How is it that the Washington Beltway, the insiders club, remains above and beyond the currents of popular opinion?
David Sirota at Truthdig provides a partial analysis:
The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive “movement” have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one.
The achievement of power was always an allusion since the Democratic Party has other purposes. Why cannot not the progressive organizations and movements create a new national political party in the US that will be responsive to their causes? Institutional innovation is the greatest challenge and most difficult task in an established democracy, yet paradoxically the disestablishment under the pretext of the executive war powers seems to run inexorably.
Glenn Greenwald continues to observe the role of the media marvens and the war-fighting polity that has been created:
There was a time, not all that long ago, when the U.S. pretended that it viewed war only as a “last resort,” something to be used only when absolutely necessary to defend the country against imminent threats. In reality, at least since the creation of the National Security State in the wake of World War II, war for the U.S. has been everything but a “last resort.” Constant war has been the normal state of affairs. In the 64 years since the end of WWII, we have started and fought far more wars and invaded and bombed more countries than any other nation in the world — not even counting the numerous wars fought by our clients and proxies. Those are just facts. History will have no choice but to view the U.S. — particularly in its late imperial stages — as a war-fighting state.
At some point, and it must be fast approaching, the contradiction between domestic needs and foreign adventures will have to be resolved.
Needless to observe the decisions made in Washington, and implicitly the manner of their making, has implications for the rest of the world.
We might ordinary believe that domestic and foreign politics are separate realms of thought and action. Yelling and beating our chests and declaring our oversized egos may be fun for the town hall activists, but let us remember to stop and consider other people. Marion commenting at Judith’s blog brings home the reality of the public health access debate in the United States. At Metta, Michael Nagler asks “Is this really about healthcare?”
ELSEWHERE:
Via Raw Story, Keith Olbermann discusses with Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post the prospect that Obama could lose the support of the progressives and their movements. Such maladroit politics, it seems to me, could only be a product of the Washington fishbowl in which the reference audience and hands of legislators are the corporate lobbyists, in one form or another.
At History Unfolding, David Kaiser argues for a radical solution to the health care problem, which I take to mean the adoption of the one the “socialist” models that other modern industrial countries have in place.
Observation:
Of course, to make political sense requires first to define the polis. Aristotle, was right, about the human scale on one level – the sound of the human voice. Now with that vision of ourselves from space we had forty years ago from the moon, we can appreciate full extent of the human domain, our homeland.
ELSEWHERE (contd):
I was struck by this reference by Bill Moyers, at AlterNet:
Speaking of which: we’ve posted on our website an essay by the media scholar Henry Giroux. He describes the growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements in a “culture of cruelty” increasingly marked by overt racism, hostility and disdain for others, coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any political figure who believes health care reform is the most vital of safety nets, especially now that the central issue of life and politics is no longer about working to get ahead, but struggling simply to survive.
A “culture of cruelty” represent dehumanization and violence. When I actually read the article, I find it extremely funny – the people referred to are a parody. As I recall, there is a lesson from history about dismissing people who were apparently absurd. To be confronted with violence, and not respond in kind, can be more subtle that it first might seem.