Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Republicans in the Land of Oz
Holy cow, Auntie Em. Stockman and Greenspan committing heresy on the same day. What's going on?
Well, basically, the Republicans have boxed themselves in. For all but true believers like Stockman and Greenspan, cutting taxes was never really about supply side economics, it was a stealth way to gut and cut government -- to shrink it until they could "drown it in a bathtub."
They needed a stealth approach for two reasons.
First, while people supported the general notion of tax cuts, they didn't like most of the specifics, when it came to cutting services to fund those cuts. When Newt Gingrich laid out his Contract on America, complete with hits, and then began to implement it, they lost support. And Bush ran into a buzz saw when he tried to cut Social Security.
The other reason was they couldn't be honest about their real motives.
The whole stealth gut and cut strategy was a clever plan: Demonize government as wasteful, cut away at government programs until they were eviscerated (thereby proving they didn't work and we couldn't afford them), pretend that the magic markets would solve all problems by pure serendipity. But the more successful they were, the closer they came to the day when they would reap the harvest of the failure their policies were bound to create.
And now that day is here.
Unfettered markets were a tragic and complete disaster. Tax cuts reduced revenue. Deregulation hurt ordinary citizens, but were a bonanza for the wealthy and powerful.
And once that happened it was bound to become obvious what their real agenda was -- to fashion a country for the wealthy, by the wealthy and of the wealthy -- for the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations.
And so it has.
And now the Republicans are being hoisted on their own petard. Even the Scarecrow can see the folly of arguments that say deficits are somehow bad when it means adding a mere $33 billion to help the unemployed, but irrelevant when it means wracking up an astounding $2.3 trillion in deficits to extend the tax cuts for the rich.
Reality is immune to Fox propaganda, and impervious to mindless bluster from talk show radio. It doesn't matter how many times Republicans click their ruby red tax cutting slippers and wish supply side were so -- thirty plus years of evidence shows it's a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that.
The man behind the curtain has been exposed, and he ain't no wizard.
And now, if the Democrats are smart, possessed of an ounce of integrity and a gram of courage, they will take on this treacherous set of myths that is destroying our country, and engage in a genuine national dialog about the role of government, the need to regulate, and the importance of honesty, transparency and limited money in holding this debate.
But don't bet on it.
The cynics suggest politics is nothing more than a Kabuki dance or some modified version of good cop-bad cop in which each party plays its role, while representing the same corporate fat cats at the expense of the people.
I used to think they were paranoid. But as Sherlock Holmes used to say, "strip away all that is not possible, and what you are left with will be the answer, no matter how implausible."
I'm down to three possibilities: 1) the cynics are right; 2) the Democrats really are as stupid as they act; or 3) they are as cowardly as that damn Lion.
- Posted in
116 Comments so far
Show AllIn this country we have a saying..."he who pays the piper gets to call the tune."
Calling folks who see reality cynics is most unhelpful.
generalcommentator said "In this country we have a saying..."he who pays the piper gets to call the tune."
But in this time and place, with the rich not paying the piper, how come they are still calling the tune? I think this is called "eating your cake and having it too." My grandmother told me you can't do that. Looks like she was wrong.
The rich are paying the piper (DC electeds), not with their money but with your money and my money.
Using the money you and I pay in taxes, the DC electeds keep granting ever larger corporate welfare checks to the rich. The rich take a portion of their corporate welfare checks and return it to the DC electeds to assure that the corporate welfare checks continue to grow exponentially.
Right on Ray.
If Mr Atcheson simply applied his quoted "Sherlock Holmes" rule he would have already eliminated options 2 and 3. AND... as previously noted - calling clear minded individuals with impeccable "bullsit detectors" cynics does nothing to further his argument.
