Dynasts Beware!
Many thanks to Chris Hassel of Minnesota for Richardson for sharing these important observations on the sad state of American democracy! As the article points out, Bill Richardson's grassroots campaign for the Presidency is about far more than policies, it's about the very nature of our political system! Read on, and see why you should get involved!
The following snippet is from the recent edition of The Economist (October 6th-12th, 2007), the worldwide news magazine. This particular article centers on Senator Clinton's candidacy and deals with, among other things, the positives and negatives of a potential Clinton nomination and/or presidency. What it says about what one might call "Imperial (or Trademarked) Candidates" is revealing, and it should be pointed-out that the "Bush" and "Clinton" dynasties, if the "restoration" of the latter one were to occur, would represent an unprecedented grip on American power by two political families. If Governor Richardson were to be nominated, a lot of these negatives would be circumvented. Now is probably the time to shake things up in the White House, not restore a good deal of the old order once-removed. And, at any rate, are we so certain that the old order is as electable in the general election process as they once were? The following is from the article titled "Hillary Clinton: Ready To Run The Movie Again?," in the Briefing section of The Economist:
....If Mrs Clinton wins the White House in 2008, members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for 24 years on the trot. Over 100m Americans have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Mrs Clinton wins re-election, that 24 years will swell to 28.
Americans are remarkably insouciant about this development. They should not be. It suggests that American political life is in the hands of a small group of insiders who are organised around semi-royal families. And it divides America into "players", who control political life, and "observers", who simply comment on it. The dynastification of American politics is happening at a time when economic inequalities are growing, and the "haves" are proving increasingly successful at transmitting their privileges to their children.
The other negative side is that it freezes American political life. One of the virtues of the American political system is that it is supposed to produce shake-ups whenever a new president takes over. Mrs Clinton will bring back the same cast of characters that everybody wearied of in the 1990s, from slick money-raisers like Terry McAuliffe to professional conservative-haters like Sidney Blumenthal.
Back in 1993 Jacob Weisberg, writing in the New Republic, accused the Clinton team of "Clincest"--being a "tight, hermetic and incestuous clique" who went to the same universities and hung out at the same Democratic gabfests. Mrs Clinton's election will not only perpetuate "Clincest" for another four or eight years; it will also add another dollop of ageing baby-boomer self-satisfaction. During a campaign speech earlier this year Mr Clinton remarked that he once told Hillary, when they were both students at Yale, that "I have met all the most gifted people in our generation and you're the best." This sort of attitude will be difficult to live with....
...Even more dispiriting will be the continuing polarisation of American politics. Mrs Clinton may have damped down Hillary-hatred for a while. But it is sure to revive if she starts appointing Supreme Court justices. And Mrs Clinton is still surrounded by the same fanatically loyal and combative staff that she had in the 1990s. America will be stuck not just in the same tired culture war, but also in the same culture war fought by the same characters. The potential for further alienation from politics, particularly after the Bush years, will be huge....
The following snippet is from the recent edition of The Economist (October 6th-12th, 2007), the worldwide news magazine. This particular article centers on Senator Clinton's candidacy and deals with, among other things, the positives and negatives of a potential Clinton nomination and/or presidency. What it says about what one might call "Imperial (or Trademarked) Candidates" is revealing, and it should be pointed-out that the "Bush" and "Clinton" dynasties, if the "restoration" of the latter one were to occur, would represent an unprecedented grip on American power by two political families. If Governor Richardson were to be nominated, a lot of these negatives would be circumvented. Now is probably the time to shake things up in the White House, not restore a good deal of the old order once-removed. And, at any rate, are we so certain that the old order is as electable in the general election process as they once were? The following is from the article titled "Hillary Clinton: Ready To Run The Movie Again?," in the Briefing section of The Economist:
....If Mrs Clinton wins the White House in 2008, members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for 24 years on the trot. Over 100m Americans have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Mrs Clinton wins re-election, that 24 years will swell to 28.
Americans are remarkably insouciant about this development. They should not be. It suggests that American political life is in the hands of a small group of insiders who are organised around semi-royal families. And it divides America into "players", who control political life, and "observers", who simply comment on it. The dynastification of American politics is happening at a time when economic inequalities are growing, and the "haves" are proving increasingly successful at transmitting their privileges to their children.
The other negative side is that it freezes American political life. One of the virtues of the American political system is that it is supposed to produce shake-ups whenever a new president takes over. Mrs Clinton will bring back the same cast of characters that everybody wearied of in the 1990s, from slick money-raisers like Terry McAuliffe to professional conservative-haters like Sidney Blumenthal.
