Robert Kagan to fund raise for Sec Clinton?

[Red Oak]

In the spirit of of positive constructive criticism, from a former Bernie supporter, I saw this article on The Hill this morning and was wondering if this was sanctioned by the campaign?

Robert Kagan fundraising for the campaign? A PNAC founder????

Sec. Clinton may need to pivot right, but this is a hard right, if true. Too hard, in my opinion. I would think she would disavow PNAC and its founders, not have them campaign for her.

Here is the headline and link:

Prominent neoconservative to fund raise for Clinton: report

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/284727-prominent-neoconservative-to-fundraise-for-clinton-report

I looked up the author, Mark Hensch, and, as he is a staff writer for The Hill, don't see that he has a political ax to grind on this topic.

[bemildred]

1. The Neocons have nowhere else to go at the moment.

Last edited Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't think I would berate Ms Clinton over this, the Neocons will dump her in a minute too. They will go for Newt or rMoney if they get the chance, but mostly right now they just want to maintain the illusion that they are still relevant.

[lapfog_1]

27. nowhere else to go?

They can run a third party candidate - the world domination party...

or they can simply go the fuck away.

[TwilightZone]

2. "Sec. Clinton may need to pivot right" - nope.

At this point, everyone has two choices - Trump or Clinton.

Clinton can continue to campaign just as she has and most reasonable people are going to be on her side, regardless. Kagan sees Trump as a fascist, so his choices are fascist or Clinton. She's not going to suddenly change because of one fundraiser.

[leftofcool]

3. Nope. No pivot to the right. The neocons don't want Trump

[avaistheone1]

4. Hhmm we shall see.

[NWCorona]

5. I don't like these conservatives lining up to support Clinton one bit.

[TwilightZone]

6. Their only alternative is Trump.

This isn't complicated.

[NWCorona]

7. Is that supposed to make me feel better?

They can always stay home.

Yes it isn't complicated.

[TwilightZone]

8. You'd rather they stay home than vote for Clinton?

That's an interesting stance. As some never tired of reminding us during the primaries, Clinton is going to need more than Democrats to win in November. If it leads to us winning the Senate and making significant gains in the House, so be it.

[NWCorona]

9. I honestly can't say yes or no to that question.

All I know is that even though I try to keep an open mind, I just don't trust the Republicans.

[TwilightZone]

10. I don't trust them, either.

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them for our purposes.

To win in November, like it or not, we need some crossover votes. We can't set the agenda unless we win, and the best way to pursue a more progressive agenda is to win the presidency and give Clinton a Congress more amenable to one.

[bunnies]

13. Its not like we're talking ordinary Republicans here though.

Were talking bomb the fucking world and take it over PNACers. Kagan is one of the damn reasons we have the disastrous Iraq war.

It seems DUs collective view of those types has drastically changed though. I just cant.

[NWCorona]

14. Exactly!

[stevenleser]

15. Nope, no change in how we view these folks.

They see that their side has nominated a lunatic and their fear of that lunatic has overcome their policy issue disagreement with our nominee.

I dont know why anyone would have an issue with that.

[bunnies]

18. The guy wants "near-constant global conflict".

And thats who we want to stand with? We draw *no* lines at all?

[TwilightZone]

21. If we're going to reject everyone who doesn't agree with us on everything, we'll lose.

Further, understanding their motivations is not an endorsement of their beliefs on other issues. He's supporting Clinton because he believes that Trump is a fascist.

As far as Kagan's assertion that Trump has fascist tendencies, I agree with him. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything else. Or anything, for that matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

[bunnies]

22. Im sorry, but I draw the line at a RW lunatic lusting over global war.

This 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing is absurd. Where does it stop?

[TwilightZone]

23. You disagree with everything he says and does then, by default?

You disagree that Trump has fascistic tendencies and must be stopped?

That's where the real line should be drawn.

I never said he was "my friend". Clearly, quite the opposite. But, hey, keep seeing whatever you want to see.

[stevenleser]

25. They guy is saying vote for our candidate, he isn't being offered anything.

Where would I draw the line? Bigots of any stripe. And I would object Kagan having any role in Hillary's administration. If they want to help bring down the Republican nominee and that's all they are doing? Fine with me.

[TwilightZone]

19. Agreed.

Understanding their motivations is not an endorsement of their beliefs.

