Bill Clinton has written a new book. It is called “Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.” He will give a portion of the proceeds to charity. Giving, the former president informs us, gives us fulfilment in life and is “the fabric of our shared humanity.”
His book is the political equivalent of “Marley & Me” It is filled with a lot of vapid, feel-good stories about ordinary and wealthy Americans setting out to make the world a better place. It smacks of the philanthropy-as-publicity that characterized the largesse of the robber barons — the Mellons and the Rockefellers — and has become a pastime for our own oligarchic elite. Clinton’s call for charity is the equivalent of well-scrubbed prep school students spending a day in a soup kitchen, doling out food to the people whose jobs were outsourced by their mommies and daddies. It does little to alleviate suffering. But it is a balm to the conscience of the oligarchic class that profits handsomely from the impoverishment of the working class, globalization and our anti-democratic corporate state. The rich love to dine out on their own goodness.
The misery sweeping across the American landscape may have begun with Ronald Reagan, but it was accelerated and codified by Bill Clinton. He sold out the poor and the working class. And Clinton did it deliberately to feed the pathological hunger he and his wife have for political power. It was the Clintons who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. The Clintons argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, the Clintons argued, to take corporate money and use government to service the needs of the corporations. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton’s leadership, had virtual fund-raising parity with the Republicans. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal.
The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the country by the Clinton White House as an opportunity to raise the incomes and prosperity of the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Goods would be cheaper. Workers would be wealthier. Everyone would be happier. I am not sure how these contradictory things were supposed to happen, but in a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters. NAFTA would also, we were told, staunch Mexican immigration into the United States.
“There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home,” President Clinton said in the spring of 1993 as he was lobbying for the bill.
But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the curious effect of reversing every one of Clinton’s rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government lifted price supports on corn and beans for Mexican farmers, they had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the United States. The Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least 2 million Mexican farmers were driven off their land from 1993 through 2002. And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of Mexicans into the United States is being exacerbated by large-scale factory closures along the border as manufacturers leave Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China’s totalitarian capitalism.
Clinton’s welfare reform bill, which was signed on Aug. 22, 1996, obliterated the nation’s social safety net. It threw 6 million people, many of them single parents, off of the welfare rolls within three years. It dumped them onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies and continued Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than $15,000 a year. But these were the lucky ones. In some states, half of those dropped from the welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25 billion in Medicaid funding. The booming and overcrowded prison system handled the influx of the poor, as well as our abandoned mentally ill.
The growing desperation provided a pool of broken people willing to work for low wages and without unions or benefits. And while Clinton was busy selling out the poor, he lowered the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, a reduction that permitted the wealthiest 1 percent of the population to derive 80 percent of the tax savings. Clinton, like George W. Bush, also provided lavish government funding for his corporate backers, including in 1998 a $200-billion highway and transportation package for the big construction companies and a $17-billion increase in the military budget. This was the largest increase in military spending since the end of the Cold War. Corporations, flush with government aid, saw their taxes dwindle. Amway, for example, had its taxes cut during the Clinton years by an estimated $280 million. The Clinton and Bush administrations, through tax breaks and corporate bailouts, have squandered billions of our tax dollars on corporate welfare.
The appreciative oligarchs and corporate class have made Bill rich. He is fond of boasting in public about how wealthy he has become. Hillary raised $26 million in the first quarter of the year, almost three times as much as any politician previously raised at that point in a presidential election.
We face the prospect of having two families govern the country for 16 years. The system is rigged. Our democracy is a consumer fraud. The government has given up any pretense of serving the interests of citizens. The corporations rule. And for all Clinton’s charm and talent for self-promotion, he is largely to blame.
Half a century ago, corporations paid 45 percent to 50 percent of the income tax. Today they pay 6 or 7 percent. This is why our infrastructure is crumbling, there is no universal health care, our public education is in crisis, regulatory agencies are impotent and our poor and working class are desperate.
The bottom line is that the Democrats, including John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will never govern on our behalf. They are hostage to those who put them in power. And it is not us. Until we throw our weight behind fringe candidates such as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, if he runs, we will continue to be fleeced by corporate pawns such as the Clintons and the Bushes. It is no longer possible to argue between the lesser of two evils. The corporate state, which is carrying out a coup d’etat in slow motion and has already shredded most of our constitutional rights, is an unmitigated evil. We do not need charity. We need justice. And all of Bill Clinton’s heart-warming stories about giving are not going to save us from the corporations who sucked out his soul and seek to imprison the rest of us.
Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.“
©2007 TruthDig.com
Beautifully said. Until the vast majority of people realize that this country has been usurped by the uber-rich, we are stuck in a huge cesspool of downward momentum toward a fascist state.
Long live the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush- oligarchy.
No wasted words in that concise essay!
However, on the subject of GIVING, and regardless of the fact that most philanthropy is the rich assuaging their guilt or whatever,
Would those who read this please click on the link below to see if
the idea of philanthropy and volunteerism, practiced universally and as a cultural norm, might actually save us? I’m not kidding. Please read it.
It is a radical idea that whose hopefulness is easily supported by the financial facts (there is way more than enough financial capital on the part of BOTH rich and poor to do the job) that Peter Singer and his colleagues at Princeton revealed in a NYT Magazine article on Dec 17, 2006 (linked to on the following site):
http://www.careforeachother.org
I would love feedback on this by the esteemed readers of this blog.
the difference between democrats and republicans?
dems think it wise to throw us a bone every so often to keep us in line. repubs save the bones for their attack dogs.
Norman Bethune said we wouldn’t need charity if there was justice.
well said.
clinton, with his dopey aw shucks schtick has ingratiated himself back into the publics good books. all the while, as you have so starkly pointed out, he has brought home the booty to his masters.
arguably, that which he has done best.
and now the mrs is lined up preening herself and putting the final touches on her acceptance speech.
ow!
let’s not forget how clinton eviscerated bosnia, with osama’s god warriors, flown in and offered citizenship.
worse than anything else, despite throwing nader’s and kucinich’s names at us, (i suspect neither are anywhere near electable) there are no leaders to defend the amercian public and take their causes forward.
that is regrettable.
