"He has become a golf player."

The way Clinton plays golf with Bush.

The paralysis is not from just the money, but also due to triangulation as a diffusing strategy. This tactic of always straddling--coopting the message and calling it bipartisanship or centrism, also must be addressed. Triangulation becomes the means and the ends when the money is the incentive, and the issues become little more than empty rhetoric. The Right worked hard to define itself--instead of putting forth an alternative set of values that actually resonates with the voters, the DLC chose money and the Republican framework over the issues of most Americans and slunk away from their identity.

The Republican and Democratic parties are 2 sides of the same coin.
And coin is the operative word.

John Edwards is looking better all the time.

Vern,

Edwards has NO CHANCE of becoming the Democratic nominee. Big money knows that political animals like Hillary will play ball. They might also think that Obama is just green enough and idealistic enough to be out of his league. And Kucinich can be ridiculed into oblivion. But Edwards is the kind of wild card that can't be trusted. He might just be principled enough to make a stand and savvy enough to make it stick. He is by far the most dangerous candidate.

Which brings me to Krugman's questioners: Is this (the influence of big money in government) the shape of things to come? My questioners fear that it is.

I share that fear. Even a cursory review of history reveals that the privileged classes have never -- never! -- given up even the smallest fraction of their wealth and power without a fight. The French Revolution and the sad record of organized labor's fight to gain some level of parity with organized wealth come immediately to mind. But we can add many more, starting with the voting apparatus now used in US elections and the rise of pernicious groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans, well-funded and with the entire public media placed at their disposal. Or the sacking of the Air Traffic Controllers by Reagan, signifying the continuation of governmental hostility toward organized labor, while at the same time "deregulating" industry after industry, signifying its continuing endorsement of organized capital.

And when the chips are really down, you get the murder of Martin Luther King, Kent State, Jackson State, the Iran/Contra affair, suspicious plane crashes, and "extraordinary renditions".

These guys have no intention whatsoever of riding off into the sunset. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions and the funding of "think tanks" that spew the party line -- which universally posits that money and power are the only things that matter, that the rich and powerful deserve their privileged position, that the status-quo is really best for everyone, and that dropping bombs on anyone who disagrees is the right thing to do -- are the first lines of defense. These front lines are backstopped up by well-funded smear campaigns, loudly disseminated by the media, which serve to ridicule and marginalize their opponents while casting their stooges in a golden glow.

If that proves insufficient, it's time for the mob to keep up their end of the bargain. You know, the bargain where the Fed looks the other way when the drugs come into the country in return for certain "services" that may be required to to deal with occasional "problems".

The final resort is to install guys like Bush and Cheney in the White House, which is what those voting machines are all about. If the country has to become a fascist dictatorship in order for the privileged to maintain their position of privilege, then so be it! Fascist dictatorships are almost always characterized by extreme wealth disparity, so what's the problem? It's a natural!

These people will never give up without a fight, and that is a fight that they will bring to bear every asset at their disposal to win. And at the moment, they're holding all the cards. They own the politicians, they fund the lobby groups, they own the media, they own the voting machines, they run the "defense" industry, they can and do track each and every one of us, and they have the mob and private militias such as Blackwater at their disposal when someone gets a little too inconvenient.

In the end, this will come to violence. But not until we have descended far enough so that insurrection appears to be the sole remaining alternative.

The Nation's Vanden Heuval suggested than Hillary was "too incremental" for her preference. I think Hillary is regressive. I don't think there is going to be a forthcoming socialist revolution, the indoctrination is too pervasive--and hell, we can barely get a crowd togther to demonstrate. Incremental, to me, is the re-introduction of some Democratic principles and some principled players back into the Democratic party--and then the evolvement of a solid platform and an optimistic plan for the future.

So who is dreaming--those who anticipate the great social upheveal-or those who advocate for, at the very least a better Democratic candidate? If it is a continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty, we all lose. Hillary doesn't have a leg to stand on because she really doesn't stand for anything other than getting the Clintons back on the throne. The Clintons have weakened the party because they are so unprincipled and willing to lose the farm on anything. The Right will become even more emboldened, more radical and if she thinks the boys are piling up on her now, wait til the Right devours her. Problem being her support is so superficial--based on the bandwagon-type pep rally mentality --which is sure to shift when the water starts to boil.
If I was a ruling class elitist , maybe I would consider throwing a bone of hope to keep the wolves from the door--otherwise I, as well could anticipate a long slide downhill when the center can not hold.

