Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The United Haters of America
Somewhere deep inside the authoritarian minds of the ultra right-wingers, the fear, helplessness and paranoia that have always been so evident have reached the boiling point. For them, Obama's election and, perhaps even more so, the sight of him standing on the Capitol steps and taking the oath of office, have brought home a grim truth. They have tried to deny it for many years now, but America is not what they think it is. And because of their own incompetence, blindness to reality and the changing demographics among voters - the growing minorities and young voters who have rejected the GOP - they have lost America, perhaps for good.
And so now we hear, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, their wish of failure (and perhaps worse) for America.
Karl Rove and Marc Thiessen, the former chief White House speechwriter, have been warning that Obama's new anti-terror policies (such as closing Guantanamo Bay, prohibiting torture and stopping rendition to CIA black sites) may put the nation at risk. In The Washington Post, Thiessen wrote, "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible - and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."
One can read the anticipation between the lines - "When there's a terrorist attack, Republicans will rule again because that will prove Obama was wrong and Bush was right!"
Well, of course it would do nothing of the sort. First, there is no evidence that any of Bush's anti-American policies - illegal wiretapping, coercive interrogations, extraordinary renditions, or holding people without charges, lawyers or trials - have prevented any attacks. In fact, most military and intelligence personnel agree that these policies have increased terrorist recruiting and made American less safe. They have also resulted in far more terrorist attacks around the world.
Bush and Dick Cheney made similar claims during their beauty pageant goodbye strolls while completing their terms in office. The most important legacy for them is that there were no terrorist attacks on the U.S. after 9/11, and they argued that Obama's reversals of Bush's policies could invite future attacks. That argument is utter nonsense.
Leave aside the fact that more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died, many from terrorist attacks, and that more than 150,000 Iraqis have died, many from terrorist bombings, and that hundreds more died in terrorist assaults in London and Madrid and India and Indonesia and elsewhere. Even had none of these things happened, the cause-and-effect argument simply isn't logical. It's just after-the-fact rationalization.
There is also no reason to think that most people will blame Obama if terrorists strike again, even though that's what all this noise from the right wing is about - laying the groundwork to blame the new president. Despite the evidence that the Bush administration ignored blatant warnings about 9/11, went on vacation and did nothing to stop the attacks, Americans rallied around Bush. They would likely do the same with Obama.
Now there is fear-mongering about what would happen were we to grant some rights to offenders at Guantanamo - that some would go free and incite violence against us. Well, here's a news flash: That has already happened, under Bush. The U.S. has already released more than 400 prisoners from Guantanamo, many held for years without any legal rights whatsoever. Some have simply gone home. But some have taken up arms against us (perhaps some of them because they were held without cause). The New York Times reported that one became the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is suspected of involvement in the bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen in September.
Where are the howls of protest about this outrage? If this happens under an Obama administration, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys will be calling for his head. But, in their blind devotion to Bush, they say nothing about policies that led to an arrest and incarceration of a terrorist but were so ill-conceived and poorly managed that they forced his release. Similarly, some charges against terrorists have been or will be thrown out because Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush allowed their torture. The very policy they so lovingly embraced has actually helped the enemy.
But that actually isn't that surprising. Right-wingers have always seemed to have a strange enthusiasm for the things terrorists do and say, then they react in a way that helps the terrorists. The administration based U.S. military and foreign policy on what the terrorists said they were going to do - imagine, running U.S. policy based on the lies and threats of a bunch of wanton murderers. Bush put the country trillions more into debt to fight wars and finance tax cuts for the rich so that he could say we were taking the fight to the terrorists but could still go shopping. He let terrorists' threats lead him to ignore the Constitution, erode our moral standing in the world and drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. And his policies have allowed murders to go free and kill again - exactly what the right-wing claims Obama is going to do.
So it's not much of a stretch to think that, somewhere deep down, some in the extreme right wing will gain a smug satisfaction if terrorists do strike again in America. They can't wait for the blame game to start. People like Rush Limbaugh and Rove and Sarah Palin seem to think that liberals hate America. But, who, really, are the haters?
Limbaugh and many of his listeners have said they hope Obama will fail. That means they want America to fail. Or, at least, they want the kind of America that Obama stands for to fail - you know, the one where civil liberties are respected, where the rule of law prevails, where a multi-lateral foreign policy is embraced to increase homeland security, and where an African-American Democrat can become president.
