I think Ralph is wrong when he says the problem is the two party system when the problem is the conservative takeover of both parties.
If Big Money conservatives can take over the supposedly liberal Democrat Party, what's to keep them from taking over a third party?
Posted by Marco Nanto
Nov 4 2009 - 1:59pm
Ralph isn't wrong to say that the current two party system is at fault. It's both the takeover of the two parties and the resigning nature of those two parties to the conservative takeover that upsets not only Nader but the rest of us as well. Whichever third party is to succeed those two must be kept away from big money and conservative takeover as much and as long as possible. That doesn't mean that we should rule out putting third parties on the table for consideration.
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 4 2009 - 2:36pm
This is a specious argument. The Republicans are conservatives to begin with so they weren't taken over. The resigning nature of the Democrats to the conservative takeover is because of the conservative takeover.
If what you mean is that Democrats should have said no to conservative Big Money's campaign bribes, then it's an issue of a corrupt system of campaign financing, not a two party issue.
With publicly financed campaigns, IRV, proportional representation and other electoral reforms, third parties would grow all by themselves. But CONSERVATIVES in both parties are putting the screws to third parties and screwing everybody else.
It's the conservatives, stupid! (No offense meant.)
Posted by socialist
Nov 4 2009 - 3:26pm
Ralph is right on the money, so is Chomsky. We can go one step further and say that for a candidate to even make it onto the ballot it is a function of money. In almost all cases the candidate with the most money wins (Bloomberg just pulled it off again). The people don't have a real choice in the matter. Now add the winner takes all election system, (not to mention the fraud) and we get two only two parties.
Here is an illustration of winner takes all:
Party R gets 39% of the vote
Party D gets 38%
all other parities get 23%
In our system the winner is the Rs. That means (assuming everyone votes) that the majority of votes do not count. Is that democratic?
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 4 2009 - 3:59pm
I agree with what you say, but my point is about Big Money CONSERVATIVES taking over both parties. I think its important to understand that its the conservatives that have the concentrated capital to get their agenda enacted in a hurry while poor lib Dems and third parties remain in debating mode, deciding when and how to unite against what issue. And that even third parties are not immune to a right or left wing conservative takeover.
I'm convinced libs hurt themselves by not recognizing the fact that the modern con is not the frugal, careful, traditional, nice person of the old days but the robbing, raping, murdering, lying, conniving, polluting, global warming berserker of today and the nice, frightened little old conservative church lady that votes for them.
Posted by socialist
Nov 4 2009 - 5:04pm
We'll have to agree to disagree here. In my view if the system is not democratic, the entire show is a sham. The winner takes all system results in minority rule. A de-facto one party state. The differences between the two parties is largely rhetorical and stylistic.
Obama, for example, is a brilliant speaker and can tell a lie without a smirk. Yet, he supports the Bankster thefts, imperialism, Israeli crimes, pardoning Bush/Cheney. Hell, he even appointed Robert "uncle Bob" Gates as Def. Sec. A Bush family crony!The same laissez-faire, Milton Friedmanite crooks like Summers, Rubin and Geithner are in power. And just look at the health care BS etc. etc.
The two party system means the Ds can say: "You don't like Obama, to f-in bad, what are you going to do, vote Republican?" Bill Clinton is quoted as saying something very similar in Howard Zinn's Poeople's History of the US.
I voted for McKinney knowing that she had no chance at all due to the rigged phony election system as well as the obscene amounts of money required to buy into office. Yet I still voted for purely symbolic reasons.
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 4 2009 - 8:14pm
"In my view if the system is not democratic, the entire show is a sham."
Any system run by conservatives (Reps, Dems, right wing and left wing) can't possibly be democratic.
The opposite of "liberal" is really not the nice sounding word "conservative", but "authoritarian". Authoritarianism leads to centralized power, concentrated wealth and dictatorship.
Posted by Amfortas wound
Nov 4 2009 - 11:01pm
"The opposite of "liberal" is really not the nice sounding word "conservative", but "authoritarian". –(ezeflyer)
–If 'authoritarianism' is as you conceive it– and it succeeds in smashing liberalism as well as liberalism's reactionary 'mirror'– conservatism, then said authoritarianism cannot come too soon. In fact, it will probably be called radicalism. Left authoritarianism may lead to dictatorship, but it will destroy the concentrated wealth on which both liberalism and conservatism depend on and are defined by: To wit–
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very EXISTENCE of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor" –(Leon Trotsky)
You got that? The very "EXISTENCE" of liberalism. That is a non-starter.
The Janus face of the bourgeoisie is both liberal and conservative oscillating in tandem, in truth, inseparable from each other. They are mutually constitutive of each other and equally loathsome and worthy of the scrap heap. As is your apologia for fascism.–(Jill Bains)
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 5 2009 - 1:11pm
"–If 'authoritarianism' is as you conceive it– and it succeeds in smashing liberalism as well as liberalism's reactionary 'mirror'– conservatism, then said authoritarianism cannot come too soon."
