Boston Braying Party

Remember, starting this weekend I will be blogging from the DNC 2004. Click here for my latest L.A. Weekly column on same. An excerpt:

...In this year’s Democratic campaign, nearly all the energy, the political pop and electoral effervescence, has come from the party’s left: from the Deaniacs, the Moore worshipers, the anti-war protesters and the Orthodox legions of MoveOn.org. While Presumed Nominee Kerry was mumbling as usual these past months about staying the course, the folks really bringing it on — campaignwise — were all these lefties. Take them out of the mix, and this year’s Democratic campaign falls as flat as . . . well . . . your average Kerry stump speech.

But the sad irony of this Democratic left is that it arrives at the Boston convention utterly powerless and mostly ignored. Check out Micah Sifry and Nancy Watzman’s piece in these same pages this week to see just who — among banks, telecommunication companies, Big Pharma and, yes, even Big Tobacco — has coughed up $39 million to finance Democratic Convention doings and to buy the meatiest slabs of insider influence.

For months lefty standard-bearer Congressman Dennis Kucinich sustained his lonely campaign (I think it is still going on!) and, when asked by many — including yours truly — what the point of it was, he and his supporters answered that they were patiently building up forces to take to the convention. You know, peasants with pitchforks — progressives with clove cigarettes, ready to lay siege to the centrist establishment and make the voice of “the movement” mightily heard.

But when the party platform committee met last week, Kucinich immediately surrendered his fight to include a plank for immediate American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Not because Kucinich “sold out” — as some of his more knuckleheaded acolytes now whine. But rather because Kucinich made a cool-headed appraisal of the real balance of forces inside his own party and rightfully concluded he didn’t have a prayer (which, by the way, re-floats the question of what his campaign was about anyway).

So, as the curtain rises next week in Boston, the simple operational principle will be, as always, money talks — dissidents, walk quietly to your seats and applaud the show. The assigned role of the assembled will be to serve merely as compliant props for the TV show...

Also take a look at writer Norm Kelley's searing indictment of Black Democratic politics -- something he calls The Head Negro In Charge Syndrome. Al Sharpton gets a TV show out of this campaign... but what do the most loyal of Democratic constituencies get out of the deal?

See you in Boston.

Comments

[gmroper]

Marc, good to see you posting again. Your article in the weekly was very good and I think, on the money. I also followed your link to the Kelley column.

I live in deep south Texas, an area ruled by the democrats (so, with the Dems running this place -the Rio Grande Valley - for 130+ years why are we still so poor?). The democrats don't do any thing for the valley because they know they have the valley votes, the republicans don't do any thing because they know they aren't likely to get their votes and so, things remain the same.

That problem highlights the Black Americans issue with the Democrats because the democrats won't do anything for blacks except send the current candidate to every fourth NAACP convention. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THE VOTE LOCKED UP.

I'm thinking about starting a new website... www.votethebastardsout.org. Every election cycle vote for the other party in every office. If you are represented by a republican, vote for the democrat and vise versa. after two election cycles, I almost guarantee that the politicians would quit taking peoples votes for granted and start doing what they were hired to do... govern!

[Steve Smith]

Isn't it always true that the nearly all the energy, the political pop and electoral effervescence seems to come from the ideological wing of a party? When was the last time you heard those words describe a centrist movement?

[GMRoper]

Two days, two posts (and now a third one). Where the heck is everyone?

On the other hand Marc, it is funny now that you mention it. IMO neither the Looney Liberal Left or the Right Wing Nutjobs carry any governance weight, but both make most of the noise.

You as a liberal (not a leftist) and me as a conservative (not a wingnut) often take opposite sides of any given debate. But, the loudest responses in this blog (and in most others) and at the conventions and in the major media seem to be the denizens of the extremes. I wonder why? Squeaky wheel getting the lube? Perhaps, but just as republicans won't take on the current NAACP leadership (well, that’s what they are called and it's totally irrelevant if that is what they really are) for fear of being called "racist" Maybe the more centrist folk won't speak up because of the often vocal and always nasty opprobrium from their fellow party members.

[Michael Turner]

GM Roper writes: "I'm thinking about starting a new website... www.votethebastardsout.org. Every election cycle vote for the other party in every office. If you are represented by a republican, vote for the democrat and vise versa. after two election cycles, I almost guarantee that the politicians would quit taking peoples votes for granted and start doing what they were hired to do... govern!"

This is actually the beauty of the two-party system: it has a flush handle. And it works. That's about it for beauty, but it's something.

Japan recently had an election, and for the first time I can remember, Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan - DPJ) actually got more representation than Jiminto (Liberal Democratic Party - LDP, though the joke is that it's neither.) LDP will still continue to govern in coaltion with Komeito, a conservative party dominated by a buddhist sect here, but it's starting to shape up as more like two-party here.

