"Let them eat cake" is one thing. This is far more sinister in its implications. And yet Simpson here represents the prevailing Village Serious Centrist viewpoint: Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh are exactly the same (except Maddow is a fish/inanimate object). They are extremists outside the worldview of Simpson, as is anyone who isn't a Beltway insider. Only the Serious Village People in the middle can "govern" and by govern that means make the little people suffer, because that's what the powerful are supposed to do to the small. If you're poor to the point where you actually need Social Security "handouts", then you're "greedy" and that's your damn fault. What good are you to Simpson?
Spoken like a man who really, really despises your average American like only a rich and powerful former Senator can.
And yet the larger problem is that President Obama is the one who asked Simpson to help craft this plan. He might want to do something about that.
I would only add one thing: Obama did do something about that. He appointed Simpson. Simpson does not represent the Village Serous Centrist viewpoint, he represents Obama. Our elite obviously understand that if you want to get rid of Social Security, you should pay a Democrat to do it. Better yet, a minority Democrat! That'll do the trick. Sixty-seven percent of us are authoritarian and that would include Democrats as well as Republicans. Authoritarians are easily manipulated with fear and it was easy to hold the far-right wing over our heads, just like the right used a far-left threat of socialism taking away the right's money and giving it to Black people. Same tactic, different group. It works like a charm.
Obama never would have been elected unless he went along with the banking elite. He is a very intelligent man and very ambitious. He took the money and appointed Simpson and now we are going to lose Social Security unless we find some kind of magic underpants gnome way to stop him.
This would be a really, really good time for Democrats to threaten to primary Obama. He seems to frighten easily and it might work. At the very least we might get someone who wouldn't subject us to groping when we need to go through security. I seriously doubt Obama would let that happen to his daughters, yet like all elite he is fine with it happening to ours.
And if someone pulls out Sarah Palin to defend voting for Obama, they are being dishonest. Palin is not a threat; the elite on the right do not support her, she is lazy and out of control, and she'll never be elected president. The tea baggers were elected whether we supported Obama or not. As for the Supreme Court, Obama's criteria is business-friendly, not liberal.
When are we going to do the right thing instead of the political thing? As amusing and cathartic as it is to mock the right, it does no good if the left elects people like Obama. It's just mindless meanness.
*It's Called the Ruling Class Because It Rules
7 comments:
I'd suggest that the fear may not be so rational. They may not put Sarah Palin *herself* in power, but the refusal of the ruling class to permit any sort of left-wing popular will to filter up to the top risks the creation of a really dangerous right-wing populist backlash.
Sometimes it's rational to be motivated by fear.
God knows I am--I'm afraid that we'll get poorer and invade someone else to distract the populace from what's being done in their name.
The problem we all have is distinguishing between rational and irrational fears. Which is more likely--the Republicans will elect a crazy tea bagger to high office, or that the Democrats will elect a Republican in sheep's clothing? Will a Democrat who gives away the bank really be as bad as a Republican who gives away the bank? We don't know, so I worry a lot and hope to push us to further left.
I hit publish too soon---
I'm not worried at all about a really dangerous right-wing backlash. They can't be more dangerous or damaging than Cheney was. That may be stupid and I may change my mind, but the elite right controls the tea baggers, not the other way around.
And so the answer is . . . what, exactly?
"Better" candidates? Such as? I live in Vermont where we had a superlative Senate candidate to run against Leahy. Everyone who met Frielich and got to know his views greatly admired him and supported him--right up until election day when most who said they supported him said some variation of, "Well, he didn't really have a chance anyway, and I didn't want to waste my vote, so I voted for Leahy."
More education for voters doesn't seem to be working too well.
I fear that what it's going to come down to is a situation where things become so top-heavy that there really is a mass revolt.
No, if we are indeed too authoritarian we'll continue to support the elite no matter what.
The elite have most of the money and power to make laws so we can't out-donate or out-spend them.
We don't have Establishment religion.
Unions are severely weakened.
We have a lot of people, but most of them are authoritarian.
So we have to make the people less authoritarian.
That was my reasoning, anyway. That means turning away from the political system, over which we have no control, and using our money and time to help ease poverty and end abuse. Then we won't have a country where most of us keep reelecting people who have done us harm.
The smartest thing the ruling class ever did was see to it that more "Ordinary Joes" got invested, through IRAs, 401Ks, and pension funds in general, in the stock market. Millions upon millions of retirees and those who hope to be one day now have a vested interest in how well corporate profits, and therefore stock prices, hold up, and will be much more pliant in granting corporate America whatever they want...wars, tax breaks...loosening of environmental regs... to keep things that way, even if it means shafting themselves in the long run.
It drives me crazy when people look back on Bill Clinton as a Democratic hero. The guy was the most effective Republican president we ever had. He cut welfare, pushed through NAFTA and GATT, and started a pointless war that "liberals" still defend. He merely gave everyone the illusion of prosperity, riding a bubble that would pop in GWB face. The major difference between BC and GWB was competent stewardship of empire vs. a pack of self-destructive jackals stuffing the money in their pockets as fast as they could. The difference between GE and Goldman Sachs.
Post a Comment