The March On Washington And Our National Pastime Of Historical Amnesia

I’m beginning to dread anniversaries. I’m particularly dreading 50 year anniversaries. They seem to be an excuse for hazy remembrance, unjustified back slapping and putting on extra-strength rose colored glasses. The pabulum being pushed out about the March On Washington in all is sanitized and homogenized glory is particularly irksome.

I do not know how much more of this nonsense I can tolerate. The worst part of this exercise it the continued mummification of one of the truly great figures of the late 20th Century, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Yes, he now, like Lincoln, belongs to the ages, however the enshrinement of the man has done a great disservice not only to the man but to the nation.

Look, when the usual gang of idiots on the right side of the political spectrum can cough up the a-hisorical fur ball that Dr. King was a Republican and not be called out on that whopper of a lie, the record must be set straight.

Reverend King was no cuddly teddy bare, he was no sainted martyr preaching peace, love and granola. He was a major thorn in the side of racist, complacent and self-satisfied America. He was a radical who used the tool of non-violent civil disobedience to effect change.

And because of this he was slandered, attacked, and abused; not only by the troglodytes of Dixie but by “reasonable” people in good standing. King was denounced by the good, righteous and practical. He got grilled to no end about being a good for nothing Commie or being at least a Pinko sympathizer. He got spied upon by the Kennedys via J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. He got major flack from the other Negro leaders of the time for going too far, too fast.

If you actually listen to or read that great speech King made half a century ago you can still hear a clarion call, not for mere brotherly love and tolerance, but for radical change. It was call not merely for integration but for transformation, for a more perfect union based on economic, cultural and political justice. It was heady stuff and well outside of the mainstream of status quo America then or now. The Right had a cow, the muddled middle was aghast, and those squishy liberals of the day could barely offer even the most tepid support to the program.

For all of his life Dr. King faced the strong headwinds of what was then called the Establishment. He was at best ignored, or told he was pushing too hard too fast. At worst he was vilified, his life put in real peril. And then there was the attempted blackmail by J Edgar, a black a day in the history of democratic governance as any. The powers that be wanted King gone, they wanted his movement dead and gone. Eventually they got their wish thanks to a racist nobody and scum of the earth whose name will not grace these pages.

So when you read some happy-clappy bit of drivel about The March On Washington, on how much “progress” we have made since then, go back and read the real history, not the mawkish, Disneyfied pseudohistory that has been spoon-fed to you by the usual suspects. Read about the real man and the real philosophy of that man. Read about the challenges he faced and the ever-present danger that was part and parcel not only of his life but every civil rights activist. And yes, read about the all too human foibles and failures of the man; how the high moral tone did not match the sexual appetite. Get the whole narrative, warts and all, because it is only in understanding the temper of the times and the challenges faced does one understand why the March On Washington deserves its iconic status.

It is only then too that we, as a nation, can reclaim our history, the true history, from the sanitized and homogenized fable that has been handed down to us. Real risks were run gentile reader, real danger lurked, real-- neigh ferocious-- opposition, internal as well as external, was faced down and overcome. People where beaten down, some out-right killed in protests similar to this pivotal moment. D.C., lest anyone forget, was very much part of the deep south as Mississippi or Georgia. The message being put out was scandalous, it was dangerous, it challenged the entirety of the status quo, not just Jim Crow. It was not just about little black boys playing with little white girls.The vision of racial, social, and economic justice was the the reason for the final coda of King’s speech. When final justice was achieved, only then could the people, all the people, finally sing “free at last” because only then would they be finally free of all oppression. Only then would they achieve full and meaningful liberation.

If there is anything you take away from this date in history is should be not how far we have gone but the work that still needs doing. Jim Crow, legalized segregation, is dead but his bastard son Jimmy Crow, is thriving:  in gerrymandered congressional districts, voter ID laws, safety net cuts, birtherism and in a thousand other bits of toxic sludge sloshing around the political landscape. Jimmy Crow is ever-present even on the airwaves, actually especially on the airwaves maned by Fox News and the other usual suspects of the WingNut right. The back-patting we are indulging in on this anniversary is way too premature. Time to remember the real call to action. Time to get busy again.

Lier, Lier, Pants on Fire

A devastating  deconstruction by Maddow

The Wheels Fall Off The Bus ... Again.

The results of the February 7th caucuses are in and it was rather grim night for Multiple Choice Mitt. Once again Romney’s position as front runner got dinged.

In any campaign three items are critical for success: funding, organization, and the candidate. Team Romney has no problem with funding nor with the organization; it’s the candidate that keeps falling short. Romney’s latest campaign effort in the caucuses of Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota should have been a walk in the park; instead it was a mugging.

Every time Mittens looks to be building up some momentum, it seems he gets side-swiped. Newt Gingrich acted as a speed bump in South Carolina and now Rick Santorum has stalled Mitt in the latest caucuses. Romney keeps failing with the hard right evangelical voters. Granted, the nomination is still Willard’s to loose, but at times like this, it really does look like he is up to that challenge.

Remember that Santorum was on the wrong end of a eighteen point drubbing that last time he ran in a General. That filthy rich, super organized, Mitt got his head handed to him by such a weak challenger tells you volumes about how vulnerable Romney is. With only a shoestring operation, Santorum was able to strangle Team Romney in three states; not good, not good at all for the Mighty Mormon.

The latest unforced error by the Romney crew must have Establishment Republicans once again reaching for the Maalox. Having just carpet-bombed Newt Gingrich into a smoldering wreck via Super Pac slush funds, the powers that be must once again call in the heavies for a yet another run. This time it will be the sweater-vest wearing candidate with the unfortunate Google result that will be the target for the rolling thunder.

Romney has yet to win a state on his good graces alone. Every victory has been won by grinding his opponent into a fine powder via negative campaigning.  Romney is going to remind the next set of primary and caucus voters of every “interesting” and “offbeat” musing to ever escape the lips of Santorum. We are definitely revisit that whole zoophilia meme that Santorum indulged himself in only a few years back.

In the long run this cannot be good for Mitt, this scorched earth policy with his fellow Republicans. Romney’s negatives have climbed with his negative advertising. Romney was alway going to have a likeability deficit to overcome; he is a very off-putting man.

The preternaturally cold Romney always had problems connecting with the hoi-polloii who found him stiff and unauthentic. With all this bad Karma oozing out of the Republican primary effort, Mitt’s optics have shifted from merely cold, to cold and nasty. The more time Mitt spends clubbing his opponents into submission, the more he looks like one of those mean old Canadians brutalizing doe-eyed baby seals.

