Sarah Palin is so incredibly small-time. She’s being blackmailed by stoner Levi Johnston, and she deserves him. This is reality-show People-magazine self-help pyramid-scam rehab-Christian politics. The two of them are both good looking and that’s all they’ve got. Sarah got a bunch of dirty old men aroused for the first time in awhile, so they nominated her for VP.
Nothing new there, but WTF are conservatives and Christians thinking? They want one of the most ignorant people in the world to hold the nuclear trigger. It’s like an Abbie Hoffman mindfuck with live ammunition. Is shameless, heedless nihilism now a necessary constituent of conservativism?
Sorry, this is all old hat but the Levi Johnston interview just tore off the scab. I’d numbed myself, as we all have, and I’d forgotten what’s really happening. It’s like waking up from a bad dream and finding out that it’s real. We have a Presidential candidate who’s one degree of separation away from the Alaskan petty crime scene and millions of miles away from reality.
I’ve been there too, more or less, and I’ve always thought that that is one of the reasons why I’m not a Republican Presidential candidate. But I was so wrong.
Conservatives should all be wearing paper bags over their heads. They did this.
Trollblog 
October 29, 2009 at 4:05 pm
You just now realized that American conservatives are nihilists?
October 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm
As I said, I’d become become numb. But the Johnston interview freshened things up. In particular, I’d forgotten how incredibly small time Ms. Palin is. She’s like the ambitious mom down the street whose kids have disappointed her, the one that’s campaigning to get onto the school board.
October 29, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Palin’s a typical ‘Merican rustic, JE. Her rightist-libertarian politics and biblethumping should offend any rationalists. No kiddin’.
Yet given a sort of compare and contrast–say against Joe Biden (and Obama-corp as a whole)–Palin doesn’t seem that f-ed up. Biden’s the beltway, all the way–lawyer, insider, and pro-war. Until nominated for Veep, Biden usually sounded about like Hillary, if not McCaint. Why does Biden get a pass, and not Palin? She’s fairly innocent, perhaps even a dimwit, but not actually sinister, at least yet. Really, better some libertarian Alaskan mama than another greasy, eastcoast pro like Biden, hidden in the shadows with the rest of the demopublican poli-skank. Whoa
October 29, 2009 at 5:17 pm
You’re full of shit, Horatio, as you know.
October 29, 2009 at 6:12 pm
OK guys:
For decades I was an ultraleftist and was right all the time. In retrospect, for all the good it did, all that time I could just as well have been painting myself blue and chanting Wiccan hymns.
So I quit, and I’m doing something else which might not work either. Probably I should just join Gore Vidal in the post-political world.
And even now I’m still a contrarian in my own peculiar way. But it’s not that hard to out-contrarian me, so don’t even try. There’s nothing to be gained by that.
If you’re interested in the particular thing I’m doing, stick around. If you’re not, don’t. I don’t really give a shit what you think.
This is Trollblog all right, but trolls are solitary, unfriendly, vicious creatures.
October 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm
They want one of the most ignorant people in the world to hold the nuclear trigger.
YASS. That’s what we need: that time of the month for sweeet Sarah, and …………..ka-blooey! Like that PC bureaucratic pussay Vidal Gore, you lack a sense of humor.
October 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Horatiox is in tune with the broader winger nihilist zeitgeist. Why should we make fine moral distinctions, or even gross ones? Everything is the same as everything else: Unions and capital? Just two sides of the same coin. We can make this so merely by asserting it.
So an ignorant corrupt right-wing fundamentalist authoritarian nutcase is roughly the same thing as a careerist center-leftist who stuck his neck out (a little) in opposition to Iraq I and who advocates today against escalation in Afghanistan.
I’ve got three close rightwing relatives, and it’s interesting to see how they’ve changed as their party has gone nuts. Two of them (smart, well-educated professionals) have gone all-in: If this is what the Republicans are, then they’re still Republicans. The other voted reluctantly for Obama.
The modern Republican party consists of God-cons, war-cons and money-cons. (Think Huckabee-Palin, McCain-Giuliani, and Romney.) My two relatives who still vote Republican are aligned mostly with the money-cons, and since Republicans have become so obviously toxic for the economy, I assumed they would reject the party.
But no. The unifying theme for the Republicans is submission to authority – whether that authority is God, a general, or a plutocrat.
