Corrente

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

True? False? Something else?

Highlighting this from Frenchdoc's helpful summary of the Democratic platform:

"A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good. A people that prizes candor, accountability and fairness insists that a government for the people must level with them and champion the interests of all American families. A land of historic resourcefulness has lost its patience with elected officials who have failed to lead."

Is this true? False? Neither?

And whether it is true, or false, or something else, suppose the Democratic Party leadership really believes it?

We got into a lot of trouble with the Republicans when we thought "Oh, they can't really mean that."

So what if the Dems really believe this?

And what if they don't?

0
No votes yet

Comments

nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

The paragraph is meaningless. But it uses words that the propaganda state has turned into great marketing slogans. So "partisan" is paired with "division" as opposed to "common good." This effectively preempts any thoughts of actually implementing any "accountability". Yeah, accountability is good. But it has to be done in the context of no partisan division. They're, in Pelosi's words, "leaders". Yeah, they believe it.

I'm sure they believed it when they knew that the administration had broken the law and so they retroactively made the criminal acts legal. They believe in "candor" and "fairness", so they shut the courts to citizens seeking information and redress of wrongs. I'm sure they believe that passing the FISA law was the first step towards this "common good".

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

They're selling something people don't want.

Just as their love of the faith-based initiative comes when those initiatives are losing credibility and the country is becoming more secular and less socially conservative, especially that younger generation they prattle on about attracting.

A very large part of this problem, IMO, is the media. Since they are still using the same talking points they used 25 years ago, politicians react as if we're talking about the same electorate, in the same mood. Well, the mood isn't sour because of a lousy economy under Jimmy Carter and people unsure of all the social upheaval of the 1960s civil rights, feminist and gay movements, it's sour because we've had 20+ years of incompetent conservative policies that's left us with a broken economy, an unpopular war, and a collapsing infrastructure all thanks to the GOP.

Now, why Democrats listen to the media at this point is a good question. And can join the related one of why they not only listen but try to fit themselves into frames that have hurt them for 30 years instead of changing those frames. Well, they finally fit them, just as the country doesn't want them anymore. It's so much of a Democratic year, I think Obama will win unless he makes some awful mistake, but he could be changing the political map (which is what he promised to do) instead of struggling to explain how he differs from McCain.*

* Which is not to say he doesn't differ a great deal from McCain, at least on policy matters, but he's battling the impression that he does not and that impression is only contributed to, IMO, by the bipartisan bullshit.

Submitted by lambert on

"It's called the ruling class because it rules."

They listen to the media because the media helps them do that.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

This is the part that confuses me. The GOP are ruthless in their efforts to make sure that among the Village, they are the top dogs. The Democrats seem to be simply happy to be in the Village and for the GOP to occasionally screw up so badly the Democrats win.

Look at how beaten down the GOP is right now? They are having trouble raising money. They are down in party id in the public. They are out of energy and ideas. Yet, the Democrats insist on giving them air. They float their names as being choices for VP. They praise bipartisanship and talk about how people can reasonably disagree and how much the Democrats want to work with them. Even if the Dems agree with the GOP on the rule of law and authoritarianism and corporatism and that the Village should rule uber alles, you would still think they'd want to make sure that among the Village, the Dems were the top bananas. They could be using this election to set themselves up for the next decade or two by showing how bankrupt the GOP is and highlighting where they are different (even if it is on relatively "small" things like S-CHIP and not on, say, the Constitution). Instead, they seem happy to help the GOP get up off the mat and ensure that 2010 will not be a time to consolidate gains, but prevent losses.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

The Democratic leadership and the media may not be rocket scientists, but they are smart and well-informed.

They are all college educated (many or most are from Ivy League and other top universities) and very few inherited their positions.

Assume they know what they are doing, and the only logical conclusion is they want things the way they are.

The FISA bill wasn't passed because the Dem leadership was scared of Bush, it was passed because they wanted it passed.

We keep seeing the same pattern repeated over and over, year after year. Dem politicians are inept and ineffectual, and the media either reports on the wrong things or gets the right things wrong.

These people not only seem to egregiously incompetent, but some of the most prominent and powerful act like they are borderline retarded.

But they not only hold on to their positions, they get promoted and are handsomely rewarded.

They are enormously successful in achieving their goals.

Not only do they not care about our goals, in many cases our goals conflict with theirs.

Am I just being paranoid? Or not paranoid enough?

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I think they're politically inept, which is a different thing.

I fully believe they wanted the FISA law passed or at least enough of them did (plenty voted against it, just not enough). I believe they know what votes they're making and a lot of them agree with what they're doing.

My complaint regarding their ineptitude doesn't go to their votes, it goes to their politics, particularly their framing. Instead of kicking the shit out of the GOP while its down and leaving it for dead (which would not require any different vote on FISA or any other progressive issue), they insist on praising them and vowing to work with them. This will come back to bite the Dems in the ass because they are helping keep alive the idea that the GOP is a legitimate political party that properly shares power with the Dems instead of taking this opportunity to consolidate political power in Democratic hands for more than this election (what they do with it is another issue).

None of this happened overnight. It comes after decades of getting the shit kicked out of them by the GOP and the media. But instead of being in a vengeful mood, the Dems are more like an abused dog that just doesn't want to get beaten anymore. Understandable, but not exactly the most effective strategy for building a winning political machine that can dominate not only this election but the future.

