Happy B'Day, and Thanks for the Old School Posts

Murph from Life Goes Off celebrated a birthday (yesterday, I think), so pass him good wishes out on the Left Coast--and stop by his site if you feel like reviewing some passages from Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. Billmon, lately posting at the Los Angeles Times, added the cover art from the paperback version to his site today.

F&L on the Campaign Trail was the first Hunter Thompson book I came across--at, of all places, the Iberia Parish Public Library. It's worth a look (or several--I recall checking it out of the library a number of times. If Ashcroft had been foisting the Patriot Act on us in the late 70's/early 80's, lord knows what might have happened to me). Murph thinks there are any number of similarities between the campaigns in 1972 and 2004--and he's right.

To be sure, Kerry is no McGovern, which can cut both ways. McGovern, for all his faults, is still perhaps the most decent individual to run for president in my lifetime. He was a genuine war hero, he ably represented his constituents, he took the right stance against a disastrous and foolish war--though, interestingly, McGovern voted FOR the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 (which might be the ONE thing you could hang on the guy). McGovern also spoke out in favor of civil rights and women's rights when so-called conventional wisdom considered these to be fringe issues.

No, Kerry is no McGovern. However, there are parallels between George W. Bush and Richard Nixon--although NONE of the parallels could be considered beneficial for Dubya.

For the record: I happen to think Nixon's foreign policy credentials are overrated--as Gore Vidal wrote

...the war that he pretended to have a plan to end in 1968 kept right on going through 1972 and almost up to his own political end. The trip to China was made because no other President could ever have done so--thanks to Nixon, who would have been busy intoning, "I am not saying that President Johnson is a Communist. No. But I am questioning his judgment on Communism." He played that broken record for an entire career and did more damage to the country than a single photo-op with Mao could ever undo.

At the same time, though, Nixon at least understood what the hell was going on in Vietnam, even as he became part of the problem. Bush CREATED the problem in Iraq, yet he simply doesn't seem to understand--or want to understand--the damage he's done, not just to that country, but to the entire region.

Bush, though, like Nixon, operates a stealth White House. The press isn't so much ignored as it is openly disdained--and shut out. Like Dick Nixon, Bush campaigns only in front of carefully vetted audiences. Like Dick Nixon, Bush carefully cultivates an outsider's presence (although UNLIKE Dick Nixon, who was a genuine outsider, Bush has all the eastern elite credentials one needs to fit into high society). Finally, Bush has Karl Rove, who, now that I think of it, DOES seem to sort of look like the result of morphing Haldeman and Erlichman (but not subtracting to bring the size down to a single individual).

Murph also notes an interesting point Thompson made back in 72--even back then, some people were sick and tired of voting for the lesser of evils. He noted that by 1976, you'd have a whole generation of folks who wouldn't give a damn about politics, as they'd never had a positive voting experience in their lifetime (interestingly, Thompson later wholeheartedly endorsed Jimmy Carter, whom he saw speak sometime in either 1974 or 75--I believe The Great Shark Hunt has the written article). However, consider that, since McGovern went down in flames, the candidates the party has run--Carter, Mondale, Dukkasis, Clinton, and Gore--aren't exactly an A-list (OK, Clinton grew into the part, some might say, but 92 was a strange election. Most of the big-name Democrats wouldn't run against Bush, whom many considered a shoo-in following Gulf War I. Clinton was the best of the B-listers--and everyone forgot what a lunk Bush I was as a campaigner). None of these folks really inspired a great degree of passion.

Neither will Kerry. However, progressives can vote for him in good conscience, provided that we realize that John Kerry, like everyone else wearing the sash of the DLC, will need to be agressively lobbied even though we DID vote for him. Kerry will need to be told forcefully that the war in Iraq CANNOT be won, and therefore the proper thing to do is seek an exit strategy. Kerry will need to be told forcefully that good paying jobs are an absolute must for a healthy economy, and therefore he needs to come up with a program to mix and match private and public finance to create these jobs (I for one would start with a large investment in our infrastructure). Kerry will need to be told forcefully that investment in public education on ALL levels MUST be a priority, as this is by far the most cost-effective investment a society can make in its future.

It's time for the fat-cat lobbyists to take a number and wait their turn. They've been feeding at the public trough since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Simply electing John Kerry won't change that--but electing him, then letting him KNOW how he got elected (provided the big shots don't simply do away with democracy)--could possibly set the agenda for genuine investment in the country.

Or it could be four years of Anybody But Bush...