Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Change We Can Believe In: Feelings Toward the Administration by Those Who Elected It
Over the last couple of weeks I've been hearing rumblings. They're not from the staged or misinformed protestors at town hall meetings who have decided that shouting down a member of Congress is their right as American citizens. They're not from "the left" -- that wild, unruly group of bloggers and Birkenstockers the White House has called on repeatedly, both in pubic and in private, to be quiet.
They're from the parent who came to pick up her daughter after a play date with my five-year-old, as we stood in the door chatting. They're from my cousin, a family doctor, who called me when he heard about Big Pharma's sweetheart deal with the White House to prevent negotiations on the cost of prescription drugs. They're from a guy I sat next to on a plane this week who doesn't follow politics all that closely but follows closely enough to know that bankers seems to be getting bonuses as homeowners are getting foreclosure notices.
These people aren't "raving liberals." Most of them haven't even gotten word yet that they're supposed to call themselves progressives (and none of them knew the secret progressive handshake). They're ordinary voters who either sometimes or reliably vote Democratic, who were members of the Obama majority in 2008 and were convinced that this time their vote really mattered. Now they're disillusioned.
They can see the economic upturn. They see the Dow rising. They know that corporate profits are no longer in a free-fall. But they can also see that those profits are rising as their own company is considering another round of layoffs -- and that those two facts are not unrelated. And what they feel summarizes what they see: where before they had hope, now they feel primarily frustration and resentment.
As one of these people recently said to me, the cadence of Obama's speeches that used to give her shivers is now starting to grate on her nerves.
I knew just what she meant. I first had that feeling when I watched the President's speech in Africa. This time, superimposed on my usual response to Obama's eloquence (and his willingness to speak directly to people who American presidents have often failed even to notice) was a different feeling -- anger -- and a very different thought: What's he doing in Africa when the tide of public opinion is turning on health care reform back home? Africa will be there in 3 months. Public sentiment for genuine reform -- not a Botox bill, which will momentarily cover up the wrinkles in the pained face of our health care system long enough for a smiling Rose Garden ceremony -- may not.
A disquieting pattern seems to be emerging. When the President put in charge of our financial system a man who had led the New York Fed during a period of extraordinary Wall Street corruption and another who had helped dismantle protections against it, many of us scratched our heads in confusion. When he traded off billions in stimulus money that would have prevented precisely the cuts states are making today -- laying off workers and slashing essential programs, which runs counter to the whole point of the stimulus package -- for the same kind of tax cuts that ballooned the deficit during the Bush years, many of us thought he was just a really bad poker player. But he was playing solitaire, with no one on the other side of the table. We figured every President is entitled to his early mistakes.
But then came the news about the new law designed to protect consumers from credit card companies raising their rates. The President described how Americans had had enough of the fine print. But one provision seemed awfully odd: a 10-month grace period for credit card companies to "adjust" to the new legislation and make whatever changes they wanted in the meantime. You normally don't give burglars your vacation schedule in advance so they have time to "adjust."
Then the reports started to come in from ordinary Americans who were seeing their interest rates hit the roof -- applied retroactively to money they had borrowed before the recession hit or they lost their jobs.
I got my own letter today:
Important Account Price Change NotificationWe are raising your Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on purchases and cash advances.
We are raising the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on any balances that have a penalty rate because of a late payment.
We are increasing the late fee.
It was very thoughtful of them to tell me. But I was surprised the letter didn't say how much the new rates would be. I looked for a second page, but there wasn't one. Then I flipped it over, and there it was -- in fine print.
So the President and Congress passed a new law protecting consumers from predatory lending practices and credit-card fine print, but they gave the credit card companies a grace period during which they could raise the rates and put them in the fine print. Funny, I don't remember a similar grace period for homeowners who can't pay their mortgages. Couldn't we have had a homeowners' equivalent of the student loan program, through which the federal government would give homeowners no-interest loans for a couple of years to get them through the tough times so they don't lose their homes, particularly when the unemployment rate is near 10 percent because somebody else gambled with their incomes and assets, instead of giving banks zero-interest loans and allowing them to charge usurious rates on existing debt?
