as I keep repeating, THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY. Someone electable (and I do mean "electable," as distinct from "perfect like Jesus Christ," someone like Gore) better be forming some kind of third-party coalition to run against whatever Republicrat wins in 2008. Otherwise, you can kiss your cherished republic goodbye.
As has alaready been pointed out, but is worth saying again, this good article ignores a critical element. If Reid were Rove, he would not get his ravings printed or broadcast because the Republicans own and control most of the media.
This makes the situation all the more grave.
Siouxrose: You're welcome. If more people started thinking of the effort to build a multiparty democracy as a social justice movement--and the exclusion of third-party and independent candidates and voters from the political system as what it really is, DISENFRANCHISEMENT--they would not be so easily bullied by naysayers and cynics who say that the struggle is too hard and the opposition is too strong. It takes courage, faith and persistence to fight against any systemic injustice. Let's do it!
Just watch for a "black op" attack on something followed by a declaration of martial law. The pressaganda arm will fall into line and the American Sheeple will hail our saviors as hundreds of thousands march into the concentration camps built by Halliburton et al.
Read the executive orders stacked on Bush's desk, awaiting the magic moment for signature and dating.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fema_in_charge.htm
This is just like the war with Iran. Many senior officers have stated they would resign before obeying orders to attack Iran, let alone nuke them. Those seniors are being rapidly "retired" or reassigned. I can guess what they are being replaced with. More Bushian "yes men."
Empires don't last as long as they used to, but they all leave mountains of skulls behind them as memento morii.
It took a long time to get to the end but the last sentence was worth it. We can talk all day about what is wrong and why it's wrong. But what is really wrong is the system that has allowed the White House to become Walmart and the Pentagon to become a junior partner in Blackwater. A system that continues to tolerate the selling of the Constitution to corporations and a foreign policy that makes Americans hated all over the world. A system that outsources its own backbone to feed its already fat stomach. A system in which the question of what it would be like if Reid were Rove has to compete with Paris Hilton for media time.
Read "IRON HEEL" by Jack London.
Hoa binh
Bildad: Thank you for pointing out history's previous examples of "no can do."
I have to admit that reading this essay and imagining similiar real life events was psuedo satisfying. However, the possibility of this actually happening is very unlikely and growing even more so. The newly elected majority has expressed to the public exactly where their loyalty lies.
What I take from this is the overwhelming fact that all the suggested tactics, right down to the details of what to say in response to certain actions, are in fact true.
So our battle is simply to expose the truth, not wait for Democrats to do so. Couldn't we the "progressive" people organize something of a "Swifboat" type campaign and buy some air time for this purpose? Would they air it?
IF Reid were Rove, Bush would have declared defeat in Florida in 2000
At the risk of, once again, being labeled the "grammar cop," it's "faint of heart," not "feint of heart." "Feint" means to trick or deceive, as to "feint" when boxing or in sword play. "Faint" means "feeble, weak, or fragile."
It's the neo-cons who are feint of heart. And it surely is the Democrats who have, for way too long, been faint of heart.
"If you had asked me prior to 2001, I would have echoed the long-held sentiment in American politics that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. That the choice was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. That both parties were fully owned corporate subsidiaries - the only difference being which corporate masters were at the helm."
That says it all.
And there is even more the Dem's can do if they had the integrity.
It's one thing to "require" that the RepubliKKKans actually filibuster instead of just threatening to do so. Okay, that might make some good political points. But why not DO AWAY WITH THE FILIBUSTER ALTOGETHER?
Hey, the fascists threatened to do so in order to get their law-destroying running dogs on the Supreme Court. And the Dem's, of course, gave away the game in order to "preserve" the filibuster (to what point??). Why can't the Dem's use the "nuclear option" to prevent the obstructionism of the Republipigs?
The korporatists do not hesitate to use all the power at their disposal in order to destroy the country. Why can't the Dem's use the same power to save it?
With all the speculation concerning future repuglican election rip-offs I offer something so ugly and possible that I'm waiting for October 2008 for this ugly-demon-nightmare-election-stealing-tactic-from-hell to rear its ugly head:
Isn't their a provision in some Constitutional passage that claims the president can remain in office and postpone federal elections during a "time of war"? I'm just surprized that they haven't played that card yet. I expected it in the last presidential election but the fact that they just moved the "new and improved" version of the Florida election rip-off tactics to Ohio, where they had the election guaranteed, made that tactic unneccesary at that time. Glad it didn't happen then but anticipate that it will become another ugly tactic of the destroyers of the America we once "thought" we lived in.
