From the NYTimes:
David Campbell, Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, gave an interview to Mormon Stories just before the midterm elections. He discussed the rapidly rising number of people, especially Millenials, who chose to not have a religious identification. They’re called Nones. What’s surprising about the Nones is that they are responding to politics when they say they have no religious affiliation. Apparently, they are so disgusted by the religious right and its alliance with the Republican party, and its the socially backwards, environmentally unfriendly policies, that they would rather have no religion at all. In other words, religious Republicans are God’s worst PR nightmare. Well worth a listen. Check it out here.
Maybe it’s not clear to the rest of the Democratic party but the primary focus of the Republican party is economic. They don’t like taxes, paying for education for the lower classes, or labor. That whole weekend thing ruined the last century for them. If Americans end up living like factory workers in Bangladesh, what’s that got to do with them?
Democrats are all about saving the planet and moving forward. But there is a rift in the Democratic party. It became painfully clear in 2008 when the party ditched its “old coalition” for the “creative class”. (New readers should go back to the beginning of this blog in January 2008 to see how this happened) Can I stop here and say that to the Masters of the Universe, the designations “old coalition” and “creative class” are meaningless? If you don’t have the money to go to Davos, you don’t count and neither does your Ivy League degree. Sooner or later, you will wear the livery.
So, anyway, I saw on the NYTimes where the Republicans are going to play up this rift. They are going to aggressively push for the Keystone Pipeline and the rollback of EPA regulations. I predict that the “creative class” is going to frrrrreeeeeaaaaak out. Cue the tearing of garments and gnashing of teeth.
Meanwhile, the “old coalition” is suffering from wage stagnation. And before the creative class loses interest in this issue, it should go read Derek Lowe’s blog In the Pipeline about what wages are like for the people who do the real creative innovation in the biotech industry. The finance industry (foolishly) thinks it can hire a bunch of newly minted Harvard post-docs and pay them well to do a bit of lab work before they are shunted into project management where they will direct a bunch of foreign CROs. For this, they will be paid handsomely- at about the same rate as the medicinal chemist with 20+ years of lab experience and an incalculable advantage in actually, you know, getting a project through the research phase. But I digress.
So, there is the rift. And Republicans are going to drive a truck right through it. The most vocal Democrats with the biggest mics are going to be screaming bloodily murder about the pipeline and ignore the wage slaves. That will play directly into Republicans’ hands.
Now, I’m not saying that the pipeline is not important and I am not a climate change denier but what Democrats really, really need are more people who identify with them and care about these issues. And the best way to get no pipeline and better environmental policy is to make sure that those people at the bottom of Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs are satisfied to the level that they can focus on pipelines and climate change. They need to get their heads out of worrying about their paychecks before they can concentrate on the EPA. To do that, the Democrats have got temporarily put their screaming about the environment on hold and focus with laser like intensity on eroding labor standards, wage stagnation and an artificially created unemployment crisis where too many people are on the verge of losing their jobs all the time.
Can they do it? I am optimistic. Just repeat after me: “It’s the economy, Stupid”. Take the power to divide us away from Republicans. Do not stop until you win. THEN shut the pipeline down.
Filed under: General | Tagged: creative class, David Campbell, Democrats, God needs a better PR firm, it's the economy stupid, Keystone pipeline, old coaltion, Religion in Politics, Republicans, wage stagnation | 19 Comments »
The Republicans have a stranglehold on the House, might take over the Senate and the only thing standing between them and our social security benefits is Barack Obama.
Cue the panicked screaming.
What’s even scarier is there are Fox News watchers who are so soaked in lies and delusion that they will have absolutely no idea what hit them until it’s too late. A lot of very bad things could happen in two years. On the other hand, maybe the Republicans have to have free reign so people can see what they’re really all about. Telling people not to watch Fox doesn’t seem to be working. It just might take some very, very tough love and a heavy dose of betrayal before they get it. Of course, this might be the last time many people have an easy time voting. Once they’re in power, it will be more difficult to dislodge them. All bets are off for voting in 2016, especially for women. Because if I were the Republican party, I’d busily get behind initiatives to make it much harder for women and poor people to vote. I mean, harder than it is now. Much harder.
