Democrats Are Hocking Their Agenda As If They Were at a Fire Sale
The Bush years have been so crushing that progressives have now set their expectations at disastrously low levels
Just over a week ago, about a thousand activists from the Christian right gathered in Washington to pass verdict on the Republican presidential candidates. At the Family Research Council’s Values Voters summit, the values most cherished did not sit well with most Americans. Polls show that a consistent and substantial majority in the US are pro-choice, supports stem cell research and opposes amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. All these issues figure low on the list of national priorities and high on the agenda of the FRC. None the less, all the leading Republican contenders showed up.
The more out of touch with mainstream America they sounded, the greater the applause. “Sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our workforce,” said Mike Huckabee. “It might be, for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalised abortion.” Huckabee was rewarded with a strong second-place showing in the summit’s straw poll.
At the weekend, well over 100,000 anti-war protesters gathered around the country to protest about the occupation of Iraq. The demands of the demonstrations chimed with the views of most Americans. Polls show a consistent and substantial majority oppose the war and want the troops withdrawn immediately or soon. Indeed, at 34%, the proportion of Americans who support the war is identical to the proportion polled last week who believe in ghosts and UFOs.
Despite Iraq remaining the number one priority among voters, none of the leading Democratic presidential contenders appeared at any of the marches.
Primary season is an ideal moment to examine the relationship between the different parties and their core supporters. Come the presidential elections, both sides will have to tack to the centre in a bid for coveted swing voters. But in the primaries, the candidates’ task is to preach to the choir and, maybe, give them a new and better song to sing.
Republican candidates dedicate considerable effort to galvanising their base. At the FRC summit, the thrice-married and twice-divorced Rudolph Giuliani, who is pro-choice and insufficiently anti-gay, made a bid for their trust and understanding. He came in second last with just 2% of the vote. But he was there.
The Democratic candidates, meanwhile, seem embarrassed by their own supporters. Although they are perennially absent from anti-war rallies, they will show up at black churches, trade union fundraisers and the occasional gay event. But when it comes to articulating support for those causes or communities, they lose their voices.
But if the Democrats have an abusive relationship with their supporters, their supporters are complicit in that abuse. Democrats overwhelmingly support troop withdrawal from Iraq yet back candidates who favour keeping troops in the region indefinitely. The gay community continues to give the main candidates huge amounts of money even though all of them oppose gay marriage. They seem to like it this way. For even though Republican candidates have lavished far more attention on core supporters, it is Democratic voters who are far more satisfied with their candidates.
There is an important lesson in this apparent paradox for those who seek progressive social change. Republican politicians continue to court Christian conservatives precisely because they are not happy - they might do something about it, and the party cannot do without them. There are two reasons for this. First, Christian conservatives are well organised and can deliver votes. Second, those votes are contingent on the Republicans delivering political results.
The progressive left can claim neither of those qualities. A national anti-war movement - one that meets, decides, acts and lobbies effectively on a national level - has never truly taken shape. There are tens of thousands of anti-war activists, who have heroically kept a presence and the conversation going in their communities. This is also true for feminists and gay activists, who once formed the bedrock of the Democratic base. But Latinos and black activists are better organised on a national level.
A new coalition of interests and forces that could play that role may be in the making. The web-based MoveOn.org has done brilliant work on single issues, but has been unable to cohere enough people around a coherent enough agenda to make an electoral impact. Netroots has also notched up impressive achievements (the Labour left could learn a great deal from both), but its work is largely confined to getting better Democrats elected. There is nothing wrong with this - indeed, it is crucial. But, strategically, it has its limits.
Christian conservatives have always made it clear their primary loyalty is to their agenda, not to the party most likely to support it. They may work hand in glove with Republicans, but they feel free to take their hand out of the glove at any moment. The morning after the last presidential election, a White House aide called Focus on the Family’s founder, James Dobson, to thank him for his support. Dobson replied with a warning: if the administration snubbed conservative Christians, particularly with respect to supreme court nominations, the party would “pay a price in four years”.
Although it’s difficult to see how George Bush could have delivered more, this is precisely what seems to be happening now. According to the Pew Research Centre, Bush’s support among white evangelicals has slumped.
All politics is a negotiation. It goes without saying that if you set your price too high, or walk away too soon, you could miss out on a great deal. It is equally self-evident that if you set your price too low, or your counterpart knows you will never walk away, you will sell out far too cheaply. But there are few as powerful in a negotiation as those who understand their value and are prepared to walk away. For decades, progressive activists have been hocking their agenda as though at a fire sale. The Bush years have been so disastrous they have forgotten that many of the things they are campaigning against now - Nafta, the gay marriage amendment, greater economic inequality, the ban on photographing soldiers’ coffins coming home - were introduced under Bill Clinton. Their fears that things could get worse overrides any confidence that they could improve. So they settle for candidates who will make things get worse at a slower pace and on a less dramatic scale. Sometimes, as in 2004, these low expectations make sense. But as an overriding strategy it is a recipe for perennial disappointment and disaffection.
The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, regardless of who the electoral protagonists are, so long as those movements can prove their clout and exercise their independence.
“Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” a Wichita evangelist, Terry Fox, told the New York Times. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.” It’s time for progressives to get out of their hole and find some teeth.
Gary Younge, the Alfred Knobler Journalism Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the New York correspondent for the Guardian and the author of No Place Like Home: A Black Briton’s Journey Through the Deep South (Mississippi) and Stranger in a Strange Land: Travels in the Disunited States (New Press).
© 2007 The Guardian
They take the base for granted figuring they have no where else to go. That is why they put more energy into defeating, blaming, marginalizing any third party populist threats. That is their real competition because then they won’t be able to hold the base hostage since they never worry about them defecting to the Right.
Meanwhile they court and pander to them who brung them to the dance. They are basically frontmen for the big money men who run the show. Nothing really to do with us as the people of the country and what we think or want. They just play their roles for us as not as bad as them. Something we are constantly lectured to about by party cheerleaders–either too naive or too wed to the manufactured consensus projected on the cave walls.
The sad truth is that no matter what the Dims say or who they run, most of you will demand support of the so-called “lesser eveil” and condemn the “impracticality” of running an alternative ticket.
What we need is a unified “take back America” movement that runs a real alternative vision with respecatble candidates that speaks to mainstream Americans. We need to offer accountability, honesty and a platform of peace, environmentalism and populist common sense including jobs restructuring of our national infrastructure in a more sustainable way.
This can be done and could be our only chance to save this society from collapse given the ecological changes that are coming but we won’t do this. Instead we’ll continue to squabble about the supposed need to support a Clinton over a Guiliani.
A confusing article as it is, the author fails to point out that the GOP never really does away with gay marriages, abortions, and even stem cell research. Both parties actually BETRAY their “social” bases. It’s just that one party does it openly while their other does it STEALTHILY. The author also FAILS to point out the real base of the GOP is the wealthy/business elites which they do a hell of a job satisfying. The Democrats’ economic base gets a fake “we’ll help the poor” BULLSHIT and then flicks them off once the elections are over just like the GOP does to its “social” base.
What this author and most authors FAIL to understand most of all is the only ideology that both parties are for is the ideology of GREED.
When will people learn that the ideology fight is a red herring to keep gullible voters’ attention focused on something of zero consequence to the well-being of the average American? Never, I guess. The pro-wrestling, the rigged fake fights are just more fun to watch until the arena burns down.
Who cares what a bribe-taker says???
Because when someone is corrupt it doesn’t matter what is their party affiliation is. All you need to is that they are crooked as a dog’s hind leg and only represent those who pay them.
