EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Monday, August 24, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Between the Rhetoric and the Reality
The Obama White House—full of supposedly smart political advisors led by the President of the “Change You Can Believe In” campaign movement of 2008—is in disarray. Worse, multiple, confusing varieties of disarray provoking public confusion, internal Democratic Party strife, and the slow withdrawal of belief in Mr. Obama by his strongest supporters around the country.
Two of his most steadfast supporters in the media—columnists Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert of the New York Times—are wondering about Mr. Obama’s plans. Krugman repeated his fellow Sunday Times essayist Frank Rich’s observation who wrote about Obama “punking” his supporters with his waffling, reversals and frequent astonishing adoption of Bush’s worst corporatist and military policies.
While Bob Herbert, taking to task his political hero for waffling and vagueness regarding health care, issued this reluctant appraisal:
“I hear almost daily from men and women who voted enthusiastically for Mr. Obama but are feeling disappointed. They feel that the banks made out like bandits in the bailouts, and that the health care initiative could become a boondoggle. Their biggest worry is that Mr. Obama is soft, that he is unwilling or incapable of fighting hard enough to counter the forces responsible for the sorry state the country is in.”
There has rarely been a more auspicious time for a transforming Presidential leadership. Disgraced corporate capitalism has shattered the economy. The living conditions of millions of workers and pensioners whose taxes were taken to bail out these Wall Street crooks and gamblers are dismal.
Rather than expressing remorse, the arrogant corporate lobbyists are working over Congress with ferocious demands, fueled by cash-register politics and paid Astroturf rallies back in the Congressional Districts.
The giant corporations and their trade lobbies want no real health insurance reform that will reduce their monopolies and profiteering. They want no renewable and energy efficient standards interfering with their massive waste, pollution and inefficiency. They want no reductions in the bloated military budget surrounded by the waste, fraud and abuse of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell warning to the American people.
The corporate supremacists want no changes in the deliberately complex and obscure tax laws favoring the corporate evaders and avoiders and the tax havens for the super-wealthy.
In short, the global corporations want Washington, D.C.; to continue being their massive deregulator and cash cow perpetuating the abandoning of American workers, the pillaging of the American taxpayer and the defrauding of the American consumer.
Forget about corporate law and order to restrain the corporate crime wave. The harmony, bipartisan President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, have outsmarted themselves. What worked to defeat Hillary Clinton last year has succeeded in splitting the Congressional Democrats into progressives, corporate liberals and Blue Dog Conservatives Republicans can scarcely believe their luck and are busy exploiting these schisms.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Democrat, undermines his Speaker, Nancy Pelosi’s “public option” plan for health insurance. Senator Max Baucus—a closet Republican masquerading as the Democratic Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is working hand-in-glove with right-wing Republicans and the White House to craft a weak “bi-partisan” bill that keeps getting weaker as the corporatist Republicans sniff increasing weakness in the White House.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, the more progressive legislators are accusing their former colleague, Committee Chair, Henry Waxman of selling out to the defiant Blue Dog Democrats on his Committee. While Mr. Waxman himself has to be worried that even his compromised “public option” (which Democrats should be calling “public choice”) will be derailed by the bill that the Baucus/Grassley/Obama axis will soon reveal in the Senate.
The Obama voters do not know what they are supposed to support. Obama never did identify with a clear health insurance proposal—not to mention the single payer approach (full Medicare for all) he says he would favor if he was “starting from scratch.” There has been nothing upstanding for his supporters around the country to rally around.
It is sad to say that all this could have been predicted by Obama’s political record as an Illinois and U.S. Senator. He rarely has taken a stand and fought against his adversaries. Even after he cuts a deal with them, they continue to undermine his agenda.
Once again, Bob Herbert senses the disturbing trend: “More and more the president is being seen by his own supporters as someone who would like to please everybody, who is naïve about the prospects for bipartisanship, who believes that his strongest supporters will stay with him because they have nowhere else to go, and who will retreat whenever the Republicans and the corporate crowd come after him.”
Mr. Herbert can speak from authority. He has written many columns over the past 18 months reflecting that “nowhere else to go” attitude. If he is going off the bandwagon, more will follow. Mr. Obama better wake up and pay attention to his base before they either have somewhere else to go or simply stay home. It happened to Clinton in 1994.
