Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Doug Henwood wrote: And it's taken about 2 years for 9/11 to wear off. That's an important point. Because it wasn't just 9/11. It was 9/11, followed by Afghanistan (and the automatic boost in support for the president that comes with every war), followed by Iraq. They've been acting like they might invade Iraq at any moment around May 2002. The war in Iraq was followed by another presidential surge, which almost immediately began to fall. And interestingly, the Plame game took off at almost the precise moment when his ratings hit 50% with a negative bullet. Lastly, during the last two years there has been a fear on the liberal side of the aisle that this bubble of war support was unpoppable because they could always start another one. Only in the last few months has it been generally understood by people who don't follow military matters that isn't true because we're completely out of troops. In some ways, the Wilson Plame affair perfectly reflects the contours of Bush's growing weakness. It started a month after the fighting in Iraq was declared done, when it was clear it wasn't done and there wasn't any WMD. Plame was exposed then, and it was mentioned that this was breaking the law, but it the momentum ran out of the Yellowcake scandal before this second stage took off. What got it going again last week was a leak to the Washington Post on September 28th that a Senior Administration Official (a designation usually reserved for the top names in the executive branch) contacted 6 different reporters with the Plame story, and none of them picked it up except Novak. That same story quoted the official as saying it was done out of revenge. And this new development perfectly coincided with the tipping point of Bush's polls; the clear failure of his televised address and the highlighting of that poll decline; the trouble over the $87 billion request made in that speech; a joint Congressional report that concluded decisively that the administration had no new intelligence when it declared war on Iraq (i.e., that it was all lies); and a report from David Kay that he had found nothing. Like Doug said, the more you look at it, the less surprising it looks. Michael
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Michael Perelman wrote: Michael may be correct that it was a pebble causing an avalanche, but the absence of an avalanche heretofor seems to defy the laws of physics No, actually, that's exactly how avalanches work. Before they happen, nothing happens. The weight just builds up. And sometimes it melts. But here I get to my main point. Why does it take peripheral matters -- Rush's drugs, Arnold's gropes, Ms. Plame -- to weaken the right [assuming that all this does not fizzle]? Why have we not been able to make the case that we have been on the short end of a class war fro decades and that Bush is just stepping it up a bit? Why have we not been able to create a critique of the economy or even better a vision of a future economy to make people excited and energetic? Your last two sentences answer the question in the first one. Peripheral matters are overdetermining precisely because there is no real left vision. All we've got is some excellent critique, a few contradictory sketches of an alternative programme, and no political vehicle whatsoever. National politics at the moment is almost completely reduced to grappling between two centrist parties. And the liberal centrist party is completely on its back foot. It controls no branch of the federal government: neither house of Congress, nor the Presidency, nor the Supreme Court. That's why its only chance it to grab for targets of opportunity. And on top of that bad objective situation, subjectively it seems a party disporportionately stricken with fear and rigor mortis. The right controls vast amounts of money and media and they've used it to gain increasing ascendency in their party. The left's avenue of effect on the national debate in the last two years has been through the anti-war movement. And right now that effect is actually making itself felt, in the person of Dean. He's not on the left. But his support is. However he may betray us later, his emergence made anti-war a legitimate mainstream theme. And that has helped to get it on the media agenda -- and to hurt Bush. Now if we on the left had a vision, and a vehicle, and a decent liberal party that had power that we could attack from the left, well then maybe things would be different. We had all those things in the 60s. Basically the right has them all now. But if Bush is unelected and excoriated as he deserves, who knows? Maybe it'll be time for another inflection point. Michael
Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
Michael may be correct that it was a pebble causing an avalanche, but the absence of an avalanche heretofor seems to defy the laws of physics, let alone common sense. The Bushits screwed over virtually everbody to profit a small group of people. It skillfully applied hot button issues to distract people whose economic interests were undermined by the administration's policies -- religious groups, gun people I assume that reporters were afraid to be the first to speak up, lest they be hammered by the vile people running the place. Certainly the Iraq debacle and the weak economy should have given them backbone earlier. I would have expected that the strong antiwar movement would have generated some legs, but it seems to have been quieted. Today was the first round of good news I have seen in quite some time. Arnold apologizing. Rush as a druggie. When I got up this morning I was blurry eyed. When I saw the subject line of LBO, Rush resigns, I though I was dreaming because I read it as Bush resigns. But to think of those bastards screwing up with the Wilson affair But here I get to my main point. Why does it take peripheral matters -- Rush's drugs, Arnold's gropes, Ms. Plame -- to weaken the right [assuming that all this does not fizzle]? Why have we not been able to make the case that we have been on the short end of a class war fro decades and that Bush is just stepping it up a bit? Why have we not been able to create a critique of the economy or even better a vision of a future economy to make people excited and energetic? What is to be done?, as an old Russian once wrote? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
ps. I hit the send button too soon. I wanted to ask Michael Pollak and the rest of you, when the pebbles will turn into rocks or boulders? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