For example, suppose you are Satan. You can run as a candidate in any party, or movement. All you have to do is bone up on the predominant ideological slant, and then become a zealot for that ideology. Except that, since you’re Satan, your agenda has nothing to do with the B.S. You’re gonna lie and BULLSHIT spew to get elected.
It is a ruse. A con. Very few of the politicians elected to federal office have any concern whatsoever about the ideology that they rode on to get there. Do you really think Mike Huckabee believes any of the crap he said to cheer up those sick puppy supporters in the audience? Of course not.
We’ve seen that with numerous Democrats who have taken in record amounts of K Street cash and the backroom deals cut by Dingel, Rangel and Pelosi in regards to the gutting of CAFE standards, energy legislation and secret trade deals. Unfortunately, most people are fixated on ideology rather than the bribe taking politico. The Republicans have already learned the hard way that George W. wasn’t really a Conservative from any slant, especially fiscally. They lie to get elected.
Ideology is the sheep’s clothing that the wolf wears. So corruption doesn’t merely trump ideology, it entirely voids it, because ideology is just a costume to be worn to get into the party. Once you’re past the bouncers, you can take it off, leave it in the corner by a plant, and head for the bar to get liquored up with the lobbyists who pay for your lifestyle.
Tattoo this somewhere so you can read it each day:
CORRUPTION VOIDS IDEOLOGY
Jaded Parole is correct. Until we have a viable third (fourth, fifth . . . ) party, nothing will change. A new party, though, needs a forceful, honest and dedicated leaderhip, something no party has at this time. Even so, I remain optimistic. There must be someone out there.
It must be bigger than another “party.” It must be a movement that unifies a left prone to factionalism.
The Repubs win elections by energizing their base and scaring the hell out of the middle. The Dems try to win elections by pissing off their base and pandering to the middle.
Which party has been more successful since, say, 1980? I am sick and tired of being lectured by “sensible” people about practical politics. Things just keep getting worse and the political center of gravity keeps moving to the right
and “sensible” people think the answer is to keep on doing what we have been doing.
To hell with the Democrats. I have taken the pledge! I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton! Ever! For anything!
Easy for them to say - They don’t live here.
Worst case scenario - Clinton vs. Giuliani for president!!!
Talk about stench.
Frank Herbert in “Dune” said ‘The power to destroy is the power to control.’ If you can destroy something, then you can exercise control over it by wielding that threat.
Its time for the left to show we have the power to destroy Democratic party campaigns across the board. If the Democrats lose big in an election year, and its obvious that it happened because their progressive base left them en masse, then things will change. There is only one thing that gets a politician’s attention …. losing elections. Its time to get the attention of a LOT of Democrats.
Please don’t vote Democrat!
Please come to Denver next year to tell the Democrats what you really think of them!
I don’t live there either, curmugeon99, but I’m closer than the authors of this piece. From here, it seems there’s but one electoral choice in 2008 for American progressives, regardless of what you may think of the Democratic leadership (and I certainly won’t waste my keyboard pecks defending their corporate backsides): Dennis Kucinich for President!
I would be thrilled to vote for Dennis Kucinich, but he isn’t running for President. He’s “running” for a nomination he can’t possibly get: the party machinery will make quite certain of that, along with the MSM.
In reality, he’s running to keep people like you in the Democratic Party, where they have no business being. The Party has been pushing you away with both hands for at least a decade; when are you going to get the message? Does it feel really good, beating your head against that brick wall?
There IS a Peace party in this country; there IS a genuinely progressive party: the Greens. They “can’t win”? Not if people like you don’t vote and work for them. Like the “major” parties, we intend to run hard in ‘08, including for the presidency, and we’re now sorting out our potential candidates. Of course, the MSM doesn’t cover that; like the Dims, they like to pretend we don’t exist.
Ultimately, it’s up to you: you can join, make a weak party strong, and at least send a clear message next year; or you can stick with the party that threw the last few elections. Our fate is in your hands.
[quote]The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, …[/quote]
Is there? Or has one side simply been more successful at co-opting and manipulating those segments of the voting base that can be expected to be more in tune with their political agenda that is actually determined by corporate interests and financial support in both cases?
It’s certainly tough getting and maintaining popular support when your pretentions bear no relationship to the true “shaping” of your underlying intent. Apparently it can be done, however.
Hank Fur…Absolutely
DK and the handful of others like him are the gatekeepers. Their primary task is to keep Progressives from wandering off to some other party. They hold out the illusory hope that if we just work hard enough, within the party, then “real” Democrats can be nominated and elected.
Let’s face the truth. The Real Democrats today are the CLintons, Pelosi, Reid, Emmanuel, etc. UGH!
I will not stay where I am not wanted and that is in the Real democratic party.
McDee. I loved your references to Dems and Reps. Can I quote you?
Anyone who buys into the nonsense that elections are about the social issues is a useful idiot for the corporate oligarchy. The oligarchy wants the common nobodies, the “little people,” to focus on social issues and to vote based on that while they rob us, and the rest of the world, blind and steal our children’s future.
It is amazing how so many otherwise intelligent people, particularly progressives, get duped into playing this game.
Watching the gyrations of the Democratic party as it evolves into a kid glove reactionary re-creation of Tammany Hall is as loathsome as it is fascinating. They don’t fool their so-called base yet they persist in trying. It’s like watching Marlon Brando in some of his worst movies. Hillary Clinton, the Joseph K of the Democrats, has already evolved into the corporate insect we all knew her to be in the first place. Yet the Dems apparently are going to give her the nomination. They can then have the stomach churning pleasure of watching the Republicans swift boat her into utter oblivion and we will, yet again, have another Republican beer hall brawler as Der Fuhrer. Gott mit uns, meine Damen und Herren!
Jaded Prole and others- you have just described the Green Party, www.GP.org
Until voters stop wasting their votes and money with the democrats who will betray them every time, and support candidates that will actually stand up for what they believe in, we will get more of the same Bush/Clinton/Binton/Clush miasma.
So, don’t whine about “no viable third party” all the while you vote and your donations go to the democrats - you will get what you pay for: warmongering corporate sell-outs.
Folks, I usually log on late but I simply want to say that I have been following the regular contributors for months and while I see both passion and wisdom, I also see that we desperately need to stop focusing on the “rightness” of our particular views, and see if we really can find common ground for what I do believe is our common dream for a better system for our own govt. and a life-affirming planetary view. How do we get there? Not by sniping and carping and insisting we are right. Let’s face it, my friends, we are ALL right, and ALL wrong on some level. What we resist. persists. Let’s start creating, not just criticizing. Don’t buy into the false notion that one person cannot make a difference!!!! There are countless examples of the opposite. We all neeed to experience a paradigm shift where we roll up our collective sleeves, join hands and start creating a better reality. Screw Washington politics! They will have to catch up to us!
starofthesea,
While I totally agree that creating the world we want to see is imperative, you need both critique and action in order to be effective. What we resist doesn’t always persist; if it did, every human rights movement past and present would have been for nothing.
“Instead we’ll continue to squabble about the supposed need to support a Clinton over a Guiliani.”
If the race comes down to Clinton, Giuliani, or a third party candidate at 1% in the polls - and this is probably what’s going to happen - then progressives should vote for Giuliani.
The truth is that a liberal, progressive agenda isn’t going anywhere until
1) the Democratic Party is cleansed of its Republican wing
or
2) the Democratic Party is destroyed
and neither of those things can happen as long as conservative Democrats win elections. Therefore, the only course for a true progessive is to vote against Clintonite Democrats at every opportunity, even when that means electing Republicans.
The whole problem is one of simple logic, and if progressives would just allow logic to enter their heads, we might actually get somewhere. If, on the other hand, we continue being mentally constipated and only think one step ahead, it won’t be long before the U.S. is a RW dictatorship.
