David Axelrod has a dream
I would love to live in a world where the president could snap his fingers or even twist arms and make change happen, but in this great democracy of ours, that’s not the way it is.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
It sounds like Axelrod would like to live in Cuba or Venezuela. I guess Chicago has spoiled him.
Mr. Frank: My thought exactly, but I couldn’t settle on a country. Iran and Korea also came to mind.
“that’s not the way it is.”
It isn’t? Could have fooled me.
There are many places just like that! And Mr. Axelrod should move there immediately because it’s SO fantastic there, everyone is dying to go there. “Oh, if only I could move to a third dictatorship, that would be so AMAZING!!!” Well, you can try to do that to the U.S. boys, but it ain’t gonna happen. Not in a million years.
He’s right in our great democracy, force and imperial edict are, ah, difficult. We depend more upon ideas and words, persuasion and consensus. This gives a great advantage to those who are eloquent and well educated. Those who are open to common ground and can build support by reasoned argument are also, well considered. A tongue-tied cowboy cannot achieve what a silk-voiced Ivy leaguer…Oh wait!
Axelrod probably lost relatives in a country that ran on exactly that principle.
Pingback:If only Il Duce were here! « Public Secrets
What I would love to be able to do, is pick a day when obama is really pissed with axelrod… remark how obama looks like he could kill… and remind axelrod as to his finger snapping.
there was a leader that had just such power, and he even believed the same things as Axelrod.
Given that he is a Jewish red diaper baby, with a business major wife, yeah… if he was there, he would not think of it the way he does.
he has the problem of being near, he believes he is safe, and so, its ok to agree with such things.
kind of a bizarre version where the used believe they are going to be rewarded for their betrayal. they seldome realize that the new lords, are not so stupid to entertain those who would betray their own, for somethign unkown. so the guys they tend to think they are helping and like them, despise them and have no respect for them.
Artfldgr: here’s the tale of a guy who thought he was safe.
On being “safe” under such a system, even citizens just trying to keep track of which end is up have it hard.
Not too long after the revolution that put Khomeini in power in Iran, his right hand, Abolhassan Banisadr, became the first President of Iran. About a year later, Banisadr fell out of favor and eventually fled into exile.
In the software company I worked for, we had an Iranian emigre who told a joke that had been going around back home, of a guy finding out that his shopkeeper friend had been arrested.
He went the jail to find out what had happened.
It turned out, that like most businesses in a police state, he had portraits of both top men (Khomeini and Banisadr) up on a wall in his shop. He had been out in the countryside for a while, when Banisadr fell out of grace, and had been unaware of it.
When he got back, and re-opened his shop, an officer of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard came in, and upon seeing the portraits, said “Take that motherf***er down!”.
The shopkeeper explained to his friend, “I asked which one?, and they arrested me.”
–
Axelrod’s comment underscores a fundamental divide in viewpoint between left and right. Those characterizations, in fact, suggest a certain symmetry between them that does not in fact obtain.
For example, leftists want to use the government to control people, and presume that conservatives want to use corporations to control people. In fact, conservatives generally don’t want anyone to control people; they mostly just want to be left alone. (In most conservatives’ view, big government and big business are both big problems, because they can exert too much control over others.)
The driver for this wariness is, of course, that conservatives anticipate that while those wielding concentrated power might initially use it beneficially, sooner or later they or one of their successors will abuse it. Moreover, once power has been concentrated, the likelihood of that outcome approaches unity, in part because concentrated power exerts a irresistible siren call to those who should not under any circumstances be allowed access to it. (See history, twentieth century.)
Curiously, the Axelrods of the world appear not to grasp that point. Sure, he would like a President of Axelrod’s persuasion to be able to effect his policies with a snap of his fingers and run roughshod over any opposition. Would he like, say, President Pat Buchanan to have that power?
Who was it who said of Clinton: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.”?
I vividly remember reading that quote several years ago, but I don’t remember who said it.
Poor David, born too late…
Damn fool. He DID live in a world like that. It was called Chicago.
Once upon a time Richie Shortshanks Daley woke up and decided that Meigs Field was sitting on real estate that Daley had plans for. But there were all those airplanes out there and all those pesky laws and courts and lawyers and, worst of all, citizens in the way.
So one dark (oooh-eee-oooh) night he sent some people out there to get rid of the airplanes.
Case closed. Or, as Boudreaux said to the game warden after tossing him the lit stick of dynamite, Are we gonna fish or do you want to sit in this boat and discuss regulations?
That power only applies to law-abiding citizens, of course. Enemies and mass-murdering traitors are Supreme Court protections.
DEER AXELROD,
THE WORD YOU’RE LOOKING FOR IS “CUBA”. BUT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS TO ADVISORS WHO FALL OUT OF FAVOR. TALK ABOUT SNAPPING FINGERS!
Yes, David Axelrod has a dream……so long as it is HIS president!
(And he remains in favor with said President)