The me election

[goadam1]

This is a great article about how 21st century narcism and anxiety have driven the last two elections cycles.

http://nymag.com/news/features/69267/

Intro high point:

During the 2010 cycle, meanwhile, the magical thinking has belonged to the right. The tea party, and those who share its values, think the solution is to destroy as much of government as possible, like a sullen teenager who believes that all would be fine if his parents simply dropped dead, and it has punished anyone in the GOP who may have seen a role for Washington, apart from waging war. The Delaware Republican Mike Castle, who’s served in public office for the better part of 35 years, was called “the King RINO”—Republican in Name Only—by his Senate primary opponent, Christine O’Donnell, for supporting TARP, and she became the nominee. Bob Bennett was cast out of office in Utah, Charlie Crist was run out of the GOP primary in Florida. In the words of Rand Paul, the Kentucky tea-party candidate who bested a far more reasonable choice in the GOP Senate primary: “Government is the servant, not the master.” It was an unfortunate comment from a man who’s expressed disdain for the Civil Rights Act. But also quite representative of where we are generally. We are thinking in fanciful, binary choices. Obama and his government must save us; he and his government must disappear. Neither option is especially real.

[Raz]

Re: The me election

It was a wonderful article. It helped me realize just how provincial, backward and close-minded I can be.

I especially liked the soft inferrence that Rand Paul is a racist, while politely forgetting to mention one of Mr. Obama's friends, ole' "God Damn America".
(You remember him - Obama listened to him "preach" for twenty years, he performed the Obama's marriage ceremony and ate dinner in their home,
all the while never having a conversation on any subject deeper that the current weather forecast; at least not one Mr. Obama could recall.)

Ms. Senior also implied that the anger level among voters is due to narcissism. (I'm sure she didn't meal ALL voters, only the great unwashed from Fly-over Country who feel threatened by the legislation provided by Pelosi, et al.)

It was especially enlightening that, given the context, she only quotes approvingly from Democratic officeholders and strategists.
And it certainly lends "balance" to her article that she quotes from such a gracious and fair-minded journalist as Eugene Robinson, a man who never plays the "race-card".

But I ran out of time to finish the article as soon as I read this: "Read only far-right websites, and you’ll soon be convinced that TARP was the most costly, fiscally irresponsible maneuver of the Obama administration—and not that it has already essentially paid for itself".

[goadam1]

Re: The me election

Can we leave partizan fights at the door. Hang it up like friendly gun slingers.

a. it's "new york" magazine.

b. I think the points about the mindset of the voters is the same as what carried Obama to office.

c. I hope are never locked in an elevator together.

It was a wonderful article. It helped me realize just how provincial, backward and close-minded I can be.

I especially liked the soft inferrence that Rand Paul is a racist, while politely forgetting to mention one of Mr. Obama's friends, ole' "God Damn America".
(You remember him - Obama listened to him "preach" for twenty years, he performed the Obama's marriage ceremony and ate dinner in their home,
all the while never having a conversation on any subject deeper that the current weather forecast; at least not one Mr. Obama could recall.)

Ms. Senior also implied that the anger level among voters is due to narcissism. (I'm sure she didn't meal ALL voters, only the great unwashed from Fly-over Country who feel threatened by the legislation provided by Pelosi, et al.)

It was especially enlightening that, given the context, she only quotes approvingly from Democratic officeholders and strategists.
And it certainly lends "balance" to her article that she quotes from such a gracious and fair-minded journalist as Eugene Robinson, a man who never plays the "race-card".

But I ran out of time to finish the article as soon as I read this: "Read only far-right websites, and you’ll soon be convinced that TARP was the most costly, fiscally irresponsible maneuver of the Obama administration—and not that it has already essentially paid for itself".

[Raz]

Re: The me election

Can we leave partizan fights at the door. Hang it up like friendly gun slingers.

a. it's "new york" magazine.

b. I think the points about the mindset of the voters is the same as what carried Obama to office.

c. I hope are never locked in an elevator together.

I didn't start a "partisan fight" - Jennifer Senior did.

I doubt that you and I would agree on much, Goadam, but I don't dislike you and find your posts interesting and often informative. Sorry if I was hard on you, I just didn't appreciate the condescending tone and the dripping bias in the article.

a. I know that everyone in the state of New York doesn't agree with Ms. Senior or even think as she does.
I'm personal friends with two New Yorkers, one of whom lives "down heeya" since college days and is very angry at the present state government of NY.

b. Yes, there is some truth to that. But the ones I know mostly just want the Feds to leave them the hell alone, not confiscate someone else's income and give it to them. And they don't make anywhere near $200,000/year.

c. You and I would get along just fine on an elevator - unless you tried to kiss me.

[don]

Re: The me election

The Impotence of Elections

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

In his historical novel, The Leopard, Giuseppe di Lampedusa writes that things have to change in order to remain the same. That is what happened in the US congressional elections on November 2.

