The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time -- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did -- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.
We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
None of this comes as any surprise to those of us who have been arguing that the Democratic party has been little more than a corrupt servant of big finance for quite a few decades now, and certainly few will dispute that they really went over that cliff with the nomination of Bill Clinton.
Anyway Taibbi's point is that the difference between Democrats' perceived platform and their actual performance cannot be explained away merely as "timidity" or "weakness" or even lack of aptitude. After all, of the 95 Democrats in the House who voted in favor of authorizing a Super-congressional entity to cut Social Security and Medicare, only one had recently suffered a debilitating brain injury.
No comments:
Post a Comment