Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Washington: Theater of the Absurd
The festering corporate government in Washington, DC, is a theater of the absurd. Some of the acts of this tragedy follow:
1. Start with the often hapless Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers Medicare. Medicare pays $1,593 per injection of Lucentis for wet age-related macular degeneration as well as $42 per dose for Avastin, a drug that has a similar molecular structure, used by ophthalmologists.
Both drugs are made by Genentech. Lucentis is FDA approved for the vision problem and the other, Avastin, is approved to treat cancer. Doctors can also use Avastin for vision treatment. A study by three officials of CMS and Dr. Philip Rosenfeld, a retina specialist at the University of Miami, reported that for Medicare patients 60% of eye injections were Avastin, while 40% used Lucentis. Note this: Medicare paid $537 million for Lucentis in 2008 and only $20 million for Avastin!
2. Saving about half a billion a year by using Avastin is small potatoes to another CMS shortcoming. For fiscal year 2009, CMS paid $65 billion in erroneous payments-to deceased doctors, fraudsters, delinquent or imprisoned contractors and other suspended or debarred firms.
Organized fraud of Medicare is becoming more systemic. So President Obama wants CMS to use a new fraud-detection program. Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard University, the nation's leading expert on health care billing fraud told them how to do this many years ago, but they were not listening.
The President wants to reduce throughout the government "payments in benefits, contracts, grants and loans to ineligible people or organizations," according to the Washington Post. Better trillions of dollars late over the decades, then never!
3. Five oil company executives, including from BP, admitted at a Congressional hearing this week that they did not have contingency plans worked out for catastrophic failures. What is, by comparison, the worst case scenario for offshore windfarms or solar/thermal conservation, or passive solar architecture? Energy Secretary Stephen Chu still does not note such a criteria to differentiate between energy supply priorities.
4. President Obama now, belatedly, recognizes that the notorious oil industry patsy, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the Department of Interior, was a washout non-regulator of offshore drilling inherited from the Bush and Clinton Administrations. Well he also better take a hard look at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which are variously pleased with being captured by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. Too many agencies, in essence, allow the companies to "self-regulate" - an oxymoron.
Each of these agencies may wake up some day to witness a catastrophic hazardous materials disaster or meltdown that they should have prevented with stronger standards, inspection and law enforcement. Heed this caution, Mr. President!
5. Another $50 billion request by the White House just whisked through Congress for the brutal, spreading, futile war in Afghanistan-the historic graveyard of empires. Republicans loved to vote for this raid on the taxpayers.
But this week, a united Republican cabal, joined by Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), blocked a $120 billion package (the threat of filibuster again) to extend unemployment benefits, preserve Medicare payments, extend tax credits for corporate research, raise taxes on oil companies, other big companies and investment partnerships. The bill also includes $24 billion to aid state governments in preventing thousands of state layoffs, including teachers.
The point here is not arbitrarily to decry Republican questioning of this domestic bill. It is to show how an overall ignorant, rubberstamping Congress is not heeding the lessons from Vietnam and Iraq - the immense casualties, the destruction and poisoning of these countries by detonations, and laying waste to the environment, and the imperialist policies that also harmed our country in so many tangible and intangible ways.
6. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post reporter-satirist, was at the House of Representatives' hearing this week where Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) apologized to BP's CEO, Tony Hayward, saying the White House's demand that BP set aside $20 billion for its huge toxic contamination to the Gulf coast and its people was "a shakedown." He added, for good supplicant measure, that he doesn't "want to live in a country" that treats a private corporation this way. He later apologized for his apology, at the behest of Republican House leaders.
The Barton outburst illustrates why it should be easy for the Democratic Party to landslide the Republicans in the 2010 Congressional elections. Probably the most craven version of the Republican Party ever, this team takes huge slurries of corporate money while blocking any safeguards for workers, consumers, small taxpayers, and the environment. They even defeated investor rights for shareholders, who own these companies, but whose bosses pay themselves obscenely to control them.