Jobs offshoring, which began on a large scale with the collapse of the Soviet Union, has merged the Democrats and Republicans into one party with two names. The Soviet collapse changed attitudes in socialist India and communist China and opened those countries, with their large excess supplies of labor, to Western capital.

Pushed by Wall Street and Wal-Mart, American manufacturers moved production for US markets offshore to boost profits and shareholder earnings by utilizing cheap labor. The decline of the US manufacturing work force reduced the political power of unions and the ability of unions to finance the Democratic Party. The end result was to make the Democrats dependent on the same sources of financing as Republicans.

Prior to this development, the two parties, despite their similarities, represented different interests and served as a check on one another. The Democrats represented labor and focused on providing a social safety net. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, education, and civil rights were Democratic issues. Democrats were committed to a full employment policy and would accept some inflation to secure more employment.

The Republicans represented business. The Republicans focused on curtailing big government in all its manifestations from social welfare spending to regulation. The Republicans’ economic policy consisted of opposing federal budget deficits.

These differences resulted in political competition.

Today both parties are dependent for campaign finance on Wall Street, the military/security complex, AIPAC, the oil industry, agri-business, pharmaceuticals, and the insurance industry. Campaigns no longer consist of debates over issues. They are mud-slinging contests.

Angry voters take their anger out on incumbents, and that is what we saw in the election. Tea Party candidates defeated Republican incumbents in primaries, and Republicans defeated Democrats in the congressional elections.

Policies, however, will not change qualitatively. Quantitatively, Republicans will be more inclined to more rapidly dismantle more of the social safety net than Democrats and more inclined to finish off the remnants of civil liberties. But the powerful private oligarchs will continue to write the legislation that Congress passes and the President signs. New members of Congress will quickly discover that achieving re-election requires bending to the oligarchs’ will.

This might sound harsh and pessimistic. But look at the factual record. In his campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton’s foreign adventures and vowed to curtail America’s role as the policeman of the world. Once in office, Bush pursued the neoconservatives’ policy of US world hegemony via military means, occupation of countries, setting up puppet governments, and financial intervention in other countries’ elections.

Obama promised change. He vowed to close Guantanamo prison and to bring the troops home. Instead, he restarted the war in Afghanistan and started new wars in Pakistan and Yemen, while continuing Bush’s policy of threatening Iran and encircling Russia with military bases.

Americans out of work, out of income, out of homes and prospects, and out of hope for their children’s careers are angry. But the political system offers them no way of bringing about change. They can change the elected servants of the oligarchs, but they cannot change the policies or the oligarchs.

The American situation is dire. As a result of the high speed Internet, the loss of manufacturing jobs was followed by the loss of professional service jobs, such as software engineering, that were career ladders for American university graduates.

The middle class has no prospects. Already, the American labor force and income distribution mimics that of a third world country, with income and wealth concentrated in a few hands at the top and most of the rest of the population employed in domestic services jobs. In recent years net new job creation has been concentrated in lowly paid occupations, such as waitresses and bartenders, ambulatory health care services, and retail clerks. The population and new entrants into the work force continue to grow more rapidly than job opportunities.

Turning this around would require more realization than exists among policymakers and a deeper crisis. Possibly it could be done by using taxation to encourage US corporations to manufacture domestically the goods and services that they sell in US markets. However, the global corporations and Wall Street would oppose this change.

The tax revenue loss from job losses, bank bailouts, stimulus programs, and the wars have caused a three-to-four-fold jump in the US budget deficit. The deficit is now too large to be financed by the trade surpluses of China, Japan, and OPEC.

Consequently, the Federal Reserve is making massive purchases of Treasury and other debt. The continuation of these purchases threatens the dollar’s value and its role as reserve currency. If the dollar is perceived as losing that role, flight from dollars will devastate the remnants of Americans’ retirement incomes and the ability of the US government to finance itself.

Yet, the destructive policies continue. There is no re-regulation of the financial industry, because the financial industry will not allow it. The unaffordable wars continue, because they serve the profits of the military/security complex and promote military officers into higher ranks with more retirement pay. Elements within the government want to send US troops into Pakistan and into Yemen. War with Iran is still on the table. And China is being demonized as the cause of US economic difficulties.

Whistleblowers and critics are being suppressed. Military personnel who leak evidence of military crimes are arrested. Congressmen call for their execution. Wikileaks’ founder is in hiding, and neoconservatives write articles calling for his elimination by CIA assassination teams. Media outlets that report the leaks apparently have been threatened by Pentagon chief Robert Gates. According to Antiwar.com, on July 29 Gates “insisted that he would not rule out targeting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange or any of the myriad media outlets which reported on the leaks.”

The control of the oligarchs extends to the media. The Clinton administration permitted a small number of mega-corporations to concentrate the US media in a few hands. Corporate advertising executives, not journalists, control the new American media, and the value of the mega-companies depends on government broadcast licenses. The media’s interest is now united with that of the government and the oligarchs.

On top of all the other factors that have made American elections meaningless, voters cannot even get correct information from the media about the problems that they and the country face.

