David Seaton's picture

    Tea Time 2010: Hope trashed, audacity smashed and change unbelievable

    "2008 answered the question,' Is America ready for a black president?' In 2010 we'll answer 'Are we ready for an orange speaker?'" — Paul Begala (hat Doonesbury)
    It seems that much of the fate of the Republic is presently in the hands of a tearful man, dyed orange, whose surname is a homophone for what the British call a "stiffy".

    Thus, gentle reader, is our country's contemporary history being written.

    Make no mistake, the Tea Party has had a resounding success. It's principal mission, freezing up the legislative system by terrorizing moderate conservatives has been accomplished.

    Why has this been done?
    My encapsulated analysis of the present predicament:
    1. America's social fabric is woven principally around the "dream" of upward social mobility and material prosperity. That's why most of our ancestors arrived on America's shores in the first place.
    2. Anything that threatens that "dream", seriously threatens America's "domestic tranquility", which the Constitution considers fundamental to "ensure".
    3. Globalization as it is presently organized is threatening the upward mobility and material prosperity of America's workers, the middle class and those who aspire to the middle class, thus nullifying America's "mission statement".
    4. In short the survival of the Republic itself is jeopardized by unregulated globalization
    5. To change that situation would require among other things much more regulation, elimination of tax havens and some sort of universal "Tobin tax".
    6. That would cost many of the "good and the great" a lot of power, "freedom" and money.
    7. To avoid all that bother, some of said "good and the great" stir up the inherent social and racial tensions of America's crazy quilt society, using instruments such as the Astro-Turf Tea Party,  in order to thwart any curtailment of their power, wealth and prestige by simply bringing the law making process to a halt, giving them time to think what to do next.
    8. Thanks to the present campaign financing laws, the Republic is practically defenseless in the face of these wealthy predators.
    The question surely is, "can anything be done about this?"

    Something has to be done to fix America's infrastructure, fix the public schools, reduce defense spending, insure upward social mobility and generally shore up the middle class whose prosperity is the glue that holds American society together.

    We have seen that a Democratic president, swept into office on a wave of popularity and approval, with a Democratic majority in both houses, has been able to do very little to solve any of America's most pressing problems except to shore up Wall Street and pass a decaffeinated health plan. By now it would seem obvious that it would be absurdly optimistic to expect much more from him or them, even if they someday regained that popularity and those majorities.

    Yet something must be done.

    I confess that I have given up hope on any great citizens movement in the style of MLK's civil rights campaigns financed by the "widow's mite".  Things have gone too far: the Supreme Court ruling, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" has made such a truly grassroots, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" scenario even more of a fantasy than it was when Frank Capra filmed it.

    How could anything be done, or who could do something about this?

    Since the politicians are up for sale, where can the victims find the money to buy them off?

    Norman Mailer once wrote that the people of New York state voted for the über-moderate Republican Nelson Rockefeller, because they figured that since he owned most of the state, he would take good care of it. Perhaps that is the only path left.

    Perhaps progressives or at least "concerned" and mentally stable citizens need to find their "own" millionaires. I think it  may finally come down to which set of millionaires you want to be ruled by.

    If this be the case then we might hope that some public spirited super richniks such as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner and George Soros might found and fund a political action committee to put fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg into the White House and between them all pay for enough Astro-Turf to "terrorize" all the hacks in the Senate and Congress into passing some serious legislation.

    Not exactly the "Audacity of Hope", is it, but maybe the only possible next step to keep the country from collapsing in its own helpless, hapless idiocy.

    Cross posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

    Comments

    So, are you saying we should, for example, give the Infrastructure projects over to the asphalt industry and tell them to use their own money to buy the politicians necessary to pass the law?  Then, every industry would be able to get what they want IF they have the money to spend to get it ... or are you arguing more for a benevolent oligarchy which would be run at the pleasure of the Super-rich?  If so, here's your assignment; don't waste your time writing for us, go find some super-rich people to write to and pursuade them to support our cause.  None of us could possibly fund your vision.


    I believe Mr. Seaton has our present situation accurately analyzed.  I do feel that he could have posted the preceding statement, exactly as written, a year ago.  The House had no effect on jobs and the economy for two years.  The "Just Say No" Senate did nothing to improve the welfare of middle-America.  Why is anyone standing, in frozen mode, like a deer in the headlites after yesterday's election results?  The electorate voted for change in 2008 and got nothing.  What is going to change in the following two years?  Mr. Seaton is correct when he states that hope and benevolence will not win-out over corporate cash.  Unfettered greed and the capitalist drive to overpower all competitors does not allow for compassion nor patriotism.  When a large number of our citizens can be convinced to vote against their own best interests, it's a fact...We must appeal to those individuals with the resources (and willingness) to save us from ouselves.


    So, are you saying we should, for example, give the Infrastructure projects over to the asphalt industry

    No, no, not at all!

    The idea that  I think I am groping for is that we live in something like the Dark Ages, a dog eat dog anarchy, where some very bad barons are exploiting the peasants (us) and that we need some good barons ("white knights") to protect us.

    It seems that certain self-made billionaires like Buffet, Gates, Bloomberg, Turner and Soros have some sense of public consciousness and responsibility, some sense of belonging to a social whole, a sense of the res publica. And that the system as it is is so corrupt that we can only be saved by these "white knights", who can fight people like Murdoch and the Kochs with their own weapons (money).

     


    Micahel Bloomberg? So ... embrace Plutocracy and cement government of the rich for the rich and by the rich as our path to a better Democracy? At first blush, not really hyped on your plan here. Leaning more to the torches and pitchforks to make these fuckers fear for their very existence.

    Although I think your analysis of the present perdicament is spot-on.