American politics is more like TV wrasslin than it is like Little League baseball and the role of the Democratic party hacks is to offer token resistance and then roll over.

The Democratic Party blocks reformers from coming to power rather than facilitating reform.

Walter Karp pointed out that the Dixie Daley Democrats would propose progressive legislation to placate union members and liberals in New York and Chicago and then let the Southern Democrats kill the legislation.

The Southern Democrats did not ascend to power through seniority but rather were promoted to committee chairs in order to be positioned to block liberal reform.

Indispensible Enemies lays out this collusion out clearly. I.E. supplies some big puzzle pieces of American politics.

Walter Karp pointed out that the Dixie Daley Democrats would propose progressive legislation to placate union members and liberals in New York and Chicago and then let the Southern Democrats kill the legislation.

The Southern Democrats did not ascend to power through seniority but rather were promoted to committee chairs in order to be positioned to block liberal reform

American politics is more like TV wrasslin than it is like Little League baseball and the role of the Democratic party hacks is to offer token resistance and then roll over.

The Democratic Party blocks reformers from coming to power rather than facilitating reform.

Indispensible Enemies lays out this collusion out clearly. I.E. supplies some big puzzle pieces of American politics.

If the Democratic Party as a whole were truly interested in making systemic changes that would empower and assist all of this country's citizens as well as the rest of the world, they would support, not undermine real grass roots progressive candidates who reflect the real wishes of the people.( It's called building from within.) Instead the Rob Emmanuels undercut them and still some of them managed to prevail. Krugman is right to be concerned. The sleeping giant is waking up, and it is seeing the sham that has been heaped upon it for way too long. It's not just Clinton that many of us refuse to embrace, it is the entire stinking rotted corpse that calls itself the Democratic Party. The few decent reps and Senators should call a news conference and announce they are re-constituting a new entity that begins to build a new power base of, for and by the people. Their effectiveness is so compromised as to be non-existent in the current situation. It's not just about winning elections. It's about insuring that there will be a future for our children and grandchildren, and it's looking mighty grim at the moment. The two Party system is dead. Most of us are looking for a funeral so we can have some closure and get on with our task of replacing it with something alive and vital.

And borrusky, you are so right on in your analysis. We just need to go beyond that realization and start. It's going to be damnmed hard work, but what is the alternative? As siouxrose said in a post on a different article here on Common Dreams, without something to believe in, she/he would be forced to live a life of not so quiet desperation.

Politicians bow to pressure, just like all other entities in the universe. As Helix capably points out, the oligarchs have the ability to apply much more pressure than the rest of us do, and they are not reluctant to do so.

Of course the obvious answer is to take the money out of politics. Good luck with that. How can one expect the politicians in Washington to vote to end the system that enriches them and keeps them in power?

It seems the oligarchy has completely gamed the system, and the common people can have input only at the margins, just enough to sustain the illusion that their votes matter, an illusion that serves to pacify the population in similar fashion to that of the opiate of religion.

If, by some miracle, members of Congress are elected who will keep net neutrality and allow the Internet to continue to grow and offer opportunities for community and discussion, and if a complete fascist does not win the presidency, appoint a fifth fascist to the Supreme Court, and act as a unitary executive (making the US Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, a dead letter), just maybe new forms of social grouping can arise that can overwhelm the few who rule at the expense of the many, though not necessarily through traditional political methods.

"John Edwards is looking better all the time."

Of the semi-anointed candidates, Edwards appears to have the most courage & a true interest in stopping the bloodsuckers. It's obvious that in a two-person debate, Edwards would outshine FemBush every time.

RichM,

Re What good can possibly come of a system that works like this?

Good for whom?

RichM,

Re What good can possibly come of a system that works like this?

Good for whom?

RichM,

Re What good can possibly come of a system that works like this?

Good for whom?