Two of his most steadfast supporters in the media—columnists Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert of the New York Times—are wondering about Mr. Obama’s plans. Krugman repeated his fellow Sunday Times essayist Frank Rich’s observation who wrote about Obama “punking” his supporters with his waffling, reversals and frequent astonishing adoption of Bush’s worst corporatist and military policies.
While Bob Herbert, taking to task his political hero for waffling and vagueness regarding health care, issued this reluctant appraisal:
“I hear almost daily from men and women who voted enthusiastically for Mr. Obama but are feeling disappointed. They feel that the banks made out like bandits in the bailouts, and that the health care initiative could become a boondoggle. Their biggest worry is that Mr. Obama is soft, that he is unwilling or incapable of fighting hard enough to counter the forces responsible for the sorry state the country is in.”
There has rarely been a more auspicious time for a transforming Presidential leadership. Disgraced corporate capitalism has shattered the economy. The living conditions of millions of workers and pensioners whose taxes were taken to bail out these Wall Street crooks and gamblers are dismal.
Rather than expressing remorse, the arrogant corporate lobbyists are working over Congress with ferocious demands, fueled by cash-register politics and paid Astroturf rallies back in the Congressional Districts.
The giant corporations and their trade lobbies want no real health insurance reform that will reduce their monopolies and profiteering. They want no renewable and energy efficient standards interfering with their massive waste, pollution and inefficiency. They want no reductions in the bloated military budget surrounded by the waste, fraud and abuse of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell warning to the American people.
The corporate supremacists want no changes in the deliberately complex and obscure tax laws favoring the corporate evaders and avoiders and the tax havens for the super-wealthy.
In short, the global corporations want Washington, D.C.; to continue being their massive deregulator and cash cow perpetuating the abandoning of American workers, the pillaging of the American taxpayer and the defrauding of the American consumer.
Forget about corporate law and order to restrain the corporate crime wave. The harmony, bipartisan President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, have outsmarted themselves. What worked to defeat Hillary Clinton last year has succeeded in splitting the Congressional Democrats into progressives, corporate liberals and Blue Dog Conservatives Republicans can scarcely believe their luck and are busy exploiting these schisms.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Democrat, undermines his Speaker, Nancy Pelosi’s “public option” plan for health insurance. Senator Max Baucus—a closet Republican masquerading as the Democratic Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is working hand-in-glove with right-wing Republicans and the White House to craft a weak “bi-partisan” bill that keeps getting weaker as the corporatist Republicans sniff increasing weakness in the White House.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, the more progressive legislators are accusing their former colleague, Committee Chair, Henry Waxman of selling out to the defiant Blue Dog Democrats on his Committee. While Mr. Waxman himself has to be worried that even his compromised “public option” (which Democrats should be calling “public choice”) will be derailed by the bill that the Baucus/Grassley/Obama axis will soon reveal in the Senate.
The Obama voters do not know what they are supposed to support. Obama never did identify with a clear health insurance proposal—not to mention the single payer approach (full Medicare for all) he says he would favor if he was “starting from scratch.” There has been nothing upstanding for his supporters around the country to rally around.
It is sad to say that all this could have been predicted by Obama’s political record as an Illinois and U.S. Senator. He rarely has taken a stand and fought against his adversaries. Even after he cuts a deal with them, they continue to undermine his agenda.
Once again, Bob Herbert senses the disturbing trend: “More and more the president is being seen by his own supporters as someone who would like to please everybody, who is naïve about the prospects for bipartisanship, who believes that his strongest supporters will stay with him because they have nowhere else to go, and who will retreat whenever the Republicans and the corporate crowd come after him.”
Mr. Herbert can speak from authority. He has written many columns over the past 18 months reflecting that “nowhere else to go” attitude. If he is going off the bandwagon, more will follow. Mr. Obama better wake up and pay attention to his base before they either have somewhere else to go or simply stay home. It happened to Clinton in 1994.
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show All. . . and the slow withdrawal of belief in Mr. Obama . . .
There's nothing slow about it. Obama, like George Wanker Bush, turns out to be a movie set, a false front behind which is an enormous empty lot criss crossed with shallow graves and covered in broken glass. Hundreds of thousands have quickly left for the nearest bar where alcohol will help them deal with their disillusionment. Obama and his cheap, hustling advisers from the political equivalent of the World Wrestling Federation deliberately decided to accomplish their sell-out as early as possible, hoping that by 2010 (and especially '012), all would be forgotten. Not this time.
and Obama goes golfing.
Funny thing how you recall these little moments.