Democrats have had only three brave persons in their ranks: FDR, JFK, and RFK. All were denounced as Communists. Two were gunned down in public under mysterious circumstances. Dismantling the New Deal began immediately after the death of FDR, driving its supporters out of government by means of unprincipled charges of Communist "sympathies," a campaign enjoined by both parties with glee which has set the mold for the rules governing American politics ever since. It would take more than three brave, if imperfect, men to characterize Democrats as a party of change.
And assassination attempts were made on FDR by Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather), Henry Ford, and other American fascists. It is highly probable that FDR's polio was not accidental, and
Joseph McCarthy who lead the first post-war commie persecution was a Democrat, and
No, John Atcheson, the Democrats are not stupid, just greedy.
JJUST greedy, raydelcamino? GREED is superstupidity.
As Mr. John Atcheson whistles through the graveyard lets examine some of hois claims...
"I'm down to three possibilities: 1) the cynics are right; 2) the Democrats really are as stupid as they act; or 3) they are as cowardly as that damn Lion."
These three things are no possibilities, they are facts.
"Unfettered markets were a tragic and complete disaster. Tax cuts reduced revenue. Deregulation hurt ordinary citizens, but were a bonanza for the wealthy and powerful."
This is two thirds to three quarters true. The former and latter are absolutely true. The middle in conjunction with the former and latter is true. But specific tax cuts in a regulated market with the laws and oversight needed to keep it honest, tax cuts specifically aimed at generating job creation, profit,an expanding economy are not included in this picture and did NOT reduce tax revenue.
While the republican extremists were absolutely engaged in a Kabuki dance trying to reduce government and "shrink it until they could "drown it in a bathtub.", the democrats are involved in the reverse side of the Kabuki dance pretending that all tax cuts arte bad andf a government program can solve every problem and if you just throw enough money at every problem it will be solved.
"the democrats are involved in the reverse side of the Kabuki dance pretending that all tax cuts arte bad andf a government program can solve every problem and if you just throw enough money at every problem it will be solved."
I hear the ghost of Ronald Reagan, almost verbatim, save the Kabuki dance.
"I hear the ghost of Ronald Reagan, almost verbatim, save the Kabuki dance." and may I add, written with the clarity of a George W. Bush...
As long as we are mentioning Ronnie Ray-gun here, I love this quote of his: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help". So the head of the government at the time had complete contempt for his own organization.
Can you ever imagine the head of any large corporation saying something like that about their organization? How about the head of IBM, publicly saying "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from IBM and I'm here to help". In business anyone that said that about their organization would be shown the door, why is this same thing celebrated when it is said about government.
Any large organization that allows itself to be run by people that have no respect for it will fail. I don't care if it is a private company, or a government. IMHO people who say they feel that way about an organization should not be allowed to be the head of it.
That sir is why we are failing now (continuing to fail), our government ois being run by people that have no respect for it at all and even less for our citizens. At least ole Ray Gun said it out loud instead of lying about it like Bush and Obama have.
We have no honest leadership. We have no leadership that cares about our country or its citizens. Perhaps we will find some real "reformers" this time around instead of another bunch of "hacks" (see posting at top for reformers and hacks reference)
What you hear is Obama and Pelosi as they cut your purse. That has been their reality so far.
"But specific tax cuts in a regulated market ...."
Mighty
You are correct but I prefer targeted tax credits as opposed tax cuts...(Do what you say you are going to do and we will allow the credit...if not no cigar..) Perhaps that is what you implied by "specific tax cuts in a regulated market"....
You got me sir! Guilty!! You can't get something for nothing with a tax credit...but you obviously can with a tax cut.
Anytime you see me saying tax cut in this reference when it actually is tax credit I mean, please feel free to "whop me up side of the head" and point it out.
"While the republican extremists were absolutely engaged in a Kabuki dance trying to reduce government and "shrink it until they could "drown it in a bathtub.", the democrats are involved in the reverse side of the Kabuki dance pretending that all tax cuts arte bad andf a government program can solve every problem and if you just throw enough money at every problem it will be solved."
