EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Disintegration of the Bourgeois Brain
This month's U.S. Senate vote to approve Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general essentially sanctioned torture. It is yet another example of Congressional complicity in this Age of Terror with a zealous administration that routinely dismisses Constitutional protections in the name of "national security." Torture joins other overt breaches of justice including the USA PATRIOT Act, spying on Americans, suspension of habeas corpus for foreign nationals, rendition and lying our country into a war. Professor Rudi Siebert, calls this period of our history one marked by the "disintegration of the bourgeois brain."
Siebert, 83, teaches, writes and speaks about religion and society as a full-time professor at Western Michigan University. However, his journey to WMU included experience as a member of the Catholic Youth Movement that opposed Hitler, a draftee into the German Army, an 18-kill fighter pilot against Allied forces, an infantry leader of 250 men against General Patton's tanks and a prisoner of war-all occurring by the time he was 17 years old.
Professor Siebert says that modern Western nations, including the United States as the first constitutional republic, were shaped by the heady 17th and 18th century Enlightenment where "modernism" was born. One of the tenets of modernism is that laws and secular morality are one means of averting violence and war. In the 20th century, international controls like the Geneva Convention, the United Nations, and NATO were designed to foster restraint and discourse as the necessary vehicles to avert war. However, says Siebert, today even these institutions are losing their effectiveness.
Modernism began when the bourgeoisie, comprised of urban middle class merchants, financiers, and intellectuals, emerged as the ruling class and thus superceded the power and authority of the Church and the monarchy. As mercantilism (1600-1800) took hold during the age of exploration and colonialism, society gradually became more secularized and science replaced religion as the primary way of constructing knowledge and reality.
Knowledge and reality could be observed and puzzled out by anyone rather than only by the pronouncements of a king or a priest-just as the Protestant Reformation allowed ordinary, non-clerical people to interpret the Scriptures. Science became the source for Truth rather than belief, superstition, or obedience to an authority. Scientific rationalism provided a systematized decision-making process of critical analysis rather than inspiration or royal decree. These elements made straight the way toward the Industrial Revolution (1750 in England, 1830 in the United States) when the machine became the new hegemon.
Government and economics adopted the scientific method, too, and saw society as a clock, the prevailing image of the Enlightenment: a mechanical device that is measured and constant. Indeed, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were all members of the bourgeoisie, Siebert points out. Contrary to what the Religious Right says, our Founding Fathers used the principles of modernism to create a just society where everyone had an equal chance to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
By the twentieth century, modernism had affected Western society such that some people saw society as fragmented, complex, technological, and economically-oriented. Urban lifestyles overtook rural lifestyles, which impacted values and mindsets. The family also began to disintegrate, communities became more impersonal and transient, and all the values associated with small town life and agriculture were replaced increasingly by a society that resembled the machine with its values of speed, mechanization, mass production, uniformity, atomization, and specialization. The bourgeoisie invented organizations to run this society. These became known as corporations.
Other developments emerged in this new, corporate, technological society. As more and more people streamed into the cities in greater numbers, ideas about tolerance surfaced, minorities and women won their full rights of citizenship, unions worked to provide people a decent living, education became available to all people as a right and the poor and infirm were taken care of by the state. These strides were made possible by the bigger governments of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal-and Hitler's Third Reich.
Siebert says that the 21st century is now seeing these bourgeois values and structures disintegrate with nothing to replace them. The fundamental categories that we use to describe our lives and understand ourselves are no longer there. There is a lack of consistency, even in the language used. Siebert provides some examples:
· Donald Rumsfeld said that he was taught in school never to attack other countries. But now he says that today is different and he helped plan a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. These are language games learned in the university. Actually, it's the Constitution that says we cannot conduct a pre-emptive strike, however, the watchmen over our supreme law of the land are not there-the Congress and the Supreme Court should challenge the president as a matter of duty.
· We pray for our heroic soldiers that they will keep out of harm's way. Yet, they use murderous weapons to kill other people, 90 percent of whom are civilians.
· We have our soldiers bomb civilians to pieces and then pray our enemies don't bomb us. This will weaken any moral existence!
· People say today: "I trust my president." Well, people trusted Hitler, too, some until the end of the war, even with rubble all around them.