Mitt’s nastiness will also inoculate Team Obama against charges of over-the-top brutality. Team Obama will have a wide field to throw the odd elbow against the Mighty Mormon without the ref calling a foul. The 2012 general was always going to be a nasty affair, and Romney keeps on lowering the bar. Obama is going to go all Andrew Golota on Mitt (he has already green lighted Super Pacs to do the dirty deed) and Mitt has provided the cover for the tactic. Sauce for the gander dear reader.

I do wonder if a viable third party will step into this breech and provide a little sanity. I doubt it. Both Mitt and Obama are going to be able to shovel tons of cash into their efforts; how does a true independent counter that? How does that independent get the Corporate Media to pay attention to his or her campaign with Obama and Romney providing endless and pointless gossip for our juvenile journalist to wallow in? After all, that policy stuff is so deadly dull; give us scandal to boost the ratings!

Peel back the petty theatrics and the General still looks the same: two fundamentally weak and compromised candidates who talk past the very public that they are supposed to represent. The president is one of those fundamentally weak and compromised candidates. On the Republican side the choice appears to be the fundamentally weak Romney or the disastrously weak Gingrich or Santorum. This is the best a billion dollar campaign can achieve. That is the state of play; pretty damn pathetic, don’t you think?

Komen, Or How To Napalm A Brand Name Without Really Trying

If you were out on errands, don’t follow the news, or spend most of your day hiding under a rock, you might have missed how the Susan B Komen Breast Cancer Foundation turned one of the great NGO brand names into ashes. It was “interesting” to watch. In one short week Komen went went from pretty in Pink, to black and blue without really trying.

The mess began on December when Komen’s board decided to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood because Congress was “investigating” the reproductive health organization. “Investigation” in this context meant a crank, misogynist, fetus-worshiping, Congressman from the toxic Republican swamps of Dixie bloviating on evil sluts and the abortions they have.

The sex-phobes of anti-abortion movement had managed to move some fifth columnists into Komen organization while others were not paying attention and managed to get the deed done.

The news managed to stay under wraps until the second of February when the PR storm came roaring through like F-5 tornado though a trailer park. To say that Komen had not considered the possible blow-back from their cave to the anti-abortion zealots is to understate the case. The fury unleashed at the Komen cave was immediate and white-hot. A day later Komen was furiously backpedaling.

But the damage was done. With feminist’s antenna furiously waving about for even the slightest possibility of subterfuge, Komen’s mealy-mouthed, we’re not nearly as contrite as we are pretending to be, missive transformed acute fire-breathing rage at the organization, to chronic cold fury.

Komen’s success was always problematic. That little pink ribbon got around a bit too much.  When your brand gets tangled in with fat-pill deluxe (and known carcinogenic agent) Kentucky Fried Chicken, it is time to reevaluate what you are doing. Too much of Komen was tossing its feel good vibes to brands that perhaps should have not been up for consideration. Too much of Komen was the Pink-washing of product. Seriously, what does noted tool watch maker Swiss Army Watch have to do with breast cancer? What does a rather plain, rather ordinary, rather unremarkable, rather blocky, quartz watch have to do with women’s health?

But Komen was a way for many products to link themselves up with women’s health, or to at least be seen as pro-women. Komen was a cheep way (when all things are considered) to pump a little estrogen into the corporate image. And it was this linking with the corporate big-whigs that undermined the organization.

This is not to say that Komen has not done yeoman work in destigmatizing breast cancer, it has. It is to say that by in this laser focus on just one body part, it forgot the person that part happened to be attached to. It forgot that women’s health and women’s bodies are still a battle ground.

That battle ground is fiercely joined below the area of Komen’s concern, below the belt as it were. Women’s control of their sexual agency always bleeds into discussions of women’s health. The minute sex enters the picture, a committed minority of bible-thumping, sex-hating, patriarchal, misogynist, prudes enters the picture; and they are always on the war path.

And because this contingent is always pushing their “no fun allowed” agenda, is always trying to outlaw sex for pleasure, is always looking for sluts to shame, it never stops in its attempts to return women to the state of chattel.  The cover argument is about abortion, that much is true, but don’t be fooled; it’s about sex.

That means that Komen’s attempt to compromise, to cave into anti-sex zealots was bound to fail. Politically it was bound to fail, even if the general public had bought their weasel-worded explanation about Planned Parenthood. The right-wing sex phobes would have demanded a further pound of flesh.

But the cave was transparent, it made zero sense to defund the right-wing’s favorite bug-a-boo, Planned Parenthood. If you want to reach working-class, and other low-income women, you have to go to Planned Parenthood, full stop. To cut out Planned Parenthood is to deny a cohort of women access to screening. It is to condemn them to a painful disfigurement and possible death. It is to violate your very raison d'etre as a women’s health organization. To reach certain women, it’s Planned Parenthood-- or nothing.

People outside Komen understood this. They understood the concession to right-wing zealotry that Komen made. They understood the moral cowardice of the move. They understood the organizational rot that underlaid the decision. They understood how Komen tried to hedge its bets after the push-back from feminists far and wide. The question is does Komen understand? Does it understand how it vaporized the only real thing that matters to an organization like itself--trust?

Without trust, with out the do-good halo, Komen is nothing. It has no value. It has no value as charity, as a way to find a cure for breast cancer. It has no value as a brand; no more pink-washing for you KFC. It has no trust as an organization doing due diligence. It has no trust in its leadership. It has no trust with the Christianist Crazies to stay bought out. No one trusts Komen; its reputation lies in ashes.

What caused this loss of trust is fairly easy to point out: it is the trap of false moderation. That trap is one built by the Neo-Liberals, but operated by the political right. It is the assumption that “truth always lies in the middle.” It is the foolish notion that you can always find a middle ground between self-defined “extremes.” It is the assumption that everything is negotiable, that men and women will always find the correct middle ground via an exchange of ideas. It is as much of an false ideology as the any other. It fails to understand that some things, like unalienable rights, are not up for negotiation. It fails to grasp the notion that once you surrender the right of half the population to control their own bodies; all other bets are off. To put it crassly, there is no way to separate baby making and boobies.

As a organization dedicated to women’s health, and to a specific cancer that ravages only women, Komen has an obligation not only to brutally push-back against anti-abortion zealotry, but also the concomitant Gardicil freak-out by the same people. Komen should also pin the anti-abortion folks to the wall for their outrageous lies about the connection between abortion and cancer. Komen is an education outfit--educate, put out the facts.

Whether Komen likes it not, there is no escaping politics in the highly partisan and politically charged landscape we live in. There is no neutral zone, no safe harbor, there is only the mission; there is only the women they serve.