[OnyxCollie]

28. Richard Armitage's support for Hillary Clinton is A-OK, too.

'Cause, you know, winning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1491994

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1491852

“Since (Bush-appointee Richard) Armitage is currently the Under Secretary of State, he is in charge of the Foreign Narcotics Control Office of the State Department, which is supposed to control cocaine and heroin…. The famous quote by Kerry Committee senior panel member Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (D-Hawaii) should be noted. When Armitage was put under oath, he kept calling him (Armitage) "Mr. Cocaine" instead of "Mr. Secretary…."

“Armitage was also a member of the restricted access group known as RAG-1 (Restricted Access Group One) along with Elliott Abrams, Clair George, Attorney General Ed Meese, David Margolis, Chief of Domestic Criminal Operations of the Department of Justice. The purpose of RAG-1 was first to develop and then to coordinate the CIA’s policy of trafficking in narcotics on a large-scale basis, in order to produce ongoing covert revenue streams pursuant to the aid and sustenance of illegal operations of state.

“Richard Armitage coordinated CIA heroin trafficking principally out of Cambodia and Laos, and he was a close confederate of General Huang Soong, the CIA’s principal (narcotics) trafficker in Cambodia…. (Note: Bush certainly knew about Armitage’s sordid history when he appointed him. In fact, Bush may have done so to further his own, personally frustrated reach within the black budget community, which has excluded presidents from its prized technology secrets)

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/106834.shtml

[bunnies]

29. I really don't get it onyx.

We're supposed to wrap our arms around these blood soaked neocons? Fuck that. I refuse.

Their support is a good thing because Trump? Omg.

[OnyxCollie]

30. Every vote is special.

"Democratic mass parties are bureaucratically organized under the leadership of party officials, professional party and trade union secretaries, etc.... Of course, one must remember that the term 'democratization' can be misleading. The demos itself, in the sense of an inarticulate mass, never 'governs' larger associations; rather it is governed, and its existence only changes the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and the direction of administration activities by supplementing what is called 'public opinion.' 'Democratization,' in the sense here intended, does not necessarily mean an increasingly active share of the governed in the authority of the social structure. This may be the result of democratization, but it is not necessarily the case.... The most decisive thing here- and indeed it is rather exclusively so- is the leveling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated groups, which in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form." -Max Weber

Assumption 2: Representation and State Preferences States (or other political institutions) represent some subset of domestic society, on the basis of whose interests state officials define state preferences and act purposively in world politics.

In the liberal conception of domestic politics, the state is not an actor but a representative institution constantly subject to capture and recapture, construction and reconstruction by coalitions of social actors. Representative institutions and practices constitute the critical "transmission belt" by which the preferences and social power of individuals and groups are translated into state policy. Individuals turn to the state to achieve goals that private behavior is unable to achieve efficiently.9 Government policy is therefore constrained by the underlying identities, interests, and power of individuals and groups (inside and outside the state apparatus) who constantly pressure the central decision makers to pursue policies consistent with their preferences.

~snip~

This is not to adopt a narrowly pluralist view of domestic politics in which all individuals and groups have equal influence on state policy, nor one in which the structure of state institutions is irrelevant. No government rests on universal or unbiased political representation; every government represents some individuals and groups more fully than others. In an extreme hypothetical case, representation might empower a narrow bureaucratic class or even a single tyrannical individual, such as an ideal-typical Pol Pot or Josef Stalin. Between theoretical extremes of tyranny and democracy, many representative institutions and practices exist, each of which privileges particular demands; hence the nature of state institutions, alongside societal interests themselves, is a key determinant of what states do internationally.

Representation, in the liberal view, is not simply a formal attribute of state institutions but includes other stable characteristics of the political process, formal or informal, that privilege particular societal interests. Clientalistic authoritarian regimes may distinguish those with familial, bureaucratic, or economic ties to the governing elite from those without. Even where government institutions are formally fair and open, a relatively inegalitarian distribution of property, risk, information, or organizational capabilities may create social or economic monopolies able to dominate policy. Similarly, the way in which a state recognizes individual rights may shape opportunities for voice.10 Certain domestic representational processes may tend to select as leaders individuals, groups, and bureaucracies socialized with particular attitudes toward information, risk, and loss.

Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513-553.

During the 1950’s, the pluralist theory of power maintained that various social groups, holding a diverse collection of interests, acted as a countervailing force against corporate power (Joseph, 1982). It was necessary for corporations, further disadvantaged by heterogeneity and the constraints of public opinion, to compete against other interest groups to influence government. Charles Lindblom criticized this theory, maintaining that there was “privileged position of business” (1977, p. 5, as cited in Joseph, 1982) which permitted decisions affecting society to be made by corporate executives, not government officials. This public authority stemmed from property rights, protected by the government, which provided for corporate control of assets that, in turn, included authority granted by the government.