The Democrats have their hand out to the same commercial interests. But if they want to win, they'd better formulate the language of standing with the people over big business by November. And, if the Democrats don't want November to mark their curtain call, their language of standing with the people needs to be followed by action.
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...
119 Comments so far
Show AllHere, here. I agree and hope the Dems are reading and listening.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Donna--Please understand. The Dems haven't listened for decades. They are power hungry and have survived based on the fact that they're not Republicans.
A corporate personhood amendment is the only way to go. If we can't get that, nothing is worth anything.
Please seek out alternative cancer treatments, starting with enzymne therapy advocated by Dr Gonzalez at www.dr-gonzalez.com
Yes, the missions of the Democratic and Republican parties are the same:
Get more money from corporations than the other party is getting.
There are three separate focuses for alternative cancer treatments. The first focus has to do with food and nutrients. The second focus has to do with energy healing. I'm assuming that the chiropractors have their own focus on bodywork but I know little about that focus. Within each focus are dozens of somewhat parallel modalities and I don't know which brand names or which individuals are better or worse.
In general I know that a second chance to live, if it's not painful and if the five year cure statistics are good, is far better than the "no second chance" that the awash-in-money medical ideologues will say. By all means take the medical option if it's a slam-dunk decision, like cutting off a mole on your skin, but keep your eyes open. Keep your hand tightly attached to your wallet with every single MD option. Watch out for any expensive tests that, if positive, will make no difference whatsoever in your treatment. Watch out for CT scans as they cause way too much cancer.
Hi Cassandra. Don't you think it's inevitable that the two parties would develop similar policies, and tactics if not rhetoric, given that there is one country having a particular set of characteristics, beliefs, behaviors, economic powers etc?
It's kind of like retailers, or car companies etc. There is only one mass market theyre competing in. There are not two mass markets in separate universes. So, their colors and styles, weights and measures are always trying to pursue that. And the ones who miss the mark go out of business. U.S. Political system is winner-take-all. So this is even more draconian than the economic marketplace-- where you can actually eke out a living within niche markets. There is no other party in the U.S. besides the duopoly party.
Ah, but there are other choices, and isn't that what our market economy is supposed to be all about - increasing our "choices"?
"There is no other party in the U.S. besides the duopoly party."
That's a bald faced lie. I voted twice for Perot and three times for Ralph Nader. Third parties exist but voters are fooled into believing that only Democrats and Republicans are worth a vote. Vote independently and be damn proud of it.
Perhaps he should have said there are no other 'viable' parties in the US political system besides the single, multi-factional perhaps, 'corporate' party we have. I argue that both democrats and republicans are in effect two wings of the same party because they inevitably give priority to the same general interests - corporate interests - over that of either the country or the citizenry. No party exists for labor - representing by far more of the public since most of us work - or the citizens in general. You would think that in a healthy democratic system that there would be parties built around every serious issue - a health care party, peace party, war party, expansist party, isolationist party, etc.. If I ever belonged to a party (not likely) I think I'd belong to the party whose platform includes 'de-personizing' corporations. They are not 'people' they do not deserve such rights.
There have been other numerous political parties since the founding, but the media doesn't report on them except as entertainment since they are seen by our culture as novelties - rather like the 'silly' parties in Britian.
There are organizations built around just about every interest you describe, but they don't think of themselves as parties, in the political sense. If each of them did and ran their own candidate, it would wind up, IMO, as a battle of interest against interest. It seems to me that it would be wise for each of these groups to get together and decide to support an individual that can speak to and represent a broad spectrum of their interests, though obviously not all, e.g., a war group would perhaps have a hard time agreeing with a peace group, but the war group already has 2 big parties which represent it.
Why interpose a new organizational structure, i.e. a political party, simply to be involved politically? Every organization should have political involvement as part of its charter mission. The candidate they could get behind is one who, at the very least, subscribes to the "mission" statement of the various organizations and has a coherent concept of how to advance them.
