PDA

View Full Version : Hey, Maher worshippers, THIS is what a...


Smiling Assassin27
09-09-2009, 07:59 AM
concise, insightful, restrained, but most of all, CORRECT observation on our nation's political climate looks like:

Too late for Obama to turn it around?
Plus: The left's visionaries lost their bearings on drugs -- but the GOP is led by losers
By Camille Paglia

Sep. 09, 2009 |

What a difference a month makes! When my last controversial column posted on Salon in the second week of August, most Democrats seemed frozen in suspended animation, not daring to criticize the Obama administration's bungling of healthcare reform lest it give aid and comfort to the GOP. Well, that ice dam sure broke with a roar. Dissident Democrats found their voices, and by late August even the liberal lemmings of the mainstream media, from CBS to CNN, had drastically altered their tone of reportage, from priggish disdain of the town hall insurgency to frank admission of serious problems in the healthcare bills as well as of Obama's declining national support.



But this tonic dose of truth-telling may be too little too late. As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration's strategic missteps this year. I suspect there had been private grumbling all along, but the media warhorses failed to speak out when they should have -- from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)



By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats' main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP's facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen.



This column has been calling for heads to roll at the White House from the get-go. Thankfully, they do seem to be falling faster -- as witness the middle-of-the-night bum's rush given to "green jobs" czar Van Jones last week -- but there's a long way to go. An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president's innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to "help" the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?



Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year's tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web -- both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. I rarely watch TV anymore except for cooking shows, history and science documentaries, old movies and football. Hence I was blissfully free from the retching overkill that followed the deaths of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy -- I never saw a single minute of any of it. It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.



Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.



How has "liberty" become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto," which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party -- but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan's 1964 song "Chimes of Freedom," made famous by the Byrds? And here's Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with "Freedom! Freedom!" Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song "A Different Drum," with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: "All I'm saying is I'm not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me."



But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it's positively pickled.



Throughout this fractious summer, I was dismayed not just at the self-defeating silence of Democrats at the gaping holes or evasions in the healthcare bills but also at the fogginess or insipidity of articles and Op-Eds about the controversy emanating from liberal mainstream media and Web sources. By a proportion of something like 10-to-1, negative articles by conservatives were vastly more detailed, specific and practical about the proposals than were supportive articles by Democrats, which often made gestures rather than arguments and brimmed with emotion and sneers. There was a glaring inability in most Democratic commentary to think ahead and forecast what would or could be the actual snarled consequences -- in terms of delays, denial of services, errors, miscommunications and gross invasions of privacy -- of a massive single-payer overhaul of the healthcare system in a nation as large and populous as ours. It was as if Democrats live in a utopian dream world, divorced from the daily demands and realities of organization and management.



But dreaming in the 1960s and '70s had a spiritual dimension that is long gone in our crassly materialistic and status-driven time. Here's a gorgeous example: Bob Welch's song "Hypnotized." which appears on Fleetwood Mac's 1973 album "Mystery to Me." (The contemplative young man in this recent video is not Welch.) It's a peyote dream inspired by Carlos Castaneda's fictionalized books: "They say there's a place down in Mexico/ Where a man can fly over mountains and hills/ And he don't need an airplane or some kind of engine/ And he never will." This exhilarating shamanistic vision (wonderfully enhanced by Christine McVie's hymnlike backing vocal) captures the truth-seeking pilgrimages of my generation but also demonstrates the dangerous veering away from mundane social responsibilities. If the left is an incoherent shambles in the U.S., it's partly because the visionaries lost their bearings on drugs, and only the myopic apparatchiks and feather-preening bourgeois liberals are left. (I addressed the drugs cataclysm in "Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s" in the Winter 2003 issue of Arion.)



Having said all that about the failures of my own party, I am not about to let Republicans off the hook. What a backbiting mess the GOP is! It lacks even one credible voice of traditional moral values on the national stage and is addicted to sonorous pieties of pharisaical emptiness. Republican politicians sermonize about the sanctity of marriage while racking up divorces and sexual escapades by the truckload. They assail government overreach and yet support interference in women's control of their own bodies. Advanced whack-a-mole is clearly needed for that yammering smarty-pants Newt Gingrich, who is always so very, very pleased with himself but has yet to produce a single enduring thought. The still inexplicably revered George W. Bush ballooned our national deficits like a drunken sailor and clumsily exacerbated the illegal immigration debate. And bizarrely, the hallucinatory Dick Cheney, a fake-testosterone addict who spooked Bush into a pointless war, continues to be lauded as presidential material.



Which brings us to Afghanistan: Let's get the hell out! While I vociferously opposed the incursion into Iraq, I was always strongly in favor of bombing the mountains of Afghanistan to smithereens in our search for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida training camps. But committing our land forces to a long, open-ended mission to reshape the political future of that country has been a fool's errand from the start. Every invader has been frustrated and eventually defeated by that maze-like mountain terrain, from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union. In a larger sense, outsiders will never be able to fix the fate of the roiling peoples of the Near East and Greater Middle East, who have been disputing territorial borderlines and slaughtering each other for 5,000 years. There is too much lingering ethnic and sectarian acrimony for a tranquil solution to be possible for generations to come. The presence of Western military forces merely inflames and prolongs the process and creates new militias of patriotic young radicals who hate us and want to take the war into our own cities. The technological West is too infatuated with easy fixes. But tribally based peoples think in terms of centuries and millennia. They know how to wait us out. Our presence in Afghanistan is not worth the price of any more American lives or treasure.