I haven't been able to sleep a healthy, restful sleep since these charlatains swindled their way into control in 2000.
"To begin with, slavery is a system that has existed for centuries and it will never change no matter what those crazy abolitionists say or do. We have the system we have. Be realistic.
"To begin with, women don't have the right to vote because they aren't sophisticated enough to exercise the franchise—men hold the reins of power, and all the squawking and marching of those suffragists will never change that!
"To begin with, no one is ever going to tell the titans of American industry that they have to accept this socialist claptrap about an eight-hour day and the right to join and form unions. And prohibiting children from working to help support their families! This is a free country. It will never happen! Shut up and go home, you reds!
"To begin with, states have the right to choose for themselves who can and cannot vote. They also have the right to keep the races from mixing—whether it is on buses, in cafeterias or wherever. The Southern white power structure is just too strong and the obstacles are too great. Only a fool would think that they can challenge segregation. Don't waste your time fighting this so-called "injustice." It's a nice idea, but it will never happen.
"To begin with, there is no such thing as an unqualified "right" to vote. We have a two-party system. We have a strictly limited right to choose between candidates of either the Republican or Democratic parties. Citizens who do not support the Democrats or the Republicans will be disenfranchised. They are making themselves second-class citizens by insisting that they don't have to vote the way we in the Rich, White, Corporate Power Structure--and the mainstream media--tell them they have to vote. Those unrealistic, independent-minded troublemakers like the Libertarians, Socialists, members of the Peace & Freedom Party or the Constitution Party—and especially those peacenik tree-hugging troublemakers the Greens--are insane to think that they can vote for whoever they think best represents their views. What do they want anyway? Democracy? Ha! The two-party system is the way God planned for us in the Land of the Free to elect our leaders. This will never, ever change, no matter how many people refuse to accept the status quo and fight for a better way. In any case, we in RWCPS just won't tolerate any tinkering with our rigged system. We just will not allow it! Don't be irresponsible now, children. Pick one from column A …."
This is a social justice movement, Mr. Green. We will keep on beating on the door until the duopolists are forced to let us in to take our rightful seat at the table. If the Democrats are so afraid of "spoilers," they had better get behind Instant Runoff Voting before we "spoil" their cozy little corporate 2-party dictatorship and they are sent packing into the dustbin of history. NO MORE LESSER EVILS!
I go back and forth on the question of "is there a difference, what's the difference, how big a difference, etc." between wimpocrats and rethuglicans. If there is no difference, then why all the voter fraud and manipulation in 2000 & 2004? Why the D.A. purges in the DOJ of '06 & '07, which seem to be about vote suppression as much as anything else?
And if there is a difference, then why have the Dems capitulated on these issues? It seems like the Dems have a chance to ensure their majority for years to come on the issue of the integrity of the vote alone, much less all the other stuff, so why not fight for it?
It's more Children of Alcoholic Parents Syndrome than Stockholm. Sucking down the "crumbs" when offered, then begging for more as the rug's pulled out from under them, repeat. All the while, the drunk runs around destroying your life piece by piece - but, wait, "I like global warming now." Oh, he's changed, finally... another signing statement? What?
It's time to get down and dirty: someone, somewhere, has got the goods on Rove. The man clearly is not normal, and there's at least one patriot ready to spill it all. FIND HIM!
Gotta love Greene's analogy of the "Stockholm Syndrome," as it does explain the psychological component. We all know that running for office costs a bundle thanks to media deregulation giving away the same bandwidths that might have otherwise been better negotiated to allow for air time to candidates. Under thrall to money interests, the phenomenon first articulated by Nader, that the only difference between the two parties is which drops to its knees first before the interests of big business becomes the inevitable result. Since PR and framing issues are such big deals in US consumer-land culture, perhaps we should dispense with the brand name of democracy, and call it what it is. Sold out USA.
David - Many thanks for articulating this with precision and a strong dose of the absurd.
Ron - The phenomenon you've written about can be understood in psychological parlance as the result of at least two defenses: projection and reversal.