As the economic situation is likely to continue deteriorating, the anger will grow. But the oligarchs will direct the anger away from themselves and toward the vulnerable elements of the domestic population and “foreign enemies.”

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Reagan.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11042010.html

[LorenS]

Re: The me election

I know an awful lot of people who have nothing more to their names than a bunch of consumer junk and their faith in Social Security and Medicare. They all vote.

[llanlad2]

Re: The me election

The Roberts article is spot on. The US is becoming a single party state in all but name whose interests are aligned against the average voter. This is in contrast to China where their leaders must deliver for fear of revolution. It made me think of this excerpt from a report by an old BBC journo today.

the Chinese have no problem travelling around their country or getting visas to go abroad. Unless, of course, they are deemed to be dissidents. Then it's different. A dissident, if you strip away the official language, is someone who wants the people of China to be able to vote for a different government and dares to say so publicly.
When prominent figures in the Chinese leadership talk about democracy, they do not mean western-style democracy.
When they talk about other "parties" being allowed to function in China and send representatives to the People's Congress, they do not mean political parties who might oppose what the Communist Party does. They are no more than consultative bodies.
But nor, interestingly, did most of the ordinary people I've been talking to seem terribly interested in western-style democracy. Not even a group of extremely bright young students, some of whom have spent years studying in foreign countries, including Britain.
Yes, they thoroughly enjoy their new freedoms and they want political reform to continue. And they also want their country to keep growing richer.
And so long as the Communist Party continues to deliver all that, they don't particularly see any reason to look for a different system.
They seemed genuinely baffled by my insistence that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to throw out the people in power if you don't like them.
"You do that in your country all the time," one of them pointed out to me, "and it doesn't seem, to make much difference. What we want is stability - and that's what we've got."

[don]

Re: The me election

The Roberts article is spot on. The US is becoming a single party state in all but name whose interests are aligned against the average voter. This is in contrast to China where their leaders must deliver for fear of revolution. It made me think of this excerpt from a report by an old BBC journo today.

Immediately thought of the No-Fly list.

[lsa420]

Re: The me election

Does anyone else have a horrible case of tired head after reading this?

[flintlock]

Re: The me election

All credibility flies out the window when the author of the first article starts implying people have nothing to be angry about. I stopped reading, figuring it to be a typical anti-tea party hatchet job. Sorry, but is there ever a time, if not now, for the voting public to be angry?

[Master Shake]

Re: The me election

Clearly, the meme among the left is: if you're angry at Obama, you're racist.

[Slimprofits]

Re: The me election

Clearly, the meme among the left is: if you're angry at Obama, you're racist.

oh absolutely.

There are two lines of 'reasoning' being used by Obama sycophants over the last six months... The second one is a direct White House talking point that you'll instantly recognize.

(A) White independent voters that may have voted for Obama in 2008, voted Repub in 2010 because Obama is black

and (B) The GOP had 8 years to ruin the economy (it has to be entirely blamed on them) and Obama has only had two years to fix it, therefore no one can criticize anything that he does.

[Stroebel]

Re: The me election

oh absolutely.

There are two lines of 'reasoning' being used by Obama sycophants over the last six months... The second one is a direct White House talking point that you'll instantly recognize.

(A) White independent voters that may have voted for Obama in 2008, voted Repub in 2010 because Obama is black

and (B) The GOP had 8 years to ruin the economy (it has to be entirely blamed on them) and Obama has only had two years to fix it, therefore no one can criticize anything that he does.

I'm not inclined to boil the position of Obama supporters down to black and white terms.

But there's no doubt that Obama has handled the political economy very poorly.

We should all take a page from Craig Roberts and drop the Coke versus Pepsi debate. It's going nowhere.

I'm also not prepared to dismiss the new tea party members of Congress . . . yet. The seeds of real change, however marginal, may yet be lying dormant in the movement. I am, however, troubled by two aspects:

First, the tea party appears to be pro-military expansion/pro-war. If that's indeed the case, then score one for Craig Roberts.

Second, where were these people 8 years ago? 20 years ago? It's anger that's fueling the rise of the tea party republicans, and anger can be readily misdirected and co-opted. Rushing into an emergency, fueled by righteous indignation . . . not a promising start.

We'll see.

[c1ue]

Re: The me election

All the seeds have been sown for demagoguery.

What Taibbi has shown clearly - though no different than for the Left/Obama faithful - is that the Tea Party is rooted in contradiction.

Tea Party: Small government, no deficits, big Defense+Medicare+Social Security, healthy economy
Left/Obama Faithful: Big government, big deficits, big Defense+Medicare+Social Security, healthy economy

Both sides are equally wrong.

So long as the collective American voter continues to want their pie and eat it too, we ain't getting out of this mess.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: The me election

The tea party has a correct impression that we're being sorely abused.
Unforunately, they have it badly wrong about who and what is to blame.
I continue to hope they might figure out that FIRE is the enemy (no sign of that yet)