Rohirrim
09-09-2009, 08:39 AM
I actually agree with much of what she says. Both parties have lost their ways. IMO, it's because they are both so polluted with special interest money that they've had to paste together some pretty slapdash, opposing concepts to rationalize their bought out ideas to the public and try and market them as still-traditional party stances, which they are not. They both lost their ways a long time ago. I haven't given up on Obama yet. I still believe him to be a huge improvement over Bush, who I consider the worst president in American history. Obama will have to sink a whole lot to even approach that level. Still, he has not shown the ability to transfer a brilliant campaign into brilliant governance. He doesn't have much more time.

Although I don't see what this has to do with Maher.

ghwk
09-09-2009, 08:48 AM
I actually agree with much of what she says. Both parties have lost their ways. IMO, it's because they are both so polluted with special interest money that they've had to paste together some pretty slapdash, opposing concepts to rationalize their bought out ideas to the public and try and market them as still-traditional party stances, which they are not. They both lost their ways a long time ago. I haven't given up on Obama yet. I still believe him to be a huge improvement over Bush, who I consider the worst president in American history. Obama will have to sink a whole lot to even approach that level. Still, he has not shown the ability to transfer a brilliant campaign into brilliant governance. He doesn't have much more time.

Although I don't see what this has to do with Maher.

Nope I agree with a lot of the article and your comment as well. I frankly had hoped for better and yet to me he is still nowhere near Bush levels. That having been said the administration does need to get better.

gunns
09-09-2009, 01:08 PM
concise, insightful, restrained, but most of all, CORRECT observation on our nation's political climate looks like:

I pretty much agree with the entire article. I do have a few disclaimers though.

Give me Obama any day over Bush.

How much of the health care reform is a cluster**** and how much of it is propoganda the insurance companies have spewed?

Don't see what this has to do with Maher. Maher has a different style and basically says the same thing.

BroncoInferno
09-09-2009, 01:11 PM
Like the others, I pretty much agree with the article. Not sure how it's relevant to Maher, who is a comedian.

TexanBob
09-09-2009, 02:03 PM
Back when Hillary was winning the primaries but after Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama and his campaign started to gain some early momentum, I predicted three things:

1) Obama would win the nomination.
2) Obama would win the presidency unless his lack of experience led to a monumental gaffe (I based this on the fact - stated here in other threads - that in the tv era, America falls for a new-generation hope-and-change Democrat every 16 years. In 1960, it was Kennedy. In 1976, it was Carter. In 1992, it was Clinton so, in 2008, it would be Obama).
3) I predicted that Obama's presidency would be comparable to Ty Willingham's coaching tenure at Notre Dame. At first, there will be glowing, worshipful adoration from the fan base and from the media but, as time went on, the flaws would become more glaring and the losses would start to come. Then the media and base would, at long last, turn on him and he would be cast aside at the earlies possible juncture.

That also seems to be coming true. The economy is still in tatters, the health care initiative is in serious trouble, there may be new opposition to other far left bills like cap-and-trade and card-check. Besides being ineffective, he's also pissing off the far left by staying at war, keeping Gitmo open, not getting behind some gay initiatives and other things the far left felt assured he would do for them.

Will he be a one-term president? It depends on who the GOP puts up and just what sort of a message he/she offers. But the door is w-i-d-e open on the right for a strong candidate with a strong message to step up and win in 2012. I hope it is somebody nobody is talking about now.

Bronx33
09-09-2009, 02:03 PM
Like the others, I pretty much agree with the article. Not sure how it's relevant to Maher, who is a comedian.


Some folks base their political beliefs on maher show sadly. :clown:

Bronx33
09-09-2009, 02:20 PM
Damn good artical BTW AND SHES SAYING ( WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER)..

ghwk
09-09-2009, 02:27 PM
Back when Hillary was winning the primaries but after Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama and his campaign started to gain some early momentum, I predicted three things:

1) Obama would win the nomination.
2) Obama would win the presidency unless his lack of experience led to a monumental gaffe (I based this on the fact - stated here in other threads - that in the tv era, America falls for a new-generation hope-and-change Democrat every 16 years. In 1960, it was Kennedy. In 1976, it was Carter. In 1992, it was Clinton so, in 2008, it would be Obama).
3) I predicted that Obama's presidency would be comparable to Ty Willingham's coaching tenure at Notre Dame. At first, there will be glowing, worshipful adoration from the fan base and from the media but, as time went on, the flaws would become more glaring and the losses would start to come. Then the media and base would, at long last, turn on him and he would be cast aside at the earlies possible juncture.

That also seems to be coming true. The economy is still in tatters, the health care initiative is in serious trouble, there may be new opposition to other far left bills like cap-and-trade and card-check. Besides being ineffective, he's also pissing off the far left by staying at war, keeping Gitmo open, not getting behind some gay initiatives and other things the far left felt assured he would do for them.

Will he be a one-term president? It depends on who the GOP puts up and just what sort of a message he/she offers. But the door is w-i-d-e open on the right for a strong candidate with a strong message to step up and win in 2012. I hope it is somebody nobody is talking about now.

Texas Bob is to relevance as this thread is to Maher.

Of course the econmy is still in tatters. Who could have fixed that mess in 6 months, the health care initiative is in trouble because of lobbyists and rightie disinformation. I think by election time the far left already knew he was not what they thought. He had already started to back away from som of the far leftie ideals.