WASHINGTON, DC – In the months since the party’s “shellacking” at the hands of the Tea Party-fueled GOP, a specter has been haunting leading Congressional Democrats – calls for fundamental reform. Bedeviled by high unemployment numbers, a yawning budget deficit, and an intractable war in Afghanistan, the donor community has criticized the party’s performance as running the gamut, in the formulation of one trade association head, “from confiscatory to collectivist.” Of particular concern was the party’s rhetorical commitment to the unemployed, under-water homeowners, and the needless public needling of the financial sector’s bonus culture.
Feedback from the grassroots has been similarly disenchanted, although differing somewhat in both the diagnosis of the country’s ills and the prescriptions for remedying them. Key party officials were skeptical however that the clamored-for Wisconsin-style populism would play, given Republican objections and the steadily improving economic climate. Nevertheless, party leaders maintained that fundamental change was imminent, although it would be hashed out behind closed doors in close coordination with key CEO’s in strategic sectors. The man spearheading this initiative is General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, a close presidential ally, widely admired for his rent-seeking ability, right-sizing skill, and creative accounting prowess.
The president himself remains determined to further advance this public-private partnership by also forging a new bipartisan working majority. “Let me be clear. We’ve heard our critics and are prepared to work with Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell to enact the sort of agenda the American people have come to expect from us. That’s why moving forward, to win the future, I can assure the American people of one thing. I pledge to redouble my efforts in stage-managing the transition to unbridled bankster hegemony by adopting a sunnier style and renewed rhetorical aplomb… Yes we will.”
When informed of the president’s clarion call to more convincingly sell his variant of lesser-disguised corporate subordination, most Beltway observers evinced not a little skepticism. “He’s going to need to revamp his entire press shop, not just shuffle a few deck chairs,” noted one well-placed Democratic operative. “Effectively packaging and framing relentless trickle down militarism, even if it is kinder and gentler, is going to be a hard sell for a Democratic president.” A senior Senate aide shared in the widely-expressed apprehension. “Perception managing the late stage transformation of our country from a solid middle class society to a decaying husk of itself would be a challenge in the best of times. He’ll really need to pour on that patented Obama razzle dazzle.”
A partner at a blue chip lobbying outfit with access to the thinking of senior West Wing officials characterized the administration’s dilemma this way. “I’m worried these guys just aren’t capable of convincing the public that widespread economic privation and an invasive surveillance state at home, combined with perpetual war abroad, doesn’t start to resemble a scenario out of 1984. Do these guys have the marketing chops? I guess some are still arguing that it would be simplest just to change – you know, the policies – but we all know that’s not on the table.”
Such gloomy assessments weren’t unanimous by any means however. One well-connected public relations council insisted that “the American people are remarkably flexible and innovative. I truly believe, at the end of the day, they’ll take to global cartel servitude like a duck to water. Besides, once we’ve fully implemented our total information awareness neuro-conditioning blitz, in a couple of years Big Brother will be seen as no more threatening than Big Bird.”
Among leading broadcast media figures however, the administration’s new approach was met with a spate of withering critiques so familiar to close observers of our flourishing adversarial media culture. “One area where the president really could do more is on the jingoism front. I mean I couldn’t believe how squishy he was on the Ground Zero mosque. Golden opportunity wasted,” commented one perplexed daytime anchor. “You can’t just let the Republicans take the moral high ground like that.”
Similarly nonplussed, a long-time evening cable personality exclaimed, “I know everyone makes fun of George Bush landing on the aircraft carrier now, but I still think – you know, stripped of any context – it was just great for the country. Since the economy won’t be improving much anytime soon, stuff like that is really going to matter more and more to those regular folks out there. You know, the white ethnic guys, the Southerners, the backbone of the country.”
A seasoned elections pundit at the same network also stressed the desirability of mobilizing military support. “When you look at it from 30,000 feet up, out there in the Heartland, they just love their – what are they called? – redneck-leathernecks. They really do. Semper hi, Obama needs to leverage that stuff better.”
One of the president’s former Senate Democratic colleagues, a leader of the centrist block, offered a “blockbuster strategy” for public approval renewal. “You may not realize this, but we’ve never bombed a country whose name starts with an O. Interesting trivia – then I realized it’s probably because there’s only one, Oman. Got a real chuckle out of that. It’s perfect for 2012, no one’s ever heard of it, it’s crawling with Muslims, ah al-Qaeda, and it’ll be worth a good ten points in the polls. Fifteen if we send in the 101st. By next year we’ll have already cleaned house in Tripoli and Teheran anyway.”
