And here they come again down the stretch!

When I think of the tomorrow’s primary election, I’m viewing it through a longer term lens:

Not that long ago I wrote that the Occupy movement and the TEA Party had far more in common with each other than they ever will with the politicians that purport to represent them.

Before those of you on the political right go into raging denial consider this from one of the smartest guys in the room that hails from the left about Eric Cantor’s crushing primary defeat:

For the time being, though, Tea Party populism is boxed in in such a way that it only further serves the establishment cause. But, unlike the perpetually moribund and bought off left, the populists on the right are the only players with even a slight chance of shaking things up. In many ways that’s a frightening prospect but it might also be the closest thing to a hopeful prospect one can imagine right now.

Jeffrey equates Bobby Jindal with the TEA Party and while I think it is true Jindal panders to the TEA Party he is not one of them. Same for Steven Palazzo.  As for Cantor’s crushing primary election loss a couple of days ago The Economist had an interesting take:

Most GOP members have more to fear from their primary voters than from the general election in November. The Cook Political Report and RealClearPolitics, two political augurs, agree that there are only 17 competitive House races out of 435, so for most Republican congressmen the risk of suffering the same fate as Mr Cantor feels like the bigger threat to their jobs.

And what does this have to do with the commonalities I detect between the political left and right? Its that P word again, Populism. The folks at The Economist detect the intersection of right and left in just the right spot in corporate welfare:

“The crooks up on Wall Street in some of the big banks,” Dave Brat, the college professor who defeated Mr Cantor, told one radio host, “I’m pro-business, so I’m just talking about the crooks — they didn’t go to jail, they’re in Eric’s Rolodex.”

You could fill in Barack Obama’s name on that line and also be spot on but the point is there are deeper philosophical connections between the left and right:

Already it can be hard to spot the difference between what some left-wing Democrats and some right-wing Republicans say about banks.

And of course, those of us here in Mississippi watching that last days of Thad Cochran’s Senate career knows its gets even more complicated than that:

When I go again to the polls, Tuesday, if the Good Lord allows, I will again vote for McDaniels. Not because I support McDaniels but he is the lesser of the evil. Cochran has allowed his political cronies to capture PORK without making a stand against such. Look at Gulfport Harbor, Drilling in the Gulf and Kemper County Lignite Plant! Did any of you readers hear or see where Senator Cochran was against any of these projects that made his cronies richer? Did Cochran attempt to get DMR on the straight and narrow by chastising State Officials who have hindered the investigation of the most crooked agency in the state? There are too many ‘NO’ answers to these questions. Therefore, I rest my case as to why I am voting for McDaniels.

Stay tuned.

9 thoughts on “And here they come again down the stretch!”

    1. I am not sure if this really works but when there are two candidates that I do not like I do a write in. I write my name or the word none.

  1. I was half way listening to the news at 6 on WLOX. Did they say there was a rally for Cochran at the State Capitol today? I didn’t think politicians could use public places for campaigning. Maybe I heard wrong. Does anyone know?

  2. Doug, Jeffrey still longs for a top-down governance system, with he and pals on top, of course; but at least Jeffrey is honest enough to acknowledge the fact that modern politics within the bluntly contrived “box” is essentially tweedledee/tweedledum corporatist Statism, and the tea party types the last ones flipping off the system.

    A far, far better read would be the late Murray Rothbard, who was prescient enough to discern the reality of the situation. Or, if you like your offering to be a blunt establishment type, the late Professor Carroll Quigley.

      1. Good going, Doug. I offer up both Rothbard and Quigley as discerning the rather obvious merger of supposedly competing beliefs. As has been noted by others, we’re dealing with the aftermaths of the French Revolution and the reaction to the Industrial Revolution. Sad to say there was the split between true liberals, those who sought to diminish State involvement in individual life, and the socialists/Marxists, who as Mencken had quipped, thought the solution to crime was more crime. Progressives, ironically, are remarkably similar to their pre-Industrial Revolution predecessors, as Hayek would have noted, see his caustic comments about Prussia.
        I’m not a fan of Rand, for as wits have noted, she is nothing more than a poor man’s Nietzsche. And we all recall the poor man went mad at the end.

  3. Meanwhile, David Brat has replaced his campaign manager Zachary Werrell,on an “interim” basis by, get this, Amanda Chase, who was Cantor’s political director during his successful 2010 campaign.

    Hell, it’s pathetic, kleptocrats don’t wait even a dignified period before flipping off their supporters!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *