Behind the Curtain - Bob Herbert - NY Times Op-Ed on Dem Pres candidates

Behind the Curtain - by Bob Herbert - NY Times Op-Ed - Nov. 27, 2007

A friend of mine, talking about the Democratic presidential candidates, tossed out a wonderful mixed metaphor: “This is awfully weak tea to have to hang your hat on.”

The notion that Bush & Co. had fouled things up so badly for Republicans that just about any Democrat could romp to victory in 2008 was never realistic. What’s interesting now, with the first contests just weeks away, is the extent to which Democratic voters are worried about the possibility that none of their candidates have the stuff to take the White House.

This election, the most important in decades, cries out for strong leadership. The electorate is upset, anxious and hungry for change. But “weak tea” is as good a term as any to describe what the Democrats are offering.

Hillary Clinton is the cautious, rigidly programmed candidate who, in the view of most voters, will say whatever the moment demands. Spontaneous she ain’t. You can just picture her cross-examining advisers and prowling through polling data to determine whether she’s for or against driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/opinion/27herbert.html?th&emc=th

Mr. Obama had barely stenciled his name on his Senate office door before grabbing his hat and announcing he was running for president. That was faster than even Mr. Edwards’s first, lightning-quick decision to seek the highest office in the land.

It brings some perspective when Edwards & comp accuse Obama of lack of experience

fouled things up so badly for Republicans that just about any Democrat could romp to victory in 2008 was never realistic."

We need the strongest possible candidates in 2008 (but of this, I have grave doubts), because the pukes will fight like cornered rats. Plus, they're capable of doing just about anything to win. And they're better at manipulating people, exploiting opportunities, mudslinging, exploiting/redirecting/creating popular trends/currents (strangely enough, perhaps even including economic populism), etc.

And I think that fear still has significant potential to sway the election (I believe that it played a role in France recently). Besides, to keep 2008 from becoming a rout, the pukes really only need to keep one federal office; to defend one place: the presidency. And they'll defend it desperately, even against a Dempcratic candidate who won't be turning over a lot of rocks or making a lot of waves.

It's like this: many people have little or no way to judge the accuracy/importance of much of the data that's thrown at them (or, in the neocon-way, pounded into them). And what's on and in many peoples' minds are frequently things that have been placed there. (And if the propagandist knows how to place these things to effect, well then, it's that much more influential.)

Moreover, a great deal of foundational propaganda has already been pounded into peoples' heads, and this on a wide range of subjects. Furthermore, even when some propaganda has been generally discredited, frequently it is never completely counteracted by the counterarguments (perhaps because this propaganda targeted inflexible mindsets or other predispositions), no matter how substantial -- and no matter how thin the propaganda was. (For example, many people still believe all sorts of lies about Saddam and Iraq.)

...

Some fragments:

The corruption of government by the neocons into a tool for political and economic gain (and revenge, punishment) is systemic.

Critical government functions (including intelligence and military) have been outsourced to (in practice) largely unaccountable contractors. Moreover, over time the operating principle of government has been morphed from doing (or at least trying to do) the job that needs done (as seen from some ideological/philosophical perspective, admittedly) while staying within the law, to doing what "the bosses" want (even without it being asked) and what ideology demands, the law be damned (conveniently reinterpreted, ignored, whatever).

...

It does appear that an element of the Democratic Party is vested in a strategy of taking a tack slightly to the "left" of the (neocon-dominated) pukes. (Effectively meaning that these neocon-shadowers have largely swallowed the neocon/neo-economic-libertarian/neo-social-darwinist* line.)

However, these shadowers should keep in mind that what drove last fall's success wasn't this tack, but rather the catastrophic incompetence, criminality, hypocrisy and profligacy of the pukes (which will only go so far and last so long in terms of influencing the electorate), together with the people's desire for real change -- not more of the same-old politics of polls, posturing, triangulation, weasel-wording, obfuscation, marketing and manipulation (not to say that the people as a whole are significantly less susceptible to these things generally; just that they got tired of the old flavor); not more of the same-old failed policies, cast and spun in a different way (not to say that the people in large part won't buy these things again; just that they won't be happy with their "purchase").

Moreover, democrats aren't getting more corporate dollars because corporations have become enlightened. Rather, the dollars are flowing because democrats look to be winning office, and the corporate-types are seeking greater influence.

Look, the pukes have a better deal to offer the corporations (and the powerful generally): ie, do pretty much whatever you want.

We can't match this deal, and we shouldn't try. Rather we should point to (and lead on) a way forward where everyone profits, although not necessarily in the way or on the terms they'd prefer.

But it all comes down to whether the people will see through the bs and vote for real change, or stayed bogged down in the pretended and the comforting familiar.

(I'm not especially hopeful. However, all this corporatist-line-hauling may open up a rare opportunity in the medium term.)

*: Eg, that the average American must be stripped of his advantages (accrued over centuries through industry, initiative, etc) and compete on an equal, even disadvantaged, basis against the desperate of the world -- while the privileged few "compete" from a position of unprecedented advantage -- and on a playing field tailored like never before for their advantage.

...

The dollar has become very vulnerable to speculators and foreign nations. But with the collapse of the dollar's purchasing power would go any remaining credibility of the established order... and perhaps any common hope of necessary change within that order.

...

War objectives (and the war plans that instantiate them) aren't arbitrary; they can't just be picked out of a hat, or made to conform to one's desires, or created without considering the broader picture.

Rather, war objectives and plans must be reasonable, realistic (dealing with the particulars of the problem, the theater, the cultures, etc), attainable within war-allocated resources (including time), bounding and inclusive (ie, covering all the necessary bases; dealing with everything that needs to be dealt with: consequences, reactions, aftermaths, inadvertent-effects, and what can be intelligently and knowledgeably expected and foreseen).

However, there's a great temptation (that must be overcome) when choosing war objectives to choose those that you desire and wish for; those that can be attempted within allocated resources... those that you are being pressured to choose (explicitly or implicitly, like by accepting artificial limits on planning).

And having chosen convenient war-objectives (having already taken the easy way "out" in this critical step), the temptation is to rationalize and defend them, and to blunder on with them -- or to keep shifting war-objectives in an attempt to overcome (frequently-insurmountable) previous planning failures.