In the end, to stand for any aspect of women’s health is to stand for women as people of value. It is to say, or at least imply, that women have a right to live happy, healthy lives; that they need not die because a disease afflicts some “shameful” part of their bodies. There are no shameful parts of the body. There is no disease that should be allowed to ravage any women’s body because you have a problem with her having sexual agency. Women’s health should not be held hostage by a small minority of religious fundamentalists, and their foolish obsessions. It’s the cancer stupid.

Breasts Yes, Vaginas No

February 1, 2012 

Amanda Marcotte.

It’s probably the fastest-spreading story in Internet history about the relationship between two non-profits. Late Tuesday afternoon, Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure announced that Komen would be withdrawing grants given to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings. Despite Komen’s lame attempts to claim otherwise, it was widely understood that this was about Komen aligning itself with the anti-choice movement, despite the anti-choice movement’s long history of opposing not just safe and legal abortion, but also access to contraception and even the prevention of cervical cancer through the use of the HPV vaccine. 

Breasts Yes, Vaginas No

Fracas In Florida

With the Florida primaries fast upon us both Willard Romney and Newton Leroy Gingrich all pulling out all the stops. The T.V. Ads are brutal. I pity the poor residents of the Sunshine state because both candidates are bringing on the gloom and doom.

Romney stopped hitting the snooze button and finally bashed the panic button for all its worth. Getting creamed in S.C. can do that to a Republican front-runner. With an new debate coach in hand, the Mighty Mormon came out swinging and rained down blows on the Baron of Bloat. By the end of the debate Newt was staggering around stage, and asking any passer-by if they got the license number of the Mack truck that just ran him over.

After that last debate, many a pundit was declaiming that Newt was “dead.” Such short memories this pundit class. Newt has all the staying power of Dracula in those late 60’s Hammer Film Productions staring Christopher Lee. Drive any amount of steaks into the vampire’s chest, it does no good; he keeps coming back.

God knows the good villagers of the Republican Party elite brought enough crosses, garlic, and enough wood to build a small mansion; all with the intent of making sure Count Newt went down, and stayed down. The powers that be even had Chris Christy attempt to sit on Gingrich, hoping the NJ governor’s shear heft would crush Newt . Still, who knows, it is really hard to kill Newt; because like Spock, he’s been dead before.

Newt died a very ugly political death in the 90’s. Having been played like a five dollar banjo by Bill Clinton, Newt was tossed out on spotted behind by his own Republican caucus. The Republicans had him dead to rights with a ethics violation, and the Democrats will more than willing to toast marshmallows on the flaming bier the House Republicans had built for Gingrich.

All through the late nineties, and the turn of the new millennium, Newt waited; biding his time. He got filthy rich via his “history lessons” to numerous clients, and waited for his main chance. The main chance came this year, when the next guy up for nomination was Mitt Romney. Mitt was so weak that Newt, who started campaigning as way to remind us of who he was (and sell books) became a legitimate possibility for office.

Let me rephrase that, Newt became “legitimate” because he was the last anti-Romney left standing. Santorum had his hiccup in Iowa, but only Newt had the real chance in S.C. Newt, knowing that S.C. Was do or die, dusted off every odd dog-whistle in his collection, and blew each and every one for maximum effect.

Which brings us back to Florida. It is desperation time for both Newt and Mr. Ice. If too cool for school Romney looses Florida, he is in real trouble. His coterie of Establishment  Republicans are going to bail; draft Jeb Bush anyone?A FL victory for Mr. Gingrich turns Mitt from Mr. Inevitable to the Anybody but Newt candidate. Mitt is not very convincing in that roll.

While Republicans are freaking out on the prospect of candidate Gingrich as their standard bearer, what should be their concern is the systemic rot that Newt represents. I am talking about more than just the odd corruption that pay-to-play brings to the table.  I am talking about a more profound rot, a cynical, corrupt, and lazy ideology fueled by hate and bitterness. It is a deeply selfish philosophy, resentful of any attempt to invoke a common cause, a common goal, or even common decency. It is all about my way or the highway, about the domination; the obliteration of anyone who does not look like you or agree with you.

Newt is the logically conclusion to a Republican orthodoxy that only fools, ideologues and cynics can support. Gingrich plugs into the resentful reptile brain of the Republican base. He pugs into the crypto racism, the sexual phobia, the misogyny, the immigrant bashing and patriarchy that are part and parcel of wingnut America. It is ugly stuff, no wonder the elites recoil at the sight of it.

Like it or not, Newton Leroy Gingrich is not the end of this ugliness. This is a systemic problem. Gingrich and the TEA Party are just the same old wine of resentment poured in a new bottle. Even if Gingrich ends in Florida, his legacy will continue. Sooner or later the monster the Republicans built deep in the heart of DIxie will claim its own.

Newt goes nuclear.

Oh my stars and garters! I do believe that Newton is a bit piqued by what that cad Mr. Romney did to him in Iowa. Mercy me all this unpleasantness; it offends my sensibilities. I shall go to my garden, so I may be among beautiful things, and forget such unfortunate matters; be a dear and bring my usual to the gazebo.

The Myth Of JFK And The Beginning Of The Cult Of Personality

I’ve been thinking about JFK. It all began as a sidebar conversation with one of my favorite blog buddies Cujo359. He wondered if the present generation of Kennedy generation was living up to the standards set by the Jack, Joe Jr. , and Ted. This progressed, or perhaps degraded, into a conversation about the relative merits of John F. Kennedy vs. Lyndon Baines Johnson.

It is brutally hard to do an honest accounting of the charismatic and martyred JFK vs the man who succeeded him. LBJ had none of JFK’s charisma, was quite the brutal SOB, and had the extra large albatross of the Vietnam War hanging around his neck. There is not much love for LBJ. Johnson’s legacy is also shorted because he exploited the death, and image, of his predecessor to twist the arms of politicians, and others, into supporting a specific agenda that was all LBJ, all the time. LBJ was quite complacent in the construction of the myth of John F Kennedy, as were others. I’m going to try to put down my flame thrower and attempt to deconstruct that myth, and its very real, very political effects.

There is a reason that I have to proceed with caution. There is a small cottage industry with the only object of buffing up JFK’s image to a lustrous shine. Topmost is the Kennedy clan. JFK is very much their holy relic, their entre’e into politics, and their get-out-of-jail-free card.

But they are not the only people out there constructing the myth. The Media loves the image of JFK. They love pulling the heart strings of the ill and uninformed. They love diving into the warm, deep,waters of Kennedy bathos and nostalgia. It is a sure-fire way of getting high ratings.

Then you have all the retainers and hangers on that surround the Kennedy clan. The actual people who were attached to Jack’s presidency are fading and passing away, but their are plenty of people willing and able to pick up the dropped banners and carry on the cause. Each and every one of these professionals has good reason to keep the myth of JFK alive, and at the forefront of people’s mind.