Wow... This is not based in reality AT ALL. Look through the last 30 years of history of the Republican party, from Reagan to Gingrich to Cheney. See if you can find how they are shrinking government. Did Reagan shrink gov't? Hahaha. Of course not. By subsidizing major sectors of the economy (agribusiness, military, financial sector, automotive industry, etc...) by various measures he increased gov't to unheard of levels, while decreasing the tax rate on the top earners drastically.
What about Gingrich? He is the representative from Cobb Co. GA. Look up the major business of that well-to-do county near Atlanta. You will find it is Lockheed-Martin, nothing more than a publically subsidized (with profits privatized) corporation. His county was swimming in gov't money in the 90s.
What about Cheney? Look at the massive increases in spending that came from him and Bush including the military excursions/spending, subsidies to Big Pharma, the bank bailouts, the increase in surveillance of you and me (yes... someone out there is watching our conversation... HEY rather shading person watching us), NCLB, etc etc etc...
Republicans and Democrats both believe in gov't for the wealthy and the powerful. Their role is to make sure the gravy train keeps lining the pockets of their constituencies while you and I live in this fantasy world of propaganda where the debate is whether there is too much gov't or too little gov't without ever addressing what we want OUR gov't & OUR tax dollars to do for us (green jobs, subways, train systems, roads, schools, bridges, parks, libraries, etc...).
I am going to leave picking apart the rest of what you wrote about tax cuts (let's cut the taxes of corporations WE subsidize so they can create jobs for US! Oh thank you corporate masters...) and how Democrats solve all problems by throwing gov't money at it, for one of my other colleagues.
TARHEEL: Thank you for this post, many compelling facts.
CLASS ACT & NC TOM: Great posts, too.
"Wow... This is not based in reality AT ALL. Look through the last 30 years of history of the Republican party"
Perhaps it would be plainer if we spoke in effect rather than number. Do you believe that just because there are more people on the government payroll its doing the right thing or is effective?
I'm suggesting you are confusing government with the profits and explosion of looting of the public treasury of and by business.
Look at Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, Clinton and the result. You just validated what I said. Are you seriously goinig to argue that they were NOT successful is strangling government? That they did NOT remove the protections, the laws and the regulations that keep Corporations from exploitive actions? You think the removal of Glass-Stegall was a non event? NAFTA was a boon?
You are simply confusing the number of government workers with the actual effect of government. I'd say they they sank that baby pretty darn good in that bathtub.
Now to the democrats. If you can seriously argue that following the republicans stimulus plan with the democrats own, the bail outs or anything else they have done since this President took office as helping anyone find work, stopping and reversing the outflow of our industry, the payoffs to the unions, the refusal to address any of the damage done by the republicans while expanding the government workforce even further to no point,there is something seriously wrong with yoiur thinking.
"I am going to leave picking apart the rest of what you wrote about tax cuts (let's cut the taxes of corporations WE subsidize so they can create jobs for US"
Dante kicked me in the shins on this one...my bad...tax CREDITS not cuts. Shoot! Tax cuts should only be exercised on incomes of 50,000 or less at the best of times.
"Democrats solve all problems by throwing gov't money at it" I said they "think threy can solve all problems this way and that is all they hasve done so far. Throw money around to no purpose and hurt Americans with some of their silly legislaqtion like the HC bill.
I'm not sure that we are seperated by anything but semantics as to republicans...and democrats are no different, they are just trying to buy votes in a different6 area. Right? Wrong?
Atcheson sez: "I'm down to three possibilities: 1) the cynics are right; 2) the Democrats really are as stupid as they act; or 3) they are as cowardly as that damn Lion."
mightymite sez: "These three things are no possibilities, they are facts."
***
Atcheson's three possibilities do not coexist. It's an either-or list.
Democrats are neither stupid nor cowardly; they play a role, and they are well-compensated for doing so.
That leaves as the correct answer: 1) the cynics are right.
But then, perhaps I'm just being cynical.
