Even though no member of “the squad” – Democrat
congressional representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts –
is participating in the national Democrat primary debate now underway, the drift
of Democrat politics post primary has been set by them and, of course, Vermont
socialist Bernie Sanders. Primaries bring out political extremists who, along
with a 24-7 media, set the party narrative.
Before primaries became common in both parties, candidate
selection was made by party bosses in smoke-filled back rooms, and eccentrics
in the parties were allowed their fifteen minutes of fame during national
conventions. Party bosses disappeared long ago; more likely, they have gone
underground. And national conventions are now regarded as prime-time political
shows, essential for generating campaign funding and spreading political
gospels through sympathetic media outlets. Over the years, party conventions
have lost their sharks’ teeth.
If we are asked today who determines which presidents or
governors will represent their parties in general elections -- who, in other
words, are the real political bosses? – we are told the people rule through a
democratic primary process, a laudable goal but a laughable exaggeration. In
both primaries and general elections, voters simply affirm choices made by
other now shadowy figures operating behind sometimes opaque political veils.
When the sturm und drang
of the primaries have abated, selected representatives of both parties, national
and state, tend to drift once again towards normalcy, in popular parlance “the
center.” We have developed a political language to describe this gyrating
pendular motion. In primaries, political contestants are said to be appealing
to “their base.” Democrats these days appeal to progressives, and Republicans
appeal to conservatives, the devil take the hindmost. In general elections, convention nominees twist themselves into pretzel shapes to appeal to the
“center” of the party, which today is in motion.
What happens when the center moves right or left? Mass
hypocrisy and confusion ensues. The only political “sin” recognized the world
over by media adepts is hypocrisy, usually punishable by a caustic few
paragraphs in a quickly forgotten editorial. It used to be thought that
hypocrisy is “the compliment vice pays to virtue.” Hypocrites of old doffed
their hats to virtue – of course one should always tell the
truth and shame the devil, but sometimes the greater good of the party requires
one to explore a heavily nuanced path – in the very act of committing the only
sin recognized by a diminishing media luxuriating in the pockets of some
favored interest or arcane ideology.
“Trust nothing in politics,” said Otto von Bismarck, “until
it has been officially denied.” That is a useful maxim for journalists to
follow, but following it requires a politically imprudent break with
“transactional journalism” as understood by Sheryl Attkisson, let go from her
job at CBS because her employers had become the willing servants of ambitious politicians.
So then, the modern journalist is working within a system in
which a now unfamiliar evil, the much misunderstood party boss, has been
replaced by shadowy political elements: super PACs, Harvard and Yale educated
political consultants, former “objective” reporters and commentators employed
by powerful incumbents, bloggers of every stripe and hue, furious twitterers,
masked Trotskyites, deep-pocketed billionaire short-traders whose personal fortunes
prosper in the chaos and darkness they create in order to make their billions,
ivy league professors who relish the
destruction of their own universities, not to mention the foundational ideas that have sustained the good old USA
through the Revolutionary war, the Civil
War, World Wars I and II, a newly hatched progressive Democrat Party, eupeptic
conservative Republicans and what Julian Benda used to call “La Trahison des Clercs,” the treason of the
intellectuals.
There are lots of twists and turns in the political maze,
more than a hatful of cogs and spinning wheels. Many of the Wizard-of-Oz-like
backstage political shakers and movers mentioned above have learned how to
manipulate the party system, primaries, the campaign finance system, and even
conventions. Political parties, especially in one-party hegemonic states, have
sloughed off traditional functions such as the generating and dispersing of
campaign funds, now performed by candidates themselves. Political parties are
much weaker than they were when bosses ruled the
roost. The most recent gubernatorial contest in Connecticut featured two
millionaires, neither of whom have had deep roots in politics. Incumbents are
able to generate massive campaign funding; their competitors, forced to rely on
tax supplied funding, not so much. This is one of the many reasons incumbents, safely locked into gerrymandered districts, are, in the absence of term limits,
so difficult to dislodge.
Comments
Another belief currently floated, and contrary to logical thought is - international oligarchs, with allegiance to no country, only to markets and profits, now believe socialism is more favorable to them than capitalism as it can bring them even greater wealth and power. Since they, through government, control academia, publishing, the MSM, health care, major institutions and welfare programs, they can shape public opinion to a dumbed down citizenry and have their way with minimum bloodshed. With the help of some conservatives, oligarchs like the Koch brothers, preached that welfare for the poor smacked of socialism, yet they lobbied for more corporate welfare for themselves.
It’s almost impossible today to know for certain what anyone believes. Do speeches reflect their own views or are they on the payroll and a front for some special interest. What say you?