Forget the parties, you don't need them, IMO, they get in the way. What you need are coalitions of like minded organizations converging around a candidate and working for him/her using the considerable skills they have already acquired in the pursuit of their endeavors .....
I'm not suggesting more parties, only wondering why like-minded individuals with similar interests whose interests are never addressed don't form their own parties in the US like they do in actual, that is, working democracies.
Like you, I don't like parties. They distort the political process and are more trouble than they're worth.
- 5. 'futile war in Afghanistan' -
After 9 years, it is imperative that we stop using terms that give any sort of legitimacy to this insanity.
It is imperative that we take charge of the framing, the words, and call it what it is.
'war in Afghanistan' - does this include Pakistan? Or is that a separate conflict against the same enemies?
Are we planning to protest 194 separate wars against future terrorists?
There is only 1 war - the insane DAFT war to prevent future terrorism, as put into law by our feckless Congress.
Public Law 107-40 - "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism"
DAFT - the Defense against Future Terrorism. Here, there, everywhere. A global insanity.
It's been 9 years. Continuing to use the same failed issue-framing will continue to fail to end the insanity.
There is no 'war in Afghanistan'. There is no 'war in Afghanistan that's also fought in Pakistan'. There is no 'war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda, the same enemy we fight in Yemen and Iraq and Somalia'.
Mr. Nader you are a wise, eloquent and perceptive person.
However, your "But if they want to win..." comment is off base.
For the past 30 years American elections between the two parties have NOT been about issues, they've been about money. Elected politicians decide about money, who gets to keep it, who gets to make it, who gets to increase it. In return, those who benefit pay the politicians.
Politicians spent 50%+ of their time raising money. The most efficient way to get money is to get large contributions from a few people. And those with the most money contribute the most.
If issues mattered than no one would vote Democrat or Republican.
You haven't said a thing that Nader hasn't said already.
I agree. Ralph, IMO, is a pragmatist in the service of reform. I don't think he, unlike what seems to be the vast majority of folks on both ends of the political spectrum, really cares who gets the credit for getting something done, as long as it gets done. If the Dems can be levered or shamed into doing it, hey that's O.K. and nothing is lost in the effort. If neither party will, then it's time for the indy to step in, which is what he has attempted to do, bless him, time and again. By continuing to challenge the parties to "do the right thing", when they obviously don't, time and again, it is so much easier for an indy to make a rational case ...
Aye, there's the rub - rational case. Too many folks, on all sides of the spectrum would prefer, it seems, to put party loyalty, whatever party, over "rational cases" ....
I agree that both major parties are deeply corrupt, but I think that is a latent, inherent danger in all "Party" structures, which is why I say focus on the individual, not the party, any party, and why I voted for Ralph 4 times in the last 14 years and would do so again, even if, nay, perhaps especially if, he doesn't have a "party" ...
Ralph should not be carrying water for the democrats. This sick good cop, bad cop routine that he also was a victim of should be seen for the con game it is. It is like voting to choose between two forms of torture. Enough already! If the people are too asleep to vote independent, then they are complicit in the nightmare we are living. Our society has created a karmic debt that is overwhelming. The deadly poison of capitalist alibied greed has deeply rotted our national character, and Nemesis is already dolling out Her revenge, with infinitely more to come....
If you will note, he is not "carrying water" for the Dems. He is pointing out, in very specific terms, what they actually need to DO if they actually mean what they SAY they want to do. If, or, as is now more generally accepted, when they don't do it, it is much easier to make the case against them. It is a very useful thing to do and Ralph does it rather well ....
Yes, we can ride with the Republicans and crash into a brick wall at 100 mph, or we can ride with the Democrats and crash into a brick wall at 90 mph.
Take your pick !
Ralph, your last paragraph puzzles me. How can the Democrats stop groveling to big money interests and then act on their new-found populism, by November-- that hasn't been in their DNA for the last 30 years, at least.