Taken out of context, the goose-step is an absurd way for soldiers to march. But when a soldier can do that without being mocked, it enhances his authority. The fact that Republicans can say crazy things and be treated seriously makes them even more worthy of fealty. Karl Rove gets this; the reality-based community does not.
October 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The money cons and the war cons knew that they couldn’t convince the nvoters straightforwardly, so they had to push whichever creepy distraction button they could to get their tax cuts through. Some of them are going to come around whining about crazies have taken over their party, but they played right along as long as it was working for them.
Per your relatives, I keep trying to tell people that the crazy right isn’t mostly trailer trash. There are a lot of people in the top half of the income distribution who’ve had good educations (but who, I suspect, zeroed in on the practical.)
Judging by my own winger relative, a lot of it is cocooning — thinking only about what’s immediate in your life.
October 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Some of us jus’ dig………War, PF.
October 29, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I hear ya, hx – but what interests me is how many of the war-cons will vote for Huckabee if push comes to shove in November. I suspect quite a lot.
October 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm
You’re the one making gross generalizations, PF. In regards to the war-con issue, Palin, however f-ed up, has less blood on her paws than does Joe Biden, who was a Hillary-like liberal hawk from Day one (he also was an LBJ type when he started out in late 60s-) No big differences there. It’s like comparing say Feinstein with Cheney–DiFi and her SF broker-sugar daddy Blum have pocketed more than Cheney has from the IWE. She voted for everything the GOP voted for, and awarded Blum contracts which they both profited from. But few if any Dinkocrats at the usual liberal sites (Kos, DU, etc) have addressed it. Who the F. cares—research, evidence, argument interferes with the par-tay.
October 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Horatio, you can be fucking tiresome. Nobody here likes Feinstein. Most of us are not loyal Democrats. Palen has no blood on her hands because she’s never done a goddamn thing in her entire life.
October 29, 2009 at 8:51 pm
JE, your refusal to understand the point on bipartisan guilt is phucking tiresome. Feinstein’s merely an instancing—it’s not only about Feinstein herself (though you obviously don’t know jack about her power, or CA-politics, or connections). In terms of the Atrocity-sled race, a DiFi runs with the front of the pack, with BushCo, Clintons, Gramm, Pelosi et al.– miles ahead of Sarah Klondike.
October 29, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I understand and agree that the crazy right is often incorrectly characterized as trailer trash. What interested me is how my relatives made the transition from the Right to the Crazy Right. Nothing about their socioeconomic status precluded them from being Crazy Right at the start.
Judging by my own winger relative, a lot of it is cocooning — thinking only about what’s immediate in your life.
Hmmm. Rational self-interest, greed, Randian “selfishness,” and a general refusal to acknowledge the existence of a commons are (by the definition I’d stipulate) non-crazy motives. (Sociopathy is non-crazy, I’m proposing.)
Joe The Plumber, though, he’s an altruist and a nut. He cares deeply about taxes on the wealthy even though he’s not wealthy himself, and even though the proposed tax wasn’t particularly onerous for even the wealthy. It’s the principle of the thing, and in no way a reflection of what’s immediate in Joe’s life.
My argument is that the underlying principle to all of it is authoritarian. If you’re not sympathetic to authoritarian projects, you’re not a Republican today. The racism that underlies a lot of Republicanism is, likewise, founded on an authoritarian impulse.
October 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Guilt? Guilt?
Who’s the moralist now?
October 29, 2009 at 8:56 pm
your refusal to understand the point on bipartisan guilt is phucking tiresome
On the contrary – as JE just said: “Nobody here likes Feinstein.”
What you insist on, however, is not bipartisan guilt, but bipartisan equivalence.
October 29, 2009 at 9:31 pm
You missed the point again. Instantiate another big-corporate-Demo, such as Hillary, and the point holds. And no, I don’t insist upon bipartisan equivalence. In principle I generally favor traditional Democratic policies, say Woodrow Wilson-ish (though WW was hardly perfect). That’s no longer the Demo party. FDR broke with progressive dems (though most of the New Deal was fairly sound, probably).
For another example of bipartisan culpability, consider Bill Clinton agreeing to Gingrich/Gramm’s de-reg plans in 90s, including dismantling the Glass-Steagall act. Or was it Reich agreeing with Greenspan. Boring either way, but de-reg was thoroughly bipartisan. Even Alex Cockburn and his cronies figured that out a few years ago.