It is amazing to see these primitive, internal cogitive/emotional manuevers shifted from the everyday relationship realm, where they usually show up, into the field of politics.
Michael Milburn addresses pieces of this phenomenon in his book "The Politics of Denial," as does Alice Miller in "Breaking Down the Wall of Silence" (esp in Chap 6: 'The Monstrous Consequences of Denial, and Appendix A: 'Wars and Dictators').
I'm probably not the first to predict the Republicans will again steal the election in 2008 and the Democrats will, again, allow it to happen. In this country there's a bully and there's a wimp, perfectly exemplified even in the physical persons of Rove and Reid.
The Democratic party needs money.
The sources of money predominately support the Republicans.
The Dems attacking the Repubs attacks the sources of money. That's why Reid isn't Rove.
Solution: more political parties, more political voices. Don't give the money sources only 2 choices. With only 2 choices it's easier to control things.
Multiple parties, multiple voices, democracy in action.
Egg- zactly!
David, many thanks for articulating this with humor and precision.
I have a Republican friend who is furious that Rove is not Reid. He insists that all of the news outlet are "Democrat party-controlled" and that the TV news anchors just sit there, chanting "Bush lied, Bush lied!" all day long, ignoring all the good news coming out of Iraq. He keeps saying that the Republicans need to learn from the Democrats how to spin everything to their advantage - the Democrats are killing us, he insisits - they never let our side of the story come out and they kill every worthwhile Republican bill with their pork - they have no morals, they hate America and they want us to lose this war. And they won't allow us to do what it takes to win this war. Amazing as it may seem, I suspect he isn't the only Republican who feels that way. So maybe Reid is doing a reasonably good job. But professor Green is right - a real fighter could rip the Repugs to shreds and then my friend would really be upset. Alas, the MSM won't publish this article because it is in bed with the Repugs, despite my friend's perspective to the contrary.
The media blitz described could be transcipts from the Daily Show for the last few years; so it is on TV; just, as Jon Stewart commonly points out, "basic cable." The problem may be the corporate media.
One of Prof. Hofstra's best essays to date but the answer to the hypothetical question he poses depends on the hypothetical actions of US citizens (beyond voting)to make the likes of Reid et al do something.......for example, what if the American people got so pissed off at the current state of affairs that there was a general strike?
It goes beyond the Democrats - it is the right Republican lockstep control of the mainstream media which is the problem. Dennis Kucinich had an important speech on the Iraq War and the Oil companies quest to steal Iraqi oil in the House. The only mainstream media reference I could find for it was the UPI. Not even NPR, paid for by mostly liberal's donations, covered it.
I agree the Democrats should filibuster Iraq War funding unless it has withdrawal deadlines, should propose the most progressive legislation imaginable and let Bush repeatedly veto it and Republicans put themselves on record supporting filibusters against it.
But the only reason Rove's tactics work is the rightwing control of mainstream media...
Mr. Hofstra has said what I've been saying to everyone I know. Is it going to take a revolution to get the Dems off their butts?
Maybe so.
Make phone calls, send emails, get active.
The problem is not Reid's tactics.
The problem is that Reid is pledge to support and defend the same agenda as the Republicans. For the last 20 years, that's been the role of the Democratic Party. When the Republicans crash and burn, its the Democrats that step in and keep what the Republicans have gained in place until the Republicans can regroup and retake power.
This is what we saw in the Clinton years. The Clinton\Gore administration did almost nothing to roll back the Reagan-Bush policies. And on top of that they advanced the Republican-corporate agenda by passing WTO, NAFTA, Welfare Reform, federal death penalties, illegal foriegn wars, etc, etc, etc.
And do you see the Democrats in Congress today making any attempt to reverse the corporate republican agenda? Are they reversing Bush's tax laws? Can you think of anything that's really changed?
Or are Reid and Pelosi actually protecting Bush\Cheney\Rove by BLOCKING any attempt at impeachment? Are Reid and Pelosi actually protecting Bush\Cheney\Rove by making sure the Iraq war is fully funded and continues? Are you surprised by either of these outcomes? You shouldn't be because both Reid and Pelosi promised last year that there would be no impeachment and that the war would continue to be fully funded.
Its not about tactics. Its about agenda. And if you expect the Democrats to in any way offer a serious change to what the Republcians have been doing, well I've got this great bridge in Brooklyn that I can get for you for a very reasonable price.