They most probably won't, but wouldn't it be a hoot if they actually DID do something decent, for whatever motivation? Sometimes even a schmuck can be convinced to do a decent thing if he believes his life is on the line, which is why indy politics is so important to support - it is the only thing that, at least in theory, has the ability to put a schmuck's political life on the line in the service of real reform ....
Not to worry! Just before elections, Dems will throw a little bone to We the People. And watch! All the unhappy progressives will dash back into holding their pen.
At this point, Dems have to do a lot more than throw a few tiny bones our way.
Ralph seems to be taking another these days. He's not stupid. He received not more than 1% in the last election. Why would he go through that again?
I think if he thought he could do some good by running again, he would. But his old MO (I liked it!) was a losing strategy. Do you hear him talk about tweedle dee and tweedle dum these days? or the corporate duopoly? No, he's trying to speak in a language that is more user friendly to the general population.
More power to him. Nader is a crafty guy.
I agree with you, for the most part, but it seems rather clear to me that in challenging Dems credibility, he is laying the groundwork for a challenge by someone from the left. If not him, then who?
Love Ralph most of the time, but he misses the boat on the ranibizumab(Lucentis) vs bevacizumab(Avastin) thing. the fact of the matter is that this situation is not nearly as clear-cut as he suggests. For one thing, when it first came out, there was some reason to believe that ranibizumab would be more effective as it has stronger binding to VEGF-A. Another thing is that doctors don't like to use medications when not licensed for a particular condition for reasons anyone who lives in the US should be able to figure out. And furthermore Genentech, who owns both of the medications, has refused to license bevacizumab for age-related macular degeneration, for reasons which should also be obvious.
Almost every one of the doctors I know, and I know quite a few, don't intentionally choose more expensive medications if the efficacy is equivalent and there are no other reasons to choose one over the other, such as delivery, dosing, side effects, etc. Its bad patient care and with insurance the way it is your patients likely have copays so they certainly won't like you for choosing a more expensive medicine. The fault lies with the pharmaceutical companies as well as the regulators, and often there has been 'regulatory capture' so there's not much difference between the two.
Is it a question of Genentech refusing to license Avastatin, or is it a matter of the FDA refusing to approve it for macular degeneration?This is where a sticking point may lie. If the FDA were to approve it for such use, I suspect you might see more usage of it. MDs are pretty law suit shy, understandably (which is why Ralph, IMO, needs to rethink his position a bit on tort reform with regard to malpractice), and may be reluctant to use a drug for a non-approved use ....
It is both. Being an MD and having worked for a pharmeceutical company in the past (a sin for which I still do my own form of atheistic penance) I can say that the line between the large pharmaceutical companies and the FDA is often thin to the point of invisibility. Its the 'regulatory capture' thing again. This is just another reason why we need not only socialized medicine, but socialized 'healthcare,' economy, etc... They're all integrated.
Not to worry, I am well aware of the cosy relationship between not only the drug cos. and the FDA, but among other for profit "healthcare" institutions and agencies as well. For anyone out there who wants to read a very good book on the whole subject, check out "Money-Driven Medicine" by Maggie Mahar.
After working for over 20 years in the healthcare field myself, I, likewise, have come to the conclusion that single payer, while not solving all the problems that beset the system, goes a long way toward fixing it, far better than anything that has come out of either major party (which proposals, in fact, entrench and extend the pathology rather than treating it). For folks out there who want to know more from a bunch of other healthcare professionals, including many MDs, check out PNHP's website.
Thanks for your comments Leo M. Doctors have a lot to add to the discussions about health care, but are far too silent.
To a great extent doctors are hamstrung by pharma and by the approval and billing practices of insurance companies and the indolence of regulatory agencies. I would feel sorrier for them if they would cut down on playing golf and talking about their investments, and spend more time speaking out about the conditions under which they have to operate (no pun intended). The economics and politics of health care are absolutely relevant to giving each patient the proper care. Important decisions should not be left to the money driven whims of corporate execs.
Joe
For a good read from a couple of doctors who aren't too silent, check out:
"As Sick As It Gets" by Rudolph Mueller, M.D.
"Losing My Patience" by Mickey Lebowitz. M.D.
I agree with you, more need to speak out and to get involved in politics. It's pretty sad when the loudest med. profess. in the halls of Congress are guys like Tom Coburn ...
The ironic part of it all is that, in the name of protecting their "autonomy" as professionals, too many, by fighting "government intrusion", which, at least nominally, is subject to public influence, have backed themselves squarely into the cage of corporate intrusion, which is not .....
Great points, Doc. The lesson for all of us is to stick with basic declarative statements "Medicare is paying full retail for pharmaceuticals. The Veterans Administration, and almost every other industrialized country, bargains with drug companies for much lower, volume pricing. " Followed by Fact, Fact, Fact.
We need to focus on a simple and declarative standard message. It is not a bad thing, that we are reinventing the message, saying it in our own words from a hundred different perspectives. But we must not fail to include the simple, standard form of the message somewhere in the statement. And in this case- make sure our contributions are a) congruent with the message and b) facts check out.
Agreed. From my point of view, and saying this as one who is very active with Physicians for a National Health Program, we need to have 'non reformist reforms' that move us towards a desired future and are not end goals in themselves. So, for me, the goal is some type of socialized and participatory society and economy. I just happen to work in medicine so this is where much of my focus goes, though with the understanding that socialized medicine is not enough and more democratic institutions across the board are ultimately needed. Any thoughts on this?
What does it mean to be "very active" with regard to PNHP? What, specifically, have you been doing? This is not a rhetorical, challenging or facetious question. I have been a bit frustrated in my attempts locally and would like to know. I have had some ideas, but haven't been able to get anywhere with them .......
Fortunately for my efforts I'm close to an area where there is much activity and consciousness of the issues. I have been most successful in communicating and organizing with like minded docs and healthcare workers in my area. Last year there were a few rally's, etc in the bigger cities. It does seem that our efforts are somewhat dependent on the area you're in, as I was in a different area a few years ago and my efforts were frustrated and frustrating. Nothing like working somewhere where everyone either thinks you're certifiable, an immature 'dreamer' or both!
How do you get the docs in your area on board? It seems, though some will express private agreement with a single payer concept, the ones who are open and active are "lone rangers". They may bemoan the insurance companies, but fear that, practically speaking, openly espousing eliminating them from the mix, ala single payer, would be committing financial suicide via retribution, in myriad ways, from their primary reimbursers.
How have you fared in that respect? What are you and your like minded docs doing? It seems to me that it must involve political activity as single payer will require legislation ...
P.S. Thanks for responding. This has been a source of enormous frustration for me .....
ralph: sign up for the new hampshire 2012 primary and run head- up against obama. it's a win-win proposition, for even should you lose, you'll force obama to the left over the next eighteen months. the folks in new hampshire are fed up with this neo-tom, this empty suit of a man who would be better placed as university president. this imposter has carried water for the generals and wall street for too long. he's terrified of cheney and had even signed on to sarah's drill team before deep water horizon came along.
The Dem. primary?
I think he would want to take a straw poll first. You don't think he wants to spend all that money again only to be maligned and marginalized again, ending up with less than 1% of the vote. Maybe he'll think the money is better spent elsewhere.
Until the Nation Magazine's Democrats apologize to Nader, and all the others who trashed him so severely, he'd be foolish to run again.
Do not make Ralph's decision about running dependent on an apology from the Nation, et.al. If we require the imprimatur of "gurus" such as these, we deserve to be screwed ....
I think it would be better if Ralph worked to pull together a group and they strategized about who to run and where. I can think of hundreds of honest leaders who are attached to grass roots groups and who have a following. I can think of many former Democrats who are completely fed up and ready to Move On, but for real this time.
