I Don’t Care About 2012

(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

You know, for the first time ever, while I’ve usually supported third parties, or not voted, I don’t care one bit which party wins the white house, Senate, house in an election. Always before, well at least in the back of my mind somewhere, I’ve at least thought things might be a little better if the Democrats won.  This time I don’t. It’s a one party system.

Now, the other day, I posted this:

Democrats will lose, b/c they just proved (again) (4.00 / 1)

that there is no difference between either party.

1,2, maybe even 3 election cycles away, given how bad the latest debacle is-republicans will lose, b/c of the same fact.  

And Banger responded with:

Let’s not exaggerate–there are differences between (4.00 / 1)

the two parties but not on the major issues. I think the majority of “progressives” are quite thrilled with the smaller issues.

Point taken. Yes there are differences- but ‘not on major issues’. Actually, I’d go a step farther in my semi-retraction- there may be difference even on major issues.

But the Democrats (especially in the White House and Senate) today may even be worse than the other republicans. On both major and minor issues.  It’s certainly arguable either way, and it’s really un-knowable. But I think it’s clear that certain things could not have happened under Geo W, that have happened under Obama (W). Such as SS and medicare, which are toast. That’s been written.

On the flip side, some will say-a Republican administration is what we need- it’ll get so bad that the American people will finally wake up.  I don’t buy that either. If the American people really  do get mad enough to move away from football or ‘legion of honor’ for ten minutes; they’ll just vote some democrats back in some years or decades down the road. Which will change nothing. Just like it always has done.

The failure of the democrats is by design. It’s not wimpism. It’s not because those wonderful dudes  want to ‘the right thing’ but fear to.

They’re the Washington Generals. Their purpose is to show that leftist populism doesn’t work– that’s why they’re there. Obama gave lip service to this, but that was all.

That’s why the mantra has been to call Obama a socialist.

Obama = Fail

Obama = Socialist


Socialism = Fail

That’s the plan.  

See, there really is no alternative, other than some form of real socialism. There is nothing else on the left. It’s either that, or nothing. That’s what the left is about-socialism. In some flavour.

So, if you discredit that in the eyes of a public that knows very little about anything, then you’ve already won. That’s why we have the Washington Generals Democrats- to pretend to be ‘socialists’.

So, I don’t who wins. Because they’ve already won, either way.



  1. … Democrats deliberately acting out as a strategy what is the natural outcome of elected representatives in a thoroughly corrupted set of political institutions.

    And too little credence to the gullibility of the clever souls running things to the bought and paid for theories of the high status economists, so that they really believe the dumbed down version of neo-Hooverism that passes for “New Keynesian” economics and even more dumbed down neo-Hooverism that passes as the pure heirs of neoclassical economics.

    Setting aside the public interest: when an administration repeatedly takes actions with obvious real world consequences that undermines its own chances for re-election, that administration is looking at the world through the filter of a false model: the repeatedly falsified economic fantasies of Geithner, et alia, painfully debunked once again by the financial Panic of 2008, where the economy will automatically trend to “the natural rate of unemployment” over “the long run” ~ a long run tendency which does not exist in the historical time in which we live, as indeed the long run of neoclassical theory itself does not exist in the historical time in which we live, but which is assumed as an unquestioned fact in the blown up microeconomic models pretending to be models of the macroeconomy among the orthodox majority of my colleagues.

    And then I look at when the administration is taking action most clearly against its own medium term political interest, and it is time and time again action which would make sense if we actually lived in that alternate universe about which the economic orthodoxy builds its models.

Comments have been disabled.