Democrats became associated with something that most of us bristle against instinctually ["the status quo"]. American society has always been a society in motion, either progressing or regressing but always moving. The status quo is antithetical to movement. Yet the Democratic Party found itself in an odd position: the party of precisely that — the status quo. The party of the system. The party of institutions (that people didn’t particularly like). The party of the establishment. And, yes, the party of privilege.
I'm old. I'm a fan of irony. If Hamid is correct, then the world since I entered political activism (yes, it was 1968) has turned on its head. Because I was the kind of Democrat that Eugene McCarthy represented. A Democrat for me was a rule-breaker, a stile-jumper, an authority sass, a despiser of any Establishment, an idealistic warrior for equal rights to the point of exposing your noggin to a baton.
How did we get here, if Hamid is right? "The system" Democrats defend has developed mechanisms to protect old age from pauperism, to improve the health of every person who can't otherwise afford doctors, to guard the rights of consumers, of depositors, of signers of contracts, of citizens. I shouldn't want to defend all of that (and more -- much more)? What's not worth defending? Isn't it worth exposing your noggin to a baton?
No comments:
Post a Comment