It’s worth noting that Brezhnev was a mere lad of seventy five when he left this mortal coil. His successors Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko were 69 and 73, respectively when they died. Based on this, the Soviet leadership was mocked as a gerontocracy. Frankly, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, et al seem like a Boy Scout troop when compared with the hospice patients we have leading our country.
Even if Biden somehow wins and the Democrats end up having to “Weekend at Bernie’s” him around for four years like they did for Feinstein, we’ll still be in the same situation in 2028. When Democrats are nominally in charge, all they do is tread water and find an excuse not to do anything. There’s always an excuse. They can’t do anything because of Russia or the filibuster or Mitch McConnell, or Newt Gingrich, or Joe Lieberman, or Joe Manchin, or Kristin Synema, or, or, or…There’s always an excuse for the Democrats to tread water, whereas Republicans seem to get what they want, regardless of having a majority. If you (using universal “you” here) genuinely believe that Trump is an existential threat who wants to install a fascist dictatorship, why would you choose some uninspiring right-wing dementia patient to “save democracy”? This suggests that Democratic leaders either don’t think Trump is a threat or they agree with him. Much of our current problem is due to the lingering influence of the Cold War that elevated every right wing kook imaginable to prevent the rise of even mild socialism. The OG 9/11 of the assassination of Salvador Allende led to 9/11/2001, and our overlords in the Blob haven’t learned a thing. What we’re seeing now across the world with the rise of the far right is the bitter harvest of the US “winning” in the Cold War, and I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel for us.
I don’t believe the Democratic establishment agrees with Trump in any sense (economically, politically, socially, etc.). I do think the fact that Biden continues on in the race, despite the signficant and now growing risk that he will lose, puts the lie to the idea that democracy is on the line. That rationale for voting Democratic has been advanced for the last three contests now. As I said in a previous essay if this were the case — if American democracy were at stake — Biden would clearly sacrifice himself politically to save the country. It is telling that he does not do so.
It’s a gamble, one that I would liken to blackjack when holding 16 and asking the dealer for a hit. You don’t hit on 16 — it’s too risky!
I take it you’re seeing the current dynamics as a backlash. I’ve been listening to a couple theorists and commentators about the state of affairs after the Cold War. It seems that, when the Iron Curtain fell, we lost balance in the international ecosystem, if you will. I’m not saying the US was a pest, but it seems to have been somewhat like what happens when you transplant an invasive species into an area — without a natural predator or competitor, there’s nothing to keep the newly unleashed force in check.
Thank you for your reply. When I mean Democrats either agree with or don’t view the far-right as a threat, I talking about two things. First, a lot of Democratic legislation originated in the bowels of movement conservatism. The ACA, for example, was a reworked version of Romney Care, which itself started out as a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation during the HillaryCare battles of the 1990s. Of course, once Obama began championing it, suddenly the Heritage Foundation found its own ideas dangerously “socialist.” Second, I think that if the Democrats thought that the Republicans were the existential threat they claim they are, they would be launching Red Scare style trials to purge them from public life. Instead, its people are pro-Palestine who are getting purged, because both Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a view that cannot be allowed in acceptable discourse. If the Democratic leadership seriously believed that their Republican peers were getting checks in the mail signed “Vladimir V. Putin,” the GOP would be razed to the ground. But it’s not. We’ve seen how swiftly Democrats will brand pro-Palestinian activists as Russian/Chinese/Iranian/whatever bots to discredit them (and back that off with legislation), but not with far-right Republicans. We’ve seen what happens when a threat is perceived, and it isn’t happening with Republicans.
This is so true! At a library system meeting back in 2001, I spoke up and said “There is no meaningful left wing in this country.” The head of the library system then asked, “Who is this brilliant woman?” What was obvious more than twenty years ago is even clearer now: we NEED a left wing.
I only watched the debate because the MR crew was offering live commentary. It usually annoys me when they talk over the candidates but I appreciated it this time.
Interestingly, Seder said they took down their live commentary because they didn’t want to have a “copyright strike” (i.e., YouTube removing the video due to copyright concerns). I wonder to what that could have referred — do you know?
I watched the post-debate evaluation first thing this morning. My viewing habits today as regards this topic have been like the old Palmolive commercials: I’ve been soaking in it.