I recall that Clinton advisors insisted he not vacation in Martha's Vineyard again because of the appearance of elitism it created. If memory serves, I recall Clinton pouting while riding a donkey at some dude ranch he was shipped off to as an alternative.
And where does Obama go?
Most of the the voters who care if Obama is vacationing at an elite venue have already abandoned him or will be before 2012.
"Voters remorse" hurts. I'm glad I voted for Nader.
Right, you are, Rosemarie. Nader Voters: No Regrets.
No accomplishments either. Just political masturbation.
Yes, Obama voters have many "accomplishments" to masturbate about.
This deserves response not just because it is false, but because it is based on a misunderstanding of how American elections function.
In elections, electorates force candidates and parties to make promises. To win, American candidates make promises that land somewhere between the desires of voters and those of the candidates' sponsors.
I'll assume you did not vote for 0bama because he's slick and pretty.
If so, what has happened to the policies you thought you voted for on November 4, 2008?
It's not just 0bama's team that tallied those votes. Pelosi had a look. Feinstein and Boxer had a look. The Republicans looked, too. What did they see?
Apparently they saw that the Dems had their progressives sufficiently in line to almost unanimously support a candidate who promised to escalate a war in Afghanistan.
Obviously, under those circumstances, they had to move towards satisfying their sponsors.
In 2008, regardless of intent, a vote for Obama was a vote to continue the policies of George Bush.
Diss masturbation all one wants; sometimes it's better than getting diddled - especially if one knows not who else the diddler may diddle.
No accomplishments either. Just political masturbation.
After continually getting screwed by the Corporate Tools known as Dems & Repubs, masturbation is preferable. At least we know who's handling us and we can stop when it begins to hurt.
Same here. At first I felt hurt to see Nader being forced into not only defeat but being further marginalized. But the more Obama keeps getting worse, the less sad I feel about my vote for Nader except that I wished he were in office and that some pols ala Nader were in Congress too.
I hope the Mccain and Obama voters learn their lesson though I don't know if enough of them will to give people like Nader and similar a chance come 2012. I hope more people all across the nation will put more members of Congress ala Nader into office though I know that's wishful thinking there too.
Pretty much says it all. Obama is a frigging corporate 'yes' man. It only took seven months to figure out that Obama is nothing more than Bush Light.
"It only took seven months to figure out that Obama is nothing more than Bush Light."
I sensed it when I first learned about him in early 2007. It was all there but the "progressive" media, including this website, boosted Obama without hesistation and suppressed all criticism of him. If the "progressive" media had done the job that most of its readers expect of it, then Obama would not have gotten the leftwing support needed to get past the early primaries. The people who run the "progressive" media are complicit in bringing about our current situation. These people are either stupid, ignorant or BOUGHT. I tend to lean toward the third possibility, given the history of infiltration of leftwing organizations by the big money and its mercenaries.
Obama, whom I voted for after voting for Hillary in the primary over doubts about his "toughness", is on track to be the earliest lame duck president I know of. Forget about a second term.
His handling of the healthcare reform effort has demonstrated a critical lack of political judgement, not to mention leadership, a shallow understanding of the healthcare issue itself repeatedly shown in the sudden loss of his ability to give a consequential speech on the subject, and that same old fear we've had all along that he's weak in the face of opposition, whether from corporate power or the right-wing or blue dogs or dead dogs.
As always, we hope we're wrong, we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he will rise to the occasion, yadda, yadda.
He may need an FDR/LBJ spinal/legislative transplant.
We will know soon enough. Personally, I hope (there's that word again) he pulls it off.
I too hope Obama rises to the occasion and whips the Blue Dog turncoats into line - with threats to fund opponents in the primaries if necessary - and gives the finger to the Republican mutters and the cable talk show freaks. I hope - and in order to help stiffen his spine, I am, after 50 years as a very liberal Democrat, reregistering as an independent. It is long past time we who believe in democratic socialism find a voice.
Carl Reynolds August 24th, 2009 5:06 pm........What hint from Obama do you see that will spur him to these things? It's not going to happen. It's not in him.
"I too hope Obama rises to the occasion and whips the Blue Dog turncoats into line"
Come on, wakeup already, it ain't gonna happen, you guys have been flim-flammed. He played the part of MLK and you suckers fell for it hook, line and sinker.
The guy's just a venal corporate politician, playing the part of a "black activist" president, and livin the dream. You're nothing to him except convenient fools.
Robert DiGiulio August 24th, 2009 4:51 pm..............Pulls what off? Do YOU have any idea what he is trying to do other than be an appeaser. I certainly do not. I've seen NO PLAN and no results.
So, as to a reply to your last statement....WHY?
Healthcare reform with a public option, as he has called for. This would be minimally acceptable but at least a start. Anything less will be a defeat for social justice and for all Americans (and for Obama).
Too bad Ralph chooses to use the passive here: "It is sad to say that all this could have been predicted by Obama’s political record as an Illinois and U.S. Senator." In truth, it WAS predicted, most specifically by Paul Street, who NEVER had any of his essays published by CD, although many of us referenced and linked (when that could still be done) to his essays. I think Michelle would be a better president, which wouldn't be very hard to do.
karlof1 you seem to step on my corns as the saying goes
obama is sincere
he needs the rest of us be as active as the astro turf activists
@djb
How could you possibly know?
"The Obama voters do not know what they are supposed to support. Obama never did identify with a clear health insurance proposal—not to mention the single payer approach (full Medicare for all) he says he would favor if he was “starting from scratch.” There has been nothing upstanding for his supporters around the country to rally around."
Not all Obama voters are the same. Some of them know that Obama is doing it all wrong like Dubya but they're defending him even if they have to resort to verbal and possibly physical assault. Countless numbers of us tried to warn about Obama and Mccain and yet voting for status quo happened yet again. I have come across a lot more former Obama voters regretting their votes and actually meaning it. The rest are mixed. I'm sorry Ralph but our society is so cornfed and so used to accepting fluff and puff over real deals. Society will have to be stuck with mediocre leadership until it collapses and is forced to admit failure and take the correct approach for once. :(
Obama has been selling an opportunity, nothing more. The rhetoric itself is soft.
"Omissions are not accidents."
-Marianne Moore
To the Obama voters (mainstream enviromentalists, progressives, lefties, etc.):
Vote for the usual candidates/parties and you get the kind of government you deserve!
I voted for Ralph Nader because I WANTED him to win!
I was going to vote for Nader until the 20th of October when Sarah Palin "saved" Obama. What a mistake. It will not happen again!
The move by Obama away from a grass-roots democracy towards continued corporate fascism (immediately after he had dispensed with Hilary Clinton in the Democratic Primary), was beyond noticeable; it was blatant. If he now thinks he can fly under the Netroots' radar for the next four years (let alone for the next eight!) without Democrats experiencing a severe political blood-bath, then he surely does resemble Bush.
THE ONLY STRONG position Obama could have had was from the LEFT/PROGRESSIVE position.
by putting himself more Middle - as he has tried to be "president to all" in a country that is really "RIGHT" - or THOUGHT of itself as "right" and then brings itself to ruinous condition - he only succeeded in becoming MIDDLING.
the more he panders to the RIGHT - it transforms from Middling to RUINOUS.
the reason he has said nothing of real importance or Substance is BECAUSE of that choice of position.
MIDDLE , "center", and RIGHT have offered NOTHING of substance but only illusions and emptiness and ruin.
result:
OBAMA is silent - literally symbolically and substantially in all of the issues, both foreign and domestic.
and he knows it. he no longer has any idea WHY he is president - except that he is a SLAVE.
if he truly wants to "change" -- he has to do radical things:
he has to change his cabinet almost entirely, if not entirely - starting with Emanuel, Geithner, etc..he has to stake a line between the interests of ordinary americans and his "friendships" - if it means firing his friends ...
he has to thumb his nose at the GOP, "blue dogs" and all that....he has to literally close the white house from corporations, PERIOD...announce it publicly and follow through ...he has to NAME NAMES, if necessary - and openly DARE them to challenge him, even HURT him - and make americans AWARE of what to watch out for and WHY.....he has to open the casket of skeletons, even if it includes his own in a full confession.......etc. etc. etc.
will he do it? he CAN - but he is too cowardly even with his opportunities.
therefore america will suffer even more.
that's all there is to it.
P.S.
there is an important article by an analyst of world markets...region by region...from asiatimesonline.......
basically he opines:
"while some economists THINK that the world REFLATION can not go on without the American Consumer and Market's improvement.........DESPITE these observers' concern that China and other markets that are beginning the reflation might be YET get in trouble ...I am of the opinion, concerning the FIRST part that ...the REST OF THE WORLD can REFLATE and grow
WITHOUT depending on an Improvement in the economy in the USA and the improvement of the condition of the US Consumer".......
that is a VERY important matter to consider.
