<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541237,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541237,00.html</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> The polls keep suggesting that Republicans could be in for a historic drubbing. And their usual advantage—competence on national security—is constantly being challenged by new revelations about bungling in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>. But top Republican officials maintain an eerie, Zen-like calm. They insist that the prospects for their congressional candidates in November's midterms have never been as bad as advertised and are getting better by the day. Those are party operatives and political savants whose job it is to anticipate trouble. But much of the time they seem so placid, you wonder whether they know something.... <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> [WS:] I am no Republican party operative, but I pretty much feel the same way.  And one does not need to have any inside knowledge to figure this out –getting over the wishful thinking and keeping the eyes open will suffice.  The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> is a deeply petit bourgeois society – where the nauseous mixture of small town insularity, distrust of outsiders, public displays of piety and sanctimonious self-righteousness and jingoistic populism rule the day and dominate public discourse.  In such political and social climate, any candidate that is perceived to be even slightly left-of-the center is simply DOA, especially in a majoritarian political system.  This can be painfully demonstrated by Nixon’s victory in 1972 – who despite widely spread unpopularity of his policies (escalation of the Vietnam War, heave handed treatment of protesters, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Kent</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">State</st1:PlaceName> etc.</st1:place>) won by a landslide over the “leftish” McGovern.  It is thus unlikely that the growing – albeit by no means widely spread- unpopularity of Bush policies will cause much damage to Republican prospects this November.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> More importantly, however, there is no agency in sight at the moment that would bring about a policy change.  The implementation of left-of the center political regimes are almost never brought by popular demand; they have been historically imposed from above by “enlightened” elites.  As HL Mencken aptly observed, people (except perhaps libertarians) are generally unwilling to extend the rights and privileges they have to other social groups.  They may demand jobs, social security, health insurance etc. for themselves but not for those “damn foreigners,” immigrants, or any other “outsiders.”  Therefore, populist demands have always a right wing bend: they serve the needs of one social group at the exclusion and oftentimes expense of other groups.  The push to extend rights and privileges to all or most social groups in a nation usually comes from the top, oftentimes against popular opposition (cf. the Civil Rights movement in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>).  The reasons why elites opt for left-of-centre policies vary from internalized value systems, to group think and following solutions implemented elsewhere and perceived as “new trends,” to Machiavellian calculations to subdue internal conflicts or mobilize support.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> At the moment, the leadership of any conceivable sort is deeply convinced that the US-style capitalism works, and there is no alternative to it.  Democrats are thus in the impossible position of either following that trope – which is quintessentially conservative and already “owned” by Republicans – or otherwise be seen as “out of touch with common sense and American values” (which GOP propaganda can easily accomplish.)  So basically the choice they have is either becoming Republican light, or dropping dead.  This is why Republican party operatives seem so placid – as no threat to the Republican rule can be seen on the horizon.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>