Progressive Movement

Can I just say for the record that Democrats drive me crazy? I have yet to go off on Obama’s Cabinet picks, most of which I find appalling, particularly his picks for economic and defense/national security positions. But today we learn he has chosen Rick Warren, noted anti-gay evangelical, to deliver his inaugural invocation.

Now, this is just a prayer. Hardly that big of a deal. Symbolic perhaps, but Warren will not be making policy. So the outrage on the left is a bit overblown.

Clearly Obama wants to bridge a gap with evangelicals. Warren is a prominent evangelical figure. He wrote “The Purpose Driven Life” for crying out loud.

I can see why Obama thinks he needs to appease the religious right. My problem regards the fact that first of all, picking Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation will not appease many evangelicals, and second, it looks like Obama is trying to hard.

This gets to the core of an infection afflicting more Democrats. They think they have to appease the right, and when they do, it looks heavy handed. Moreover, it never works.

The right is not going to cave to Obama simply because he caves to them. The right will cave when they realize the rest of the country is leaving them behind, powerless to stop the changes coming. And Obama can leave them behind by making progressive Cabinet and inaugural invocators choices.

People change their ways when they realize they have been defeated. If you kowtow to them, they realize they have power and will then find ways to continue to flex their muscle. Democrats do not get this. They continue to believe that if they appease Republicans, then the Republicans will come to their senses and work with them.

No such luck. Politics is war, and if you give you enemies an inch they will take a mile. Want evangelicals to work with you? Force them.

Rick Warren will not gain much evangelical support for Obama, but he sure will lose a lot of support from the progressive and gay and lesbian communities. Not a good trade.

Democrats have got to learn this. But with moderates like Obama and mislead operators like Rahm Emanuel running the show, expect to see more of same. This could be a long four years.

Uncategorized, Nominations, Obama, Analysis | 5 Comments »

Just saw Quantum of Solace. I was trying to understand why the film did not seem the same as previous Bond films. Something was off and I could not put my finger on it. Finally, I figured it out. The major crime in the film, diverting water resources from Bolivian peasants for the purpose of extorting a big contract from a two-bit dictator, is not a crime for which the British or American governments would care.

Sure, Bolivian peasants get screwed, but the person being forced into a pricey utilities contract is a scumbag despot. So what? Yet, Bond, despite his government’s opposition, stops the deal. As a result, Bond’s quest seems Quixotic.

So I tried to break it down further. Who benefits from Bond’s efforts? Bolivian peasants. Who suffers? Global energy companies. That is rather odd. The bad guys in the film are a bunch of energy companies, government hi-rollers, financiers, or in other words, some of the main protagonists for globalization. They are behind large land grab schemes so they can acquire various resources, in this case water, so they can demand high prices from whomever, including governments.

So Bond stops a multi-national, globalization company from hurting Bolivian peasants against the wishes of Her Majesty. Huh? Since when is Bond on the side of the poor and against his own government? In fact, it goes further. The U.S. government is behind the plan since the globalists have hoodwinked them into thinking there is oil in Bolivia. The British government ultimately thinks so too, hence their attempt to stop Bond.

This suggests that governments do not control the real purveyors of globalization. The corporations making globalization a reality only have their own interests at heart, not the government’s. In fact, they ultimately dictate policy to the governments (cue the scene where M gets a scolding from a high ranking Minister on why the British government supports the deal in Bolivia because they need oil). If ever the two interests should not coincide, the corporate interests, the film suggests, would win out (unless we have Bond to stop them).

Further, the film implies that such corporate shenanigans will destroy our environment and exacerbate climate disruption (the desert created by the villain’s actions is a powerful metaphor for a warming planet).

Not that any of that should surprise anyone, but in a Bond film?

Let us add one more layer to this already somewhat confusing mess. (more…)

Analysis | 1 Comment »