I don’t mean this in a “who will rid me of this meddlesome pundit kind of way” but convincing elites to act responsibly is the key problem in our current political predicament and I don’t know how to do it. Atrios:
Elites need to earn their respect, especially elites who face neither voters nor any other realistic check on potential corruption and hackery. Frankly about the only realistic check on the power of Supremos is their potential concern that people on the internets might be mean to them in furious blog posts. If elites want us to respect elite institutions they should do a better job of policing their own. Instead they try to police us.
Gallup’s “Confidence in Institutions” survey shows dreadful numbers for banks, and for big business in general. Notice those guys suffering? The Wall Streeters whine as if they’re suffering, but mostly what they say when they whine is, in effect, “We want all the money and respect!”
That’s pretty much what we may hear from the Supremes, or at least from the chief justice. Cohn mentions John Roberts’s “frequently professed concern for the court’s respectability.” But he seems to be oblivious to the fact that he’s lost that already. (As I’ve noted before, a recent Bloomberg poll showed that 75% of Americans expect the Court to issue a health care ruling based on political concerns.) The actual rulings show no signs of circumspection — Roberts apparently wants your respect in spite of those rulings.
Until we Americans start actually finding ways to hurt powerful people we despise, it’s going to continue to be good to be the hated king.
I’m not sure it has to be all stick and no carrot. I’m happy to have parades in Jamie Dimon’s honor and (gulp) even Bobo’s honor if I they start doing things that help our society, instead of destroying it. But what do they want? I don’t know. I can’t fathom having that kind of money and caring about more, not because I’m some awesome altruist, but because I don’t like thinking about money and if I didn’t have to, I wouldn’t.
And if what they want isn’t so simple, what do they fear? The eventual beheading of Luke Clinton-Kristol in 2060 is too far into the future to scare anyone too much, IMHO.
MikeJ
And all the money in the world is not enough.
ornery_curmudgeon
“…convincing elites to act responsibly is the key problem in our current political predicament.”
Convincing elites to act responsibly is always the key problem.
srv
You know, one of the biggest hits in modern hard sci-fi fiction involves mechanized drones chasing down elites and chopping them up.
http://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/B003L1ZXCU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333218365&sr=8-1
Hunter Gathers
They want to rule over us. They want to be our Masters. Only high class intellects like Bobo and Dimon have the brain power necessary in order to put us on the path to the Centrist Paradise, where all of our problems can be solved with tax cuts, ‘family values’ and Burkean modesty.
pragmatism
Save us kwisatz haderach!
doofus
I find it cute that you think we even have anything that can remotely be called a “stick.”
c u n d gulag
Our Masters, after beating we serfs and slaves, want us to be grateful for our Master’s attention – and the fact that they didn’t beat us to death.
Whoreporate politians/SC Justices, and the 1%er’s who pay them, agree on the following:
The beatings will continue until moral, and appreciation for them, improve!
“Please, Massa, cant’s I get’s one mo’?!?!?!”
piratedan
well “benevolent dictatorship” has a nice ring to it, at least that’s how I perceive how these wannabe Grima Wormtongue’s spin it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I caught Arlen Specter on MSNBC earlier this week, bemoaning the decline of ‘centrism’ (and defending his treatment of Anita Hill). Aside from the sanctimonious self-pity, he mentioned the cruel martyrdom of Joe Lieberman, and scolded Obama for not killing off the Bush tax cuts (that he voted for) and not ending the Afghanistan war, after eight solid years of effectively lock-step support for Bush. The word “Iraq” was never mentioned. The total lack of accountability among our political-media elite not ten years after what was arguably the biggest deliberate fuck-up ever by the United States government is sickening. The same cultural laziness and short attention span that is allowing Mitt Romney to run for president on a platform of, essentially, being a fellow traveller of Jamie Dimon and the Goldman Sachs, Bear, Stearns, AIG crew.
ornery_curmudgeon
If I were ornery and curmudgeonly I might bring up the fact that Ralph f’ing Nader WAS ABLE to bring corporate corruption to heel to some degree. The man had some kind of Excalibur sword against the Big Boys, and they came to both respect and fear him.
It took his ‘own side’ shooting him in the back to remove Nader as a threat to the corrupt elements of the establishment. With nary a lookback to see if maybe that was a bit hasty. Must keep our scapegoat scapegoated, or we’d have to admit hey, we were wrong.
Yeah, I know. Flame away, whatever. Just thought I’d give another perspective. It’s probably too late anyhow. But there IS such a thing as karma.
Arclite
The most frustrating thing about the court is that when the right was obviously nominating the most egregious right wing hacks (Alito, Roberts, Thomas) to the court, the congress didn’t do their job in making sure more reasonable nominees were nominated. “Let the president have his picks” was the infuriating rallying cry among Dems, instead of doing the job that the constitution laid out for them: vetting said nominees. The whole stupid “dance” of Q & A was kabuki of the worst kind, and transparently for show to anyone paying a modicum of attention.
Here’s how it should work: There need be no Q & A. If you have no position papers, or court cases argued, or documented history of opinion, that should automatically disqualify you from the process. Period. The end. The fact that Robers “promised” to uphold precedent was a pure lie, intended on giving cover for those congress folks too lazy and uncaring to do their jobs properly.
Gex
Once people realize the wealthy are hoarders, things will make more sense. If someone stashed 10 million candy bars in their house and continued to wreak havoc on everyone around them to keep acquiring candy bars, we’d rightly recognize they have a problem.
Change candy bars for dollars, and you have the same thing. They all could stop working right now and live better than almost all Americans. But they aren’t *interested* in anything else. You and I would quit to go do something we love. This is what they love. Nothing else matters.
Donut
I dunno, started looking for a tune I was thinking of and came across these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8EF0S9xtI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfu1rHeMEhI&feature=channel
And it’s my two favorite musicians together and all I can say is that I think I would have shit my pants if I could have seen this gig…
NR
@Arclite:
This is because the Democrats are not interested in fighting the right wing. They only want people to think they are interested in fighting the right wing so that liberals will continue to vote for them instead of a real progressive party.
Are you ready to wake up yet?
Donut
@Donut:
Oops wrong thread
PurpleGirl
Reposting from SteveM’s blog and Mahablog:
The NYU Alumni group is having some fancy luncheon in April. The honored guest is Alan Greenspan. I sent back my invitation telling them I thought he really needed to be shunned after all he did to the country. I also told them I hoped he at least brings in a lot of money to the school.
Baud
@NR: Actually, I have woken up. And in reality, it’s the far left that isn’t interested in fighting the right wing because that would empower Democrats, who they see as their chief competitors. Thanks for playing though.
Corner Stone
@Baud:
Competing for what?
Corner Stone
@Arclite:
Here’s how it should work: Member of Federalist Society? Automatic filibuster by Democrats.
WaterGirl
It’s the last day of this fundraising quarter. How about putting up links for Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren and the Scott Walker recall?
Pretty please.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
When the English monarchy no longer felt accountable to the people, the Roundheads started executing them.
When the French aristocrats no longer felt accountable to the people, the Jacobins cut off their heads.
When the Russian Tzars no longer felt accountable to the people, the Bolsheviks lined them up and shot them.
JPL
@WaterGirl: I just donated to all of the above and included the dem house and dem senate. Normally I don’t donate to the generic house and senate but this year it’s important.
Raven
@WaterGirl: hi
BillinGlendaleCA
@Gex: Sounds alot like an adict, even stealing to get the next fix.
Clime Acts
@NR:
This sounds like the sad truth.
But such statements are frowned upon here as detrimental to the political career of Barack Obama.
Chyron HR
@Clime Acts:
Remember that time Barack Obama declared that all true liberals must join forces with the Tea Party?
No, wait, I’m sorry. That was, and still is, the official editorial position of Firedoglake. My mistake.
Gex
My friend came up with a new game. http://youngnotions.com/2012/03/30/i-have-created-a-new-game/
It would be interesting to compare the numbers from that game to that game run on this blog only with the emoprogs providing the Obama blaming comments.
