|
Why Politics is like professional sports
|
| it's a bit of a stretch... |
| posted by: publius |
12:01 7.21.10 |
but i think this link belongs here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/the-most-homoerotic-sport_n_651220.html
[thanks to airport girl for the link] |
|
| bingo.... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
09:59 2.8.10 |
http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/
|
|
| funny... |
| posted by: publius |
15:36 2.4.10 |
i was just searching for this thread to post...
when i posted the hitler video (1.21.10) i had no idea that there is a cottage industry producing these videos using that scene. i just knew that my brother sent it to me, i found it entertaining, and it seemed like the kind of thing that could have incited bomb-throwing squisshy...
in any case...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/feb/01/digital-media-youtube-hitler-parody
|
|
| ladies and gentlemen... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
15:24 2.4.10 |
with great pleasure, i introduce to you scott lee cohen, democartic nominee for lt. governor:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/04/crimesider/entry6173528.shtml
of course, nobody (including planned parenthood and personal pac, who would endorse satan if he'd pledge to support them) looked too closely at him until yesterday, after he won.
america really is a great country: all you need is $2m of your own cash and you too could be nominated to be second in command of the state (and the republican nominee, while not nearly so scummy, is likewise a complete cipher who spent all of his money on a vanity campaign).
even if you're a pawn broker who beats your prostitute girlfriend. oh sorry, allegedly beat your prostitute girlfriend. |
|
| i think squisshy... |
| posted by: publius |
11:29 1.21.10 |
may have watched this last night before he started throwing bombs through the windows...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY
on some level i agree with squisshy (and hitler?) in the rage and disappointment department. but on another it just makes me re-realize that i will never be much of a political being and all the political process (especially in the us) does is make me feel angry and powerless. which tends to make me ambivalent and apathetic about what those with power do or do not do. it's theater and little more.
and the fact that i've gone from election day to this point is exactly obama's problem.
kind of makes me feel like this man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A |
|
| well... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
10:57 1.21.10 |
squisshy wrote:
"reading your 1/19 post, i just can't see how you can believe this to be true and *not* be despondent about the survival of this country (or put alternatively, the governability of this country). i mean, really, you think that "the populace is treated to all sorts of bread and circuses ... while the bigger issues are pretty much agreed to by the parties, often acting in concert," but you this leaves you basically nonplussed and still, nevertheless, rooting for one side's circuses to win out over the other's?"
----
(a) i'm not despondent only because as bad as it is (and is going to get with today's ruling by the Supremes) it the past it has often been *worse*. cold comfort, i know, but i guess my larger point is simply that that is the way politics is, was, and will always be done. i've taken to read an awful lot of political non-fiction as of late, and it's the same thing in every location in every era. it is simply an immutable fact, i believe. and as i get older, i realize that getting despondent about immutable facts is really silly and counter-productive.
(b) yes, i'm still rooting for one side's bread and circuses, but that is simply because i believe that the solutions the dems offer are better than the republicans (and when the republicans are doing things like openly courting a guy to run for senate in arkansas who recently referred to chuck shumer as "that jew", or calling us a "christian nation", or just really being into all that birther and tea-bagging nonsense -- well they make it pretty easy for me). i don't believe it will all happen, or that any of it will be exactly how i want it. but (beyond the fact that 9/11's come along and really bring into relief how important it is to have the best people possible in office) it is always possible.
(c) i'm holding out hope that eventually, if things get as bad as you fear, somebody is going to come forward and address all the ways that corporate (and union) money is perverting democracy. and again, it's going to be ten times worse tomorrow than it was yesterday thanks to the recent decision.