Exactly right, Chris.
Why is it that only 2 political parties can represent 300+ million Americans? America needs more political parties!
Having only 2 viable political parties has led to their control by collectivism of American oligarchs.
Dear Dydymus,
I went to your link and read about your campaign for the promotion of giving and volunteering. I agree with you that this is a laudable goal for us all as individuals. But we cannot solve the problems of our larger community without organized community action, i.e. politics. Your link reminded me of an experience I had in the early 1980’s. I was working in an inner city soup kitchen established by a religious organization. President Reagan had just shredded the social service safety net in this country and the poor were falling through to the street and becoming homeless in large numbers. Social scientists had begun to document the rise of hunger and malnutrition among the poor. Reagan said he would appoint a task force to travel around the country and investigate whether or not there was hunger in America. His task force came to visit our soup kitchen where we labored to feed one meal to over three hundred people a day, with what we could glean from trash bins at produce markets and a few donations. The head of the Task Force came into the soup kitchen and said, “This is wonderful. This is just what we want to see, individual volunteers and churches solving the problems of our community.” I let him have it. I told him that we were feeding one lousy bowl of soup to over three hundred people who stood in line for hours in the hot sun (and sometimes the cold and rain) for their only meal of the day and that he DARE not go back to the President and report that he had not found hunger in this country. “You are looking into the very face of hunger here,” I told him. Of course his task force went back to the President and reported that they had seen no evidence of hunger. Decades later, that incident, and the government’s (and our communal) abandonment of organized action to relieve poverty still makes me furious.
This is a good article, but Poppy would have been better for the USA in 1992, and we wouldn’t his nutty son in the White House today had that happened.
This article reminds me of my friend Arthur, an elderly black man that I go fishing with sometimes. Arthur works part time shining golf shoes down at the local country club. He says that the richest members are the ones that he has the hardest time collecting his fee from. He also says that they will then complain that he is not “appreciative” enough when they DO pay him for his work, since they are “helping” him. The man he identified as the worst offender also happens to be high in the local democratic party.
God help us.
Vote for third party candidates even if they have no chance of winning. One of the things politicians fear most is uncertainty. Let’s keep them guessing. Let’s keep them awake at night. The alternative is to not vote since voting in Amerika today is the sport of chumps.
Brillantly accurate article, but wrong in this minor yet interesting detail (or perhaps it’s just a typo): “….We face the prospect of having two families govern the country for 16 years…”
- It’s ALREADY 20 years since Daddy Bush became president, continuing through until the 2008 elections. And if one counts Daddy Bush’s 8 years as VP under the senility-addled Reagan, it’s already going on 28 years of constant Bushes or Clintons. And since the MSM assures us that Hillary is already practically the nominee, it may soon be 36 years of rule by either a Bush or a Clinton. This, in a nation of 300 million people.
Some “democracy.”
“Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldst be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he was one that had great possessions.” - Luke 21, 22.
“And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of thier abundance, but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” - Mark 12, 42-44
A friend of mine knows a woman who recieved 12 million dollars in a inheritance when she was 21. To her rich families’ horror, she immediately gave the entire amount to a charity for the poor in New York City. She has had to work to survive ever since, and lives very modestly. This woman is my hero.
Until ex-President Clinton does the same, I don’t want to hear his lectures on charity. His donations do not amount to a fraction of the farthings contributed by a single Denny’s waitress or WalMart employee.
We have learned recently that President Bush is looking forward to the end of his term so that he can focus on making money to replenish his coffers. President Clinton did likewise. Recently, I heard Tony Snow and Alan Greenspan express similar goals, now that they have left government. In fact, every ex-politico or Washington insider you can name. Apparantly, the road to riches goes through Washington, one way or another. Its all about the money. Ordinary people get pie in the sky.
By truly Christian standards, Dennis Kucinich is the most qualified of the Democratic candidates by far. But he would be reviled by the “Christian” right because of his liberal but very Christian viewpoints on many issues. And he is viewed as totally unelectable by the left because he is “too liberal”, has no money and can’t attract donations. Being principled and right is too great a liability for him to overcome.
This is a great article. But it will in all likelyhood have no impact on who becomes president. We will all be bought and sold by big money, when all is said and done.
Mr. Hedges:
Beautifully written article - right to the point. When corporations take over the political system you get facism. Democracy for the people by the people is dead in America.
And if you think Al Gore is any better read this: http://www.bananatreehotel.com/ramsay
Gore is no better and no one should look to him to be our saviour. Wake up democrats, stop being sheep, your being fleeced as well.
Ramsay
We should be confiscating the holdings of the rich, for no other reason but to abridge their inordinate political power. They will always use their wealth to buy compliant government.
Great article. Scary truths for the right and a lot of the so-called left. The moral: vote independent!
Loved this!! .. don’t think Edwards should be lumped in with the rest of the corp dems though .. he’s the one the media goes out of their way to vilify (his obedience is in doubt with the oligarchs imho)
With 100 million tax payers, if everyone gives a dollar you have $100 million dollars. This is the strength of numbers. But in this era of “don’t tax me”, we have a lot of selfish people that think that the government just wastes their dollars.
When Republicans are in office they WILL waste your dollars, just like they said they would. $100 billion for Katrina, while garbage still sits in the streets. $100 billion per year for 4 years in Iraq, where the situation is worse than ever.
If you want your tax dollars wasted on war, graft, corruption and the Pentagon, just keep voting Republican. If you want your tax dollars to go to help people help themselves, vote Democratic.
