Episode CCCIL of The American Political Melodrama: Mr. William Kristol vs Senator Angus King by Political Observer

Why is the Republican Party headed straight to a permanent status as the party of daft plutocratic apologists, and craven imperial war mongers?(It almost sounds like a description of the New Democrats) But watch Mr. Bill Kristol, on ‘The Powerhouse Roundtable'(Recall that this a branch of ShowBiz)sound all the notes of the current Nihilist Republican party line,as he acts out his role as political contrarian,in opposition to the defenders of ‘Liberalism’.
As an antidote to Mr. Kristol’s destructive ideological stance, see this post and video of Senator Angus King that answers any question that the viewer may have regarding where the intransigence, indeed political nihilism, is located.
‘KING: If [Bohener] brought the continuing resolution that we sent him yesterday… chances are it would pass. It would get most of the Democratic votes and enough Republican votes to achieve a majority, but they’ve got this rule that if they can’t have a unified caucus then nothing comes to the floor. That’s one of the things I think people should realize: Out of 535 people in Congress, this is like 120 or so that are — you know, it’s the tail wagging the dog.
The other thing that I think that’s important, and it didn’t come up in your earlier discussion, is there is a pernicious inner logic to what these characters are doing. They hate government. They don’t want government to work. They don’t believe government can or should work. Crashing the economy, crashing the government, is a kind of weird success and it’s very hard to reach agreement with people who don’t share a kind of basic appreciation of the institution. This is dangerous. We’ve never been here before.’
Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.