You ole' cynic you!
BUT...its not either or, they are cynically stupid and cowardly.
Unfortunately, two of the flying monkeys, Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham want to repeal the 14th Amendment. That pretty well follows the script's weirdness.
I thought that is one of the most mean spirited things I ever heard supposed adults propose. So the party that so values the unborn, has no problem stripping them of their citizenship and deporting them once they come into this world. Since when do we hold children accountable for the sins of their parents?
What if one parent is here legally and the other is not? Do we deport half the kid? How about if the parents renounce their citizenship, does their kid loose his/hers too? The fact that these idiots can get away with spouting this disdainful hate shows how far politics in this country have fallen.
NC-Tom,
I share the same feelings and ask the same questions. It is difficult to maintain one's sanity today in American politics. This past weekend, I went to Glacier National Park. It was so cathartic, peaceful, and enjoyable. For once, I escaped the insanity of the world and got to enjoy one of nature's treasures.
I probably should do something like that myself, screaming at the news people on our TV probably isn't good for my health.
If you ever get the free time and have not seen Glacier National Park, I highly recommend it. Absolutely stunning, and theraputic.
I've never been much of a traveller, but I look forward to experiencing the magic of Glacier National Park in Pennsylvania when it comes to my neighborhood in liquid form! ;)
Try to see it within the next 10 years before the glaciers melt. Otherwise, yes you will be able to experience it in aqueous form in PA.
"And now the Republicans are being hoisted on their own petard."
Really? By whom? The corporate media remains a cheerleader corps for Wall Street.
And it is Wall Street and not republicans to which the author should be directing his comments. The Dems has proven themselves all too willing to grab their ankles for Goldman Sachs' money.
"Reality is immune to Fox propaganda, and impervious to mindless bluster from talk show radio."
Because reality is perception, this statement is - sadly - untrue. As long as enough Americans are willing to swallow that propaganda and bluster, Wall Street has nothing to fear.
q
I did like the piece the author wrote here but I do have to agree with your comments about Republican policies being proven wrong for all to see. Their party has not move one inch on their pro tax cut for the rich stance, and I see no massive MSM effort to show the folly of their ways.
"Reality is immune to Fox propaganda, and impervious to mindless bluster from talk show radio." That statement is true. Don't confuse people swallowing propaganda with reality. You can always convince a lot of people that some reality isn't true, but if it is true, eventually it will rear its ugly head in the end. Take man made climate change. Atmospheric science could care less if some large minority, or even the majority of people don't believe we are changing the atmosphere by pumping CO2 into it. People can argue against that reality, stop their feat or eloquently debate against it. Even if they win every debate, and convinced everyone on the planet that climate change isn't real it will do nothing to change the reality that it is.
Reality always bats last.
"Reality always bats last."
I like that Tom. Very well stated.
Me too.
Most of the people can be fooled most of the time. Reality will still catch up with them, and with those that do nothing as well.
I used to think that the stupidity and gullibility of the American public was overstated, but living in Arizona as I do, I'm beginning to wonder. The American people will pay, as all people do, for the sins committed in their name. And the payment will be swift and terrible. It's long overdue. And will the world shed a tear? I think not.
Reality, in this case, is dynamic. If you see the curve after you speed off the cliff, your new reality is an unpleasant encounter with Earth.
Very true, and when reality catches up, they will still blame "big government".
Why must those of us who are reality based, regarding the absolute hog trough that has become Washington D.C., be labeled as mere "cynics"?
That smacks of the label of mere "critics".
The Emperor Oilbomber is a cynic.
George Wanker Bush is a cynic.
Cheesedick Cheney is a cynic.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are cynics.
Pol Pot was a cynic.
Joseph Stalin was a cynic.
You're NOT a cynic. Perhaps you are very pessimistic and fresh out of good feelings about politics and politicians . . . but you're NOT a cynic.