Of the millions of Americans who are receiving letters like this every day, I happen to be one of the lucky ones. I don't carry a balance on my credit cards, my home is still worth more than my mortgage, and I still have a job. But if Americans are starting to turn populist anger toward a White House that has doggedly refused to focus that anger where it belongs -- toward the banks, the mortgage brokers, the regulators who failed to regulate, the oil companies that have blocked energy reform for decades while racking up record profits, the health insurance companies that make their profits by denying coverage and discriminating against the ill, the pharmaceutical companies whose lobbyists have negotiated away the right to negotiate, and the Republicans who bankrupted the treasury during the eight long years of the Bush Presidency and crashed the economy on their way out -- I can understand why.
The American people did not vote for "bipartisan" solutions that split the difference between the failed ideology of the last eight years, which continues to cost thousands of people their jobs and homes every day, and the change the President and the super-majorities they elected in both houses of Congress promised.


67 Comments so far
Show AllThe failed ideology goes back much further than eight years. And, I see no spiltting of a difference here...
An excellent, first rate essay. I worked my ass off for Obama, and I share many of the sentiments Drew Weston describes.
What's missing from the Obama White House is that on the real big issues - life and death in the combat zones abroad, the tanking of the domestic economy while income disparity increases, control of corporate excess, meaningful health care reform - a broad bipartisan spectrum sits at the big table, but there's never a seat available for even a token voice from the progressive community. Fundamental change is never on the table, at least on major issues that matter most (perhaps with the exception of energy/environmental policy).
That rankles me. But that of course is not what is bothering the neighbor, the family doctor, and the guy in the seat next to Dr. Westen on his recent airline trip, whose growing disillusionment he so aptly describes. They could care less about the continued marginalization of folks who know the secret progressive handshake.
They care a great deal, however, about whether they've been played. And they worry (quite understandably) that they're going to get played for three more years.
Bill from Saginaw
"I worked my ass off for Obama"
What a minute - he's posed to work his ass off for you, not vice versa. Sheesh! Didn't they proof-read the pamphlet?
I don't have any sympathy for the ignorant fools and greedy idiots who voted for oh-bwa-ma.
I hope they get the FULL measure of what they deserve.
I'm tired of warning people away from doing themselves harm.
Yeah, go ahead and touch that blue flame, knock yourself out.
You can't fix stupid.
Re Common-dweebs August 13th, 2009 2:55 pm, who prays,
"I hope they get the FULL measure of what they deserve."
Spoken like somebody who doesn't think it's going to splatter him too.
The problem is that it will splatter the rest of us.
You guys own this shit if you voted for him. The rest of us? Yeah, we're going over the cliff with you, but I didn't vote for more war, no health care, coups in Central America, military build-up in Colombia to fight the "drug war" (that is code for Washington being scared shitless of the leftist power emerging in South America), and banksters getting trillions of our money. I did not vote for that crap.
The man came right out during the debate and said he would escalate in Afghanistan. If that is not a reason to vote for another candidate, I don't know what is. How anybody in good conscience can vote for a guy who wants to kill more civilians is mind-blowing. Obfraud might be the first candidate who ever walked an "antiwar" position and came out full bore for more war and more killing. The man is simply cynical to the core. He said what he had to say to get elected. That's all.
I'm guessing more than a few people around here said similar things about Republicans. "You voted for Bush and the rest of us have to suffer."
Now you know what it feels like. You voted for Obama - you own it. All the death and destruction. All of it. Congratulations.
Why don't you go lecture Kucinich?
Truth is, no one even thought Clinton would be as disasterous as Bush. In fact, I am starting to think that Clinton might've been better because at least we knew her agenda and the woman can be tough. It is EASY to point the finger of blame at others, but what if Kucinich got in there and caved? Well, he caved when he backed Obama, what makes you think he would be so pure? And how productive would is it to continue expending energy in blame when you should be glad that people are coming around?
The hell? Who said anything about Kucinich?