The rest of us should assume the brace position.
Derek Lowe, blogmaster over at In the Pipeline, took issue with NIH Director Frances Collins contention that if the NIH budget hadn’t been cut in the past decade, we might have had an ebola vaccine by now. I remarked on the Vox article about this very same topic last week. However, I’m siding with Collins on this topic. True, he might be using the very scary disease of ebola to make his point but it is a valid one.
To get an idea of what the NIH has been up against, I recommend that readers review the congressional testimony on the ebola outbreak from last week. I believe it was Anthony Fauci who laid out the problem. It goes like this:
This would probably be a good time to insert some Paul Krugmanesque graph that shows the equilibrium between private and public investment in scientific research. This one should show that when private industry stopped funding research, the corresponding expected increase in public spending was notably absent.
Derek has a libertarian streak and works for one of the last small molecule drug discovery companies in Cambridge. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but it does skew his perspective just a tad. Not only that but Derek is operating in the old world order when we tested every therapeutic treatment to death. That’s clearly not happening with the ebola treatments. Those suckers have been fast tracked like nobody’s business. We are treating ZMapp like it’s a cure for ebola when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s just that it’s the only thing we’ve got. ZMapp is so early in development that back in the old days of real drug discovery, it might have been killed in a project portfolio review before it ever made it to development. And the vaccines? Well, normally, they’d go through many stages of development and testing for safety, efficacy, and side effects with an expanding number of trial recipients at each stage before it was approved by the FDA. Forget that. In this epidemic in West Africa, with number of exposures increasing exponentially, no one has time for these niceties (though I can just see some lefties screaming about how we killed West Africans with an untested vaccine that triggered a cytokine storm or autoimmune disease. Wait for it. You know it’s going to happen. There will probably be a movie about it featuring some ruggedly handsome Liam Neesom type and a earnestly beautiful lady scientist detective out to uncover the awful truth of corporate exploitation of poor third world citizens.).
The real world is not so simple but there definitely is money at the bottom of this mess.
I’ve worked on both sides of the problems in both industry and in academia, if only briefly. But I got a good look at what it’s like to do research on NIH grant money and it’s not pretty. Most of a principal investigator’s time is spent preparing grant applications. It’s very bureaucratic and, I suspect, very political. If there isn’t a retrospective analysis on the amount of grant money that goes to the Ivies that leave the rest of the academic labs starving for funds, there really should be. Not every breakthrough has to happen at Harvard. The polio vaccine, for example, was developed in Pittsburgh. Oh, yeah, how many of you knew that Jonas Salk worked for the University of Pittsburgh? True story.
And yet, it was about a year ago that I got a call in my office at Pitt from a researcher in the immunology group who had just lost her job because of the sequester. It was last year at about this time that we had to cut back sharply on ordering chemicals and lab supplies for my lab because grants were on hold, also due to the sequester. Even today, I see positions at Pitt for the kind of work that I used to do but the hours are part time. Really?? You expect scientists to do protein production, extraction and crystallization experiments on a part time basis? That’s the craziest thing I have ever seen. You can’t just interrupt an experiment half way through the week because you’ve run out of hours. That makes me think that the people posting the positions aren’t serious about how many hours they expect the researcher to be available. It’s deceptive and weird and unrealistic. But that’s life on soft money. Here today, gone the next. Yet the cells still need to be fed, lysed, protein collected, spun, purified, etc, etc, etc.
Friends, Americans, countrypersons, this is no way to run a research infrastructure. Ok, sure, it’s the way to run a research infrastructure if you don’t want to do it like Americans used to do it. If you are content to run a research infrastructure like Bolivians do it, fine, do it this way. But don’t complain later that nothing of significance happened on the science front from 2008 onward. Don’t complain that the NIH is not telling the truth about funding. It can’t be all things to all people without a steady funding mechanism that isn’t going to be subject to violent shocks brought on by crazy people who get elected to Congress.