Oops! My apoloigies for the multiple posting!

Dennis Kucinich is clearly (apologies to Sen. Gravel) the available populist candidate, far and away, and his name isn't even mentioned in this article or the following discussion. If there were true grass-roots discontent, we would be able to overwhelm our local Democratic parties with new membership and gain enough contol to be able to endorse such a candidacy. This happened in many Democratic Party districts across the country in 1968, when Eugene McCarthy's rebel candidacy blew Lyndon Johnson out of the White House. That happy prospect could probably only be realized when we have created a solidarity of pupose amongst ourselves that will only come when most of us refer to ourselves not as middle class, but working class.

We need to focus on three things to answer The Question.

First, we need real election financing reform. It may take some time, and probably has to come from the grass roots (by electing representatives, then senators who support it), but we can and must have public campaign financing.

Second, and related, we must reverse the (alleged) legal precedents that (A) money is speech and (B) corporations are persons (entitled to free speech). If a constitutional amendment is the only way to do this, then we'd better get started. Again, it will have to be supported from the grass roots.

Third, we need to be sure that the mechanics of elections are fair and cannot be manipulated. That means paper trails for all elections, verified by the voter, then kept under lock and key at least until any/all possible disputes have been resolved. This should be the easiest of the three, and has to be done first (to make the other two happen).

These things are simple ideas that the majority of the population will support. So we have that going for us. The fight, however, will be hard, because the monied interests know what they will lose when these three reforms are adopted. And it will be hard (expensive) to get enough air time to win these battles.

But it's not impossible. It starts with us.

-- ARG

TonyVodvarka, I agree with you and I support Dennis Kucinich. Please note that DK was mentioned upthread by Rich M and Helix, however.

And you're exactly right -- we have to take over the Democratic party to make these things happen. It won't happen this year (with Dennis Kucinich), and, realistically, I think our best bet is to do it one seat at a time in the Congress (before we can hope to get an executive as progressive as DK).

But it is possible, if we work at it.

-- ARG

All these points are pointless if we don't insure that every eligible voter will be permitted to vote. Millions of African Americans have been and continue to be systematically purged from voter rolls. That shit has to stop and at the same time we have to insure that the voting process is protected from rigging at the polls---paper voting, hand counted preferably with witnesses who can oversee and verify the tallies. They do this in India for cryin out loud and they have allot more voters than we do. We have enough rigging from the getgo with such limited choices, but if we can't even be sure our votes will be accurately refelcted in the totals, we are essentially done for. Any arguments about who the best candidate is are essentially meaningless as things are right now.

"I believe that dominance [of the right wing and big-money] is coming to an end," Krugman states at the outset. But not one word of this article backs up that belief with anything besides the fervent faith Krugman sets out with. Most of the cited facts actually undercut Krugman's apparently religious conviction.

RichM---so we all just give up and go home? Hope they don't decide to come for us in the middle of the night? I am profoundly discourged and nearly as cynical as you are, but still....what are we gonna tell our kids and grandkids that we did to try to stop this seemingly inexorable march into fascism?? I know I know, we are there. I am not talking about doing this for me and my genewration, but what about the future generations?

The Conservative revolution came about from the perception that Republicans stood for something; they picked up on popular sentiments, while Democrats were absorbed in the minutae of Big Government.
Now people can see the Republicans driving the country off an ideological cliff, absorbed in self-aggrandizement and cynical manipulations. Yet the Democrats remain adrift in JimmyCarterLand, the home of analysis paralysis and visionless incrementalism.
The Liberal base is emerging, but unless the Democrats wake up and take up the Liberal Cause as the Nation's Cause, it will be a wasted opportunity. In the absence of a party that presents a clear moral vision, I think people will opt for safety, which is usually a Republican strength.

Security is the Republican Strength? Don't make me laugh! The people of this country have never been so compromised regarding our national security than today. The only thing Republicans can hold on to is . . . obstinancy.

Things to come? Looks to me like that's how it is right now.

America is dying and in our death throes we will kill each other off leaving a posterity of a few dozen million toxin-crazed cannibals in a desert that will make the dystopian novelists' scenarios look like Disney films.