When you help people help themselves, you create even more productive tax payers that can help even more people help themselves create a much better life for themselves and their families. This reduces crime, poverty and is MUCH better than the few crumbs that the rich may trickle down for a feel good spin.
To use a Clintonism: “We will end Social Security as we know it.”
Clinton is a dozer at work destroying the New Deal.
Politicians are successful only if they embrace amorality — read your Machiavelli. I think that’s part of the reason why Gore decided to get out of politics — read his *Assault on Reason*. While his social conservatism repels me, I do think that what he needs behind him is a party that has not yet caved into this amoral stance. He and the Greens are made for each other — potentially, at least. If they teamed up, they could have a significant impact on American politics. At least, until the Green Party goes the way of all successful parties. In other words, such a partnership would have a fairly narrow window of opportunity, but it might just be enough to change the political landscape.
The only other alternative is a complete collapse of the empire/republic. And that’s not what the world (including Americans) needs. What the world needs is as soft a landing as possible for America. But the time for soft landings is quickly running out.
Bring back term limits. It is the only way to prevent someone from becoming a “career politician”.
Mr. Hedges, I plan to vote for Kucinich — but let me tell you… YOU ARE A LEADER AND YOU SHOULD RUN FOR SOMETHING AND WE’D ALL SUPPORT YOU!
Great commentary from Chris Hedges…….So sad……..So true !!
Despite the endless, nauseating hoopla, don’t expect too many changes following the 2008 election, no matter which party the new President is from !!
Remember the song John Lennon sang way back when : GIMME SOME TRUTH ??
Verse 1
I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites.
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth.
Verse 2
I’ve had enough of reading things
From neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians.
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth.
Need I say more ??
I am going to vote for Kucinich since he is the only true person who is running for the presidency. The rest of them are nothing but bought and paid for hacks who will eagerly sell out the people for the big bucks.
Yes, actually, the right wing libertarian scumbag ron paul will cut social services and bankrupt the poor; it is his platform.
get real… we must nominate someone who has a chance to be elected and to be effective once in office. To lump both Edwards and Obama with the Clintons assures us of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I believe that Obama, if he can be elected is our best hope for a return to our constitution. And just for a moment consider what will happen to the Supreme Court if another republican is elected. GET REAL
jobson, I’m going from memory but Bethunes full quote on this subject is fascinating his definition of charity was “that act which debases the donor and debauches the recipient”
I have been pushing this idea in hopes that it will traction. As an american it sems that concerned individuals seem to have little effect in bringing about change. Many individuals of character (Cindy Sheehan/Nader) and many groups (ACLU/Anti-War movement) can not penetrate the blanket of dollars that corporations use to suppress meaningful change and more importantly even let fellow american understand how many americans do NOT approve of the direction, ethics and policy of this once great nation.
I suggest that a a coalition of ALL groups (Immigration/Anti-War/Anti-globalization Healthcare/Free Speech/Free Press- and just concerned Americans in general) combine and simultaneously withdraw an average of 10,000 dollars oout of the banking/brokerage section of this country for sa one week. If a combined group of 10,000,000 people withdrew an average of $10,000 dollars - we would effectively have removed 100 billion in cash - but due to fractional reserve banking as much as 10 TRILLION dollars out of the economy.
OUR MONEY - they use to finance deadbeat corporations (such as Enron and worldcomm amongst many other corupt anti-american people corporations) -not to mention the governement who would rather show 50 people protesting in Burma a dozen times in a day - but not the 100,000 in Washington DC on September 15th or the one million in NYC during the Republican National Convention - as well as countless other examples. They are using OUR MONEY as collateral to do harm to US.
If -it is possible to combine our goals into one goal - which is to let these corporations/governmets KNOW that we KNOW - they are sing OUR MONEY to finance a WAR against US - and we will move it to Switzerland or some other country - just like they outsource oor jobs - we could single handly achieve the greatest worldwide non-violent most effective protest in the history on mankind.
We already know - that Mexico’s biggest foreing exchange generator is immigrants sending money back home - more than oil!! - Imagine the message we would be able to send to all oppressed people everywhere - if we could successfully withdraw upto 10 trillion dollars in funds from the worlds largest economy !! All of a sudden the contempt from our congressman, senators, police, banks, corporations and brokerage houses would shrivel to the size of a raisun in the sun.
What do you guys think!1 I see no other way for americans to restore their voice in thie governance of our country - with out getting arreted/fired/balcklisted ad nauseum!!!!!
Tvitalis, you sound really sound goofy in that remark about Dennis J Kucinich, who will if the Democrats have the good sense to pick as their presidential candidate, would take presidency by a comfortable margin against any GOP candidate as long as he has a black progressive running mate. Nobody can beat Kucinich if we just get with the program, and I know I’ve been in all types of political campaigns. This “old boy” can take it to the GOP dawgs, and they and they’re prostitute press know it, and that’s why they ignore him. Let’s get with the program of a nobody but Kucinich (NBK) movement.
Kuncinich is also the only Democrat who could hold onto the Democratic base and get a second term, which we should be aiming for.
If you are so called middle class you never had it so good as when Clinton was president. There were jobs low interest rates and the economy was very good. The republicans hate Bill Clinton because he was a success in spite of them.Bill Clinton is a brilliant man and anyone with any sense knows it.With this fool we have for a president now it makes me wish Clinton was still president,if he was we wouldn’t be in Iraq and we would still have our friends around the world, The rest of the world still love and appricate him some people here in America are so narrow minded and stupid they had rather have a halfwit to have a beer with than a president who know how to run a country.
I guess Bush has finally passed Clinton on the number of people murdered while President. Remember Mad Maddie and her “we think it was well worth it” remark. Well the biggest part of that we is big Bill. Drug addict, alcoholic, mass murderer.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.”
Well stated, Hedges!
Clinton is bad news; so is his wife.
