August 12, 2005

Very interesting

Via Atrios, this interesting piece from The Nation on the "strategic class", Dem advisors and ideologues and how they shape the positions of top Dem candidates, often setting them on a course that's at odds with the views of millions of Democrats.

This is rather maddening to those of us out here who feel that most major Dem figures are out of touch with the true feelings of a majority of people in this country, while cow-towing to these "strategists" who often represent the same global elite with dreams of empire, oil, etc. that Republicans do. Give it a read and see what you think. Then come back here and "sound off."

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.

The continued high standing of the hawks has been made possible by their enablers in the strategic class--the foreign policy advisers, think-tank specialists and pundits. Their presumed expertise gives the strategic class a unique license to speak for the party on national security issues. This group has always been quietly influential, but since 9/11 it has risen in prominence, egging on and underpinning elected officials, crowding out dissenters within its own ranks and becoming increasingly ideologically monolithic. So far its members remain unchallenged. It's more than a little ironic that the people who got Iraq so wrong continue to tell the Democrats how to get it right.


At 8/12/2005 6:19 AM, Blogger Dave Barrett said...

That raises an interesting issue - who determined that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are the leading candidates for Democratic nominee for president in '08 rather than anti-war Democrats like Howard Dean? I don't remember there being a vote.
I think Americans need to start examining how much they allow the news media to determine how they think about issues. The professional molders of public opionion are now selling the ruling elite's political agenda using the techniques and methodoligies developed by the advertising industry to sell products and services.

At 8/12/2005 7:08 AM, Blogger diehard said...

I don't really like the new conservative Hillary. Does she really think she is going to get any Republican crossover because she has supported the mess in Iraq?
I think a lot of Republicans would like to be against this stupid war.
You know that they are starting to hear it from their constituents!
Remember when politicians used to try do things the public wanted like affordable healthcare.
If Hillary wants to copy off somebody maybe instead of Bush she should copy off that person she shares a bathroom with.
O.k maybe they don't even stay in the same house anymore, but you get the picture!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home