A book you NEED TO READ .....Here is the political class Index to identify who belongs in the political class and those who would be classified as mainstream Americans from the Democratic Pollster, Dough Schoen and from Scott Rasmussen
Think this does NOT cut across R&D, C&L, B&W?
1. Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more, the American people or America's political leaders?Those in the mainstream say the American people; those in the political elite say political leaders.2. Some people believe that the federal government has become a special-interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?Mainstreamers say yes; the political elite says no.
3. Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?
Mainstreamers say yes; the political elite says no.
75% of the polled public answered this one, way, 14% the other. Anyone want to see a geographic distribution as badly as I do?
Schoen and Rasmussen:
When we describe the political elite as a "self-selecting group of influencers," we largely agree with the characterization offered in a 1995 Harper'c article by Michael Lind, who wrote: "The closer you come to the centers of American politics and society, the more every one begins to look the same. .. . The people who run big business bear a remarkable resemblance to the people who run big labor, who in turn might be mistaken for the people in charge of the media andthe universities. They are the same people . .. most of the members of the American elites went to one of a dozen Ivy League colleges or top state universities. . . .They talk the same. They walk the same.This is one of the crucial reasons why the political class includes Democrats and Republicans and Independents.They are united by goals and outlooks more than partisanpolicy differences.Above all, they are united in the common conviction that they are the people best suited to run America's governments to make political decisions, and to affect social change. They differ on specifics, but they all agree on a crucial issue: "ordinary" Americans possess neither the talent nor the temperament to make these decisions.
From the left, Glenn Greenwald:
"It is true that the federal government embraces redistributive policies anl that middle-class income is seized in order that 'someone else benefits.' But so obviously, that 'someone else' who is benefiting is not the poor and lower classes who continue to get poorer as the numbers living below the poverty line expand and the rich-poor gap grows in the U.S. to unprecedented proportions. The 'someone else' that is benefiting from Washington policies are--as usual--the super-rich, the tiny number of huge corporations which literally own and control the Government."
David Brooks (certainly identifiable as a member of one of these classes ;) ):
"The (New York) Times emphasizes four things about a person--college degrees, graduate degrees, career path, and parents' profession--for these are the markers of upscale Americans today. . . . And when you look at the Times weddings page, you can almost feel the force of the mingling SAT scores. It's Dartmouth marries Berkeley, MBA weds Ph.D., Fulbright hitches with Rhodes, Lazard Frères joins with CBS, and summa cum laude embraces summa cum laude.
And then, AGREEING ,, Greenwald and Michelle Malkin:
Glenn Greenwald and Michelle Malkin are about as ideologically divergent as two pundits can be. Full-throated culture warriors, Greenwald and Malkin are dominant voices of the ever-clashing respective left and right of the blogosphere. Yet the two have joined, if momentarily, in opposition to Tom Daschle, Obama's failed nominee for Health and Human Services secretary. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Daschle retains "unrivaled ties" to the White House as well as "highly paid" work lobby for health care providers. Both bloggers pounced.
What is striking is not simply that Greenwalk and Malkin are perhaps the two loudest voices criticizing Daschle, but that both draw the same three conclusions from this weekend's Times story.
- Daschle Shouldn't Influence White House Glenn Greenwald condemned Daschle's involvement in drafting policy "The co-op plan which Daschle is advocating to Obama and which the White House and Senate Democrats are now leaning towards 'happens to dovetail with the interests of many [Daschle's] clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association.' What a weird coincidence; it's like those companies won a Bingo game."
Michelle Malkin considered Daschle an indictment of "back-scratching and Beltway business as usual" in Obama's White House. "Daschle is just another privileged Corporate Shill for Hope and Change," she wrote. "Like I always say: When government grows, corruption flows. And both Democrat and Republican Beltway creatures are guilty of providing the fertilizer."
- Daschle-Inspired Bill No Good Greenwald, who advocated for a public option, said the health care bill was on its way to becoming "nothing more than a glorified bailout of the insurance and drug industries, which is exactly what will happen if 50 million people are forced by law to buy their products with no cost-control mechanism but ample government subsidies." Greenwald called a bill without the public option "nothing but a gigantic gift to the health insurance industry."
Malkin agreed, citing a Los Angeles Times report on the impact that the currently planned reform would have on insurance companies. Summarising, she wrote, "Health insurers respond to Obamacare negotiations: 'It's a bonanza!'"
Consider this, then, please, The political elite move easily between private industry, media, academia and the govt, blending it into one seamless self interest group.
1 comment:
Oligarchy afoot.
Post a Comment