Think I'm crazed? Just look at the number of insanely violent acts, the murders by remorseless killers -- not just the ones who shop at Manhattan shoe stores while people are drowning -- and the complete absence of conscience by so many in positions of power . . . far worse than even the lowest points in US history . . .

A Democratic president in 2009 will inaugerate the third term of the GW Bush administration. Dems are so used to yielding (folding) to Bush that they will continue even when he is out of office.

Guliaani is channeling Bush and will strengthen the Bush regieme should he win.

Kucinich is going for the throat of the beast today. Good luck Dennis!

"Eventually, growing anger & frustration will lead to some sort of rioting incident at a "protest rally." This may even be incited by agents provocateurs. The riot will be ruthlessly crushed by the state — just to make clear to the "American people" what happens to those who "protest" too loudly. After this incident, which will doubtless be memorably bloody (perhaps carried out, at least in part, by Blackwater employees), everyone will finally understand the real nature of the relationship between the American people & its government." -- RichM

I agree up until the last point. The majority of Americans will, more likely, cheer the brutal suppression of dissent that you write of.

RichM,

This is the real function of the DP in the system — to guide the energy of potential opposition into dead-ends & futile channels.

Very interesting theory. And does explain some otherwise mystifying behavior on the part of elected Dem officials.

starofthesea,

Re what about the future generations?

The crux of the issue, indeed.

RichM,

Re As I see it, the only real hope is via a thoroughgoing reorganization of society, along socialist lines. This can't happen without a tremendous rise in the level of mass political consciousness.

I'm not sure I'm ready to throw in the towel quite yet. Governments are only as good as the people running it. What is required is a band of dedicated people who intent to see that our government functions as intended. More or less like the neo-con core, but with better motives.

Three things are needed for this to happen: good candidates must be willing to stand for public office. This might be tough. They can expect their names as well as their family member's names to be dragged thru the mud, and they have to be able to face down the Dick Cheney's of the world without stooping to their level. That's a tall order when you consider that the current crop of Dick Cheneys have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and counting) -- not to mention a couple thousand Americans and allies --and one more wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. Nevertheless, good candidates who will genuinely strive to see to it that the government runs properly must be found, or we cede the field to special interests, in this case meaning big business and wealthy campaign supporters.

Secondly, those people must be backed up by a dedicated organization that believes in itself and its mission. That means a lot of people handing out fliers, canvassing neighborhoods, developing netroots, and being around to get out the vote at election time.

And thirdly, speaking of election time, the integrity of the vote must be insured. It is difficult to concieve of how any new party can gain office with the voting systems now in place. Ballot-box stuffing is as old as elections, and the machinery out there now provides unprecidented opportunities and incentives for a single individual or a small group of operatives to completely nullify the will of the voters. This is totally unacceptable. I believe that this single issue is a sufficient plank on which to base a new voting block.

The real question is, then, can good candidates be recruited, and can the Democratic Party or a third party be convinced to throw its weight behind such candidates.

We shall see...

Helix,

The corporate oligarchs have gamed the system too much for any fundamental change through traditional political methods. The best we can hope for through traditional political methods, voting and organizing political parties, is to slow down the onset of total fascism.

Just as the US revolutionaries in the 1770s and 1780s, as well as those in France, came up with something completely different to alter the patterns of domination and its feedback loops, what is needed today is something completely different (using Monty Python-speak).

I would think that new technologies would be at the heart of any new approach, including of course the Internet, though it seems that borrowing ideas originating in ancient cultures might be helpful as well, such as organizing a new religion that is humanistic and not deity-based (I know it has been tried before, but it might be tried again using the Internet and other modern communication techniques in a creative fashion). All the social structures and laws that have been developed in the US and other nations to protect religious beliefs and religious organizations could be utilized to insulate such a fledgling organization from attack and allow it to develop and grow. Just a thought.

RichM,

Re Helix — aren't you the guy who said "In the end, this will come to violence. But not until we have descended far enough so that insurrection appears to be the sole remaining alternative…"?

I was indeed. But even though if I were a betting man, that's where I'd put my money, I hope I'm wrong, and at any rate, I don't think that's a justification to give up the fight.