Calling conservatism "liberalism's reactionary 'mirror' attempts to make liberalism and conservatism solely a right wing phenomenon and both one evil to be crushed by left wing authoritarian conservatives.
"Left authoritarianism may lead to dictatorship, but it will destroy the concentrated wealth on which both liberalism and conservatism depend on and are defined by:"
What's the difference between destroying the money part of the money-power equation or the power part of it? The money part typifies conservative right wing dictatorships while the power part typifies conservative left wing dictatorships. Two sides of the same conservative coin.
Left and right conservatism lead to authoritarian dictatorships. The argument could be which is worse?
Posted by socialist
Nov 5 2009 - 3:32pm
Please see: www.politicalcompass.org
This is a great site
Posted by elainem
Nov 5 2009 - 1:31am
"and the nice, frightened little old conservative church lady that votes for them"
SCARY TRUE
I have seen the church lady phenomenon in action, you nailed it
But this might be the most important point: "that even third parties are not immune to a right or left wing conservative takeover." We need to nullify the effect of that concentrated capitol on our election process.
Posted by uncle_charlie
Nov 5 2009 - 1:22am
You seem to be still living the fantasy that Democrats were ever a party of the people once upon a time not corrupted by corporate money. Take a look at history, they have been just as corrupt as Republicans. They were known as the War Party.
You're also missing Nader's point: the two-party system is designed to create the illusion that we have a choice. We don't. The two top candidates are always hand-picked by corporations and trained to sound like opponents to keep the charade going. The rhetoric may sound radically different but once in office their actions are always pro-corporate, anti-labor and pro-war.
Posted by vorpalmusic
Nov 5 2009 - 7:00am
How do you respond to what Nader pointed out in part 3, where he lists all the social benefits enjoyed by European countries and points out that they all have multi-party systems? The US has none of these quality social programs, and is the only one with a two party system.
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 5 2009 - 3:11pm
They have multi-party systems because as Ralph says, they don't have a winner take all system. They have IRV, proportional representation and other electoral reforms that help third parties arise. We don't.
Posted by squidd
Nov 4 2009 - 2:50pm
at one point... h. ross perot... in 1992... said... he was advised... not to run those 30 minute infomercials... that the american public's attention span was no longer than 5 minutes...
ok.. people were GLUED to their sets... and 19.8% voted for a THIRD party candidate...
perot had the money... estimated net worth at the time was $3B... he publicly stated he was willing to spend $60M...
how much did bloomberg just pay to become MAYOR??? $100M+.
nader acknowledges this all the time... either the obstacles have to come down... or you need the cash to compete to navigate the obstacles... see latest book "only the billioniares can save us"... the ted turners... yoko ono's have to put up their cash to an army of already available organizers and activists...
it used to be the league of women voters who organized the debates... now it's a secret commission made up of elder representatives of each party who negotiate the ground rules in advance... in secret... and are kept secret... (there was some event in 1986 that caused them to create this commission on debates - homework... :))
Posted by www.NotOneMore.US
Nov 4 2009 - 2:45pm
It makes no difference what you call it (conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist) if the system is corrupt, lies, cheats, and goes against public interest, then it should be unacceptable.
Our government, military, corporations, and many of our institutions are run by fear based car salesmen who live by greedy selfish principles and who have no concern for the misery and death of others, much less caring about others well being.
The democrats don't bring war criminal charges against Bush because they know they are guilty as well.
The democrats don't support single payer health care because it will offend their contributors and you need millions of dollars to get elected.
The democratic party loyalists support democrats who win, even if they employ the negative traits that the deplore when the republicans use them (and vice versa).
And it goes on, and all has been documented and explained by Nader through the last 40 years.
And why don't people listen? Because many people want to secretly be rich without considering the human cost, so they give tacit support to the process.
Silence equals support.
Don't support the democrats or republicans. The ends don't justify the means.
There is no peace without justice, and no justice if it is based on lies.
unrepentant Nader support
Single payer or single term.
Public option is not an option.
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 4 2009 - 3:06pm
"It makes no difference what you call it (conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist)"
I think it makes all the difference in the world:
Hitler, Mussolini, Bush -- all right wing conservatives.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Caescescu -- all left wing conservatives.
Historically, liberal governments are the best.
Posted by socialist
Nov 4 2009 - 3:28pm
I am with you part of the way on that one: for a more detailed explanation go to http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Posted by amacd
Nov 4 2009 - 3:54pm
ezeflyer, no, its not a left/right, lib/con, Repub/Dem thing.
Its ONLY an EMPIRE thing.
The real thing is that there are only two types of government Empire and democracy --- and right now, we've got the former. We had the later for a brief time, but we lost it to concentrated wealth and power.
The facade on the top is irrelevant --- its only the Empire hiding behind the curtain that matters.
"ezeflyer, no, its not a left/right, lib/con, Repub/Dem thing."
There is this river in Egypt...
Posted by www.NotOneMore.US
Nov 4 2009 - 7:23pm
Just as the definition of liberal is vague, so is conservative.
The conservatives in power historically are labeled conservative, but they really are something else, and that is oppressive.
Oppression is really the enemy of the people, and most rulers rule by oppression because they aren't fair.
Oppression by majority is not any better than oppression by the minority.
The most important thing is protection of basic human rights for all. If you oppress people's human rights, you can call yourself by any label you want, but you will be first and foremost an oppressor, which all of those people you mention are.
The main reason the Soviet Union feel isn't because of communism, it was because of oppression. The main reason the US will fall is not because of capitalism, it is because of oppression.
And so is Obama with the middle east war.
Then the issue is if you oppress less people are you better than the person who oppresses more people?
I find neither acceptable. It is the old 'voting for the lesser of two evils' argument.
You can't let the oppressors define the narrative. The masses of people are the ones who shouldn't be.
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.
so it goes
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 4 2009 - 8:03pm
"Just as the definition of liberal is vague, so is conservative."
The way I see it, that's not only wrong, but it's possibly libs greatest obstacle. It's why libs have let cons undermine them at every turn. Cons have been demonizing libs for centuries and libs being libs, turn the other cheek. Libs are still stuck with the old benevolent perception of conservatives, as cons daily shit upon them.
The difference between conservative and liberal is crystal clear to me. It's the difference between stupidity and ignorance, irresponsibility and responsibility, violence and peace, bestiality and humanism, reaction and question, antisocial and social, punishment and rehabilitation, superstition and science, pollution and health, Mammon and God, Satan and Jesus, corporations and people, racism and tolerance, war and peace, greed and generosity, etc.
Posted by elainem
Nov 5 2009 - 1:26am
Eze, you make the very good point that conservatives are united by their desire to acquire and hold money. The profit motive is their only focus. They put their money up and lobby to get rid of all impediments to their freedom to capitalize on the misfortunes of others. They unite behind greed while liberals sit and fantasize about a man who's never held elected office becoming president and alienate each other with talk of kool-aid and conscience votes. Libs can't focus; there are so many disasters, so little time.
If we don't change the way we vote, we might as well forget about third party success. If we had instant runoff voting, as you suggest, that would go a long way towards putting the people back in control. Party affiliation would cease to be important. The way to get it is by getting lesser offices filled with independants and progressive candidates of either party. Legislation begins in our representative bodies, not in the executive branch. I wish Ralph Nader would run for congress so he could introduce legislation creating "American Idol Style" voting, knocking off challengers one by one until America's favorite wins; no electoral college, no year long campaign, just candidates stating their message.
How many of us are willing to put our reputations and our families on the line and run for office?
Posted by ezeflyer
Nov 4 2009 - 3:38pm
Why don't liberals make demands on their elected reps?
Because money talks, cons have it and libs don't. Demands without a campaign "contribution" mean little.
Libs may have a lot money as a whole, but its very difficult to get them to pool it for political purposes when they're counting every cent.
Cons have concentrated wealth and power to spare. They easily direct it to their political purposes. One of their purposes is to MSMislead to keep libs in perpetual confusion, fighting among themselves and blaming the ones that could help them if they united.
Posted by amacd
Nov 4 2009 - 3:45pm
Too painful to watch. A year later Nader's words ring with the same truth as the story of Kenny Dobbins, the loyal slaughterhouse worker, in "Fast Food Nation", of people being ground-up because of their naivete, innocence, and belief that a ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire can not possibly be as thoroughly deceitful and murderous as it is --- a fact that they will only learn too late.
This video, in which Ralph clearly knows the hollow promises and imperial crimes to come, also reminds me of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas" -- but raised by an order of magnitude, in terms of the level of deceitfulness being played on average Americans to again, and AGAIN, vote against their own political-economic interests.
I voted for Ralph four times. I contributed to his campaign each time. And I worked to try to get him elected each time.
I had the opportunity to speak with Ralph in a church in Portland Maine, where I asked him about the central aspect of this fight being against Empire. He was not shy about replying in public that this fight was against corporate/financial Empire, just as the First American Revolution was against the combined British royal and corporate Empire. Ralph was the only candidate to ever publicly address Empire, and its imperialism 'abroad', and tyranny 'at home' --- and the only candidate to ever commit publicly to fighting that Empire which is killing our democracy.
Today, Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC is equally honest and courageous to publicly, on national TV, call this same fight against Empire a fight against "Corporate Communism".
That's a fight against Empire that Obama never so much as whispered about -- and he could get away with that because he was never asked about it.
I wrote almost three years ago (Jan. 2007):
"The very most important question that the American people should be asking of any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the war in Iraq, and its domestic economic war on the working/middle-class are only its biggest and most visible crimes --- so far?"
Well, we certainly never asked Obama that question.
But now, it's certainly abundantly clear today that when Obama told us, before the election, that Bill Ayers of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had absolutely no influence on him, that he was telling the truth ---- because Obama has sure as hell not been doing anything to fight for a 'democratic society'!
Obama never mentioned anything, before we 'gave him' our votes, about the ruling-elite corporate/financial imperialist war-machine, and racist tyranny of economic oppression that SDS fought against in the late 1960's.
Obama was being truthful with us when he totally ignored the very existence of this ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire that controls our country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, and he was being totally truthful when he said nothing about this Empire that he himself was about to become the best front-man for.
It's just that we were too stupid, before the election, to ask him, "Hey, what about this Empire that is killing our country and the world? Will you represent this deceitful and hidden corporate/financial Empire or or will you represent us?"
We never asked him about which side he was on in our battle with Empire --- so he wasn't lying when he said nothing, because we never asked the right question!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. At least Bill Ayers and his fellow Students for a Democratic Society were smart enough to ask students joining them in fighting against the imperialist war-monger/racist Empire, "Are you with us or are you just an infiltrator from the Empire 'posing' as one of us, in order to turn on us and wreck the movement."
We never even asked this phony plant if he was 'working for the man' --- working for the Empire. Shame on us.
As the old saying goes, "If you fool me once about an imperialist president, shame on you. But if you fool me, a dozen times, about an imperialist president --- shame on all of us".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Posted by ThomasJefferson...
Nov 4 2009 - 7:55pm
Thanks Alan,
For fighting the "Good Fight" by supporting the only living American I know who moved mountains to better my odds and did so much for me personally, at no personal gain for himself. Food and Auto/Highway safety standards have saved me more times than I can count. If you live in the USA, some studies show that you have a 50/50 chance of being involved in a lethal auto accident at some point in your life. But the Big Auto companies fought Ralph tooth-and-nail on even the simplest safety measures like telescoping/collapsing steering columns, safety glass and lap belts, claiming they couldn't recoup their investments, even if everybody ordered them! The truth is that CEO's and bankers didn't give a chit about anyone.
So Alan,
Who can possibly fill the giant shoes of Ralph Nader? Tell me his name and I'll send my $100 dollars to him after the greatest patriot known to me is gone.
Thank you Ralph Nader. While the whole congress sold us down the river, at least one good American stood up and was not silent.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Posted by boysgramps
Nov 4 2009 - 4:28pm
Have the No Account President/Party delivered the Union "card" alternative's institution?
Posted by metal
Nov 4 2009 - 6:47pm
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Yep.
Posted by LJG100
Nov 4 2009 - 10:16pm
Wait... Climate change- mass extinction, drought, death...Is that motivating enough? Wall Street billion dollar bonuses while tax payer money is still in their coffers? Corporate health care- no public option- no cost control- major loop holes? Congressional resolutions that are outright lies? Gross militarism? Deliberate catering to the fascist right (who don't even know their fascists) to justify watered down policies that cater to corporations.
What exactly is the left waiting for? Give Obama a chance? Nader is right on. Fire in the belly.
Push Congress? Lobby harder than the opposition? Civil disobedience? Yes- but more the ability to face the truth, speak the truth and pay the price for doing so...
Posted by Thoughts_Into_Action
Nov 4 2009 - 11:55pm
In Part 1, Ralph said, "The two party system is like a prison," and the people are its slaves (or something like that).
He also said that the last Presidential election was not about hope. It was the opposite of that, with so many people feeling powerless and giving up.
These are really astute comments.
I'd just add that there really was a fired-up Obama base, with all of that Goldman Sachs money supporting the campaign. And good media access for Obama. I guess the lesson here is that very little effort is needed to accomplish mass deception. Hitler used to call it "the big lie" tactic. People want to believe the lie.
Even a few erstwhile "progressives" managed to convince themselves that Obama was something other than a right-wing corporatist. I think people were duped because Obama pretty much scrubbed his rather short record as a senator by refusing to vote on war spending and other regressive measures. Early on, Obama spotted a winning issue with antiwar sentiment - so he gave a fake anti-Iraq war speech as a senator. As President, he became a full-blown militarist and empire builder.
Ralph's insight - that Obama will not challenge power - really seems to resonate in these post-100 days era of the Obama Presidency. It may be an explanation for Obama's ability to say one thing, but do the opposite. I'm still not sure if it's a gross character flaw or whether Obama just shamelessly manipulates his political base. Maybe it's a little of both - the trait of a narcissistic personality.
-TIA
Posted by uncle_charlie
Nov 5 2009 - 1:02am
Good analysis and I admire your ability to refrain from expletives, which is something I can't when Obama's concerned.
Posted by Naturally
Nov 5 2009 - 5:04am
"Refusing to vote on war spending?" Huh? Senator Obama voted for every war spending bill. Every single one. Please correct me if he did not.