So what is the cottage industry at? What are they constructing? What is the product they are selling? It’s an image, carefully crafted, expertly preserved, and mostly bunk. It is the image of a young, vital president, dashing, brilliant and progressive. It is an image of a man of political courage. It is an image of man who brought about massive political and social change. It is an image of a champion for Civil Rights, and a champion of the poor and dispossessed. Most of all it is an image of a great life cut short, brutally ended by murder most foul.

Like any good myth, there is a small grain of truth, a core to build on. Jack Kennedy was charming, handsome, dashing and photogenic. He was the first politician who really understood the then new media of television, and exploited it to the hilt. He really knew  how to use the image of his family, the image of him as young Pater Familias, to great effect. But like much of the JFK mystique, the image and the truth of the matter are very different. JFK did have the beautiful wife, and the large brood of children, but the family dynamics were a lot worse than advertised.

I am not going to go into the long, sordid tale of JFK’s numerous infidelities, it is subject that is far too long to relate. JFK followed one of the iron laws of history and biography: men with out-sized charisma, and out-sized egos, have out-sized sexual appetites. There was a pretense of happily married man and wife. This type of hypocrisy was tolerated in the 1960’s. Even today, the visual image of JFK as virile and dedicated family man still trumps the reality of JFK’s serial, and sometimes reckless, sexual affairs.

And since we are, in a way, discussing JFK’s image of virility, now is as good a time as any to drill down into the reality of JFK’s health. Be warned it is not a pretty picture. I really feel for the medical professionals that had to deal with JFK. I also really feel for the patient who those professionals attempted to treat.

If there was one true cross JFK did have to bear, it was his bad health. Where to begin? Do I begin with his war injuries? If so, how deeply do I go in to the symptoms of his ruined back? I’m not going to go too deeply because it is a truly awful thing to contemplate. We are dealing with unbelievable pain and suffering; chronic in nature, with no real end in site. The heavy duty meds Jack was given were only palliative, they temporary eased the pain, but never dealt with the underlying medical issue. There were other work-arounds, other palliative measures, a laundry list actually, but they were equally unsatisfactory. For Jack Kennedy, and many others who shared his type of traumatic back injury, you don’t look forward to a cure to the condition, because the only real cure is the grave.

The back was only one of JFK’s problems. He also suffered from Addison’s disease. As this disease affects the bodies hormone balance, it causes a plethora of symptoms in the sufferer.  Unfortunately for JFK, he had to deal with this disease back in the days when the treatment options were just plain awful. Medicine has advanced since that time, and the management of Addison’s is quantum leaps better. In JFK’s time, the treatment for Addison’s had barely advanced from the stone knives and incantations stage. The health care professionals did the best they could with the tools provided, but JFK was often in ill health.

The contrast between the image of a young vital JFK, and the reality of chronically ill, and often debilitated man could not be more stark; yet we cling to the images of youthful vigor, while ignoring the medical reality. As with so much with JFK, image trumps reality.

Having dealt as best and sympathetically as I can with the actual man; let me attempt to deal with the politician as sympathetically as I can. Be warned though, in attempting any such consideration my default is, “results matter.” The one true light I will follow is what JFK achieved in his own lifetime; in his tragically truncated presidency. I am not going to deal with counterfactuals, with could-of, should-of, would-of. The only honest appraisal of any person, but especially a politician, is what they achieved during their time in office; not what was achieved after the fact.

By this measure I must be honest, it really does not look good for the home team. What JFK actually achieved while alive places him, for the most part, in the presidential category of “above average.” He was brilliant in the Cuban Missile Crisis, avoiding nuclear Armageddon, but domestically he was middling.

Granted I have the advantage of hindsight that JFK did not enjoy, but on the core moral issue of Civil Rights, both Jack an Bobby did not cover themselves in glory. They were an improvement over Ike, a step above, they did move the game forward, but not in the way that is now advertised.

Like Ike, the two brothers were mostly dragged into the Civil Rights struggle by other parties. Let us zero in on the Freedom Rides as a prime example. The brothers did everything in there power to make this issue just go away. In this regard they were not alone. Even Martian Luther King Jr. was initially opposed to the idea of the Freedom Rides. But the movement took a life of its own, and as it progressed the awful images of Freedom Riders being beaten, abused and harassed forced Jack and Bobby to do something. It became a matter of protecting US citizens right to life and limb. Jack and Bobby had to act in the face of Southern attempts to nullify Federal protections.

They did the absolute minimum. JFK and RFK negotiated a peaceful extraction of the first set of Freedom Riders from Louisiana and called it a day. But when the second set of Freedom Riders upped the political pressure, Jack and Bobby finally brought out the sledgehammer of Federal Power. This particular sledgehammer happened to be the ICC, but all the same it got the job done. The segregationists of the south howled in pain, but they were not about to challenge the brute application of Federal prerogatives.

JFK dedication to the advancement of Civil Rights is a fraught subject. He did make motions in that area. He did make incremental gains in Civil Rights during his time in office. Unfortunately, it gets really difficult to measure the real amount of political capital he invested, and was willing to invest, because LBJ muddied those waters so thoroughly after JFK was assassinated.

LBJ flogged the image of the holy, sainted, martyr for the last bit of political advantage possible. JFK might have set up the political chess board of Civil Rights, but LBJ and MLK pushed those pieces around to brutal effect. Both LBJ and MLK were grand masters of that political game. King provided the moral force and the outside agitation, wile Johnson provided the inside game of brow-beating and cajoling the Senate into action. Together they steamrolled the recalcitrant Dixiecrats in the Senate.

I just do not see the partnership of JFK and MLK working in the same way. Even if JFK did bring his A game to the effort, how does a second term of JFK match the first term of LBJ in effectiveness? LBJ had a deep knowledge of the Senate, he had a historic mandate after the1964 election, and he had the image of the martyred JFK to use as a holy talisman. Again, I just do not see either the Great Society, nor the Civil Rights happening as they did without that triple threat that LBJ brought to the political table. I sure do not see JFK racing ahead of MLK the way LBJ did.

I’m sorry this took so long. It has been a very long and twisted shaggy dog story; even for me. I’ll try to drive to end of this narrative as best as I can. History matters gentle reader, you can’t discuss were we are without setting up how we got here. I have spent an inordinate amount of time on the history and biography of JFK, on the chasm between that myth and that reality for a reason. I think that it is with Kennedy that our present toxic cult of personality in politics began. It is in the manipulation of image, the choice of surface over substance, that the John F. Kennedy myth began, that our present political woes find their source.