The question is, will we rise to the occasion? The clock is running...

Maybe Harry, our fearful leader, and Dick Chenney can go on a canned hunt together with assault rifles. Hopefuly the animals will emerge unscathed. Seriously though, we are our media, the high ground in politics. Without an independent and objective media there is no functioning Democracy, just the neo-fascist oligarchic plutocracy we currently "enjoy". If we want to save America we have to first recreate a 4th Estate. Until then, nothing much will change.

Republicrat-Demican November 6th, 2007 10:49 am:

"I agree up until the last point. The majority of Americans will, more likely, cheer the brutal suppression of dissent that you write of."

You're exactly right. This is the same majority that would swallow whole the MSM's spin stories about such dissent, if they even bothered to care about the story at all. The same majority which is content to allow the gov't to spy on them because "only people up to no good have anything to fear." The same majority which believes we need to attack Iran because they're "threatening".

I still hear people at my workplace using the term "goddamn hippies" in reference to anyone pushing a progressive agenda, perticularly as it relates to foreign affairs or the environment. They reserve a special vitriol for Al Gore, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnel(sp?). These people are still fighting the cultural battles of the 60's, so they view the established order as the good guys, and anyone pushing for change as no different than the members of SDS or the Weather Underground. They are still fighting the LAST big unnecessary war.

Until they join the rest of us in the present, there is absolutely no hope of changing their world views, and hence their politics. They are perfect fodder for the totalitarian state, because they'll all be hoping to derive some advantage out of it.

I apologize if it appears I'm stereotyping, but that's just the way I see things.

JayDee, Republicat-Demican,

Re I agree up until the last point. The majority of Americans will, more likely, cheer the brutal suppression of dissent that you write of.

I don't agree with this statement. The large majority of Americans are genuinely decent people. That's why Bush's approval rating is in the 25% range. By this measure, only about 1 in 4 Americans would cheer any such brutal suppression.

The difference is that that type of person is likely to be loyal to a fault to society's conventional leaders, and is likely to take an aggressive stance against those who criticize the policies of those leaders. This is why you see "Support Our Troops" decals on a lot of cars and minivans (25% of them?), but very few "Impeach BushCo" bumper stickers.

The strength of the Republican party, at least in recent years, has been its ability to unify its members. The GOP always votes as a block. When you recognize that the voter turnout on the US is regularly somewhere in the 50% range, you can see where 25% of the voters -- if motivated -- can come very close to carrying the election. Democrats and especially Independents tend to vote their conscience, which means Dems may break party ranks of they like the GOP candidate better, and independents will always vote for the person of whatever party who appears to them to be the best candidate.

In other words, the GOP has succeeded because it caters to the type of mentlity that is likely to be loyal beyond questioning, conventional in its outlook, and aggressive in its attitude toward opposing views. Churches and the military are a prime recruiting ground for this type of personality. The party can be motivated by creating wedge issues, which manipulates the aggressive instincts of the base and channels it into attack mode.

Obviously, trying to persuade such people by reasoned argument has small chance of success, and will more likely elicit hostility and personal attacks.

The great strength of the Democratic party is that 75% of the people out there apparantly do not fallinto this category. Their election strategy should always be to cultivate that 75%. The other 25% cannot be reached without resorting to the same tactics the GOP uses, which the party cannot do without losing some of the 75% (the fraction of those who will see both parties as the same, so why bother to vote?) In other words, forget the 25%, and ignore any wedge issues likely to motivate it.

I am not apologist for business as usual by decision makers of any stripe. I simply say that if we care about the future we will create for our kids and grandkids to occupy, we have to start working right now, even if some of our efforts seem to be false starts, and mis-directed. Clarity of purpose is important and I think under all the rage, all the partisan bickering and grousing, people are saying, "I believe in things, important things, and those beliefs have been trampled. I think most of us can agree that we want to live in a reality where Truth, Justice, Compassion, and Empowerment for all are at the foundation of any organizing entity. The discussion of how to get there seems to fragment the vision. Perhaps if we took some time to meditate on the Vision so it was clear and unmistakeable, the Universe would then step in and help co-create that reality. Agreement is not the point---clarity of purpse is.