![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labingiThe latest issue of Newsweek (Dec. 28-Jan 4) beautifully encapsulates the bizarro parallel universe of American politics I find myself puzzling today. Time was, I knew what was going on: the “evil” people (about 80% in the Beltway) were in charge, and then there were a few, like Kucinich and, yes, Obama, quietly crying sensible things into the wind. Now, I’m inhabiting a county where “health care reform” means forcing Americans to pay exorbitant amounts of money to private corporations (a plan Reagan Republicans would have joyously rubbed their hands over), and its imminent passage is hailed as a “Democratic victory,” whilst the Republicans rail that the plan is far too liberal???...?
Now, it’s one thing for politicians to behave in a way that’s corrupt and/or ridiculous. It’s another to flaunt it in a national magazine. What amazes me about this issue of Newsweek is not what’s going on but how openly the falderal is advertised, starting with the issue’s title “How They See It: People Who Matter on What Matters Most.” “People who matter,” you know, as opposed to all the those “we the people” people, who haven’t mattered a jot for years.
On with the fun: Henry Kissenger and Hilary Clinton jointly interviewed in a conversation that consists mostly of variations on “Henry has it exactly right,” and “Hilary’s correct.” Kissenger opines re. Afghanistan and Iraq, “We have to start with the assumption, obviously, that whatever administration is conducting a war wants it to end.” (“Right,” interjects Clinton.) Kissenger: “I take it for granted that the administration wants to end it as quickly as possible. Why would they not?” (p. 49)
Well, how about because the military-industrial complex is a multi-trillion dollar institution that would put billions toward ruining the careers of anyone who tried, an institution the diminution of which would not only cost a lot of jobs but, more importantly, severely damage the stock portfolios of most members of our government? Come on, Henry (and Hilary), this is Politics 101. You know this.
Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary on why people don’t believe the US is recovering economically despite “[GDP] growth... stronger and better than we expected, and the dramatic improvement in the strength of the financial system...” (51). Apparently, “[The rise of unemployment is] hugely consequential, because it’s the prism through which most people view basic economic health” (p. 52). Poor Timothy: what’s he to do with these plebian ignoramuses who believe that just because they have no money for rent, heat, food, or medicine that means the economy is crap? Yes, Timothy, darn yes, the ability to pay your bills is the “prism” through which most people view economic health, as well we should. Indeed, the only other “prism” I can imagine that might have any real validity would be ecological health. We haven’t had that for many and many year, of course. (Nor, of course, does it feature in Tim’s interview.)
Nancy Pelosi, liberal hero, on the 2010 election: “We will be fine. We have great candidates. I am constantly raising money” (p. 67). Long gone are the days when politicians would hesitate to confess in a major national magazine that they “constantly” spend their time working on buying the next election.
Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s friend, on how Obama feels about living the White House. Dear Editors, is there any reason I should care?
There were redeeming points in this issue, however. Fareed Zakaria and David Petraeus both managed to present themselves as intelligent men. Zakaria used words like “Pashtun,” “Sunni,” and “Musharraf,” and Petraeus, bless him, responded in a way that suggested he knew what these words mean. The feeling of warm affection for them that this gave me says something in itself about my expectations of American discourse.
To sum it all up, Bill Maher (liberal commentator) being interviewed by Joe Scarborough (conservative commentator). Observe how dang much they agree about:
Joe: If the president ends up supporting a health-care-reform bill that doesn’t contain a public option..., will progressives have been betrayed or abandoned by the Democratic Party running Congress?
Bill: I think that we were abandoned by the Democratic Party years and years ago. (p. 74)
Joe: (paraphrased: how could Obama so quickly have offended so many?)
Bill: That’s a good question. I’ve heard you ask that on your show. There is no good answer.... So, you know, I hate to say it, but I agree with your boy Pat Buchanan. If Obama was in Congress still, he would have been against the troop buildup in Afghanistan (p. 74-75).
Joe: Don’t you think the president could unite progressives and conservatives... by actually having the courage to stand up to the generals and say, “You have 18 months and no more [before bringing home the troops]”?
Bill: Well, yes (p. 75).
Joe: (paraphrase: the two parties always blame each other.)
Bill: Right. I hear you....
Joe: Right. So how do we step back from that? Is it possible?
Bill: That’s the $64,000 question... (p. 75).
See, here’s the thing: in today’s America, ideological progressives and ideological conservatives actually do agree about a lot: the deficit is too high, spending is out of control, we need tort reform, we should be generating new (and why not green?) jobs and industries, states should be allowed to fix their own health care systems without Federal interference. These people are simply not in Congress (or they make up about 15%). Instead, we have Democrats (i.e. neo-cons) and Republicans (i.e. more radical neo-cons).