We have made this choice gentle reader, and we have doubled down on our preference for style over substance every time we, as a nation, have been offered the chance. We did it with Nixon, if barely, accepting a very complex and angry man as a moral defender of a mythical silent majority. We did it, in a way, with Jimmy Carter, thinking that somehow an “outsider” could cure all the ills of a post-Watergate USA. We really went in for myth when we voted for Don Renaldo; the sunny, affable cowboy who would make all things bright and shiny again. What Reagan actually did was a whole different matter, best left for a different discussion. With Pappy Bush, we took a bit of a breather before diving back into the calming waters of myth with the man from Hope. After Bill Clinton departed, we wildly gyrated from the faux cowboy presidency of Bush Jr. , who we could have a beer with, to the professorial Obama, who offered Hope and Change.

It is with Obama we have reached an apex of sorts. The myth of Obama, and the reality of his presidency have been at such odds, that to even contemplate such things brings on nose bleeds. As I would rather not bleed over my keyboard at the moment, I will let that discussion pass for now. I will also leave the epic cult of personality his supporters indulge themselves in for other times as well. Obama did not create the present cult of political personality, as much as he has both exploited it and enlarged it. The cult of personality is quite the 800 pound gorilla, is quite the dangerous, lumbering beast.

It is this tendency toward political cultism that I find so toxic. The willingness of voters to  cling to an image, while ignoring the reality beneath, is distressing. It becomes almost farcical when you look at the present election of 2012. The fluffing up of both WIllard “Mitt” Romney and Barack Obama by their partisans is disconcerting, to say the least. Both these men are ethically challenged empty suites, political operators and hacks. But to their supporters, they walk on water; and possess an overarching  competence that is sadly lacking in reality. It is all smoke and mirrors, and we are without Toto to provide the helpful parting of the curtain.

Sorry, to end on such a down note. Sorry, to end the discussion with such a flame-thrower of invective. Our nation is in a bad way, and our refusal to do the hard work of due diligence with our political class is a big part of why our nation is in such a lamentable state. What to do? What to do?

Primary Realities (Updated @ 13:00 2 Aug 2011)

It has taken some time for the bloom to fall off the rose, but the liberal / progressive base of the Democratic Party is getting restive. The base is spitting mad over what it considers the multiple sins of omission and commission that Barack Obama has committed. There is even talk of a Primary challenge to the President. Nothing in present day politics points out the fecklessness of the Progressive base than this move. 

First there is the unavoidable fact that no Progressive hero is willing to play Saint George to Obama’s dragon. Far too many politicians are like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, more than willing for someone else to take up the good cause, but unwilling to do the deed themselves. One wonders how committed these Progressive stalwarts really are to the one true faith. There seem to be no end of armchair generals, but trigger pullers seem to be thin on the ground.

But this is only the beginning of the inept political gamesmanship of the Progressive base. The supposed goal of a primary challenge is to bring Obama back to the left; to halt his rightward drift. One can only hold their head in their hands to hear such considerations. Lefties; Obama is just not into you, he never was, he never will be. He will give a nice speech, toss the most meager of bones, and then govern right.  If the Progressives continue to act like a jilted girlfriend to Obama’s political Lothario, they will continue to get played.  A temper-tantrum Primary challenge to Obama will only play to the contempt that Obama obviously has for the base.

If you go up against an incumbent President, like Ronald Reagan did, and Ted Kennedy did, you go in to win. You go in to win, and damn the consequences. This is politics 101. The liberal base could not be more incompetent in forwarding its goals to not understand this.  To Primary a President of your own party means you have accepted a “damn the torpedoes” mentality. It means you have had such a break with the leader of your Party, that your only concern is to ruin him or her politically. To put this crudely, the goal of Primarying Obama is not to deliver a slap to the face, but to gut him like a fish. The goal is to put such a hurting on Obama that no future Donkey politician would dare sell out the Democratic base.

The down-side to this is that a Republican Operator may get the gold ring. Shredding Obama may mean eight years of Multiple Mitch Romney in the Oval Office. The hard nut is that the Progressive movement must accept that possible result, and be fine with it; as long as they can mount Obama’s head on their wall. You must accept an Naderite world view to accomplish this. You have to accept the notion that the choices offered by the present political parties are the choice offered a Thanksgiving turkey : slow roasted or deep fried.

A serious Primary challenge to Obama would take a bloody-mindedness that seems lacking in the Progressive contingent. All the political Berzerkers seem to be on the right side of the political spectrum. Progressives make a fetish of their reasonableness. Most times Progressives lose the fight before they have even engaged the massed hoards of the right. Progressives have been a punching bag ever since Ronny Ray-Gun strolled on the political scene. The left have a reputation of folding like origami.

How the left counters this long history of losing their shirts is anybodies’ guess. How they actually manage to get a message out, any message out, in the white noise of the 24 hour news cycle is another issue. The current muddled message has no chance in the he said-she said, brain-dead, narrative the corporate media vomits up as “news.” In the search for ”balance”, corporate news has abandoned any attempt at truth-telling or fact checking. Obama can hippy-punch / liberal bash his opposition in oblivion and not even break a sweat in the present media environment. 

Finally any opponent of Obama, especially from the left, is going to have to deal with the race card. The bitter truth is that if Obama does get into any difficulty from a challenger, he will pull this joker out and play it. His supporters are more than willing to play racial politics. The only way to counter such a play is to call BS. The only response to the charge is to perform an act of political jiu-jitsu; to show how the charge of racism is act of political bad faith. Such political messaging will take nerves of hardened steel. Bill Clinton is something of a template with his Sister Soldier moment. Of all the political bear traps out there, the issue of race will be the hardest to deal with for any opponent of Obama. There is enough real race-based animosity hurled at Obama for his supporters to use as a bogus charge of racism against a challenger from the left. The challenger will have to keep hammering away on core economic issues and core entitlement programs that Obama is trying to undercut, and how that relates to the lives of African-Americans to the point of nausea and beyond.  That opponent will have to do that in full knowledge that they might only secure a minority of the minority for their troubles. While support for Obama has fallen to 50% among African-Americans, the bitter truth is that it is still much easier for Obama to coax this cohort back home, than for an opponent to persuade them to cut the apron strings.

Obama probably knows all of this; which is why he has no obvious concern about a challenge from the left. The talk of a challenge is just that: talk. Obama is fully aware of how feckless and clueless his left wing opponents are; and how easy it is to logroll them. The summer of Progressive discontent may just melt away like a ice cream scoop on a hot August day. There really is no political downside for Obama in shafting the Democratic Party core, time and time again. For there to be a down side that base has got to go at Obama with political murder in its eyes. It has to make clear that you do not cross the base without an expert, well provisioned team of Sherpas, and purpose built equipment. The present chatter by Bernie Sanders et al is worse than useless; it is further proof of political incompetence from the left.