Posted by Thoughts_Into_Action
Nov 6 2009 - 2:07am
No, he did abstain on some war funding - maybe just one vote - that's about it. I'm not claiming at all he was antiwar - just that his voting record contains a lot of absences or nonvotes, and that possibly some people were misled by that. His "antiwar" speech contained the refrain, "I am not opposed to all wars," which turned out to be a lie as he's continued all of them as President. I wasn't fooled, but some people still are, and think he changed course from Bush. I have no explanation for why they'd think so.
But do check the unusual number of nonvotes in his record as senator. That's what I mean by scrubbing the record. If you're going to run for president, don't reveal your votes on unpopular issues.
-TIA
Posted by philistinethear...
Nov 5 2009 - 1:26am
I have to say that watching Obama go about his job in the White House, and around the world, feels to me as if a 12 year-old boy scout became president of the US.
He's so freaking naive it's not even funny.
35 Comments so far
Show AllI think Ralph is wrong when he says the problem is the two party system when the problem is the conservative takeover of both parties.
If Big Money conservatives can take over the supposedly liberal Democrat Party, what's to keep them from taking over a third party?
Ralph isn't wrong to say that the current two party system is at fault. It's both the takeover of the two parties and the resigning nature of those two parties to the conservative takeover that upsets not only Nader but the rest of us as well. Whichever third party is to succeed those two must be kept away from big money and conservative takeover as much and as long as possible. That doesn't mean that we should rule out putting third parties on the table for consideration.
This is a specious argument. The Republicans are conservatives to begin with so they weren't taken over. The resigning nature of the Democrats to the conservative takeover is because of the conservative takeover.
If what you mean is that Democrats should have said no to conservative Big Money's campaign bribes, then it's an issue of a corrupt system of campaign financing, not a two party issue.
With publicly financed campaigns, IRV, proportional representation and other electoral reforms, third parties would grow all by themselves. But CONSERVATIVES in both parties are putting the screws to third parties and screwing everybody else.
It's the conservatives, stupid! (No offense meant.)
Ralph is right on the money, so is Chomsky. We can go one step further and say that for a candidate to even make it onto the ballot it is a function of money. In almost all cases the candidate with the most money wins (Bloomberg just pulled it off again). The people don't have a real choice in the matter. Now add the winner takes all election system, (not to mention the fraud) and we get two only two parties.
Here is an illustration of winner takes all:
Party R gets 39% of the vote
Party D gets 38%
all other parities get 23%
In our system the winner is the Rs. That means (assuming everyone votes) that the majority of votes do not count. Is that democratic?
I agree with what you say, but my point is about Big Money CONSERVATIVES taking over both parties. I think its important to understand that its the conservatives that have the concentrated capital to get their agenda enacted in a hurry while poor lib Dems and third parties remain in debating mode, deciding when and how to unite against what issue. And that even third parties are not immune to a right or left wing conservative takeover.
I'm convinced libs hurt themselves by not recognizing the fact that the modern con is not the frugal, careful, traditional, nice person of the old days but the robbing, raping, murdering, lying, conniving, polluting, global warming berserker of today and the nice, frightened little old conservative church lady that votes for them.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. In my view if the system is not democratic, the entire show is a sham. The winner takes all system results in minority rule. A de-facto one party state. The differences between the two parties is largely rhetorical and stylistic.
Obama, for example, is a brilliant speaker and can tell a lie without a smirk. Yet, he supports the Bankster thefts, imperialism, Israeli crimes, pardoning Bush/Cheney. Hell, he even appointed Robert "uncle Bob" Gates as Def. Sec. A Bush family crony!The same laissez-faire, Milton Friedmanite crooks like Summers, Rubin and Geithner are in power. And just look at the health care BS etc. etc.
The two party system means the Ds can say: "You don't like Obama, to f-in bad, what are you going to do, vote Republican?" Bill Clinton is quoted as saying something very similar in Howard Zinn's Poeople's History of the US.
I voted for McKinney knowing that she had no chance at all due to the rigged phony election system as well as the obscene amounts of money required to buy into office. Yet I still voted for purely symbolic reasons.
"In my view if the system is not democratic, the entire show is a sham."
Any system run by conservatives (Reps, Dems, right wing and left wing) can't possibly be democratic.
The opposite of "liberal" is really not the nice sounding word "conservative", but "authoritarian". Authoritarianism leads to centralized power, concentrated wealth and dictatorship.
"The opposite of "liberal" is really not the nice sounding word "conservative", but "authoritarian". –(ezeflyer)
–If 'authoritarianism' is as you conceive it– and it succeeds in smashing liberalism as well as liberalism's reactionary 'mirror'– conservatism, then said authoritarianism cannot come too soon. In fact, it will probably be called radicalism. Left authoritarianism may lead to dictatorship, but it will destroy the concentrated wealth on which both liberalism and conservatism depend on and are defined by: To wit–
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very EXISTENCE of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor" –(Leon Trotsky)
You got that? The very "EXISTENCE" of liberalism. That is a non-starter.
