Washblog

OTB: You begin your book with the following: "We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers. When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers. I believe in killing in great numbers. I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks." That was Bill Clinton reviewing his options in Somalia in 1993. To me, that was one of the more shocking aspects of your book. Was there a lot of similarly shocking material you cam across as were researching the book?

Dennis Perrin: I don't know if shocking is the word. I was pre-conditioned to not being surprised by it. I knew a lot about the Democratic Party history in the 20th century. But when I read about the 19th century Democrats, I only knew so much about them. When you go beyond Andrew Jackson and the "Trail of Tears," you find the Democrats were the leading American Indian killers of the 19th century. It began as a war party. It hasn't changed. Later on there were anti-war and social justice movements that came up through the Democratic Party, or at least were co-opted by them, but that never defined the party itself. The party began in war and is still very much involved in war.

OTBYou do a good job in breaking down the myths associated with the Democratic Presidents. Barack Obama is drawing people like a magnet and people keep comparing him to JFK. How does Obama compare to JFK?

There still seem to be people who think JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam. They're isn't any serious evidence of that. There was talk about withdrawing troops from South Vietnam, but it was contingent on what they considered success in Vietnam. The idea that JFK was going to unilaterally pull U.S. troops out of South Vietnam is antithetical to the actual history. Maybe he would have eventually pulled the troops out, but there is no indication of that. Keep in mind, JFK also ushered in the modern death squad state in Central America through the Alliance for Progress in reaction to the Cuban Revolution, among other things. In a sense, Obama is like JFK. only he is saving his militaristic rhetoric for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The idea that he will pull completely out of Iraq, well, I'll believe that when I see it. I can't believe he is going to go in and unilaterally pull the troops out after all this money and blood that went in and out of Iraq, that he's just going to call it quits. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at FISA. He fully expects to be elected as he wants to have all the power that goes with that. I don't know of any newly elected president who came in and diminished his [own] power.

It's clear a lot of American elites want Obama to be the president because he'll play the same role that Cater and Clinton played before him: arriving after an era of Republican excess. He'll come in and be the uniter and supposedly bring the country back together again. It's an ongoing cycle and he's the latest version of that. The problem is that most liberals will go along with it like they did with Bill Clinton. But let's say Obama expands the war in Afghanistan or bombs Pakistan or Iran, will we see a significant liberal protest? I doubt it.

OTB:  What would you say are the biggest roadblocks for the Democratic Party preventing it from embracing or enacting at least real liberal-progressive policy or reform? You mentioned the corporate elite.

It's just the reality of our situation. There is no place in the current economic political make-up of the United States for a true peoples Democratic Party. This is one of my main arguments with liberal bloggers. They seem to think electing better Democrats is the answer. It may make a difference in small ways, but I just don't see the Democrats being reformable at all. It's impossible under the current conditions.