All politics is money.
Do we complain when rich immigrants come to live here?
Dems are abusive toward their supporters because they don’t get their money from them.
The only way to get real representation is to take the money out of politics.
The Election Has Already Been Stolen
In the election of 2000, over 4 million electronic votes were lost (MIT/Cal Poly Study of the 2000 election). In the election of 2004, 121.8 million people went to the polls and only 113.9 million votes were counted(Election Data Services Study of 2004 Election). Again, almost 8 million electronic votes disappeared.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton has been anointed as the Democratic Candidate by the Corporate Media and that Rudy, I will attack Iran, Giuliani has been anointed as the Republican Candidate.
Everyone, except the Democratic Party, knows that neither a woman nor an Afro-American can win an election in the United States unless they have been chosen by the “Political Elite”.
The issue is Iraq and now 1.2 million people dead and 4 million refugees living outside of their homeland. (British Study)
The dollar has dropped in value over 55% in the past 6 years. Oil has jumped to almost $90 a barrel…..Yes in 2001 $.89 got 1 Euro today it is $1.44 and expected to drop to $1.60 for a Euro…..The American public has been paying a “Corporate Devaluation Tax” on their gasoline for the past five years…….Instead of Mobil/Exxon losing money, they chose to raise prices and the American public has paid trillions of dollars so that Mobil/Exxon et al. can have profits of 32 billion dollars and revenues of 321 billion dollars(Mobil/Exxon´s 2006 total)…….Oh, and oil is expected to reach $100 a barrel……
The “Invasions” of Iraq and Afghanistan are Corporate America´s way of taking the money and running…….Profits for Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlysle Group, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater, Accenture et al. are obscene……….Naomi Klein has it right..go back to 9/11.
restive, While I agree that critique and action are important, I think we have thouroughly analyzed what is wrong—our system no longer ( if it ever did) represents the interests of its citizens. How does one resolve that? This is where we go round and round…. I maintain that being against the staus quo seems to keep us in a paradigm of complaint and arguing about tactics to defeat the status quo. I am suggesting we just start envisioning a very different system that begins with individuals and percolates up. All movements for change begin with a handful of committed individuals who have a vision and can lead. We can begin in our own communities to start creating that force for change. Entrenched interests are not going to shift until we create a groundswell from “below” and that aint gonna happen if we keep arguing about tactics ad nauseam. Change begins with ourselves.
FreeQuark,
The outcome of the logical analysis depends on the assumptions. I would argue that the US will become a right-wing dictatorship if Giuliani is elected US President. The man is a complete fascist, with a tremendous amount of courage, an over-supply of ambition, and a fair amount of intelligence. He is Bush/Cheney on steroids. And there are four fascists on the Supreme Court now (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, who all support the unitary executive theory, also known as “one-man rule”; Kennedy is a conservative Republican who actually believes in the balance of powers, however warped his other views may be), and the next opening is almost certain to occur within the next few years, meaning Giuliani could appoint a fifth fascist to the Court, which would be game, set, and match! Giuliani is the only one who could make the choice to vote for a Democrat an easy one.
[quote]starofthesea October 29th, 2007 2:41 pm — restive, While I agree that critique and action are important, I think we have thouroughly analyzed what is wrong—our system no longer ( if it ever did) represents the interests of its citizens. How does one resolve that?[/quote]
If you have indeed “thouroughly analyzed what is wrong”, the answer would seem self-evident. In order for “the system” once again to “represent the interests of its citizens”, the system itself must be changed so that the dominance of other interests is curtailed.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer. So I don’t know how you might do that except to suggest that the mistake of court awarded “corporate personhood” needs to be corrected as a starting place. The rights associated with that “personhood” are what give them much of their power to exercise financial ond other forms of control far outweighing those available to any natural person. And you pay for all of that in more ways than one.
Many good posts here. I would like to share a practical approach that I am going to follow this election cycle. Of course, that is assuming that there will be an election, which is another issue.
Progressive voters, be they independent or Dimms, are fed up with the corporate/bought off candidates they keep getting. We have learned over time that no matter what a DLC backed candidate says in a campaign, when elected they will dance with thems that brung um - and that ain’t WE THE PEOPLE. In the past, Progressives have been willing to vote for the lessor of two evils, hoping to buy some time to fix the Dimm party from within. Well, taking the Congress in 2006 sure didn’t get us anywhere. The lesson is that WE THE PEOPLE only have voting power in the primaries. The next step is that if the candidates that gain the ballot do not truely represent WE THE PEOPLE, than they shouldn’t get your vote. Period.
FreeQuark has it absolutely right. If the Dimms can’t give us candidates that represent US, the PEOPLE, than they deserve to implode. And that isn’t going to happen if we keep voting for the lessor of two evils. I will do everything in my power to make that happen and force the changes that the Dimms have to make if they want to EARN my vote.
Here’s the deal: ALWAYS vote your conscience in the primaries. If the Dimms don’t give you a candidate to vote FOR, withdraw from the party and YELL real loud at the DLC as to why you are leaving. NEVER use your vote to vote for anyone that you don’t support. That includes Repug candidates. That is just biting your nose to spite your face.
Given the candidates that will probably be running for Prez in ‘08, it really doesn’t matter who wins. The Congressional races are far more important. We need a Congress that will stand up to the Executive Branch, no matter which party they belong to. So, get yourself involved in local/state races. Make sure that your congress critters are OF, BY, and FOR the people. And make sure that the DLC incumbants find new jobs!
P.S. NEVER give money to a party. Only give money to candidates that you can vote FOR.
Thanks for listening.
starofthesea,
“I maintain that being against the staus quo seems to keep us in a paradigm of complaint and arguing about tactics to defeat the status quo. I am suggesting we just start envisioning a very different system that begins with individuals and percolates up.”
We’re actually close to agreement here. What I would add though is that being against the status quo is exactly what gets us to the point of wanting to change things; as such, where you see a paradigm of complaint and arguing, I see friction - leading to heat, leading (hopefully) to change. I do agree that complaining in and of itself is not enough, and that the left has plenty of people who love to complain more than act - and I wholeheartedly agree about envisioning a different system from the ground up. In fact, that is already taking place, if you look around.
Rebel Farmer,
How can you be so sure that if Giuliani is elected, then progressives and others get another bite at the apple in future elections? I would bet my bottom dollar that if Giuliani is elected, the apple will be gone and it will never come back. At that point, the USA would be a lost cause, inevitably descending into a fascist state of poverty and hopelessness, and elections would be less suspenseful and meaningful than those Saddam ran in Iraq. And the best any American could do would be to use any means necessary to prevent the US government from starting WWIII.
[quote]kivals October 29th, 2007 3:22 pm — How can you be so sure that if Giuliani is elected, then progressives and others get another bite at the apple in future elections?[/quote]
Are you confident that that danger exists only if Giuliani is elected?
When it comes to the ongoing curtailment of “freedom and democracy” at home I certainly don’t see the establishment Dims as likely saviors. To the contrary, if “representatives” like Jane Harman have their way, you won’t even be allowed to speak progressive thoughts aloud lest they be deemed subversive.
kivals, I think elections are already meaningless. We just haven’t realized it yet. When Nancy Pelosi was making appointments, she chose Raul Emmanuel to chair the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). The DCCC policy is hands off in primaries, but Emmanuel ignored that and squelched progressive primary candidates, supporting DLC candidates, even if it meant losing general elections, which in some cases it did.