Jesus, I don't vote for Democrats - ever. Never have, never will. Kucinich is the left wing "placeholder" the Dem party uses to convince people that the "left" is loony and unattainable. That's all Kucinich is there for. I would just assume if he's a Democrat, he's not on the side of working people. It's pretty simple.
I honestly don't know how people who vote for Democrats sleep at night. Voting for all this war? Approving of all this war?
Ask the people in Pak whose families are being killed by drones if they like Obama.
Ask the people in Afghanistan who have been made refugees in their own country because Obama is bombing the crap out of that place.
I'm sure they think he's a "blast."
Righto! Keep doing stupid things, but then don't expect positive results.
Welcome to the Real World, Drew. Wake up and smell the napalm.
Nor is our illustrious "Constitutional Law Professor" going to prosecute the criminals of the previous administration. Rather, he will keep their crimes covered up.
Barack & Nancy--the best friends Bush & Co have in the Opposition Party.
"Nor is our illustrious "Constitutional Law Professor""
I have to admit, that was one of my main draws to voting for him.
What a sad joke.
And he was only a lecturer. He had no published papers or scholarly works of any kind. It sickens me just to listen to him talk. He really sounds disconnected and like he doesn't care.
Obama for all intents and purposes is a punk. By punk I mean someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, a pretender, acting like he knows what he's doing and is serious about following through with his commitments, but is either unable or unwilling to do so, and is probably not even interested in trying, and knowing it all along. It's like he wanted to become president because it seemed like a cool thing to do, and actually doing the things that a president is supposed to do, let alone the things that he specifically promised to do, are things that only gullible fools actually expect him to do. I sense a cynicism so deep in Obama that he doesn't even know that it's there. He seems to me like the sort of person who has absolutely no problem rationalizing to himself saying one thing and doing another, so second nature is this quality that it never even occurs to him that there might be something wrong with that. I am Barack Obama, the most brilliant, popular and powerful man in the world! I can do no wrong, am god-like, can do whatever I want, and if it's not what I promised to do, it doesn't matter, because I am ME!
I realize that he entered office facing enormous obstacles and was never going to achieve everything that he promised to do. But I'm not looking for 100% achievement, only 100% effort. And Obama is clearly not giving anywhere near that. And it's not because of the obstacles that he faces, but because he lacks the courage, will, and perhaps even principle, to try. I sense that not only doesn't he possess the courage to spend the political capital necessary to deal with these things properly, but he also seems to not care enough about them to be willing to try. So we get all these half efforts like the stimulus bill and climate change (and quite likely health care), bait and switch efforts like the bailouts, joke efforts like this alleged investigation and the drawdown in Iraq, and non-efforts like investigating the real Bush crimes.
Obama is a punk. He wants the rewards of being president, but isn't able or willing to put in the effort, whether due to cowardice, lack of interest, or both. In his own way, he's a bit like Sarah Palin. Smarter, yes, but basically lots of talk, and very little meaningful follow-through.
It's quite frightening.
He accomplished at least one good thing when he was a community organizer...but that was when I was in diapers.
And the funny thing is, the right-wing media keeps screaming HE'S A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER! EVIL!!!!
Yes, and early on, when asked where the change was when it was becoming apparent that he was just reaching for the Bush torch, his response was that it was he, himself who was the medium through which this change would be channelled and be made manifest.
Now, how is that any different than Bush claiming that god talked to him?
Wow, the HuffPost too.
Three months ago and they wouldn't have printed it.
That is the thing--Obama is elitist, remote and unconnected. Like he was out of central casting and keeps playing the role after the movie is over.
FDR, traitor to his class, spoke to the people, channeled their anger productively and didn't surround himself with a team of crooked banksters and corporate whores.
The guy across the street from me, a Republican who is involved with local government and a conventional sort of small town guy, told me that they all needed to be strung up--Rs and Ds alike and that the only solution was assassination. I suggested that revolution would be a better option, but he thought we had too much to lose and advocated that everyone get a gun. Mind you, this is a very respectible man in the community and he said it loudly and with force--not a whisper. If I said that, I am sure there would be a knock at the door. Just goes to show you how deep the disgust really is.
