Politics Under the Predator State
Let's take the wayback machine to 1992. The Democratic candidate proposes to Put People First (on sale now for 55 cents). Some of the jewels in this crown of commitment are a pledge to increase non-defense "investment" by $50 billion each year of his first term and to "Eliminate 100,000 unnecessary positions in the bureaucracy." Regarding trade, he would:
"- Seek more open markets for American products by negotiating a free trade agreement with Mexico that ensures a more level playing field and protects basic worker rights and environmental standards."
After his victory in November, with the wind of a Democratic Congress at his back, he said the deficit was worse than he had imagined, and this revelation would require scaling back his spending commitments. But nothing transpired between October and November of 1992 that compelled any change in the deficit outlook. According to the Bob Woodward book, The Agenda, the understanding inside the Administration was that concerns for the bond market -- among JKG's legion of predators -- required a change of course, an all-consuming emphasis on deficit reduction.
In the actual event, public investment increased at a slower pace than under the first term of either Bush Administration. The "bureaucracy" -- the source of personnel empowered to regulate the predators -- was reduced not by 100,000, but by 447,000 positions. This was paralleled by an increase in contracting out to another nest of predators. As for the commitments regarding trade agreements, they went by the boards.
None of these deviations were grounded in public opinion. Rather, they were the preferences of elites with inordinate influence in both political parties. They are the predator state. Not the forest rangers, clerk typists, judges, or postal workers.
Is there a difference between parties? Sure. How big a difference? The answer is, as big as you want to make it. The candidate of change might take on the predators if a lot of someones demand it. Step one is realizing what the problem is.
I understand it was Rubin that informed Clinton what was what.
The influence of money has to be reduced, but money will prevent that change, unless a lot of new Congress-persons, with less allegiance to wealth, arrive after November.
August 12, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
We have but two parties. The only traction we will ever get is by recognizing the better of the two candidates, getting that person elected. And, then by asking all of our elected officials to give us the policies we need.
Asking them, and frequently. Frequently.
(Identifying the better of the two candidates is the easy part.)
August 12, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anything be done to nullify Buckley v. Valeo? If not I don't see how anything can be significantly changed. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder and will continue to be regardless of party in power. It was game, set, match once the act of giving money to a politician or political party was deemed to have 1st amendment protection. That is when the predators won the game...
August 13, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The predators have not won the game unless Americans choose to quit on America. The voters could nullify Buckly with a movement on par with Civil Rights or women's suffrage in which Americans agreed not to vote for candidates who take donations. We could also Lobby the states for a constitutional amendment that would override the Buckly decision, outlaw campaign donations and mandate public financing.
August 13, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Max speaks, I listen...
As much as I am fond of saying that fat Bill was not only a Republican at heart, but a Reagan Republican at that, I suppose I am just blosing smoke, 'cause the Democrats let him have the ballot line, so he must have been a Democrat.
(That said, Richard Nixon would have cut his hand off before signing the "Throw babies on the street if they are the youngest of several act" or the "Gug Habeas Corpus and guarentee the death of innocents act". Nixon, crazed jew hater that he was, was left of Clinton on most issues. The horror....the horror.)
Re:Buckley., I don't think the sollution is in more regulatory schema; the bastards always find a way around, if only through the purchase of media.
I think mandated transparency via web applications is the ameliorative paradigm, and still we will be scrambling for money parity.
Don't mourn. Organize.
They've got the guns but we've got the numbers.
(We do, don't we?...)
August 13, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
They've got the guns but we've got the numbers.(We do, don't we?...)
Not according to the last seven presidential elections. And if we do at the moment, not for long.
August 13, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
if we do... not for long.
I]m sorry, that answer is incorrect.
The correct response is:
"Gonna win, yeah, we're takin' over, COME ON!"
(h/t The Lizard King)
August 14, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Max! Welcome back to the airwaves!
August 13, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
So true. The "other party" excuse has become so transparent. It's beyond irrational for any voter to believe the Democrats--or any particular Democrat--will change anything meaningful if American voters don't demand it, fully participate and hold leaders accountable when they don't deliver. We'll get the results we work for and nothing more.
August 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have two parties; Republicans and the Republican lite DLC. When the Liberals lost control of the Democratic party to the DLC, 90% of the public lost 90% of their representation.
From the Republicans we get Trickle Down Economics, from the DLC we get Trickle Down Representation.
August 13, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Max:
I guess the most heartbreaking and infuriating part of all of the '90's follies with Clinton was this:
Politically, ideologically, policy-wise, he gave the GOP pretty much everything they wanted.
Then what did they do? They called him a 'socialist' and impeached him.
Can we PLEASE learn an important lesson about apeasing Republicans? No matter how far you go down the road with them, they will demogogue and stab you in the back. Then expect you to be 'reasonable' and rational with them.
This must change.
August 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have more knowledge,but less judgment maple story accounts
August 14, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink