Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Industry Cash Flowed to Drafters of Reform
Key Senator Baucus Is a Leading Recipient
As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) addresses confirmation hearing for Ron Kirk to be U.S. trade representative before the Senate Finance Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington March 9, 2009. (REUTERS/Hyungwon Kang) At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms.
"Most people there had an agenda; they wanted the ear of a senator, and they got it," said Aaron Roland, a San Francisco health-care activist who paid half price to attend the gathering. "Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside."
As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus's political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year's reform debate.
Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator's often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes "Camp Baucus," a "trip for the whole family" that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.
To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show.
Baucus declined requests to comment for this article. Spokesman Tyler Matsdorf said the senator "is only driven by one thing: what is right for Montana and the country. And he will continue his open process of working together with the president, his colleagues in Congress, and groups and individuals from across the nation to get this legislation passed."
Baucus's fundraising prowess underscores the enduring political strength of the health-care lobby, which led all other sectors in donations to federal candidates during the last election cycle and has shifted its giving to Democrats as the party has tightened its control of Congress.
The sector gave nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of this year, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the $5.4 million donated by health-care companies and their employees, the data show.
Many of these contributions have been focused on Baucus, Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and other senators in the moderate camps of their respective parties, whose votes could prove crucial in a final health-care reform deal, as well as the leaders of five key committees leading the debate. Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, received more than $2 million from the health and insurance sectors since 2003. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) took in $1.6 million from the health sector and its employees over the past two years; ranking Republican Dave Camp (Mich.) received nearly $1 million.
But Baucus, a senator from a sparsely populated and conservative Western state who is serving his sixth term, stands out for the rising tide of health-care contributions to his campaign committee, Friends of Max Baucus, and his political-action committee, Glacier PAC. Baucus collected $3 million from the health and insurance sectors from 2003 to 2008, about 20 percent of the total, data show. Less than 10 percent of the money came from Montana.
Top out-of-state corporate contributors included Schering-Plough, New York Life Insurance, Amgen, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield; individual executives such as Richard T. Clark, chief executive and president of drugmaker Merck, have also made regular donations. Most of these companies, particularly major insurers, strongly oppose a public insurance option, which is favored by President Obama and top House Democrats but has not received support from Baucus's committee.
Baucus is a longtime centrist in the Democratic caucus, and his committee chairmanship has made him a key broker in the health-reform debate. Many former Baucus staff members, including two chiefs of staff, lobby on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and other health-care players and have been closely involved in negotiations on the legislation.
John Jonas, a Patton Boggs health-care lobbyist who has attended a Baucus fly-fishing event and other fundraisers, said the Montana senator is "key to getting anything done" when it comes to health-care legislation.
"This is not an overwhelmingly liberal Congress, and it's certainly not a liberal Senate," said Jonas, whose clients include Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Northwestern Mutual. "I think Max is uniquely situated to try to accomplish that, because he's more of a centrist and moderate Democrat than others are."
But Jerry Flanagan, a health-care analyst with Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group, said the tide of campaign contributions amounts to "a huge down payment" by companies that expect favorable policies in return. "That is the cold reality of big-money politics," he said.
Baucus won easy reelection in the fall, but he has continued to hold fundraisers since then. In addition to the fly-fishing event, he held his "Eighth Annual Ski and Snowmobile Weekend" in Big Sky in February and celebrated the start of his sixth term with a $10,000-a-table dinner at the Washington Court Hotel later that month. Aides say another fundraiser scheduled for July 7 at Bistro Bis in Capitol Hill was scrapped.
Baucus's office declined to provide attendance and donation details about his fundraising events, and federal records laws do not require such disclosures. Starting in June, aides say, Baucus adopted an internal office policy to refuse contributions from health-care PACs and to continue doing so until after Congress passes reform legislation.
But new Federal Election Commission documents filed last week show that individual lobbyists and others with health-care connections continued to make contributions to Baucus committees throughout June. Examples from Baucus's Glacier PAC include $5,000 from the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America and $2,500 from lobbyists with U.S. Strategies, which represents numerous health-care firms. Overall, half of the $110,000 in donations to the PAC from April to June came from health-care firms and lobbyists, including Schering-Plough, Medtronic and New York Life.
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the Public Citizen advocacy group, said the continued fundraising by Baucus during the health-care debate is "very troubling."
"He's doing all this fundraising right in the middle of this effort to mark up a bill," Holman said. "When you put these events close to matters concerning these lobbyists, clearly it's a signal. You are expected to show up with a check."
Baucus and his aides strongly dispute any assertion that campaign contributions have an impact on the senator's policy views and proposals. Aides say he has frequently backed policies opposed by health-care companies, including support for greater availability of generic drugs, allowing drug imports from Canada and cutting payments to the Medicare Advantage plan.
During an interview earlier this year with the Missoulian newspaper, Baucus said that "no one gets special treatment." He added: "Your word is your bond back there."
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
- Posted in



71 Comments so far
Show AllThat's not really a smile on Baucus' face.
He's being tickled by the wads of hundred dollar bills being stuffed down his drawers.
Nice!
"Shocked... shocked!"
"To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show."
Have you seen the cartoon of Dracula sinking its fangs into the Statue of Liberty? You can see it here: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schoon/2009/0720.html
Thanks for the link, Gail (I think).
Reading the beginning of the article you linked to, I found this statement to be the truth, and a harbinger of times to come: "…organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy." And this title: "DEMOCRACY’S BIRTH WAS AN IMPROBABLE EVENT, IT’S DEATH LESS SO."
I am having a particularly hard time now with what I know and see. Having just moved my daughter to the big city, I can't help but feel as if I have abandoned her there. She's excited to start her new life in a place she has always wanted to be, but I am struggling with remorse, and some dread.
I want my daughter to find her wings and live her own life. I want her to succeed and enjoy what life has to offer her. Yet, I am afraid. Not only for her, but for my son who is going through a painful transition in his own life. More importantly, I am afraid because their future is so tenuous, given what I know, what I see.
We have arrived at this place by going down what seems to be a one-way street. There seems to be no way to turn around, and it's so difficult to watch helplessly as this car gets closer to hitting the big wall. Maybe this is a good time to find religion. Maybe we'll need it soon. (No, religion never solved a thing).
Barack Obama can't fix this. Ralph Nader can't fix this. I'm not even sure God could fix this (if there is one). What we seem to be experiencing is the hockey stick on the graph, where devolution is coming at an exponential rate and everything we do just hastens our descent. So many problems on so many fronts and much of what is being done is exactly what has caused the problems.
Sorry to sound like such a downer, but I can see signs everywhere I turn in this country, and the signs all point toward the wall.
And so, I once again must focus my attention on my own life and that of my family. I will continue to do what I can to live in a more sustainable way, and to teach myself to live without, to make do with what I have and what's around me. I will keep reaching out to people, but I will not try to influence anyone, certainly not politicians. The political system works, but it doesn't work for the people.
"The lofty intent of those who founded the US has today been effectively subverted. Democracy no longer serves the role intended by America’s founding fathers. Today, democracy serves instead the special interests that control America through a highly compromised, manipulated and mis-named “democratic process”.
Control of the democratic process is not difficult. It is done with money, money given to politicians who raise campaign funds by selling out those they are elected to serve. This is not only true for most Republicans and Democrats. It is true for most nations."
Godspeed.
"Barack Obama can't fix this. Ralph Nader can't fix this. I'm not even sure God could fix this (if there is one)."
This is not correct. Obama can fix it but he refuses to do so and he's lost one voter for doing that. Nader? He hasn't even been elected so you can't be so sure.
"The political system works, but it doesn't work for the people."
The political system works, but PURPOSELY AGAINST the people. Ignorance is not strength but denial of weakness.
the entire democratic process in the USA is corrupt, in short it is nothing more than a well-managed show that gives the shallow illusion of choice. Noam Chomsky calls it "a sham democracy"
Steven Hill wrote a book a couple of years ago with some great suggestions (not easy though)"10 Steps to Repair American Democracy"
So you are saying Obama can change the System?
The system is Global beyond the power of Obama who has only more Debt to offer now 24 trillion and rising.
I haven't heard any candidate including Nader, start from this Reality.
The system is doomed by debt...If we are lucky a revolution of common sense will save us something.
"So you are saying Obama can change the System?"
Yes and he's already doing it IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. When Obama can push for the wrong direction, he sure as hell can push for the right direction. I am tired of allowing Obama to make excuses and am switching my registration to Independent. The system can be changed but I believe that thanks to the West corrupting and ruining the lives of those in the East, Lord Shiva is PUNISHING THE WEST with such blindness and powerlessness feelings !
