On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
To say that these are "their jobs" is much too conspiratorial for my tastes. I prefer the old Marxian word "objectively." Objectively speaking, Clinton (whatever her subjective intentions) will "corral the votes of those who seek equality of the sexes," Obama (whatever his subjective intentions) will "corral the votes of those who seek racial justice."
Nothing happens in politics without conspiracy. The latter is the manifestation of the former. The Democratic Leadership Council, with Bill Clinton as its first head in 1985 and Hillary, Gore, Lieberman, Gephart and a few others as his cohorts, was created to deliver the Democratic voting constituency to the same corporations that had been funding the Republicans so they, as new leaders of the Democratic Party, could reap the same financial rewards corporations were bestowing on the Reaganites. According to its own mission statement, "The DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market- based solutions." (http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893 ) In plain English, doesn't this translate as "The DLC manipulates the people to buy into the corporate flow of things without them knowing it."? "Public philosophy built on progressive ideals" leading, of course,to "market-based solutions." Not about real change affecting real people's lives, but about floating a philosophy to maximize corporate control, "market-based solutions." Most folks know political bullshit for what it is. But most still can't keep from having input on the horse race. It's human nature. It gives people an opportunity to have a considered opinion. But most forget what they know in their hearts -- that it's bullshit to start with. The next thing you know, they're coming up with esoterica with which to flavor their ingestion of the bullshit. The following stage is anger at not being agreed with, then a quiet slipping into the inevitable least worst vote, and finally sullen remorse at having once again fallen prey to the scam that allows the worst of the worse to get elected anyway, regardless of the vote count. (The vote count itself is a market-based solution, eh? Steeped in the philosophy of proprietary software.)
They have this objective -- and likely unintended -- effect because the political/electoral system they work within is severely biased toward maintaining the _status quo_.
I don't think there is anything unintended about it. Sure the system is severely biased -- or fixed. And, boy, do these candidates know how to work it. They ain't EVEN out to fix it. This is a fight over who gets to allocate the seats on the Titanic's life boats. Dan Scanlan