They hate the America that is a liberal democracy, which it has been through most of its history. They hate the idea of equal protection for gays, of rights for the accused. They hate the idea of any kind of social welfare. This is a group that would destroy an entire industry because they hate the union workers who are fighting for better health care and wages. Yet they barely bat an eye at millions stolen by CEOs and investment bankers who raped their companies and banks and gave away billions in bonuses while the economy collapsed all around.
During the run-up to Obama's inauguration, some newspapers ran series of interviews with people about their hopes and fears for the new presidency.
The hopes, mostly from Democrats: New and more accountable foreign policy, less cronyism, less corruption, more fiscal responsibility, and more moral accountability in government.
The fears, mostly from Republicans: The expansion of social welfare programs and allowance of gay marriage.
Really? That's what they're afraid of, after these last eight years? Well, in fairness, maybe they do have a deeper fear.
What they are really afraid of is that President Obama, and America, will succeed.
- Posted in



141 Comments so far
Show AllAs much as I agree there is lots of hatred on the right, I see a fair amount of hatred on the left as well. The left fear mongers as well, just about different things. The shoe throwing, "friends don't let friends sleep with republicans" bumper stickin, anti-christian vibe is strong as well. It gets sort of comical, this football team mentality between the right and left. We all really need to get over ourselves and read more Marshall Rosenberg.
bhaktipol------- You equate invading nations and slaughtering millions of people(start with S.E.Asia) with shoe throwing and snide bumper stickers ? If all the fascists did were too throw shoes and make snide jokes the world would be a much better place. As for anti-christian vibes no religion should be disparaged. If you are talking about the resistance to the Rapture advocates; those "christians" are violently dangerous and need to be stopped. In general if Christians followed the gospel of love they would meet no criticism from progressives.
I agree, if Christians would truly embrace Christ's teaching of "Love Thy Neighbor..", "Do unto others..", and "Judge not.."; they won't get any complaint from me.
You should see the way those missionaries have been operating in South Asia over the decades and even centuries. They were successful in mugging the Philippines, somewhat India, and still trying China. I apologize for the idiots Magnolia has voted into office and allowed for this Christian mess. If they keep this up, I'm throwing my cross away.
No need to disparage any religion. All major religions have had their massacre periods ( though Zoracrastrian, Taoists,and....??? may have been major and peaceful).
"As much as I agree there is lots of hatred on the right, I see a fair amount of hatred on the left as well. The left fear mongers as well, just about different things."
All he really said was what you read above. The extremists on the right preach hate and intolerance, you'll find plenty on the left too. Just different kinds.
P.S. just read some of the posts below.
May I point out that the organized hatred, the goal oriented fear mongering of the right is a far different thing than the disorganized and fractious left can muster.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Sioux Rose
GLENN FORD: Great rebuttal.
All religions should be disparaged.
Nice to see that the author picked up on the authoritarian personality of the far right and started his piece off with it. Because if you don't understand that, at least, then you don't understand what the mainstream right has become.
Despite what bhaktipol who commented earlier might say, both sides are not the same, as the last 8 years should make obvious:
"Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of facts that demands attention."
I will leave it up to you to figure out which group is not acting fairly or with integrity (left or right) up to you.
Perhaps another way to put it.
The right believes in authoritarian structure, competitive action and a heavy hand to control the direction of society and everyone out to get the most for themselves. . The left emphasizes cooperation, what is good for community, and respect for civil and human rights. So, I have to agree with the author’s comments and more. The consumption of resources and destruction of life systems has made the world too small for the continuation of the right wing capitalist mentality. The future needs to be passed on consciousness of the use of resources and not unlimited growth.
Though they shout it from the mountain tops, competitive action is the last thing they want!
I don't want Mr. Obama to "fail." I am progressive in my political views. However, his economic plan and military adventure in Afghanistan almost guarantees his domestic plans will fall quite short of what is needed.
The bad banks should be taken over by the government, including the Federal Reserve. Their stock holders and investors should loose their investments in those banks because of the bad paper in them. Administrators of those banks should rehab them, and sell them when profitable.
The phony war in Afghanistan should end, if for no other reason than the USA cannot afford the wasted money. We had good intelligence that the WTC would be attacked in 2001, but the Bush administration did nothing to prevent that attack. Good intel will protect us now.
