06.07.12
The reactionary vote
A political columnist at Esquire puts together the best thing I’ve read on the Wisconsin recall.
He states the other side won out of anger at the very idea of it and that outside pundits, specifically Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, fed this. That coverage on the progressive network, as if the recall was in the bag, was used by Koch money to aggravate people and assure them they were right to be angry. (Incidentally, I stopped watching Maddow and Schultz for related reason. Their careers rise and fall on the niche entertainment value of how irritating and meddlesome they appear to non-progressives on national issues. Whether that’s an asset or a liability is for marginal and uninspiring Democratic politicians to mull over.)
The writer, Charles Pierce, points out the belief in Wisconsin that governors should not be recalled except for criminal misconduct, ignoring recent history in which California’s Gray Davis was recalled over outrage at electricity market gouging and rolling blackouts — which the electorate, largely, did not find out had been rigged by Enron until well after Arnold Schwarzenegger was in office.
But those were the forces that combined with an overwhelming flood of out-of-state money to make liars out of practically everybody. This was a winning electorate that found itself besieged by the images it saw on its television, and it felt its concerns being drowned out by drum circles and chants. When Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch got up and began her speech with the line “this is what democracy looks like,” she was doing more than simply engaging in some stunningly high-level gloating; she was telling her audience exactly what they wanted to hear. Their democracy was hijacked by other people. The out-of-state special interests that most bothered them were not the Koch Brothers; it was Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. Upwards to $50 million poured into Wisconsin from various plutocrats and their front groups to tell the people in this hall that people from outside Wisconsin were taking them all for a ride. The money was a balm. The money was an amplifier. The money gave them absolution because the money told them what they already believed …
As the room grew steadily more rowdy, I fell into conversation with Ed Hannan, a lawyer from Greendale …
“It means the restoration of integrity in government,” he continued. “It means an understanding of the role of government, the limitations of the role of government, and the return of power to the taxpayers, as opposed to union organizers. That is how important this is. Going forward, what we will then see is more legislation that is going to limit the role of government and, more than that, a repeal of laws. For instance, the Minimum Mark-Up Law, a limitation on the environmental laws. We need to have sunset laws on environmental restrictions and the employment-related laws. This election was never about collective bargaining. It was about legislation that removed the state as the collection agency for union dues.”
There was no point in arguing with the man. There didn’t seem even to be any sport in pointing out that the “restoration of integrity in government” that he saw in the results was on behalf of a guy who took to the podium last night three steps ahead of a sitting grand jury. The distance between what I saw and what Ed Hannan saw was too great. I might as well have been talking to him in Finnish.
The Obama campaign’s Jim Messina dunned me for $5 with the virtual ink not even dry on the Wisconsin analyses:
What just happened in Wisconsin wasn’t an accident.
Republican Governor Scott Walker and his allies outspent the Democratic challenger nearly EIGHT to ONE — and one of the most unpopular governors in the country managed to hold on.
This result is direct confirmation that all the outside money that’s poured into elections this cycle can and will change their outcome. And it’s exactly what could happen on the national stage unless we can close the gap between special interests and ordinary people.
Go choke yourself.
You need to talk to your guy about making a message that beats the misinformation spread by billionaire money for the purpose of guaranteeing the white independent vote. You’ve no other choice. Shaking everyone else down regularly for serial micro-payments won’t get it done.
Dave Latchaw said,
June 7, 2012 at 10:13 am
My fundraising email was from Michelle Obama. I wonder how they decide these things.
George Smith said,
June 7, 2012 at 11:11 am
They must have a rotating thing. A staffer writes up something tied to the days news and then one of the ‘names’ is selected. It’s about as genuine as a three dollar bill.
Michael McCall said,
June 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm
If you liked that esquire piece you might want to take a look at Doug Henwood’s post mortem of the Wisconsin recall;
“It’s the same damn story over and over. The state AFL-CIO chooses litigation and electoral politics over popular action, which dissolves everything into mush. Meanwhile, the right is vicious, crafty, and uncompromising. Guess who wins that sort of confrontation?”
http://lbo-news.com/2012/06/06/walkers-victory-un-sugar-coated/
If you haven’t heard of him before check him out. He’s a left wing economist and a long time critic of Obama.
He also shares your contempt for Ed Schultz. What’s not to love?
George Smith said,
June 8, 2012 at 9:00 am
I agree. Today’s unions don’t do the labor protest activities that made the government sic the Pinkertons and later the FBI on them at the dawn of the movement. Which is what he seems to be getting at when he emphasizes present labor has do take on the job of convincing everying they’re working to raise everybody’s boat. Presently that perception does not exist although they try to ride on it.
I’ve run into this sentiment with the son of a friend who thought a union in a job he worked at was the enemy. And he was earning only barely about minimum wage.