As far as it being too late, all over, the end has come, I’m not that hopeless. We may go through a rough patch, but I believe things can change. Unfortunately, until the majority of Americans feel an unacceptable level of pain, they will continue to sleep through their civic responsibilities.
We have a responsibility to boycott the Democratic Party, something that should have been done years ago with less disastrous consequences. But the longer we wait, the worse the consequences. How bad do you want to see it get? Do you have any imagination?
It’s silly to vote for a criminal like Rudy instead of a criminal like Hillary. Vote your conscience. Write in your candidate if needed.
Hey, Rebel Farmer, you know me better as Kathyodat.
Arvy,
There are an infinite number of degrees of evil and degrees of danger. I am a socialist who has voted for Democrats and for third parties in the past, depending on the situation. However, Giuliani makes all the alarm bells in my brain go off simultaneously. I perceive him to be, by far, the most dangerous viable candidate for US president in my lifetime (I am 50).
Certainly all the major candidates are seriously flawed, as they know for certain that the corporate media and the media’s allies on Wall Street would shoot them down in an instant if they did not promise to protect the interests of the corporate oligarchy, especially the interests of the corporate media and the military industrial complex, and Israel’s right wing. But that does not make them indistinguishable. I believe that Giuliani has demonstrated that he is the only one more dangerous than Cheney, to the people of the US and the world.
The US position will continue to weaken and eventually the US will slide into insignificance in world affairs, and as US citizens it is our obligation to do whatever we can during that period to stop the US government from starting WWIII. Standing by while Giuliani is elected is tantamount to aiding and abetting mass murder and possibly human extinction.
[quote]kivals October 29th, 2007 4:07 pm — But that does not make them indistinguishable.[/quote]
I suppose you’re right — at least in the same sense that Godzilla and MechaGodzilla are not indistinguishable. Voting for either, however, seems like an unwarranted endorsement, especially for a socialist.
I guess I’m just not as “pragmatic” as you are. On the other hand, there’s sometimes a very fine line between pragmatism and something much worse when it delves into conceptual relativity.
For people still able to work inside the system of political elections, the un-met challenge is to organize ourselves - the left - into a coheret movement.
If the internet - and websites like this one - are gonna be able to help organize the organizers, then that capacity needs to be first set up, either on this site or on a new site (Like BugsBBunny III says in his post to Cindy Sheehan’s earlier article The Morning After.)
This site is chaotic for organizing!
Ways to correct our broken system:
1) Effective campaign finance reform. So long as money matters more than policy in winning elections, wealthy individuals/corporations will exert profoundly undemocratic control on our political system.
2) Run-off elections. If we voted in rounds and had options for voters to order their prefference for candidates then the power duopoly would be broken.
3) Elimination of real return on investment. The “hoarder” class must be destroyed, as the root of the threat to real democracy is the perverse set of incentives our socioeconomic system presents them.
(3) is impossible without (1), (2) is only marginally effective without (1), and (1) has been difficult to bring about, to say the least.
Ideas, anyone?
“Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm
Mathematically that’s about as different as Godzilla and a Quark.
one of about a thousand indistinguishable elements between Dems and Reps.
Arvy,
As much as we like to complain about the current state of affairs, we know that it can get so much worse. And Mr. Giuliani would love to demonstrate that point, if given the opportunity.
You compared two fictional screen monsters. I would use a real-world comparison of Mussolini and Hitler.
By the way, I have been a socialist since I was a freshman in college, but long ago gave up on socialist candidates in the USA. The best we can do here is try to slow down or stop the empire and to fight the development of a police state, and hope human culture evolves in the meantime to make the consumer mindset passe.
Umlaut, I would have agreed with you as recently as 6 months ago. That is, I would have agreed with you until none of the leading 3 democratic candidates came out against continued US presence in Iraq. Why, oh why, for fucks sake why, would neither Obama or Edwards choose to differentiate themselves on this most crucial of all campaign issues?
I’ll tell you why: they are assholes. They are assholes of such magnitude and efficiency that people can’t see through the constant stream of shit they spew to glimpse the giant asshole spewing it. But if you believe in that old maxim, “shit comes from assholes”, then even if the shit blinds you, you infer from the shit that somewhere an asshole is at work.
Umlaut: Dems can suck my balls. Explain to me how it made political or any other kind of sense for neither Edwards or Obama to come out strongly against the occupation and maybe I’ll entertain the thought that democrats have souls.
“In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion…Mathematically that’s about as different as Godzilla and a Quark.”
Hi Umlaut,
Before you begin cursing me out again, please take the time to listen.
On the surface, what you are saying makes sense. However, two things:
1. I wonder how much of this surplus was due to “Ending Welfare as we know it.” Also, the economy was booming in the 1990s, most likely because of a hyper-inflated tech market, which turned south as it typically does. Much of went on then was smoke and mirrors - if Bush had gotten re-elected, I’m sure he would have taken credit for the dot com economy as well.
2. I have no doubt that Hillary will be less wasteful than Bush and his war-mongering cronies. But how is the way things work at present going to fix anything if all that happens is Hillary wins, then is replaced by some asshole in the GOP - which is exactly the way the system works?
Overall, I still contend that the two party system itself is where the problem is. Please expand your view past what will happen immediately if Hillary wins - this is the same logic that got us screwed with Bill. I assure you that what we will not see from Hillary is a lasting legacy - instead what we will get is “less bad,” which is not good enough. Band aids don’t matter when you need triage.
When the centrist system within the Democratic Party is thrown out on its ear and replaced with a progressive model a la Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, Waters, Boxer, Sanders, et. al., that is when you will see something effective emerging from the DP. Until that day comes (and it very possibly may never come, at this rate), even if we win the battle, we’re clearly losing the war, as it were. Please don’t hate on me (again) for saying this, but have you considered the possibility that in fact, it is the centrist “third way” approach that is both irrational and non-pragmatic? Think about this, please.
“(3) is impossible without (1), (2) is only marginally effective without (1), and (1) has been difficult to bring about, to say the least.
Ideas, anyone?”
Maddisod,
In order to get this, you need (4) - an effective grass-roots movement, because any politician that tries to do what you’re suggesting at present will be thrown out on their ear without it.
“But if the Democrats have an abusive relationship with their supporters, their supporters are complicit in that abuse. Democrats overwhelmingly support troop withdrawal from Iraq yet back candidates who favour keeping troops in the region indefinitely. The gay community continues to give the main candidates huge amounts of money even though all of them oppose gay marriage. They seem to like it this way. For even though Republican candidates have lavished far more attention on core supporters, it is Democratic voters who are far more satisfied with their candidates.”
True. So, what’s the answer?
Seems like an untenable situation. A conundrum for which there may not be an answer or a way out. An Orwellian nightmare…unless we address the cognitive dissonance we each display in our personal lives. For every action we take, every word we utter, every thought we have that goes against our individual values, we disassociate ourselves from what is right and weaken ourselves and the common good.
Some here on CD say that the Democrats are the only alternative, that we must face the reality that they are the only game in town. Well, on the face of it, they’re right - they are the only game in town. Neither the Republicans nor a third party are going to vote for a centrist or left-leaning justice of the Supreme Court (and it looks like there might be 2 opportunities for that soon). The Repubs are so out there that they are actively trying to demolish this form of government. The third parties are non-existent and will not win this time around. So, who is left?
Once again, we will have to face the fact that we either vote for the Dems, or get worse. But, is this a real choice? Is this really “reality?” Yes, some things may very well get worse if we vote our consciences. But then, nothing is guaranteed. Is voting Dem a guarantee that we won’t spend another 4 years in Iraq and move on to Iran? Is voting Dem a guarantee that corporate fascism won’t continue to spread its toxin? Of course not!