Silly me—for all of faults of Reagan–I hardly think the Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter years can be considered “good old days” of justice and compassion. 15% inflation and 18% interest rates were not benefiting the poor and downtrodden and business was so stagnant there weren’t enough jobs either–I got layed off 5 times in 12 months. Reagan can’t be saddled with blame for human greed unless you are so irrational and uneducated as to believe there is ever a justification for government to usurp 50% of a citizen’s income. Let’s face it, in 1980, America needed a pep talk and some common sense restraint of government to get moving again. Reagan wasn’t perfect but he was better than the previous Presidents. More people live a better life in relative freedom here than anywhere in the world. America isn’t faultless but some good in technology, finance, and education has been distributed around the world. Only 3-5% of Americans are still on the farm (including my relatives) but it isn’t all bad—some of us went to the big city and provide other goods and services. I work for one of the largest corporations and I happened to vote for Nader in 2000 because I agree that some separation between government and business would be healthy.
Sure we can do better but I think our representative government is in more distress now due to the overt influence of money on Congress compared to 1980.
Cheer up–stop whining about the past and demonizing one side or the other–the world isn’t going to end because of either the Republicans or Democrats.
Just VOTE for a positive change and do your own good works.
Dear Termite,
Like you, I believe in volunteerism and helping but the idea, perpetetrated by GHW BUSH and Clinton and GWB that _all of the good that needs to be done in the world can be done by volunteers_ belies the capacity for targeted accountable government to provide overarching and comprehensive programs rather than bandaid, scattershot programs that volunteerims provides.
Chris Hedges says eloquently what I have thought for a long time and I echo Molly Ivins when I say, “Please don’t make me have to choose about whether I would vote for Hillary or not.”
I cannot believe it. But I went to the Kuchinich web site. He’s a nice man; it’s not an outrageous idea. But clearly forces–big money, corporate press–are making sure a lot of ideas don’t get heard.
We need another choice. Not republican or republican lite.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.”
Henry David Thoreau-1817 to 1862
“Our democracy is a consumer fraud”.
You have that correct Mr.Hedges, and as been for 231 years!
In the words of the leading framer, James Madison. Political power, he explained, must be in the hands of “the wealth of the nation,” men who can be trusted to “secure the permanent interests of the country”—the rights of the propertied—and to defend these interests against the “leveling spirit” of the general public. If the public were allowed to participate freely in elections, Madison warned his colleagues, their “leveling spirit” might lead to measures to improve the conditions of those who “labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.”
In short ” the people who own the country should run it”. And so it is!
Sorry I’ve been gone all day
Thanks Termite for visiting the site http://www.careforeachother.org and for your comments. I agree with you and another above who said that with justice we wouldn’t need charity. Of course I agree with that, but my point is that we have to do what we can starting with the situation we’re in. Both reform and revolution haven’t worked, and I realize that urging philanthropy and volunteerism on everyone, to make it a cultural norm, may seem naive, but I do know for a fact that IF people would “catch the vision” the world’s most urgent problems would be solved almost immediately. I am talking about a cultural revolution, but the idea has to “catch”.
I would appreciate anyone else who has commented on this thread to visit the above site please… what I would like to know is if it inspires you, or if you think it could/would work, given a ball rolling and a subsequent collective epiphany…
Chris Hedges is right about everything until he gets to the last paragraph.
“Fringe candidates” like Ralph Nader and third-party playground politics are a dead end. That road does not lead to power. It only helps the even more vicious wing of the corporate state stay in power. Excuse me, but for everything you can say against Bill Clinton, is George W. Bush not a hundred times worse? If you say No, try telling that to the people of Iraq (and New Orleans).
The only way forward within the electoral system in this country is through the two-party system. We have to change the Democratic Party by running primary challenges against people we don’t like and supporting those we do. And yes, voting for whoever wins the primary, unless the opposing Republican is not much worse, which is almost never the case.
Dennis Kucinich is a fine person to support in the presidential primary race, but he isn’t going to win. And by the way, if he can’t win the most votes in the Democratic primaries, how do you imagine that he, or Nader, or anyone who talks like all they read is Commondreams is ever going to win the most votes in the general presidential election?
Obama is better than Clinton, and maybe Edwards is, too, but who can trust a slick trial lawyer?
But even Hillary Clinton is better than anyone the Republicans are remotely likely to nominate.
And there are 585 Members of Congress and a hundred Senators to elect, plus Governors, Mayors, and assorted local officials. In almost every jurisdiction, the Democratic Party has to run whichever candidate wins the most votes in the Democratic primary. Anyone who has the energy to put together a campaign as a Green or Socialist or whatever can just as well do it as a Democrat, and by doing so she will have a real chance to win the office.
If Cindy Sheehan were at all serious, she would be making a primary challenge against Pelosi. She just might win if she did. But it is a certainty that she will lose the general election running as an independent. And maybe put a Republican in office.
The two-party system is a result of our winner-take-all electoral structure. You can’t beat it, so join it and take it over.
And pleace remember Mike Gravel, democratic presidential candidate who did make a difference in the Vietnamn War when he helped release the Pentagon Papers, a truly heroic deed.
http://www.gravel2008.us/
We all know Bill Clinton was no saint, but Cris Hedges may have been a little too critical of his administration. Of course he played up to the people that kept him going but that seems to be customary. Even though some of his actions were selfish instead of honorable, he did not wreck the country as this moronic warmonger has with his unending “war”, and putting us into impossible debt. Most people still felt they had a chance at the American Dream during his eight years and now many know there is no hope for them to ever have a decent existence. It may take generations to undo the damage to the country that these criminals have done, and we may never recover. Some people are already in the next depression, and more to follow every year while we have to listen to endless right to life crap as we go down the drain.
