The masters are frightened. The First World’s terminal decline continues unabated. There is no surer sign of the anxiety of the ruling class than Trump giving center stage to socialism at his State of Union by proclaiming the U.S. will never be socialist. When has that ever happened?
Conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks felt the need to remind us that universal health care is The Impossible Dream. Yet is this paragon of genius really capable of giving us an accurate assessment of the situation? He is admirably candid on his ignorance on the subject at hand.
. . . single-payer health care, or in our case “Medicare for all,” is worth taking seriously. I’ve just never understood how we get from here to there, how we transition from our current system to the one Bernie Sanders has proposed and Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and others have endorsed.
This is the NY Times caliber of discussion: get an ignoramus to opine on a vital social issue. The solution has been well-known for decades. There is living proof of successful, unquestioned-by-any-party health care all over a little place called Europe. Note also this an issue that Sanders, Warren and Harris want, but presumably not the overwhelming majority of Americans. Undeterred, Brooks cites a “study” conducted by famed propagandist Frank Luntz and his Luntzglobal outfit on behalf of insurance propagandist AHip.
Frank Luntz is famous for transforming the estate tax, which is meant to prevent a class of hereditary wealth, into the evil death tax. Many of Us at the Preservation Society have supported his efforts. According to his research firm 71% of respondents were supposedly satisfied with their insurance plan. Compared to what? Probably not to every other First World health care system. On the other hand, most polls show some type of universal health care is overwhelmingly popular in America, favored by 60 to 70% of the population. It should be well known by now that universal health care works well in Europe and would cost much less than what we give the masses in the States.
Reality is an exceedingly powerful foe to counter. There’s nothing like its immediate visceral experience to inform the individual, to inoculate them somewhat against the fake reality of the ruling class’s establishment. Reality gives that lowly unit of society an extreme power that makes it very difficult for the lies of the Establishment to dominate the masses completely. That is the tiny flicker of hope among the herd . . .
Brooks cannot counter what more and more are learning about health care. He cannot muster more than stale cliches because reality does not abet his (ruling class) agenda:
Proponents of Medicare for all are saying: We’re going to take away the insurance you have and are happy with, and we’re going to replace it with a new system you haven’t experienced yet because, trust us, we’re the federal government!
Now you can take comfort knowing your expensive, inadequate health insurance is the best there is.
These sad attempts at wit in lieu of substance is echoed by RT’s Peter Lavelle, host of Crosstalk. He too senses the rise of “socialism” in the air and dedicated a show to it. He completely misjudged the mood out there, especially the RT crowd. It was not a serious discussion trying to establish the facts. Rather the three talking heads merely regurgitated tired quips. There was not a socialist among them.
“They just want free stuff okay,” says the molish Lavelle.
That ought to convince the serious individual searching for answers, to mollify those students indentured for life. That sounds great in the mist of the great middle class destruction, Suicide by Success. The Crosstalk episode was widely derided in the comments. It was difficult to find a positive one. Lavelle might have gotten away with this, say, in the 80s or 90s, but decades of open corruption have taken its toll. Now if capitalists want to abort the “socialist” surge they can must compete with them, convince them they are wrong. We can no longer afford the luxury of ignorance about basic fundamentals of socialism.
Then there is the drama of Ilhan Omar and the Jewish lobby, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal. As We’ve previously mentioned in another post, we are witnessing the demise of the liberal/conservative world order. While one should not expect much from this congress it is delightful to watch the Democratic party tear itself apart over identity politics and its embarrassing and blatant subservience to Israel. By making a big deal of Omar’s accurate remarks concerning Zionism and Israel, the liberal party has once again unnecessarily confirmed that they are indeed servile dogs to Israel (as is the conservative party). It is significant that the 5 or 6 major candidates for president support both Ilhan and the GND while the leadership demurs. The Democrats are headed for the the rocks.
Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell, thinking he will damage the Democratic Party for the 2020 election, wants to bring the Green New Deal to a vote. The intelligent individual will note how easy it would be to enact sweeping legislation if Congress really wanted it, but in the hand of liberals and conservatives the status quo reigns and this vote is only a political ploy. A vote on the GND will show neither party is interested in the public interest (yet again). Senator Schumer called it a “cynical stunt”. Sure it is, but so is his calling it out. All the same, a vote on the GND will separate the wheat from the chaff.
Schumer stands steadfast before his foe. “I challenge Leader McConnell to say that our climate change crisis is real, that it’s caused by humans, and that Congress needs to act.” Schumer will not shirk from his appointed duty! “Bring it on,” He challenges.
He and his audacious band of Democrats will courageously vote PRESENT! not “yea” when the GND comes up for consideration, demonstrating the colossal hypocrisy of the Democrats. Schumer does not want his Democrats voting for aggressive change.
Yet he laments:
We’re supposed to conduct the business of the nation. We’re supposed to tackle our country’s greatest challenge . . . Well, climate change is the number one threat to our planet. And yet not a single Republican bill that addresses climate change in a meaningful way to reach the floor. Not a one.
Seeing his liberal comrades in trouble, Michael Bloomberg comes to the rescue. It is his “obligation” he tells us. In 2011 Bloomberg teamed up with the Sierra Club to shut down coal fired plants. Supposedly they have shut down some 300 plants. He wants to expand the program to close everyone nationwide in 11 years. Democrats need to look like they care about the environment. They need to be seen moving on climate. He thinks people will rally around him? One has to thank AOC just for obligating the status quo to put up a show.
We applaud McConnell bringing the GND to a floor vote. Conservatives are eager for the inevitable split that will occur among the Democrats. But do they know they are only hastening their own end? Liberals and conservatives of two sides of the same coin. They need each other. Without the liberals who will play the democrat against the “conservative”?
As We said many time before:
If the Republican party disappeared the Democrats would be exposed as the Republicans they are. And if the Democratic party disappeared the Republicans would be exposed as the extreme authoritarians they are.
As the New World Order crumbles the Democrats and Republicans will remain distracted by more House investigations of Trump. The liberals will ramp up their identity politics. And on that front, journalist Greg Palast, curiously referred to Venezuelan puppet Juan Guaido as “shiny white” on the Jimmy Dore show (at the 12:43 mark). Though he explains the oil angle and that the Koch Industries is dependent on the heavy Shale that only Venezuela has, Palast claims it’s all about racism. One wonders at the price of independent journalism.
Another NY Times opionator, Ross Douthat, senses something big as well, something beyond David Brook’s capacity to explain. Douthat says in Bernie Sanders, Socialism’s Reagan? we are at a transitional moment, the end of the Reagan Revolution and the acceptance of socialism. Just as Reagan brought in Deregulation and neoliberalism, argues Douthat, breaking with the New Deal and The Great Society legacy, so Bernie brings “socialism”, breaking with the deregulation and neoliberal policies that have dominated society for the last forty plus years.
Perhaps that is somewhat true, but it is much bigger than Douthat and the Times wants to admit. It’s the end of the two party racket. By conflating Sanders and Reagan the Times hopes to reign expectations of “extreme socialism”. And yet Douthat does sense something. He is resigned to taking the plunge with Bernie, “. . . the case for Sanders will remain simple and intuitive throughout the primaries to come: If we’re going to do this thing, let’s do it with the guy who’s actually spent years or decades planning for a realigning moment.
Could it mean sectors of the ruling class are grooming Sanders to be the Neo-New Dealer? The one who rejuvenates empire? Or do they think he will come safely to heel?
The masters are feeling the heat. Will the masses take this sliver of hope and take advantage of it? Sigh.