So, why do progressives keep lowering the bar? Cognitive dissonance. This can only be stopped when we stop as individuals. It ends when YOU say it ends. When YOU stop paying war tax, when YOU stop buying sweat-shop items at rock-bottom prices, when YOU stop living in fear of the bogeyman the system tells you is under your bed. The second YOU START living your values and conscience is the second this world starts to change.
That’s it. That’s all it’s ever been. It’s that easy.
“Once again, we will have to face the fact that we either vote for the Dems, or get worse. But, is this a real choice? Is this really “reality?””
Bingo. Centrist supporters, you are becoming sheeple before our very eyes. Please wake up, and wake up soon.
Umlaut (5:39 pm) steps up to the plate as Dem Party apologist of the day. He’s indignant. No, he cries, D’s and R’s are not “the same.” A highly original argument.
Dem Party loyalists are so easy to please; all they want out of life is jailors who beat them a little bit less frequently.
We are like prisoners in a brutal prison camp that’s staffed by both a “Night Shift” & a “Day Shift” of guards & wardens. Suppose the Night Shift was a bit less brutal than the Day Shift. The Tories who argue that we must be “practical” and vote for the “lesser evil” are like the prisoners who become bizarrely fond of the Night Shift, & insist that the best we can ever hope for is to have the Night Shift take over a larger share of camp management duties.
All discussion of escape must be forbidden. We can only discuss whether the Night Shift is indeed more likeable than the Day Shift. After all, they are “different.” “I tell you, those Night Shift guys are nicer!! They smile at me more, I swear it!”
No substantive news in the markets….a bad sign….. they must be coming apart at the seams……even more.
Kucinich or nothing ……. tired of playing games.
The argument that we can punish and reform the dims by boycotting them and causing their party to implode presumes they have any loyalty to their party or to any ideology whatsoever.
Not only do they not have any loyalty to to any ideology, they have no loyalty to any constituency EXCEPT FOR FINANCIAL BACKERS.
I am convinced most of them are far more concerned about their futures as lobbyists and sucking honoraria as speakers than their current positions in the congress.
The point of view assumed is that America still has a “two party” system when, in fact, we have one main party split into two divisions, both with the same overall goals, all the money, and all the control. Said sub-divisions play good cop-bad cop on “cultural” issues in order to distract us from the fascist direction they’re “leading” the “homeland” towards while emptying our Treasury and shredding our Constitution.
Progressives can sharpen all the teeth they want, it won’t matter - our “representatives” simply could care less about We The People.
RichM,
“I tell you, those Night Shift guys are nicer!! They smile at me more, I swear it!”
This is the mentality we are faced with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Block
LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL!
That is where govt and social change is really going to occur. Not in the halls of Congress.. We can’t rely upon them anymore to make anything real happen.
Sure.. we need to keep an eye on them… but get out there and work in your local community. Start a neighborhood garden program (we need more farmers with the coming Peak Oil crisis)
work with your small business association.. local community. That is where change is going to happen.. small and local.
Wash is too corrupt and bought and paid for.
Quit buying stuff from Corporate America too…
So we are all back to go—-I for one, plan to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may—this is an easy decision in a sense, since I am convinced that whatever the “will of the people” actually turns out to be, another election will be rigged. Surely most of you are well informed enough by considerable research that proves without any doubt that neither of the last two presidential elections were legitimate, AND there were several state races that were stolen as well. Even 2006 was in question but apparently they didn’t anticipate a high enough percentage to flip enough votes and Dems won anyway. So after having my heart broken and my outrage taken to the level of a scream, I’m gonna vote for what feels like a real choice and worry less about the winner. Even when we “win”, we lose, so you might as well feel good about your conscience in the process. We can’t be ever ruled by the fear of what will happen if the boogey man gets in—he’s been in, and is in right now. What if Martin Luther King hadn’t had a dream and stuck to it? Not that African AMericans aren’t still having to re-fight those battles again and again, but still. We need to be able to dream and PLAN for a truly better country and world, or we might as well all go to sleep with the rest of the silent masses who are either too tired from working their three jobs to care much, or have lost all faith that they can make any difference so why bother. Do you blame them? When’s the last time we can demonstrate it paid to get involved???? That it made their life truly better? I was a family dairy farmer when Clinton asked for my vote. He got it and then there was NAFTA and no help for family farms. My Congressman, Ron Kind, D WI has voted so consistently with the Repbubs that I swear he’s a trojan horse. Labels mean nothing folks. It’s principles and integrity we need!
It seems to me that everyone who supports Dennis Kucinich could contact his campaign and urge him to stop spending money running around which is doing essentially nothing for him, and put all his money into a 1/2 hour TV ad presentation of what he wants to accomplish. It did work for Ross Perot. He actually got 20% of the vote as an independent, AFTER quitting the race (he came back in, but he really damaged his campaign by petulantly quitting).
And everyone who supports Dennis could become funding volunteers, working the crowds, spreading the word to contribute. If he doesn’t do something bold and different, he’s going down. Unlike some of you, I don’t think he’s doing this to be a party shill. It’s too much work.
Well, I just had a post deleted. I just suggested we all encourage Dennis Kucinich to save his money for TV ads the way Ross Perot did. And put our energy into supporting that venture.
Twice I tried to talk about the Kucinich campaign and was deleted.
I know people have a hard time taking me seriously because I scribble alot of simple crap on this website to give people the notion that I know nothing about politics (it predominantly is to draw out the trolls). Did any of you see my post yesterday (I know it seemed like lala land)? That is the crux of my platform to run for political office as a Progressive Independent (PI). I will be forthcoming with more information about myself soon. What all of you are calling for is someone with the same vision as you to lead you out of this quagmire into which the Repubs and Dems have dumped us. If you look at all of your posts on this thread and condense them, that is part of my vision. I am considering running for office in 2012 (I need to get more political experience and my name out there first). Just to give you a brief morsel of information about me, I am a doctoral candidate in Political Science, teach at a major university, and am 33 years old.
Apparently it’s OK to talk about what Obama should do with his campaign, but not what Kucinich should do with his campaign. I’m being censored.
The crux of my platform is under Arianna Huffington’s Article about the Dems. Playing Hardball. I will be forthcoming about more details soon.
claudius,
More power to you, brother/sister. I won’t hold your poli-sci education against you. Try to ignore it as much as possible and lead from the heart.
“What all of you are calling for is someone with the same vision as you to lead you out of this quagmire into which the Repubs and Dems have dumped us.”
Actually, that’s not what I’m calling for at all. What I am calling for is for us to learn how to become the leaders that we desire. As iammyself said though, more power to you.
Restive,
Thanks for the comment. After having read the hundreds (if not thousands) of posts on various threads, I certainly think many of you are capable of that, and please let me know in which capacity I can help.
Peace,
Claudius
Claudius,
You’re most welcome. Keep us informed as things progress.
Peace,
Restive
Annabelle…Thanks and feel free to quote.
Can anyone think of a better way to mobilize and energize the Republican base than for the Dems to nominate Hillary Clinton? She is the most hated woman in America. She consistently polls above 50% negatives yet there are many who support her because she is “electable”!
Hillary Clinton will lead the Democratic lemmings right off the cliff and into the sea. Wall Street and The Armaments Industry support her because if she somehow manages to win, they win. If she loses, they win.
Iammyself…Loved your 641p post. “The second that YOU START living your values…” Indeed. All politics IS local.
