[J] I'm not sure I understand all of the connections in your hypothesis, but in the tradition of lbo-talk I will not let that stop me. I think many people to the left of center who make it to the "halls of power" in any country end up corrupted by (let's use Mill's phrase:) the power elite - or were corrupt to begin with. Also, my understanding of liberals is that they are fairly happy with the status quo and think it just needs a little tweak here and there to get it back on track. This may account for what appears to be lassitude in the DP. They wonder why republicans don't want to just tweak things with them - ok maybe they don't wonder as much these days... Pelosi is a good example. Remember her haughty disbelief that someone could think to question her profiting from trades on inside information? (If that's not a payoff I don't know what is.) So, she does shit like that and takes simultaneous solace in the fact that she and her colleagues have kept the horrible republican wolves at bay. They haven't of course, but oh think about how much worse things would be if we weren't here to save you. This gets into the lies we tell ourselves and the lies they tell themselves. The republican insider was getting at that in his mea culpa (quasi anyway). The republicans (he says the new RP) are vicious bastards and only have to lie to the people, not themselves. So, pelosi lies to everyone including herself and she wields a fair amount of power because she's willing to play the game as it's been set up to be played. Kucinich, on the other hand, is honest, fights the good fight, and has zero power. In
fact, so little, he was just booted out of his own district - a fact that is related to this discussion, but you get the idea. This may actually be similar to elements of your hypothesis...
To stick with the poker analogy: The game as it's been played for the last thirty-odd years is rigged (and with a few exceptions from the beginning), but it's a friendly game, and the house (the power elite that is) always wins in the end...The "healthcare debate" and "obama care" is an example. Yes, the desperate american public get to pick up a few chips that have been thrown at them (but they are also penalized for being poor and some of the benefits have already been worked around), but the hospitals, insurance and drug companies are essentially unchanged and will potentially reap even bigger profits - well they will even if the mandate gets struck down...
If we look at consensus governments in Europe they have communists and greens etc., but have still taken massive turns to the right. I think the power elite shapes policy and trumps whatever style of government happens to exist. They effect government no matter how it is structured. Granted, the influence is on some kind of spectrum, but it is always there. Italy, for example, has (or at least used to have) one of the biggest communist party memberships in europe and the de facto head of the country is a goldman alum technocrat. And it's not just Italy:
In the days of Mussolini, there was total control by the power elite and then it was simply fascism. Interestingly, it was seen as a way to bring back the empire (expansion) to avoid decay (loss of money/power). If one replaces the transnational corporation with the nation state and the word "growth" for empire, it becomes more and more difficult to see our direction as anything but quasi-fascist. I know we get a lot of flack for using the f-word, but hey, if I can't do it here...
[WS] In conclusion, the only way Democrats can win this game is to form a wingnut wing of their own that threatens to throw a few monkey wrenches into the political gears. Democrats [liberals]
[J] I know this conclusion may be tongue in cheek, but if it's not I'll just say, it's not possible for some of the reasons mentioned above - and it wouldn't matter if a small sector changed their stripes, because they don't have enough money - without corporations that is...
[WS:] Great posting, thank you. To play devil's advocate, however, my experience is that the US has a rather large group of people questioning the status quo - from politics to morals and everyday life conduct. More so that I've seen in Europe. Yet, this critical thinking does not seem to form a critical mass, so to speak, but instead it is marginalized and goes nowhere. So what really needs to be explained is why political dissent is so easily marginalized in the US, and for that matter most English speaking countries.
[J] I understand the sentiment, but questioning the status quo - or even having an analysis of it - doesn't have much to do with acting against it. I think slaves and indentured servants questioned (question) the status quo every day. We can account for a large part of the population - any population of any country for the most part - by assuming they are sheep following the shepherd around. Most people would like to be treated well, but they are realistic, they just want to pay the bills and survive, maybe retire someday - though that seems to be a fading part of the American Dream. So, that leaves 5%, 12%, or whatever the magic number is that can and will resist. In an attempt to get closer to the roots of why americans are not resisting (or not resisting effectively) in my last post, I avoided some of the more concrete reasons, e.g., people working more to get less, people losing jobs and houses, people losing access to basic needs and
services, many people growing up knowing nothing else. In a phrase: demoralization from losing the class war and fear that it isn't over.
Historically, americans have resisted (and resisted effectively) and people have been fighting every year since 1980 - but they've been less effective, because they've been losing the whole time... The right backlash (war) against the revolutions of the late sixties/early seventies (a continuation of old battles) has now amounted to a war on everyone who is not the power elite. So, now that I find myself saying it, I guess the answer to your question is, the already psychically compromised survivors have been shocked and maimed by the class war. The war almost killed hope for many (possibly a reason the obama slogan was so successful) and has left two generations shell-shocked. If this is a satisfactory answer, maybe the regular cycles of history will turn again and what's left of the left can summon up the blood...
I just saw that francis fukuyama appears to be attempting to revive himself. I was turning on my friend's tv to watch a movie and f.f. popped into view on the charlie rose show last night. I shut it off right away, so I don't know what he's up to now...He must have a book...The point though, is that it makes me want to tell myself that maybe a leftie like me saying the old ways of resistance don't work anymore is just as absurd as f.f. declaring the end of history. I don't know, I'm not convinced at the moment, but it's probably because I'm still shell-shocked...
Hmmm...Just looked up f.f. on wikipedia, it seems he has been attempting to distance himself from the neocon agenda for a few years...Maybe now he is advocating for a kinder gentler american hegemony -- if it's ok with you...
Aloha,
J
P.S. My first memory of Tegel was actually my first memory of Germany. I flew in and nobody arrived to pick me up. This was in pre cell phone days. Nobody answered the home phone and they had just moved, so I didn't know their new address. I had no clue what had happened. Eventually, hours and hours later, my friend's girlfriend arrived. It turned out my friend borrowed an expensive car to pick me up in style and crashed it on the way to the airport. Not so funny then, but it makes me chuckle now.