Edward Luce warns of ‘the return of the Clinton Dynasty’. Political Cynic comments

Headline: Beware of the return of the Clinton dynasty

Sub-headline: A public revival would blunt Democratic attacks on the Trump presidency

Mr. Luce and the headline writers at the Financial Times have produced a simulacrum of Journalism. Contrary to Luce and those writers, the Clinton Corporatist Democrats are still in charge! Schumer & Pelosi still hold office in the Senate and the House. The Clintonites put Tom Perez into the DNC chairmanship. They couldn’t stand the thought that Keith Ellison might just be a threat to their hegemony, even though to call him a ‘reformist’ is the purest kind of inflation. Where are Podesta, Donna Brazile,Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, Robby Mook,  Jennifer Palmieri,  Amanda Renteria, Huma Abedin?

The Clinton Operatives haven’t gone anywhere, they have been busy stoking the fires of the New Cold War, by having their allies/confederates/lapdogs, in and out of office, call the imagined Russian interference in the American election ‘An Act of War’! The ghosts of the Nixon/McCarthy have taken over the New Democrats, in their desperation of losing to Trump. Even the coven of Neo-Cons in the State Dept. represented by Victoria Nuland and Richard Holbrooke protege Susan Rice are doing their part.

Read part of a transcript of an interview of Noam Chomsky at Democracy Now, in which he opines on the question of Russian interference in the American election:

‘NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a pretty remarkable fact that—first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn’t just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn’t like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone—it’s the least of it—the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it’s considered—it’s turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world.

So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump’s programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That’s—the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can’t believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, “Sure, that’s just what they ought to be doing.”

So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That’s not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.


And the New Democrats will, after the Gorsuch Melodrama is decided yea or nay, revert to type, meaning the same failed Neo-Reaganism that ‘Goldwater Girl’ Hillary ably represents.

The comic notion that the New Democrats, sans Clinton, are the political instrument that will check Trump, and the Republican Nihilists/Dixiecrats, is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house. New Democratic Corporatists vs. Republican Corporatists? They are  both on the same side: The Property Party.

Political Cynic



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.