Taylor Marsh 02 August 2011 at 12:43 pm 

No one will challenge Pres. Obama, from the left. There’s not enough money to make it worth it, because Obama’s corporate fluffers are filling his 2012 war chest, which will dwarf the GOP’s candidate. However, outside groups like Rove’s will make up the difference, so the big two will be equal players.

But the progressive movement, though I’m not among this brave band, is really up against it. They’ve been humiliated and put down, not only by Obama & Democrats, but by the Tea Party, who stood up and got a lot, even though they’re not happy either.

Unease and disgust are the words for anyone in politics today.

But it is going to be very interesting how progressives react and what they do.

spincitysd 02 August 2011 at 3:45 pm 

Yes there is that whole money thing. Any political actor must understand how corrupt the US political system has become.

Far too many people bought the myth of Barack Obama hook line and sinker and did not bother to figure out where the money was coming from. How does a political Tabula Rosa, with only two years in the Senate raise the doe-ray-me to swamp Team Clinton in a sea of cash? How does Obama find the geld to out spend the Arkansas political Tag-Team champions in Primary after Primary? Small contributions via the net? Not bloody likely boys and girls. But what a smoke screen for putting even the most cynical observers into a confused state. Still, the fact that a Democrat had more money to spend than the Republican nominee should have been a huge, red, flashing light. When does any Democrat worth the name have more campaign funds than even the most hopeless of Republicans? Follow the money, it is even more important now than it was in the days of Watergate.

I have no idea what the Progressives will do, I only know what they need to do if they want to become relevant. First and formost they have to own up to the facts on the ground. Progressive need to understand that they are the only true opposition party out there. They have to own that idea; accept that Obama is not now, nor never has been one of them. They have to accept the fact that they are way out in the cold and it is a long, tough slog back to power. They have to understand that it is the economy stupid; that power and wealth is concentrating into the hands of the hyper-rich. If there is going to be any push back to the new aristocracy of wealth, Progressives cannot shy away from class conflict, they have to understand that the New Robber Barons are not asking or giving any quarter.

Progressives also have to understand that their only option is developing a grass roots organizational response. It is the Howard Dean, nuts and bolts, long game that has to be played. And it will be a very long game indeed, because the left is at zero, a non-player. Progressives have to understand they are starting from scratch and plan accordingly.

That means building up an entirely new organization. It may mean abandoning the Donkey Party the same way the Republicans abandoned the Whig party so long ago. People on the left have to understand what a fools game the present political duopoly is. There are no bargaining chips for lefties in the Democratic Party; only wooden nickels.

Success for Progressives, if it comes at all, will come from the grunt work of the grass roots. Victory, if it comes at all, will come from the depth and breadth of the organization, not from some “transformational” personality. There is no substitue for spade work in politics; organise or perish. A strong organization will create is own leaders. A weak organization will allow a faceless wonder to helicopter into leadership, Either inside or outside the Democratic Party, the left has got get its act together, it has to get down into the weeds of practical politics, of building a movement.

How the left manages to do this, how it regains its confidence after decades of self-flagellation and self-hatred is a mystery. But the left has got to get over its funk about the Nixon-Reagan political triumph. Self doubt is both pointless and counter-productive.

The nation needs a confident and scrappy left political movement to maintain long term political health. We have spent far too much time in the politics of memory; far too much time in reaction. The body politics needs hope again. Whether is gets that hope is another story. Maybe that is why ” Unease and disgust are the words for anyone in politics today.”

think08 02 August 2011 at 11:05 pm 

Despite the verbosity of this post, the points are all pretty obvious. You don’t think progressives have considered these things, and have many times before? We need to be cautious who falls into the Progressive tank, because many who call themselves Progressive supported Edwards, Clark, and then Obama. Not particularly progressive candidates. Many of us real progressives figured out day 1 that Obama wasn’t one of us. At this time, there are many who feel quite comfortable in letting Obama go to the wolves, when it’s much more important to get Dems in both houses, and let a Romney win the White House. If you haven’t noticed, Obama is a Republican, and there won’t be a lot of difference anyway, so I think Progressives have figured out that they are more than willing to let the fake Dem go, and deal with that just fine thank you.

spincitysd 03 August 2011 at 12:33 am 

While the few and the proud sniffed out Obama as a Rockefeller Republican, or worse, at the beginning, far too many on the left are still in denial.

I still don’t think people understand how deeply down the Rabbit hole goes Think 08. Electing Donkeys is not the answer because the Democratic Party is no longer the Party of FDR, HHH, Harry Truman, or Ted Kennedy. The Democratic Party is Barack Obama, deal with it. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. If lefties stay with the Donkeys they will somehow have to clean out the rot that has taken over the Party of Jefferson. That is a huge job. That is primary challenge after primary challenge after primary challenge on every level of the electoral process. That is a lot of political guerrilla theater.

I like your handle Think 08, and I truly hope you do think this one out. The corporate take over of the political process is a done deal, we really do have to think of how we, the people, get ourselves out of this mess. We get the government we deserve Think 08, and that is worst part of what happened in the debt debate; we deserved this epic shafting.

The Curious Case Of The Tweeting Twit.

Well, that was fun wasn’t it? A Congress-critter got run out of DC because he got a little too frisky on Twitter. Who knew that virtual sex could get you into bigger trouble than the real thing? DC was shocked, shocked I tell you, that this kind of thing was going on. Obviously nothing was learned from the paging DC Pages scandal that sunk the career of Mark Foley. That Internet thingy can get you into so much trouble, especially them sociable  networks.

In many ways the whole Weiner affair is a snapshot of our present obsessions. There are so many strands that bare investigation. There is the celebritization of our politics that began with JFK and just took off since Reagan. Modern politicians have to be media savvy and the best are rock stars in there own right. Barack Obama was definitely the rock star pol in the 2008 election, and Anthony Wiener also generated media heat every time he spoke.

While Politicians may love the free publicity that celebrity brings them, it seems they have not adjusted to the Paparazzi downside. They forget that being a media star means you live in a fish bowl. It means you have no secrets.

Weiner’s predilections set him up for a fall, there is no way he would have not been found out. Once found out, he would become a victim of the hyper-partisan politics that infest our nation. We have become a nation of two distinct teams: the Reds and the Blues. In many ways it is eerily the same as ancient Byzantium, and the chariot races of the 4^th century. Back then it White and Red, with occasional rioting in the streets. Today the loyalties are just as fierce, but with less rioting. It was disconcerting to see how quickly the Weiner affair broke out into a Red-Blue food fight. 