I voted for Obama(he was my last choice), and I am even surprised at how much of a sellout he has been in only 6 months. I still think Hillary Clinton, the only other viable candidate, would have been a better president. His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are disgraceful, as are many other aspects of his administration. But I still don't regret my vote.
There was absolutely no way a third party candidate was going to win the 2008 presidential election. To vote third party is to throw away your vote, and I felt we had to get Republicans out of office at all costs. I would still rather have Obama in office rather than McCain, and just imagine Palin as our vice president. She is a lunatic.
And for the record, if Obama's health care plan is so bad according to the far left, then why is the insurance industry doing everything in its power to ensure it is defeated. As far as I remember, except for Florida in 2000, I have never seen a more rabid and mobilized right wing attack. Why, then, are they attacking it with everything they have? It's because there are some changes in it that these corporations don't like. That's why.
Even this little hope of change is worthy of some support. Yet the far lefties still whine no matter what. It's their way or wah wah wah.
"at all costs"
Let's hope the cost isn't too high.
"There was absolutely no way a third party candidate was going to win the 2008 presidential election." Surely you realize that's a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. The real reason they "can't win" is that you believe they can't!
No kidding. I just got done commenting to a "least worst vote" guy up above that the reason third parties don't get traction is because ... nobody votes for them!
What do these people think, that a third party is going to magically appear out of nowhere? Like a unicorn or the tooth fairy? That is some hairy magical thinking.
Mind-boggling.
You are an idealist-that is your problem. I am realist, you are the one who believes in tooth fairies and unicorns. In the state in which I live there are no third party candidates even on the ballot-and there are no write-ins allowed. It takes about 75,000 signatures to even get a third party candidate on the ballot here. Though there has been some progress in the state legislature this year to reduce the required number.
(And there are some progressives in the congress, such as Conyers and Kucinich, aside from Barney Frank.)
You have an all or nothing view, and that is a good way to get absolutely nothing done. There is no other elections until next year-so you had better work with what you have now. And even if a real progressive got elected to the presidency at this moment in time he/she would be run out of Washington. Third parties have to start from the bottom up, from local and state governments and then to the congress.
No, not because I believe they can't but because 225 million other American voters wont even consider voting for 3rd party candidates, and the other 75 million who might are at each others throats.
They are not doing everything they can to defeat Obomba's plan - they are doing everything they can to defeat any attempt to remove the profit motive from the primary healthcare system, which at this point, translates to SINGLE PAYER. Big Pharma would love some compromise, including a so-called "public option" which they could undermine.
I'm a bit mystified what you imagine this has to do with "the far left."
0 is changing things right along. He is just going in the wrong direction:
--- More money to military
--- More invasion and occupation
--- More money to Wall Street
--- More mountaintop removal and more coal plants
--- More plans for nuclear plants
--- A coup backed by Democratic Party funders in Honduras
If 0 or Hillary have done anything right - anything towards the left, towards moderation, or towards the support of their constituencies, you fail to mention it.
---(No, the health proposal does not qualify. Angering the right does not mean the health proposal is viable or should even be passed. There are many ways to louse something up. The right wants to louse it up by plan A, 0 by plan B.)---
For what it's worth, Mr. Hammer, I support your right to whine.
Whine on! Whimper, shout if you care to. Vote for 0Billary if you care to: there likely was worse. But why would loyalty to a "last choice" election option motivate you to deny that the Party has abandoned the values that you apparently sought - given that you seem to dislike corporatocracy and would like socialized health care.
You may have another leastworst decision in '10 or '12, but that's poor reason to deny the results.
Everything you say about Obama is correct, and he was a "leastworst" vote for me. I voted for Kucinich in the primary. But I can say that if McCain were in office it would be ten times worse right now. We might have already invaded Iran or Georgia by now (since, as McCain said, "we are all Georgians.")
