My reply @Paul A. Myers

@Paul A. Myers

Thank you for your well presented,  not to speak of  politically sophisticated arguments. In reply I would offer this: The collapse of the Neo-Liberal swindle in 2008 and its issue ‘The Gig Economy’ made Trump, or someone like him possible. Not to speak of the Republican Party as the captive of American Jacobins: The Tea Party. Peggy Noonan, in the WSJ, looks elsewhere for that Beast, she is ideologically blind to the Radicals in the Party of her beloved Reagan. How did Our Peggy react to the recent leak of Ronny’s conversation with Nixon? The political present seems to be brimming with digressions! Yet the political crisis in America is described by these seeming digressions. The collapse of the legitimacy of America’s Class is verified by the rise and victory of Trump.

Obama was an almost believable ‘Progressive’, an appellation favored by one of his early enthusiasts Arianna Huffington, yet he was and is Neo-Liberal, to his core. His unstinting support for the TTP, even as his term ended, and look at the defeat of Merrick Garland due to McConnell’s utterly dishonest maneuvering. Yet Obama looked politically passive, like Gore, he was not even capable of a bit of political fisticuffs. Too much Harvard?

Concerning the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, he let NATO,the EU, FDD, Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland run the show. His was a politics steeped in the cultivation of bourgeois political respectability.
One need only look to Hillary Clinton, and a Party fully in control of her mendacious political operatives, the machinery that got Obama elected, to see that for all your praise for Pelosi, as some kind of legislative master, makes this observer of the American political scene grateful, that she might be ending her career, as servant to the Free Market Myth, depending on the 2020 election results. Her attacks on AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib demonstrate, without doubt, that Pelosi is a political dinosaur, in the era that in which Left-Wing Social Democrats are in the ascent.

A more than interesting occurrence, after the debate, is the defensiveness of the New Democrats on the question of the Obama’s Legacy. Read this from Politico essay by Noland D. MCCaskell and Marc Caputo:

Headline: ‘Stay away from Barack’: Dems seethe over criticism of Obama

Sub-headline: Party officials are frustrated that the former president’s record was collateral damage in the debate attacks on Joe Biden. 

The disparagement of aspects of Obama’s record led to stern warnings that the tactic could backfire on the presidential candidates themselves — and perhaps arm Republicans with ammunition to attack the eventual Democratic nominee next fall.

“Stay away from Barack Obama,” advised Steve Elmendorf, a well-known Democratic lobbyist who worked on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

“I don’t know why you would attack Barack Obama or his record or any part of him when he’s the most popular person in the party,” he added. “And I don’t think it helps for the general election voters, either. I don’t know what they’re thinking.”

Republicans have already seized on the division. Donald Trump Jr., President Donald Trump’s eldest son, tweeted Thursday morning how nice it was “to see Democrats finally go after Obama’s failed policies very aggressively.”

“The Democrats spent more time attacking Barack Obama than they did attacking me, practically,” he said. “This morning, that’s all the fake news was talking about.“

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-obama-biden-1444825

Note the extensive quotation of ‘ Steve Elmendorf, a well-known Democratic lobbyist’ that opens the essay. This is why Politico is America’s favorite Political Gossip Sheet, it presents political partisans, as if they are nearly ‘objective sources’ .

Regards

StephenKMackSD

https://on.ft.com/2Kfsm7N

 

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.