    I like the way Bloomberg has handled the Ground Zero mosque thing. He has stated that his father had to buy a home through a lawyer so that the sellers wouldn't know he was Jewish and that he didn't want anybody to ever have to go through that. This is a direct application of rule instated (by order of appearance) Rabbi Hillel and Jesus of Nazareth... "Do unto others...". Since Bloomberg is Jewish this ethical stand in defense of Muslim rights is doubly meritorious. If Israel were governed by somebody like Michael Bloomberg there would be peace in the Middle East.


    Totally opposite narrative to yours. Seems almost like he lives in a different country than you do (hah!):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-voters-have-spokenor-_b_77...

    I especially agree with these parts of his essay:

    proved that pouring GOPzillions of your own money into a campaign won't buy you victory

    and

    Tuesday's results, for sure, badly damaged Sarah Palin's stock. Her biggest failure was in her home state of Alaska, where her personal, vitriolic hate campaign against incumbent Lisa Murkowski, the write-in candidate, and her support of lying Tea Party loon Joe Miller, appears to have backfired. Angle's and O'Donnell's losses are a huge embarrassment to her as well.

    Tea Party favorite Ken Buck's loss in Colorado is a major win for Democrats and another solid repudiation of Palin-esque radicalism.

    Hot tip before you write you next blog entry: Read some more. Overall, it was a GOP rout as far as the House and governors races were concerned, quite a different thing from a Tea Party rout.


    People take their comfort where they can Art, you know my reading of the Tea Party is that it only exists to drive Republican moderates so far to the right that they cannot make any deals. Paralyzing the system is their objective... Mission accomplished.


    The outcomes represent a huge success for Karl Rove and the establishment GOP. They have already gotten what they needed out of the tea party and this outcome has seriously marganalized the faction as a competing power within the establishment coming into 2012. They poured the money which corporations passed through American Crossroads (etc.) where the corporations directed, just like they were supposed to, and now they are in a strong position to say "Next time, let us handle the politics and you guys just provide the money."

    There is still a GOP war a-brewing, but this outcome was a massive win for the traditional powers that be in the GOP. They got the House and dealt a severe blow to their internal rivals.

     


    Uh...Boehner is pronounced bay-ner. If it's a homonym of a synonym of a stiffy, I'm unfamiliar with that slang.


    Clearly you've never heard the Queen speak. "Hellay" is her Hello.

    Thus.... "Bayner" would be her Boner. 

    So to speak.


    Boner soumds like something productive as well as entertaining. Boener, the prick with ears, is neither.


    Prince Phillip probably hasn't had one for decades


    So then we should also pronounce Goethe something like as in Mitzi Gaynor?  Wolfgang Gayther?  Something like that?


    Ok, let's really get pedantic here. The real German spelling of that writer's name is Göthe. The spelling Goethe that we use is simply to provide for the lack of an "O" with an umlaut n the English language. We dunno if "Boehner" was the result of his forbears (or some Ellis Island officer) being educated enough to know to substitue an "oe" for an "ö"  or whether it really was originally an "oe." Actually, to get more confusing, I believe it's "Ä" that's pronounced like "ay" in German.

    Somebody over at "Answer Bag" offered this suggestion:

    Question: How is it, that John Boehner's (United States Senator) name is pronounced "Bainer" and not "Boner?" loll...this puzzles me...

    DukeG on May 18th, 2009

    Its pronounced Boner he just says its not. Wouldn't you. There is a guy at work whos last name is Gay. He says its pronounced Gee.


    Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1466411#ixzz14FjldZLQ


    "The real German spelling of that writer's name is Göthe. The spelling Goethe that we use is simply to provide for the lack of an "O" with an umlaut n the English language."

    O gee really?  Knock me over with a feather, AA.  An umlaut?!!  Boy I'll have to wicky that. 


    Umlat is the answer to the Question: "How much trouble is the U.S. in with Boehner as Speaker of the House? A: "Um ... lat of trouble?"


    "It's pronounced Faukenstene." "Your putting me on." "No..no..really. An you must be Egor." "It's pronounced Igor." "They told me it was Egor." "Well they were wrong...weren't they."


    "The real German spelling of that writer's name is Göthe."

    Wow. Somebody should tell the Germans.


    Dude. Stay out of this. The point of Seaton's blogs now is for us stressed Lefties to gather and argue about national character and how that's determining events. Also, ethnicity. And religion. Jews? Fatiguing. Turks? Noble and unyielding. Germans? The epitome of national character, impossible to break, never questioning their national identity, back through the eons. Americans? Don't ask. But it's not liberal, that's for damn sure. 

    Never mind history. We can rewrite it.

    Never mind politics. It's irrelevant.

    And damn sure, never mind spelling.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find out what the Canadian national character consists of. Hockey and maple syrup, sure, but I suspect a touch of global behemoth as well.


    hey as long as Americans can tell other countries how to spell the names of their national heroes, it's all good!

    Now, I've got to go back to my heavenly council table...

    ;0)

    p.s. speaking of hockey, what have you done to the Leafs, dude?! They're, like... winning, this year.... wtf?!?!


    Leafs started off hot, won their first 4.

    Since then, lost 7 of 8. Last night, to Ottawa.

    I was near suicidal. The Dems losing was just par for the course.

    And now... back to the table! 


    Just for the record, Canadians, (spelled Canadiens in certain parts of the country), spell "Leafs" L-I-E-F-S, from Old English lēof; akin to Old English lufu or love.  Thus the Leafs are love, however the exchange of bodily fluids at rinkside is considered bad form regardless of the language employed by the participants.  Gut Goethe!  Good gawd!  (sp. god in certain circles).


    Latest Comments