The Janus face of the bourgeoisie is both liberal and conservative oscillating in tandem, in truth, inseparable from each other. They are mutually constitutive of each other and equally loathsome and worthy of the scrap heap. As is your apologia for fascism.–(Jill Bains)
"–If 'authoritarianism' is as you conceive it– and it succeeds in smashing liberalism as well as liberalism's reactionary 'mirror'– conservatism, then said authoritarianism cannot come too soon."
Calling conservatism "liberalism's reactionary 'mirror' attempts to make liberalism and conservatism solely a right wing phenomenon and both one evil to be crushed by left wing authoritarian conservatives.
"Left authoritarianism may lead to dictatorship, but it will destroy the concentrated wealth on which both liberalism and conservatism depend on and are defined by:"
What's the difference between destroying the money part of the money-power equation or the power part of it? The money part typifies conservative right wing dictatorships while the power part typifies conservative left wing dictatorships. Two sides of the same conservative coin.
Left and right conservatism lead to authoritarian dictatorships. The argument could be which is worse?
Please see: www.politicalcompass.org
This is a great site
"and the nice, frightened little old conservative church lady that votes for them"
SCARY TRUE
I have seen the church lady phenomenon in action, you nailed it
But this might be the most important point: "that even third parties are not immune to a right or left wing conservative takeover." We need to nullify the effect of that concentrated capitol on our election process.
You seem to be still living the fantasy that Democrats were ever a party of the people once upon a time not corrupted by corporate money. Take a look at history, they have been just as corrupt as Republicans. They were known as the War Party.
You're also missing Nader's point: the two-party system is designed to create the illusion that we have a choice. We don't. The two top candidates are always hand-picked by corporations and trained to sound like opponents to keep the charade going. The rhetoric may sound radically different but once in office their actions are always pro-corporate, anti-labor and pro-war.
How do you respond to what Nader pointed out in part 3, where he lists all the social benefits enjoyed by European countries and points out that they all have multi-party systems? The US has none of these quality social programs, and is the only one with a two party system.
They have multi-party systems because as Ralph says, they don't have a winner take all system. They have IRV, proportional representation and other electoral reforms that help third parties arise. We don't.
at one point... h. ross perot... in 1992... said... he was advised... not to run those 30 minute infomercials... that the american public's attention span was no longer than 5 minutes...
ok.. people were GLUED to their sets... and 19.8% voted for a THIRD party candidate...
perot had the money... estimated net worth at the time was $3B... he publicly stated he was willing to spend $60M...
how much did bloomberg just pay to become MAYOR??? $100M+.
nader acknowledges this all the time... either the obstacles have to come down... or you need the cash to compete to navigate the obstacles... see latest book "only the billioniares can save us"... the ted turners... yoko ono's have to put up their cash to an army of already available organizers and activists...
it used to be the league of women voters who organized the debates... now it's a secret commission made up of elder representatives of each party who negotiate the ground rules in advance... in secret... and are kept secret... (there was some event in 1986 that caused them to create this commission on debates - homework... :))
It makes no difference what you call it (conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist) if the system is corrupt, lies, cheats, and goes against public interest, then it should be unacceptable.
Our government, military, corporations, and many of our institutions are run by fear based car salesmen who live by greedy selfish principles and who have no concern for the misery and death of others, much less caring about others well being.
The democrats don't bring war criminal charges against Bush because they know they are guilty as well.
The democrats don't support single payer health care because it will offend their contributors and you need millions of dollars to get elected.
The democratic party loyalists support democrats who win, even if they employ the negative traits that the deplore when the republicans use them (and vice versa).
And it goes on, and all has been documented and explained by Nader through the last 40 years.
And why don't people listen? Because many people want to secretly be rich without considering the human cost, so they give tacit support to the process.
Silence equals support.
Don't support the democrats or republicans. The ends don't justify the means.
There is no peace without justice, and no justice if it is based on lies.
unrepentant Nader support
Single payer or single term.
Public option is not an option.
"It makes no difference what you call it (conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist)"
I think it makes all the difference in the world:
Hitler, Mussolini, Bush -- all right wing conservatives.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Caescescu -- all left wing conservatives.
Historically, liberal governments are the best.
I am with you part of the way on that one: for a more detailed explanation go to http://www.politicalcompass.org/
ezeflyer, no, its not a left/right, lib/con, Repub/Dem thing.
Its ONLY an EMPIRE thing.
The real thing is that there are only two types of government Empire and democracy --- and right now, we've got the former. We had the later for a brief time, but we lost it to concentrated wealth and power.
The facade on the top is irrelevant --- its only the Empire hiding behind the curtain that matters.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Empire-Elitism-External-by-Alan-MacDonald-090310-224.html
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"ezeflyer, no, its not a left/right, lib/con, Repub/Dem thing."