Here’s the bottom line. If liberals expect the NIH to do all of the things that they *think* it already does, it needs more funding. It needs waaaaaaaay more funding than it already has. It needs as much funding as private industry used to pump into its own research coffers but no longer does. It needs billions and billions more. It has to become what private industry used to be but no longer wants to be.
And if Republicans are committed to free enterprise at all costs, it’s going to have to get tough with private industry drug discovery and force it to take on research that it sees as unprofitable. It needs to have a serious talk with the bonus class and shareholders about greed at the expense of public health. Isn’t that what the GOP is all about? Morality?
That’s just the honest truth. The NIH is not private industry. If we want the NIH to replace private industry, which has abandoned certain, critical research areas because it can’t make the kind of profits that shareholders demand nowadays, we need to put more money into the NIH and fund researchers properly and seriously. That is the point that Frances Collins has been trying to make.
Liberals have a complete misunderstanding of what the NIH does or is capable of doing. Libertarians have an inflated view of what private industry can do, sometimes because they are living in one of the last holdouts of productive private industry drug discovery (that could end at any time, so don’t get too comfy, Derek). But once you have lived in both worlds, you can see what a shambles the whole system is. It’s unsettling and alarming.
Remember the Cut and Run vote? I do. If I recall correctly, some Congress people nearly came to blows over it.
But just because Republicans keep saying “Travel Ban” doesn’t mean it makes any damn sense.
So, let me try to explain why the travel ban is counterproductive:
As Friedan and Fauci tried to explain, the West African countries affected have very porous borders. People can get out of them and into them without much trouble. If you impose a travel ban, you restrict direct flights to the US. But the routes out of other African countries are not affected. Heck, you can cross over into Europe or the Middle East pretty easily from Africa. So, imposing a travel ban does not restrict people in the hot zone from coming here. What it does is prevent those who would otherwise take the quickest and most direct route from being monitored.
Therefore, a travel ban could actually backfire and allow the entry of unmonitored hot zone travelers. That is not to say that quarantine is out of the question. It’s perfectly reasonable. But try to explain all of that to someone scared senseless by E-B-O-L-A!!!
But the biggest problem with the travel ban argument is that it is so successful at portraying Democrats as being lax, unconcerned and callous. Congratulations, Republicans. You have once again pummeled an unarmed opponent silly because, to this date, I have yet to see Democrats come up with two or three word phrases that cut to the amygdala as effectively as the Republicans do.
I can repeat over and over that friends don’t let friends vote Republican but I am having a hard time endorsing the student body presidents on the other side. They are becoming more and more feckless and can barely defend themselves.
It’s time to see review what was interesting to me in the past several weeks. Sometimes, these selections surprise even me. Let’s take a look, shall we?
But before that, I’m still in awe of Ken Burns and his documentary on The Roosevelts. I don’t know how he did it but he managed to get George Will to champion the New Deal. Will even admits that FDR stopped stimulating the economy too soon in 1937. It’s hilarious how Will becomes the voice of reasonable liberalism in this documentary. I can just imagine what he’s thinking now that it’s being broadcast. But it’s political genius. Take one of the most visible conservative twits in America, who has never met a government program he didn’t despise or poor person he wasn’t able to be indifferent to, and make him say laudatory things about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his policies. It wouldn’t have quite the same impact with Paul Krugman providing the commentary. It’s too easy to pass Krugman off as a shrill socialist. But making Will explain how the New Deal saved the country from Depression is demonically brilliant.
