![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 12th, 2008
Neoliberalism: no thank you!
Jun. 12th, 2008 07:39 pmThere is a reason I refer to Barack Obama as "the George W. Bush of the left" - because it's true. 2000 and 2008 have become frighteningly similar as far as the political atmosphere goes...only those playing the roles have changed. Obama claims to be a uniter, but is clearly a divider (black vs. white, young vs. old); Bush claimed to be a uniter but was a divider (neocon vs. traditional Republicans and liberals). Obama has amassed a cult-like following who refuse to question him and who systematically attack any who do ("you're racists"); Bush amassed a cult-like following who refused to question him and who systematically attacked anyone who did ("you're unpatriotic"). Obama is seen as the "cool" guy who you'd want to hang out with for dinner; Bush was seen as the "cool" frat-boy you'd want to have beers with. Obama is running on a resume that is sorely wanting, his candidacy propped up by powerful political insiders (the Chicago Combine); Bush ran on a sorely wanting political record, his candidacy propped up by powerful political insiders (the Bush family). Obama is in the process of stealing the Democratic nomination; Bush stole the Presidency.
As time wears on and this election season grows more absurd, I am wondering if we are witnessing an attempted coup d'etat of the Democratic Party. Much like neocons took control of the Republican Party, are we now seeing a rise in neoliberalism? Of course, we all know that neoconservatism has absolutely no base in the politics of people like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and thus far, I have seen no evidence that neoliberalism takes any leads from the politics of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.
Also, such a coup is doomed to fail because Democrats are like cats: we don't like "falling in line" and we refuse to be shoved around. RiverDaughter frames it like this:
What we have here is Movement Obamaism, no less destructive to the Democratic party than Movement Conservatism was to the Republican party. It is an amalgamation of different factions that does not have core Democratic principles as its center. What it looks like to the typical Democrat, that loyal party stalwart, is a takeover. I don’t think Obama or his enablers would disagree with this. But they have picked the wrong party. Their analysis of demograhic trends may show younger people as considerably more tractable and more enthusiastic about following RULZ, but these people do not typically join the Democratic party. There is a reason why we have a two party system. The Republicans are into maintaining the status quo, evolving slowly, uniformity, discipline and party above individuality. The Democrats are more like the G*d Damn Independents, free thinkers who come together around their principles, not mandates. Coming together for us can not be forced. It must be based on consensus.
That is not what we have witnessed this year. What we have seen is heavy-handed, Republican inspired authoritarian tactics applied to OUR party. It was as if Dean, Axelrod, et al had a meeting and concluded, “Well, it worked so well for the Republicans, let’s see if it works on the Democrats!” The results have been predictable. The party is roughly split in half with the slightly larger half going to the losing candidate. That is the true Democratic party. Right now, they have been betrayed. They always knew that there was skullduggery but never have they seen it displayed so obviously and against themselves. And the superdelegates who were created to prevent this kind of thing from happening are going along to get along.
The party has betrayed us. It has sought to manipulate us and when that didn’t work, it used brute force. The party and its presumptuous nominee are failures. They miscalculated, cynically using the tools of authoritarianism against us and we will have none of it.
In other words, Party Unity My Ass.
