ken hanly wrote:
> How can there be a non-ideological administration in a class society in which the interests of the ruling class must be paramount for the administration? This makes no sense at all to me.
>
> Cheers, K hanly
>
> Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html
> Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
>
>
> --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Max B. Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Max B. Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Obamauration
>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 7:04 AM
>> James Heartfield wrote:
>>> This is a bit impressionistic, but rushing through the
>> LBO reaction to Obama's inauguration, the chasm between
>> that and the reactions
>> to his election seems huge. Shouldn't we go back over
>> what we all said then, and compare it with the
>> hyper-critical reaction to him now?
>> I feel as though I was too critical then, and a bit
>> distanced from the criticisms made of him here, now. Is the
>> disappointment relative to the
>> great hopes placed in the man? Are the disappointments a
>> bit overdone? He is not left wing, clearly that is the case.
>> But then why should
>> we have thought otherwise?
>>> I still think that Obama's election represents a
>> sea-change in America's race politics, and one for the
>> good. Is that naive?
>>> His cabinet choices don't seem to me to say that
>> he is right wing, but rather that he is trying to supercede
>> the left-right political divide,
>> a bit like Tony Blair did here in 1997. The danger in that
>> is not right wing politics, but the creation of an
>> apolitical technocratic administration.
>> Seeing the popular mobilisation behind the presidency it
>> might seem odd to say it, but the outcome of this apolitical
>> administration is a retreat
>> from democratic contestation, where dissent is
>> marginalised.
>>> ___________________________________
>> The question will be, does centrist or pragmatist really
>> mean non-ideological, or merely ideology in a different
>> guise.
>> If truly non-ideological, then the Admin will be driven
>> without prejudice to solutions that work, which could mean
>> some
>> radical stuff with the advantage of being dressed in
>> unradical clothes. For instance, I wouldn't be
>> surprised to see some
>> nationalized banks (the issue there is one of compensation
>> or lack thereof), though they would doubtless be sold back
>> after reorganization. The Blair analogy is a good one,
>> though it would be like dropping Blair into this new unique
>> historical moment.
>>
>> I don't think anybody knows how the race dimension will
>> play out, only that something new is in store.
>>
>> Technocratic does not strike me as so bad, relatively
>> speaking, but maybe that's because I'm a technocrat.
>>
>> As for dissent, from experience I can assure all that there
>> is nobody more partisan and intolerant of dissent
>> from left or right than trade unionists, to which we could
>> minorities and today's raging liberal
>> 'netroots.'
>> It will be hard to criticize BHO for a while (politically,
>> not in terms of substance), but at the same time
>> once he disappoints them (on EFCA, for instance), things
>> will get really interesting.
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>