Why is that good? Well, I still remember the bemusement of a Japanese friend when I told him that when a U.S. President leaves office, the government is virtually decapitated - or rather, it gets a head transplant. A whole new cabinet, with few holdovers, and political re-appointments several levels down from each one of those officers. That doesn't really happen here. The voters try flushing, but the same dingleberries keep floating back up.

[GMRoper]

Michael, what is the general feeling of the populace in Japan with the DPJ getting more representation than the LDP? And, do you think that the trend will continue or that it will change any of the policy of the LDP?

[rosedog]

Loony Liberal Left checking in! ;-)

Marc, loved the pre-convention Weekly column, even though I’m discomforted to find I seem to fall into all four of your categories---albeit in a grumpy, skeptical sort of way. Namely, I supported Dean, recommend the Moore movie (despite it's faults), took part in a number of (pre-war) anti-war demonstrations, and selectively participate in MoveOn…

(“…the Orthodox legions of MoveOn.org…” Excellent phrase.)

But, back on the subject of Kerry and the Dem platform: I found it extremely discouraging to hear Kerry grandstanding earlier this week about "zero tolerance for gangs" at the National Urban League conference---where he successfully reduced a complex problem to the worst kind of sound bites. The situation was made sadder because Kerry had the opportunity to make several important points---while acting as if he at least vaguely understood concerns of the Urban League’s constituency.

For example, he might have pointed out that most large urban police forces have had to yank cops and funds away from gang enforcement in favor of homeland security (This is according to the head of the National Youth Gang Center, the entity that keeps track of such stuff from an entirely non-partisan perspective). And he could have mentioned that matters have been made worse by Bush, who cut COPS, the Clinton-driven program that put 100,000 officers, while also reducing federal law-enforcement funding available to cities and small towns.

Kerry also had a wonderful opportunity to emphasize the “two Americas” theme---from within the frame of criminal justice, one of the areas of American life where the divide is the most dramatic. He could have might have drawn the direct line that exists between inadequate funding for inner city schools, after school programs, mentoring programs----and gang violence.

Plus he could have reminded his audience that, under his presidency, he will do everything he can to make sure that a death of a young man or woman in the inner city will matter as much as a death in the nation’s more affluent communities.

But he didn’t.

Instead he actually suggested such absurd strategies as "making the whole gang accountable for its most violent members.” Oh, yeah, that’ll work. Let’s punish the 14-year-old wannabee for the actions of the 22-year-old hardcore shooters. Social policy as designed by the Mexican Mafia.

Mutter, mumble, hiss!

[steve]

Marc, I'm not a Kerry fan (I mean why be for a guy who wants even more troops in the Iraq adventure), but I notice you support Kucinich's 'pragmatism' and trash Kerry for the same?

[steve]

That problem highlights the Black Americans issue with the Democrats because the democrats won't do anything for blacks except send the current candidate to every fourth NAACP convention. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THE VOTE LOCKED UP.

--and, uhm, Bush has done what for Blacks? please spare me the "Powell-Condi" business...

Steve writes: "--and, uhm, Bush has done what for Blacks? please spare me the "Powell-Condi" business..."

Sure, how about helping them throw away some crutches? http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2004/07/what_have_repub.html

Part of the Problem Steve, in case you don't see it, is that many (most?) black americans have fallen into the trap of "what is the government going to do for me?" Actually, I take that back, that is what the current "Black Leadership" denotes as the price of voting democrat.

Read also all of the entry’s here: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/mt-tb.cgi/38368

There is a large and growing black conservative movement composed of folk who have decided that the Democratic Party in General and the current Black Leadership (Bond, Jackson, Sharpton and Mfume) in particular have sold them a bill of goods. Their own words are far more eloquent than anything I could write.

[GMRoper]

Sorry, gave an incomplete URL (Preview is my friend! Preview is my friend!)

Here is the correct one: http://mhking.mu.nu/ and scroll down to the entry on the Conservative Brotherhood Roundup. The blog is FULL of Black, Conservative, Republican disgust with much of what the Democrats and Black Leadership have been feeding Black America.

[GMRoper]

Hey Steve: From the NYT's Ombudsman

"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?pagewanted=all&position

Read the Whole thing.

And now, because I have exceeded any decent number of allowable posts as indicated by our esteemed host, I will refrain from posting for a few days.... besides, I want to watch the party in Boston. I've always enjoyed Fantasy and Science Fiction. ;-)

[steve]

Here is the correct one: http://mhking.mu.nu/ and scroll down to the entry on the Conservative Brotherhood Roundup. The blog is FULL of Black, Conservative, Republican disgust with much of what the Democrats and Black Leadership have been feeding Black America.

