The Elite Is Revolting An excursion into a universe that is nothing like our own.
Ubiquitous
Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore (2000). But back in his day, he was
a somewhat prominent politician: U.S. senator from Tennessee, 1988
presidential candidate, vice president. He even won a Grammy Award.
The high point of his career was the day he almost became president.
Alas, he missed his opportunity by an agonizing 17 votes in the
Senate.
After retiring from politics, Gore cashed in on various global-warming
schemes and became wealthy. But he missed the spotlight, so he used
some of his riches to start a cable TV network and hire a former MSNBC
host (albeit one who was with that network before it elevated its
standards by hiring Al Sharpton) to interview him.
In one such interview Tuesday night, The Daily Caller reports, Gore
talked, as he put it, "about using the wonderful digital tools that
are newly available for the reinvigoration of democracy." Ah, yes!
This newfangled Internet thingy is a wonder, isn't it? Whoever
invented it must be a rich man.
"We need to have an American spring--you know, the Arab spring," Gore
said. "The nonviolent part of it isn't finished yet, but we need to
have an American spring, a kind of an American nonviolent change where
people on the grass roots get involved again."
Gore made a direct appeal to somebody named Keith: "I want to tell
you, Keith, this country is in trouble. Our democracy has been
withering on the vine. It really has been. This has been going on for
some time. But this is not an event that can be taken lightly. I know
it's difficult to imagine that people who care about the values that
this country was based on will rise up and get much more involved in
the democratic process. But that is exactly what we need, and that is
the only thing that can get our country back on the right track."
Ah yes, the Tea Party. Or not: "Not the, you know, not in the Tea
Party-style," Gore clarified. To explain his objection to the Tea
Party, he recited a list of left-liberal-progressive demon figures:
"right-wing billionaires, the Koch Brothers . . . Fox News . . . the
wealthiest Americans . . . powerful corporations and special
interests . . . and the Supreme Court." He must be a corporate jet
owner, or he'd have mentioned them too.
Gore exemplifies what political scientist Peter Berkowitz describes as
"the ambiguity of progressivism's opinions about democracy and
reform":
In the annals of American progressivism, Obama's predicament is
hardly unique. Indeed,
the mismatch between leaders who put forward partisan ambitions in
the name of the people
and majority sentiment reflects an enduring paradox with deep roots
in the progressive
tradition. Like Obama's new progressivism, the old or original
progressivism championed
a vision of democracy that sometimes conflicted with ordinary
people's opinions and
preferences. The old progressives often realized it and said as much,
clearly and with
a clear conscience. One of the distinguishing marks of the new
progressivism at whose
head Obama stands is the determination to conceal the gap between
what majorities want
and what progressive leaders want to enact in their name while
insisting proudly on the
purity of their democratic credentials.
To put it more succinctly if a tad less high-mindedly, Gore is
calling for a revolt of the asses, not the masses. He wants the elites
to take to the streets. (Hey, we're a poet, and we didn't even know
it.)
The odd thing is, the prog elites are already revolting. And not just
against Kochfoxspecialinterestscorporatejetowners but against their
own leaders and institutions. Take former Enron adviser Paul Krugman.
(Please.) In an extraordinary rant on the New York Times website,
Krugman takes Obama to task for his economic leadership (or lack
thereof). He quotes Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, as
saying, "We do not believe that there is a threat of a double-dip
recession," and responds:
For two years the White House has been determinedly cheerful, always
declaring that
the recovery was on track, that its policies were working fine. And
all it did was
squander its credibility. Maybe admitting the truth, saying that in
fact we hadn't
done nearly enough, would not have helped get useful legislation
through Congress.
But at least it would have conveyed the message that the WH was
living in the same
reality as ordinary workers.
Now they're doing it again. To what purpose? Do they think the
markets will be reassured?
Do they think consumers will be reassured? At this point, after the
"summer of recovery"
came and went a whole year ago?
Spin is part of politics. But sometimes you have to know when to
stop.
Krugman is almost always wrong, but this is one of the other times. It
reminded us, though, of something he wrote all the way back in
September 2005, a few days after Hurricane Katrina:
The federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence
of Mr. Bush's
personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to
the very idea
of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right
has been
denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always
the problem,
not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a
government
solution, it wasn't forthcoming?
In 2005, in Krugman's view, the ineptitude of the government was a
product of ideology: Men who did not believe in government were
incapable of administering it competently. Well, in 2008, we elected a
man who believes fervently in government. How's that hopey-changey
stuff workin' out for ya? The answer is in the headline of Krugman's
post from yesterday: "Hope Is Not a Plan."
Krugman's response to this is to deny that Obama is liberal or
progressive at all. Krugman calls the president a "moderate
conservative." These labels are relative, of course, but if Krugman
lives in a country where Obama is a moderate conservative, he does not
live in America.
One more look at the alternative universe comes from TheHill.com and
also involves Krugman. You'll never believe whom Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid is blaming for the Republicans' having (mostly)
prevailed in the debt ceiling fight:
Reid appeared frustrated Tuesday afternoon that the media was not
critical enough
of House GOP tactics during the debt-limit debate. . . .
On Tuesday Reid read on the Senate floor an op-ed by New York Times
columnist Paul
Krugman that was critical of the media's reluctance to judge Tea
Party tactics.
"If one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would
read 'Views
Differ on Shape of Planet,' " Reid said, quoting Krugman. "But would
that cult
still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which
one party is
clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size
of the
ransom?"
The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The
cult of
balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of
disaster."
So here we have the star columnist for the New York Times railing
against media bias as if he were the 21st century's version of Reed
Irvine. If you'd fallen asleep 25 years ago and woken up to this, you
really would think you were living in an alternative universe.
AC
If people who post political nonsense on the internet put as much actual
effort in to their allegedly loved country as they do slagging it off on
the internet it might not be the wreck it is today.
Get off you lazy arse and go do something about it.
--
AC
Thanatos
wrote:
> If people who post political nonsense on the internet put as much actual
> effort in to their allegedly loved country as they do slagging it off on
> the internet it might not be the wreck it is today.
>
> Get off you lazy arse and go do something about it.
Does that apply to all the liberals here, too, or is this just something
you post in response to criticism of them?
AC
Fascinating reply.
Noted.
--
AC
Thanatos
wrote:
That's what I figured.