People have to realize that the whole system is rotten from top to bottom. The democrats and republicans are just two teams that are owned and operated by one owner-the elites and the corporations. In this game money talks and bullshit walks. And that’s all it is-a game that you are invited to join in when election time comes around. The fact that you do vote for these swine legitimizes them. They do care about appearances, but that’s all. Don’t vote for any of them, republicans or democrats and you delegitimize them. Everyone in Washington is corrupt. Politicians are the enemy. They are not your friends. They don’t care about you or me at all. And the only difference between them is that the republicans will strangle you with their bare hands, and the democrats will put gloves on before they do it. Judge people by what they do, not by what they say.
Anyone think that we could get a Green candidate to run on a platform to fight corporate personhood? Is it even possible to change the status of corporations if you aren’t corporate supported/bought and paid for?
{sigh} Here we go again. What is a “viable” third party? I guess that means a third party whose candidates can win elections. But if people continue to vote for the lessers of two evils (or really, one evil) then there will never be a “viable” third party. Too many people vote for who they think will win - as if they were betting on a football game. Clinton has raised the most money, that makes her the frontrunner.
Vote for who you believe in, ignore the party and things will take care of themselves eventually. We are predisposed to only take candidates seriously if they have a D or R next to their names. Give your money & votes to the candidates you really want. Start with local races. There are local elections in a week or so. There are Greens running all over the country. Do something for them…whether they’re in your area or not. Find them at http://www.gp.org.
Stop complaining about the corporatists and do something about it.
This is why so many of us are supporting Ron Paul. He may be an insufferable conservative on some things, but he is the only candidate on either side speaking truth about Iraq directly into the face of power. The Democrats should take note. It really isn’t that hard to do. The Democrats just have to stop being a bunch of ninnies. They need to remember that the definition of a hero is someone who makes sacrifices in the name of something greater than themselves. I think now is the time for some political heroes. The only one I’m seeing running for president is Ron Paul. Sorry. But true. Iraq is something that we can NOT compromise on.
Ron Paul. Hero? Why not? Paul Bremmer and George Tenet were both awarded the Medal of Freedom. In these backwards times where cowardice is bravery and corruption is integrity, up is down, Ron Paul could be a hero if your head, neck and shoulders were shoved up your ass. We need more people like the ones who want Ron Paul to be president to complete our process of humiliation. The rest of the world still might have the impression that there’s a glimmer of hope for us.
Slob, please keep posting here with your incredible tales of heroics by Ron Paul. The world needs to laugh more in these times of woe.
Media mogul Rupert Murdock is backing Hillary Clinton, perhaps he knows that if she wins, he wins. But he also knows that some people, even democrats won’t vote for Hillary no matter what and having her on the ballot will bring Hillary haters out of the wood work thus making a Republican win more likely inspite of the Bush legacy. Clinton is the democratic candidate most likely to drive a Republican win. Giuliani v. Clinton contest is a right wing best case scenario.
Murdock’s media outlets and the his corporate classmates who own the other media won’t let real alternative candidates, such as Kucinich, Gravel, or Ron Paul have any serious face time. Edwards/Kucinich v. Giuliani would be a problem for Republicans. Clinton/Leiberman would be a Republican dream team! Even better than Gore/Leiberman. Joe is not possible, but Clinton/Obama would bring out the vote from all those Clinton haters and racists. Sure women and blacks might TRY to vote, but the right wing has the ballot boxes under control so that people without money can’t get to them.
Long lines, purged voter rolls, threats, and electronic computer failures should be able to eliminate lots of pro-Democrat votes. An apparent close vote could be managed, a democratic landslide might the hard to hide. Gore/Kucinich or Gore/Edwards would be a real problem for the money elite who have billions of dollars at stake in this election. A real Democrat win might bring on 4 years of Gore followed by 8 years of Edwards. Social security could be made secure, the environment addressed and scariest of all, Oil company profits could be cut through taxes and conservation, war ended and independence from the oil economy begun as a long term human survival strategy.
Americans would be better served by picking congressional representatives by pulling names from a hat containing the names of all age eligible Americans. Then let the chosen representatives choose a president. Something like a draft for service in Congress or on a jury. Now Big-Money chooses the representatives and the president who will work for the money people, not most people. The money-people may not even be American. My bet is that the money-people win this election and the next ones until there is media reform such that the major media, radio and TV begins to serve people and democracy.
What are the important interests of the voters?
Why do we continually vote against our economic interests?
For the second - and final - time in my life, I have changed my voter registration from Democrat to Independent. I have been a Democrat since I was old enough to vote - for 42 years. I will never be a Democrat again. They have forgotten me, and I have forgotten them. From what I hear, I am typical of their long-abandoned “base.” The Democrats will pay heavily - as will the country.
I’ve always been an Independent, and I’ve voted Democrat since I got sober. :>) I will not be voting in a presidential election again until I can vote for someone like Kucinich. Which means I should probably consider emigrating to Sweden - or Bolivia - someplace civilized. John Kerry, whom I held my nose and voted for, nearly conceded the election before it was over. To hell with the Democrats. And besides, this country has so much bad Karma, it will get ugly, ugly, ugly before it gets better, I fear. There’s not that much difference between the Bush/Cheney-led Republicans and the Hitler-led National Socialists, especially if Blackwater starts getting domestic contracts to “keep order.” It just hasn’t gotten to the really bad part yet.
The “good” news is that the country is running on borrowed money and more likely to become irrelevant than more dangerous. If the dollar collapses, and the cable TV gets shut off, and the fridge gets empty, people will be forced to use their brains again.
Naturally, I hope I’m wrong. But there’s a price to be paid when the Many are in full flight from Reality.
maddisod
“shit they spew to glimpse the giant asshole spewing it. But if you believe in that old maxim, “shit comes from assholes”, then even if the shit blinds you, you infer from the shit that somewhere an asshole is at work.
Dems can suck my balls.”
Alright Jay, but this isn’t movie poop shoot. Thanks for bringing the niveau to new lows though.
restive
“On the surface, what you are saying makes sense. However, two things:”
The argument is are they the same? Are Dems in it only for the money? No. Corporate lobbying is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem but taking money and pandering is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar different from being in office merely to make money for your daddy’s weapons manufacturer, your VP’s infrastructure building corp, and your old oil buddies, and trying to privatize every thing under the sun.
RichM
“steps up to the plate as Dem Party apologist of the day. He’s indignant. No, he cries, D’s and R’s are not “the same.” A highly original argument.”
I could easily dismiss most of you as trolls working for Karl Rove, as you’re doing exactly what he wants you to do, but I have refrained from that.
“We are like prisoners in a brutal prison camp that’s staffed by both a “Night Shift” & a “Day Shift” of guards & wardens.”
Far too oversimplified argument.
The reality as the article says is that the Dems are in a race to takeover. They are targeting the swing voters, which no one who posts here is. We represent, collectively less than 1% of the electorate. They are doing marketing. They are also trying to stay out of the cross hairs of the right wing dirt slinging spin machine media as that is what beat them last time. I don’t agree with this either, but I don’t dismiss it as being their true views and beliefs rather they are telling people what they want to hear.
You can say that their record in the past year has been abysmal and you’d be right. But it has in my opinion all been from their point of view losing a few battles to win the war.
In a perfect world, we would have an aware, vigilant populace that when they heard the truth, they would flock to it, but that’s just not where we are right now.
There are three ways of changing an organized system. You can change it from the inside or the outside or both simulataneously.
I believe that the least suffering and destruction comes from both. In this scenario, we have a a potential for Dems in both Legislative and Executive branch, which means no veto and the chance that they’re just spewing crap to win over the naive and ignorant.
One of the biggest problems with mobilizing a grass roots movement in this day and age is that the naive and ignorant are mostly working 2 jobs and don’t have the time to become aware let alone get involved. This scenario would potentially alleviate that. We would only have to target our efforts to one thing, a party of truth that is looking out for the best for the majority of the people that can stand up and say it like is without having to worry about the political system.