If you want real change? Give us single payer health care. Reduce the size and scope of the US Military. Make American schools the pride of this nation. Fight poverty, not "terrorist." Give us the best public transportation system in the world, Americans will build it. Reform our election system to give all candidates a fair chance at leadership. Tax the rich until there are no more rich. Yes, Mr. Obama could succeed, but he will fail with his same old policies.
Dear Mr. Obama is a House Negro who is protecting his master the Wall Street/Military Industrial complex. And this is why he will fail. But the unfortunate thing about his failure is that the public will be hurt the worst.
I too see Obama’s positions on Wall Street and foreign policy as a mistake. I have to take exception to the reference to him as a “House Negro” however, because it is unnecessarily insulting. I believe Obama will be as progressive as the progressive movement forces and supports him to be. If he goes out on a limb without a mass movement behind him he will fail. I have no doubt about that.
It will be the progressive people of this nation that will have failed as surely as the President.
Do you know where I got the term "House Negro?"
MALCOLM X: THE HOUSE NEGRO AND THE FIELD NEGRO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
I find facts, historical reference, and there interpretation often disturbing, but never insulting.
You want insulting: look at the Republican party the last 30 years and the idiots who voted for them.
I am insulted every time the USA bombs some poor ignorant people into the stone age, every day that Americans have no well paying work, every day that children grow up poor in the most rich country. I am insulted by so much around me in the USA like the lack of health care.
Condoleezza Rice is a House Negro, Colin Powell, too. It is too bad you don't get it.
Mr. Obama is the best House Negro the people of America have gotten from the ruling elite. Why do you think Mr. Obama has risen to power "out of nowhere?" Cause his masters know he is a very good House Negro. He does the masters work, loves his master with all his heart, and never wants the master to be hurt, or sick, or removed from power.
If the truth is an insult to you, then maybe you should crawl back into bed and hide from this insult we call the USA government.
I don't give a damn where you got it. Its a racist insult and its not needed here. I hadn't taken you for a rascist, but someones language defines them usually.
I'd suggest you look at what you said again and see if you think its anything but racist.
Did you hear what MALCOLM X said? Probably not. Some minds are shut like a trap; therefore, made easy to manipulate by the ruling elite/corporate state.
Are you getting it? No, of course not. You are no doubt of some mind that anything critical of a person descriptive or not is easy to put down by charging racist. Wouldn't it be you who is racist then? Yes, I think so.
See, we are all Negros now. Get it, yet?
Isn't the term Uncle Tom used as an euphemism for House Negro? I have read Malcolm X and he does use that term. Closed minds are easy to manipulate, no doubt about it. The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open!
Please add one more to the list of "house negroes". That would be Alcee Hastings of Florida who has introduced H.R. 645, "National Emergency Centers Act". This authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to set up FEMA camps on military bases for use in case of "national emergency". As we know, this project started under Oliver North and in the ensuing years, especially in the last eight years, hundreds of these "facilities" have been constructed across the U.S. This is all under the aegis of Northcom, which is basically our de facto government now in partnership with the international banking cartel. The end of the "War on Terror" is nowhere in site. Any one opposing the onslaught of the globalist fascists will be considered a terrorist. The call for a North American Union and new currency (the Amero) is out in the open. This is the planned goal of the Military Industrial Complex and the gutting of the ecomony may be a product of greed, but certainly not incompetence. Obama didn't even really address the economic meltdown until late in the campaign, so don't expect too much in the way of concern about FEMA camps and the very real (still existing) threat of martial law. For anyone interested, Infowars.com has been covering these issues extensively. Also, Global Research and What Really Happened.
"in the last eight years, hundreds of these "facilities" have been constructed across the U.S."
Can you give even one example? This is an Urban Legend.
January 22, 2009
H. R. 645 - To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.
See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
Obviously, this is an effort to put these centers THROUGHOUT the country, not just in hurricane-prone areas.
"Obviously, this is an effort to put these centers THROUGHOUT the country, not just in hurricane-prone areas."
Did you actually read anything on the link you posted? I saw no languague establishing "detention centers" like the black helicopter crowd believes.If you think I am wrong please provide a single example of a detention camp that has been built and staffed.
"If you want real change? Give us single payer health care. Reduce the size and scope of the US Military. Make American schools the pride of this nation. Fight poverty, not "terrorist." Give us the best public transportation system in the world, Americans will build it. Reform our election system to give all candidates a fair chance at leadership. Tax the rich until there are no more rich."
