G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
It's Altamont On The Potomac, But Where's Keith Richards?
By RJ Eskow
Created Jan 2 2008 - 8:34am
Michael Bloomberg's meeting with Unity '08 has some people speculating about
whether Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel will run under that group's banner. That
raises a number of questions, such as: Would a Bloomberg/Hagel candidacy
have a chance of winning? Would they be wise or foolish to join up with
"Unity '08" if they do run? Will they hurt the Democrats badly if they do?
Glenn Greenwald [1] documents the excited chatter among DC insiders about
this possibility - and why wouldn't they be excited? David Broder and
like-minded Beltway types have been waxing poetic about Unity '08 for some
time now. They reckon that Americans are tired of partisan bickering and
want a consensus government comprised of longterm Democratic and Republican
party functionaries. Some of us have tried explaining that independents and
other disaffected voters are anti-partisan, not bipartisan [2], but that
argument's getting no traction.
So, for anybody old enough to remember the sixties, let me break it down for
you old-school style: Washington under the GOP has been one long extended
mugging, going back to the "Gingrich revolution" of 1994. It's been Altamont
all over again, a crowd of bystanders beaten mercilessly by a gang of thugs
with more authority than they can handle.
Anyone who has seen "Gimme Shelter" can remember how differently Mick Jagger
and Keith Richards handled that situation. As unprovoked Hell's Angels
mercilessly pummeled audience members with pool cues, Mick avoided
confrontation and sprinkled pious platitudes like pixie dust over the
wounded and terrified crowd. "Oh, babies," he cooed. "Can't we stop fighting
one another," he said - as if it were a two-sided brawl and not a gang
attack gone amok.
Keith, on the other hand, showed guts by taking the matter firmly in hand.
"Cool it," he said to the bikers, "or we stop playing. That guy," he said as
he pointed to one assailant, "that guy has to cut it out." Meanwhile Mick
kept crooning nonsense words. "Oh, babies, can't we love one another?" Keith
finally pointed to the head of the gang and said "Hey, you: F k off!"
By then, unfortunately, it was too late. A mentally ill man had brandished a
gun and been beaten to death. A court found that responsible guardians could
have disarmed him without going to such violent extremes or hurting so many
innocents. (War On Terror metaphors, anyone?)
Granted, Keith used rude language while Mick was impeccably polite. That
alone would disqualify him in the eyes of the DC elite. But Mick stood by
while people were beaten in his name, choosing to pretend it was a fight and
not a one-way assault. Everybody associated with Unity '08 has taken the
"Mick" position during this anti-Constitutional Republican riot. Only a
Washington insider could think these are the right people to fix what's
wrong with our government.
Glenn does a good job summarizing Bloomberg's record of Republican
partisanship during the height of the gang's assault over the last seven
years. There's also the Mayor's systematic assault on civil liberties [3]
during the 2004 convention - not a good indicator he's the man to clean up
what's wrong in Washington. And Matthew Yglesias [4] explains why, although
there are reasonable ways to be bipartisan, Unity '08 isn't one of them.
But could a "Mick Jagger" ticket of Bloomberg and Hagel harm the Dems in
2008? That depends. If the Democratic candidate adopts a "Mick" tone, too -
especially if she or he is seen as just another Washington insider - then
Bloomberg/Hagel could cut into their voter share significantly, even if
they're carrying the past-their-sell-by-date insiders who formed Unity 08.
And civil liberties aside, Bloomberg and Hagel might actually run a fairly
decent Administration. They would be competent technocrats, and their
policies might be indistinguishable from those of a triangulating Democrat.
John Edwards has been auditioning for the Keith Richards role, and doing a
pretty good job of it. Barack Obama's trying something different,
articulating some Keith-like goals with Mick-like eloquence. Either of them
would fare better against a GOP-plus-Bloomberg field than Hillary Clinton
would - that is, unless she changes her tack more than she's been willing to
do so far.
The fact is, she and Bill have been more muted than they might have been
during the last few years of Republicans Run Amok. The strongest public
anger we've seen from Bill was directed against 9/11 Truthers [5], not GOP
miscreants. A little "How dare you?" action could have come in mighty handy
right around 2003-2006, if it had been directed against the hijackers of the
Constitution and not a fringe group with no power or platform. (Although we
get a glimpse of his brilliance, too, in the way he told them he'd "be glad
to talk with them" if they'd let him finish his speech. That's the
compelling Bill Clinton, the same one who said Seattle WTO protesters
deserved a hearing. [6])
So how will it all play out? It's too early to tell, of course. But whatever
happens with Bloomberg and Hagel, it won't make sense for Democrats to feed
this notion of "partisan bickering." If they wind up acting like Mick
Jaggers, the next President's inaugural address may start with these words:
"Please allow me to introduce myself ..."