A major reason for not seeing an avalanche has been the flaccidity and me-too-ism of the US Democratic Party. This is, of course, the result of the collapse of the external backbones of the DP, i.e., the labor movement, the feminists, the environmentalists, etc., so that the main force driving the DP is fund-raising and the need to please those with the funds. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory Michael may be correct that it was a pebble causing an avalanche, but the absence of an avalanche heretofor seems to defy the laws of physics, let alone common sense. The Bushits screwed over virtually everbody to profit a small group of people. It skillfully applied hot button issues to distract people whose economic interests were undermined by the administration's policies -- religious groups, gun people I assume that reporters were afraid to be the first to speak up, lest they be hammered by the vile people running the place. Certainly the Iraq debacle and the weak economy should have given them backbone earlier. I would have expected that the strong antiwar movement would have generated some legs, but it seems to have been quieted. Today was the first round of good news I have seen in quite some time. Arnold apologizing. Rush as a druggie. When I got up this morning I was blurry eyed. When I saw the subject line of LBO, Rush resigns, I though I was dreaming because I read it as Bush resigns. But to think of those bastards screwing up with the Wilson affair But here I get to my main point. Why does it take peripheral matters -- Rush's drugs, Arnold's gropes, Ms. Plame -- to weaken the right [assuming that all this does not fizzle]? Why have we not been able to make the case that we have been on the short end of a class war fro decades and that Bush is just stepping it up a bit? Why have we not been able to create a critique of the economy or even better a vision of a future economy to make people excited and energetic? What is to be done?, as an old Russian once wrote? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
Michael Perelman wrote: Certainly the Iraq debacle and the weak economy should have given them backbone earlier. But it didn't turn into a debacle, by bourgeois standards, until rather recently. It was only when it did, and when Bush started stepping on some important toes (e.g., those in Langley) that things started turning. Also, the economic problem could be dismissed as just a slow recovery. The longer the labor market has refused to recover, the worse the political atmosphere. And it's taken about 2 years for 9/11 to wear off. It's not really all that surprising. Doug
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
Michael Perelman wrote: I assume that reporters were afraid to be the first to speak up, lest they be hammered by the vile people running the place. Counterpunch, October 2, 2003 Has Bush Become a Threat to the Ruling Elite? Who Got Us Into This Mess and Why? By SAUL LANDAU Have some heavy weight members of the old wealthy families reached a consensus that George W. Bush constitutes a clear and present danger to their fortunes' future? Have the CPAs of the truly well-born advised the families that the current occupant of the White House may have misplaced his mittens? Sporadic editorials from establishment house organs like the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times should alert the newly enlivened Democrats that they could receive substantial support from some of the upper crust. The message also arrived at the office of WH Adviser Karl Rove--a man as sensitive to potential power shifts as he is insensitive to human suffering. But how does Rove go about repairing the damage done to the confidence of the well born--and the others who voted Republican because they thought W would bring stability and economic prudence--without having the president admit that he made serious errors of judgments about war and peace (life and death) and economic priorities? President Bush has asked for $87 billion more to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan while he has little to show for it: 300 plus servicemen and women dead, thousands wounded, thousands more sick with strange infirmities. And Saddam remains missing along with Osama bin Laden and the Anthrax scoundrel. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/ === Washington Post, Thursday, October 2, 2003 Can't They Just Admit It? By George F. Will Rachel Lapp: You said we'd be safe in Philadelphia! John Book: Well, I was wrong! -- Witness (1985) In that movie about an Amish woman and her child who become accidentally entangled in drug-related police corruption, she is reassured by the detective's assessment, which turns out to have been spectacularly mistaken. However, her trust in him and the essence of his character -- trustworthiness, which is not the same as infallibility -- are established by four forthright words. A John Book Moment would serve the Bush administration. (clip) This president or a successor is likely to have to ask the country to run grave risks in response to intelligence from what the government will call solid sources. So, unless the public is convinced that the government is learning from this war -- learning how to know what it does not know -- the war may have made the public less persuadable and the nation perhaps less safe. Americans know that government, whether disbursing money or gathering intelligence, is not an instrument of precision. Hence they want the government to have the confidence -- in itself, and the public -- to say, as John Book did, that it was wrong. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
Doug Henwood wrote: And it's taken about 2 years for 9/11 to wear off. It's not really all that surprising. I want to put in a word here for the perspective, not that polls are bullshit, but that the left or various left activists should always have their attention focused on what is the most probable state of public opinion two or three years (or even more) in the future. In fact, only in a revolutionary situation should the left ever pay much attention to the immediate present. See Bertell Ollman, _Dialectical Investigations_, pp. 3-4. Carrol P.S. But not on the distant future beyond the disappearance of capitalism, as in the recent parecon thread. One considers _that_ future only for the light it sheds on the present. Ollman is good on this too. Doug
Re: Michael Pollak's Pebble Theory
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Washington Post, Thursday, October 2, 2003 Can't They Just Admit It? By George F. Will ... Americans know that government, whether disbursing money or gathering intelligence, is not an instrument of precision. Hence they want the government to have the confidence -- in itself, and the public -- to say, as John Book did, that it was wrong. Lo, the progression of rats off the sinking ship Bush begins. Quite a sight to see Will squeeze through a scupper and swim for it. Carl -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org _ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