Killing this system from the outside risks losing a singular focus and keeps us fighting for the issues the Dems are iron clad on visa vie gay marriage, right to choose, and demand side economics, and the two most critical issues that face the world today, that being the environment, and international diplomacy.
Merely trying to change the system for the inside alone, I agree doesn’t have enough teeth and I agree on all your points that the Dems will never change and you will always have the choice between evil and evil light.
This issue is how we implement this remedy for a broken system. Obviously your solution and mine is different. Mine is based on the fact that the Dems are a disaster but still workable on a small level until we can sweep them under the carpet, yours seems to be to let them be crushed by the opposing forces while building a true force against the opposing forces.
The later(seemingly yours) in my opinion, allows for not only the crushing of the lesser evils but also a crushing of hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps billions worldwide. Mine has at least the possibility of having a leaky roof over our heads until we finish the new house, as apposed to tearing down the old house and living in a hurricane with no shelter while trying to build a new house. Without the shelter we will be physically taxed by the weather and all our tools will rust in the rain.
I’m aware that you extremely believe that we currently have not even a broken house, but I strongly disagree. I think diplomacy and that environment are alone enough of a broken down house for us to at least whether the storm until the new house is built. This I think is the core of the argument, and is speculation on both sides. I believe mine is a more realistic and more informed one, as I have consistently provided more to back up my argument.
For those that don’t understand what I’m saying or that think it’s easy to build a grassroots third party movement to infiltrate the current system by telling your friends you’ll have to show me where to start, and all the steps to reach an end.
Example: Start or continue grassroots movement.
Grass roots movements will need to eventually reach a critical mass of at least 100 million.
At this point we don’t have that.
what have we been doing wrong, and what can we do right to reach those numbers.
what is wrong in America that is an obstacle to this. (i.e.) education, media, political and power repression, and what will you do about that?
how will you reach people who think Hilary is a good choice, how will you reach those that think Giuliani is.
All in all how do we get less than half of a percent to 51%.
From a previous thread, restive:
“To be frank, that’s not the way you get movements built *at all*. You have to stand on your principles”
75% of the country want troops out. This sounds like a majority standing on it’s principles yet most are gunning for the least likely to do that. You point seems weak. Show me what I’m missing here. It looks like we’ve done that at your advice didn’t work.
“Listening to people speak like watching the Clinton administration implode while it drifted even further rightward than where it started from all over again. It’s as if y’all don’t understand that you are the leaders in a democracy - the politicians are just the advocates, or at least they should be.”
Check, we did that too.
“I think the key here is what ComARC (if I recall) pointed out about the 1988 democratic primaries; namely, that a progressive (Jesse Jackson) got nearly 40% of the vote.”
How did he do that, and why isn’t it happening this time? And don’t just say because,
“From that point onward, “pragmatic” politics is what has eroded the progressive voting base on a national level, even as the progressive movement has gained steam again.”
That’s a reason why it went wrong, not how to fix it, and don’t restate your “standing on principle” bit as it should work in a vacuum, but in the real world it hasn’t. If you still believe that it will given time, show me what elements will change to make your result a plausible potential.
With Moveon, Codepink, Ragging Grannies, Food not Bombs, and hundreds of others including watchdog organizations, media watch groups, and the list goes on and on. We have some of the best grassroots organization in this country’s history. Yet the big question is why are we here today with Kucinich being a long shot?
What’s the problem?
My theory is the country is too dumbed down to discern the truth even when they hear it. The messenger is screaming loud and clear, the organization is mobilized but those that will make a difference on election day have remained unchanged. Telling them is not enough. Media is a chicken and egg. If the majority were coherent enough than FOX, CNN, would all go out of business, or at least be dismissed as trite state propaganda, instead it is even believed by enough people to think Hilary is a good thing for this country.
They will either need their collective consciousness raised through social means, or become desperate enough to revolt.
The later creates a dumb, reactionary, subjective, dangerous movement that will be the polar opposite extremist evil, not to mention America has proven to be resistant to revolting against their masters. If they didn’t during the robber barons and great depression, how far will they need to be pushed to move this time. The first allows for intelligent, reasonable, balanced, objective people to overthrow the establishment with as little collateral damage as possible.
Just look at Israel for a good example of how the oppressed can become worse than their oppressors.
The sooner the Democratic Party is destroyed, the sooner we’ll have a real opposition front in the US. Pelosi, Reid and their supporters have blood on their hands. When an “opposition” party allows repeated crimes to proceed (like Blackwater and now the immunity scandal) without investigations or even a word of condemnation, you know they HAVE to be cashing in on Blackwater’s profits just like their Republican clones. The Democratic Party needs to be wiped out.
And isn’t Hillary tied to Blackwater? Her top adviser Mark Penn is CEO of the PR Firm Burson Marsteller, who’s done work for Blackwater and other questionable firms.
I agree with figmentzenguitar that this is probably going to get far uglier as the American Empire diverges farther and farther from reality and the American Republic becomes another one of Alberto Gonzo Gonzales’s “quaint notions”. Chalmers Johnson has captured the U.S. demise as well as anyone in his body of historical writings.
Maybe I’ll join figmentzenguitar in Bolivia—as Sweden is highly civilized but too damn cold!
A friend of mine just sold his property and is headed down to Bolivia and Ecuador. He comes from a military family of “Super-Patriots” and he volunteered to serve and fight in Vietnam—unlike our sociopathic President and Vice-Prez. He now sees the U.S. as the greatest source of evil in the world and says he does not want to die here.
I’m looking at Argentina, Portugal, New Zealand and a few other nations next year, and I sold my house in order to fund the search. Stay and fight? I’ve done that for quite some time now. It only gets worse. I should have emigrated somewhere else decades ago. I’ll vote for the Greens and an occasional decent Democrat from a safe distance. Good luck.
Gary Younge always offers insightful commentary on American politics for the Guardian.
Maxpayne makes good points but overstates his case. The Republican Party does support its financial base over its fanatic Christo-fascist base but ideology does matter a great deal to them. Ideology not only galvanizes the base, it galvanizes the leadership on the Right. And yes I do believe that the Santorums and Huckabees believe their own yapping about God, abortion, and family values.
Pat Robertson is one of the most corrupt men on the face of the earth. He profited immensely from numerous blood diamond and gold mining operations throughout Africa, and has befriended such moral Christian giants as Mobutu and Charles Taylor of Liberia.
http://www.gregpalast.com/pat-robertson-i-dont-have-to-be-nice-to-the-spirit-of-the-antichrist/
Is Robertson’s Christo-fascist ideology simply an act or does he actually believe in it? When he calls for the assassination of Chavez is it because he simply sees Chavez as a threat to his business interests or because he honestly believes Chavez to be an ungodly threat to America?
It is an interesting question. I would feel safer if Robertson were simply a corrupt leader taking the rubes for a ride, rather than a true believer. I think he is both. And I think the same is true of Bush and his cabal.
Human beings are often motivated by greed but they seem to have a tenacious need to rationalize their behavior with ideology and religion. That ideology often takes on an immense organizing power of its own and its adherents will destroy you if you threaten it.
The evisceration of the Bill of Rights, the expansion of domestic spying and police state powers, the obsession with satisfying Zionist demands, the cult of the “unitary executive”, the drive to create a world straddling Empire always at war, the immense loathing for the weak, the poor, and the non-American is all intensely ideological.
These “values” are very much intertwined with class war and personal opportunities to gorge themselves with lucre, but generic corruption is far less dangerous than ideologically driven corruption. Authoritarian movements always provide opportunities for “business” and corruption to flourish, but it’s naive to think they aren’t sincere about their own worst values.