Certainly the Repuds are in the land of Oz and a metaphor for the Dems is the cowardly Lion looking for some nerve while prancing down the yellow brick road...
"Reality is immune to Fox propaganda"
That is most certainly true. As someone said: Reality will deal with you whether you're in the room or not. But many of your fellow citizens are NOT immune to Focks dogshit. The Emperor Oilbomber, for one. Millions upon millions of Americans will vote this November to return to power the Bushistas and Cheneyites to further destroy the nation and themselves. Ask them why and they'll just stare blankly at you as if you're speaking Japanese, or pull back their jacket to show you the gun on their hip, meaning: get out of here, sucker, before I blow your effing brains out.
P.S. The Democrats are NOT possessed of an ounce of integrity. Their integrity meter registers ZERO.
Or, more likely, the idiots will tell you "Well the Dems may suck, but the Republicans suck more." The typical Lesser-Evilist mentality, which is the entire reason we have the 2-Party Duopoly we have.
Americans deserve precisely the government they have. Wake the hell up, sheep.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Once again, there's this massive deluge of categorical thinking that attempts to claim that democrats are just as bad as the republicans. Reality isn't this simple and we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.
I've tried other arguments, so here's another one. Modern biology and other sciences have moved away from categorical "essentialist" thinking based on discrete "types" of animals to a more "continuous", "populationist" approach that sees organisms as varying along continuous dimensions. For example, in politics many people think in terms of a categorical dichotomy that breaks down in terms of "leftists" versus "rightists". But this is misleading because if you actually measure people's political views or behaviors, say in terms of their voting records or a reasonable questionnaire, you find that people tend to fall along a continuum that stretches from left to right, which might be scaled from a score of 0 to 20 (just an example) with a mean of 10. Now compare two people, one scoring an 9 and the other an 11. The categorical approach would view these individuals as different, because they land in different "boxes" or "categories", whereas the populationist approach would see them as highly similar, because regardless of the category boundary, the two people are very similar (only 2 points apart).
A more relevant example would compare people scoring say an 11 to someone scoring an 19 (given that our political spectrum has shifted so far to the right). The categorical approach would say these people are the same (both rightists) while the populationist approach would see them as quite different (8 points apart).
The point is that by adopting the categorical approach, you end up throwing out a huge amount of differences between these two types of people (8 points on this continuum). These differences are going to be critical because they identify where it might be possible to change the people's political orientations. Obviously, the person scoring an 19 is so extreme that they are unlikely to be convinced of any value to positions to their left, but the person scoring an 11 is more flexible and may respond to some reasonable arguments. Similarly, if you wanted to attract people to a third, more leftist, party, it would be much easier to work with someone scoring a 2 than a say a 9.
I know this is very simple minded and I don't mean to be condescending. It's just that 1) It's not logical to say the two sides are equally bad when they vary greatly in terms of degree. I'm sure most posters understand this, but it tends to get overlooked given the lock-step categorical rhetoric used in so many comments; And 2) By ignoring this variability, you throw out some of the most valuable things (e.g., beliefs, motives) we have to work with when it comes to promoting change. I would argue that this kind of categorical thinking, along with our tendencies toward "tribal" (us against them) motivation, is one of the main reasons our politics has failed in this country.
DOUG: I think your mathematical analogy has merit; however, I believe it works far better in defining citizens and where they fit into the "spectrum." As for the positions of the majority of candidates (and elected officials) from both parties, due to the taint of big money's influence, even if they still own core differences, they're largely voting for the same extreme policies that had many citizens essentially throw Bush out. Little did those citizens realize that the outer packaging would vastly alter to hide the same ingredients inside the box... and it happens to be toxic.
Siouxrose:
I agree with your first sentence, that it works better in defining citizens and where they fit into the spectrum. You may also be right in saying that the majority of candidates vote "largely" for the same extreme policies.
However, my argument is that it's an oversimplification to think in terms of "largely"; we need to get more specific about how "large" a difference we're talking about. I didn't explain this in enough detail, but each person's location along this "spectrum" we're talking about depends on his or her positions regarding a number of issues: they may be pro or con regarding punishment, law and order, war, military, taxes, guns, education, social programs, entitlements, welfare, healthcare, employment, immigration, personal responsibility, foreign aid, role of government, secrecy, surveillance, torture, and many others. I can see why you would say that politicians are still voting for the same extreme policies (war, anti-taxation). But this is not yet true of most democrats, and there are other issues (social services, role of government, etc.) where there are profound differences between reps and democrats. If you look at voting records combined across these issues, you see the kind of continuous spectrum I'm talking about, with virtually no overlap between the two parties. Based on this kind of evidence, it makes no sense to combine the two parties into a single category.
And from a practical point of view, my point was that we need to break things down in more detail, so that we can understand where each person falls in terms of all of this spectrum and issues. This will help the progressives better understand what motivates the conservatives (dems & reps), which issues are most important to them, where they will be likely to be most flexible, and thus where we should focus our efforts (assuming the aim is to educate them). Thinking in terms of a single category blurs all these issues and potential strategies for improving things.
DOUG: I appreciate your putting the time into analysis, but let me ask you this: what difference is all this splitting of hairs, even your scale from 1-20 if the net effect with the "other" party in office is that the worst of Bush's policies have either been continued or enhanced? There are some very astute political analysts who contribute to CD, and I don't mean the paid columnists, either. They have shared compelling evidence to suggest that even our most seemingly-promising progressive democrats cave in when push comes to shove. Feingold did not vote to give Bush a pass, and that's a great thing. But John Conyers blocked any real push for impeachment; and Kucinich recently caved on the health care (insurance give-away) debacle, and even Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to be doing what might be done about "the banks that own the place." In addition, some astute posters have pointed out the powerful taint that big money has over elections.
It just isn't "your father's Democratic party" any longer... and if money isn't the root of all evil, it's sure giving (the lords of) karma a run for the money!
Siouxrose,
Thanks for your response.
I agree that democrats are not perfect, and that people such as Conyers, Kucinich, etc. have made mistakes (or at least decisions with which I disagree). But it's a huge mistake to make sweeping over-generalizations such as "democrats and republicans are the same" or that "democrats are just as bad as republicans" based on single or rare actions that we happen to disagree with.
It's true that Obama has been a big disappointment in his continuation of some of Bush's policies. But it's not true that he has done this for all or even most of Bush's worst policies. Has Obama tried to cut taxes on the rich? Has he started new wars? Did Bush ever do anything for reforming health care? Has Obama done as much damage to the supreme court as Bush? Has he pushed "exceptionalism", "privatization", and deregulation the way Bush did? And so on.
Or put it this way: If Obama was really continuing or enhancing Bush's worst policies, then why is he meeting with so much (nearly 100%) obstruction from the republicans?
If republicans and democrats are really identical, then why did the vast majority of democrats support healthcare reform (90% -?) whereas none of the republicans (0%) supported it? How can it make any sense to claim that 90% and 0% are equivalent? Sure, the democrats blew it, but by far the greatest proportion of blame falls on the republicans (and the ridiculous media coverage).
I also agree with you that money is the underlying problem, especially corporate money. But I would argue that corporate money has considerably more impact on republicans than democrats. Even if it is evenly distributed between the two parties, a look at voting records suggests it's easier to buy a republican and a democrat. I would add though that a bigger problem is the bias in the media.
You might call my approach "hairsplitting", but it's actually way too simple for that term. All I am saying is that rather than thinking in terms of black and white (categorically) we need to pay attention to the shades of gray that fall in between. I think I already answered in my previous post why this more analytic approach is necessary: It is much more consistent with reality, it provides greater knowledge and flexibility, and thus more approaches to promoting change. In addition, by blocking our tendencies to form false equivalences, it decreases the probability that people will not vote.