If we had IVR (instant voter run off) a candidate like Dennis could win in a heartbeat. If our first choice doesn’t have enough votes to win our vote goes to our second or maybe third choice. I might vote; 1. Kucinich,
2. Edwards, 3. Richardson….We wouldn’t throw our vote away or be voting out of fear. Right now I am voting for Dennis…but once in awhile my mind goes to …”Well Edwards might be more electable, people aren’t ready yet, maybe next time, blah, blah, blah…” Everyone I’ve explained IVR to ..on the left or the right…. love the idea.
We need IVR with hand counted paper ballots and an end to the electoral college.
Thank you Mr. Hedges for expressing so clearly what I have been saying and thinking for 10 years now.
What amazes me is the number of people, even right on this thread, that still advocate if not directly for the Democrats, then the lesser of two evils.
There is no lesser, only two evils, and electing Democrats instead of Republicans will not solve the problems we face. In fact it will no longer even slow them down.
Something like 70 to 80 percent of the people in this country realize we are headed in the wrong direction and, only by them voting for what they truly believe, rather than for the perceived winner or the lesser of two evils, do we have any chance at all.
Lobo Gris
Heaven spare us from the Clintons.
At least then I would consider the possibility of there being one.
We have been to hell and back with the Bushes, the Clintons represent purgatory and the slow descent into a deeper ring of hell.
“Bill Clinton is a brilliant man and anyone with any sense knows it.With this fool we have for a president now it makes me wish Clinton was still president,if he was we wouldn’t be in Iraq…”
Partisan blindness is an effective tool for dumbing down and selective memory…
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/American_Tragedy.html
I don’t know where this quote comes from, but it represents exactly how I feel: “I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don’t want and get it.”
I voted for Nader in 1996 and in 2000. Doing so did NOT contribute to the appointment of GW in 2000 to the presidency by the Supreme Court. That was taken care of by voter fraud and undue influence. I voted for Kerry in 2004 in keeping with the “lesser of two evils” philosophy, and helped him win the popular vote. Bush is still in the White House, so one can see how much good that did. So I gave up my principles for nothing.
I will never again vote for someone I cannot respect or trust. Kucinich is my choice, and I will write him in if he is not on the ballot.
Clinton did some good when he was in office, but the measure of a person’s life is not whether or not he or she did good, but whether or not the good outweighs the bad. I am afraid both Clintons come out more on the negative side.
Great article. It puts the Clinton presidency into perspective.
Philanthropy? Charity? Humanitarianism? Instead, how about: “First do no harm,” and just save the $2 trillion you spend on “shock and awe” bombing and whatnot.
“Until we throw our weight behind fringe candidates such as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, if he runs, we will continue to be fleeced by corporate pawns such as the Clintons and the Bushes.”
Chris Hedges is right on!
The wealthiest 1% in this country now own 90% of the wealth. This didn’t happen overnight but over many decades of Republicans and Democrats kissing-up to the power elite (globalists) who have no loyalty to anyone but themselves and their own World Order agenda. Both political parties have become cheerleaders of the power elite along with their insatiable lust for money and control of everyone and everything.
There is very little difference between most Republicans and Democrats. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat running for president who doesn’t subscribe to “trickle-up”
economics….that’s why he’s not getting the press coverage he deserves as a representative of “The People”.
Kucinich is getting my vote!
clyde paige writes:
If you are so called middle class you never had it so good as when Clinton was president.
——————-
clinton has a lot of very strong attributes, his mind, his work ethic, and his ability to speak on many levels about complex issues.
he has a strong grasp of what is going on - big picture.
he now moves towards world wide issues and leaves us with the sense of hope that something can be done for larger issues like aids/hiv and others.
his popularity throughout the world is unquestioned.
but, clyde, read the article and then think about how “well” he did.
he destroyed welfare and he cut ties (thereby diminishing) the unions.
in other words, he didn’t do that much for us, on balance.
though i do wish him well with his new foundation and initiatives, they hopefully will be outside the american political dog eat dog context, where he may be able to set a new standard.
Riane Eisler’s book…The Real Wealth of Nations talks about how we transition our economic system (where a few at the top get and those at the bottom, don’t). It confronts this whole mess and shows how we could create shift.
Also, check out www.seachangetoday.com a blog about these ideas and how they’re coming alive in real life.
Nice essay, lousy ending. Kucinich for President? Nader for President? Isn’t that how we wound up with G.W. in the first place? Identifying the problem isn’t the difficulty, it’s coming up with a solution that’s the tough part. Look, Hedges, if you keep writing articles like this, and fail to rally around a candidate who might just win, it won’t be long before you’ll be writing articles about how much you dislike President Giuliani. Re-write the end of your piece and get back to me.
And this insightful article does not even mention that Clinton was one of the worst US presidents for “the rest of the world”, especially in being responsible for the killing of millions of Africans: roughly one million in Ruanda 1994 and subsequently several more millions (!!) in the Congo and neighboring countries.
Please, Americans, begin to see that.
This Clinton is white-washing himself with such books, of a dimension of evil that most people have not even discovered yet. Granted, that evil was well-hidden for years, it was committed by an international network, with American individuals in the lead. The French foreign minister has good relations with the African genocider Kagame, president of Rwanda, as well as Clinton.
Here are 3 link segments:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5848
Revisiting the Rwandan Genocide
Resurrecting Ghosts, or Exorcising Demons?
by Steven da Silva
Global Research, June 1, 2007
——————————
Surviving the Genocide: Jean-Christophe Nizeyimana
interviewed by David Barouski
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=13139
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13151
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13159
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13164
—————————-
http://www.missio-aachen.de/Images/MR%20Ruanda%20englisch_tcm14-12288.pdf
http://www.missio-aachen.de/Images/MR%20Kongo%20englisch_tcm14-11998.pdf
I’m “clipping” this superb article that so succinctly describes the Clintons’ feet of clay.
Certainly President Unitard and his warmongering, imperialist, authoritarian criminal cohort have blotted out the sun of the Enlightment and the blue skies of Consitutional guarantees of freedom and liberty. Clinton’s legacy appears blemish-free in the dim light of the overcast and fog-bound post-9/11 national mood.
But, sadly, the Clinton administration furthered the abolition of the Compassionate State– pejoratively rebranded the Welfare State– in favor of the Hollow State. Clinton paid lip service to “human rights”, but joined with every modern president (except the pariah Jimmy Carter) in embracing corporations domestically and espousing Amerikan exceptionalism abroad.
I agree that Bill Clinton is intelligent, articulate, personable, even charismatic, but no, I wouldn’t be thrilled by another DLC Republic-Lite presidency.
Oh, and I’m particularly pleased to see that Chris has stung a few tiresome Lesser-Evilists here by noting emphatically that the Democratic Party is morally and politically bankrupt.
It used to annoy me that Lesser-Evilists typically, almost invariably, self-righteously snarl, scold, and lecture uncooperative reprobates who refuse to march in their supposedly-benevolent lockstep. Now it just amuses me.
Look, Hedges, if you keep writing articles like this, we may finally break free from our pathological political duopoly!
Fascinating that none of the comments brought up the real problem: the way we finance our candidates. Public funding of candidates is the only way to get politicians who aren’t beholden to big spenders. Yet the progressive movement fails to even consider this root problem or to get onboard to work for the solution. Find out more about Clean Money/Clean Elections at publicampaign.org or just6dollars.org. There’s actually a bill in the house to enact public financing. All the Democratic candidates say they support public financing–why isn’t it happening? Maybe because no one is clamoring for it.
Actually, coming up with a solution is easy, too. I was at the ANSWER demo on Saturday, and there were dozens of groups represented with their little broadsheets full of solutions.
It’s coming up with a solution that can actually work, and then actually making it work, that’s hard.
Third-party and independent startups can’t work, because there is too much distance to cover between nothing and a majority of votes. Even if you think you’re willing to put in the commitment for the long haul, after years and years of losing and losing, as history progresses and you have no (or worse, negative) influence on its direction, people will get discouraged and your movement will fall apart.
What can work is to get into the Democratic Party process as a tough-minded progressive, and fight to change both the Party (which is simply a matter of demonstrating that you have people, money and other resources important to winning elections, and then winning primaries with your own candidates and displacing the people who hold Party and political offices now) and to change this country and the world (by winning actual elections, and by pressuring the people who win and hold office).
Nothing stops any progressive or Left person from doing this, and complaining that the game is stacked against you is just an admission of weakness. If you can’t win in the Democratic primary process, you’re never going to win the general election running from the left. Either admit this and give up, or stand up and fight in the one arena where you have a chance of winning.
Dydymus asked for a responce to http://www.careforeachother.org
I read the idea and this was my suggestion I wrote to them…If they respond, I well take it from there.
subject; Giving
“I think what this idea is suggesting is revolutionary and if successful would be considered a “Revolution” by any normal historian….I also believe that Jesus was a revolutionary.
So when you put down “Revolution” and “Reform” as process that has been tried but won’t work…you are saying to most of the people in the world “your dreams will never be fulfilled because you want to change things in the normal way….
I don’t buy it and this idea won’t catch on until you admit that what Jesus and what most great leaders preached and what normal folks do to make a better world is part of the solution and revolution and reform are both dreams and the way that things really get done…if you are looking for the perfect solution…there is none…open your mind and incorporate reality into your dream of giving.
ForUs
Jim Glover
Folk Singer”
jim.glover@verizon.net
I admit I got a big big ego.
iyamwutiam - your idea to band together to pull back our money from the banking sector and make them feel our collective power is VERY exciting! Especially right now while they’re weak and wobbly.
LeeAnnG– I’m with you. I’ve cast my vote for a Less Evil candidiate who doesn’t represent my values — and still lost — for the last time. I am voting for Dennis Kucinich and supporting him monetarily. Everywhere I go, I speak about him and I am finding that many folks are quite interested. Several of my business contacts tell me that at my urgings they checked him out and have decided he’s “their” candidate and they intend to vote for him. Now, perhaps when push comes to shove, fearing Giuliani they’ll cave in and vote for Hillary as the Lesser Evil, but I find it encouraging that they were open to change and made the effort to go to Kucinich’s website and check him out. I think there are millions and millions of people are very hungry for reason, compassion, integrity and substantive change.
nader200 - you certainly have a point worth pondering, and it definitely speaks to the problem with attempting to elect nader, an outsider with no party backing. But I think you overlook the sheer corruptness of the “political machine”. So often, seeking to effect change by working within the system seems to end up only changing the change advocate….for the worse. I think Bill Clinton is an example of that. I imagine that he started out very idealistic. Which is, again, one of the things I so respect about Kucinich. He’s in the belly of the beast and yet he’s held onto his integrity.
We’re going to end up with a President named Giuliani or Thompson, unless you holier-than-thou folks out there vote for a “mainstream” candidate.
Seriously, guys and gals. Good ideas do NOT necessarily equate to ability to govern. I love Kucinich’s speeches. I love Ron Paul’s words and Mike Gravel’s web site. But you know what? Flowery speeches and crowd-pleasing words do not a leader make.
Nader2000 (12:09 pm) wins the prize for the unintentionally funniest post of the day. He lets drop this pearl of wisdom: “What can work is to get into the Democratic Party process as a tough-minded progressive, and fight to change both the Party (which is simply a matter of demonstrating that you have people, money and other resources important to winning elections, and then winning primaries with your own candidates and displacing the people who hold Party and political offices now) and to change this country and the world (by winning actual elections, and by pressuring the people who win and hold office).”
There isn’t a single valid idea in this entire passage. There’s no such thing as a “tough minded progressive” in the Democratic Party, because the party is obviously controlled by corporatists, whose goals conflict with those of real progressives. (Corporatists are the enemy of real progressives, in case anyone is wondering.) Anyone who tries to be a “tough-minded progressive” in the Dem Party is marginalized, like Kucinich or Mike Gravel (who weren’t even invited to join the latest party events in Iowa, according to DemocracyNow! this morning).