Another pragmatic Democratic Senator expressed reservations at his New England colleague’s bellicosity. “I think the president would be prudent in confining the air strikes to Libya and Sudan. There’s a precedent for the latter with Clinton, and it would rally the Darfur crowd as well as my Republican friends. It would do a world of good for bipartisanship.”
A Western moderate Democratic Senator mused that “the American people want to finally feel good about something again. Getting bogged down in some 'which ruthless kleptocrat overlord stole what or what millionaire Senator's husband is a war profiteer' blame game sure won’t do it. Besides, nothing turns a frown upside down like Damascene children shredded by helicopter gunships.”
The vagaries and utility of the “rally around the flag effect” aside, those working the reelection side of the Obama administration revealed an unmistakable air of confidence. “We think that we can build off our success in 2008,” noted savvy presidential confidant David Axelrod matter-of-factly. “I mean we won Advertising Age’s Marketer of the Year award in 2008. We were corporatist before corporatism was cool.” Indeed, the marketing pros had bestowed the coveted prize on Obama’s campaign brand, passing over perennial competitors such as Apple, Nike, and Coors.
Axe, as he is affectionately known by friends, nevertheless sounded a discordant note when breaking down the nascent reelection strategy. “We’ve already milked it dry on the whole inspiration thing, we know that. Now we’re trying to assess the metrics on just exactly what proportion of bread to circuses might optimize turnout. I think we’re on top of it.”
Whatever the precise messaging formula, Axelrod was at pains to explain that the policy people would have as much if not more influence on the ultimate outcome. “I’m hoping they won’t tinker too much with what’s gotten us to where we are today – the classic Republican twist on the military Keynesian formula – jacking up spending and trimming taxes while starting another war with some hapless country or other. Joe Lieberman’s been talking up Oman as a follow up to Libya; I’m thinking Yemen maybe. After all, being a war president got Bush reelected. And besides, Dick Cheney was right: deficits don’t matter.”
A high-ranking elections consultant at the Democratic National Committee offered a more candid elaboration of the kind of hocus pocus that will be required to goose still-to-be bamboozled voters in 2012. “We’ve got nothing but a South Korean free trade deal for the unions, zip on climate change or the wars for the hippies, no jobs program for the blacks, and nada on immigration reform.” In spite of this daunting list of what might be perceived as policy omissions by base voters, the analyst was nevertheless serene. “They’ll fall in line; they always do. Well, except for 2000. Anyway, we’re going to make it crystal clear to these professional retards that the 2012 equivalent [the Republican nominee] of Christine O’Donnell really is a witch. Literally. Make that a racist witch. By way of contrast, our brand of bureaucratic techno-serfdom will come off as modern, inclusive.”
“Let’s face it,” snorted the ever-exuberant Rahm Emanuel, the president’s recently departed Chief of Staff, “the Republican form of state collusion in robber baron domination basically comes in two flavors – redneck and country club – and one color: white. I mean, look at us – we’re the fucking United Colors of Benetton of Neo-Liberal Autocracy.” Turning surprisingly wistful for a moment, “Rahmbo” reflected on the President’s deepest wish, most often expressed when particularly frustrated by the minutia of governing.
“As the president always says, ‘my dream is that one day our fellow Americans will be fully free to exploit one another without regard to race, gender, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.’” Regaining his composure, Emmanuel crowed: “That’s what we’re fighting for. It’s a motherfucking stirring vision. You can bet we’ll have Van Jones out front and center hard selling it to the left; maybe Will.I.am can do something again or that poster guy.”
Not everyone was quite so sanguine. Republican dissident David Frum expressed world weary dismay when told of the Obama team’s latest messaging gambit. “At the end of the day, Obama’s brand of multi culti corporatism, no matter how he tries to dress it up, will remain too far left for the American people. He needs to stop exacerbating societal divisions with special interest appeals, attacking the banks – they haven’t nearly reached their optimum efficiency as economies of scale would dictate. An oligarchy divided against itself cannot stand.” Queried as to what his preferred policy outcome might be, Frum, who once actually lent his name to a neocon wet dream masquerading as a treatise on terrorism entitled An End to Evil, paraphrased a still-cherished nostrum. “Sure, everyone wants six banks dominating the economy, but real men want just one. Well, besides the Fed.”
