Thomas S. Harrington - Livin' la Vida Barroca

Reading and listening to what passes for the “liberal press” in the popular imagination, you’d never know anything about the key differences in these two examples of presidential campaign tactics.

The political right has understood for years that the goal of “seeking balance” in news delivery (something, by the way, most intelligent adults in other developed countries see as neither possible nor desirable) can be manipulated time and time again in their favor. Conservatives correctly see it as an effective means of making the trivialities they want to circulate significant. They know that the Mara Liassons of the world have no stomach for discerning the truth. Reporters, meanwhile, understand that their desire to remain “in the loop” and out of trouble with the right-wing attack machine is really their paramount concern. Democracy is not possible under these conditions.

10 October 2008

Junk by Design

The health care plan that is wending its way through Congress is junk. It will do nothing to stop the ungodly ascent of health care prices. In fact, it is likely to accelerate this upward trend. The reason is simple. It contains virtually no incentives for exercising downward pressure on costs.

As soon as it passes, we will be showered with the predictable apologetics from the Obama camp and its generally mindless minions. “You’ve got to start somewhere” “Change is incremental, we can make it better later,” “There you go again, rigidly insisting on your own (read: wildly and out of touch and ultra-liberal) version of good in what is inevitably a messy legislative process.” Every other democrat interviewed, will repeat some version of the phrase allegedly uttered by the now-departed Ted Kennedy “We must not let the perfect become the enemy of the possible.”

This would all great except for one salient fact: the perfect (single payer) was never given the opportunity to be the enemy of the possible. It was taken off the table before the entire process of negotiation began. And this was done as a result of cold calculations taken at the very highest policy-making levels of the White House. They got into bed with the insurance industry and big Pharma way back in the late winter and assured them that the money machine they currently operate would not be substantially affected by Obama’s “reform” plans. In return, the White House gained the tacit assurance that a) industry money would continue flowing to the Democrats and b) Harry and Louise would not be brought out of mothballs to frighten and befog the minds of the “low information” voters in the general populace.

Should you have any doubts about the ironclad, “‘til death do us part” nature of the deal, consider the following. Until a few days before its passage on the 7th of November, the congressional version of health care reform contained an amendment that would have shielded those states interested in setting up singlepayer programs of their own from anti-trust lawsuits brought by insurance companies. The provision was stricken from the bill at the last moment after heavy lobbying pressure from none other than the White House itself.

When this White House makes pledges to big industry its word is truly its bond. That a bunch so evidently craven in its dedication to corporate interests is often successfully labeled as “socialist” speaks to the truly delusional nature of much of our public discourse. This is not an isolated incident. Rather, this way of operating is deeply encoded in the D.N.A. of the post-Clinton Democratic party in general, and the Obama White House in particular. These are the Placebo Politics of a Placebo Presidency.

Theunquestioned master of this faux liberal show is Rahm Emanuel. For Rahm and his protegés practicing what the media consistently, if wholly fallaciously, portrays as the school of “sharp-elbowed partisan politics,” winning elections is the only thing that matters. Actually doing something substantial about the balance of social and economic powers that so heavily determine the rhythms and stark realities of day-to-day life for millions of Americans once in office is absolutely beside the point. Indeed, he and his gang know quite well that actually doing so will threaten the pipeline of campaign donations they see, rightly or wrongly, as being the key to winning more elections.

This is why they give us legislative “Junk by Design.” Why we accept it as readily as we do, I do not understand.

13 November 2009

Georges Duhamel on the Writing of Literature (and Life?)

Below is a passage from The Mission of Literature by the French literary scholar Georges Duhamel, a defense of the idea of humanism propounded by Erasmus and Cervantes.

The extract, is, according to Kenzaburo Oe (the source for the quote, writing in El País ) from the book’s chapter on Cervantes. Obviously Duhamel was thinking about the life of the great author of El Quijote in his exhortation to the young concerning what they should do if they are of a literary bent.

Or perhaps even if they are not of a literary bent.

As Robert Coles and other important psychiatrists have shown, we are all, at the core, narrators of our own existence. Learning to tell good stories—ones that fascinate and edify—about ourselves and others might be the difference between a life of purpose and fulfillment and one of disappointment and dread.

“So, young person, above all, live life. Drink abundantly from the milk of the udder of life in order to feed your future creations. You say you want to write good novels? Take my advice and board a boat in some port. Travel the world earning your living in modest occupations and learn to put up with poverty. Don’t be in a hurry to pick up a pen. Subject yourself to pain and suffering. Learn from the thousands of people you come across. What I really wish to say as I give this advice is never ever try to slide past the anxiety that others generate in you or the adversities that you might have to experience in order to make them happy. (...) You want to write good novels? Then, listen to me well. Above all, try to forget the desire to do so. Set out on a journey with no fixed route. Sharpen your sight, your hearing, your sense of smell and your appetite. Hope and wait with an open heart.”

1 November 2010

I’m in a Good Place

Dear Democratic Voters:

Though many people are describing yesterday’s mid-term elections as a setback for my party and me, I don’t see it that way.

Most of you don’t really understand the pressures that come with being a wholly corporately owned candidate who also has to pretend to care about the hearts and minds of average people.

I know people should not have believed that “change” stuff dreamed up by Axelrod in his advertising office late one night. But amazingly they did!

And that despite my giving clear signs at every stage of my career—not that any mainstream reporter would ever research it and have the vision and fortitude to draw the appropriate conclusions—that I would always, always bend to the policies of whomever I perceived to have the money or the power.

Long before I allowed Netanyahu, Petraeus and the health care industry to defecate on my head in public, I was letting Abner Mikvah and his gang in Chicago—yes, the very same ones that choreographed Elena Kagan’s “meteoric” rise—run my life like puppeteers.

Well, now that phony balancing act is all over and I can get back to what I do best: working for the same large interests and giving nice sounding speeches of no real consequence.

But it gets better. I can do it now and play the role of the plucky battler against those terrible Republicans.

During these first two years, I was always anxious that people would pick up on the contrived nature of the “we don’t have the votes” stick as an excuse for not pursuing meaningful reforms. After all, people knew perfectly well how much Bush changed things and with what majorities.