The idea that you can “fight to change the party” is particularly hilarious, as it assumes that the people now in control of the Party aren’t at all aware that there are many antiwar/pro-environment/pro-democracy types hankering to “change the party.” It assumes that the “progressives” would just sneak up on the naive & unprepared legions of Dem Party consultants, officials, big corporate donors, & assorted apparatchiks now at the party’s helm, & suddenly snatch control of the party away from them. (Gee, I’m sure that would be easy. That’s why it’s been done so many times in Dem Party history, & why the party is now firmly in the hands of progressives, right? )
Amusingly, Nader2000 says the fight to change the party is “simply” a matter of demonstrating that you have people, money and other resources important to winning elections. OK, but last time I checked, most of the money and resources are controlled by corporatists — not by real progressives, who favor policies that would tend to regulate corporations, prevent the corporate rich from escaping taxation, & limit corporate control of the federal govt. Therefore, in the conflict between progressives & corporatists, the battle will be won by the latter, every time. And that is why the Dem Party of today is firmly in the hands of the military-industrial complex and Wall Street, and why there is precisely zero chance of this condition being altered.
Believing that the Dem Party can be the vehicle for progressive change is a fool’s game. If you like believing in comforting but false fairy tales, you should certainly support Democrats. If the party was really capable of seriously opposing the destructive tendencies of rule by Wall St & the MIC, it would be illegal.
RichM:
You didn’t explain how you expect to be able to win the most votes in a general election, running as a progressive, if you can’t win the most votes in a Democratic primary running as a progressive.
You didn’t explain how it is that “the people now in control of the Party” can stop you from taking control of the Party if you manage to get the most votes in the Democratic primaries and then go on to win the general elections.
All you can offer is a road that does not lead to power, and excuses for not trying the road that does lead to power.
I think that’s because what you want is either to opt out and be lazy, or to play sandbox politics where you can be a big man in your little pretend party, making big statements and wasting the precious time of good people who otherwise could be helping a real effort to change things. And not caring if that results in handing power to people like Bush.
– Auberon said:
– We’re going to end up with a President named Giuliani or Thompson, unless you holier-than-thou — folks out there vote for a “mainstream” candidate.
Auberon, I don’t think the people opining here are “holier-than-thou” at all.
Just different-opinion-than-thou.
Nader2000 - there are precisely zero instances of real progressives being successful in Democratic Party politics. This is no coincidence. It’s because the party is a thoroughly Establishment institution, which permits people to rise through the ranks, only after they’ve demonstrated unchallengeable fealty to Establishment interests. The military-industrial complex (MIC) & Wall St are the leading Establishment interests, & the Dem Party has become their willing servant. It fawns slavishly before both of them, as we all can plainly see. It is utterly dependent on their goodwill & on their financial support.
This unfortunate circumstance produces a party of disgusting & abysmally corrupt sellouts. That’s why the Democrats refuse to impeach Bush, despite his immense crimes & constant lies; and why they wind up funding his immoral wars, supporting his spying on US citizens, confirming his rightwing judges, etc etc.
To support the Democrats is to support a party that quietly goes along with every one of Bush’s reactionary initiatives; a party that never fights. Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example of what you get when you support Democrats. This is a party that doesn’t even fight when elections are stolen from them in broad daylight, or when the federal attorney system is used as a political weapon against them. They are toothless & impotent.
You asked for an explanation of how those who now control the party “can stop you from taking control of the Party if you manage to get the most votes in the Democratic primaries and then go on to win the general elections.” Here’s an example from 2004, which is recent enough for us all to remember (even those of us who haven’t read much history). Remember Howard Dean in 2004? He was not really a “progressive;” in fact, he’s a thoroughly conventional Establishment politician. But because he had a way of occasionally blurting out certain truths before considering who they might offend, and because he was initially against the invasion of Iraq, he was judged by those in control of the Dem Party to be insufficiently reliable to be the presidential nominee. The Dem Party pooh-bahs wanted to run someone who was pro-war, & who therefore would give the Pentagon, defense contractors & oil companies exactly what they wanted.
So, even though Dean was way ahead in the Iowa polls only a few days before the caucus voting began, he suddenly was hit by a series of savage media attacks, all exquisitely timed, ending with the famous “scream.” This campaign was a joint effort by the media & Dem pooh-bahs, to sabotage Dean & replace him with someone acceptable to the war interests. And Dean wasn’t even a real progressive — he’s generally very supportive of US militarism! The treatment he got is a small sample of what would happen if any truly progressive figure ever threatened to win any primaries.
The Establishment knows how to look out for its own interests. It’s childish to believe that these contests are exercises in “democracy.” They’re not. They are theater, & exercises in big money. There’s no such thing as a “little guy”, an outsider, beating the big money candidates, unless he’s a billionaire like Ross Perot. The only way to be a big money candidate is to play ball with Wall St & the MIC — in which case, you’re no longer talking about progressives.
if there is no paper trail- there is no proof.and politics always amounts to the lesser of the evils….but no one is as evil as the bushes(especially poppy)for geo.43 is still following orders from geo.41.geo 41 lives vicariously thru his son,doing all the things he has long planned,but his own covert nature could not allow.clinton may be another nabob..but when he was president..we bought a home and always had plenty of employmentand the mood of the country was good and people could smile.none of that was ever true when the republicans were at the helm..
RichM -
Dean lost in Iowa because the voters decided, by a slim margin, to support Kerry instead. They probably thought Kerry was more “presidential” and would make a better candidate. By now, many of them probably figure they made a mistake. Certainly there was a lot of pressure from the corporate media and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party pushing the voters in that direction. But the fact is, the voters made the decision.