In addition, Lindblom (1977, as cited in Joseph, 1982) argued that government depends on corporations to perform essential functions, lest there be great social disruption. Despite this serious concern, government is constitutionally precluded from compelling corporations to perform, and must resort to inducements to provoke business management to act:

To induce business managers to perform, governments must give them not everything they ask for, but everything they need for sufficiently profitable operation. Policy-making consequently comes under a special control by business: government officials must listen to business with special care; must find out what business needs even if it does not take the trouble to speak for itself; must give managers enough of what they need to motivate production, jobs, and growth; and must in so doing give them special rights of consultation and actual participation in the setting of policies (Lindblom, 1977, pp. 254, 255).

Lindblom (1977, as cited in Joseph, 1982) contended that these two dimensions of corporate privilege, corporate affectation of public policy and government reliance on corporate functions, are supported through ideological means. Corporate elites provide cues to “indoctrinate” (p. 255) the public, swaying opinion to overlook corporate privilege and legitimizing it by identifying it with normal democratic politics. Government officials assist by neglecting to address fundamental issues, fostering public acceptance of “corporate autonomy, the existing distribution of wealth, the limited authority of employees in business management, and the close consultation between business and government as fundamental virtues of the established order not to be challenged” (Lindblom, 1980, p. 79 as quoted in Joseph, 1982).

Joseph, L. (1982). Corporate political power & liberal democratic theory. Polity, 15(2), 246-267.

Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world's political-economic systems (pp. 5, 170, 254, 255). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Lindblom, C. E. (1980). The policy-making process (p. 79). Prentice, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Martin Gilens
Princeton University
[e-mail]

Benjamin I. Page
Northwestern University
[e-mail]

The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.

Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will and ensuring that their wishes prevail in the fashion postulated by theories of Majoritarian Pluralism. Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest group system as a whole does not. Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole. “Potential groups” do not take up the slack, either, since average citizens’ preferences have little or no independent impact on policy after existing groups’ stands are controlled for.

Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically elite citizens who wield the actual influence.

~snip~

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

[Red Oak]

33. Brexit, Trump are part of the "in your face 1%" feeling. People are tired of not being represented.

I am hopeful that Sec Clinton picks up on the fact that the status quo won't cut it anymore.

I am also hopeful that she can win without the "special votes" of neocons like Robert Kagan and his ilk and, again I hope, she comes out and denounces him, his blood thirsty geopolitics and the neocon cabal in general. They have caused enough global human suffering already.

[ericson00]

11. Robert Kagan is a good guy with a great worldview.

I'm glad to have him aboard!

[bunnies]

12. Are you serious? nt

[PufPuf23]

16. Recall the neoconservatives originated within the Democratic party not the GOP.

Hillary Clinton is no stranger to the neoconservatives and there should be no surprise that Hillary Clinton is a most attractive Democratic party nominee for POTUS in the eyes of Kagan.

Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland who worked under Clinton at State, is current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State, and has served Democratic and GOP administrations since Bill Clinton. Nuland is the personality that is the major architect for Ukraine policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

[bunnies]

17. I just dont understand how anyone on this board would say that Kagan,

a man who wants "near-constant global conflict", is a "good guy with a great worldview". Apparently the Democratic Party has gone full PNAC and I missed it. No wonder we're up to our eyeballs in death and destruction. The same damn warmongers have been pulling the strings since the 90's.

Peace. Eh, screw it.

[Red Oak]

24. Agreed - That's why I posted to begin with

I would think Sec. Clinton would be shouting to someone like Kagan that I don't want your dirty money, I don't believe in your policies or your war mongering world view and to basically leave me the bleep alone.

If we Dems really need the Kagans of the world in order to win then damn, just damn. It makes me sick.

Come on!

Renounce this person and the policies he stands for!

[bunnies]

31. I'm with you.

1000%.

[John Poet]

32. The problem is, on foreign policy they are largely in agreement.

That is why Kagan has endorsed Sec. Clinton-- not because Trump is so awful, but because Trump isn't a neoconservative on foreign policy.

[m-lekktor]

20. lol nt

[Politicalboi]

26. MMMMmmm

This is going to be a fun summer for sure.