I agree things are gonna get worse and Obama is helping in the wrong direction... more War economics and debt.
May your switching to Independent help change this direction. Hope is about all we got.
Well, I've been an indie for 10 years and it hasn't made a damned bit of difference.
As for Obama, Nader, or King Tut - go ahead and believe in figureheads, folks - may as well pray to totems.
We are on our own and the sooner we realize this and start banding as THE People, the better. Don't wait too long, time is not on our side.
"Well, I've been an indie for 10 years and it hasn't made a damned bit of difference."
Ouch ! Being an indie, I felt better that I wasn't voting for a sinner every time and I understood the issues better than if I went by the duopoly soundbites. I wished I could help you out on where you missed the beauty of being an indie and get you back on track but if you ever want to come back, I'll be happy to assist as will BeForKids.
"We are on our own and the sooner we realize this and start banding as THE People, the better. Don't wait too long, time is not on our side."
We all know that but we can't just ignore the undeniable fact that they're playing us for the puppets.
I'm still an indie, Jennifer. And, I'm still a sinner so will probably still vote for sinners. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As for them playing us for puppets - it takes two to play, doesn't it?
I don't know how many it takes to play us for puppets. Some choose to do it, some don't. The ones who don't get persecuted at. That's all I can tell.
And what the hell is he going to get by pushing against a Congress that is bought by the same interests as he is? Oh yeah, he'll get an early exit, that's what.
Obama is no saint, but stupid, he ain't!
Stop wasting your time on fucking politicians. The best you can vote for is the lesser of the evils. The rest is up to us. That's reality!
"The best you can vote for is the lesser of the evils."
Ted, Ted, Ted. :)
Technically, the best option is 3rd parties but I can see where that "winnability" feeling makes that one difficult.
Been there, done that, and the t-shirt is sitting at the bottom of my dresser drawer.
Change the puppets but you'll still have the same puppeteers.
Hmmm, I'm going to guess that it's the left out feeling of being indie? I can see how that would be difficult to overcome that feeling. I still don't think everyone's a puppet. Some just choose to be puppets at least as far as politics is concerned.
But, but, but...you're the one who said we're being played for puppets!
Whatever, I choose not to play in the election sandbox. Far too inconsequential once Big Money is taken into account...as this article point out clearly.
If you and Kathy want to create another party, Godspeed to you. I really wish you well. I just choose not to invent that wheel all over again.
"And what the hell is he going to get by pushing against a Congress that is bought by the same interests as he is? Oh yeah, he'll get an early exit, that's what."
That's not true. George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan pushed against Congress and neither of them were given an early exit.
"Obama is no saint, but stupid, he ain't!"
What? Just what makes him any smarter? I guess you like it when he and his staff return very nasty replies to people like myself who share our concerns politely don't you?
"Stop wasting your time on fucking politicians. The best you can vote for is the lesser of the evils. The rest is up to us. That's reality!"
That's an example of blissful ignorance. But I'll leave you at that because Lord Krishna is PUNISHING THE WEST for trying to bully the East. Yes, let's ignore the politicians by paying them more taxes and allowing them to give us the middle finger and then let's be a bunch of dum dums and reelect them because they're the lesser of the evils according to your limited vision and let's keep having more wars with the Eastern nations and keeping angering them. Materialism and greed is fine with you and that's why Lord Krishna is PUNISHING THE WEST by making them blissfully ignorant. I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing when China's finally taken over the USA and made her pay off their debts but this country deserves it. The West shall receive the karma it deserves then.
Ranjit Kumar July 21st, 2009 7:48 pm
"George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan pushed against Congress and neither of them were given an early exit."
Of course they weren't given an early exit! Everything they pushed for was for the benefit of big money interests - not the citizens of this country.
Talk about blissful ignorance! Who the hell do you think runs this world?
"The system is Global beyond the power of Obama..."
Absolutely correct, and that is the reality. We may have no answers, but if we don't see the picture clearly we don't have a prayer.
"Baucus and his aides strongly dispute any assertion that campaign contributions have an impact on the senator's policy views and proposals."
This is basically the last sentence that would be used by the corporate-mdeia talking heads in the highly unlikely event that this story made it into the mainstream news.
q
Since the senator's unalterable policy of acting in accordance with whatever the wishes of his paid sponsors might be was established long before he actually received their contributions, he and his aides are actually telling the truth.
This is a Washington Post story, which is considered mainstream news. Which is of course why that statement is in there.
'OK I took three million in bribes, but I didn't let that influence my vote.'
Is that what he thinks is so goddamned funny?
I live in Montana, and yes, it does have a strong conservative streak. Believe it or not, Baucus gets slammed here for being too liberal! I sure hope someone comes along to fill that seat in the future who's a true progressive. Not too far-fetched, there is a history of populism here. It just takes the right kind of leadership to draw on that tradition and cast it in contemporary terms.
I know a couple of his staff people here in Billings. When I first moved here, 16 years ago, I voiced to them some displeasure at his position on some matters. I was told, "Max believes you get more done by compromise." Right.
The people who slam MB for being too "liberal" don't even know what the word means to begin with. Maybe Brian Schweitzer can take his place. Other than his plan to stripmine MT for the purpose of coal-to-gas, I hear he's a populist governor. What do you think of the governor so far?
...and yet nobody in the US will do a damn thing about this situation but bitch online, send some angry e mails basically no one will read and elect the lesser of two evils every few years. As George Carlin said, these a$$holes come from our neighborhoods, our best schools and we vote for them, we never question the fundamental flaws of the system, this obviously (given that we don't seem to have any better ideas we're willing to consider) is the best we can do...at least in this system. There are always scum like this around to suck on the public tit, he couldn't get into this position without us voting him in and doing nothing to change anything. Change starts not by electing the right person to office, it starts inside each of us, first by allowing ourselves to give alternate ideas a chance. We have no one to blame but ourselves and that will be the case until we do more than bitch, sit on our asses and do nothing and vote for the same crooks. I know I'm preaching to the choir, still, what else is there really to say?
There really is nothing more to say, Wilber1.
I think most of us here get this at some level. We at least sense that the system is broken. Actually, it isn't broken, it works very well for the people who have rigged it to work for them. At our expense, of course. But for us, the system is broken and cannot possibly help us because it isn't ours.
I'm totally with you on the bit about change starting within each of us. This has been so throughout the ages, yet people have fought it until it has broken them.
A parable: The Mighty Missouri was steaming full speed ahead during a stormy night when it came upon the light of an approaching vessel. The captain of the Mighty Missouri radioed the other ship to heel to port. No answer. The captain repeated his order and again, no answer. Finally, with little time to spare, the captain bellowed into the radio, "This is the captain of the Mighty Missouri, I order you to heel hard to port immediately or I will sink you!" Finally, there was a response: "This is a lighthouse."
When we come upon immovable objects, we have a choice: Turn, or crash. We are not turning and the lighthouse is fast approaching. We sit and see that we're about to crash, yet we keep railing against the same immovable object as if it's going to change course. It won't.
We must change ourselves. That is the only course left. The System is the lighthouse and it cannot change its course - we must change OUR course. We must see what is important and start heading that way - away from the lighthouse.
Repeated post.
REpeated post.
Repeated post.
"and yet nobody in the US will do a damn thing about this situation but bitch online"
Like you?
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. Not that I disagree with many of the sentiments here but speak for yourself Wilber1. You have no idea what the rest of us have or have not done.
Well, yeah, like Wilber1, but also like so many of us, including me sometimes. There is much to be frustrated about, so it's understandable that it comes out. I often make the same case that folks bitch online, but we just see a small segment of society here, and even some those who do bitch also do things to help ameliorate the problem.
Still and all, if we bitch we should balance it with some kind of action.
A vicious cycle: it is called "the collective action dilemma"
Unless people stop assuming someone else will take care of our problems and act collectively to bring about change, we can expect very little if anything.
I don't hear any prominent progressives organizing massive civil disobedience. I would like to see a general strike and millions of people take to the streets and shut down the country for a few days. That is the only thing that can get the ruling class's attention.
It may get the billionaires attention, and then who will be hurt by the strike, the people or the ruling class?
We have no Strike fund to outlast the Ruling class.... so it becomes violent usually.
And when it gets violent in the streets would it hurt the people or the military who would beat us down or worse?
I see your point, but I don't see demonstrations changing much of anything like more jobs, single payer, less Debt. Yes, it would get some media attention and they always frame it like we are trouble makers, since the media is owned but not by us.
The vast majority has seen this played out here and everywhere so if you can't see a demonstration or strike as more than getting attention, I am not sure at this point it would make things better.... maybe worse.
There is collective action but collective punishment is always planned and well organized to deal with it.