I should add that I think they do believe they have a strategy. They think they can co-opt the GOP message (or the parts of it a lot of Americans like about taxes and faith) and in so doing marginalize the GOP. The problem is the GOP doesn't win because of those things, or not just because of those things. It wins because it owns the media narrative, voter suppression, and election stealing. The Dems are acting like they are competing against a political party when, as others have pointed out, they're competing against a crime syndicate.

Submitted by lambert on

Over time, I've come to the conclusion that we need to surrender the "incompetence" narrative, as well as the "caved" narrative. FISA is the proof. So far as I can see, there was no popular demand for that whatever, and there was resistance to it from us, sufficient to hold it off for a year, anyhow. But the Dem leadership, including our presumptive nominee, went ahead and voted it through.

I do not believe the Dems are any more incompetent or any more prone to cave than normal political parties are, nor any more corrupt. I believe they have affirmatively chosen the the path they are on. This is their vision for the country.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I prefer to think of it at two pirate crews fighting over the loot.

I repeat:

They ARE NOT inept. They know exactly what they are doing and they are successfully achieving THEIR goals.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

n/t

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

They prove it every day in every way.

"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

or maybe you're not talking to me. Heh.

To the extent you are addressing my post, then let me clarify that I don't think their incompetence extends to their policies. I presume FISA got passed because enough Dems agreed with the GOP that it was a good idea. Same thing for any other legislative abominations.

Instead I was getting at the framing or politics of how Democratic positions (which are a lot like the GOP in some areas, less in others) are presented to the public. If you asked John McCain and the GOP if they agreed with the Dems on most things, they'd say hell no. Even when Democrats vote with them. You'll notice Obama's saber rattling towards Pakistan, Russia and Iran along with his FISA vote isn't stopping the Republicans from trying to paint him as a commie terrorist lover.

Democrats do not do this. Instead, they praise the bipartisanship. They could vote with the GOP on FISA and still paint the GOP as being incompetent in the War on Terror.* But they keep legitimizing the GOP. Not in how they vote, but in how they talk. How they vote is a different issue and I tend to agree it isn't driven by cowardice or incompetence, that's being too kind. But what I don't get is given the opportunity to truly marginalize the GOP** why the Dems aren't taking it and are instead simply trying to co-opt the GOP message. Or rather, I do get it, I just think it's bad politics.

I should add that, in this way, I'm not saying the world would be better for progressives if Dems would do this. If enough Dems want FISA - and they apparently do - then simply having the Dems in power with the GOP marginalized doesn't fix it. It's more a puzzlement on my part about why when you have two competing parties and one has the opportunity to pin the other to the mat, it doesn't take it. And I know that you'd say it's because they aren't competing - they agree. But my answer to that is that while they may not be competing in terms of some policies, each party still wants the perqs that come from being in power and so, in that way, they are competing. And the Dems don't seem short of people who like the benefits of power, which makes their political decisions puzzling (again, not their votes on FISA, but their praise of GOP and bipartisanship).

* Such a framing would discredit the GOP while keeping the framework alive - war on terror - that allows all of the authoritarian power grab and corporate corruption the Dems could want. Again, it's not about policy (or votes), it's about framing the policy in terms that discredit the GOP in your favor instead of acting as if the GOP are viable partners.

** Marginalize does not mean all of the things the Dems might like - exempting the Village from the rule of law, broader authoritarian powers - have to be overturned or rejected. It simply means beating the crap out of the GOP in elections. The Dems may then use that power for some of the same purposes, but that's our problem, not necessarily the party's problem since they seem perfectly happy with a lot of what's happened.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

They have expert political advisors, years of experience and they have access to everything we do as well as lots of insider information we don't.

So what do they do? They set out on a strategy that a freshman poli-sci student can see is far from optimal if not certain to fail.

You say inept. I say they are pursuing a strategy designed to achieve their goals.

What looks like failure to you looks like success to them, because their goals are not what you think they are.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

... do I think "WWF"?

Anyhow, RL calls, and I wrote in haste, not really addressing any one point directly.

We are in the process of constructing new narratives...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Narratives reminds me too much of the MSM, but I agree that a new framework that takes into consideration all we have learned since 2006 is needed to understand exactly what's going on in our political world.

As for the Democratic leaders are professional politicians so they MUST be brilliant at it, I don't agree. This is much the same brain trust who gave us Tom Daschle's incredibly lame run as minority leader and the 2004 Kerry campaign and, in Brazile's case, supported the strategy of having Gore run away from Bill Clinton in 2000. They've been losing elections almost since the day I was born forty years ago. Occam's razor as far as I'm concerned that they didn't suddenly become political geniuses.

Any doubts about it were quashed during that RCB meeting. If they were truly political geniuses (or even mildly competent), that RCB meeting would've achieved the same ends, but in a much smoother way. A real shark you never see coming, I've worked with plenty of them. Many of the DNC folks you can spot - along with their ulterior motives - miles away.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

"A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division"

IOW "We have been assimilated by corporate America." Or they could have also said it this way: "The feeling is definitely there. It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits."

Remember, we don't need better Democrats, just more of them.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites