One interesting post-election story has been the treatment of Rahm Emanuel, a center-right Clinton Democrat who will serve as Obama’s chief of staff. While some Republicans claim Emanuel is too “partisan,” some media defenders argue that he’s not, since his politics are not all that liberal. Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty explains:
The strongest signal of how that White House will operate has been Obama’s pick of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be its chief of staff. Emanuel is a win-at-any-cost partisan but not an ideologue; in his earlier White House stint as a top aide to Clinton, he was a key figure in shepherding through the North American Free Trade Agreement, a crime bill and welfare reform–none of them popular with the Democratic Party’s liberal base.
Apparently pushing for a corporate “free trade” pact and gutting public assistance for the poor are not “ideological”–they’re just the sort of common sense the media like to cheer. As for the idea that pushing policies unpopular with the party base is evidence of a “win-at-any-cost” outlook–well, that depends on your definition of “win.” When FAIR founder Jeff Cohen examined the Democratic Party’s electoral performance in the Clinton years (L.A. Times, 4/9/00), here’s what he found:
Let’s do the numbers. When Clinton entered the White House, his party dominated the U.S. Senate, 57-43; the U.S. House, 258-176; the country’s governorships, 30-18, and a large majority of state legislatures. Today, Republicans control the Senate, 55-45; the House, 222-211; governorships, 30-18, and almost half of state legislatures.
Don’t you have to ask yourself, what is it that the Demorats want to *win*?
Certainly not the power to make the world a better place.
But even their selfish political interests seem to go a-begging when to do so would challenge the foundations of the power structure.
How else to explain not raising holy hell for having two presidential elections and untold numbers of lesser races stolen from Democratic candidates?
Not that they haven’t engaged in their own thievery on a smaller scale, past and present … but hypocrisy’s never stopped the other major party from displaying a true “win at all cost” mentality, has it?
And even when they have the political power to make good on their promises (as woefully inadequate as they are), they renege on them with breathtaking haste, don’t they?
So, again, what are they trying to win?
It would appear, nothing … they’re just fulfilling their role as the necessary seeming “counterbalance” in a faux democracy.
That’s all I can come up with … anyone else care to try?
Setting up the new republic, the wealthy tried to maintain a monopoly on power. Using the public display of high sounding words, (Freedom, Democracy, human rights, Fraternity, Liberty, etc ) their speeches kept the uninitiated at bay. Clemens and Menken and others used humor to poke fun at the established power structure. No one anticipated real change until awakened by the slaughter of 2 world wars and a catastophic economic colapse.
Since the 70s the financiers have slowly bought off the politicians again, and sucked up the wealth of not only the US nation, but most of the world. In spite of their propaganda efforts, the scam is unraveling with the help of the net. The media, as bought and paid for servants, have lost their connection with the public. We are set up for a major revolution, mark my words. Very few people are willing to return to the feudal landscape, which is the intention of the super rich.