---
one more thing: a lot of the blame about what obama has done or not done completely overlooks the reality of what dealing with 60 senators and 230 members of the house, many of whom are scum bags of the first order.
and again -- jaded as i may seem -- i recognize that it is an immutable fact that whatever you put into congress gets tarred and feathered with all sorts of useless, crappy, bad stuff. and that has likewise always been the way things work.
these things don't make me happy, but i'd be much more despondent if they haven't always been this way.
and, as a closet optimist, there's always hoping next year will be different. |
|
| simpli ... |
| posted by: squisshy |
23:10 1.20.10 |
reading your 1/19 post, i just can't see how you can believe this to be true and *not* be despondent about the survival of this country (or put alternatively, the governability of this country). i mean, really, you think that "the populace is treated to all sorts of bread and circuses ... while the bigger issues are pretty much agreed to by the parties, often acting in concert," but you this leaves you basically nonplussed and still, nevertheless, rooting for one side's circuses to win out over the other's? this whole problem was the whole reason that i was excited about obama -- it seemed as though he had the personal popularity and charisma to effectively change these rules of engagement -- and the very reason that i gave up on him once he made it clear that he would do nothing of the kind. if you recall, back when he decided not to take public funding of his campaign, i posted that i was giving up on him and not donating any more money (i'd link to the post but i'm not sure where it is). i did that because there couldn't have been a clearer sign that he would take massive amounts of money from various interests and govern accordingly. you and others said, well, it's just strategic and he has to do it to win, and better him than mccain, but in the end my view was that it's hard to see the value in one party winning over another if they are both beholden to whoever gives them the most money (because i'm pretty sure that the people don't weign in tops in that regard). and of course that's just what we've seen. one can debate about the effectiveness of the TARP program, although i believe it was likely necessary and useful; but this health-care bill is essentially a giveaway to the insurers. taken together -- and the fact that the idea of a true public option, or medicare for all, were jettisoned without a second thought -- it all looks to me (and to john q public) that obama and the dems just use their power to give away the public money to a (slightly) different set of people? i saw an analysis of the Mass. vote that i thought captured the sentiment well:
"Some important factors — especially the collapsing economy and exploding unemployment which Obama inherited — were beyond their control. But an electorate that delivered smashing victories to the Democrats in two consecutive national elections — and which had such high hopes for the “change” Obama repeatedly vowed to usher in — is now turning on them. To insist that Obama and party leaders are blameless is to ensure the downward spiral continues.
The notion that Obama’s policies are too “liberal” for the country is simply absurd, given that these are exactly the policies on which he successfully campaigned. But the central pledge of the Obama candidacy, beyond any specific issues, was his vow to change the way Washington works. It is his failure to do that which has become the party’s greatest liability.
A candidate who railed against secret deals and lobbyist influence negotiated this health care plan in secrecy with industry lobbyists, got caught entering into secret deals with the pharmaceutical industry, agreed to abandon his commitment to drug re-importation and bulk price negotiations in order to please the pharmaceutical lobby, and cavalierly refused to abide by his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open.
Worse still, two of the most popular provisions — the public option and Medicare expansion — were jettisoned, leaving the insurance-industry-pleasing provisions as the bill’s dominant features.
When one adds to that the subservience of the administration’s top financial officials to Wall Street and the lack of programs designed to aid struggling Americans, the perception has arisen that Democrats are both guardians of the Washington status quo and loyal only to powerful interests. That has allowed the corporatist G.O.P. to masquerade as populists and monopolize populist anger.
One significant disadvantage burdening Democrats is that they must accommodate far more ideological diversity than Republicans. A party that has both Ben Nelson and Russ Feingold will be prone to in-fighting.
The choice now for the White House is whether to move even further to the right or whether they will finally focus on galvanizing their base. As it always does, Beltway conventional wisdom will insist that they do the former (which may include abandoning health care altogether), but a party that has an already demoralized base demoralizes them further at its peril."
I have to say that i agree with much of this. would i be pissed if the dems shot for the moon (whatever that might be, maybe medicare for all) and failed? yes, of course -- but i'd at least know that they went down swinging, trying to do what *I* and everyone else I know that voted for Obama elected them to do. instead we get this bullshit where the dems cave to the republicans, meander along trying to please their donors but pissing off the people, and leading the country right back to republican rule. it makes me sick. what people voted for was a LEADER who would initiate CHANGE -- if he tries and fails, that would be bad, no doubt, but i think the dispiriting thing is he hasn't even tried. it's been the same old same old, and no wonder people are pissed because they've seen this movie before and know it doesn't end well for them.
