<\/p>\n
UPDATE below<\/b><\/p>\n
This week’s <\/p>\n President Obama Nor was it Nor was it To my mind Barack Obama is smarter Obama’s Since becoming America’s main Corporatists<\/b><\/p>\n The most powerful group today is the banking\/corporate sector that dominates both parties. <\/span>Because they primarily care about Because they The Old Confederacy<\/b><\/p>\n Then there are The American Democratic Finally there is Fraying Alliances<\/b><\/p>\n Currently both of The Republicans I think Two other UPDATE<\/p>\n
\nprimaries reveal a fascinating division appearing within both major political parties. In the process I hope one truth has finally become clear to any progressively minded American, and I would
\nhope to any Pagan who has thought deeply about the relationship of their world
\nview to American public life: the
\nleadership of the Democratic Party is no more friendly to us than the
\nRepublicans. <\/span>They are more
\ntolerant because they do not really care, but they are no more friendly.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nand former President Bill Clinton attacked liberals and unions in their successful
\neffort to save Blanche Lincoln’s Senatorial nomination. <\/span>Why? <\/span>It was not that Lincoln was more electable. <\/span>Bill Halter had consistently done
\nbetter than Lincoln in all polls comparing their support to that of the
\nRepublican nominee. <\/span>Both lost, but
\nLincoln was crushed. <\/span>As she will
\nbe in November.<\/p>\n
\nbecause Lincoln had supported Obama’s legislative efforts. <\/span>She was a consistent opponent to all of
\nhis signature efforts, such as they were.
\n<\/span>Lincoln has consistently put corporate interests above those of the
\npeople of Arkansas or the public agenda of her own party.<\/p>\n
\nrespect for local Democrats against efforts by outsiders to control the
\nnomination. <\/span>While Halter received
\nout-of-state money, including a little of mine, it came from rank and file
\nDemocrats, Lincoln received out of state money from a list of the most noxious
\ncorporations, and the donations were big ones. <\/span>Both received out of state money, but in one case it was
\nfrom rank-and-file Democrats.
\n<\/span>Obama went wholeheartedly with the other guys. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nObama has finally exposed his true colors for all with eyes to see. <\/span>He lied to the voters in 2008 with his
\npromise of change. <\/span>He is a bought
\nand paid for member of the corporate elite that in truth controls the Democratic
\nParty. <\/span>Like all good marketers, he
\nuses the words needed to make the sale.
\n<\/span>But the product is no more likely to fulfill its buyers’ wishes than
\nChicken McNuggets are to provide genuine nutrition.<\/p>\n
\nand more decent personally than his immediate predecessor, but where the rubber
\nmeets the road, he is remarkably similar.
\n<\/span>That is why so little changed after he replaced Bush. <\/span>Both were doing the wishes of their
\ncorporate masters and only played to their non-corporate supporters at the
\nmargins.<\/p>\n
\nsupporters have long argued that he could do only so much, given that so many
\nDemocrats in Congress were not as Progressive as he supposedly was. <\/span>Today we can see the deception in this
\nimage. <\/span>While still a Senator he
\nsupported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, his primary opponent. <\/span>He did so despite Lieberman’s long
\nrecord of opposing important Democratic initiatives and Lamont’ promises to do
\notherwise. <\/span>I suspect he passed a
\n“good old boy” test in doing this.<\/p>\n
\nPresident, he supported Arlen Spector over Joe Sestak, his primary opponent,
\ndespite Spector’s long record as a Republican who only began voting reliably
\nDemocratic after he was challenged.
\n<\/span>Obama should simply have stayed out of the contest and left it to the
\npeople of Pennsylvania, as he eventually did when Sestak was clearly set to
\nwin. <\/span>And then Obama supported
\nBlanche Lincoln despite the serious pain she caused his alleged progressive
\nagenda. <\/span>Barack Obama’s words are
\nprogressive and humane. <\/span>His
\nactions are in keeping with the wishes of the more far-sighted element within
\ncorporate America. <\/p>\n
\nproblem politically is that we are roughly split into three groups with some
\nsense of political awareness, but these groups have only two parties to
\nrepresent them. <\/span>This taxonomy is a
\nsimplification (this is a blog post after all) but I do not believe it distorts
\nthe big picture.<\/p>\n
\nmoney, they are willing to ally with anyone so long as it keeps the money
\nflowing in. <\/span>Because they are
\nsmaller in numbers than the other two groups, they play both sides when
\npossible. <\/span>That way they win no
\nmatter who takes office. <\/span>The more
\nshort-sighted elements, interested only in money now, tend towards the
\nRepublican Party, somewhat farther sighted elements tend towards the
\nDemocrats. <\/span>But either way, both
\nsides do OK. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nbenefit so much from the status quo, the corporatists do not want much
\nchange. <\/span>They are the genuine
\nconservatives in this country. <\/span>But
\nthey do not simply rule as they wish.
\n<\/span>They have to accommodate partners with other priorities, and this is sometimes
\ntricky.<\/p>\n
\nthose Americans tied in many ways to the old Confederacy and the culture of
\ndomination that lingers in its former confines. <\/span>When Southerners broke with our Founders in the early 1800s
\nthey needed to find a new basis for legitimacy after discarding the
\nEnlightenment and human rights.
\n<\/span>Neither the Enlightenment nor human rights could be easily reconciled
\nwith slavery. <\/span>They generally
\nsettled on Biblical literalism, with its obvious acceptance of slavery and easy
\nrelationship to hierarchical authoritarian values. <\/span>We still live with the consequences. <\/span>This is why today so many Republican
\nleaders are Southerners and\/or Fundamentalists.<\/p>\n
\nTradition<\/b><\/p>\n
\nthe liberal democratic culture rooted in the North. <\/span>This group has given us most of the reforms in which
\nAmericans rightly take pride, from the vote for women to the ultimate success
\nof the Civil Rights movement (Black Americans could not have succeeded on their
\nown) to environmental protection to Social Security. <\/span>The list just goes on and on. Once this group included
\nnorthern Republicans as well as northern Democrats, and many of both parties
\nfrom the West. <\/span>It is not
\nhomogeneous any more than are the Confederates, but its members share the same
\nbasic values. <\/span>This kind of
\nAmerican has been largely expelled from the Republican Party, though some
\nGoldwater conservatives linger on.
\n<\/span>For the most part, today only the Democrats welcome them.<\/p>\n
\nthese alliances are being powerfully strained. <\/span>In both parties the corporatists have used their allies’
\nrhetoric to win their support, while mostly keeping those values limited to the
\nminimum recognition needed to win votes.
\n<\/span>Now both sides that have been manipulated by the corporatists are
\nbeginning to suspect they have been had.
\n<\/span>As they have. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nare torn between their Confederate and Corporate elements, the former being
\nrepresented by the Tea Baggers who are taking on and often defeating the
\ncorporatist establishment in many primaries. <\/span>The Democrats are torn between the American democratic
\ntradition and their own dominant corporatists. <\/span>The Democrat’s American wing has been slow to catch on to
\nthe shell game, but they finally are getting it. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nultimately the Confederate wing will lose. <\/span>They are too authoritarian, too inhumane, too fearful and
\nignorant of science and too bigoted to ultimately prevail. <\/span>The real struggle over the long run
\nlies within the Democratic Party. American democracy’s future, insofar as it
\nhas one, will largely be played out over the years to come in Democratic
\nprimary elections across the country.<\/p>\n
\nexcellent discussions of these issues are Glenn Greenwald<\/a> and Digby<\/a>. <\/p>\n