Now, onto our regularly scheduled instapaper queue review:
First up, here’s a post from Digby about the lack of foreign policy credentials among the potential Republican candidates for president in 2014. It’s not what Digby says that annoys me, it’s the quote she includes from Chuck Todd. Here’s the money quote:
Now here’s why I think Mitt Romney, it’s funny you bring this up, because I think the reason why Romney 3.0 has gotten traction is less about Romney, and more about the current issues of the day. I think the Republican 2016 field as we thought we knew it, think Scott Walker, think Chris Christie, think Marco Rubio, think Bobby Jindal, you know, throw those names in. I think if you have issues like national security front and center, that’s an incredibly shrinking, I feel like all of those guys are suddenly shrinking in stature. None of them, if the chief criticism of Barack Obama by a lot of people is you know what, he just wasn’t experienced enough, he just didn’t have a grasp of everything you needed to know to be able to be commander-in-chief, right?
CT: That’s among, particularly among the conservative criticisms. Well then, how does Scott Walker fit into that? How does Chris Christie? How does Bobby Jindal? How does Marco Rubio? You know, they don’t, and so suddenly, Mitt Romney, while not having a lot of experience on foreign policy, certainly running for president and certainly now he can go back and say hey, I made these points against the President, and I look a little more prescient today than maybe some people thought three years ago.
Once we were racists because we didn’t think Obama was ready to be president. Now, we are conservatives. The insults just keep on coming. On the other hand, the rest of the left seems to be particularly slow. They apparently can not be taught.
Sidenote: I’m constantly surprised that regular Americans would find any Republican candidate fit to be president, regardless of foreign policy credentials. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln and Eisenhower wouldn’t recognize that mob masquerading as a political party.
Here’s a funny short post by Andy Borowitz in The New Yorker explaining why Bernie Sanders can’t get elected president. The System is set up to spit out people with integrity. Says Borowitz:
“Bernie Sanders’s failure to become a member of either major political party excludes him from the network of cronyism and backroom deals required under our system to be elected,” said Davis Logsdon, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “Though that failure alone would disqualify Sanders, the fact that he is not beholden to a major corporate interest or investment bank would also make him ineligible.”
Because of his ineligibility, Logsdon said, the Vermont Senator would be unable to fund-raise the one billion dollars required under the current system to run for President. “The best source of a billion dollars is billionaires, and Sanders has alienated them,” he said. “Clearly he didn’t think this through.”
Olive Garden isn’t doing so well these days. Maybe it’s because there has been a shocking deterioration in the quality of the food in the past 10 years? (Just going by personal experience) No, says hedge funds invested in the Darden Group. It’s the unlimited salads and breadsticks. Ok, they have other suggestions too but most of them involve further cost cutting, which I suspect is behind the less than stellar cuisine lately. Maybe hedge funds should stay out of the kitchen.
There were THREE articles in The Atlantic about the plight of sleeplessness on the workforce:
The last one is about low wage workers holding down 2 or 3 jobs to make a pitiful living get no sleep but the other two suggest that someone(s) at The Atlantic needs a break.
Robert Kuttner at the American Prospect speculates what Scottish independence might mean globally in Could Scottish Independence Set off a Cascade of Secession? And if Texas and other southern states decides to secede, is it wrong to be giddy about it?
Vox is trying to figure out which party will win the Senate and can’t figure it out in Why Election Forecasters Disagree about Who Will Win the Senate.
I blame the Democrats for failing to provide the electorate with a compelling reason to vote for them. Really, people, we’re talking about that crazy mob on the other side. It shouldn’t be this hard.
This one is for RSB: How to get over your Ex. The experts agree, trying to get back with your ex usually doesn’t work. Get some psychological scar gel and move on. There’s a reason why you broke up in the first place.
From Reuters, Pennsylvania Mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets 18 months in prison. I’ve suggested in the past that women might have to take an RV into the desert and manufacture their own RU-486 but it was mostly tongue in cheek. (or was it?) It will be harder to shut down than meth labs. When all is said and done, that’s they way abortions are going to go in the future. You don’t want to be pregnant? Take the cure. There’s no stopping it. It will be the quickest way to shut down abortion clinics than any crazy Right to Lifer has imagined. No more screaming at shocked young girls, no more political football. That being said, for this medication to be safe, it has to be given before 12 weeks. The sooner the better. It’s really important to know the gestational age of the fetus to avoid complications. I’m not sure what went wrong with this mother daughter partners-in-crime pair but I hope this is a lesson on how NOT to do it.