If anything the Democratic Party seems to stand for almost nothing now, and I think you can make a case that they truly are opportunists simply interested in power and prestige as an end in itself. And that is precisely why they avoid fighting for anything of importance when faced with Republican fanaticism and the corporate gatekeepers.
The financial base of the Democratic Party is also built on Wall Street, banking, the oil companies, the military-industrial complex, and the corporate elites, etc. They have found the perfect corporate candidate in Hillary Clinton.
Vote for the worst of two evils? And then wash your hands like Pontius Pilate? Is there something sacred about voting that you shouldn’t vote for someone you morally despise, essentially putting your name and theirs side by side on a piece of paper and saying, “Yes!”?
Since Reagan decimated unionization in America, there’s nowhere for either party to go to for money except business. Their social agendas will differ, but let’s look at what their united business agenda does.
Clinton’s Iraq sanctions - 500,000 preschoolers dead by the time they were half over, with the UN now admitting that the oil-for-food program which then came into being really didn’t slow the pace for the second half. Remember that when you hear the oft-quoted 500,000. It should really be more like 1,000,000 pre!-schoolers!
Clinton’s NAFTA.
Clinton and the World Bank / IMF / etc. privatizing the Balkans when they were down for the count from their civil war, and then auctioning off the best of their economies to West Europe, basically stealing from them while they were still shell shocked. Special.
Both parties voting for this current oil heist in Iraq at the cost of millions of more innocent Iraqi lives. (Oh, but we Americans sooo care for them!)
And Hillary, for starters, will keep medicine under the control of private insurers, and so on.
Put the sick patient, the Repubs/Dems, especially the Dems, to sleep. It’s social versus business agendas. Civil liberties and abortion and gay rights will suffer if the Repubs win. And tons more innocents will die overseas if either side wins. Social retreat here will be more stifling than deadly, but nowhere near as deadly as what these guys rack up before breakfast. Join the human race, for real. Quit being so “practical.”
So what if we go down the tubes? Do you think the world will put up with us? I don’t. The contrast will be just too great. Even middle America will see the contrast. And the contrast will have to come from outside our borders. It’s that big, the turnaround that needs to take place. Trading ideas in our American echo chamber, trying to think of smarter arguments for the opposition…it just ain’t going to happen that way. The problem is too big (just ask the relatives of the dead). Because we are truly a world power, our comeuppance has really got to come from the world.
But if we keep giving this sick patient life support, and propping him up on a wooden board so he looks alive, then we’ll muddle along as the world merely wonders about us, and then the God damn business agenda of both parties will go on unimpeded because the worst of it is all done behind closed doors (with media complicity, etc).
Average Americans feel so compassionately about Iraqis now…really? These same people didn’t give a damn when Iraqi preschoolers died the equivalent of a 9-11 every three weeks, three weeks after three weeks, year after many Clinton years. A million innocents have died in our current screw-Iraq venture and Average America only cares because we’re losing. Sick.
We need to be put in our place, worldwide, and we won’t be if we keep the patient alive. It would die if we suddenly saw ourselves in a mirror held up by the rest of the world.
Vote your conscience, not just your conniving mind. And then let our Repub/Dem stench within be personified, to the last drop, by the Republicans, as they so want to do, to all the world. They could hardly kill any more than the war crazy Democrats. And then our rot won’t be secret any more (though it barely is now). Let them put Nazis on the Supreme Court. Middle America has got to say, “What have I done?” in a profound way, and the answer has got to come from outside our borders, where the worst of our doings have been done. The contrast is there - please don’t let it hide behind a bunch of business-bought Democrats.
And don’t worry. Even nine Supreme Court Nazis won’t be able to stand up to an America that finally joins the human race.
Obviously I meant to start the previous post with “Vote for the best of two evils?” I guess that shows what I think of the Democrats.
How many of you are religious or believe in God? What percentage of the progressive community is theistic? Everybody I know that is progressive is an atheist. I am also an atheist. If someone reading this is both a progressive and a theist, could you tell me what it is that makes you different from people on the right? I don’t mean in terms of what you value; I know what progressives value. I mean to ask, how did it come about that you value what you value? I don’t want to pick a fight over religion here, anyone who reads articles on this site is part of the solution. But maybe if we better understood our differences we could better understand what makes our politics compelling.
If progressives champion themselves strictly as confirmed atheists then they’ve killed their own movement again, creating another wedge to distance others.
The movement has included people like Thich Nhat Hanh, Thomas Merton, MLK. The movement has included agnostics, wiccans, pagans, spiritualists, Native Americans, etc.
Religion is no wedge issue here. Neither is race, sex or nationality.
While it may be true that the Christian Right (so-called) wields considerable influence in the system, they are hardly the hogs at the front of the trough.
Those choice spots belong to Big Oil and the Military-Industrial Complex. There’s no need for candidates to even bother gladhanding or groveling to these entities–all Washington insiders understand who is Boss.
You will not hear establishment candidates in either party calling for a shutdown of all US military bases abroad.
You will not hear establishment candidates in either party calling for a national energy policy that embraces hard-hitting alternatives, like EV cars or bio-diesel.
You will not hear the mainstream media discussing such things. They are owned by the same bosses as the politicians.
Great article. an addition to the discussion on the psychosis of repression:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” The above speech by Nelson Mandela was originally written by Marianne Williamson who is the author of other similar material.
When I think of the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party or a Clinton vs Giuliani I think of a Good Cop vs Bad Cop analogy. They both wear the uniform of the State to enforce it’s legitimacy and are both firm beleivers in their authority over us, yet their tactics differ on the surface. We the people, our rights to a just goverment and economy, our votes, our confidence in ourselves to stand up and fight for these things have been arrested by a crooked system and made to give up, or give in, one way or another, and confess to, and pay for the crimes, and lies that we didn’t commit.
I take my vote seriously, even if only in principle, and I never want to give into voting for any party, or person who has gone along with the fascist agenda of Super Capitalism, Super Militarism, and the Super Rich which has caused so much misery in our country and the world. Identifying, recognizing, and remembering that freindly fascism IS FASCISM helps keep me from trusting the many illusions that they are different. For me, Peace, Justice and Equality must always be given the top priority on any 21st Century Agenda, anything less is not enough. For “the powers that be” will always be the powers that dictate the survival, or not, of the people, UNLESS we can envision our freedom and be bold, together, and demand, again and again, that in our hearts and souls we won’t be their slaves and every chance we get we will free our minds and bodies and put them to use to fight for our right to take care of eachother and this planet we share with so many others.
Progressive talk-radio host Thom Hartmann features the “Brunch with Bernie” segment on Fridays – where listeners call in to air their concerns with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an excellent example of connecting the public with an elected representative on talk-radio.
Progressive talk-radio must expand the “Brunch with Bernie” example with progressive, and moderate representatives from both parties on all of its broadcasts.
Too often, progressive talk-show radio hosts, as well as a concerned audience feel that they are “spinning their wheels” i.e., why have our elected representatives done very little to nothing at all to address important agendas? The “contact your elected representatives” are frequent requests of talk-radio hosts; yet even the best efforts too often don’t go far enough to sway the political/social zeitgeist.
It stands to reason that talk-radio would enhance it’s listenership with three-way communications amongst elected representatives, radio hosts, and call-in listeners; while refreshing a sometimes “same-old same-old” talk-radio format.
Most importantly, more and more people will be encouraged to contact elected representatives. Would such broadcast content yield much-needed positive political and social action?
Let’s ask our elected representatives to……appear on progressive talk-radio much more often!