Obama has no real convictions or visions for a better America. Hes perfectly content to sit at the big desk with his family in tow, exploring the world as 'the man.' He seems to pemanently bask in the glow of being the first african american persident, and thats enough for him. I think he only considered american citizens as a necessary means to win the election, and now that we've done our part, we can be thrown to the curb like last year's calender. Barry my boy, enjoy the next 3.3 years, because it's gonna be our turn to throw the unnecessary garbage out on the heap. And I cant wait...
once in one of my camments in the POST i wondered whether obama is a trojan horse republigan precisely because of what mr rich wrote in this article about obama's adoption of bush's policy. i described obama as bush coated with black chocolate. i may revised my discription now by saying that obama is bush coated with black charcoal without the sweetness of the chocolate.it was my thoughts that the republican party came to the conclusion that none of its candidates has a chance of winning the white house. so they promoted obama, discreetly, as the least trouble than the other candidates.and they were right. take for instant his determination to come up with a biprtisan health care legilation.knowing full well how the republican leadership made a mockery of him and his plan. but he never relented. the latest was grassley's comment in one of the town hall meeting. obama, nevertheless insisted that he still can work with grassley. what a humilation.
Can't wait to wait to vote for Nader again. I will never vote for the 2 major parties again in my life. I hope others will also commit to this to improve our country.
There is a definite pattern in Obama's political behavior. First, he makes a strong rhetorical flourish that apparently contains a ringing endorsement of liberal policy. However, on close examination, it is found to contain subtle hedging, a slight obscuring of the issue inserted to provide cover for later. This is usually followed by a lengthy phase in which right wing forces accuse him of "socialism" in various verbal disguises or openly. Rather than countering these forces with a strong and principled defense, he "reaches out" to the other side in a way that allows them to provide the default framing of the issue. It is here that he maneuvers most skillfully, but emphatically not for the liberal position he apparently endorsed at the beginning. Expect no "simple, pithy formulas" here.
The current frame of the debate is that the health insurance industry is an unchangeable fact of nature, which may need a tweak here and there, but is fundamentally inalterable. Once that's conceded, the public option has already been implicitly removed from consideration. Instead of choosing to fight against the right-wing onslaught, by, for instance, using those who staffed his campaign to pack town hall meetings, he uses the noise provided by the right to make an ascending series of concessions until he arrives at the place he intended to be in the first place. The basic intent is to make a tweak or two to the current system so that it can more efficiently extract profit from patients. Once the battle has been lost, he will make "the moral case for reform." In this way he covers the final retreat by using his liberal credentials.
But notice how he has built up his political credit with both the right and left. To the left, he provides rhetorical concessions. To the right he provides the substance of what they want but rebranded to make it more palatable. For instance, the proposed non-profit co-ops, which act as a flimsy nightgown to cover the real deed. Taxpayer money used to subsidize the health care plan will go straight towards health care company profits, while they provide the same shoddy care as before. Thereby, he maintains his true power base. His role is to provide marketable justifications for maintaining the current relationships of economic and political power. In that art, he is a master.
Nice analysis, and seems spot-on to me.
I voted for Nader because I wanted him to win, and realized that every percentage of the vote that Nader got would lessen the legitimacy of the status quo (democratic/republican leadership).
Unfortunately, due to fear and a false sense of the importance of winning, America voted for more of the same.
Unfortunately, the places where you would have thought that you would have heard progressive voices and viewpoints (that supported single payer health care, complete withdrawal of all troops from the middle east, ending of torture) such as this website and many of the writers, were silent.
Yes, I'm talking about commondreams that as a supposed progressive news organization failed to inform the public about viable alternative candidates and viewpoints, instead opting for promoting the status quo. (and don't point out the few measly crumbs that were thrown to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy, such as printing these few articles by Nader, commondreams is too little too late)
Why do people want to support a 'winner' who will work against their interests?
While Ralph Nader is not perfect, he is lightyears ahead of the Obamas and Clintons.
I would say that this could be a wake up call and that next time you would vote your conscience, but it won't happen. Why? Because even with all the information that is already available that shows the deceit of both parties, the majority of people still voted for a democrat or republican. The general public votes for candidates who are not here for the people's benefit, but are only looking out for their paymasters, the corporate elite. Like they have been doing for years and years.