Amen. The last echoes a quote I have put on my Facebook that I got from an article on here..
"The rich have become a luxury that the rest of us can simply no longer afford."
I agree hoyt. Afghanistan, a continuation of bush*t will drag us down the moral/economic hell hole; the place imperialistic nations deserve to go. Obamas silence on the Gazan atrocities is deafening. Yet I still am will to give him more time to reveal a grand stategy that is in opposition to the violent plutocratic business as usual... Also a 90% tax rate on wealthy,as in the 1950's, generates revenues and still allows people to be rich.
Im a conservative, and Im not really a fan of his rather pompous, self-fellating speech. But - his presence, and the presence of all conservative talk radio hosts and critics is a neccessity and is protected under the first amendment in a tradition of dissenting speech that is older than the long-dried ink on the Constitution.
Attempts at eliminating talk radio through regulation or 'fairness' doctrines are neither moral or fair. If you don't like talk radio, that is your right - tune into Air America, buy an XM radio, but don't make demands that run counter to the fundamentals of the First Amendment.
That Rush Limbaugh, who a lot of conservatives can't stand, makes liberals and Obama crazy enough to address him to the news media and legislature, is a testament less to his effectiveness and more to his neccessity in fostering legitimate debate.
"Attempts at eliminating talk radio through regulation or 'fairness' doctrines are neither moral or fair."
Hank,
The trouble of being "fair" with conservatives aka Republicans is that they take unfair advantage of conciliatory acts.
For example: Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) lead directly to the economic mess the USA finds today. Democracy is not a suicide pact. The people should not allow fascist opportunist like Rush to spew his bile upon ignorant people without some publicly mandated rebuttal.
Would the world be a different place if the likes of Adolf Hitler had "fair" rebuttal after he took office? Yes. But Mr. Hitler crushed descent, much like the modern Republican/Conservatives do today, of course, without overt violence.
On every issue which effects the criminal or unfair operations of the ruling elite/Republican part/conservatives, we hear from them of the unfairness. But, then the Republicans turn around and abuse the fairness. Name an issue of fairness, and we see the Republicans abuse.
I agree with your post completely but, unless Hitler outlawed skydiving, it's "dissent" not "descent".
q
Thanks.
Thanks for the laughs. I needed it just then
Hank_Hill sez: "That Rush Limbaugh ... makes liberals and Obama crazy enough to address him to the news media and legislature, is a testament less to his effectiveness and more to his neccessity in fostering legitimate debate."
***
Wow. "Limbaugh" and "legitimate debate" in the same sentence. That is an impressive piece of writing, Mr. Hill. Thank you.
well to squash Limbaugh says to the nation that any dissent of obama will not be tolerated. freedom loving americans should stand up for the opposing view, even if it opposes their own.
'Yes I'm an extremist, thanks for noticing.'
- Ted Nugent
Democracy is not a suicide pact.
"That Rush Limbaugh, who a lot of conservatives can't stand, makes liberals and Obama crazy enough to address him to the news media and legislature..."
Limbaugh makes liberals crazy? What do you make of this? (from CNN):
"Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia apologized Wednesday for criticizing conservative hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity, assuring his supporters that "I am one of you."
"I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent," Gingrey said in a statement. "I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments."
The mea culpa comes one day after Gingrey appeared to take issue with Limbaugh's recent criticism of congressional Republicans. The conservative radio host said GOP leaders weren't adequately challenging President Obama on his proposed stimulus package."
It sounds to me that Republicans are the ones afeared of Limbaugh and his parrots.
And, legitimate debate? Is that what you call what the radio thugs do? Legitimate debate? Bloviated flaming is more like it. And stupid to boot!
Is that what you call what the radio thugs do? Legitimate debate? Bloviated flaming is more like it. And stupid to boot!
- yes, it is legitimate debate - the blowhard style is just that, style. If the 'progressive' community had any sense, it would go and meet that style head on as opposed to seeking cowardly legislation to ban it altogether. A fairness doctrine, make no mistake will effectively ban talk radio - no matter your opinions on the hosts, such an action is wrong and anti-Ameican.
'Yes I'm an extremist, thanks for noticing.'