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By RJ Eskow
Created Jan 2 2008 - 8:34am
Michael Bloomberg's meeting with Unity '08 has some people speculating about
whether Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel will run under that group's banner. That
raises a number of questions, such as: Would a Bloomberg/Hagel candidacy
have a chance of winning? Would they be wise or foolish to join up with
"Unity '08" if they do run? Will they hurt the Democrats badly if they do?
Glenn Greenwald [1] documents the excited chatter among DC insiders about
this possibility - and why wouldn't they be excited? David Broder and
like-minded Beltway types have been waxing poetic about Unity '08 for some
time now. They reckon that Americans are tired of partisan bickering and
want a consensus government comprised of longterm Democratic and Republican
party functionaries. Some of us have tried explaining that independents and
other disaffected voters are anti-partisan, not bipartisan [2], but that
argument's getting no traction.
So, for anybody old enough to remember the sixties, let me break it down for
you old-school style: Washington under the GOP has been one long extended
mugging, going back to the "Gingrich revolution" of 1994. It's been Altamont
all over again, a crowd of bystanders beaten mercilessly by a gang of thugs
with more authority than they can handle.
Anyone who has seen "Gimme Shelter" can remember how differently Mick Jagger
and Keith Richards handled that situation. As unprovoked Hell's Angels
mercilessly pummeled audience members with pool cues, Mick avoided
confrontation and sprinkled pious platitudes like pixie dust over the
wounded and terrified crowd. "Oh, babies," he cooed. "Can't we stop fighting
one another," he said - as if it were a two-sided brawl and not a gang
attack gone amok.
Keith, on the other hand, showed guts by taking the matter firmly in hand.
"Cool it," he said to the bikers, "or we stop playing. That guy," he said as
he pointed to one assailant, "that guy has to cut it out." Meanwhile Mick
kept crooning nonsense words. "Oh, babies, can't we love one another?" Keith
finally pointed to the head of the gang and said "Hey, you: F k off!"
By then, unfortunately, it was too late. A mentally ill man had brandished a
gun and been beaten to death. A court found that responsible guardians could
have disarmed him without going to such violent extremes or hurting so many
innocents. (War On Terror metaphors, anyone?)
Granted, Keith used rude language while Mick was impeccably polite. That
alone would disqualify him in the eyes of the DC elite. But Mick stood by
while people were beaten in his name, choosing to pretend it was a fight and
not a one-way assault. Everybody associated with Unity '08 has taken the
"Mick" position during this anti-Constitutional Republican riot. Only a
Washington insider could think these are the right people to fix what's
wrong with our government.
Glenn does a good job summarizing Bloomberg's record of Republican
partisanship during the height of the gang's assault over the last seven
years. There's also the Mayor's systematic assault on civil liberties [3]
during the 2004 convention - not a good indicator he's the man to clean up
what's wrong in Washington. And Matthew Yglesias [4] explains why, although
there are reasonable ways to be bipartisan, Unity '08 isn't one of them.
But could a "Mick Jagger" ticket of Bloomberg and Hagel harm the Dems in
2008? That depends. If the Democratic candidate adopts a "Mick" tone, too -
especially if she or he is seen as just another Washington insider - then
Bloomberg/Hagel could cut into their voter share significantly, even if
they're carrying the past-their-sell-by-date insiders who formed Unity 08.
And civil liberties aside, Bloomberg and Hagel might actually run a fairly
decent Administration. They would be competent technocrats, and their
policies might be indistinguishable from those of a triangulating Democrat.
John Edwards has been auditioning for the Keith Richards role, and doing a
pretty good job of it. Barack Obama's trying something different,
articulating some Keith-like goals with Mick-like eloquence. Either of them
would fare better against a GOP-plus-Bloomberg field than Hillary Clinton
would - that is, unless she changes her tack more than she's been willing to
do so far.
The fact is, she and Bill have been more muted than they might have been
during the last few years of Republicans Run Amok. The strongest public
anger we've seen from Bill was directed against 9/11 Truthers [5], not GOP
miscreants. A little "How dare you?" action could have come in mighty handy
right around 2003-2006, if it had been directed against the hijackers of the
Constitution and not a fringe group with no power or platform. (Although we
get a glimpse of his brilliance, too, in the way he told them he'd "be glad
to talk with them" if they'd let him finish his speech. That's the
compelling Bill Clinton, the same one who said Seattle WTO protesters
deserved a hearing. [6])
So how will it all play out? It's too early to tell, of course. But whatever
happens with Bloomberg and Hagel, it won't make sense for Democrats to feed
this notion of "partisan bickering." If they wind up acting like Mick
Jaggers, the next President's inaugural address may start with these words:
"Please allow me to introduce myself ..."
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson