I couldn't help but notice how former Governor Jim Doyle made Mike Tate's case for another term as the state Democratic Party's chairman.
Doyle said Tate "has really understood what modern politics is. He has understood the media side, the consultant and polling side of it, the money-raising side of it and the really focused data politics."
Is that really all there is to modern politics?
Doyle went on to say that Tate "has really been able to bring all that together, and he has become a very good leader of people."
Does bringing all that together really amount to leadership?
If political leadership has come to mean nothing more than doing what the consultants and pollsters tell you to do, raising money nonstop, assembling sophisticated digital voter files and spinning the media, then it is all vessel and no cargo.
1 comment:
I have to somewhat agree with Doyle's assessment, but only with the proviso that what Doyle means by "modern politics" is what is much more precisely referred to as "modern corporate controlled politics in a rigid two-party system".
I also sorta agree with Doyles' follow-up that you quoted, Mike. But again, that comes with a qualification. I am sure that what Doyle actually meant when he said "... leader of the people", was "... leader of the Party".
In a two party system, when both parties, and all branches of government, are controlled by corporations and the super-rich, the guiding, controlling ideology and name of the game, of BOTH parties, is to serve their master, insure both Party's survival, and (if and wherever possible) secure dominance over the other Party.
Serving the people, and defending democracy and the rights of the people, becomes irrelevant and nothing but a fools errand.
Governing People for Profits is the job of both parties in such a corrupted and betrayed political system. Click on my link to see my essay with that very title.
Post a Comment