If voting changed anything it would be illegal.
unrepentant Nader Voter (3 times).
www.NotOneMore.US
Fighting liberals are 5% of society, fighting conservatives are 5% and 90% are the indifferent majority absorbed in sex, pizza and cool glass of beer.
Brilliant, brilliant article Mr. Nader. You could've ended it with "it happened to Clinton in 1994" AND "to Gore in 2000." But that would've sounded like gloating, so I understand. Though 2000 wasn't your fault, 2 million idiotic registered Democrats voted for Bush that year, let's never forget that.
With his "frequent astonishing adoption" of Bush’s worst military policies, Obama, like his predecessor, is a war criminal and must be sent to the Hague. His domestic failures pale in comparison to his crimes against humanity that are being committed in the Middle East in the name of Americans on a daily basis.
And yes, it is sad that Obama's dismal presidency could've been predicted by anyone with a 2-digit IQ who paid attention to his record as Senator. The man was always a corporate supremacist and triangulator. An Uncle Tom of the worst kind. Yet, it wasn't predicted by the 60 million moronic Democratic voters. WE on the true left did warn them, for two long years before the election. But Lesser Evilists, Dem Party Kool-aid Drinkers and Apologists will never learn, it seems.
I don't see a resolution to the situation in the above postings.
The viability of 3rd Parties remains questionable given the limitations imposed by the two-party duopoly. The Democrats all know this.
While it is terrific that personalities like Krugman, Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich, Frank Rich, Bill Maher,...etc. have challenged the milquetoast mantra of Pres. Obama, the only way either him or the Dem's will listen is until all those millions of people who volunteered, donated, and stood in line to vote start agitating and going as combative as the right-wing loons.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - MLKjr.
Lifer August 25th, 2009 7:20 am
Agreed, though I think it is also a q. of progressive and liberal activists forming links w/lower-middle class and working class people who are passive and/or effectively disenfranchised.
My current idea is that single payer doctors (PNHP, Mad As Hell Doctors) working w/ACORN-type organizers should hold free health care clinics (like the massively attended free healthcare event in Inglewood, CA this month) - but add education and voter registration to the mix.
What we should all realize is although the situation is poor, progressives and liberals actually are in a position to implement far more of their policies than in the past 30 years. Everyone is aware of the gross fraud that has been perpatrated over the past 20 years through the roaring 90's and Clinton's Washington Consenus and the crony-capitalist years under Dubya.
The reason the lobbyists are so gung-ho is they are on the defensive and they know that with populist rage they could end up on the end of the masses pitchforks. The real question is when are people going to say, "enough is enough!"
In the Battle of Seattle, the people won and the lords of globalization retreated to their desert hideout in Doha, Qatar.
When are liberals going to storm the Bastille?
http://antisense-propaganda.blogspot.com
We must not have a superficial and naive understanding Chicago gangster politics. For no one honest, absolutely no one sincere, ever gets into politics in the Windy City.
REFORM HEALTH -- BANKRUPT PROCESSED FOOD AND MEDICAL INDUSTRY
The average American diet is 50% fat, and this causes over 90% of illness.
And so, true healthcare reform would require a high tax on refined food, and a diet with only 10% fat. Which would close down half the processed food plants, bankrupt most hospitals and make our super-intelligent super-rich most unhappy.
...talking about the super-rich, I wonder what folks like www.NotOneMore.US think about Nader's new book called "Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us."
There was a post about it yesterday on CD.
Sounds to me like Nader's given up.
Since everything is so obviously connected to everything else in the political scheme of the United States, it seems to me that if our government is going to work for the general good, then, all reform depends on campaign finance reform. Because isn’t it true that all attempts at reform--on whatever front--come up against a moneyed wall, thrown up by the very wealthy, who employ members of our government as masons?
If I'm right, then all the efforts--the blood, sweat and tears and money--expended on health care, the environment, the economy, etc. represents a massive diffusion of energy, and therefore dissipates the force or impact of each individual attempt at reform. I wonder what it would look like if all this diffused energy was focused on the single issue of getting corporate money out of politics, accepting that it is the first order of business for any sort of meaningful positive change. Everyone has a dog in this fight.
Maybe if we knocked down the wall blocking campaign finance reform, then we could get single-payer health care, less war, better media, schools, and we might even survive as a race for the foreseeable future. Wouldn’t this kind of single focus be the best strategy for making reform of every kind possible? Isn’t campaign finance reform a kind of pre-condition for all other reform?
