Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

The only chart you need to understand the legacy parties

Note that these are all-time figures. Note the direct correlation between funding and bankster money. And note that Ds and Rs are randomly distributed throughout the list.

So, don't think of two parties.

Think of the 1% as managing a portfolio of differently branded factions, rather like sports teams, or (more to the point) porn stars.

It is true that the 1% backs Obama because they feel he will service them best. But think of the election as a sort of casting couch, where the 1% gives the leaders of other factions the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and specialties; the ability to con the voters being one such skill, of course.

NOTE This is sloppy, but to lay down the marker: One should never assume that people have only one motive. One way to look at Clinton's faction vs. Obama's faction is that while each are corrupt, Clinton's faction is corrupt in an old-fashioned, "Tammany Hall," sort of way; nobody can listen to the Clintons for long without hearing them go off on policy wonkery. Under Boss Tweed, Manhattan actually did thrive! Obama, by contrast, is more post-modern: corruption purified of wonkery. With Obama, the elite decided to purify the notion of "public purpose" from the discourse once and for all. However, returning to Clintonism is not in the cards. That faction has had its day.

The chart is from this piece by Glenn Greenwald; I'm sharpening the point.

0
No votes yet

Comments

NWLuna's picture
Submitted by NWLuna on

Only the yellow individual contributions show in the bar graph. Unless my browser software is being weird.

And at least under B. Clinton we had some peace and prosperity for middle classes while to CEOs got richer. Now only the CEO types are doing well.

Submitted by Lex on

My link isn't handy, but two months after Clinton deregulated derivatives and made securitization (hedging) the best new money maker around ... though it would eventually blow up the economy ... he received a cash payment from JP Morgan of $125,000. In the years after he left the presidency, he regularly collected sums like that from TBTF banks for yammering on about something for less than an hour.

What it looks like is that the Great Clinton spent his second term, in particular, lining up his work for after politics. He did that by currying favor through policy implementation that benefited the people who could make him rich.

It's simply laughable that liberals who deride (rightly) Obama and the Democratic Party still use Clinton as a counter-example. All it proves is that you really don't get it, particularly the fact that Obama is Clinton II. He ran the same campaign updated for the social media/internet age; he institutes the same kinds of policies, just pushed even further to the right based on the foundation Clinton built; and he curries favor from the monied interests just a little more brazenly than Clinton did, but he can because of the policies that Clinton enacted.

And really? He was corrupt but in the good kind of corrupt way? That's swell, really makes me yearn for the good ole days.

Submitted by lambert on

... real wages rose during the Clinton era. So, yeah, since when that happens, working people get to do stuff like fix their teeth or put insulation in their houses, it's better. (Yes, modulo the destruction of petro-state.)

Obama dispensed with that nonsense.

NWLuna's picture
Submitted by NWLuna on

Is that so? I must be imagining that I've had no raise in 4 years, that the state universities have had their budgets cut by 20%-30% for sequential years, & that so many jobs have vanished.