Provocative thoughts from Peter Suderman.
« Gentlemen, Choose Your Issues | Main | Classic Obama » The GOP's Anti-Corporate Future?10 Jun 2008 06:55 pm Comments (25)
There is one way in which the GOP might become less of a corporate towel-boy party - and that's if it becomes such a massive failure electorally that corporations no longer want to have anything to do with the poor slobs. It is nice to imagine a GOP that's reduced to appealing to snakehandlers and people who know what roadkill tastes like, isn't it? (And of course the occasional fetus fetishist - if that's not redundant with "snakehandlers.") 
Moe, It's a bit difficult to keep up with your always clever jargon but if "snake handlers' is your slang for Pentecostalists, then no they are not the same as the 'fetus fetishists' who as far as I can tell appear to be (at least at the intellectual levels) mostly Catholics. (I wonder if I count as a fetus fetishist in your book?)
Yeah, good luck with those oh so provocative thoughts.
There is one way in which the GOP might become less of a corporate towel-boy party - and that's if it becomes such a massive failure electorally that corporations no longer want to have anything to do with the poor slobs. I wonder if Moe's smart enough to realize that in the event this happens the Democrats (already quite friendly to sufficiently large business in plenty of sectors) will splinter into a group that takes on the more corporate-stooge aspects of the Republicans and another, more putatively economically left group? I doubt there will be a time when there isn't a corporate party, and a lot of cozying to corporations of the less savory kind from both parties. I guess dumping having that party staffed purely by amoral money-hogs, without the unpleasant nasty people who believe in God would be a win from Moe's POV, though.
TMoC replies: "I wonder if Moe's smart enough to realize that in the event this happens the Democrats (already quite friendly to sufficiently large business in plenty of sectors) will splinter into a group that takes on the more corporate-stooge aspects of the Republicans and another, more putatively economically left group?" Since I'll always be smarter than you, chuckles - by a lucky accident of birth - I already know that the Democrats have already undergone that change and the DLC represented the corporate stooge faction of the Dems. I also know that unless the Dems step away from that faction and roll back some of the more disgusting "reforms" of the Bushpig era they'll lose their chance to form an enduring majority. Of course "enduring" these days means 12 years or so. But that would be enough time to heal most of the Mordor-like depredations of the Bushpigs. I'll take that. "I guess dumping having that party staffed purely by amoral money-hogs, without the unpleasant nasty people who believe in God would be a win from Moe's POV, though." Some very nice people believe in god. None of them, however, still think Dumbya Bish has been a good president. That's right - not a single fucking one.
From the comments section of the referenced blog: Very perseptive. I agree completely. When the Dem's begin to win national elections and the Repubs become a feuding stew of Theocrats and Libertarians and anti-immigration xenophobes, probably corporate money will follow the voters and avoid stupidity, enriching the Dems. Does that mean the Dem's are hoping and praying and shaping themselves so that they become the 'corporation party'? HaHaHaHa!!!!! Gosh, wouldn't the Right have a 'message problem' then!!!!
People should go back and read Bob Woddward's The Agenda (http://www.amazon.com/Agenda-Inside-Clinton-White-House/dp/0671864866) The first time the Obama Administration tries to really get tough with the corporations, the bond market and the stock market will send clear messages that policy proposals have consequences. The Democratic party is current the party of big corporations and will stay the party of big corporations. Big corporations love having the government restrict markets and make it expensive for new competitors to enter. The problem with the Democratic party in the future in how they will balance big unions with big corporations. Too many people forget that unions really do need big business in order to function and the world economy is a great moderator on the extremes of both. In the end, the U.S. will definitely headed toward being a one party state where government employees, minorities, big labor, big business, and education will be dominate. The real question will be who are the biggest winners and biggest losers in the coming one party state.
In the end, the U.S. will definitely headed toward being a one party state where government employees, minorities, big labor, big business, and education will be dominate. That'll be an improvement over current system in which Big Business dominates.
Some very nice people believe in god. None of them, however, still think Dumbya Bish has been a good president. That's right - not a single fucking one. Not true -- I'm sure somewhere out there is someone both nice and stupid who thinks just that. But in general, I agree with that point, Moe.
That'll be an improvement over current system in which Big Business dominates. No, it won't. I mean, it might be slightly "improved" if you're a time-serving government employee, a racial shakedown artist, a crooked union figure, or an education bureaucrat (not a teacher or someone else who performs any useful service), in that your share of the loot might go up, but that's about it. It might also improve the joyful smugness of the already insufferable moderate academic left (the far left will remain enraged and tenured, so largely unchanged in their lot). That's about it.
a racial shakedown artist Gosh, what do you mean by that? Is that code or dog whistle for something? Hmm...
