Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Robinson's avatar

Glenn, since I rarely have time to watch the shows, it’s great to have these transcripts. I look forward to them everyday. Please continue! It’s real value-added for subscribers.

Expand full comment
Soapbox-Casandra's avatar

Agreed about the establishment Democrats: little diversity of views, and where there are it is generally regarding transitory or vague issues (rhetorical only, in effect).

However, Glenn here makes some huge assumptions.

Here:

"When Trump vowed to drain the Swamp, he didn't just mean Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, but he also meant Mitch McConnell, the hordes of neo-cons long-running Republican Foreign Policy, the Bushies and the Cheneys, the U.S. security state itself. And they knew that — those institutions did — which is why they became so strongly opposed to Trump and so determined to subvert his campaign and then his presidency."

"He meant?" The journalistically accurate language is "he implied." At best.

Given that Trump preserved the swamp, appointing to agencies the same corporate goons (but worse) that Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. did -- embraced Wall Street -- embraced the MIC -- etc., suggests to me that Trump is EXACTLY THE SAME as all the others but for marketing.

In fact, as Glenn accurately notes, it is this marketing that made the Democrats' ability to shift its base onboard with CIA love affairs ("Most of this was due to the emergence of Trump…" -- i.e. Trump made this possible).

So why assume that there are any parties at all? Maybe getting Dems to back historically conservative agendas was Trump's function in a uni-party world? The "two parties" are bankrolled by the same industries, largely, and back the same broader agendas (as Glenn also notes, "The Democrat v. Republican theater is designed to hide and distract your attention away from the real power dynamic in Washington, where both parties are generally on board").

Maybe the two parties are all PR? Maybe Trump exists as the villain for some...."Boo! Hiss!" ... and Pelosi the villain for others .... "Boo! Hiss!" But we get the same bullshit over time. Does the fact that the Democrats are now the advocates for the things they ostensibly opposed in the 1970's really mean anything on a partisan level? Or does the "left-wing" push today toward authoritarianism that was once "right-wing" simply represent a single broom pushing the public from two different directions over time, into the same limited corner?

Seems irresponsible to ignore this possibility given the large amount of evidence that both parties have their strings pulled by the same forces over years and the paltry amount of evidence that suggests there is genuine ideological differences among the used-car-salesmen that actually serve as our partisan representatives in Congress. Seriously, can anyone say with a single bit of confidence what Schumer/McConnell/AOC/Pelosi/Rubio/whoever actually believe?

Expand full comment
64 more comments...

No posts