If using a previous medical condition to deny health care or rescinding medical coverage after the fact were made illegal by Obama's health care plan, then a little progress will have been made, which is better than nothing. Whatever this plan turns out to be, it will be than a McCain health care plan, which would have allowed interstate insurance coverage.
Whether or not I cast a least worst vote in '10 or '12 depends on how things look at that time.
Look at the tap dancing you're doing. Aren't you embarrassed? A "least worst vote?" Jesus, you'll do anything not to vote for a progressive or a leftist!
It's not only the Dems in Washington that are spineless. Looks like the people who vote Dem are spineless, too!
Everybody in Washington today is to the right of Nixon. Everybody. Maybe a few exceptions that won't make a difference, like Sanders, or Barbara Lee in Congress. The rest of them - corporate shills you will gladly screw you over and don't care if you just end up in the gutter and die.
But you go right on voting for the "least worst vote." Damn, I have to roll that one around on my tongue for a moment.
Great tap dancing, though. Congressional Dems do it all the time, too. You and Harry Reid would get along great.
"[they]will gladly screw you over and don't care if you just end up in the gutter and die." Gee, I wasn't aware of that, Mr. Priggery, thanks for coming down off your high horse to tell me that bit of wisdom.
And I am not spineless, just a pragmatist.
Most Americans, perhaps as much as 70%, are complete morons when it comes to politics. It doesn't matter much now if you and all your friends vote third party because you are far out numbered by the morons. America is really Moronica. And Moronicans wont change until they are in truly dire straits, on the scale of the great depression or worse, before they turn back to progressive politics as happened in the 1930s. Until then it is damage control-at best.
Do you expect people to trust that you would vote your principles if only everyone else would vote your principles too? You need to vote your principles when nobody else will to prove you truly support the principles you say you support.
It is nice to see someone use logic here.
His principles include bombing and killing civilians, fighting leftist democracies in South America, retaining corporate health care, and giving away the treasury to CEOs. Otherwise, why would he vote for Obama?
Oh, here comes the blair witch project again. You don't know what my principles are at all.
Sir, you are a left wing extremist who wants immediate justice in the government. I would love to see Bush and Cheney prosecuted for authorizing torture and bringing this country into a "war" under false pretenses, but it is not going to happen.
As far as Obama, sometime before the democratic party convention he cut a deal with the party and corporate big wigs. These people that run the country wont let a socialist or Green Party candidate become president. They have a stranglehold on the federal government. If you want to see a socialist or Green party candidate in office, which I am all for, I would suggest starting with the House of representatives in some very liberal part of the country such as districts in San Francisco or New York City and work up from there.
I know what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States became an empire after it forced Japan to open itself up to trade in 1856 and has been terrorizing the rest of the world ever since. I don't support that or anything else you claim I support.
But you are like a big baby who can't get his way. I just voted where I thought it would do the most good under the circumstances. You would do well to stop responding to me, sir, because when it comes to a battle of wits you are unarmed.
As far as 0's health plan goes, that's a big "If," and it also depends what concessions Congress grants the insurance lobby in return.
I see our problem like this.
--- Insurance is not a zero-sum game between company and client. That means that things can be made worse for both: bad insurance companies can oppose a bad bill.
--- The Demned need to pass a health bill, pull out of the wars, or go green, or lose big in '10 and '12 without the support of the swing voters that Cheney passed them in '06 and '08.
---- The Repubbles do not have the same problem: their constituency wants war, coal, nukes, oil, and torture, and is split about gift$ to bankers.
--- 0, Ms C, Baucus, Pelosi, & sold the healthcare franchise to get into office in '08. If they pass a bill that grants Americans health care, they betray their sponsors.
The Demned either have to betray their sponsors or their voters big time.
The option that they appear to be choosing is to provide a very bad health insurance bill that forces Americans to purchase private health insurance with no guarantees of healthcare - essentially a privatized tax backed by socialized law enforcement.
As far as '08, 10, & '12 go, fair enough. I surely grant that not all deplorable options are equal and that tactics are required where real consequences are involved - as in elections.
