Thursday, March 08, 2007

The Liberator

Call me crazy but it seems to me that sending Bush into Latin America to sing the praises of Simon Bolivar can only be viewed by those poor people as an unbelievably crass insult. He can jump around on aircraft carriers in a Tom Cruise costume or stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center yelling "bring em on!" and dupe plenty of gringos but Latinos don't appreciate such forms of cynical irony. They are going to tear shit up in every city he goes to down there. They won't care what kind of goofy sombrero he wears or little snippits of espanol he mangles. People will get jailed , hurt, maybe killed, just like everywhere else he and his decrepid empire go so he could really do everyone a favor by simply staying home. Send Chris Hill ( State Dept. negotiator with North Korea) if you just have to visit the "sphere of influence", let GW go visit the melting perma-frost in Antartica.

The new Nation has a good article on the venerable Democratic Senator from Montana, good old Max Baucus. Max has never seen a KStreet lobbyist or "free trade" deal he couldn't crawl in bed with and his Business Council -Chamber of Commerce buddies have kept him in power for many terms (since 1978) A somewhat guiless, not particularly bright or well spoken millionaire ,(inherited), he is the ranking Democrat on the powerful Senate Finance Committee and he follows the money whichever way the wind blows. Re-election is his ideological polestar and if it means brokering Bush's massive 2001 tax cuts for the wealthy,supporting his Medicare prescription plan, voting for the war, the bankruptcy bill, energy bill and the confirmation of John Roberts, so be it. To his credit, he recently called for US withdrawal and for universal health care so the 2006 elections may have had some influence but like most Montanans he's just a clueless flounder in a sea of sharks, afraid of the words "progressive"or "collective bargaining".

3 Comments:

At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrew, I spent many years with you (idealogically at least) but life on the front line of socialism, both campaigning and administrating at local authority level, taught me one overarching truth. The people are simply not up to Socialism. It's too difficult, it's too hard and it's too 'intellectual' for the people. The people have shown themselves, the world over, to be fundamentally lazy, greedy, selfish and myopic.

Did you watch the wall come down? The glee with which the people pulled down those bricks and threw themselves and their families headlong into unemployment, shabby education, poor health and CocaCola showed more clearly than anything else that the people are just too dumb for Socialism.

Socialism is indeed a better way to run things than capitalism, but first we have to find ourselves another 'people'.

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

Anon, I'm Dave, not Andrew, but I appreciate your comment.(assuming this is not snarky sarcasm) I also disagree with your analysis, contending that rather than "too dumb", they are ignorant, a form of oppression different than stupidity. "The wall" had little to do with the socialism I hope to help construct someday and i can easily imagine myself tearing out bricks as well.

This is not to deny the knucklehead factor or the existance of stupid people in general,only that there are plenty of examples of people of average intelligence (myself and lots of the people I met in Venezuela) who embrace socialism because of it's appeal to common values and clear morality, people unconcerned with nuanced theory or dogma. Brainwashed, traumatized, drugged, yes. Lazy ,selfish,greedy I reject and try to stay optimistic.

 
At 6:19 PM, Blogger Graeme said...

Another argument that I feel is wrong is the the idea that socialism destroys peoples' incentive to work. When you have actual input at work, and feel the impact of your labor, you have much more incentive to work.

I agree with Troutsky. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home