If you’ve followed the news in recently you’ve probably seen some pretty harsh condemnation of “bloggers” (whoever these nutcases are) for their support of Ned Lamont, Democratic candidate for senate in
Cokie Roberts said on ABC that voting against Lieberman would be a “disaster” for democrats.
The Washington Post (1/29/06) reported that “Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.”
Then again, (6/11/06) wondered “whether the often-angry rhetoric and uncompromising positions of the bloggers will drive the party too far left and endanger its chances of winning national elections.”
The Los Angeles Times (6/11/06) shares the worries of “Democratic centrists who fear that the new activists are pressuring the party toward liberal positions that will impede its ability to build a national electoral majority.”
And the paper that the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world smear for it’s liberal bias, The New York Times (4/2/06), wrote that liberal blogs “have proved to be a complicating political influence for Democrats. They have tugged the party consistently to the left, particularly on issues like the war”
So why are Democratic voters being lambasted for voting for a real Democrat rather than a Republican in Dem’s clothing? Why are we being told that blogs and candidates that share the view of 60% of the country,
It’s beyond the scope of this post to give a full rundown of DLC history, but it’s out there, “DLC” into google does the trick. What’s important to know is that they are neocons in the democratic party. Story goes, conservative democrats got together with lots of big corporations (just for support, they’re very supportive those faceless monoliths) after the 1984 presidential debacle and formed the DLC as a way of moving the party further to the right to become more electable, which is where you get all this moderation, move to the middle bullshit now. It’s where we got John Kerry.
Thing is, similar institutes that were also funded by big corporations had just moved the republicans much further to the right in the decade before. It’ was a particularly well played hand in a way. Social conservatives were easy to sway because they were pissed off at the progressives in the 60’s and 70’s who had been telling them that they were wrong and stupid for the better part of 20 years. “You’re a bigot! FREE LOVE!” didn’t play well in the heartland and what were once hotbeds of economic populism became strongholds for “family values” and soon the neocons that would exploit them.
Once that was pretty well locked in, big business played the DLC card, convincing progressives that the only way they’d get elected, so that they can get environmental protections passed donchaknow, would be to follow the lead to the economic right.
Sure I like the environment and education better than bans on gay marriage and prayer in schools, and I guess that makes me more a democrat than a republican. But what WE, all of us, need to realize is that we’re getting played. Big business, and it’s mouthpiece Big Media (see nonsensical quotes above), don’t really give a crap about your cause. In fact, the economic system that they want to see advanced will almost inevitably kill your cause, be it cleaning up the potty mouths or cleaning up the superfund sites. The proof of that is easy enough to see now, look at abortion bans, and gay marriage bans, and all that crap. Hasn’t happened even though that’s what Bush won with. The tax cuts for the wealthy and war profiteering are happening sure enough, but the social conservative stuff seems to disappear when push comes to shove.
They’re plenty ready for you to have your cause if it gets you so worked up that you’ll sell out your own best interests. And that’s what we’re all doing here, we’ve got to be able to see that. Read What’s the Matter with Kansas, conservative or liberal you’ll learn something about what those terms used to mean. Just because you want to end legal abortion doesn’t mean you’re ready to give the national treasury to the richest .001%. Ditto the save the whales crowd.
The sheep’s clothing is slipping off the wolf a little bit with this Lieberman campaign because it’s so absurd. I mean the guy said he’d ditch his party if he lost and then begged voters to be loyal to him because he’s a long time incumbent. The media lockstep for a guy like that just doesn’t add up unless there’s something else going on, and there is. He’s the DLC guy, and they have the power to put that on the airwaves.
Let's all bicker about the surface stuff later, deal? Let's vote for guys like Ned Lamont, who actually represent what most of us are thinking. Let's stop getting manipulated by the mother fuckers! We can sort all that other shit out after we have a decent economic and foreign policy.