· We can't have a war against terrorism because the terrorists are not a state. So we attack a state. The first one was Afghanistan. The second one, Iraq. After that, we plan to attack Iran. Meanwhile, the object of terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large.
The new world order that George H.W. Bush proclaimed after the fall of communism in the late 1980s has become the "new world dis-order," according to Siebert. And war with Iraq makes that "dis-order" even more evident as members of bourgeois institutions are even more shaken, split or made impotent.
"Once you break open the system, all the structures fall," says Siebert. "Bourgeois society is crumbling. There is no opposition party to replace it. Not even a new paradigm can do that. Consequently, in its absence what will we get? In Germany in the 1930s we got fascism."
What the United States gets remains to be seen but some people already believe that we have inadvertently expanded our national security state so that checks and balances and the separation of powers provided by our Constitution are ignored, the opposition party has been silenced and manipulated, elections are fixed and the Bill of Rights are compromised-all in the name of fighting terrorism. But how did this happen to the most free, most powerful, most diverse nation in the world's history? Stay tuned.
Olga Bonfiglio is a professor at Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and author of Heroes of a Different Stripe: How One Town Responded to the War in Iraq. She has written for several national magazines on the subjects of social justice and religion. Her website is www.OlgaBonfiglio.com. Contact her at olgabonfiglio@yahoo.com.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllGovernment and economics adopted the scientific method, too, and saw society as a clock, the prevailing image of the Enlightenment: a mechanical device that is measured and constant.
**it is interesting to contrast this with the previous view of seasons. Cyclical, constant, but not regarded as a human determination like a clock would suggest.
The scientific method as not proven to be any less destructive than previous world views.
Indeed, when coupled with a religious view that is infested with human arrogance and notions of supremacy, it has proven to be immensely destructive.
kelmer, wtf?
I don't particularly like this article. It seems plagued by sweeping generalizations and anachronism, e.g., the founding fathers were all bourgeois, corporations as we know them were invented in the 20th century.
Siebert's credentials as a Gerry fighter don't make him a good thinker. Like he's Hercules or something, a man for all seasons. Please.
I agree with some of the statements, but there's nothing new in this article, and evidence is lacking for most of the assertions. Specifically, I don't see how these assertions, strung together as they are, lead to the crumbling of bourgeois society.
In my opinion, life will suck for many people, but the bourgeoisie will not be affected too much. They aren't under attack.
But how did this happen to the most free, most powerful, most diverse nation in the world's history?
Hmmmm. Could it be that at least some of that superlative historical relativity might be open to question?
ARVY__ I agree that our country has not always had such a glorious history as many of us would like to pretend. However, we seem to have dropped to a new low in what we stand for, even though we preach liberty and freedom, compassion, and peace to others. There are a host of fine folks in America, but they have become so preoccupied with keeping up with our lavish lifestyle or are simply worn out providing for families, that many are not aware of how far we have fallen.
"the Protestant Reformation allowed ordinary, non-clerical people to interpret the Scriptures"
The Protestant states all established state churches to enforce confessional unity. It was against this backdrop that the non-establishment clause was placed in the First Amendment.
@ Kernel: I wholeheartedly agree.
I guess I was just trying to suggest that the article author's viewpoint may itself provide at least a part of the answer to her question. That 'exceptionalist' attitude tends to support an outlook of 'it-can't-happen-here' which, in turn, leads all too often to astounded perplexity about how it did.
The argument isn't that the boojwah order will crumble, or even come under attack, but rather, that at a time when any possiblity is open to the boojwahzee, they have fallen back into forms that were anachronisms centuries ago, i.e., the authoritarian state and military conquest, with a weak opposition front at every level. Constitutional democracy,what there was of it, is itself in question for the boojwahzee, because it's not a profitable venture. The argument is that we're at this point more likely to embrace some form of fascism then democracy. That's all Siebert is saying. He's not saying we will,he's saying given the general trend of events, that we're very likely to.