ETA: Aspects of the game that aren’t in the main blog post:
“Bonus points for finding offensive Obama nicknames (Oblamma, Owhammy, Onegro etc). I can honestly say today was the first time I saw Oinkbama”
BudP
@srv: Loved it, and the follow-up Freedom
Clime Acts
@Chyron HR:
What are you babbling about?
Auldblackjack
Many of them expect the respect to naturally follow form the aquisition of wealth, because that is
what they respect. And given the particular road of Free Market Capitalism we’ve been going down these past 4 decades would we expect anything else from them now?
Anything that you can’t put a price tag on is now … suspicious. Free Public Education? Hmmm.
Healthcare as a right? Soshulism!
The goal is to have everything everywhere be about the benj-a-mins
WaterGirl
@Raven: Hi! Saw your comment about Lil Bit last night but I got there late so you probably missed my reply. I haven’t been here as much since the new format is hard on my eyes, hope I haven’t missed anything important!
Sly
@NR:
So “real” “progressives” would have a better chance of fighting the right wing as its own independent party, in competition for votes with the Democratic Party, rather than as a subsidiary of the Democratic Party?
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
“Hey, we’re having trouble electing progressives across the country, so let’s eschew the logistical and financial backing of the Democratic Party because that will obviously make things easier for us.”
NR
@Sly: The Democratic party has no interest in advancing progressive policy. It will take a new party to do that.
bemused
When it comes to money, I doubt there is ever enough for the filthy rich to be content. The old McMansion just doesn’t thrill you anymore so tear it down and build one twice as big. I read not long ago happiness levels off at the $70,000 a year paycheck. The very well off and above are not any happier. If you have what you need to survive comfortably without stress, major illness or debt along with good family, friends and activities you enjoy, you’re doing fine.
The neverending obsession with making more and more money must be an illness like a gambling addiction. Money and power.
Frivolous
Why not turn withering satire ala Jon Stewart on the Supremes if they won’t shape up?
Or write really dirty slashfic about them.
What does Antonin Scalia hide under his robes, and does he give himself a hand when he pontificates in court?
NR
@Baud: Competitors for what? What are you babbling about?
It’s not the “far left” that’s been implementing conservative Republican policy for the last three years, it’s the Democrats. Do try to keep up.
Omnes Omnibus
@NR: Well, if you believe that is the case, I certainly hope you are out working to found one and not just bitching randomly on blogs.
Clime Acts
@Omnes Omnibus:
hmmm…I don’t agree that making an observation of fact obligates one to “do something” about that fact.
That’s the old status quo “shut up that’s why” argument.
Most people have their hands full just getting by…naturally, you’d like them to remain silent and support the Democratic party.
Transparent much?
Raven
@WaterGirl: I saw it this morning. We have Embrace on the Bodhi. Lil Bit can’t be insured.
Omnes Omnibus
@Clime Acts: No, it is an honest statement on my part. If NR believe what s/he wrote I do hope the s/he is working to bring about better policies by helping to found another party.
ETA: I do not agree with NR’s view of the situation and do believe that the most effective way to move progressive policy forward would be to elect a massive Democratic majority in both houses.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus:
OO, of course they have. Founding a party means running a candidate for President. Congress, state governments, and local governments, not so much.
BTW, could we please have a cursor in the edit box? Not seeing one in IE9.
Sly
@NR:
Then you might as well pack it in, because the creation of a viable third party with national reach and deep penetration into local political infrastructures is the perennial pipe dream of American politics.
NR
@Sly: Not true. Parties have died off before and been replaced when they weren’t representing the best interests of their constituents. Just ask the Whigs.
It’s time for that to happen to the Democratic party.
Narcissus
We should just spike the Village water supply with MDMA and see what happens
doofus
@Gex: Thank you very much. I had noticed that too. It seems like there is some form of Godwin’s law going on since 2009. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of president Obama being blamed for some thing or another approaches 1.
Baud
@NR:
Of course not, because to implement policy the far left would have to actually do something constructive instead of just complaining about how bad Democrats are.
And in terms of keeping up, Democrats have been implementing progressive policies, which is why big business, Wall Street, and conservative forces everywhere hate them so. That’s the crowd the far left have cast their lot with.
