me: > > 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."
Dan Scanlan writes: > Nothing happens in politics without conspiracy. The latter is the > manifestation of the former. of course! it's true by definition for the current US style of politics, if we defined "conspiracy" as involving any application of power or influence in secret.[*] Of course, the view that "nothing happens in politics without conspiracy" is not true in a world where there are democratic mass movements that oppose the power of the elites and try to abolish their power, influence, and secrecy. They can make things happen in politics without conspiracy. > 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. ... That doesn't seem very secret -- or secretive -- to me. How come so many people know about the DLC? and why do they advertise their nefarious plans on the Internet? (It's hard to imagine a self-respecting Dr. Evil associating himself with them. They hardly give him a chance to say "Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha!") The DLC seems a very standard result of the structural bias of the US electoral system to be dominated by "dollar votes." It does not seem like a conspiracy at all, not at all like the (alleged) plot to assassinate the late left-DP Senator Paul Wellstone. If that conspiracy actually happened, it fits the description of a successful conspiracy in the footnote: it succeeded in its goals (partially purging the DP of its left) while preventing the leaking of any information to the world at large. me again: > > They have this objective -- and likely unintended -- effect because > > the political/electoral system they work within is severely biased > > toward maintaining the _status quo_. Dan: > 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. ... sure, but they are products of the same biased system. The system -- and this includes the schools and colleges -- reward the opportunists and punish those with (good) principles. [*] Of course, there's more to a _successful_ conspiracy than the secret application of power and influence. One must lack competition from other conspiracies: there's no Democratic Populist Leadership Council (or whatever) that plots to foil the intrigues of the DLC. One must be tightly organized with no internal conflicts, so that the leadership can make sure that the lackeys, underlings, puppets, and willing flunkies (all of whom are necessary to the process) follow orders and don't leak secrets to the world outside of the cabal. The leadership must have as complete information as possible about the world it is manipulating (the strings it is pulling) and the impact of its machinations on the path of history. It must also have as complete information as possible about what the lackeys, underlings, etc. are doing, so that they can be punished if they break ranks. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