I myself would love to vote for a progressive Democrat and might settle on voting for a moderate Democrat, could I find either.
frankhammer August 13th, 2009 3:30 pm..........Can you explain to me, how voting your conscience is throwing away your vote? In my case, I voted my conscience and voted for Nader. Do you mean to say the only valid vote is for the winner?
No, not at all. Perhaps I put it the wrong way. I respect your vote for Nader, and he's by far the better choice than Obama. I voted for Kucinich in the democratic primary-that was my vote of conscience.
The thing about Nader, or Kucinich for that matter, is that he couldn't win. I felt that the key in 2008 was to get republicans out of office, because of all the damage done by them over the last eight years. By the time Bush left office, our whole system of government was on the brink of collapsing.
Where you go off the rails is in expecting the third party candidate to "win." You are right - they won't win. But you can't vote for the "lesser of the 2 evils" sitting on your ass waiting for a third party to rise up out of nothing.
Third parties will become a force when people actually start to vote for them!! That is how it's done. "Waiting" for the third party and getting the disaster that is Obama (or whoever) is spinning your wheels.
You have to jump ship from the Dems and start voting third party NOW. Does that mean Republicans could win in near future election cycles? Yes. That's the price we have to pay to get true progressive change. You can't keep voting for Democrats and engaging in magical thinking that 1) a progressive party will come out of nothing and 2) Democrats will somehow magically change and start becoming progressive.
THERE ARE NO PROGRESSIVES IN CONGRESS. Maybe Bernie Sanders. Other than that, THERE ARE NONE. They are all beholden to corporate interests.
So stop using the excuse that a third party vote is a "waste" of a vote. That's ridiculous and very short-sighted. If you want a third party in power, YOU VOTE FOR THEM NOW.
If you voted for Obama, you own this shit. The rest of us have to go over the cliff with you. I voted for the socialist - I would have voted for Nader, but I don't vote for capitalists on principle. Nader's going in the right direction, but he's a cappie. So he didn't get my vote.
You have to vote third party now. You can't "wait for things to go your way before voting that way." Because you can see the result - it will NEVER happen that way.
But hey thanks for voting for more war, no health care, old growth logging, funding coups and right-wing interests in South/Central America, and bank giveaways. Your guy is doing great!
I voted for Cynthia,,,it's not easy being Green.
I'm a huge McKinney fan myself. :-)
Your philosophy is what got George Bush into office in the first place. If Nader hadn't taken 2.8 million votes in that election, Gore would have easily won. And I can say for certain that Gore would not have given three tax cuts, invaded Iraq and wasted lives and hundreds of billions of dollars (given mostly away to his friends like Dick Cheney), unconstitutionally extend the power of the executive branch, trampled on civil liberties, authorize torture, and virtually bankrupt the country. Having Gore in there besides Bush would have made a world of difference. And I can say that having Obama in the White House is better than having McCain and/or that lunatic Palin.
You have to wait for the right time, and the time will not be ripe until there a number of third party politicians in place at the local and state levels and in congress.
Blair:
I think that you made a very convincing argument for 3rd parties. However, as you can read, convincing a Democrat, may be just as difficult as having a rational discussion with "ditto-head."
There is no good argument here, "air-head." You have to win at the ballot box. When your candidate is going to get 0.001 percent of the vote and you vote for him anyway, you may be following your principles but you will see no change in your government. Worse, you may just let someone into the White House such as George W. Bush who further destroys it, and then make it even harder to change, or it may collapse all together.
Besides, even if there were a third party president, he/she would need lots of third party candidates in the House or senate or else be run out of Washington. You can't put the cart before the horse. Gains have to be made at the state level and in congress before third parties can make an effective run at the presidency.
I am no democrat- I only voted that way because it was the only way to stop the republicans. The best form of government, if I were to choose, would be democratic socialism with a mixed economy (with a single payer health care system, and so on.)
But you are an idealist; and I am pragmatist. Democratic socialism is not possible in this country under the current conditions. So now I am for any change rather no change, or for keeping things the same rather than making them worse. When the U.S. government is forced to go bankrupt, then there will be change.
