Sunday, October 18, 2009

Some ramblings from an email exchange with a friend

You will not find a political construct on the left that is similar to neoconservatism because (a) neoconservatism is the old liberalism with a new name. I mean they talk as if they are different from traditional liberals but for the most part they are not. They support the defense department, defend the VietNam War, both of which were the product of traditional liberalism. They do not approve of Eisenhower’s Farewell Address because of his warning about the military industrial complex. And (b) what is called or could be called the new liberalism is really not much of anything other than a pale version of traditional liberalism, with some wrinkles thrown in. This helps explain the Democrats failure to “govern” as you put it. They don’t really have an alternative to the neocons agenda, except of course with some wrinkles here and there. And if one assumes that the Republicans [the elites that run the party] don’t really or genuinely care about abortion or the traditional family/morality thing – but are just using these issues to gain power – then there is virtually no difference between the two parties. So, bottom line, neither party represents the American people nor are they concerned with this. They just want to maintain the status quo, to maintain what we call “the two party system,” which of course isn’t a two party system. This to me is how to explain what has gone on in D.C. with regard to health care and what I predict will go on with regard to Afghanistan, continuation of the status quo basically with some “change” thrown in to make it look like the establishment responds to the people.

And it is useful to think of Afghanistan not in terms of foreign policy but in terms of domestic policy. Wars are a useful way to maintain order and especially maintain the established order. Shrub – a ‘little bush’, thank you Molly Ivins – was reelected in ‘04 because we were at war and the people did not want to change leaders then. Kerry’s incompetence and capacity to bore people to death only helped Bush win. The argument that he won on “moral values” is a bogus one as far as I am concerned, meant to make it seem that we do have a two party system. And, of course, as implied above, I doubt that the Republicans who run the party really care about “moral values” in any genuine way.

No comments:

Post a Comment