It’s worth noting that Brezhnev was a mere lad of seventy five when he left this mortal coil. His successors Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko were 69 and 73, respectively when they died. Based on this, the Soviet leadership was mocked as a gerontocracy. Frankly, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, et al seem like a Boy Scout troop when compared with the hospice patients we have leading our country.
Even if Biden somehow wins and the Democrats end up having to “Weekend at Bernie’s” him around for four years like they did for Feinstein, we’ll still be in the same situation in 2028. When Democrats are nominally in charge, all they do is tread water and find an excuse not to do anything. There’s always an excuse. They can’t do anything because of Russia or the filibuster or Mitch McConnell, or Newt Gingrich, or Joe Lieberman, or Joe Manchin, or Kristin Synema, or, or, or…There’s always an excuse for the Democrats to tread water, whereas Republicans seem to get what they want, regardless of having a majority. If you (using universal “you” here) genuinely believe that Trump is an existential threat who wants to install a fascist dictatorship, why would you choose some uninspiring right-wing dementia patient to “save democracy”? This suggests that Democratic leaders either don’t think Trump is a threat or they agree with him. Much of our current problem is due to the lingering influence of the Cold War that elevated every right wing kook imaginable to prevent the rise of even mild socialism. The OG 9/11 of the assassination of Salvador Allende led to 9/11/2001, and our overlords in the Blob haven’t learned a thing. What we’re seeing now across the world with the rise of the far right is the bitter harvest of the US “winning” in the Cold War, and I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel for us.
I don’t believe the Democratic establishment agrees with Trump in any sense (economically, politically, socially, etc.). I do think the fact that Biden continues on in the race, despite the signficant and now growing risk that he will lose, puts the lie to the idea that democracy is on the line. That rationale for voting Democratic has been advanced for the last three contests now. As I said in a previous essay if this were the case — if American democracy were at stake — Biden would clearly sacrifice himself politically to save the country. It is telling that he does not do so.
It’s a gamble, one that I would liken to blackjack when holding 16 and asking the dealer for a hit. You don’t hit on 16 — it’s too risky!
I take it you’re seeing the current dynamics as a backlash. I’ve been listening to a couple theorists and commentators about the state of affairs after the Cold War. It seems that, when the Iron Curtain fell, we lost balance in the international ecosystem, if you will. I’m not saying the US was a pest, but it seems to have been somewhat like what happens when you transplant an invasive species into an area — without a natural predator or competitor, there’s nothing to keep the newly unleashed force in check.
Thank you for your reply. When I mean Democrats either agree with or don’t view the far-right as a threat, I talking about two things. First, a lot of Democratic legislation originated in the bowels of movement conservatism. The ACA, for example, was a reworked version of Romney Care, which itself started out as a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation during the HillaryCare battles of the 1990s. Of course, once Obama began championing it, suddenly the Heritage Foundation found its own ideas dangerously “socialist.” Second, I think that if the Democrats thought that the Republicans were the existential threat they claim they are, they would be launching Red Scare style trials to purge them from public life. Instead, its people are pro-Palestine who are getting purged, because both Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a view that cannot be allowed in acceptable discourse. If the Democratic leadership seriously believed that their Republican peers were getting checks in the mail signed “Vladimir V. Putin,” the GOP would be razed to the ground. But it’s not. We’ve seen how swiftly Democrats will brand pro-Palestinian activists as Russian/Chinese/Iranian/whatever bots to discredit them (and back that off with legislation), but not with far-right Republicans. We’ve seen what happens when a threat is perceived, and it isn’t happening with Republicans.
I agree that we need a strong left to take on the far right. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for responding, Diana!
This is so true! At a library system meeting back in 2001, I spoke up and said “There is no meaningful left wing in this country.” The head of the library system then asked, “Who is this brilliant woman?” What was obvious more than twenty years ago is even clearer now: we NEED a left wing.
Librarians know brilliance when they see it. :)
I only watched the debate because the MR crew was offering live commentary. It usually annoys me when they talk over the candidates but I appreciated it this time.
Interestingly, Seder said they took down their live commentary because they didn’t want to have a “copyright strike” (i.e., YouTube removing the video due to copyright concerns). I wonder to what that could have referred — do you know?
I watched the post-debate evaluation first thing this morning. My viewing habits today as regards this topic have been like the old Palmolive commercials: I’ve been soaking in it.