The Red Team smelled blood in the water and kept plugging away. They were helped by yet another obsession of our time, the desire for instant fame, or at least notoriety.  It was amazing to see the number of women more than willing to admit they had scored a IM photo of the good Congressman’s junk. By the end of the fiasco it felt that the number of women involved could have populated a small town.

Wanting to change the discussion, and more than willing to cut the limb that Wiener had climbed out, the Democratic Leadership spared no time in condemning Wiener and demanding his head. And that is yet another thread that bears looking at: the cowardice of our political class, especially those who claim to be Democrats. The Democrats cower before the Republican Party and their demands. The Republicans cower before the far-right Wing-Nuts of the TEA Party. No one wants to fight the crazy. Both parties are knee-deep in corruption, bought and paid for by big business. It is a long, long, long way from “Profiles in Courage.”

Is it any wonder that the general public is turned off by politics? Even if you look at the supposed “issues” that tighty-whitey-gate brought up, we can not even be serious about that. The Republicans much rather get their undeserved Puritanism on than deal with substantive issues, and the Democrats are basically whining about how unfair this was. Two major issues got lost in all the posturing. 

First,  the actual Twittering was not as “harmless” as lefties would like to claim. There is the issue that Weiner was trying to push his junk on women who had no interest in it. There is a name for this, for unwanted sexual advances, for making every discussion toward the opposite (or same) sex about purulent matters: its called sexual harassment.  There is a very good chance, if the allegations are true, that Weiner did sexually harass quite a few female twitters.  How, in Weiner’s mind, “I love your politics,” became “I want to see pictures of your junk,” is a mystery that may never be solved. That Weiner may have been engaging in multiple instances of sexual harassment kills the arguments that this was harmless and nobodies business. It is our business when a public official sexually harasses multiple citizens over a any amount of time.

Second there was the attempt by Weiner to encourage several witnesses to withhold evidence. This again proves the Nixonian meme that is never the crime that gets you, but the cover up. Whatever one thinks of the sexual harassment angle, it is next to impossible to ignore the charge of Obstruction of Justice as it applies to Weiner. 

As much as Progressives want to defend Anthony Weiner because of his outspoken support for left-of-center ideas, in the end he became too much of an issue to talk about the issues.  In a culture that has great difficulty doing any kind of nuance at all, how does one separate the issues of Weiner’s self-indulgent narcissism from the issues of political importance? As supposed members of the reality based community, Progressives have avoided the ugly reality of Weiner’s obsessions. Weiner was taking some big, foolish, dumb, risks with his sextexting and he was most likely taking other big, foolish, dumb, risks in other portions of his personal and political life. As much as it hurts to say this, Weiner had a date with a brick wall at high speed, and there is not much that could have changed that destiny. 

Whine if you must about Weiner being tossed under the bus, he made the job of the dithering Democratic leadership all too easy. Craven cowardice and self-loathing do  seem to be the default among the Donkey set. Any person who breaks that mould becomes an almost instant hero for Progressives. But as a recovering Edwards supporter I can tell you that you have to choose your heros wisely. Knights in shining armor never show up for election cycles. 

If Edwards was not enough of an object lesson, the election of Barack Obama should have drilled the lesson home; hero-worship is a bad way to choose a leader. This supposed knight in shining armor, Obama, turned out to be riding a flea-bitten creature rescued at the last minute from the knackers. His armor turned out to be nothing more than a collection of rusted-out beer cans held together with bailing wire and bubble gum. He was elected as a transitional leader, the new Aaron who would lead us out of the desert, and to the promised land. What he turned out to be was a Rockefeller Republican with the soul of a CPA. Instead of transition, we got transaction. Instead of bold leadership, we got an empty suite that had an even emptier head attached to it. Instead of a hero, we got a zero. 

And since we are speaking of zeros we can come back to Anthony Weiner; now an ex-congressman. I will miss the bold politician that was willing to tweak the nose of the DC establishment. I will not miss the self-absorbed, self-destructive man who tweeting his junk to anyone remotely interested in seeing it ( and to a few people who claim they were not interested in seeing it.) We do need Progressive leaders, and the first qualification has to be a modicum of self-control. There is a difference between being bold and being a bozo. Anthony Weiner crossed that line on a rocket sled. Is it any wonder that he crashed and burned?

The Message and The Messenger

Forgive me for beating this dead horse, but I am not quite done with the spectacular fall of Johnny Reid "John" Edwards. As the only politician who had the guts to talk about the reality of our two Americas, one for the hyper rich elite, the other for the rest of us, I miss him to the point of night sweats. Not being able to see into the mans heart, I cannot guess to his sincerity on this subject. Was One America all smoke and mirrors; like Hope and Change?

Oddly enough there are plenty of commentators on the inter-webs that have been gifted with the talent to X-ray into the soul of Edwards. Oddly enough they all proclaim his concern for the working class a fraud. And this is just the beginning of their spittle-flecked ramblings about the man. By the time these good people are done with their discourse about Johnny-Boy you are forced to conclude that he is the spawn of Satan or at least a lesser demon of Hell.

This level of hostility to a failed politician is odd, even for a Democrat. Edwards gets slammed for his metrosexual good looks, the fact that he was a trail lawyer before entering politics, and his populist messaging. Even now, when he has performed the most epic political face plant of last twenty years, and perhaps more, some people cannot let go. Why?

It must be that, for all his faults, and for whatever reason, Edwards hit a nerve.That Populist message of his was hitting a little too close for comfort, it was hitting a nerve. People whose politics are invested in increasing the economic divide, in increasing the gap between the economic winners and losers, cannot spare the vitriol when it comes to Edwards. It is vitally important for them that Edwards failings as a human being, which were legion, be attached to his ideology. 

The idea of One America, that we are our brothers keeper, that economic justice is necessary for America to stay America, is an anathema to Edwards haters. It is never sufficient for these people to just attack Edwards, or his moral failings. It is essential to prove that Edwards was never serious about One America in first place. It is essential that One America was never a serious proposal, period. 

In reading the flow of bile pouring forth from Edwards-phobs, the presumption of free market uber alles is never far from the surface. The lock-step dedication to economic laissez faire notions favored by libertarian propeller-heads is not hard to discern. It is not necessary for one to be a Ayn Rand loving, Tea Party mau-mauing, ditto-head to dislike Edwards. It is not necessary to be dye-in-the-wool Right-Wing Republican troll, but it certainly helps.

Maybe I’m projecting here, but it seems if you just scratch the surface, you will find genuine fear from political conservatives that Edwards’ ideas might just catch on. What will the right-wing fear mongers do if the working class actually starts acting as a cohesive class? What to do if Joe and Jane Six-Pack stop being distracted by social issues, and start following the money? What happens if the working class, and the middle class, focus on Bill Clinton’s message of, “ its the economy stupid?”