October 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Horation, considering that my political project is running primary candidate against corporate Democrats, don’t you think that you could fine-tune your rant a little? The whole point of a lot of what I’ve been doing for the last year or so has been trying to get people to ditch the Democratic leadership while working independently within the electoral system.
Why don’t I join a third party? Because I think that it’s usually more productive to paint myself blue. Third parties are my third choice.
October 30, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“My argument is that the underlying principle to all of it is authoritarian. If you’re not sympathetic to authoritarian projects, you’re not a Republican today. The racism that underlies a lot of Republicanism is, likewise, founded on an authoritarian impulse.”
I.E. nihilism
October 30, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Some of us savor…..authoritarian impulses, b-boy.
Interesting bon mot, but really, on inspection, sort of simplistic. Does that refer to the ideologyof the repubs, or to the actual politicians? The writing could just as easily apply to corporate liberals–let’s try it:
“”If you’re not sympathetic to authoritarian projects, you’re not a corporate liberal today. The racism that underlies a lot of corporate liberalism is, likewise, founded on an authoritarian impulse.”
Works.
In other words, that’s in need of fine tuning. It might hold for “the yacht club GOP”–let’s grant it does. Phuck Roody Guiliani, or Schwarzenegger. But not really applicable to the Evinrude GOP, or working class GOP. Rednecks don’t want to join the crips, man, and vice versa. No koom-baya democracy will be arriving in the near future, regardless of the endless koom-baya of KOS, or DU, or unfogged, or Berube’s sentimental rants.
Why do liberals continually posit some obligation to sit at the multi-cultural unitarian camp fire? BS. Now, the homies working at the warehouse together, or construction site, in a platoon–they might have some good reasons to stick together, and at times there may be a racial harmony. Even then rare. I for one never denied a right to Collective bargaining (thats usually a liberal type of whine).
The sentimental liberal –usually a sunday schooler–should offend us at least as much as an honest machiavellian doth. Nietzsche understood that (and was not really a nihilist, per se).
October 30, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The “working class GOP” is a cliche. The better off everywhere are more Republican. There are some areas where the less-well-off are more Republican than in other areas. It’s salami-slicing — the Democrats’ white working class dominance is gone and there are more working class Republicans, but the Republican Party is mostly well off to very well off, and most of labor is still Democratic.
October 30, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Not according to the demographics I’ve seen. There are unionist Dems, but I suspect they are outnumbered by the suburban commuters and urban hipster sort. The GOP traditionally represented the country club, but picked up the white working class starting with Reagan, at least. The country clubbers aren’t all whitey, though. In CA, the hispanics wield quite a bit of power in GOP.
Away from downtown LA and SF, PaloAlto dreamland, the local economies are not completely powered by business, but by state and county employees, teachers, cops, military, unionists. That’s what fuels the anger of the working class whites, roughnecks, businessmen, Foxsters, sunday schoolers. The Pelosiocracy. Hopefully will see some full-scale riots soon, like the phunn in Riverside a few days ago. Destruction is a creative impulse, man.
October 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“The two of them are both good looking”
This is very, very wrong.
October 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm
You’d better link your numbers. For a radical you pass on a tremendous number of winger cliches.
What I said was based on Gelman’s recent book. The idea that rich people are liberal and poor people conservative is a myth.
Considering the issues, there are a surprising number of rich liberals and poor conservatives, though in part this is explained by the fact that “liberals” aren’t always economically liberal any more. But in general, the better off you are, the more Republican you are, in almost any area and almost any demographic.
The term “working class” is ill-defined and perhaps obsolete and seems to include (per Texeira) all non college graduates, regardless of income.
October 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm
“If you’re not sympathetic to authoritarian projects, you’re not a corporate liberal today. The racism that underlies a lot of corporate liberalism is, likewise, founded on an authoritarian impulse.”
No. You don’t understand the argument.
Economic conservatives from 1970-2007 had a rational argument. They followed the arguments of Coase, Friedman, Williamson, Becker, Lucas, Prescott and so on. This set of arguments was wrong (in my view), but it was rational. They did not believe these arguments because of Friedman’s authority, they believed them because these seemed like the best set of arguments to explain the economy after the fall of the Keynesians in the 1970s.