This is just rehashed Jacque Ellul and Norbert Weiner but Siebert does make one, if unintended, interesting point - that the collapse of the bourgeoisie in Germany led to fascism. I take this as a warning that it may happen here. Unfortunately for Siebert, it already has.
one great flaw in leftist reasoning- the reformation, a revolt on all social levels against the stifling catholic church and the feudal barons- simply replaced one religion with another- capitalism. capitalism is a religion- we are told it works, we believe it works and we all generally worship at its shrines. marx knew this and told us what the end game would be- nmore or less. religion is the opiate of the masses he talked about- but the real religion endeavoring to control all the earth- like the church of rome- is capitalism. it is nowhere, nohow no way ever democratic. what self resprcting corporate leader would allow the great unwashed people to decide how and where he spends his money, pays his workers and affects the environment. None- and this is by LAW. corporate by-laws mandate maximum profit before all other considerations. the sooner we realize thisa the more clear our reasoning can become. capitalism cannot be made democratic. CANNOT. . .
As the conquered of Rome learned, "be weary of Romans bearing gifts".
So, has world learned of America today. The message of spreading democracy is the Trojan horse.
What is really inside that horse, is neo-liberal capitalism,bent on dominating the world.
This article is says pretty much the same that I posted a few days ago. In the late 1600's people like John Locke brought us out of the Dark Ages, and the church began to lose its control of what people could learn and think and science was reborn after centuries of no scientific, or very little, scientific advances. And once the printing press was invented, knowledge spread faster and further.
Some 100 years later, we were in what we call the Age of Enlightenment, where new ideas were brought about on the way a government should be, leading ultimately to the French Revolution and the Independence of America.
This age was full of truly great thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Today, religion again wants to take the world back into a new Dark Age, and as I posted, we need a second Age of Enlightenment.
The government needs to keep Creationism out of the science courses and into the philosophy courses, which is where it belongs: that would be a good first step. We also need to reaffirm and strengthen the separation of church and state. Adding another amendment of separation of corporate and state wouldn't be a bad idea either. Finally, it's time to make better use of the "printing press" and return it to the original purpose of printing all ideas and by as many people as possible, not just five.
Only then might we see a new Age of Enlightenment emerge and avoid a second Dark Age.
You can change institutions all you like, but you cannot change human nature, the great gifts given by our evolution.
The lull of bourgeoisie prosperity, has been enabled by the use of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, mass production and agriculture. So as long as a great surfeit of land, energy and food allowed plenty of waste as well as growth, people could more or less cooperate in reaping the benefits. Even so, common rights had to fought for, by workers, unions, womens groups, representatives of all the discriminated castes. Social status and power is not easily relinquished or achieved.
The testing time for human societies comes in times of real or perceived shortages, when allegiances, friends and enemies, become sharply delineated. Who holds power, who sucks up, who will be identified with the "out" groups. It becomes a mad political war situation of survival by any means. Logic and reason are overcome by strong emotions, drives and allegiences. Survival by definition comes at the expense, death or slavery or deprivation of others. We measure our success by how much others are deprived. We act and produce this result, whether willing or not. Human survival also comes at great price for the non-human biosphere.
What price will it be for survival in the twenty first century?
"But how did this happen to the most free, most powerful, most diverse nation in the world's history?"
Television-induced ADD. We The People are bored with Democracy. It's been, like, over 200 years, okay? It was fun while it lasted, but, like, whatever. Change the channel, let's see if being told what to think, say and do is any fun. Either way, the corporations and top 1% keep stealin, right? Cool.
hybridoma2001 November 23rd, 2007 4:34 pm -- We also need to reaffirm and strengthen the separation of church and state. Adding another amendment of separation of corporate and state wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Of late, it is increasingly difficult to make a distinction. One wonders, in fact, how long it will be before both enjoy tax-free status for their profit-driven enterprises.
Actually, the less difficult of the two aspects of the problem would probably be dealing with the corporate side which merely reflects court awarded "personhood". Putting any kind of kurb on the religious nuts gets one into a whole mess of contitutional issues.
"But how did this happen to the most free, most powerful, most diverse nation in the world's history"
It was easy...the corporate class paid for it with your grandchildren's future.
Arvy----tax free status---when? I think they've pretty much got that sewed up already, don't you? It is an elaborate shell game and we are constantly losing track of the pea.... We pony up and they keep mesmerizing us with the slick smooth shell game.
Why would the Catholic Youth Movement have opposed Hitler, a Catholic deacon who required his elite SS troops to swear an oath of Christianity, whose speeches are filled with the rhetoric of Christian morality, and whose alliance with the Pope is well known?
Stop rewriting history.