Clime Acts
@doofus:
Maybe it’s because, he’s, you know, the president of the united states or something…
…just a guess.
FlipYrWhig
As soon as the potential voter pool for the lefter-than-the-Democrats party gets up to, say, 35% of the voting public, it will be a powerful force. What’s that at now, 10%? What’s the number of people who think Obama is too conservative? Because that’s where you’re starting out. And getting from 8-10 to 35-40 is going to take decades. In the meantime it seems like voting for the lefter of two viable options is the better play, even if that candidate is Tim Kaine or Joe Manchin.
FlipYrWhig
@Baud: I might say instead that the Democratic party is a coalition between a decent number of progressives and a larger number of moderates. A third party, left of the Democrats, would struggle to hold a majority and would need to… form a coalition with the party to its immediate right. Which would produce… policy to the right of the preferences of progressives. Which is… what we have now.
NR
@Baud:
Really? Would you be referring to the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the Republican health care bill, or the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich? You know, just so we know what progressive policies we’re talking about here.
Wrong. That’s the crowd the Democrats have cast their lot with. Once again, try to keep up.
David Koch
For people who don’t like the Democratic Party — that’s cool.
But why are you wasting your time here, when you should be organizing the rise of an alternative 3rd party.
The election is only 7 months away, and that 3rd party system isn’t gonna get on the ballot by wanking away on blogs. Especially on a weekend, when you should be out collecting signatures to get on the ballot and raising money to at least finance a party blog, let alone a GOTV apparatus.
You guys want a different party, but you’re too lazy and silly to build one.
Freedom isn’t free, and neither are phone banks and web servers.
Corner Stone
@Baud:
Good God. You’ve completely lost it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@David Koch:
Actually, they want a different country.
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I would love to give it to them.
Mnemosyne (iTouch)
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’ve never seen any evidence that NR has the first clue how our political system works, much less that he’s doing jack shit to change it.
Hey, NR, tell us again how Clinton totally rejected his own healthcare legislation by not signing a law that never existed. That’s your all-time greatest hit, as far as I’m concerned.
Sly
@NR:
So the first step towards creating a progressive America isn’t “create a viable progressive third party” but “destroy the Democratic Party.” Gotcha. That’s all that was needed to convince me that you’ve thought this out.
NR
@Mnemosyne (iTouch): What are you babbling about? You’re even more incoherent than usual today.
NR
@Sly: I’m not talking about destroying anything. If the Democrats continue on their corporatist path, they’ll die off on their own. The only question is how long that will take. With people like the ones here doing everything they can to prop up a right-wing, corporate party and pretend that they’re progressive, it’ll take a lot longer, and a lot more damage will be done to the country in the process.
doofus
@Clime Acts: True. He is president. Sometimes though I wonder if we spend way too much time talking about him and too little time on more “to the point” matters.
Corner Stone
Without going too far into the morass of third party speculation, it’s pretty clear that the masses firmly believe the established parties aren’t representing them.
It may be for different reasons, beliefs, ideologies, but this is historically how organized parties go away.
Citizens United may be seen as the last gasp to retain incumbency, but that doesn’t buy participation. At least not forever.
Sly
@NR:
Wow… even more steps? This framework is becoming more and more complex all the time!
Let’s see what we have so far:
Step 1: People realize the Democratic Party isn’t serving their interests.
Step 2: The Democratic Party dies off.
Step 3: A new progressive party rises ex nihilo to replace it.
Step 4: Profit.
Anything else? Seems perfectly workable thus far. I especially like how no one really needs to actually do anything for it to come to pass.
Gwangung
@Sly: personallt, I think it’s easier to take over the Democratic party from the grassroots up. Because you have to do the same organizational steps anyway. Same effort, with less waste.
Sly
@Corner Stone:
There have been three major parties in American history that have “went away.” The Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, and the Whigs.
If you can point to any historical parallels between the circumstances that led to their weakening and eventual dissolution (into different parties), and the circumstances faced by the modern Democratic Party, I’d like to hear them. If only to point out how you’ve completely decontextualized their respective histories.