I feel very sorry for this family. It’s an all around bad situation.
Vox has 8 Facts That Explain What’s Wrong With American Health Care. Number one reason: it costs too damn much. Note that Obamacare didn’t do anything to curb health care costs like most nations with successful health care policies have done. No, it simply straitjacketed the country into paying for it- with public money, and without a public option. It ain’t no New Deal, let’s not kid ourselves.
From Vickie Garrison’s blog No Longer Qivering on Patheos, another entry in the Quoting Quiverful series, Birth Control Pills are for Selfish Women? Yes, women who take birth control want to have fun without consequences. We’ve heard that before. But what’s the buried message? Men can selfishly have fun without consequences and have an actual life with independence and that’s Ok.
Why do women actually get taken in by this stuff?
From the Boston Globe, What’s Fueling Wage Inequality in the US? From the article:
You might think of low- and middle-wage workers as falling behind in not one but two different races. First, their wages aren’t growing as fast as the wages of higher-income workers. Second, even when the economy does grow, that growth is increasingly flowing to wealthier households that have capital to invest.
Why, you ask? I think we could go back to Karen Ho’s anthropological study of Wall Street in Liquidated to find the roots of the growing wage gap in the past 60 years. Another factor is the Culture of Smartness. Part of it has to do with the idea that people who work, particularly people who work with their hands, are the equivalent to people engaged in “trade” in a Jane Austen novel. Those 18th and 19th century notions are making a comeback. It makes it very hard for scientists to get ahead. For one thing, the best ones are introverted and don’t sell themselves well. For another thing, they use their hands to explore what is in their heads. It’s kind of hard to do science any other way. We used to do research the opposite way before the Black Death and the Enlightenment. And what was the world like before then? “poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
Don’t expect the Investment Class to develop a heart. History shows that they don’t without some stiff persuasion. But basically, the reasons why wages are falling for most people in the country is because we let it happen.
Grain Piles Up, Waiting for a Ride as Trains move North Dakota Oil. Who needs bread?
Hillary beats everyone in 2016. Water is wet. Everyone has been waiting 8 years for her to be president. It’s 8 years too long and probably too late but she’s the favorite. Woebetide the party activists and party that tries to stand in the way of the American people this time. Not saying she is going to usher in a liberal paradise or anything. I’m just saying American are fed up. They want the change they were promised but didn’t get in 2008.
Ebola patient, Kent Brantley says “God Saved My Life”. Well, he would say that, given that he’s a Christian missionary. He also received the serum from Mapp that we have discussed previously. He’s an N of 1 and no one’s sure that the monoclonal antibody treatment actually worked. More data required. I’d like to see clinical trials of God vs Serum. Could be instructive.
I think I’ll stop there for now. There are a few more items in the queue. One probably deserves a post all to itself.
Gotta go. Enjoy!
Filed under: General | Tagged: abortion, Bernie Sanders, birth control, conservatives, ebola, foreign policy, getting over your ex, Hillary Clinton, kent brantley, North Dakota, Obamacare, oil field, olive garden, Republicans, Scotland, secession, Texas, wages, workers lack of sleep | 8 Comments »
Lambert posted about the Democrat’s growing election dilemma yesterday with some speculation from an EJ Dionne article. PUMAs are back, baby! Oh Yeah!
Or should I say, the stupid racist menopausal uneducated working class sino-peruvian lesbians are back. It’s very weird how the Democrats manage to mine the data and come up with this constituency over and over again. It’s a distortion that kinda-sorta proves the point of the Mad Men post I wrote yesterday. Computers can be extraordinarily useful but they also tend to be levelers. There are descriptors that the guys (and they are almost always guys) did not collect before they ran their analysis. Now, they may have enough information to get enough PUMAs to the polls in November but THIS former PUMA, and I suspect many others, will be a much tougher sell. But first, let’s try to clarify what we mean by Clinton voter and PUMA.