I have been in many demonstrations and sometimes they make me feel better and sometimes they are traps and infiltrated with provocateurs and agents.
I just hope we can find a better way to react to our predicament that is not so damn dissipating and disappointing.
Now if the Left and the Right in general got together on the basic need for change, there could be some progress.
The people are divided by the ruling class, so we need to find a way to get together.
I don't know how exactly, but I think about that dream a lot.
"I have been in many demonstrations and sometimes they make me feel better and sometimes they are traps and infiltrated with provocateurs and agents."
I've been in a couple of demonstartions and neither did a damn thing to change policy. Not one damned thing. Matter of fact, I think the Rulings like to see us demonstrate. They know we're blowing off steam while they continue on their merry way. Also, they watch and learn.
And yes, provocateurs and agents abound, and not just on the streets.
Please correct me if I overlooked something, but when was there massive civil disobedience in the USA in the last decade or so?
I am not talking about a piddly demonstration, I am talking about true COLLECTIVE ACTION, the likes we have not seen in this country. Of course the dilemmma is there, people expect someone else will solve the problems for them, and just sit idly by waiting. Unfortunately they will be waiting forever. If we settle for nothing now, we will settle for nothing later.
Well, you know, I could go for massive collective action. I just wonder how that would get going. Would there be some kind of organized effort, or would it spring up organically? If the former, I'm not sure it could get off the ground what with all the tactics that the gov't/military has to head it off before it gets going (COINTELPRO II?). If the latter, then all we can do is our own personal actions and hope to hell that enough people join in.
I like this from a website:
"Change your vibrational energy. What we think really does have a big impact on what we feel, see, experience. We do pull specific experiences into our realms, so change the frequency.
Take a moment to breath. Go outside of yourself, and tune into your higher self. Believe that you have a higher self to tune into.
You can do this by willing it, and by thinking it. It all begins in the mind. That is where we can start to affect change."
Nothing kumbaya about this, just that the second we change ourselves, we start to change the way we relate to the world. And the more we unplug from the system, the less power it has over us. There is no way to stop collective individual change (other than psyops). No way.
I hear you Jim, however the demonstrations we have had in recent years in the USA, do not have the critical mass required, given the size of our population. If enough people joined in, theoretically at least, there would not be enough resources to stop it, and does not necessarily have to turn violent.
Civil disobedience need not cost that much (especially relative to what the status quo is costing us): just a couple of days without pay (for those that still have a steady job). It is not a panacea for our problems, merely a tool that has not yet been used to deman real change. The democratic process we have now is clearly broken and ineffective in bringing about the wishes and preferences of the people. I don't see any alternative, frankly.
I do not believe the Right and Left can get together, the Right are clearly fighting tooth, nail and 100s of millions of dollars to maintain a system that benefits the ruling elite. Much of the so-called Left has been co-opted by the Right. (just look at the Democratic party)
Civil disobedience worked in India, South Africa, and even in the USA in the past MLK Jr. and Vietnam war protests (although I was not around then) are good examples.
In recent times in France, when Psycho Sarko tried to take away some worker protections for young people (18-24) the whole country was shut down by massive civil disobedience, and Sharko had to back down. These are legal protections no one has in the USA (unless you have a contract that specifies them)
There are multiple problems about how people in the US are dealing with these issues, and we on the "left" have to take a lot of responsibility for this. When I've gone to protests or marches the cops say, "that over there is the free speech zone", and the group of people (myself included) go to that zone and obey. Where the hell is the fight? If something is unjust, if the idea of a "free speech zone" is wrong (and I would say unconstitutional) why do we not step over the line and call their bluff? Well, one reason is that you need A LOT of people to do this and a few dozen unknown activists getting arrested doesn't change anything. Hell, it only gives the state more money in court fees and the like. People don't have the moral foundation to feel compelled to do something about this, I read about working people in the 20th century being morally repulsed at things like poverty and exploitation and I wish more people had that fire. Maybe it was their personal connection to that poverty that repulsed them, now poor people and countries are really an abstraction from their day to day lives. Still, we on the left have gotten through and made the abstract real to working people and the “leaders” of the former working class organizations (like unions) are ineffective crooks entirely owned and controlled by the Democratic Party, who could care less about working people in between elections. I know people like Chomsky say that more people are involved in campaigns now, and that there has been progress, but there also has been a regression as well.
"Now if the Left and the Right in general got together on the basic need for change, there could be some progress."