Among leading bloggers, as one might expect, less orthodox interpretations of Obama’s spectator democracy media strategy came fast and furious. Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Monthly managed to analyze the president's remarks as only he can. “Sarah’s apocalyptic theocratic fever dream is not only horrifying, it’s outré. Obama’s centrist polyarchic managerialism, while far from being Oakshottian mind you, is at least comparatively cosmopolitan and even intermittently gay-friendly. As for Todd, can you get more arriviste? And just don’t get me started on Piper – who I personally think has been getting a free ride – I’m sorry, she’s just hopelessly déclassé, even worse than Willow, if you can believe it. And Trig? One word: gauche.”
Sullivan’s fellow Atlantic blogger, Jeffrey Goldberg, demonstrating again the multifaceted critical faculties that have made him so trusted among so many admirers of Martin Peretz, also discerned thunderheads on the horizon. “Obama must answer the first order questions. And let me be the first to say that I’m not sure he’s got the clarity of purpose to do it. One, what does this have to do with Israel again? And two, is this looming military-industrial Gleichschaltung good for the Jews? I mean, the jury’s still out.”
When we found Robert Kagan, the widely respected ‘Shock and Awe’ theoretician, he was lecturing at Harvard on his fourth seminal essay proving America superior – this one provocatively entitled The Myth of Icarus; Or, the American Empire Exceptional and Ascendant: A Study in Kinetic Dominance Projection and Unilateral Power Preponderance. In this bracing study, Kagan empirically proves that nothing bad can ever happen when a quasi-bankrupt state carries out endless imperial guerrilla wars financed by oceans of foreign-owned debt. Why? “Because we’re America, obviously.”
“We had a robust blue ribbon panel up at Harvard – we really assembled the best and the brightest this time. Bill Kristol was the keynote of course. Norm Podhoretz moderated, while his wife and son, my dad, my brother, and my second cousin’s nephew all examined the monograph’s revolutionary implications; we then by acclamation determined it was unassailable.” With a wry nod to his some of his confederates’ past Trots affiliations, Kagan chuckled, “it was a quite the party line vote if you will.”
Alas, Kagan insisted repeatedly that his latest work wasn’t for everyone. “You’d need a pretty robust grounding in Straussian theory to fully comprehend it, that’s why getting into the weeds about the data, certainly in this forum, would only needlessly complicate the optics. I mean, it’s totally robust. Besides, we had George Tenet really drill down on the numbers – it’s a slam dunk. So long as Obama stays in Afghanistan, gets boots on the ground in Libya, Oman, Yemen, Iran, Syria, and bombs China – it’s nothing but clear skies ahead.”
Prodded to nutshell his paradigm-shifting opus, Kagan coolly related that “people need to get used to the idea that we’re the greatest empire in world history now and that fact has very radical consequences for reality. Plato, Hegel and Fukuyama almost had it right. But as it turns out, an internally rotting garrison state, dominated by a rapacious revolving-door financial elite, is the highest expression of human social endeavor. ” When asked to bottom line the likely impact of his lofty yet intuitive thesis on the real world, the ever tough-minded Kagan asserted that “this is the ultimate killer app, the biggest game-changer since the Reagan Revolution, or, quite possibly, Alexander at Issus.”
With such transcendent scholarship sure to ripple out in unpredictable directions during the upcoming campaign, two salty first political mates have joined forces to help the president navigate the sure-to-be roiling waters. In a happy turn of events, Mark Penn (Hillary Clinton’s rotund yet porcine 2008 campaign manager) and Dick Morris (the mercurial podophile and one time councilor to Jessie Helms) recently decided to put their differences aside for the sake of bipartisan comity. In the tragic wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, the two highly decorated veterans of perhaps one too many nasty political skirmishes felt an obligation to help change the tone in Washington. “We just wanted to do our part in the healing process,” commented Penn solemnly. “Plus,” chimed in Morris, “Plouffe put us on an eight figure consultancy retainer. Each.”