As Amanda Marcotte pointed out, the real danger that Edwards presented to the status quo was that his liberal populism was a direct counter to the conservative populism that is running rampant over the political landscape. Much of the beat-down Edwards is getting is to ensure there is no challenge to the triumph of conservative populism / TEA Party extremism. That way the concentration of wealth can continue unabated, and Social Conservatives can get their Authoritarianism on. 

So wither the message now? With Edwards down and out for the count, is there any politician of note willing to pick up the amor that Johnny-Boy left scattered about after he fell off the cliff? Is there anyone out there? Anthony Wiener? Oops, I see that he has small problem with his twitter account and is not available for the foreseeable future. Anyone else? Perhaps a member of the fairer sex, as all the male progressive politicians seem to have problems with their little heads short-circuiting their big heads? 

As the Edwards saga plays out, I keep reevaluating who he was and what he did. His candidacy did get both Barack Hopey-Change Obama and Our Most Sacred Lady of the Tastefully Appointed Pant-Suite to get serious about health care reform. But seeing how Idiot Big Ears botched the actual enactment of that program, I can’t say I’m that thrilled with the results. We wanted Health Care reform. What we got was Health Insurance reform. We got something to the right of Dick Nixon’s bright idea back in the 1970’s and called it “progress.” We got a Republican idea in good standing, that the Elephants then demanded be repealed immediately. Still without Edwards' prodding, we might not have even gotten this soup sandwich of “reform.”

I cannot blame Edwards for the epically corrupt way D.C. does business these days. Any politician in the Presidency would have an uphill climb to counter the dirty way D.C. conducts its affairs. My problem with Obama is the man does not even try to counter the dirty deeds done dirt cheep business model, he just goes with flow, further enabling and entrenching the corruption. It may be good politics, but it is rotten policy. 

Still, who knows what betrayals Edwards would have envisioned if he had managed to keep his monster in his pants, and gained the top prize? How much of the Populist Edwards was a construction? More to the point,  how much of it was a construction of Elizabeth Edwards? With Edwards in re-elect mode, and his wife no longer present, what compromises would Edwards envision? Having been badly burned by the reality of Edwards, and his epic narcism, I am unwilling to give him too much latitude as how he would have behaved in this mythical present construction. Even for a supporter like me, Edwards’ stock is in the dirt, and not likely to come back up.

Edwards the messenger may no longer carry much weight, but that does not go for the message. For this nation to succeed, for it to truly climb out of the hole it has dug itself, there has to be some politician willing carry that message, that idea, of One America. The continued hollowing out of the middle class is dangerous to Democracy. It is ultimately dangerous to the very people who are carrying it out. I am not saying this as a dyed-in-the-wool, peace-love-and-granola, hippy-dippy, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart lefty, but as a student of history. If we continue on the path we are on, revolution is inevitable. I’m not talking in the hackneyed sense that the yammering elites of the media class are want to talk, not one bit. I am talking in the historical sense, in the sense of the French or Mexican Revolutions, where lots of people ended up seriously and prematurely dead. In a nation where there is one gun for almost every person, the violence, if it gets to that point, will be stupefying. 

It won’t be the mythical class war that right-wing pundits love to yammer about, but the real deal--which is a much uglier thing. The rural, right-wing, racist yahoos that run the Republican Party these days may be all for this, theoretically. They might be all gung-ho for the big get even, for the all-out race war of their fantasy; right up to the point where the reality of the situation comes right up to their faces, and literally guts them. As they slowly bleed out, they might reconsider what a bad idea this was; but maybe not. The unbearable pain of evisceration does have a tendency to block out all other thoughts that are not connected to central theme of ,“Sweet Jesus, stop the pain!”

Unlike the right wingers, I am not willing for the nation to devolve into the dystopia of out-right class war. I have read enough history to know that revolution is never what you think it will be. Revolutions, by their nature, are chaotic. The losses that flow from revolutions never justify the gains. Real revolution, is horror, and pain, and dislocation, and utter madness. Only fools and ideologues ( which is pretty much the same thing) root for violent revolution.

Unfortunately we seem to be chock-a-block with willing fools these days. Far too many are far too willing to indulge in tribalism, to my way or the highway, to eliminationism, to bigotry, to homophobia, to immigrant bashing, to misogyny, to all types of petty hatreds. 

For them, the unity John Edwards proposed is blasphemy. For them, there is only Social Darwinism. For them, there are only winners and losers. For them, it is winner take all, and screw everyone else, especially if the else is not a white male. In there love of the mythical John Galt, they have no end of hatred for the real John Edwards. There seems to be no shortage of little men and little women who are willing accomplices in the plutocrats grand design to turn  99% of the population into destitute surfs. Economic slavery is ok by these minions, as long as they get to be overseers on the plantation. 

I have no idea how the politics of fear, division and corruption will rule this nation. I have no idea how long the populace will continue to trade illusionary security for real freedom. I don't even know if Johnny Reid Edwards would have even attempted to change this process once he gained the White House. Before he became a populist, Edwards was a very solid DLC donkey of the South. 

It was this supposed Southern Connection that was to be Edwards strength. Mudcat Sanders was more than willing to blather on to anyone who showed any interest how Edwards was the man to bring back the Bubba vote. I never had much faith in that narrative. My biased guess is that Dixie will not come back into play for the Donkeys until present demographic changes further play out. 

Edwards supposed strength may never had existed in the first place. Far too many of the people, especially in the South, were far too willing to buy into the meme of Edwards being a sissy "Breck Girl" and ignore his economic message. They appeared to more than willing to go whole hog for the big fat lie of the $400.00 haircut. 

The real problem here is that the politics of personality, the politics of celebrity, has drowned out all other considerations. John Edwards, light-weight, self-indulgent, narcissist that he proved to be, really was a the wrong man to move forward the message of left-progressive economic populism. But then who would be viable candidate? Any man or woman who qualifies to run as a serious candidate for President will always have mountains of baggage that the trolls can rummage through. 

And even if there is nothing there, the right will just make crap up. Republicans have perfected the dark art of the bald-face lie. Every Democratic nominee since McGovern has had to deal with utter bunk charges; with deep, dark, obvious lies during their campaign. The election of Barack Obama has only made this awful situation worse. In this regard we are own worst enemy. As long as we treat our electoral process with the same lack of seriousness we treat American Idol, we will continue to have clown-car elections. 

The petty politics of personal deconstruction will continue as long as we continue to treat our elections the same way we used to treat runs for high school student council. We have to separate the message from the messenger. We have to treat our elections with the seriousness they deserve.