David Koch
I’m shocked that someone like Atrios would support upholding a corporatist bill like ACA.
I guess, Krugman, Greenwald, and now Atrios have all been bought off by the corporatists.
Corner Stone
@Sly: Ok, more broadly then. When the expectation of representation has been lost among the masses, radical societal change has occurred throughout (somewhat modern) history.
IMO, we’re reaching that point in our society. It may not occur until demographics force the change, and the change itself may be the loss of an organized party or something more radical. But IMO that’s coming.
When Congress has a 9% approval rating and people polled believe at a 75% rate that SCOTUS will make decisions according to political outcomes, there aren’t many institutions left for the public to believe in. The Trayvon Martin case is a screaming highlight for a huge cross section of society, and their inclination toward police and authority.
Corner Stone
@Sly: And more specifically, I don’t remember saying it would be the Democratic Party that failed. So please stop putting words in my mouth and asking me to make a specific argument I did not make a case for.
OzoneR
@NR:
What is this fantasy real progressive party?
OzoneR
@NR:
Who the hell is taking their place? Angus King?
I’d like to really know who is killing off the Democratic Party when the party’s primaries are consistently ending with registered Democrats voting for most corporatist on the ballot?
Bitterness clouds reality I guess?
Corner Stone
@OzoneR:
Ummm, doesn’t your question answer itself?
OzoneR
@Sly:
Yes, but it’s also pretty clear they’re not looking for a third party to represent them, they’re looking for some post-partisan bullshit world where everyone shakes hands and finds compromise, because thats what they’re being told they should want on TV screens and in newspapers.
OzoneR
@Corner Stone:
No, people are ELECTING these corporatists. The Democratic voters of the country want the party to be this way. How is it a party dying off when its exactly the way the voters in the party want it to be? That’s the my point.
Democrats have the ability to choose progressives in primaries and we’re seeing over and over again, from Bill Halter to Ileya Sherman, that they often choose the less liberal option.
A party dies when its supporters jump ship or stop showing up. That’s not the case in the Democratic Party, voters are coming out…for the corporate “moderates”
Corner Stone
@OzoneR: The equally valid argument is the corporatist Democrat has better funding, deeper pockets and simply drowns out the less well funded opponent.
OzoneR
@Corner Stone:
That’s a cop out. We can’t win because they’re better funded isn’t a valid argument for why bad Democrats win.
Then that’s a problem with the voters. If they actually stood for something, they wouldn’t be so quick to cast their voters for the first idiot who appear on TV on at the door in a mailer in a staged photo with his and her “happy pretty” family surrounded by vague slogans.
If they actually stood for something, they’d be out seeking THAT candidate, like they do in other democracies.
You’re telling me that people want more progressive candidates. So why aren’t they actually looking for them? And when they are running, and given a lot of attention (like Halter, Sheyman, and Gargiola), why aren’t they actually VOTING for them?
A society where the guy who wins is the one whose been on TV the most isn’t a society that knows what the fuck it wants from its politicians.
TenguPhule
@NR
If you truly wish to make yourself useful to the progression of democratic equality, martyr yourself by taking out Alito, Thomas, Roberts and as many serious villagers as you can.
Otherwise, door’s to your left Faux-progressive troll.
Corner Stone
@OzoneR: Bullshit. And don’t keep citing Halter. That dude was a millimeter off Blanche. Everyone recognized that but dbags like you and others here. I remember challenging you to back up your “20 websites” statement and you never did.
Do you have any idea what it takes to run for office? The time, organization, commitment and flat out fucking money?
Don’t tell me it’s a fucking cop out when the better funded candidate wins. Why do you think both parties seek out self funders every fucking cycle?
You’re just a clueless clown Nick.
Villago Delenda Est
@ornery_curmudgeon:
Nader did it to himself, with his ego the size of Jupiter.
Fuck him, and fuck the drones who worship him.
Villago Delenda Est
BTW, the answer is tumbrels.
NR
@TenguPhule: Better trolls, please.
Ben Wolf
@Villago Delenda Est:
Yes, all those not ideologically pure must be purged. It can only help Democrats by banning anyone who voted for Nader, permanently.