- Ted Nugent
hoytdouglas,
You, Sir, have said it better than I ever could. There is no will in the Ruling Class to allow success for the commoners in America any more. I watched this forum as the progressive Kucinich and Nader supporters hopped onto the Obama bandwagon. I even held my nose and voted for him.
God help us All!
I have seen little evidence , at least here on CD, of any notable desertion of Nader by those who have supported him for years. I have, on the other hand seen Nader supporters disappearing from CD....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Very good comments
I like this article because it reinforces an impression I have had for some time about the people I know from the religious right.
They fundamentally do not actually believe in freedom or rights.
They believe only in their own freedom, and the right to do as they please. But they certainly do not believe that others, who are so obviously misguided and are just plain wrong, deserve such equal treatment under the law.
AS popworld says, they are ultimately authoritarian. But authoritarian in the sense that they want to be the authorities.
As for left-wing haters. They certainly exist. Just as corrupt Democrats exist (look at Illinios' govenor!). The question is whether this is sufficient to claim there is a 'movement' or whether the party embraces such attitudes in fact. I think it is pretty clear that the equivalent of Ann Coulter just doesn't exist for the left or if they do they do not get on the "Today" show every time a new schill-book comes out. Ariana Huffington is also an opinionated female personality, but the contrast couldn't be greater. Even pick Rachel Maddow as your counterfoil...someone who is more Coulter-like. she might well be verbally abusive of conservatives, but the blind cruel hatred just isn't there.
>>They believe only in their own freedom, and the right to do as they please. But they certainly do not believe that others, who are so obviously misguided and are just plain wrong, deserve such equal treatment under the law.
Actually, in another board and another thread a person from the "Right wing" actually argued that freedom meant her having the RIGHT to IMPOSE her views on others.
Her argument in essence if she could no longer impose HER views on others via laws, etc, then she herself was less free.
I find this viewpoint no so very uncommon as one would think.
there was an article either on CD or alternet about how the right wing in the united states hate the left and further they would like to essentially kill them off
and i think it is true
the gop will stop at nothing to express their blind rage and frustration
look at what they did to clinton
as we saw with that idiot palin - the gop responds with glee to racist and xenophobic rhetoric
the trailer park variety at that
some of the more reasonable in the gop were rightfully embarrassed by the crass, illiterate slob from alaska - but she generated more energy than did the octogenarian maccain
her appeal was to hate and fear
that is the gop
they don't seem to notice that their grossly obese and sunburned noses are the new minority in the united states
but let us not forget - as is so often done on cd - that there has never been an investigation into 9/11 - so let's not assume it was the arabs
despite all the crap about conspiracy theories and such - any reasonable person i think would be more inclined to acknowledge that an event like 9/11 is much more likely to be carried out by the secret government (military/nwo/corporate/rothschild bank) than it was by 19 saudis with box cutters
now there is a dumb conspiracy theory if i ever saw one
now that we know how much bushco lied about everything - including the war in iraq with over 1 million dead - do you think they would pass one small gaseous turd about killing a couple of thousand citizens
please........
cheers, b
If Obama is successful, the USAs greatest threat will be from a false flag Neocon attack. I believe the Neocon drive to power began in Dallas with JFK's assassination.
BryanD, You don't really think of Bill Clinton as the 'left' do you? :)
I have a movie of the week idea. The secret gov't is breaking the minds of those they have been torturing in order to use them as drones to carry out "terrorist" operations and they will have their own cadre of 'Islamic' terrorists. After all, they will tell us they were dangerous in the first place, right?
Actually, as we do know, these techniques follow right along with the work of CIA operations after WWII that have continued. Such as Code Name Artichoke. Which Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved with. It had to do with breaking down people and regressing their psyches to a state where they could be reprogrammed to do things that are against their own consciences, etc.
Naomi Klein's book gets into this as well.
"the trailer park variety at that"
Classy. Are we allowed to make disparaging remarks about low income people who happen to live in inner city areas too?
If Mr. Reel is not on the payroll of the Business Roundtable, he ought to be. The only way we could ever throw off corporate control of the government, the economy, and the society is for the poor, the working class, the intellectuals, and the progressives to unite. So one of the main goals of the corporate predator class is to keep those groups divided, and Reel's framing certainly helps to do that, increasing the hostility, mistrust, and misunderstanding between non-wealthy social conservatives and non-wealthy social liberals. The corporate elites would heartily approve.