In a stroke of good fortune, Morris reluctantly agreed to early reveal a draft of his favorite political pastiche. “We were kicking the tires on a couple of what we like to call – you know, in the vernacular – ‘leveraged wordisms.’ Finally, after about a week of robust efforting, we came up with ‘High-Tech Feudalism You Can Believe In.’” It captures the future and yet still retains that classic feel. You know, it might just be the most inspired call to arms since Al Gore’s ‘practical idealism.’ ”
Douglas Schoen, Penn’s right hand man on the 2008 Clinton campaign and leading Democratic strategist who hates Democrats, related misgivings about Morris and Penn’s handiwork. “It’s a little clunky would be my two cents. Just shooting from the hip here, I’d go with ‘Yes You Can Have High-Tech Feudalism’ – it’s got that twist, something familiar yet fresh. The thing is, as I was gurgling and slurping to Sean Hannity the other evening, the American people have already rejected the Democrat’s tired, McGovernite bowing and scraping before Goldman and JP Morgan Chase.”
In the course of dozens of interviews conducted over the past several weeks, perhaps the most penetrating insights came from these two long-time members of the Washington cognoscenti: right-of-center wise man “Combover” David Gergen and the scrappy liberal international attorney to the stars, Lanny Davis. “My own view – and you’re not going to hear this anywhere else – is that the president really needs to seize the center,” intoned Mr. Gergen in his mellifluous Kermit the Frog-esque patter.
“His numbers are still shaky and they don’t have to be. There’s no reason why he should be ceding all that oil and coal money to the Republicans.” The old Nixon, Reagan and Clinton hand was unconcerned that the President’s environmental rhetorical commitment might blunt his overtures to these new potential partners. “I forgot, has he embraced clean coal and offshore drilling?”
Almost as if bringing a closing argument on behalf of some genocidal Rift Valley potentate to a crescendo, a convicted Mr. Davis made his case. “Fossil fuels were the fulcrum of 20th Century power. I’ve got three words for David: military contracting community. The escalation in Afghanistan has been more lucrative for them than the aimless Bush policy. They’ve got money to burn and yet, unbelievably, the president hasn’t made the pitch. And can I vouch for these guys; they’re doing some great wet work facilitation in Honduras.”
The notion that some anti-war voters among the president’s supporters might blanch at such campaign financing acrobatics induced from Davis a grin. “Sure, some bleeding hearts might complain about sucking up to the merchants of death, but that’s just savvy politics. Serious independent voters like to see themselves in their president – standing up to special interest complainers. And there are a lot more tough guy independent voters than cut-and-run anti-interventionist ones.”
Out in the Heartland, we found voters wooed by Obama in 2008 wary but still open to a deft appeal. “I don’t think I’ve ever been hoodwinked by a more concerned-seeming, polished, and darnit, rakish politician,” volunteered Lindsey Naegle, a systems analyst from Eden Prairie, MN, in her delightful regional patois. “Our mortgage might be 25% underwater with no hope in sight, but he’s got real presence when he speaks – almost like Martin Luther King – except without the principles and the steadfastness and the capacity to speak hard truths and the willingness to take on entrenched interests. At least he’s not a Republican.”
Naegle’s husband Clint, an IT consultant, was nearly as impressed by one of Mr. Obama’s most trusted lieutenants. “I’ve really gotta hand it to that Tim Geithner. He sure keeps an even keel – he’s cool as a cucumber up there. Just like no drama Obama himself – especially when he was shoveling all those no-strings-attached trillions to those Masters of the Universe bastards, don’tcha know. I mean, he didn’t even flinch. That’s nails.”
Rave reviews like these are lately reflected in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, which have crept upwards since cementing his bipartisan tax cut compromise that added an incidental $900 billion to the national debt. “Any time you cut a deal with the Republican Party, given their Reaganesque championing of peace through strength and fiscal responsibility, you know the American people are going to get exactly what they deserve,” said Oscar Romero, a wizened old priest from La Junta, CO. “Exactly what they deserve.”
Others weren’t so sure, including Adam Yeder, a recent college graduate from nearby Arvada. “If it was up to me, I’d smash the banks, bring all the troops home, and restore our civil liberties. But, since it’s not and next to nobody I know seems aware or would even care if they were, I’m going to be good to me. My free time gets spent gaming, exchanging tweets and updating my Facebook page from my iPhone.”