Finally, Maher on why Obama continues to prolong the war: “I have no idea what his thinking is” (p. 74).
You and me both, Bill. (Well, see military-industrial above but.... Really? Obama...? Really...?)
Now, it’s one thing for politicians to behave in a way that’s corrupt and/or ridiculous. It’s another to flaunt it in a national magazine. What amazes me about this issue of Newsweek is not what’s going on but how openly the falderal is advertised, starting with the issue’s title “How They See It: People Who Matter on What Matters Most.” “People who matter,” you know, as opposed to all the those “we the people” people, who haven’t mattered a jot for years.
On with the fun: Henry Kissenger and Hilary Clinton jointly interviewed in a conversation that consists mostly of variations on “Henry has it exactly right,” and “Hilary’s correct.” Kissenger opines re. Afghanistan and Iraq, “We have to start with the assumption, obviously, that whatever administration is conducting a war wants it to end.” (“Right,” interjects Clinton.) Kissenger: “I take it for granted that the administration wants to end it as quickly as possible. Why would they not?” (p. 49)
Well, how about because the military-industrial complex is a multi-trillion dollar institution that would put billions toward ruining the careers of anyone who tried, an institution the diminution of which would not only cost a lot of jobs but, more importantly, severely damage the stock portfolios of most members of our government? Come on, Henry (and Hilary), this is Politics 101. You know this.
Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary on why people don’t believe the US is recovering economically despite “[GDP] growth... stronger and better than we expected, and the dramatic improvement in the strength of the financial system...” (51). Apparently, “[The rise of unemployment is] hugely consequential, because it’s the prism through which most people view basic economic health” (p. 52). Poor Timothy: what’s he to do with these plebian ignoramuses who believe that just because they have no money for rent, heat, food, or medicine that means the economy is crap? Yes, Timothy, darn yes, the ability to pay your bills is the “prism” through which most people view economic health, as well we should. Indeed, the only other “prism” I can imagine that might have any real validity would be ecological health. We haven’t had that for many and many year, of course. (Nor, of course, does it feature in Tim’s interview.)
Nancy Pelosi, liberal hero, on the 2010 election: “We will be fine. We have great candidates. I am constantly raising money” (p. 67). Long gone are the days when politicians would hesitate to confess in a major national magazine that they “constantly” spend their time working on buying the next election.
Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s friend, on how Obama feels about living the White House. Dear Editors, is there any reason I should care?
There were redeeming points in this issue, however. Fareed Zakaria and David Petraeus both managed to present themselves as intelligent men. Zakaria used words like “Pashtun,” “Sunni,” and “Musharraf,” and Petraeus, bless him, responded in a way that suggested he knew what these words mean. The feeling of warm affection for them that this gave me says something in itself about my expectations of American discourse.
To sum it all up, Bill Maher (liberal commentator) being interviewed by Joe Scarborough (conservative commentator). Observe how dang much they agree about:
Joe: If the president ends up supporting a health-care-reform bill that doesn’t contain a public option..., will progressives have been betrayed or abandoned by the Democratic Party running Congress?
Bill: I think that we were abandoned by the Democratic Party years and years ago. (p. 74)
Joe: (paraphrased: how could Obama so quickly have offended so many?)
Bill: That’s a good question. I’ve heard you ask that on your show. There is no good answer.... So, you know, I hate to say it, but I agree with your boy Pat Buchanan. If Obama was in Congress still, he would have been against the troop buildup in Afghanistan (p. 74-75).
Joe: Don’t you think the president could unite progressives and conservatives... by actually having the courage to stand up to the generals and say, “You have 18 months and no more [before bringing home the troops]”?
Bill: Well, yes (p. 75).
Joe: (paraphrase: the two parties always blame each other.)
Bill: Right. I hear you....
Joe: Right. So how do we step back from that? Is it possible?
Bill: That’s the $64,000 question... (p. 75).
See, here’s the thing: in today’s America, ideological progressives and ideological conservatives actually do agree about a lot: the deficit is too high, spending is out of control, we need tort reform, we should be generating new (and why not green?) jobs and industries, states should be allowed to fix their own health care systems without Federal interference. These people are simply not in Congress (or they make up about 15%). Instead, we have Democrats (i.e. neo-cons) and Republicans (i.e. more radical neo-cons).
Finally, Maher on why Obama continues to prolong the war: “I have no idea what his thinking is” (p. 74).
You and me both, Bill. (Well, see military-industrial above but.... Really? Obama...? Really...?)