It is not about an individual, but about a challenge to corporate domination that will have based on thousands or millions of people in order to have any success. Ralph is entirely wonderful, honest and trustworthy, but not so skilled at the strategies, sharing and teamwork that are required for elections. Ideas alone cannot win if they are out there without organization behind them. If he is to be a candidate, he has to move beyond the lone wolf approach and connect with local groups, support them and have them build support for him. That would be true of any independent candidate.
I think of the model of the Catholic Church and how they expanded into new territories by making local heroes into Saints. Right now there are people in many locations fighting for family farms, housing, jobs, ecology, health care, jobs, women and children. I could go on. Ignoring that would almost guarantee another poor showing and waste of time.
And I am not sure about the Dem primaries as the main venue. That seems like a losing idea, likely to be sabotaged from within. I believe we need an independent group. But I could be wrong.
Joe
I cannot quarrel with your observations, but I think Nader has championed many of the causes that such groups are fighting for. He does, indeed, seem a bit challenged on the warm and fuzzy front and he needs to lay off a bit on engaging in detailed policy analyses at every opportunity. But i think his major problem was that the Dems quite successfully saddled him with the mantle of "spoiler" such that too many wouldn't even listen to him any more. Between that and the "can't win" label, he has been enormously handicapped for a long time.
Any indy will likewise be saddled with a "can't win" label - I think progressives have failed to deal with this head on and really need to if they are ever going to get anywhere .....
I have come to reluctantly agree with you, Dem primaries are, most probably, a waste of time. It seemed a good idea for awhile, but Kucinich' defection pretty much ruined that for me
Organizing progressives is, indeed, like herding cats, so we better get out the catnip ....
"But if they [Democrats] want to win, they'd better formulate the language of standing with the people over big business by November."
C'mon Ralph, the last thing Americans should be falling for is political promises in an election season. The Democrats have proven that the interests of the American people come second to other interests, including corporate interests, the Democratic party staying in power, and their own political and personal interests. Let's be real, there is nothing the Democrats are going to do between now and November to erase the damage they've done in the last year and a half, let alone the last two decades.
Ralph, your last paragraph is so off base, you need to retract it.
"The festering corporate government in Washington, DC". Ralph, you have the words to describe it, and you have the knowledge to back up your opinions. Isn't it about time you stopped having anything to do with our "two party" corporate system, which is inherently corrupt and cannot be fixed, and started pushing for a socialist system, which can be kept honest with due diligence?
Actually, Mr. Nader has not been part of the two party system for a long time. Democrats have been apoplectic when he takes crucial votes away from the Democrats in Presidential elections.
It is disgusting to read Ralph Nader giving advice on how the Democrats can win an election. Has he forgotten that the only difference between these two corporate parties is how they spell their names? We must not vote for either of these two corporate parties. There is no lesser evil. They are both corrupt to the bone.
"Isn't it about time you stopped having anything to do with our "two party" corporate system, which is inherently corrupt and cannot be fixed, and started pushing for a socialist system..."
–(George Markey)
The salient point.
Should be inscribed indelibly in mind.
Ralph Nader's whole world view is so cocooned, so tethered to the albatross of the American votive system, he moulds into rancidity, like a fig on the vine. There is no vision there anymore, although out of residual homage and loyalty to his profound activism in American politics, it is difficult or impossible to jettison his historical value or to reevaluate his worth. Continuing to spin ,now almost moronically like a deranged top, on the incoherence of the Democratic-Republican axis– he sadly ruts himself deeper into insignificance.
"At bottom, it is about finding new sites of the general will. Rousseau expressed it well" 'Individual wills tend by nature to preferences, and the general will to equality.' "
–(Alain Badiou, "Polemics," 'On Parliamentary Democracy,' Verso Press.)
And Badiou again:
"What is needed is the wax that Ulysses used to keep from yielding to either the songs, or the sirens, or to the blackmail of 'democracy'." (Ibid.)
And that is what it is: Blackmail.
Ralph Nader, in the American system, remains a 'preference,' or in Badiou's terms, "a post of state." The very mentioning or referencing of the two American political abominations is to succor and sustain their relevance, to hold them in thrall. It deepens the commitment to a willing enslavement.