And we can see that those economic conservatives who were rational are gradually being peeled away from the Chicago School by rational arguments or by growing empirical evidence (whether by Richard Thaler, capital markets evidence, Kahneman / Tversky, economic sociology, etc).
But the remaining conservatives are holding to the same beliefs: this is not because they are arguing with interpretations of the empirical evidence or because they believe Richard Thaler’s work is flawed. In many cases, they have shown that they do not have the ability to understand arguments on this level (i.e. in practical terms, they are not able to analyze the underlying debate – ex: is Richard Thaler correct or is Eugene Fama correct?)
If you look at what these remaining conservatives DO say about economics, their utterances are, in fact, based upon nothing (nihil). They will often say things like “Good Americans believe in the power of the American tradition of liberty to grow our prosperity” or like things.
There is no similar evidence that American liberals’ beliefs are so structured. Of course, there are many just plain stupid American liberals – but they, no matter how stupid, would reject that we should believe claims made without evidence or reason. Now, the stupid variety of American liberals might not be able to follow the arguments themselves, but they would accept that, if they could, they must accept the course indicated by reason.
October 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“Hopefully will see some full-scale riots soon, like the phunn in Riverside a few days ago. Destruction is a creative impulse, man.”
And, again, he wonders why we’re calling it nihilism.
October 30, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Let me again recommend “Road from Mont Pelerin”m ed. Mirowsky et al. Neoliberalism, which includes the Chicago school, was an explcitly political project funded by donors with explicitly political (anti-socialist) goals.
October 30, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Not according to the demographics I’ve seen.
At the bottom of this page, you’ll find the demographics for Republicans and Democrats (most recently as of 2004). Nobody but hx will be surprised to see that Republicanism increases as income increases. The reasona are obvious.
Working class white Republicanism is focused in the South. Again, for obvious reasons.
hx, being non-reality-based can be a powerful thing for those of an authoritarian bent – and you’ve demonstrated many times over your inclination toward imposing your will rather than persuading. But if your aim is to discern truth, you have to trade in your epistemology for something better suited to factuality. You make a lot of flat factual statements that are just flat wrong.
October 30, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Again, you conflate economics with ethics. The b-boy usual–or shall we say, the sentimental liberal’s fallacy. Nor did you note my point on the New Deal (not synonymous with Keynesianism either, regardless of what they teach business majors)
Moreover you did not bother to read my historical point on bipartisanship and de-reg during the Clinton Admin.. De-reg and privatization were supported by both conservative and liberal economists (ie Greenspan, Reich, Sommers), AND politicians. That was a major factor in the recent mortgage/lending crisis, however unsexy or lacking the usual macroeconomic hustle–
So, I’d say you’re flat wrong, and indeed justifying corporate hierarchy. I’m in favor of taking on the Oligopoly–unlike most liberal corporate apologists, DeLongs, Krugmans, d-squared, unfogged frat boys, etc. But that doesn’t imply supporting the Democrats, Inc.
October 30, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Horation, you need to realize that this particular subjective belief of yours — that ethical thinking is very very bad as such — is unproven and not widely shared, and not at all a self-evident truth.
Horation, are you the Austrian, or Abb1, or Burritoboy, or all three? I lost my scorecard.
October 30, 2009 at 9:37 pm
You should have read the Pew study, PF: in fact, the data suggests that Demos have other the last few years caught up with Repubs. It confirms the claim that the Democrats are no longer really the party of the working class:
“””In 1995, the year after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate, there were nearly twice as many Republicans (46%) as Democrats (25%) among the most affluent 10% of registered voters (household incomes of approximately $84,000 or more at the time). By comparison, there are just as many Democrats (31%) as Republicans (32%) among this class of voters today (household incomes of approximately $135,000 or more).””””
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/451/money-walks
Also check on the campaign budgets of a Hillary or Obama vs. McCain, and the rest of the GOP. Not defending the good ol’ boys, but Hillary started with what, 50 bil?? Then Obama caught up–and that’s mostly due to corporate donations, celebrity donations–not just grass roots. Obama out-funded all, eventually, had like double what McCain had. Hucklebee had like 1 billion. So who are the populists? Hucklebees izz.