From my own perspective, the acronym PUMA, Party Unity My Ass, was only useful through the 2008 election season. I was a New Deal Liberal style Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Unlike a lot of younger Democrats, I have a completely different and more realistic understanding of what the Clintons were up to back then. I’m a late baby boomer who didn’t benefit from the earlier baby boomers’ advantages. I was a working mother back in 1992 and I strongly identified with Hillary Clinton. I saw “ending welfare as we know it” as a very good thing because the idea was only part of a strategy to introduce more of a European style welfare state with a national health policy, educational training, child care and housing. It was all part of a package deal. Then I saw both the Democratic party and the Republican party pick that package to bits. The Democrats helped deep six the healthcare initiatives and Newt Gingrich’s Contract On America destroyed welfare. That’s what happened guys. You might have been studying and partying. The rest of us were living in a grown up world. As for NAFTA, I’m sorry, I think it’s a good idea to remove trade barriers between your two closest neighbors. I had problems with some of the details but in general, these were Republican insertions, not Clinton’s.
We can talk about Glass-Steagel and Robert Rubin if you like. In retrospect, deregulation of the banks and derivatives, etc, was a pretty bad thing but it was also an unstoppable phenomenon. Clinton was NOT the driving force behind these initiatives. From what I can recall, Phil Gramm was the nasty on the TV all the time ramming this crap down our throats. Go look it up. To this day, I avoid Texas just so I don’t have to run into that drawl.
Ok, so that’s my background. You can read my credo in the tabs to find out what I value, and from the site statistics, someone(s) has become very interested in those values of late.
Now, when I say PUMA was only a 2008 thing, that means that to ME, after the election was over, it lost its meaning as a resistance movement. The Democratic party lost me. I officially rescinded my membership in the party in 2008 and only re-registered as a Democrat in PA last year when I applied for a new driver’s license here in PA after my move. In PA, the primaries are closed so voters are forced to choose a party when they register to vote, unlike NJ where the semi-closed primary means you can choose a party on primary election day. I think anyone who reads my credo will see that I am a liberal New Deal style Democrat but my party affiliation, in spite of my registration, is very tenuous. In other words, if a third party came around that represented my views, I’d jump in an instant. Also note that I’m not a fan of the Greens and don’t particularly care for the crunchy type’s irrational condemnation of GMO crops, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, nuclear energy and corporations. I find some of the left to be as black and white in their thinking as the right and, frankly, I am losing patience debating the “religious” beliefs of both sides. I’m also not a selfish short sighted Libertarian. That’s where the rebels without a cause hang out. And you will never catch me voting for Republican ever again. My one vote for McCain in 2008 was purely a protest vote against the Democratic party because of its unethical treatment of its own party voters in 2008. It was not an expression of support for the Republican party or its cavalier, cruel, heartless, greedy, narcissistically malignant, lying, deceptive, destructive platform of “ideas”.
It was very upsetting to pull that lever and I will never forgive the Democratic party for pushing me to make that decision for a couple of important reasons. First, I was deprived of an identity and second, I was deprived of voting for the first African-American for president. But in my very important opinion, voting for the first ANYTHING was not a sufficient excuse to overlook or condone the party for rigging the primary and compromising what the party stood for. Some Democrats were able to overcome their moral resistance to what the party was asking them to do. I could not. That’s what made me a PUMA and also explains why PUMA lost its utility after the election. I felt that that what was required to fix what was broken was something bigger, more organized and longer lasting than a slogan. And then real life intervened and I couldn’t devote any time to it.
But PUMA did survive in another form on other blogs. I can’t endorse these other PUMA blogs. I have a sense that they were compromised by Tea Party and Republican operatives. There was an irrational embrace of birtherism and a weird support for Sarah Palin. This blog struggled with some of those holdouts for awhile until their presence got to be unbearable. These are the people that I think EJ Dionne is referring to in his post. What I think they have in common is their extreme anger at what happened to them in 2008. They were completely ignored by the Democrats who circular filed their votes and topped it off with a smug, “we’re smarter and know what’s best for you, you ignorant working class ‘gits” attitude.