So Ralph, tell me: has there ever been such an clarity about such a complex problem? It's like there's the silver bullit, THE key to the door in the wall that holds back progress in America.
Here's the rub, of course: how could a coalliton of reformers, people who really want to get something done, be created, with sufficient determination and perserverance and energy to open the door to progress as an alternative to just knocking it down?
Are you there Ralph? Do you agree that this is what's holding us up? Your thoghts please...
Warm Regards
I agree with your summation. Its fruitless to continuously be fighting the same battles when the rules of the game are so stacked against reform.
I'd specifically pursue:
1. Electorial representation reform. The Electorical college, which is anti-democratic and winner takes all, allows a small percentage of the population to dictate to the majority. People should be aghast at the useless nature and corruption of the Senate; eliminate it!
2. Eliminating gerrymandering by placing congressional districting under a non-partisan independant body, which is tasked to make districts geographically coherent and competitive where possible.
3. Remove personhood for corporations and introduce the death penality for them. This prevents contributions and uses the ultimate stick to expunge criminal and treasonous businesses from the market. The former is not a constitutional right (let these right wing constitutional originalist prove otherwise); the latter should be obvious.
4. If you cannot ban lobbyists, make their life completely transparent, by making all contributions, discussions, and propositions with public officials placed on a website accessable to the everyone along with their contact numbers.
http://antisense-propaganda.blogspot.com
Excellent points, definitely moving in the right direction. But don't we have to somehow, firstly, change the way campaigns financed, given that most, if not all campaigns, Democratic and Republican, depend on big money from the same source, which makes it extremely difficult to hold anyone accountable relative to their oaths of office. It seems to me, the campaign rhetoric we’ve been hearing for the 50 years or so, will probably continue so as long as getting elected --and staying elected--depends on serving the interests of the guys who could afford the grub stake. (See Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, et. al.) Think about it: if campaigns were funded publicly, which would require about $10 from each of us, which sounds like a good investment to me, the people we elect could do the jobs they were elected to do, as per their oaths of office and constitution. In fact we could insist on it; their success or failure wouldn’t any longer depend on raising strings-attached corporate money. Rather, it would depend on the public's evaluation of their performance, wouldn’t it? (Of course one wonders how the moneyed interests would get around the new rules as they always seem to do... Never mind.)
Clearing the log jam caused by the status quo (the way political campaigns are funded) would allow other reforms to flow, one could hope. For example, Ione would think that those elected , and evaluated on their performance, might even want to clear out the lobbyist--or maybe the lobbyist would just leave because their money wasn’t any good; they just couldn't any longer buy and sell the political process. Cynical as I am, I have to believe that most of those serving in the congress now, given a choice, would prefer doing the right thing, instead of accepting that the deaths of all those people who can't get medical treatment is just unfortunate, as did Mr. Lieberman recently, for example. After all, aren't the guys we "elect" determined by the system we have in place, not totally, perhaps, but certainly enough to make the difference? Just look around. I suppose one could argue that fixing the way campaigns are financed would make it possible for people live up to their oaths of office. That it might even be liberating, even to the high rollers, who cannot now afford to have a social conscience--by law.
Removing the barrier of the status quo on this single issue would make all kinds of reform s possible, it seems to me, third parties, proportional representation, and so on. Fixing health care would be a no brainer. Imagine an environment where the people we elect have a clear job description (do the right thing), and also have the freedom to do so, or move on: "Tell me again Senator, why do we have a 50,000 troops stationed on Okinawa? How does it serve the interests of the American people, or anyone one else’s for that matter?" " Perhaps we should take a serious look at our trade policies." "Let's see, if we stopped sending all of our money on preparing for war all the time, and executing it, maybe we would have more resources to work on peace. What would that mean in Afghanistan, for example, where a lot of "enemy combatants," as it turns out, are really just trying to make a living; soldiering is the only job they could get? Sound familiar: join the army and learn lots of employable skills. Get a college education... Remember the "peace dividend" that was coming our way after Gorbichov tore down that wall? Well...
Are you there Ralph? Could we really tear down that other wall, the one separating the high minded campaign rhetoric and the not-so-high-minded behavior in the work –a-day world we actually live in--, if we actually had a say in who gets elected?
Ralph, here's something worthy of your attention, your skills, intelligence and wisdom...