There's a tweet floating around from some Democrat flunky naming his "Dream Team" players for the POTUS 46 cabinet posts. It includes David Petraeus as Director of National Intelligence and Larry Summers for the Treasury.
Right-o. Petraeus with his messy and rather unintelligent choices.
Bruce Carson -- Stephen Harper's *influence peddler* aka fixer -- did once observe:
And Summers? Not only is he Jeffrey-Epstein-adjacent to put it mildly but Larry is also a slick shill for the fossil fuel industry and for predatory neoliberalism, basically.
Seems rather obvious why these two Clinton-legacy creeps could still garner the admiration of some Democrat men. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The Democrat boys' club is just as sleazy as the Republican one.
Patriarchy is a circle jerk, or in Economic terms: the *invisible hand* that lubes and turns the crank of capitalism.
It's the title of an early Joyce Carol Oates novel, possibly her best and deserving a place in the US literary canon.
_THEM_ depicts the chaotic lives of a family living in poverty in the Detroit slums, from the 1930s to the 1967 riots. Oates draws a vivid portrait of a matriarch, from self-awakening as a naive young mother nagged by regrets at the age of sixteen, to a mature woman whose aspirations and struggles encompass the destinies of her children battling to survive in a perilous world fraught with violence. Poor white trash folks, before that epithet became a thing.
US against THEM is also a binary construct that imposes constraints and limits possibilities.
This imperative to separate people into opposite camps, assigned to one side or the other of an arbitrarily determined divide, is a facile reflex. Though some sociobiologists would claim that every human brain is instinctually wired to respond in this manner because: survival strategy! I find their arguments oozing with smarminess and confirmation bias.
This polarizing framework is certainly omnipresent throughout history, across varied and numerous ideological and cultural settings.
Demonize, other-wize, isolate, target.
Blue dot.
And thus, with regard to this ill-advised model that the Liberal Party of Canada is heavily promoting, today's JT speech announces what awaits Canadians in the 2015 election campaign, if THE MIDDLE-CLASS becomes its strategic meme (though it could morph into a much abused trope)
.
As someone who grew up in a rough-and-tumble mostly francophone area with many immigrants, working class (and working poor) in a town that's now part of Ottawa, I find this ploy repellent.
Though I may seem to be a member of this elusive and more likely, illusive demographic that the Liberal brain-trust is desperately trying to seduce into its camp, it does NOT speak to me.
When I hear the expression "upward mobility" deployed in JT's speech as though it were an exalted entitlement, I retch. Meaningful work, a decent salary, a social safety net: those are important elements that should not be available only to those who buy into the "upward mobility" scam, or more accurately, a form of fancy-schmancy Ponzi economic scheme beatified by the likes of Larry Summers and his sycophants.
I think of my daughter, who by virtue of her hard work and personal sacrifices, is now an accomplished physician who gives back to the communities she has pledged to serve and respect. I really don't think this marketing gimmick will speak to her.
As I do, she may find it repugnant and exclusionary.
THEM is the group that I historically and emotionally identify with, that demographically disregarded and invalidated class that JT and his team discount when the focus becomes exclusively *THE MIDDLE-CLASS*.
THEM includes many many many people, and not only those who have fallen on hard times. We may not be the potential rich donors the PLC is wooing, but we can smell a deliberate shun. And when we are angered, we vote.
You can't take that to the bank but you can count on it.
As an aside, is the NDP's best shot at challenging the credibility of JT's speech really this?
Mulcair's communications flaks would do much better to query how much Summers charged the LPC for his tired dog-and-pony show at the convention. Was the party billed his preferential Wall Street rate - for "friends"?
A message confirming that I could attend the Liberal Party of Canada convention as an accredited blogger arrived without fanfare in my email box a few weeks ago.
This is the program.
First, I was surprised; DAMMIT JANET! has published some very rude posts, justifiably critical of specific LPC actions.
Then ambivalent - did I want to spend four days or so in the febrile, adrenaline-charged environment of a political convention? I had attended one at the provincial level when I lived in Québec; from my perch as an observer, I noted what ideological hothouses they are.
Which is inexorably, the point of these conventions: to gather the troops, get every one armed - from the grunts to the generals - and in a state of readiness do to battle AGAINST the other parties.
So, I took myself to Montréal, registered, got my media pass, settled into the media room with my spiffy new MacBook all charged up; a wise move since the dozens of yellow extension with NO power bars are somewhat artisanale et broche à foin.
With one eye on the closed circuit monitor which would eventually transit the feed from Liberal Live, I checked the convention program and saw that Chrystia Freeland and Larry Summers were to have a little chit-chat to *warm* up the crowd for Justin Trudeau welcome speech.
WTF? Yes, that Larry Summers.
There's much that he has done that is not admirable.
More information about Naomi's reference, and Larry Summers' role in facilitating white collar crime.
As Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Summers played an important role in convincing Congress in 1999 to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed key portions of the Glass-Steagall Act and allowed commercial banks to get into the mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations game. The measure also created an oversight disaster, with supervision of banking conglomerates split among a host of different government agencies -- agencies that often failed to let each other know what they were doing and what they were uncovering.
At the signing of the bill, Summers hailed it as "a major step forward to the 21st Century."
Summers also backed Phil Gramm's other financial time bomb, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed financial derivatives to be traded without any oversight or regulation. So it was on his watch that the credit-default swaps warhead that has blown up our economy was launched.
Indeed, during a 1998 Senate hearing, Summers testified against the regulation of the derivatives market on the grounds that we could trust Wall Street. "The parties to these kinds of contract," he said, "are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies and most of which are already subject to basic safety and soundness regulation under existing banking and securities laws."
It would be hard to make assumptions that turned out to be more wrong than Summers' were.
But aside from his association with catastrophically WRONG economic strategies, Summers uttered his Lib14 convention platitudes as though they were the fruit of some arcane lojong that he had cut up into children's bite-sized pieces. All with the insufferable arrogant delivery that has branded his toxic imprint upon institutions.
So, I voted with my feet and left Le Palais des congrès.
As for the rest of the convention, I've set up some Real Life meetings with women who have chosen the Liberal Party as the route they want to explore to engage politically. One of them is Naomi. Another is Nancy LeBlanc, also known as the blogger impolitical. I am curious about the path that has brought them to this convention, and what their own personal hope might be.
There are others, too. Stay tuned.
