Saturday, April 16, 2011

Intra-party Kabuki: Exercises in feigned anger or anger displacement?

LOL at D legacy party conflict kabuki.

“I have been very disappointed in the administration to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him,” one senior Democratic lawmaker said. “It’s so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?” The member, who would discuss the strategy only on the condition of anonymity, called the discontent with Obama among the caucus “widespread,” adding: “Nobody is saying [they want him out] publicly, but a lot of people wish it could be so. Never say never.” 
A serious challenge still seems unlikely. One Democrat who has repeatedly criticized Obama but won’t oppose him next year is Dennis Kucinich, the liberal Democrat from Ohio who ran for president in 2008 and reiterated Thursday that he won’t be making another run in 2012.

Kucinich typifies the "left," known as the Progressive Caucus, or pwogs - an elaborate role that currently involves whining about how everyone around the president should "let Obama be Obama" and "ZOMG! We can't let Bachmann win!" These pwogs have the same policy agenda as the rest of the Ds, and in turn the Rs and TPs. In short:
TP: Rs :: Pwogs : Ds.
So when we're talking about intra-party squabbling - surely b/c the illusion of choice b/w the two legacy parties has frayed (hence the proliferation of primaries of incumbents in both legacy parties) - we're not talking about intra-party differences in policy objectives. After all, aren't pwogs going around bragging about RomneyCare?

Simply put, members and potential-members of Congress and the president view elected office as unpaid internships from whence they can receive lavish sinecures upon the passage of legislation that shovels rents to mercenaries or the FIRE sector. Elected officials do not necessarily have to vote uniformly, but they need to fulfill roles that create the illusion of choice - particularly setting some artificially-left boundary that would crowd out anything beyond what's deemed as acceptable parameters of debate. If those members designated as pwogs can set this left parameter, they'll obtain their sinecure. So we can refine the Mayhewian "single-minded seekers of re-election" to "single-minded seekers of election, then re-election if sinecures have not yet been secured." Moreover, TPs and pwogs are charged w/ decapitating any organic movement outside of legacy parties' strictures. It's kind of like what the CIA does in countries with leftist tendencies: Do they infiltrate and crush it or do they preach Ayn Rand to it and hope it converts?

NOTE: Seems like more and more people get it - that Rs and Ds, all of them, have the same policy objectives. From the comments:
What I find interesting is that aid to people got cut (modestly) while special interest pork and corporate welfare remain in tact. Congress continues to serve special interests at public expense while the public blame each other in heated partisan warfare.
And this:
So now the democrats are saying...
“Congressional Democrats are going to have to reassert themselves,” Kucinich said. “Instead of waiting for direction from the White House, we’re going to have to give direction to the White House.”
Isn't that what they should have been doing all along instead of following their "messiah" like a bunch of rats after the pied piper?
Still, though the legacy parties have identical policy objectives, they aren't the same per se; they are mutually-reinforcing entities sustained by an illusion of choice. Also deficit hysteria is still the working assumption, though even after a multi-billion dollar effort to convince people that the US isn't sovereign in its own currency, it is still low on the public's list of priorities - and, I suspect, especially with the non-college "educated."

No comments:

Post a Comment