October 30, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Horation, you have to quit repeating yourself and start reading. Nobody here is defending Obama and Clinton. We have good reasons for not joining your worthless, chickenshit little Green Party or Libertarian Party or Natural Law Party or whatever the fuck it is you’re pushing. I’ve explained it elsewhere that the Democratic Party is an institutional part of American government and a location on the map, and that taking it over (against the Clintons and Obamas) precinct by precinct and district by district is the best strategy available.
Anyone who wants to start a third party is welcome to do it, though. I’ve played that game myself and I now think it’s a loser.
The real problem with all discussions of this kind is that there aren’t enough of us, we don’t work hard enough, and too many of us are too angry to be very effective. It’s not strategy and tactics.
October 30, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Did you read the Pew study? EXACTLY what I said. Have you checked the facts on campaign budgets? I doubt it. Have you bothered to read like Counterpunch on the roots of the lending crisis, bipartisanship, the role of de-reg??
You’re merely getting the ID politics on again. Be angry at Bill Clinton and his admin. for working with Gingrich/Gramm at all, and dismantling the remains of the New Deal.
October 30, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Horation, what are you saying, besides the same thing you’ve been saying over and over again forever? Who are you talking to?
October 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I’m not in a party—registered Demo for 20+ years–tossed sometime during Kerry campaign. Phuck ’em.
You seem to think politics is like some Eugene or Madison potluck, with the old SDS or something, reefers passed around, when it’s like dealing with with 20 million Angelenos, massive unions, or the mafia.
You’re not even pitching the union either; there are labor problems everywhere, JE. You sound pretty scabbish.
You’re the Don Quixote here, with the usual chickenshit Demo-reg emotional appeals, the ignorance of historical fact, the vague gonzo-lite. I prefer Spengler—I wager America’s goin’ down, and soon some Castros or Hugito Chavezes will be running things….that or the mormons will get some nazi-lite thing going, probably with the support of most WASPS, demo or not
October 30, 2009 at 10:17 pm
If you have nothing to offer but insults, why don’t you just shut up? There’s always someone around getting satisfaction from disaster. Maybe you should find Jesus and pray for Armageddon.
October 30, 2009 at 10:21 pm
You’re insulting, little man. You’re defending the TammanyCrats, the frat boys, the Pelosi-mafia, DeLongs and Krugmans and Unfoggeders. I’m defending, like, Ed Abbey.
October 30, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I’m insulting? Jeez, you zinged me good.
I’m well aware of the hopelessness and despair option. I keep looking for an alternative.
I can’t see that Abbey brought anything to the table but an enormous ego and showmanship. I’ve totally given up on protest politics, personal conscience politics, correct position politics, and theater politics.
October 31, 2009 at 1:13 am
You should have read the Pew study, PF
The point remains the same: the wealthy support Republicans more than the poor; the poor support the Democrats more.
Yes, the Republicans have become such a train wreck that even the rich are deserting them, though not as much as the poor; and lord knows the Democrats pose the rich no real threat. Still, the two aren’t equivalent – as even you acknowledge when you aren’t incoherently contradicting yourself.
October 31, 2009 at 1:35 am
Nyet. That’s not what the Pew study suggests. In fact, the data shows near parity between wealthy demos, and wealthy GOP—near equivalency, though trending upwards for Dems. And it’s probably 3-4 years old. There are other studies that show Demos are wealthier per capita than GOP–even some of the Demos have pitched that, saying Clinton was better for business, balanced the budget, etc.
lord knows the Democrats pose the rich no real threat. Now, that’s verging on incoherency. Are you and Farmer John writing from like a Iowa cornfield or something? GOLDANG IT!
Perhaps do a search for like Feinstein’s mansion, or Billary’s or Pelosi’s. They are the Rich, with a few exceptions, like Schwarznegger (really a Demopublican). Steve Jobs gave thousands to the Obama campaign as well, as did Google, Yahoo, most corps. Most corp. execs are Demos (except oil execs–one GOP stronghold). And the gated communities around SF, silicon valley, LA, Malibu—I’d wager majority are Demos. Not sure of Iowa.
October 31, 2009 at 1:38 am
ToS, could you state your objective in a concise way? What is it that you are trying to convince us of?
If you mention goddamn Feinstein one more goddamn time I’ll delete every post on the thread.