Huh? So his strategy is for Republicans to run against corporate influence once it shifts heavily in favor of Democrats and instead of trying to regulate it, the loud chants of opposition is going to result in corporations voluntarily rejecting the enitre mechanism of lobbying? Or the people will just turn out those evil Democrats and when the Republicans win, they can return to getting the edge in corporate influence and hope the Democrats and the American public don't realize? Or Republicans are going to only run saints who won't take the lobbyist perks despite the lack of regulations stopping them? Sorry, I just don't see any substance in the entire post. "Let's run against lobbyists. We won't change corporate tax structure and we won't regulate their lobbying, but our tough words are going to change their behavior!"
a racial shakedown artist A number of "diversity coordinators" at campuses across the country fit the description some; it's hard to see Al Sharpton as anything BUT that (ok, to be fair he's a great entertainer, and to some extent a murderer, but those are more accidents than professions). Jesse Jackson, for a man with a decent mind and some good instincts at times, has sadly too often fit that. It's not code. La Raza certainly has some folks who'd fit this. There are even Asian American racial shakedown artists out there, which shows that you don't have to have a boat in order to float.
A number of "diversity coordinators" at campuses across the country fit the description some; it's hard to see Al Sharpton as anything BUT that (ok, to be fair he's a great entertainer, and to some extent a murderer, but those are more accidents than professions). Jesse Jackson, for a man with a decent mind and some good instincts at times, has sadly too often fit that. It's not code. La Raza certainly has some folks who'd fit this. There are even Asian American racial shakedown artists out there, which shows that you don't have to have a boat in order to float. Marquis, You forgot AIPAC.
keatssycamore says: "Marquis, You forgot AIPAC." He also forgot every white politician who ever ran on a "law'n'order" platform and the Republican "Southern Strategy" used by Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I. But that's because they were HIS kind of racial shakedown artists.
No, I didn't want to get into the AIPAC issue, and I was looking for currently active shakedown artists. George Wallace was, certainly, among other things, sometimes a racial shakedown artist, and the south certainly has a history of white shakedown artists. Not that many remain active, at least with that as their primary function, and obviously I disagree with Moe about whether there was in fact a crime problem that liberal policies contributed to in the past.
TMoC replies: "I disagree with Moe about whether there was in fact a crime problem that liberal policies contributed to in the past." I'm so glad conservative policies have put the crime problem to rest. Yeesh.
Er, crime rates aren't what they were at the worst of it, unless I've missed something recently. Of course, some of this is due to simply massively increasing incarceration, but it is, as far as I know, a lot safer for me to walk a lot of places in NYC these days than it was at, er, certain other times. Is that false?
I was looking for currently active shakedown artists. Are you seriously saying AIPAC isn't actively shaking down politicians? Didn't you see Barack prostrate himself for these people last week? So I repeat, "You forgot AIPAC."
TMoC replies: "Er, crime rates aren't what they were at the worst of it, unless I've missed something recently. Of course, some of this is due to simply massively increasing incarceration, but it is, as far as I know, a lot safer for me to walk a lot of places in NYC these days than it was at, er, certain other times. Is that false?" "(S)ome of this is due to massively increasing incarceration." Disgracefully so. Sometimes you almost seem rational. I've always felt safe walking around in Boston, and I haven't noticed any conservatives running things around here at any point in my life. We did have a progressive police chief named William Bratton who took the same job in NYC and did a great job before a glory hog Mayor pushed him out and took the credit, though. The "liberal policies" line is one of those conservative canards that you guys just can't help yourselves with. That it bears no relation to reality is something you're comfortable with.
Are you seriously saying AIPAC isn't actively shaking down politicians? Didn't you see Barack prostrate himself for these people last week? I didn't say that -- I said I didn't want to get into that particular one, since it would hijack all discussion, and I just wanted to clarify my meaning.
Wait, is Rudy a conservative now? That's not what I heard a few months back. Hmmm, violent crime is down in Chicago too. Wait, you weren't going to mention Chicago because the city is run by Democrats, because you are a feckless intellectually dishonest conservative aren't you?
Carabas, It's hard to take you seriously when you say, No, I didn't want to get into the AIPAC issue, AND I was looking for currently active shakedown artists. And then when asked why'd you think AIPAC isn't "active", you say this, I didn't say that -- I said I didn't want to get into that particular one, since it would hijack all discussion, and I just wanted to clarify my meaning. Well, no, you did say it and it's right there in the sentence for all to see. Makes it seem like you're just trying to sneak in the last (dishonest) word on race-hustling without considering all the race-hustlers who are out hustling the stuff your buying. This makes your race-hustler complaint seem downright unserious.
echktlysv hbyp vpbw wjbgsu fedkgxh acty hmikupe
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Don't worry, Ross, your party is connected to Exxon and Halliburton by hook (the one in the Bush family's maw) and by crook (Dick Cheney's amoral cyborg heart) and that won't change any time soon.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 10, 2008 7:03 PM