I should explain the idea of Bush being the (titular) head of a so-called Leninist party. Years ago, in 1992, some columnist in the NATION magazine (David Corn?) had a list of things that the newly-elected president Clinton could do even without Congressional support. Of course, Clinton didn't listen (and instead dissipated time and energy on a fight with the military about "don't ask, don't tell"). But it's as if the Bushwhackers took up Corn's idea and once they'd finagled their way into power, used every way they could to push their program (which of course wasn't at all like Corn's) even during the time when they didn't have Congress on their side. They act like a disciplined cadre rigidly following the "Leninist" principles of "democratic" centralism, which turns off genuine conservatives in Congress and elsewhere.
 
BTW, the more I think about it, the more the current US election is like that between Goldwater and Johnson in 1964. Neither opposed the War against Vietnam. Instead, the issue was tactics, strategy, etc.
 
One difference is that today's "Goldwater" is the incumbent, having gotten in under false pretenses (pretending to be more compassionate than he is, etc.) He's also more opportunist, allied with oil interests and the religious Right.
 
Today's "Johnson" has pretty much the same foreign policy principles as the the one who ran in 1964 (differing in practice, of course, because the international situation differs). His domestic policy is much worse, largely because the power of the labor movement, civil rights movement, etc. is so much less than in 1964.
 
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine



> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine,
> James
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Wired Bush
>
>
> >As for whether we really do have a Milli Vanilli president,
> the answer
> at this point has to be, God only knows.<
>
> it's possible he's merely repeating the lines Karl Rove gives
> him, but it's wrong to focus too much on the individual Bush.
> It's a _disciplined team_ that runs the presidency, akin to a
> self-styled Leninist Party of yore.
>
> Jim
>

Reply via email to