Barack Obama’s cabinet is widely praised by the mainstream press is diverse. But ideological diversity doesn’t seem to be part of it. If this is a cabinet that looks like America, then America is 80% conservative Democrat, 20% Republican.
A Diverse Cabinet That Looks Like America
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
13 Comments. Leave new
No, Ted, it's 100 percent neocon, or neocon-friendly. Please try to understand who is in control. "Liberal" and "Conservative" don't enter into the language at the higher levels.
Even Hillary's boobs are going to the right!
And who's the amputee on the right supposed to be?
I dunno. It seems like we on the left have a pretty consistent tendency to imagine we're speaking for most of America when we're actually on the far end of the spectrum. That isn't to say right-wingers don't have a similar tendency, but a Cabinet divided between conservative Democrats and centrist Republicans seems like an accurate reflection of the steamy masses. It seems to me that even most progressive Americans prefer the status quo over the uncertainty of change.
Besides, haven't studies shown that ideological self-segregation is even stronger than racial or class self-segregation? I dunnnnno
After calling Chuck Asay a human being you have the gall to do this?
I mean, you praise a guy who calls for murder of abortion-doctors and then turn around and critisize a centrist-sort-of-kind-of-left politician for not being good enough? Sheesh.
So who should he place in the cabinet?
I'm guessing:
1) Ted Rall
2) ummm… Bernie Sanders? No wait scratch that, he's an actual socialist so I guess you hate him.
2) Chuck Asay
3) John "George Bush III" Edwards
I agree with onetwothree. Get over the idea that business is not going to win. Go with the pragmatic approach of trying to get something. It's not about accepting the lesser of two evils, it's about accepting competent governance of evil vs. incompetence governance (or lack of governance).
Dick Cheney still says waterboarding is OK and we should keep Gitmo open as long as the war on terror lasts, and that nobody can determine the parameters in which the war on terror would be over. Essentially, indefinite suspension of the rule of law.
We need to reframe what can be achieved here. I'm not concerned with the democrats who are about to run the white house, I'm concerned about the pathetic leadership in Congress.
Neoliberalism has yet to run it's course, the only thing we can hope for is better governance of a system that I think is inherently flawed. Big deal.
Judging from this story on Bloomberg, it would appear that:
1) the media is confused about which party won
2) Democrats are confused about which party won
3) it makes no actual difference at all
4) all of the above
Roman,
I think the Republicans are confused about who won as well. Because in reality, the party that won is about as conservative as should be allowed by law. Anymore conservative than Obama and the democrats should be flat out criminal.
Ted; whilst you've been busy attacking Obama, you've ignored the criminally negligient methodology used by Congress in distrbuting money to the vehicle industry and the finance companies.
$800 Billion + $700 Billion = $1,500,000,000,000 in how-thehell-are-they-spending-that????
Sincerely
Y_S
Pakistan
pS. you have eight years to bash on Obama; show some patience and go for the target that is damaging people at this moment.
Ted,
You just don't get it (don't you just love this phrase)? These appointments are, to borrow the priceless expression from the mainstream media, non-ideological. We need those pragmatist central-planners and nation-builders, because, unlike the ones from lame duck POTUS, they-re our, central-planning, nation-building, interventionist bureaucrats. It makes all the difference.
Wow, I agree with Incitatus on this one. Yeah, we chose one political cadre over another political cadre, the fact that they're both political cadres doesn't mean it wasn't a choice. And while I wouldn't go as far to say that each individual on the team is non-ideological (many subscribe the the Chicago/Friedman school of economics), the overall tone is non-ideological.
Again, the overall failure of neo-liberalism was the belief that regulation somehow wasn't part of the mix. It's like saying we're going to use HACCP plans but deciding not to audit the plans or do inspections (which has sort of happened one could say). The very assertion by Obama that his administration will adhere to scientific evidence in decision-making is of huge importance.
Ted will never believe Obama or any other politician is on a leash held by him. This may be true, but in 4 or 8 years will we as a society have moved in a positive direction?
Democracy is such a stupid, reactive system. But it's what we've come up with so far.
Obama just picked some tool as education secretary citing that he is a "pragmatist" who is unbound by any "ideology".
It is now a good thing to not believe in anything.
It is good to agree with incitatus on something…hey incitatus, how does the phrase "withering away of the state" sit with you?
Aggie,
My joke was that there is no such thing as a "non-ideological" political operative. Granted, most operate on their own interest, most of the time, but that's as far as their pragmatism goes.
OTOH, there is also no such thing as "scientific evidence" when we're talking about Economics – not in the sense as we do in Physics, anyhow.
BMIS operated in a very regulated market, overseen by the megalomaniac SEC. Look how good that did to their "investors".
Doing away with the state sounds
pretty nice to me, Angelo. Fancy a game?