Eliot Spitzer didn't need us and that was his problem


Last night I saw a flurry of emails blanket my inbox with a series of "unbelieavable", "still in shock" and the not so occasional "I'm angry".

I had spent most of the afternoon trying to sort out my thoughts fast enough for an Op/Ed, and I would always come back to the misgivings I've had since he took office a little over a year ago. That Eliot Spitzer's problem and weakness has always been his success because he never really needed anything other than a vote from you or me to get elected.

Eliot Spitzer didn't really need a million New Yorkers giving $5 or $10 donations to his campaign to get elected. He never needed to learn how to get people out on the streets to support his campaign to get him elected. He never needed to swallow his pride and shut up and take criticism from his own base in order to gain political influence. And he certainly never had to pound the pavement and get people out on election day to make sure people would get out of their homes and offices to cast a vote.

Spitzer's "Steamroller" persona was very much in tune with the kind of republic-democrats that still believe winning only big counties or states is all that's needed to govern. The same republic-democrats that only care about The People when they need to be validated with a vote, not even with contributions because those have to come only from the people (and corporations) that matter.

Martin over at Booman Tribune has a good post debunking the idea that the ghost of George McGovern is haunting the Obama campaign. As he well points out, the people who are bringing up McGovern are the same republic-democrats who've always been scared of doing the menial kind of work needed to build a people-centric movement. And may I add, these are the same people who've kicked and screamed their way against the tide brought forth by Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

The other day I saw Spitzer being interviewed by Gabe Pressman. The veteran journo at one point asked if he was concerned about the tone of campaign. Spitzer said something like,"nah, it's politics as usual".

For a guy who was one of Clinton's top supporter and whose name was being circulated as Vice-President material, all I have to say is ... I'm not shocked. Spitzer is from the same Clinton school of entitlement and power to only the people that matter. They are not wont to going out of their way to meet campaign workers. These are not people who have had to put out a hand out for a $5 donation.

Spitzer may well be the victim of hit job by the Bush Justice Department. Yet if I it said once in my Op/Ed, I am going to say it again : The Bushites knew they could bag themselves a big game like Spitzer because he has nowhere to turn to but the other people who share his social and political bubble.

They live in a political vaccum and that's their main weakness. The Bushites went out of their way to court the fundie vote not because their morals mattered. What mattered was their activism, their commitment and their willingness to have their voices heard as loudly and as forcefully as needed. They were the first line of defense and the teflon needed to take this country at war. BushCo knew how to build a grassroots for evil.

The Democrats? They can hardly get it right for good. Look at how the Clintonistas are wont to describing Obama followers as loonies and a cult.

Yet without true grassroots support, without a true alternative broadcasting network in the form of a netroots blogosphere, without a true accountability and communications infrastructure that would augment the voice and will of the people, even the might steamrollers and political rock stars like The Crusader of Wall Street will fall.

That's just what happened to Eliot Spitzer.

It's still a tragedy, none the less.

See also :

Volokh Conspiracy, How Spitzer was caught

Talking Points Memo, What prompted Spitzer investigation?


liza's picture

| | | | | |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1021 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

One thing that I've found unsettling, though, in listening to coverage about the protests thusfar, is this "good immigrant/bad immigrant" rhetoric that's present in what some people are saying, protesters and organizers alike. This morning, while listening to NPR, I heard one woman speak about how Latino immigrants aren't doing anything to harm this country, that they "love America" and just want to become good, hard-working Americans. Then I heard one organizer, speaking at one of the rallies, say something like this: "Nineteen people hijacked planes and participated in the 9/11 attacks, and not one of them were named Gonzales, Rodriguez, or Santiago. But you can bet that many of the people dying serving their country in Iraq are named Gonzales, Rodriguez, and Santiago" so on and so forth.

I understand that much of this is in response to the whole immigration debate getting wrapped up in worries about "national security" - how the specter of terrorism seems to make allowances for all manner of discrimination, racism and xenophobia, and how countless immigrants are nonsensically made to suffer because of it. However, it definitely seems like a very bad, very problematic move to buy into this sort of dichotomy that pits "good" immigrants or "good" brown folks (here, Latinos) against "bad" ones (apparently people of Arab or Middle Eastern descent - because, you know, the actions of individuals become the responsibility, the fault, the burden of their entire race and religion.) Latinos, like all other immigrants to the United States, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and are entitled to certain rights and protections because they are human beings, not because they're good, flag-waving*, American-loving immigrants. No one is illegal, no matter whether your name is Juan or Mohammed, Gonzales or Atta.


Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify