Huge Disappointment - Democratic Underground

McCamy Taylor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Dec-03-09 08:43 PM
Original message

Huge Disappointment

George's short-lived fantasy of taking over the party and remolding it in his own image had withered and died in the five short months since Miami. Now the old boys were back in charge.

Hunter S. Thompson Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72

Tell me about it. I’ve been a U.S. citizen for 50 years. That is half a century of disillusionment with all our presidents, including the ones who belong(ed) to my party. Jack Kennedy started it back in 1963 by getting killed. It was the first---and last---time I ever saw my ex-Marine father cry.

A few years later, LBJ blew it all----the Civil Rights Act, the War on Poverty, Medicare---by getting the country stuck in a war that made lots of cents for his long time financial backer Brown & Root, but no sense for the United States of America. His announcement that he would not seek re-election was another one of those worst of times moments, followed by the double assassinations of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy and culminating in the election of Richard Nixon on a campaign of “four years is enough” to end the War.

Four years and two illegal incursions into other southeast Asian countries later, Nixon was re-elected. Yes, I know Nixon represented the enemy party, but I can’t hate him. His CREEPy campaign tricks were the best thing he ever did for America, since they showed folks that Washington was a sewer and politicians ought not to be trusted. However, as Noam Chomsky predicted all the way back in 1974, the lesson of Watergate would not prevent future presidents from doing the same---or worse.

Nixon's personal authority has suffered from Watergate, and power will return to men who better understand the nature of American politics. But it is likely that the major long-term consequence of the present confrontation between Congress and the President will be to establish executive power still more firmly.

Snip

It takes little imagination for presidential aides to conjure up a possible foreign intelligence or national security issue to justify whatever acts they choose to initiate. And they do this with impunity.

Snip

More generally, the President's position is that if there is some objection to what he does, he can be impeached. But reverence for the Presidency is far too potent an opiate for the masses to be diminished by a credible threat of impeachment. Such an effective device for stifling dissent, class consciousness, or even critical thought will not be lightly abandoned.

Noam Chomsky “Watergate: A Skeptical View”

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19730920.htm

You tell ‘em, Chomsky. Just don’t expect them to listen. I did not read this document when it was written. Instead, I stumbled upon it by accident thirty years later, when time had proven Chomsky to be a genius. I’ll bet he would prefer to have been proven wrong.

I did listen to Gore Vidal back in the mid 1970s. He was on TV a lot back then, delivering his “Property Party” talk, about how the United States has only one political party with two branches.

Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt---until recently (nervous laugher on this)—and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties. Those who gave money to Nixon in ’68 also gave money to Humphrey.

Gore Vidal “The State of the Union: 1975”

I did not doubt Vidal. My own observations had revealed that corporate Democrats got elected just like corporate Republicans, while ideological Democrats were lucky to win their home state----just like ideological Republicans (Well, to be honest, Goldwater carried the Deep South, too.)

However….

When you are one of the “poor, black or anti-imperialists” living under the thumb of a president who counts upon the goodwill of the members of the John Birch Society, “small adjustments” can mean the difference between starvation and three meals a day. Never mock incremental change, if the alternative is a reactionary spiral into corporate fascism.

In 1976, America was not in the mood for incremental change. The voters wanted great big flashy change. (Picture exploding fireworks and Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders decked out in American flag hot pants) So, they selected A Leader for a Change a Georgia peanut farmer who was so removed from Washington that everyone just knew he had to be clean.

Those were probably the four most relaxed years, politically speaking, in my life. Carter was not perfect, but he was a lot more OK than I expected. Until he blew his re-election and subjected the nation to 12 years of Reagan-Bush Federalist Fascism. Yes, I know that Poppy Bush made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election, the same way that Nixon made a deal with Kissinger, LBJ’s guy in Vietnam, to prevent a cease fire until after the election. However, I still blamed Jimmy. Where was all that transformative change that was supposed to make Nixon dirty tricks impossible?

In 1992, Bill Clinton (with a little help from Ross Perot) delivered a miracle. He unseated that rat bastard, George Bush Sr. He brought cute, sassy “I don’t bake cookies” Hillary to the White House. Best of all, he promised to give us universal health care (Yes!).

We all know how that turned out. The Republicans exploited the failed effort to deliver health care reform in order to win control of Congress. They spent four years sniffing panties (for their corporate masters) in order to distract the country, so that it would not notice the next presidential disaster looming on the horizon. W. and his pal KKK Rove stole two elections with the help of our nation’s corporate media. Two excellent Democrats----Al Gore and John Kerry---were consigned to the loser’s circle, from which Democratic presidential contenders never emerge. Cheney fulfilled Chomsky’s prophecy. Our country was plunged into a ruinous war. The rich made out like bandits and the poor got much, much poorer. Any gains which Bill Clinton made were erased. (Didn’t I see this once in a play by Samuel Beckett?) And America told itself Any (Democrat) Must Be Better Than That Pair of Fuck Ups .

And America was correct. Barack Obama is much, much better than Bush/Cheney. My two pet rats, Butters and Artemis are much better than Bush/Cheney. I have had bouts of the flu which I enjoyed more than Bush/Cheney. But…

Is Obama the best we could do? Eighteen more months of war in Afghanistan (minimum), six percent of Americans left out of our “universal” health care (if we are lucky), credit card interest rates that would make loan sharks proud, bankers still paying themselves big bonuses and not a one headed to jail for their role in the mortgage meltdown. FDR had his Ferdinand Pecora. We have Tim Geithner. (Pardon me, while I pick myself off the floor, where I am laughing my ass off. This would be pretty damn funny if it was not so tragic.)

Actually, Obama probably is the best that we could do. I learned long ago that no one makes it to the White House without the blessings of the Rockefellers of this country. And as long as the voters keep trusting (“and wishin’ and hopin’ and thinkin’ and prayin’”) for Mr. Right to come along and make it all better, nothing is going to change. No matter how many times we repeat that word---

Oh well. At least my expectations hit rock bottom decades ago. I feel for the people who spent all of last year having orgies of political anticipation. Bob Dylan was right about one thing.

"If you ain't got nothin', You got nothin' to lose."

Bob Dylan

How does it feel?

You don't like it? Then do something about it.