-0...9-
BINGO
Analysis from Anglachel's Journal, No Where Else to Go
...What was Hillary offering that rallied this constituency behind her and which has remained an amazingly strong identification?
She offered material improvements to ordinary lives, and an explicit commitment to use the power of the state to achieve those ends. The two most prominent examples are her lifelong commitment t health care and her current response to the mortgage crisis. It is a difference of political style, but also of political philosophy.
Hillary has demonstrated that she believes a politician is someone who has to earn people’s votes by understanding where they are coming from and being on their side. “You are not invisible to me.”
It is also a way of diffusing social grievances by substituting festering resentment which can be channeled into resentment-fueled backlash (the hallmark of movement conservatism) with amelioration of socio-economic threat through practical policy to stabilize conditions for the working class.
In contrast, Obama has run as a conversion experience (You are not Democrat or Republican, you are an Obamacan.), calling people to their better selves, which inherently presupposes that what they currently are doing is wrong, corrupt, and unworthy. It substitutes morality for interests, focuses on the inner-life of the voter rather than on the material needs of the population, and individualizes broad social concerns. If only you racist hicks would improve yourselves we would have a wonderful nation.
It is a top-down approach that dictates behavior rather than provides solutions, which is why it ends up sounding very conservative....
Symptomatic of the deep problem of the party as a whole is the turn by the leadership towards privatization of social risk. Health insurance is not a mandate, and thus a right, but a choice to be exercised if desired. This ignores power, especially the power of the state to defend the citizen against the encroachment of moneyed interests. The well-off Stevensonians are no longer interested in defending the material needs of those who are not a part of Whole Foods Nation, and they hide their abandonment under the guise of rejecting racism. If the problem is the state of your soul and not the condition of your medical care, then you must heal yourself, and they can smugly pat themselves on the back for having defended the right moral stance.
...What was Hillary offering that rallied this constituency behind her and which has remained an amazingly strong identification?
She offered material improvements to ordinary lives, and an explicit commitment to use the power of the state to achieve those ends. The two most prominent examples are her lifelong commitment t health care and her current response to the mortgage crisis. It is a difference of political style, but also of political philosophy.
Hillary has demonstrated that she believes a politician is someone who has to earn people’s votes by understanding where they are coming from and being on their side. “You are not invisible to me.”
It is also a way of diffusing social grievances by substituting festering resentment which can be channeled into resentment-fueled backlash (the hallmark of movement conservatism) with amelioration of socio-economic threat through practical policy to stabilize conditions for the working class.
In contrast, Obama has run as a conversion experience (You are not Democrat or Republican, you are an Obamacan.), calling people to their better selves, which inherently presupposes that what they currently are doing is wrong, corrupt, and unworthy. It substitutes morality for interests, focuses on the inner-life of the voter rather than on the material needs of the population, and individualizes broad social concerns. If only you racist hicks would improve yourselves we would have a wonderful nation.
It is a top-down approach that dictates behavior rather than provides solutions, which is why it ends up sounding very conservative....
Symptomatic of the deep problem of the party as a whole is the turn by the leadership towards privatization of social risk. Health insurance is not a mandate, and thus a right, but a choice to be exercised if desired. This ignores power, especially the power of the state to defend the citizen against the encroachment of moneyed interests. The well-off Stevensonians are no longer interested in defending the material needs of those who are not a part of Whole Foods Nation, and they hide their abandonment under the guise of rejecting racism. If the problem is the state of your soul and not the condition of your medical care, then you must heal yourself, and they can smugly pat themselves on the back for having defended the right moral stance.
posted by Greenconsciousness
at 1:11 PM - Link
4 Comments:
Yeah, Obamabots are used to the top down approach in which they think that all they have to do is yell loud enough or post on blogs often enough, and they will have "won."
It's amazing to me how many of them are now making excuses for policies that they railed against just a year ago. I remember the good old days, when telecom immunity was against the law. Now they are all about following the advice of the generals on the ground, when just a few months ago, they impugned Hillary Clinton for her measured stance on the war.
It's just amazing.
Last night over at Taylor Marsh, we were called stupid and unpatriotic (etc) for not lining up behind BO. All of this hate speech reminds of when some of us spoke out against the war and were treated to the same kind of ridicule and disdain. It's Animal Farm, in spades.
There are some of us feminists who supported the war for the sake of Muslim women who are slaves in the Middle Eastern patriarchies - not allowed to exist with any semblance of human rights. The Taliban and the genocide of the Kurds was not going to be stopped by anything but war. I was raised with the idea of protecting Human Rights. Under the Taliban women died of burns in their homes forbidden to see a doctor and were shot in the stadium or buried to their waist and stoned. Now there are 17 women's centers, hospitals and schools for girls. It will take a 100 years for women to gain any dignity in those religious theocracies,but my mother was born before women got the vote right here in the US in 1920. I support the war.
There is a picture on the green col to your right, of a women in a burka being shot in the stadium - it says "no justice no peace" - click it and see what Condi Rice, a single childless pro choice Republican has been doing for women under the wings of the war.
I appreciated Hillary's measured response because I believed she would continue the human rights work for women. Obama on the other hand supports relatives who want to bring back sharia to Kenya because he has the views of the left toward women which we saw demonstrated during the campaign. The left identifies with the Muslim thug cultures that slave women and are not democratic. The extremes of the left and right are fascist - both of them and they support fascism globally and the oppression of women. The left refuses to intervene as does the right but women who identify with other women have finally seen what they have been supporting and are starting to think for our own gender now. We will not accept slavery on this earth in 2008 and we will end it by force wherever we have the opportunity to do so,
But having said what I had to say, I also say I appreciate your views very much hype-jersey I was/am a Democrat, union, feminist all my life - opposed Viet-Nam - know where you are at but just say -- the old ideas need looking at. The left is no more our people than the right. They have never produced for human rights - they are just a bunch of wealthy spoiled narcissistic brats.
and of course I agree with you on the basics of no torture, FISA etc. No extrodinary rendition but I would not give POWs any more rights then POWs have traditionally received.
Post a Comment