Perhaps it is the people who called themselves "progressives" (while blissfully comparing themselves to those they branded as Rightist") that need basic rethinking.
The so called "Right Wing Lunatics" are actually more in touch with capitalism's realities than these aptly described "bleeding hearts". (Sorry, I just have to assume that these liberals actually realise that what they are trying to "reform" is something called Capitalism.)
These progressives ACTUALLY believe they could enjoy the fruits of capitalism without having to do the evils that capitalists need to do. They actually believe that getting their own heart to bleed "just a little" is going to stop the "soft" killings at home and the "hard" killing abroad.
It is a "dog eat dog" world out there, mate. Don't you forget it. The American Dream that was nurtured by the capitals that came from taking over continents from the stupid natives are nearly used up. It is time to accumulate capitals from other sources. A MAN has just got to do what a MAN got to do.
Democracy, human rights, etc are for the stupid and weak who are deluded into believing that they are the ones to inherit the earth. Wake up dudes and smell your own farts as you let them out in Common Dreams and other "leftie" media. If you can't think in terms of revolution, just stop thinking. You are only going to give yourself headaches, that is all.
"I just have to assume that these liberals actually realise that what they are trying to 'reform' is something called Capitalism."
In fact, many don't, at least not in such stark terms. And some of the thoughts underlying your commentary (if not their expression and conclusions) are by no means invalid. Many "lefties" do seem to live in a dream-like world of wishful thinking, failing to come to grips with, or even recognize, the true bases for the undeniable successes of the "righties" and their creative employment of the tools at hand.
CAPITALISM is a human construct. it is not a "natural , inevitable" social order and does not need to be.
THE USA is like Capitalism oN Steroids...and one knows what happens to people who take steroids to turn themselves into Bodybuilders.........
You sound totally lost and confused. There's regulated capitalism which most people wouldn't object to and then there's unfettered/disaster capitalism which has proven to be a failure. Go read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and grow a brain. You Joe the Plumber Republicans don't even try to think. The so-called "capitalism" you lionize has gone down in flames and is in fact DISASTER capitalism. If Obama and the Democrats hadn't been dumb enough to "bail" it out, you would have learned something but it's too bad that their feeding the "capitalist" beast has kept you in the dark.
Unfortunately that which has gone down in flames was what passes for regulated capitalism.
Of course like any other govt failure , the solution offered is more of the same failed behavior on steroids and double, triple or quadruple the cost.
Somebody is definitely confused.
Capitalism is just an economic theory the essence of which is simply private ownership of capital. The quality of the regulatory environment (if any) in which it or any other economic system operates is a product of governance, a whole other set of theories that includes various forms of direct and representative democracy, among others.
Usually it is the "righties" who tend to confuse and conflate the two issues, but I'm not so sure it's nakli in this case.
{Somebody is definitely confused.}
And that person would be you.
In the real world the characteristics of the economic system cannot be divorced from the effects of governance.
Oh, for pete's sake! Who said anything about them being "divorced". Don't put words in other people's mouths. Fuzzy thinking really ticks me off.
Lots of things interact and affect one another. Religion, for example, can and sometimes does have significant effects on governance and vice versa, but we usually try our best to distinguish between the two, especially when trying to decide exactly what needs to be reformed and how it can be accomplished.
Not the sharpest tool in the drawer are you?
You were the dumba$$ making the distiction between govt and economic systems while jennifer and I were both addressing the combined effect of the 2.
Thanks for admitting your first point was irrelevant to our discussion.
It wasn't your discussion in the first place and, although you obviously don't realize it, you've actually proven the original poster's point about not really understanding what you're trying to reform.
duplicate
Ooops! You're criticizing the wrong group. The group that screwed you is the capitalist elites, not the progressive rabble. Could it be that you're afraid to confront the real aggressor so you vent here? I'm telling ya, don't be afraid of elites - they're wimps - go after them - they'll bluff and then run. You have to be fast. Sic 'em!