Read other letters about this article

• Monday, August 6, 2007 08:18 AM

  What next for bloggers and for Democrats

  A long time ago Lewis Lapham wrote an essay in which he defined the "permanent government" and the "provisional government". The former represents the enduring body of interests and power blocs which usually have a definitive influence on policy, while the latter is the elected government in Washington.

  Lapham was trying to make the point that, on issues of major importance, the provisional government is not going to be able to buck the permanent government. On relatively marginal matters, such as gay marriage, the permanent government has no investment, and policies can evolve democratically, without interference.

  However, when it comes to core policies, especially those which impact the distribution of wealth and income, the permanent government stands its ground, and change is usually stifled. This is why hedge fund managers are likely to continue to receive their tax preferences, and why real reform of our health insurance system is unlikely.

  So John Edwards' campaign for reform is doomed, and Kucinich's call for people to vote is irrelevant. The system we have is the one we're going to continue to have, regardless of how many Democrats sit in the Congress, or who occupies the White House.

  —chloeqpc Read chloeqpc's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel