I just read a calm, devastating critique of the role and behavior of the Democratic Party, by a blogger named Chlamor. Especially as we are about to pick our leaders once again, I don't want to accept this argument, would like to ignore this blogger's points, but really, it's hard for me to refute. Seeing so much that I suspect and fear put so blatantly, reasonably, succinctly, non-hysterically -- is fairly chilling. The stinging Harlem Globetrotters comparison is particularly wicked.
Yet how can I be of two minds about this? One version of me is grimly convinced Chlamor is correct. Another version is somehow able to simply set that conviction aside when he wants to and follow politics like a normal person. As I've said before, I would caucus for Obama were I still in Iowa. I'm curious what others think about this piece.
2 comments:
What is this, 2000?
Dial it back 40% and maybe you have the truth. I think she vastly overstates her case with the conspiratorial overtones ("designed," "permitted to exist," etc).
It's true that the GOP taps into some subterranean and very real power structures in our country that aren't very effectively reigned in by government-- at least in practice-- and it's true that dem politicians are complicit in this in many ways that I wish they weren't.
So what else is new? Rich and powerful assholes throughout time have used their riches and power to subjugate others to their will. They always will. That's history- shit, that's humanity: the few fucking the many.
Democracy doesn't fix that fact- at best it limit its effect. Our democracy doesn't always do a great job in this, its most fundamental function, but there are realistic and very possible ways in which it could do better. Working towards such goals is important and worthwhile. When I get frustrated by rhetoric like this, it's because its so dismissive of the precious and pivotal successes progressives have had in this country- though admittedly, they're few and far between, especially lately. But take the civil rights movement. It wasn't an unqualified success, and we're not where we need to be on race and poverty and all that stuff . Still-we dismiss such moments at our own peril.
I hope she and others who feel as she does will at least be sure to hold their noses and vote Dem in 2008- if it is futile, at least it is less futile than any of the alternatives.
What Pete said.
Part of the problem is that people don't have the time, the inclination, or the education to get involved in politics. Voting does work, people just don't do it properly and they don't get ready to do it early enough. By the time we come to November 2008, much of the fight is already over. Primaries are important. But even more important are local elections. I look at the recent election of (Cornell College professor) Dave Loebsack as pretty remarkable and evidence that it is possible to elect candidates who don't come from some political aristocracy and that actually can run and win on the will of the majority (re: ending the war).
All the tools are there for short-circuiting that writer's view of the state of politics today. People just have to pick them up and use them.
Post a Comment