October 31, 2009 at 2:15 am
I think it’s fairly obvious, you just don’t care for cynicism of any sort, and automatically associate any negativity with some HL Mencken sort of conservativism, when it isn’t. OK, HL Mencken I’m not, but his points contra-democracy are worth reading(or Nietzsche however trite). Why trust in the political process at this stage? You want to expedite progress?? Distributive justice?
You want mutha-f-ing real reform? Then like Yippie it, maybe–I don’t care for yippies that much, but perhaps superior to Dinkocrats. Or cap someone, Congressperson, Senator. Executive. Hillary Clinton, taken hostage, decapitated, live from the secret bunker of the Iowa Peoples Front (of just plot idea, Mr Snoop–yeah yr site’s being watched, Father John–probably a Demo snitch).
October 31, 2009 at 2:26 am
You’re right that I don’t liek cynicism any more. I’ve had my share of it.
Cynicism is sort of a grumbly halfway house between flatly giving up, making the inward migration, and expecting the actual worst, and (on the other hand) giving it one last shot. I’ll go one way or the other.
October 31, 2009 at 2:55 am
Inward migration? Like towards ….Gott? Unlikely. Only a desperate Dostoyevsky like faith should be considered–believe if you will, but there’s no Being out there (if there were, he’s synonymous with Evil–or a plurality–pantheism). The peace beyond understanding, and all merely a type of stoicism, I’m quite convinced. Religion’s a type of pathology for most part. Catholic scholarship may be impressive, but they’ve got centuries of corruption, superstition and BS behind them. They specialize in spiritual extortion, as do all monotheists.
I’m tapped out—leave you with the frat boys, dude. And considering resigning from blogdom. ciao
October 31, 2009 at 3:04 am
People are always huffing off on me.
October 31, 2009 at 6:29 pm
But that doesn’t imply supporting the Democrats, Inc.
And yet, in the vast majority of cases in the United States of 2009, it means supporting Democrats.
The Noted Philosopher says:
Elitism, though, is the bedrock foundation of Libertarianism or Naderism – the view that the work of obtaining an electoral majority is trivial or even despicable. Nader even wrote an explicit book-length endorsement of his elitism.
I think the thing that moves hx and others toward authoritarianism is the failure of their elitism. I think what moves the Republicans that way is the success of their elitism. Authoritarianism is the logical next step for both. The small-d democrats have a less viscerally satisfying project, trying to assemble electoral majorities, but it’s pretty much the only project that matters in the end.
October 31, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I try to convince people is that American Democracy has two doors, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. You can try to sneak in through a window or find the service entrance, but that usually doesn’t work.
That’s the two-party system. I don’t like it, but I don’t like a lot of things. You have to deal with it.
Once you get inside one of the doors you have to fight the dragons and (not trolls, but) zombies who have gained control of the door. They aren’t your friends. When you go in the door you aren’t joining them or affiliating with them.
October 31, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Ain’t nuttin’ left but neo-nihilism denn?
November 1, 2009 at 1:48 am
And if Obie lives up to his promise to impoverish the middle class with bank bailouts and healtcare “reform” the “conservative” wish will probably be fulfilled.
I think types who are really enthusiastic for a Palin victory are small in number. The problem is no party wants to take responsibility for the needs of the general public. Therefore people who vote will vote for the candidate that offers anything at all. Professional/managerial class elitism in the case of the Dems and T ‘n A and bigotry in the case of the Reps.
November 1, 2009 at 2:19 am
By the way, regarding the discussion above: it looks to me the Democrats are becoming the party of wealth and power whatever they were previously, a bit like New Labor in UK.
But the Dems appeal at present, and this is borne out by who the initiated party members (at any rate the ones I’m friends with or have encountered) are, seems to be to middle class professionals: doctors, lawyers, professors, art directors, IT managers and to on. I.e., to people who are fairly empowered and generally well-treated by the incumbent regime. There days are numbered of course, increasingly the middle class has to bear the burden of bipartisan rightwing policy.
Finally, I think terms liberal and conservative has lost most of their meaning. And much of the professed liberalism of Democrat types is hypocritical: e.g., the claim to oppose racism but defend racist institutions such as Universities; claim to want to save the planet yet fly everywhere etc. In some was “conservatives” preferable by virtue of being a bit more honest.