There is this river in Egypt...
Just as the definition of liberal is vague, so is conservative.
The conservatives in power historically are labeled conservative, but they really are something else, and that is oppressive.
Oppression is really the enemy of the people, and most rulers rule by oppression because they aren't fair.
Oppression by majority is not any better than oppression by the minority.
The most important thing is protection of basic human rights for all. If you oppress people's human rights, you can call yourself by any label you want, but you will be first and foremost an oppressor, which all of those people you mention are.
The main reason the Soviet Union feel isn't because of communism, it was because of oppression. The main reason the US will fall is not because of capitalism, it is because of oppression.
And so is Obama with the middle east war.
Then the issue is if you oppress less people are you better than the person who oppresses more people?
I find neither acceptable. It is the old 'voting for the lesser of two evils' argument.
You can't let the oppressors define the narrative. The masses of people are the ones who shouldn't be.
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.
so it goes
"Just as the definition of liberal is vague, so is conservative."
The way I see it, that's not only wrong, but it's possibly libs greatest obstacle. It's why libs have let cons undermine them at every turn. Cons have been demonizing libs for centuries and libs being libs, turn the other cheek. Libs are still stuck with the old benevolent perception of conservatives, as cons daily shit upon them.
The difference between conservative and liberal is crystal clear to me. It's the difference between stupidity and ignorance, irresponsibility and responsibility, violence and peace, bestiality and humanism, reaction and question, antisocial and social, punishment and rehabilitation, superstition and science, pollution and health, Mammon and God, Satan and Jesus, corporations and people, racism and tolerance, war and peace, greed and generosity, etc.
Eze, you make the very good point that conservatives are united by their desire to acquire and hold money. The profit motive is their only focus. They put their money up and lobby to get rid of all impediments to their freedom to capitalize on the misfortunes of others. They unite behind greed while liberals sit and fantasize about a man who's never held elected office becoming president and alienate each other with talk of kool-aid and conscience votes. Libs can't focus; there are so many disasters, so little time.
If we don't change the way we vote, we might as well forget about third party success. If we had instant runoff voting, as you suggest, that would go a long way towards putting the people back in control. Party affiliation would cease to be important. The way to get it is by getting lesser offices filled with independants and progressive candidates of either party. Legislation begins in our representative bodies, not in the executive branch. I wish Ralph Nader would run for congress so he could introduce legislation creating "American Idol Style" voting, knocking off challengers one by one until America's favorite wins; no electoral college, no year long campaign, just candidates stating their message.
How many of us are willing to put our reputations and our families on the line and run for office?
Why don't liberals make demands on their elected reps?
Because money talks, cons have it and libs don't. Demands without a campaign "contribution" mean little.
Libs may have a lot money as a whole, but its very difficult to get them to pool it for political purposes when they're counting every cent.
Cons have concentrated wealth and power to spare. They easily direct it to their political purposes. One of their purposes is to MSMislead to keep libs in perpetual confusion, fighting among themselves and blaming the ones that could help them if they united.
Too painful to watch. A year later Nader's words ring with the same truth as the story of Kenny Dobbins, the loyal slaughterhouse worker, in "Fast Food Nation", of people being ground-up because of their naivete, innocence, and belief that a ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire can not possibly be as thoroughly deceitful and murderous as it is --- a fact that they will only learn too late.
This video, in which Ralph clearly knows the hollow promises and imperial crimes to come, also reminds me of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas" -- but raised by an order of magnitude, in terms of the level of deceitfulness being played on average Americans to again, and AGAIN, vote against their own political-economic interests.
I voted for Ralph four times. I contributed to his campaign each time. And I worked to try to get him elected each time.
I had the opportunity to speak with Ralph in a church in Portland Maine, where I asked him about the central aspect of this fight being against Empire. He was not shy about replying in public that this fight was against corporate/financial Empire, just as the First American Revolution was against the combined British royal and corporate Empire. Ralph was the only candidate to ever publicly address Empire, and its imperialism 'abroad', and tyranny 'at home' --- and the only candidate to ever commit publicly to fighting that Empire which is killing our democracy.
Today, Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC is equally honest and courageous to publicly, on national TV, call this same fight against Empire a fight against "Corporate Communism".
That's a fight against Empire that Obama never so much as whispered about -- and he could get away with that because he was never asked about it.
I wrote almost three years ago (Jan. 2007):
"The very most important question that the American people should be asking of any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the war in Iraq, and its domestic economic war on the working/middle-class are only its biggest and most visible crimes --- so far?"
Well, we certainly never asked Obama that question.
But now, it's certainly abundantly clear today that when Obama told us, before the election, that Bill Ayers of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had absolutely no influence on him, that he was telling the truth ---- because Obama has sure as hell not been doing anything to fight for a 'democratic society'!
Obama never mentioned anything, before we 'gave him' our votes, about the ruling-elite corporate/financial imperialist war-machine, and racist tyranny of economic oppression that SDS fought against in the late 1960's.
Obama was being truthful with us when he totally ignored the very existence of this ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire that controls our country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, and he was being totally truthful when he said nothing about this Empire that he himself was about to become the best front-man for.
It's just that we were too stupid, before the election, to ask him, "Hey, what about this Empire that is killing our country and the world? Will you represent this deceitful and hidden corporate/financial Empire or or will you represent us?"
We never asked him about which side he was on in our battle with Empire --- so he wasn't lying when he said nothing, because we never asked the right question!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. At least Bill Ayers and his fellow Students for a Democratic Society were smart enough to ask students joining them in fighting against the imperialist war-monger/racist Empire, "Are you with us or are you just an infiltrator from the Empire 'posing' as one of us, in order to turn on us and wreck the movement."
We never even asked this phony plant if he was 'working for the man' --- working for the Empire. Shame on us.
As the old saying goes, "If you fool me once about an imperialist president, shame on you. But if you fool me, a dozen times, about an imperialist president --- shame on all of us".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Thanks Alan,
For fighting the "Good Fight" by supporting the only living American I know who moved mountains to better my odds and did so much for me personally, at no personal gain for himself. Food and Auto/Highway safety standards have saved me more times than I can count. If you live in the USA, some studies show that you have a 50/50 chance of being involved in a lethal auto accident at some point in your life. But the Big Auto companies fought Ralph tooth-and-nail on even the simplest safety measures like telescoping/collapsing steering columns, safety glass and lap belts, claiming they couldn't recoup their investments, even if everybody ordered them! The truth is that CEO's and bankers didn't give a chit about anyone.
So Alan,
Who can possibly fill the giant shoes of Ralph Nader? Tell me his name and I'll send my $100 dollars to him after the greatest patriot known to me is gone.
Thank you Ralph Nader. While the whole congress sold us down the river, at least one good American stood up and was not silent.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Have the No Account President/Party delivered the Union "card" alternative's institution?
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Yep.
Wait... Climate change- mass extinction, drought, death...Is that motivating enough? Wall Street billion dollar bonuses while tax payer money is still in their coffers? Corporate health care- no public option- no cost control- major loop holes? Congressional resolutions that are outright lies? Gross militarism? Deliberate catering to the fascist right (who don't even know their fascists) to justify watered down policies that cater to corporations.
What exactly is the left waiting for? Give Obama a chance? Nader is right on. Fire in the belly.
Push Congress? Lobby harder than the opposition? Civil disobedience? Yes- but more the ability to face the truth, speak the truth and pay the price for doing so...
In Part 1, Ralph said, "The two party system is like a prison," and the people are its slaves (or something like that).
He also said that the last Presidential election was not about hope. It was the opposite of that, with so many people feeling powerless and giving up.
These are really astute comments.
I'd just add that there really was a fired-up Obama base, with all of that Goldman Sachs money supporting the campaign. And good media access for Obama. I guess the lesson here is that very little effort is needed to accomplish mass deception. Hitler used to call it "the big lie" tactic. People want to believe the lie.
Even a few erstwhile "progressives" managed to convince themselves that Obama was something other than a right-wing corporatist. I think people were duped because Obama pretty much scrubbed his rather short record as a senator by refusing to vote on war spending and other regressive measures. Early on, Obama spotted a winning issue with antiwar sentiment - so he gave a fake anti-Iraq war speech as a senator. As President, he became a full-blown militarist and empire builder.
Ralph's insight - that Obama will not challenge power - really seems to resonate in these post-100 days era of the Obama Presidency. It may be an explanation for Obama's ability to say one thing, but do the opposite. I'm still not sure if it's a gross character flaw or whether Obama just shamelessly manipulates his political base. Maybe it's a little of both - the trait of a narcissistic personality.
-TIA
Good analysis and I admire your ability to refrain from expletives, which is something I can't when Obama's concerned.
"Refusing to vote on war spending?" Huh? Senator Obama voted for every war spending bill. Every single one. Please correct me if he did not.
No, he did abstain on some war funding - maybe just one vote - that's about it. I'm not claiming at all he was antiwar - just that his voting record contains a lot of absences or nonvotes, and that possibly some people were misled by that. His "antiwar" speech contained the refrain, "I am not opposed to all wars," which turned out to be a lie as he's continued all of them as President. I wasn't fooled, but some people still are, and think he changed course from Bush. I have no explanation for why they'd think so.
But do check the unusual number of nonvotes in his record as senator. That's what I mean by scrubbing the record. If you're going to run for president, don't reveal your votes on unpopular issues.
-TIA
I have to say that watching Obama go about his job in the White House, and around the world, feels to me as if a 12 year-old boy scout became president of the US.
He's so freaking naive it's not even funny.
OR Bush blackmailed.