There are fundamental differences though on how the "left" and the "right" see social relations, economics (especially in regards to the relations that poor people and countries have with rich people and countries), amongst other things. If you align with people you have a fundamental difference with it will only work for a short while, the contradictions eventually take over. In the 20th century many social movements and national liberation movements created "popular fronts" that united the left and the right and almost without exception the popular fronts turned their guns on each other at some point and negated a good portion of what they fought for and gained. Vijay Prashad's "A People's History of the Third World" and LS Stavrianos' "Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age" documents this well. Just something to think about.
How in the world would you know what I do? Assume for a second I'm not a blazing hyprocrite. I have friends that are well versed on the issues, who always post like we do online about what needs to be done and they don't do jack crap. Maybe it doesn't apply to YOU, but look at the amount of people doing a damn thing about these issues, very small numbers, and most people don't do anything but vote crooks into office then bitch that they're crooks.
I have been active, right now I'm living in Asia, will be back in a few months. I have been active though for years, I see the same few dozen people involved in the campaigns I've worked on and most people think that if they watch their American Idol at night, vote for the right person and send a well worded angry e mail, the world will make itself right. It's been impossible to get people involved, which I have to take responsibility for, obviously I am not very convincing and obviously these issues don't necesitate them doing much of anything.
Millions of ordinary Americans who have no special interest in politics, who get their pablum called news from 30 minute segments on the MSM, who are tired after work and from dealing with any number of personal/family problems, have to get interested in politics, have to stick their heads out the window and say I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Short of that, nothing will change. And as you wrote, what else is there to say?
The U.S. is a lost cause. There's nothing progressives in this country can do but move to Europe or Canada or Australia and try and stop big business and religious fundamentalists from taking over there.
Please find someone to buy my house in Florida. I would be so gone so fast.
I urge you to take a look at the link that Gail posted above. I am quoting one paragraph that will talk to your solution of moving to another country: "Control of the democratic process is not difficult. It is done with money, money given to politicians who raise campaign funds by selling out those they are elected to serve. This is not only true for most Republicans and Democrats. It is true for most nations."
I suppose there are a few nations left where money hasn't totally taken over. I have a notion of which ones fall into this category, but I also know that many are not taking immigrants because their systems are already burdened with them. And even if they are taking immigrants, isn't it just a matter of time before they too succumb? You can run...
Judging by the protests in France, the public there seems to know how to counter the influence of money when it counts most.
Unfortunately, there's no viable alternative to emigration that I can see.
Reforming the GOP is a non-starter, and the Democratic Party is now a subsidiary of the GOP. (Even supposely progressive Democrats are totally subservient to the conservative majority.) A third party or independent movement is also a non-starter, since the vast majority of Americans won't vote outside the duopoly. Even if they would, the duopoly controls elections, and would further restrict already-restrictive ballot access laws.
Violent revolution is out as well, because America has gotten too old and most people are relatively satisfied with the status quo anyway. The few who might be willing to go that route tend to be extremely right wing in their beliefs, and we would likely wind up in a Christian police state.
Outside of suicide then, the only way out for liberal Americans is emigration. While it might not be easy to get into Britain or Australia these days, there are other options, both in Europe and elsewhere. It's time we let go of the third party pipe dream and leave this country while we still can.
"While it might not be easy to get into Britain or Australia these days, there are other options, both in Europe and elsewhere. It's time we let go of the third party pipe dream and leave this country while we still can."
Believe me, this has crossed my mind more than once. However, their systems are far from perfect. Britain is even more beset by immigrants than the US, and they are surveilled by the gov't more than we. Australia...dunno. They have had a hellatious drought for years and are in trouble. Scandinavia is attractive, but I'm sure they have their own probs.
Suicide is always an option, but it would make the Rulings happier and I'm not into that.
How about one more option? Howsabout we don't wait for any organizing and just unplug from the System in whatever ways we can. Slowly or in one fell swoop, we buy less, work less, pay less in taxes, go to fewer places, eat less, and just...start living as lightly as possible, consuming lightly and mindfully, until we...just...slowly...imperceptively...starve this System of its life blood...the source of the illness that is corrupting this world and killing its inhabitants.
Can we each do it? No organizing necessary. No permits or groups. No voting or waiting or writing. Just being. Mindfully, peacefully, purposefully...unplugging from this thing, this matrix. Can we do it? I've started.