OzoneR
@Corner Stone:
Yeah, I get it, its hard, it takes money, and the only reason it takes money is because you have to appeal to a public that’s politically tone deaf.
If they weren’t, if they were actually in tune to politics, it wouldn’t take nearly as much money.
OzoneR
@Ben Wolf:
I thought they didn’t want to be Democrats? Now they do?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Ben Wolf: I don’t think anyone’s talking about purges, but that special combination of aggressive, determined stupidity and delusional self-righteousness from the people still spanking the dead monkey of “not a dime’s worth of difference” after the Iraq War, Scalia, Roberts, Citizens United, torture, Katrina, et al, invites abuse. It would be rude not to accept.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: You know, back during the torture debate, conservatives made the claim that there was no problem with waterboarding because it wasn’t as bad as torture methods employed in other countries. They said that torture was okay because we weren’t as bad as brutal dictatorial regimes. In response to this, some very smart people on the left said that the question wasn’t are we exactly the same as these regimes, it’s are we different enough?
The question isn’t are the Democrats exactly the same as the Republicans, it’s are they different enough?
mclaren
Bring back the tumbrels.
OzoneR
@NR:
Not really sure how anyone could look at the past decade and conclude that answer isn’t an obvious yes.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@NR:
Gee, I don’t know, Muffin. Is the difference between the Iraq War having happened or not happened “different enough”? Is the difference between torturing and not torturing “different enough”? Is a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq “different enough” from the doubling down McCain wanted to do, along with war with Iran and Syria? Are Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer “different enough” from Samuel Alito and John Roberts? Is the auto industry going bankrupt “different enough” from the auto industry being helped back to its feet?
Your stupidity tests the boundaries of the concept of stupidity. The stupidity we encounter in our daily lives is but the shadow your stupidity casts into Plato’s cave. And yet, you stupidity itself wouldn’t be so annoying, if it weren’t so willful and petulant, if there were any sign that you actually had the slightest grasp on American politics.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: Different enough for who, how? There are terrible corporate ass-kissing Democrats, and there are good progressive Democrats. But the good kind can’t field a majority. That’s the problem. The Democratic party corresponds fairly well to the wishes and priorities of the mainstream of Democrats. It doesn’t match up very well with the leftmost slice of the population. _That’s because the leftmost slice is too small to win elections on its own._ So in the end you have a progressive party under the Democratic banner, a milquetoast moderate party also under the Democratic banner, and a pack of ravening morons under the Republican banner. If the progressives team up with the milquetoasts, they have a decent shot at winning elections. If they don’t, they will always, always lose. A progressive party can’t do diddly until there are a majority of progressives in the populace. Until that happens, we’re stuck with the prog-milk coalition.
Omnes Omnibus
After this thread, NR is no longer worth a response in my view. Silly person, silly views. I tried to have a conversation. Hell, Corner Stone responded, but, as far as I can see, NR didn’t.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: If I were NR, I wouldn’t bother responding to you either as you are a deeply silly and unserious person.
It’s you and Yutzy having the mental masturbation equivalent of some scoreless badminton game.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Oh well, then, that settles everything. Thanks for letting me know.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Gee, I don’t know, Sparky. Is an escalation of the war in Afghanistan different enough? Is passing an exact copy of the Republicans’ health care bill different enough? Is giving everyone who engaged in torture a free pass different enough? Is extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich different enough? Is offering big cuts in Social Security and Medicare different enough? Is implementing worse smog standards than Bush did different enough?
It’s hilarious that you feel you can call other people stupid and ignorant when you take those two concepts to a completely different level from anyone else. And the worst part is that you combine your stupidity with blind, unthinking loyalty and obedience to a political party. As George Orwell so expertly pointed out decades ago, people like you are downright dangerous.
sparky
i see someone has cast my name about. but perhaps in a more different way, so it might be ok.
it’s best, i think, to start with the proposition that when one is comfortably well off, what is left? status, mostly. so, like some rightists suggest, the concept of shame should be revived. it’s worked in the past, after all.