In ascending order of scope, there three waves are: - The roughly 32-40 year cycle of American Party Systems, described by political theorists such as V.O. Key and Walter Dean Burnham.
- The rise and fall of successive world powers-Spain,
Holland, Britain, and now us-described by former GOP uber-guru Kevin
Phillips in Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich.
- The recent wave of "post-materialist" values surveyed on a worldwide basis over the past several decades by the World Values Survey, and described most fully in the work of social scientist Ronald Inglehart.
And I said: These three waves all converge on this November's election, and in doing so, they confront a wall-the intensely fortified network of rightwing organizations and their "moderate" and "centrist" enablers that have maintained a recklessly destructive regime in power, despite its fundamental attacks on principles dating back at least as far as 1215 (habeas corpus, from the Magna Charta).
The wingnut extreme has been largely exposed, and discredited, but those I called "their 'moderate' and 'centrist' enablers" are, if anything, more powerful than ever, expanding into the power vacuum the collapse of the far right has created. They are the ones David's been writing about, and I'd like to join him on the flip.
My original formulation may seem a bit dated, since the wingnut collapse has left the more centrist forces in a more commanding position. However, what they command is largely a terrain that the wingnuts have created, and what they are defending against change is the wingnut legacy. Still, it's helpful to note a somewhat different formulation that throws a useful light on things: Versailles has two parties-not the Republicans and Democrats, but the wingnuts and the bipartisans. Real Democrats, even relative policy moderates such as Howard Dean, do not have a place in Versailles. Only "Democrats" who buy the "bipartisan" catechism are allowed: Fox News Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, Wall Street Democrats, DLC Democrats, "pro-business" Democrats, pro-war Democrats, and of course, "Independent" Democrats who had dreamed of being John McCain's Vice President.
Earlier this year, Glenn Greenwald put together a little list showing how "bipartisanship" works to empower Bush [slightly reformatted]:
In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That's "bipartisanship" in Washington:
To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:
GOP - 48-0 / Dems - 12-36
To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
GOP - 0-49 / Dems - 24-21
To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
GOP - 46-0 / Dems - 7-40
To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:
GOP - 49-0 / Dems - 8-38
Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:
GOP - 46-2 / Dems - 30-20
To condemn MoveOn.org:
GOP - 49-0 / Dems - 23-25
The Protect America Act:
GOP - 44-0 / Dems - 20-28
Declaring English to be the Government's official language:
GOP - 48-1 / Dems - 16-33
The Military Commissions Act:
GOP - 53-0 / Dems - 12-34
To renew the Patriot Act:
GOP - 54-0 / Dems - 34-10
Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:
GOP - 54-0 / Dems - 18-25
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
GOP - 48-1 / Dems - 29-22
On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.
Given that Obama went along with this sort of "bipartisanship" on FISA, it seems quite likely he will go along with them on much else, as well, no matter how much he may owe his advancement to the support of progressives. And just in case he gets any funny ideas, the folks David has been writing about are there to make sure it doesn't lead to anything real. Let's take a look at the passage David quotes from Howard Fineman, for example, breaking it down a bit into bit-sized pieces, starting here:
Much of America may be gung-ho about putting more troops into Afghanistan, but it's not clear Obamaworld is; he could run into opposition if he seriously pursues it.
Three things bear noting:
(1) It's quite clear putting more troops into Afghanistan would be a disaster. Keeping troops there in 2002 is one thing-though even that would be debatable. Trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube is quite another. See my diary, "RAND: Not 'Wrong War' But 'War Wrong' For Fighting Terrorism", which reports on the expert view that the military is simply the wrong tool for combating terrorism. Listening to experts! What a crazy leftwing loonie idea!
(2) Contrary to Fineman, it's not clear that "much of America" is "gung-ho about putting more troops into Afghanistan." Quite the opposite. They had to be tricked into supporting the invasion of Iraq, because the American people are not inherently intervensionist anymore. It's not clear that they ever were, in fact. They may support military action if it's pressed upon them as a necessity, but this does not consitute being "gung-ho." The ones who are all gung-ho are the elders of Versailles. They are always excited about the prospect of someone else getting killed for their amusement.
(3) It's not clear that "Obmaworld" is quite up to speed on the downside of putting more troops into Afghanistan. When Obama first suggested this, it seemed a lot more appealing than it is today, and precisely because of this, the amount of troops we're talking about has expanded-with unlimited growth potential-while the propects for "success" have vanished. Obama seems oblivious to this-though perhaps just for campaign purposes. "Obmaworld" may well be oblivious as well. Main reason: there hasn't been a public debate.
But if "Obamaworld" doubts about it were to stir a debate, and that debate got us listening to experts (see #1 above), and that listening lead us to actually developing an effective counter-terror strategy, then how, exactly would any of that be a bad thing?
On the other hand, initiating talks with Iranian and Venezuelan dictators enjoys more support on his e-mail lists than in the rest of the country.
Note To Howard Feinman:
(1) Venezuela doesn't have a dictator. You must be thinking about New York City. Venezuela has an elected president. Unlike ours, he was not elected 5-4. He won in a landslide. And when he wanted to change the law and remove term limits, he put it to a vote of the people, unlike Michael Bloomberg. When the people voted "no", he accepted it. What kind of dictator is that?
(2) For that matter, Iran doesn't have a dictator, either. They, too, have a president, who was elected largely because we threatened Iran so badly that moderates voted for him, just to send a message that they would not be intimidated by us.
Thus, the very premise of your statement is a lie, invalidating everything that follows.
If the Democrats win bigger majorities in the House and Senate, they (if not Obama) may well be eager to exact vengeance on Republicans, or at least cram Democratic ideas down GOP throats. Obama supporters might prefer more reaching-out.
This is so incoherent, it makes me long for Feinman's outright lies. What's he got in mind when he talks about "exact[ing] vengeance"? Enforcing subpoenas, maybe? They haven't been all too eager to do that over the past 2 years, quite contrary to what Nancy Pelosi said two years ago right around this time.
And what about "cram[ing] Democratic ideas down GOP throats."
(A) Isn't that, generally what winning elections is all about?
(B) You mean, specfically, like cutting taxes on the middle class? Mortgage relief? Investing in green energy? Health care reform?
As Marshall sees it, most of them want a "transpartisan" approach that jettisons the old labels. "These people feel a close, personal tie to Obama, just as conservatives did to Reagan," he says. "But if and when he starts governing, he is going to start disappointing them."
Will Marshall, who "studied the Obama organization for the Democratic Leadership Council." It's easy to see where Feinmen gets his incoherence from.
In short, this entire passage is entirely divorced from empirical reality, every bit as much as the Bush Administration, as famously chronicled by Ron Suskind. Indeed, there is no fundamental difference between the two: the wingnuts and the bipartisans are two sides of the same coin. They are the symbiotic political duopoloy that rules Versailles. And ultimately, the battle for the realignment of American politics and the rebirth of America depends on defeating their power above all else. |