The bourgeoisie's freedom is based on its capacity to rise to the top over other inhabitants of the Earth. Their superior brain power, their capacity and inclination to take the initiatives in all endeavour were given full reign because the resources of nature were still abundant relative to the size of the planet's population. This has always been a restrictive freedom.
When more and more inhaitants of planet Earth join this exclusive club of "free people" This exclusive "club" has always had an OPTIMUM size which had to be maintained if the "club" is not to collapse under its own weight. Thus fierce competition inevitably necessitate regular elimination of members from this "club" by hook or by crook. We call this WAR.
The resolution of this contradiction has always come in two forms. One, you can reduce the membership size of this "club" through international wars which eliminate the entire bourgeois class of another country. Two, you reduce the size of the bourgeois class within a single country through instituting fascism. In other words, your reduce or eliminate the "middle Class" which is starting to happen in USA.
HYBRIDOMA2001,
Please also see by comments to your post in Shocked in Death, Shocked in Life: More Than a Taser Story, at November 23rd, 2007 2:50 pm (and earlier at 12:36) here
Namaste
Who is Rudi Siebert?
Bonfiglio claims this Siebert was "a member of the Catholic Youth Movement that opposed Hitler, a draftee into the German Army, an 18-kill fighter pilot against Allied forces, an infantry leader of 250 men against General Patton's tanks and a prisoner of war-all occurring by the time he was 17 years old."
Just for one thing, 18 kills is a HUGE number for a German ace in WW2. And also an infantry captain? You would think there would be a little something about this incredible hero on the web, but there's virtually nothing.
Is this whole article a hoax?
Unfortunately, when enlightenment political concepts do not expand from the political realm into the social and economic, then we can start to observe social and cultural regression.
When Athens, for example, did not expand its form of direct democracy (the male citizen daily adjudicating the law), social democracy (public works projects for the unemployed citizens), economic democracy (small, adequate plots of lands owned by each male citizen), international democracy (The Delos League was the foundation of Athen's Imperium), it reverted to increasingly extreme forms of politics.
The Greek city-states eventually fell to Alexander's father, were the foundation for Alexander's Hellenistic Empire -which formed the bases of the future slave-based Roman Empire.
Today, we need to expand democracy from the formal political sphere into the social, institutional and economic spheres.
If we could, for example, have democratic input over investment and taxation policies, we would not be under the domination of corporate economic dictatorships...which increasingly translate into social and institutional dictatorships.
If we democratically controlled investment decisions, we would then democratically control the tax system, the government budget, and direct how that budget is saved or spent.
However, we can presently observe the fragmentation of many societies and the international system.
In addition to this increasing fragmentation, is the growing lack of reasoning, cultural and craftskills amongst our population and the world's.
We are becoming enslaved to rhythm of the machine and money; the enslaver is the always growing corporation.
Last, I diagree with Siebert when he focuses on the international corporation as a later face of capitalism.
In fact, the emergence of the international corporation actually heralded the birth of world capitalism: The various East Indian Companies, the Hudson Bay Company, the different corporations (or joint stock companies) which were used to sponser many founding British colonies, etc.
The market place is ancient; the market emerges with government backed, transnational corporations.
And the majority are headquartered in the richest nations.
nspire. I have only now read your comment on my post. I only have a little time to spend here and it is time well spent.
Yes, we are a very clever species and can find a way to do almost anything, however atrocious or beneficial.
I read much about the progressive minded folk here in the USA and I also hear and read that we are too divided to present a viable threat to this new Guilded Age. Perhaps that is so. Back during the second constitutional Convention, there was also much division. Slavery is one great example. But they were able to set these dividing issues aside for a later date. What was important at the time was keeping the new nation together, and in that they found a common cause.
I can only hope that the progressives can show the same level of maturity and let some matters stay as they are while we strive to achieve our goal of returning this nation to its founding principles.
I believe the Trilateral Commission was the beginning of the Final Solution we are now seeing executed. It was created in 1973, the brainstorm of Brezinski, but led by David Rockefeller and financed by the Ford Foundation.
The period between 1963 and 1975, with numerous assasinations and attempts to assasinate, not to mention the bloodless assasination of Nixon and the attempts to do Ford so as to have Nelson Rockefeller as President to replace him, seems to be evidence of a war being fought between the liberal and conservative elites. The liberals lost by the way, we are now a one party system, just like you can have coke or pepsi, it's still a soft drink. You can choose between Democrat and Republican, not much different, just a slightly different taste and packaging .
