[WS:] That sound to me like too far-fetched. This country has not experienced any mobilization since the end of the Vietnam War, so there is nothing to be defused here. Consumerism and marketing do a far better job in lulling the populace into a slumber than any politician can possibly do.
A far more plausible explanation is that O and his administration play it safe and avoid taking any risks (which is what most employees do anyway.)
Your recriminations of the Democrat party sound like that of a child telling his mother that he hates her because she did not buy him a toy that he wanted. Grow up and face the reality - the ruling elite faces many threats, but the puny American left and its empty threats of mass mobilization are not one of them.
Wojtek
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Joanne Landy
>
> The point is that even if Obama was "really"
> for limiting the tax cuts, he was unwilling to mobilize masses of people
> around a more egalitarian program. And that's because, overall, he holds to
> pro-corporate policies that would be undermined by mass mobilization.
>
> ======
>
> YES. I like this much better than my own argument -- for this is what I
> have
> been arguing for years has been fundamental to DP politics for a century.
> Even the most "liberal" leaderships have been willing to 'give u' on any
> policy if achieving it meant the risk of arousing mass activity.
>
> I think I have often repeated something like, "The DP exists primarily to
> absorb, deflect, dilute mass political activity at almost any cost." The
> "War on Poverty" was carefully structured for this end. That is, it
> _nominally_ encouraged popular participation but in fact throttled it. We
> actually _got_ popular participation in Bloomington/Normal -- with the
> result that the city council would not give its approval -- hence: No
> Money-- a hollow victory for mass participation.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>