Back in 1993 Jacob Weisberg, writing in the New Republic, accused the Clinton team of "Clincest"--being a "tight, hermetic and incestuous clique" who went to the same universities and hung out at the same Democratic gabfests. Mrs Clinton's election will not only perpetuate "Clincest" for another four or eight years; it will also add another dollop of ageing baby-boomer self-satisfaction. During a campaign speech earlier this year Mr Clinton remarked that he once told Hillary, when they were both students at Yale, that "I have met all the most gifted people in our generation and you're the best." This sort of attitude will be difficult to live with....
...Even more dispiriting will be the continuing polarisation of American politics. Mrs Clinton may have damped down Hillary-hatred for a while. But it is sure to revive if she starts appointing Supreme Court justices. And Mrs Clinton is still surrounded by the same fanatically loyal and combative staff that she had in the 1990s. America will be stuck not just in the same tired culture war, but also in the same culture war fought by the same characters. The potential for further alienation from politics, particularly after the Bush years, will be huge....
--Chris
The writer of the above post is out of line. Bill Richardson made it clear during one of the debates that he disapproves of the Hillary bashing campaign.
Since when was the Economist, the bastion of globalism and heir of the British Raj, an appropriate source of advice for American progressives? To perpetuate this post is to be a sucker for manipulation from a foreign power.
No matter how subtle the editors of the Economist may think they are, it's clear what is going on here. They are seeking to divide the progressive movement and divert attention from the huge success of the last democratic presidency, a presidency that did more to close the gap between the rich and poor than any administration in history. Bill Richardson was part of that Administration!
Duh!! What do you think you are doing Kubik???
If you have any original ideas, you don't need to copy and distribute stuff someone else wrote. Let's hear your own thoughts, if you have any.
Hillary has suffered a crippling campaign of negativity. For nearly two decades, any available unflattering photo has been printed on the outside of rightwing fund raising mailings containing the most hateful and malicious calumny ever heaped on an American statesperson. Now, as recently documented on PBS's Bill Moyers show, that calumny has reached an unprecedented scale, being multiplied many times over using the vehicle provided by YouTube.
The trouble with aiding and abetting this vicious campaign is that it is feeding a monster that will attack whatever democrat wins the nomination. We need to repudiate this campaign of political terrorism. We don't need to copy it and distribute it.
No matter how the Economist would like to spin it, the economic policies implemented by Clinton in the first two years of his presidency led to unprecedented prosperity. And, the gap between the rich and the poor was never showing better signs of abatement. This is a record only a fool wouldn't want to build upon. Bill Richardson wants to build on that record, I can assure you.
The Clinton administration was sabotaged and virtually shut down by the midterm "Angry White Man" vote of 1994. This event was reminiscent of the way the Truman administration was shut down after 1948 by the angry McCarthyism vote. We've seen this happen before in America, and it must stop!
Far from being a dynasty, the Clinton candidacy reflects nothing worse than a natural desire that America pick up again where it left off after the election was stolen from Gore and Kerry.
Our country has been taken like a stolen car on a joy ride by an immature punk. Our car has been left in the ditch after that joy ride. It's Bill Richardson's task to pull it out of the ditch and get it back on the road. Ridicule directed at the previous democratic caretaker of that car is totally inappropriate.
To equate the Clinton years to the Bush dynasty is foolish, or worse. The Bushes were given ample opportunity to do with America as they wished, both of them. No such opportunity was allowed Bill Clinton. He was a brilliant man and, except for the incredible persecution of the "Whitewater" crusade and the "we need to know all about your private life" crusade complete with depositions and endless subpoenas, he would have been one of the greatest presidents in the history of America.
How can anyone forget the hypocrisy of Henry Hyde heading up the impeachment procedings when he had nasty sexual skeletons in his own closet. And then Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, was found to be cheating on his wife as she lay in the hospital. And, don't forget Livingston, next in line to Gingrich, who resigned when his sexual secrets were made public. The desire to correct this ugly era in sexual McCarthism is natural. It is not a sign of the existence of a dynasty.
Bill Richardson can win the Presidency. But, we must cage the beast. Like Limbaugh's Grendel, to Richardson's Boewulf, our hero must defeat a voracious monster that consumes progressive causes and spits out war and economic decline.
The last thing we need is someone inside the organization who undermines the very rationale of Bill Richardson's candidacy.
Bill Richardson's goal is to show that he can build on the Clinton legacy (as of the reforms of 1994) better than Hillary. Because, Bill had a part in the Clinton legacy.
I'm not familiar with Kubik's work on the campaign. I hope the other things he has done show better judgment. I'm sure that he would find that Bill Richardson would not approve of his post. Perpetuating material that slyly and subtly undermines the Democratic Party is not the way to help our candidate.
If our democracy is in a sad state, it's because people like Kubik don't have more sense than to be pawns of the globalists and economic royalists.