--yeah, and uh those guys represent about roughly 8% of Black America. ho hum.

[steve]

the nyt represents the liberalism of what has long been known as the eastern establishment, largely waspish monied interests that exercise considerable influence in US capitalism. the stuff okrent mentions as examples of flaming liberalism are actually pretty tepid and typical of the liberalism of a, say, Andy Sullivan. Liberal on social issues [unless it's Clinton having oral sex or minorities being promiscuous] and prowar. thoroughly neoliberal in its outlook on global privatization campaigns [i.e. of the same mind as Bush], generally pro-business when it comes to major labor conflicts with a few exceptions here and there [they are liberal after all, hee hee]. If that is what is meant by 'liberal', sure, but Big deal? Heck, even Coors is progay these days...

The way you guys would have it though, the NYT is run by anti-capitalists, a very unusual and conspiratorial type of theory in the end.

[Woody McNair]

Did you see Kerry throwing out the first pitch this weekend at a Red Sox game? The Democratic "Sportsman of the Year," who had taken time out from skiing and bicycling, was throwing to a uniformed member of our armed forces.

Consistent with his speeches and voting records, he made a pitch to our military but was short on delivery. The ball short-hopped the catcher and went to the wall, appropriately leaving the serviceman empty handed.

Kerry was heard to mumble something about that "damned secret service agent" showing him the wrong grip, which caused the fast riser to sink into the ground.

Michael Moore claims that Bush, a former MLB team owner, had conspired with the ball manufacturer to give Kerry a faulty ball.

Steve writes: "yeah, and uh those guys represent about roughly 8% of Black America. ho hum."

Let me see if I understand this. If it's only 8%, their opinion doesn't count? Hmm, in 1957 only about 8% supported integrating North Central High School in Little Rock, so, I guess it should have stayed lilly white and Oriville Faubus could have died a happy camper. Hmm, LESS than 8% of the population supported the underground railroad in the 1840's-60's so, there goes freedom for blacks and the war was usless. Hmmm, less than 8% of the population went on the freedom rides in the early 60's soooooo.....

You asked a question, you got an answer. Too damn bad you didn't like the answer and the snide comment at the end was priceless, but what I expected.

Let me see if I understand this. If it's only 8%, their opinion doesn't count? Hmm, in 1957 only about 8% supported integrating North Central High School in Little Rock, so,

--not true

[gmroper]

Hmm, in 1957 only about 8% supported integrating North Central High School in Little Rock, so,

--not true

BS, I was there, I saw the hatred on the faces of the white establishment, I saw the violence, I listened to my fellow school mates in a little town north east of LR. I read the papers and watched the newscasts. I grew up in the military which was integrated by Truman a few years after I was born and I couldn't understand what the big deal was, I had gone to school with blacks all of my life practically. No, if 8% of the general populace supported it, I would be surprised. I still remember the aspersions cast against Eisenhower for nationalizing the Arkansas National Guard and forcing the issue.

But, that is not the point, anyway. Your original question was ""--and, uhm, Bush has done what for Blacks? please spare me the "Powell-Condi" business.." I gave you what many blacks think that conservatives, Republicans and Bush have done to support African Americans and you poo-pooh'ed that. Your attempts at obfustication are extraordinary.

[steve]

BS, I was there, I saw the hatred on the faces of the white establishment, I saw the violence, I listened to my fellow school mates in a little town north east of LR. I read the papers and watched the newscasts. I grew up in the military which was integrated by Truman a few years after I was born and I couldn't understand what the big deal was, I had gone to school with blacks all of my life practically. No, if 8% of the general populace supported it, I would be surprised.

--I wouldn't. However, the comparison is a lousy one. 1, what 92% of American Blacks support in terms of political parties is not a product of physical coercion. No Black equivalent of the KKK is going to threaten a Black person's life if they don't support the Dems. And GM, you might have missed it, but in the south, one of the key reasons why the Black Civil Rights Mov't was able to win was that the 'support' among Whites for enforcement of Apartheid was declining with every day. By the 1950s only extremists and deluded ideologists still supported Apartheid in the south as a political program to be enforced at any cost. If that were NOT the case, the Civil RIghts mov't would have had a much more difficult struggle in the south. The key reason for the solid defeat of Apartheid was the increasing isoloation of its supporters.
-------------------------
I gave you what many blacks think that conservatives, Republicans and Bush have done to support African Americans and you poo-pooh'ed that. Your attempts at obfustication are extraordinary.

--no, you gave me what a super small minority of Blacks think, the polls reveal that all too clearly.