Kivals ----- Class wars are also not productive. Look at every successful social movement and you will see that wealthy, even aristocratic people helped to fund them. The problem is not in the wealth it is in the use of it. Just as a poor person with a gun is not a problem if he hunts for food and does not kill MLK or an Afghan.
And the social movement the weatlhiest corporate elites are most invested in now is one to create a wide gulf between the haves and havenots, so that it will be easy to determine who "deserves" medical care and dwindling energy resources and who does not. So maybe we better have one of those "not productive" class wars pretty soon. I do not mean that every wealthy person is evil, but simply that a system that produces an extremely wealthy class and a large number of extremely impoverished individuals will lead to serious abuses over time, as they will naturally seek to monopolize power and control the government, the economy, and the society for their benefit, and at our expense.
As someone who has been around more than half a century, I have watched the corporate elites play progressives like a cheap violin for decades, and the tune becomes more difficult to listen to as it goes on. Thirty years ago hardly anyone ever thought of gay marriage, but now it is used as a wedge issue to split the working class. If you think the corporate elites have not been building that conflict, from BOTH sides of it, I have a bridge to sell you. The black civil rights movement had inadvertently given the corporate elites a great gift, as it allowed them to use racism to help their candidates win the South, even when their candidates offered nothing of value to the great majority of people in the South. After that the corporate elites sought other possibly divisive issues they could use, and they have fanned the flames of the culture wars ever since.
The 19th century union movements gave us the method to overturn the ruling elite/corporate system. The black civil rights movement refined it. Now the people of the USA should pick it up again to crush the plutocracy ruining this country.
We can attempt to change the system without framming it as poor against wealthy; I would prefer it framed as an end to predatory capiltalism.
"We can attempt to change the system without framming it as poor against wealthy; I would prefer it framed as an end to predatory capiltalism."
We can do this, if we don't want to be honest with ourselves about the nature of the problems the world faces. Capitalism is by its nature predatory, it was born as a predatory system by feudal elites who privatized the lands and gave the best land to themselves. They passed laws outlawing the formation of unions, made it against the law to beg (in some places a third offense was death), passed laws making it ILLEGAL to pay ABOVE a wage set by the state for employee and employer, gave preferntial treatment to large estates over the collective and small property owners, only allowed a pitifully small welfare state (that they over time made intentionally worse to force people onto the market) amongst other things. If you want a good rundown, read the last ten or so chapters of Marx's Capital Vol 1.
It is not in the interests of the capitalists or the capitalist countries to help the poorer countries develop, which is why the capitalists have attacked militarily, economically, politically and through the press poor countries that attempt to develop, unless there is a stregetic benefit to that development (like South Korea's state lead economic development). The US has even, multiple times, vetoed at the UN resolutions that said that every country has a right to develop! In one year, 1986, the vote was 146-1, guess who that one was?
The fact is that we live in world dominated by the capitalist system, and the majority of the people in the world are poor. The more "neo-liberal" or "free market" policies have been implemented, the larger differences in wealth, the more hollow the democracies. Wealth concentration has gone up within and between countries. There is a direct correlation between the wealth of the West and the poverty of the rest. There is a finite amount of resources in the world, we consume about six times more per person than those in the underdeveloped world. If they consume more, we HAVE to consume less. If they develop, they might out-compete us and won't have to rely on us for day to day economic operations. We also can't force draconian economic policies on them they don't want, at horribly high IR. So, the rich countries and individuals have kept down wages, had debt take its place, forced poor countries to pay back loans at interest rates that are impossible to pay back (take a look at world wide debt to rich financial capital, now even a huge problem in the West), forced the countries to liberalize their finance and sell off all of the resources that we need and have value, the resources that we usually buy relative to manufacutred goods a horribly exploitive prices. So if the people democratically chose policies capitalists don't like they can split and cause their economy to crash. That is why financial capital, with headquarters in place like New York and London, have what is a called a "virtual senate". They indireclty tell the world what policies are "acceptatble" from their standpoint, they own the media and pay articulate and educated people to justify the set up and we can chose from a narrow range of policy options.
Again, if you want to pretend there is no class element it isn't because you're interested in looking at the situation for what it is, reality. You have a stake in the current system, an ideological objection or don't think this set up needs to change for whatever reason.
Just a point of history: The South was able to redisenfranchise the Freedperson and the Free born African American when USS Grant, as president,post Civil War, grew tired of military conflicts with white supremacists and KKK.