creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
25 May 2012
A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Headlines transmit information in its rawest form — and the best of headlines crystallize indelible truths.… Read More.

18 May 2012
Yes, We Can Walk and Chew Gum

One of the most overused metaphors in a writer's arsenal is the one about "walking and chewing gum at … Read More.

11 May 2012
Our Guns and Butter Economy

With the economy still struggling and the debates over how to fix the problem more intense than ever, one … Read More.

From Uprising to Hostile Takeover ... and Back Again

Share Comment

Death Panels. Witchcraft. Birthers. Islamophobes. Tea partiers. Obama text messages. Palin robo-calls. TV commercial after TV commercial after TV commercial. And now, at the end of this $4 billion We-Didn't-Start-the-Fire-worthy vaudeville known as the 2010 election, what do we have to show for it? That's right, a new House Speaker with the politics of Newt Gingrich and the skin complexion of a Syracuse mascot.

If after this soul-crushing extravaganza you find yourself shell-shocked, that's understandable. If you are confused, that's understandable, too, considering the contradictions.

A president who helped corporate interests gut the very proposals he was elected on — health care reform, Wall Street regulation and economic stimulus — was suddenly berated for being anti-business and for overreaching. An anti-Establishment/anti-corporate/anti-NAFTA/anti-government tea party ended up electing to the senate a Congressman's son (Rand Paul), a pharmaceutical lobbyist (Dan Coats), a Bush trade representative (Rob Portman) and a corporate chieftain whose business was propped up by government grants (Ron Johnson). Meanwhile, a country that twice rejected Bush Republicans in favor of Democrats suddenly returned those same Republicans to power.

Yet, as perplexing, demoralizing and insane as all this seems, a clear pattern does exist in the madness.

As I documented in my 2006 book, "Hostile Takeover," our political system has been swallowed whole by moneyed interests — and whichever party is in power inevitably legislates that reality. Americans have come to fully understand this situation — and despise it. Thus, as I showed in my 2008 follow-up book, "The Uprising," we are now reflexively drawn to whichever minority party candidates promise the swiftest backlash. Whether the challengers happen to be anti-Bush Democrats or anti-Obama Republicans, America is drawn to these faux rebels even though we implicitly know they will almost certainly become part of the problem once elected.

It's kabuki theater ad absurdum — and it explains a lot.

For instance, with Democrats embodying the Hostile Takeover right now, the binary dynamic accounts for the recent resurrection of the old conservative populism first pioneered during the 1980s (this, by the way, is the subject of my Spring 2011 book, "Back to Our Future").

The Uprising-versus-Hostile-Takeover cycle also explains not the end of any particular era — but the end of political eras as a whole. Whereas clear differences between the parties once created epochal congressional majorities and intractably red and blue states, we now rapidly vacillate between two similarly money-dominated parties in a spastic search for an insurrection that will bring something different.

That, of course, gives us a unified theory of the last three elections. In an America straitjacketed by a two-party system, these contests have been all about voters trying to support any available uprising, irrespective of party labels or even ideology.

Ending this tail-chasing exercise and constructing a truly transformational and results-oriented politics is essential — but won't be easy because powerful forces are invested in the charade.

Partisan media outlets generate ratings by pretending their respective party's uprising won't be tomorrow's hostile takeover. The political consulting class makes big money from commercials that do the same thing. And a hyper-partisan population divorced from genuine social movements is addicted to believing that if only we wait for the next election, one of the parties — however corrupt or compromised — will supposedly bring about "real change."

In that sense, biennial election hype is the opiate of the masses — an opiate made particularly potent because it preys on the psychology of hope. We desperately want to believe that we can mount a successful uprising. And it's true, we can. But not until we realize that both parties are now part of the hostile takeover we seek to confront.

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose upcoming book, "Back to Our Future" will be released in March of 2011. He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
The real problem is that there are just too many low-information voters in this country who are attracted to whichever candidates dangle the shiniest objects in front of them. They don't have the information, critical thinking skills, and understanding to be able to rationally make the best decisions so they end up voting for whoever most strongly appeals to them on an emotional level. Republicans appeal to basic fears while Democrats (usually) appeal to hope. Education is the only way to break this cycle. Unfortunately our education system is going further down the wrong path. Kids aren't allowed to think for themselves, only to follow rules and spit back what they have been conditioned to “know” as fact.
And David, I do think you are brilliant, but must take issue with your false equivalency between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Yes, there are too many people in the Democratic Party that talk like Republicans because they are corporate shills, and quite often it's hard to tell the difference between them. But you can't judge the whole party by the actions of its most visible members. You can't honestly claim that there is no difference between someone like Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich and Max Baucus or Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu. Stop lumping everyone together! The fundamental principals of the Democratic Party are still intact even if many of its members who call themselves Democrats refuse to honor them.
Comment: #1
Posted by: A Smith
Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:40 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

9 Mar 2012 A Welcome Return to Basic Standards

17 Feb 2012 Will We Choose a Chinese Future?

19 Aug 2011 The Vegetarian's Dilemma