Now further into the future, however harsh:
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor" –(Leon Trotsky)
"What is needed–and we should be in no doubt–is a firm indifference to posts of state and a constantly sustained cordial scorn for electoral prebends." –(Badiou. Ibid.)
And finally–Alain Badiou once more: "...in its most general inspiration it teaches us, that the universality of truth is preferable to mere preferences."
"Ralph Nader's whole world view is so cocooned, so tethered to the albatross of the American votive system, he moulds into rancidity, like a fig on the vine."
"Ralph Nader, in the American system, remains a 'preference,' or in Badiou's terms, "a post of state." "
I find those two remarks against Nader very insulting. We don't have many progressives left to back us up. He tried to run for president 3 times but the Democratic Party derailed him all the way. Did you even read his article? He was talking about the issues before mentioning the stupid nature of both parties choosing to fail on purpose and then rigging the system to themselves. This country would have been a hell of a lot different by now if only Perot had won in the 1990s or Nader had won in the 2000s. We didn't get to see that.
"This country would have been a hell of a lot different by now if only Perot had won in the 1990s or Nader had won in the 2000s. We didn't get to see that." –(Frederick Johnson)
Frederick, we apologize to you if you felt we were insulting Ralph Nader the man or even his ideas. We were not, we felt, even attacking him– despite the language that we used that you found offensive.
We were trying to expand on and make a larger point, using Nader as an example, from what was partially latent–and entirely accurate– in George Markey's posting.
Nader's predilection for continuing to reference his thinking through a throughly bankrupt prism and remaining on that level– is what we were trying to amplify on.
We are sorry that we could not make the larger point in a convincing manner.
That you "didn't get to see" the different country "had Nader won," actually dovetails into what we were trying to say: You were not going to see 'that country' even if he had won.
We don't think it works that way in America.
Ironically, from what we know about Ralph Nader– not being 'real Americans'–we feel that this realization, in the end, will come to be seen as his real contribution. Sadly, by continuing to situate himself in the matrices of the American irrational, he postpones the coming reckoning
Vashkar & Kim.
Should I understand that you mean that the concept of democracy, per se, is the bankrupt prism you refer to, or only as it is currently practiced in the US?
V&K, apology accepted but there's still one thing I disagree with.
"That you "didn't get to see" the different country "had Nader won," actually dovetails into what we were trying to say: You were not going to see 'that country' even if he had won. "
A president can influence the way Congress behaves and the way society thinks over time. True we wouldn't have seen Perot or Nader accomplish much but they would have set the course for making their vision come true had either of them won. I thought Nixon and Reagan each had a powerful influence. Nixon did a hell of a job setting the course for making wiretapping legal and Reagan set the course for making voodoo economics mainstream similar to FDR getting the nation to be somewhat receptive to progressive thinking until the 1970s. In all my life, and I'm in my 60s, I thought that leaders could always make a big difference and still do.
I have no doubt that the reckoning is coming but I do not believe that Nader is trying to postpone it in any way. I thought that he wanted us to see the reckoning that is already in front of us but just not obvious enough. I used to be a sneaky devil conservative until the late 80s when I started to reform so I see what they're trying to do.
Mr. Johnson,
I second your observations ....
It sounds like, from your selection of Badiou's writings, that his world view is rather cocooned as well. If we simply don't mention the two parties, they will simply disappear, right? As if they were figments of our imagination and all we have to do is close our eyes, put our hands over our ears, and drown out the roar by saying la, la, la very loud. Actually, what I remember of the story of Ulysses is that he did not put wax in his own ears but lashed himself to the mast so that he could hear the songs but not be able to act upon the madness he knew they would drive him to. If you think that the message of the two parties is equivalent to the song of the sirens, and you could not resist if you heard it, well, what can I say ....
Congratulations on the repair of your quote key. I hope it performs consistently in the future.