The first TLC President was Carter, and he helped oust the Shah and get him replaced by the Ayatollahs, used the CIA to destabilize Afghanistan prompting the Soviet invasion and justifying creating an army of Islamic Extremists forming Al Qaeda. The Taliban taking over in Afghanistan with our help, and help from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. That led conveniently to 9/11. Accidents to some, conspiracy to others, your choice.
The next 8 years saw Reagan at the helm, and while he was not a TLC'er, his VP Bush was. Bush was involved in helping fuel the Iran-Iraq war by arming both sides and helping Iraq crush the Kurds resistance (ever wonder why Saddam was never tried for his crimes against the Kurds). Of course, we know Gulf War I was orchestrated by Bush by giving Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait (they were steeling Iraq oil by slant drilling and historically was part of Iraq) and setting the stage for a Gulf War II when conditions were right.
Clinton was a TLC'er and although GWB is not, his VP Cheney was.
Brezinski in his book written in 1970, Between Two Ages, said that liberal democratic societies would accept an authoritarian form of government (dictatorship) if the choices were between a dictatorship and social and intellectual disorder. He also said there would be a new monetary system to replace the dollar, and a reduced standard of living would be required in order to achieve it (it's happening today, dollar being devalued 80% against the Euro and Oil up to 100 dollars a barrel).
I believe events of the last 25 years have been carefully orchestrated to lead up to this point to set the stage for the One World Government that's been desired since the days the Fed was created in 1913, moving on to the CFR creation in 1922, the Bildeberg Group in 1954. This government will be Totalitarian Socialist or Fascist, not Democratic, China is the model, and it's coming soon, after the dollar crash, global depression and WW III (starts with Iran). After that, Americans will be ready for any form of government that keeps them safe and feeds them. Sheep have to be kept safe and well fed, don't you know, no pun intended.
This Siebert is completely lacking in credibility unless the author has left something out. A commander of 250 troops in our army would be at least the rank of a captain commanding a full and likely over strength company, and as far as being a fighter pilot, there this same "hero" was fighting on the side of the Nazis against us. How the hell was he opposing the Nazis at all if this is the case. That's almost as convincing as saying an officer commanding a Confederate army company and doing other such things during our civil war was opposing slavery. Give me a break. This individual seems to have done all he could to keep the Third Reich going. Where is his opposition if any to the Nazis? He was "drafted" into the army, but he goes out and gets into the air force to help defeat our side and defend the Third Reich.
Siebert makes some interesting points.
The problem with corporatism is that it lacks a soul. The monk/writer Thomas Merton likened it to an ignorant cyclops. This beast is blind to spiritualism. Like the fascist, he operates in a one-dimensional universe, unable to reflect on his blatant faults.
The intoxication of greed, and its insidious twin, materialism, have proven too seductive. The Rockefeller fortune has surpassed a trillion dollars. This reminds us of the French Revolution, which saw similar distances between rich and poor.
History repeats itself.
The world's military - industrial network is evil and despicable. A greed/virus has hijacked humanity. We have been subverted by the underworld. These malignant criminals control banking, the arms supply, and most governments. Even the United Nations cannot help. Our leaders are impotent and duplicitous. If we fail to understand the fraud, we will be condemned to suffer, interminably.
This Trilateral Commision rant is getting into a real off the wall conspiracy theory, which isn't to say some conspiracy theories aren't facts, but this is a bit much. Same holds for coincidence theories.
It seems to me that we should look from where we came; Europe. This is the only part of the world that has progressed significantly. Universal healthcare, 4 weeks vacation, unlimited paid sick leave, (verified by physicans), and 80% or more turnout for elections, publicly financed elections, lobbying illegal, and managed capitalism.
Having lived there for 18 years, they have far surpassed us. The wealthy there have nothing but distain for the wealthy here. They realize that moderate distribution of wealth is what keeps crime low, keep the poor from destitution, and all have food, clothing, and shelter.
"...how did this happen to the most free, most powerful, most diverse nation in the world's history?"
We let lying, cheating, thieving, murdering people, conservatives all, take over our government.
I have to apologize for my skepticism about Professor Siebert's military record. He was 17 in 1945, when all the older boys were already dead, and he was drawn upward through the ranks by the vacuum at the top.