Oh really? Those PUMAs who are still fuming on the Tea Party friendly blogs may not have Ivy League degrees or know someone who works in a “creative class” field but when it comes right down to it, the election of Barack Obama has done more to solidify the strangle hold of the oligarchs on the American public than any previous president we have ever had. We have actually devolved as a progressive nation. I will go so far as to say that Obama’s presidency has sped up that devolution. You could argue that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have been different but my intuition (which hasn’t failed me yet in this whole mess) tells me that you would be wrong. In any case, when it comes right down to it, the “creative class” that got fooled into voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012 is no different from the working class voters it dismissed so senselessly. To the oligarchs, you might as well be living on a rice paddy in Bangladesh. Your ultimate fate is no different than the bitter gun toting church goers in rural Pennsylvania. You can be economically ruined and made politically impotent just as easily. That truth is just now dawning on you as you read The Divide and Piketty’s Capital and the latest study that says you don’t have enough money to make a dent in the lobbying shield wall of the 1%.
As for me, I don’t know if I would support Clinton in 2016. My sense is that so much has happened to fundamentally change the nature of our country in the past 20 years that there would have to be a personality much bigger and more visionary than Clinton’s to drag us back onto the right track. Could she do it? Maybe. But maybe she also recognizes the political landscape that she would be entering. I saw her evolve during the primary season. She was forged by fire and was gaining momentum when the party cut her off. That was a mistake the party made out of fear but it made it prematurely. By September of 2008, Elmer Fudd could have gotten elected as the first cartoon Democratic president, the situation was that dire. In a sense, the election of Barack Obama was not a triumph of identity politics as much as it was one of panic and desperation. But I have no doubt that under Hillary Clinton, there would have been more rehab and less codependence.
Slightly off topic, I find it interesting that so many people on both the right and the left are ramping up their anti-Hillary rhetoric. Those Democrats who are still on the fence about her should take a moment to think about what’s going on there. Both parties are pawns of the oligarchs right now. And someone in the Democratic party has pushing hard on the idea that if we just let Obama have his 2 terms, we could have Hillary in 2016. That push acknowledges two things: 1.)People want someone to do something already and they’ve decided that the most likely person is Hillary and 2.) if you treat voters like children and make them delay their gratification, you can make them focus on some future uncertain reward while taking their minds off what they can do to help their own desperate situations in the present. Whatever the left is currently spewing about how bad the Clintons are bears a striking similarity to the right’s mindless invectives against them to me. And that suggests that there are some very powerful people who do not want Hillary to be the next president. If she were already in the pockets of these very powerful people, you would expect less vilification, wouldn’t you? Think about it.
In the meantime, I will leave you with this link to Phillip Zimbardo’s steps for overcoming situational influence. The Democratic activist base should have read this before they flattered themselves that they were not at all like Kansas and couldn’t be fooled into doing anything against their own best interests. I only recently discovered these steps but I think I’ve been wise to them since YearlyKos 2007 in Chicago when something just didn’t seem right.
As to the Democrats winning the election in 2014 and 2016, I’m almost getting to the point where it doesn’t feel like it will make a difference which party wins in November. Having the Democrats in charge only slows down the slide to the right. It doesn’t stop it. And as destructive as the slide might be, I see very little evidence that the Democrats are motivated to prevent if from happening. In fact, the dangerous collapse of the Republicans into crazyville only makes it easier for the oligarchs to get just about anything they want from the Democrats with very little effort. Like I said before, I would gladly jump to a third party that is more responsive to my values. At this point, appealing to me as a former PUMA is probably a waste of time because I see what I am to the party- a faceless data point projected onto a latent structure.
When the party starts treating me like an enfranchised citizen again, then we’ll talk.
Filed under: General | Tagged: 2008 Election, Democratic Party, EJ Dionne, Hillary Clinton, lambert, oligarchy, Phillip Zimbardo, piketty, PUMA, Republicans, resisting situational influences | 26 Comments »