do you really think that politics is akin to sport and that people really give a fuck who wins and loses? it's all about what gets done, and what gets done when the dems are in power is NOTHING. |
|
| not cited for the truth of the matter asserted... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
10:00 1.20.10 |
but this smacks so much of the type of stuff that goes on when a state party is too big, too strong, and too top-heavy.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/19/827160/-My-Mom-is-a-Democratic-machine-operative-in-Bostonheres-her-explanation
of all the myths in politics, i am amazed most that anyone thinks of political parties as unified forces. and the stronger the party is in a given state (especially when it holds the majority in both state houses, federal house seats, both senate seats, and basically every single state-wide office), the more serious the divides that exist.
i'm not ready to dismiss that brown was elected on *purely* "massachusetts issues", but you would never, ever, ever see the type of behavior discussed in that post by dems in north carolina or republicans in rhode island. in fact, you'd see the opposite. |
|
| my thoughts |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
20:52 1.19.10 |
As I've said a thousand times, given my recent experiences I am now certain that politics is like professional wrestling. That is, the populace is treated to all sorts of bread and circuses (gay marriage! privatizing social security! midnight basketball! flag burning! card check!), but that ultimately they are diversions while the bigger issues are pretty much agreed to by the parties, often acting in concert. This has, predictably lessened my concern about who wins or loses (though not my fascination with the game). I'm not saying I'm "post-politics", I'm just saying I'm getting to the point where it's pretty clear that the urgent pleas and predictions of success/doom just over the horizon are more and more clearly a way to separate me (or the republican version of me) from my money.
It's how the dems can claim to be for reforming health care without actually doing very much to get there.
It's how the republicans can rail about abortion or gay marriage without actually doing much to get there.
The list of causes that both parties rely on is legion, while the list of hard stands they've taken to achieve them are few. I am not in the least cynical about it, because this is how politics has always, and will always, work. If I didn't spend much of my time reading books about politics, I'd be entirely disillusioned. But it's pretty hard to be disillusioned when the history (past and future) is so obviously going to be the same.
That said, a corollary to the wrestling theme is an analogy to professional sports. Watching sports one thing is very clear: few dynasties are built by middling teams. Usually, teams that become very good are first very bad. Because once you're very bad, you can make the moves, free up the money, hire the unknown coaches, and -- most importantly -- sell the tickets to your fan base that is so desperate for any signs of being on the upswing.
what is happening tonight in massachusetts is going to happen this fall in illinois: the party apparatuses are so calcified, so lame, so controlled by the unions and the lefty interest groups that they end up nominating hacks. while the out of power party's nomination is there for the taking for anyone with some charisma, vision, and luck.
i'll put it another way: if it was 1994, jim webb would be a republican. and if brown lived in missouri he would have run in missouri as a democrat in 2004.
i could spout out a dozen examples or more of this, but i'll just say this: what made mitt romney run for governor of massachusetts was not some strong republican ideology. it was his desire to be a politician and his talent to get there. and if he lived in iowa, he may very well have run as a democrat.
the converse is even more clear: david patterson in ny, alexi giannoulius in illinois, the entire michigan democratic ticket. pat quinn in illinois. these are lame, uninspiring candidates. but they waded through the party heirarchy, checked the right boxes in primary questionaires, and made the right friends. all of which will got their party's nominations, and get them smoked in a general election.
it doesn't happen overnight, but all of the sudden (like the teams that have too many 35 year olds making too much money) they get toppled by the teams with no payroll and a few 5 star prospects who hit it big.
and on and on it goes.
1994 becomes 2006 becomes 2010, 2012, or 2014.
nothing really changes, it's just the room the parties have for the "moderate" candidates, who -- because their party has been out of power and there's no infastructure -- eventually win.
and as a mentioned before, the blindness of the bass is funny to watch. the dems loved the montana and virginia and missouri candidates, until they were seated and starting voting that way.
and the republicans who hate the guts of the senators from maine want an even more moderate one in massachusetts. so they give their time and money, destined to hate his gut in 2012 when he starts voting like anyone who wants to be re-elected in a state like massachusetts would.
|
|
|
|