If you think you can organize a strong enough progressive movement to constitute a third party and win the most votes in a general election, resisting all the pressure that is going to be put on you by the corporate media and the every organ of the political and corporate establishment, please explain why you cannot organize a strong enough progressive movement among Democratic voters to resist such pressures and give Democratic nominations to progressive candidates (and carry them through to victory in the general elections).
This is a simple enough question, but you people never have an answer to it.
Mark Abram (10:35 pm) - By the phrase “you people” in your last sentence, I assume you mean everyone who perceives that the Democrats are two-faced frauds, & really no better than the Republicans?
Your interpretation of Dean in Iowa seems most unlikely. The polls showed Dean safely leading the pack, until less than a week before the voting, at which time his polling dropped like a rock. This coincided perfectly with the coordinated media attacks. If it were a “natural” process of voters making up their own minds, the chronology would have been nothing like that. A natural process of voter disaffection would have been diffuse & gradual.
Your other question is stated somewhat fuzzily, so I can’t quite make out what you’re asking. You seem to be asking why can’t I organize Democratic voters (ie, people who are by definition already indoctrinated into believing that the Democratic Party really fights to defend their interests) into a group that can nominate & elect a Kucinich-like figure?
I believe I already answered this question in my interchange with Nader2000. Basically, it’s because (contrary to popular legend) the party does not function on a democratic basis. It has been purchased. It is institutionally entirely dependent upon Wall St & the MIC. Those entities are its true constituency, not its voters — and those entities are the natural enemies of progressives. Those powerful sections of US society control both parties, & simply won’t allow either party to nominate anyone they don’t approve of. Since the Dem Party has been thoroughly corrupted, I personally (despite my formidable organizing skills) cannot take a group of Democratic voters (the type you claim would believe that a Kerry would be “more presidential” than Dean, and vote for him on that basis), and convince them to vote for a Kucinich.
Democratic voters are well-known to be susceptible to very primitive manipulation. For instance, they mostly accept such fatuous ideas as 1) a Kucinich is “unelectable” (because the media say so, or because he’s short) 2) a Dean isn’t “presidential,” but a contemptible weasel like Kerry is, so by God let’s all vote for the one who looks like a president, 3) We have to support our Dems, no matter if they cave in to Bush on every single issue 4) We have to vote for a “moderate” (ie, corporate/militarist) Dem, otherwise the Republicans will win!
RichM-
You say the reason you can’t convince Democratic voters to resist pressure from the corporate media and DLC types is that they are “indoctrinated”. So, why can’t you un-indoctrinate them? And if you can’t, how are you ever going to persuade enough voters to support your alternative candidate on election day?
Anyone can register as a Democrat. Anyone can run as a Democrat. Since most Democratic voters are to the left of most Republican voters, it will be far easier for a progressive to win the most votes in a Democratic primary than it will be to win the most votes in a general election. Sure, you may have to fight off pressure from centrist “Party leaders”, the corporate media and so on, the same pressure would anyway be applied in the general election. So, you should organize under the banner of Progressive Democrats or a similar group, separately from the DNC. Why should that be any harder than organizing as Green Party?
Mark - you are proceeding from the unfounded assumption that everyone who’s not a Republican must necessarily be some variety of “Democrat.” Though Americans are raised not to realize it, there’s actually a whole universe of political possibilities outside the narrow range of Republican and Democrat.
If you do not wish all of life to be subordinated to Wall St & the military-industrial complex, you are neither a Republican nor a Democrat. If you do not believe that the country should be run mainly for the benefit of Wall St & the military-industrial complex, you are neither a Republican nor a Democrat. If you seriously believe in the concept of “democracy,” you cannot possibly believe that 2 very similar parties should be permitted to dominate 100% of political life. In fact, you’d be deeply offended by their presumptuous claim that they have the right to do so.
Jim Glover wrote me and posted here about http://www.careforeachother.org which hopes to inspire a culture of giving and volunteering everywhere, as a new way of life (not just for the rich or ordinary folks to do every now and then).
Here is my response:
I totally agree with you, and I think we differ only on semantics. When I
say revolution and reform haven’t worked — on a forum such as Common Dreams — it was
for reasons of space that I was perhaps glib.
Of course Jesus was a revolutionary, and if we did what he advised we’d have
revolution, but not a violent one, which was what I was implicitly saying
(there would be violence perhaps in response, but not initiated — note
that).
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, and it is nice to see you validate
what I have written (it is my website).
Since you are a progressive who is versed in the gospels, please check out
my contribution to sojourners.net entitled What Would Jesus Do (WWJD) in
Iraq? which was published on Oct 16, 2002…
http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/wwjd.htm
I am still hoping that more people from this thread will visit the website and comment here or to me thru the website, or on the blog there. http://www.careforeachother.org
To Jim Glover regarding the idea of inspiring giving and helping each other as a new and permanent way of life in our culture (see: http://www.careforeachother.org)
I totally agree with you, and I think we differ only on semantics. When I
say revolution and reform haven’t worked — on a forum such as CD — it was
for reasons of space that I was perhaps glib.
Of course Jesus was a revolutionary, and if we did what he advised we’d have
revolution, but not a violent one, which was what I was implicitly saying
(there would be violence perhaps in response, but not initiated — note
that).
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, and it is nice to see you validate
what I have written (it is my website).
Since you are a progressive who is versed in the gospels, please check out
my contribution to sojo.net entitled What Would Jesus Do (WWJD) in
Iraq? which was published on Oct 16, 2002…
http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/wwjd.htm
I encourage people from this thread, which is about philanthropy and giving, to visit the Care for Each Other website above and comment there on the blog or contact, or back here in this thread.
I believe the only thing that will “save us” is going to be VOLUNTARY and not forced, and it will be through an ubiquitous epiphany, on a much grander scale than say, when the Berlin Wall fell or the Soviet Union dissolved. Peace is right under our noses, would we see it and act accordingly.