This godawful demographic detail is only one of the many aspects of the horror of war which are all too likely to escape the perspicuity of people like me, who have never experienced anything of the sort.
I was born at the very end of World War II and never thought that what is now happening to this nation would ever take place. Apparently, however, nations, like the human body or a machine, simply wear out. A large part of this nation can now be described by the title of that very funny movie: Idiocracy. It is now entirely acceptable, even cool, to be stupid and uninformed. And that's "disintegration".
If he was a fighter pilot in the Nazi air force after being commander of an overstrength at minimum German army company, which I'd bet it was, then he sure did a lot to defend the Third Reich and not anything in this article shows he did one thing to oppose it. Please, let's have something besides the say so of what seems to be somebody who wants to make excuses for fighting on the side of the worst tyranny in human history.
Heavily Catholic areas of Germany were the most supportive of the Nazis, and the heavily Protestant ones were the most opposed to them, and that's documented fact. This support for fascism varies from one country to another, but that was the case in Germany. Also today the most Protestant of areas tend to be more progressive, and the more Catholic areas of Germany tend to be much less so. The Social Democrats when they were real Social Democrats, were strongest in Protestant areas in Germany and weakest in Catholic ones.
HYBRIDOMA2001,
Thank you responding to my post, and yes, cleverness can be equally likely be used for auspicious or detrimental causes.
You write that : "able to set these dividing issues aside for a later date. What was important at the time was keeping the new nation together, and in that they found a common cause. _snip
I can only hope that the progressives can show the same level of maturity and let some matters stay as they are while we strive to achieve our goal of returning this nation to its founding principles."
Yes, that is our common cause and although a tough burden to swing, we're likely better able to do so (EQ/IQ, health, support, connection, knowledge access) than those historical figures -- except for that terrible plague of massive media inertia and manipulation, where access to unfettered funding is the new truth.
I know that people of means will step forward when they realize the ship will otherwise be sinking soon, and promise not to call them "rats" (maybe just Disney characters).
Namate
Hannah Arendt in her work "Responsibility and Judgment" writes that one of the precursors of the Holocaust was a complete collapse of morality in Germany in the 1930s. Traditional German morality proved to be as easily changeable as a change in table manners.
Americans sold out freedom for consumer goods and comfort. Solution: kill you mind by drinking beer and watching endless football.
The whole article is an example of the type of revisionism which is constantly perpetuated by the corporate governments. Suposedly, it is to be believed unquestionably because the author claims to be a professor and must know best, but since the history and the analysis do not stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps it is only meant as an instructive tool so that people can see with clarity how the scumbags who presently rule the corporate governments abuse their control of the media in order to keep the general population ignorant.
It is particularly amusing that the theme of the article is encapsulated in;
"Bourgeois society is crumbling. There is no opposition party to replace it. Not even a new paradigm can do that. Consequently, in its absence what will we get? In Germany in the 1930s we got fascism."
....as if to warn that to work for a better system is to get a worse one, so it is best to keep the devil we've got and don't rock the boat.
the writer equates the democrats with the republicans. When have I heard this before? When Nader said that Gore was like Bush.
How different our world would be if Gore had gotten elected.
There are choices one may not be perfect but neither are they both the same.
That would be total defeatist to say they are the same. We know full well that a third party will not be overcoming the others any time soon.
Pick a reasonable choice that has a chance to really win- vote for any democrat is better than anybody running on that Republican ticket where they want to outdo themselves on bombing Iran, stuffing more people into Guantanamo, strengthening the death penalty and all and every penalty they can come up with.
HRC hasn't got a chance with the highest negatives of anyone in ages running for president before the campaign or the GOP attack machine have even got started. If you want to keep the presidency in GOP hands and have a GOP congress, by all means vote for Hilary Rodham Klanton, and that's just what will happen. Now deal with that reality.
Third parties have just as much of a chance as the major parties, if people would stop saying what can't be done. Can't never could do anything.
Al Gore didn't get to the White House, and he didn't deserve to. I didn't vote for the dawg, and I don't damn regret it. Gore himself said in the debates with W in 2000 he didn't see the difference between his views and W's, and he has since he still has about the same opinions as he did then. Thus we didn't and don't need him. How about that for an inconvenient truth?