DOUG: I read 90% of the posts on CD, and others have gone to the trouble of spelling out the cognitive space between Obama's stated intentions (dressed up for public consumption through expensive PR campaigns that provide comforting slogans, these mischaracterize the actual objectives behind each agenda) and genuine policies. RICH M, for one, recently went to great lengths to correct another poster who came up with idiotic, near-meaningless crumbs (a/k/a policies) in an effort to paint Obama as the kinder, gentler new evil passing for leadership in this land of the anything but free or brave.
Where it counts...
the daily death of brown people in Afghanistan (and/or Iraq)
the daily death of persons who cannot obtain viable health care (or pay the insurance mafia its protection money to even see a professional)
the daily death of ecosystems, now seen in the drastic ecocide stemming from incessant oil drilling in fragile environments
the death of the human spirit, when so many are left broken, impoverished, homeless, and/or jobless (in short they are HOPE-LESS)
Incremental change means NOTHING when this much suffering is being set to become the unsung story of American politics as it furthers one thing, and one thing alone, the banality of evil. Capitalism on steroids merged with the MIC (Mars rules) has given birth to this satanic child. Any politician that grants cover to this abysmal state is NO improvement at a time when TIME ITSELF is running out.
Think....
End of Oil.
Global warming/climate change and increasingly related cataclysmic upheavals.
Trafficking in weapons and the INEVITABLE conflicts this "law of the jungle" will produce.
Global economics hinged on casino capitalists at their high stakes gambling tables.
My favorite quote for our times, "The tragedy of the 20th century is that nothing any longer is perceived as such." The 21st century has taken that to new levels!
TRAGEDY is now an acceptable part of business as usual; or, as the wise and scholarly Naomi Klein put it, "The Shock Doctrine" is the new law of the globe, with human life everywhere made cheap and expendable.
A LEADER would have seen, felt, and understood these things... and at least begun to invoke some life-affirming changes. Instead, with so much at stake, the very persons Obama appointed to cabinet positions and advisory boards tells us unequivocally that he plays ball for the same old (money) team. The playing field is about to receive its own (karmic) version of shock and awe. Blowback is inevitable. I see no reason to remain in the stands rooting for the "two" teams that have done much to make RUIN inevitable.
What if the "spectrum" is an illusion, and taking isolated "positions" on "issues" is politically meaningless?
The "spectrum" idea supports individualism and it disperses the working class people, and "positions" on "issues" tells us virtually nothing without a context for deciding what position to take on anything, or even what is and what is not an issue.
Yes, if we approach politics as a marketing challenge, and if it is the existing system of social arrangements and conventions we are trying to sell people on - the so-called "progressive" version of it, a version that promises to be nicer and more rational and ultimately workable and successful - then what you suggest would be valuable.
The "spectrum" idea and the "positions" on "issues" analysis of politics, and the idea that there are profound differences between the two parties only works when we restrict our thinking to very narrow parameters so as to not upset the apple cart - not challenge existing social conditions and arrangements, and not ruffle the feathers of the wealthy and powerful few. To do that means to forever preclude any success in the battle for freedom and equality, and to pretend to praise democracy, while actually destroying it.
Thank you for this mezmerizing dialectic Mr. Rahm Emmanuel (aka Doug D)- is this your parties new meme rollout? ...now that Hope & Change are swirling the crapper.
Good luck on the new labeling of your recycled snake oil.
Did you know 100 and 0 are also on a continium? in fact if you simply remove the 1 and zero they are identical... aint Politics COOL ???
A return of Republican rule would clarify things. If it is a kabuki dance then Republicans would return to a more moderate fiscal policy because they would not want to risk damaging the economy any further and riling voters against them. Of course it is possible that the Democrats are as stupid or as cowardly as we think but then Republican rule would also have the advantage of clearing out many of the centrist democratic blue dogs who have caused so much of the problem by colluding with Republicans. Jason Altmire. for example, wears the title "centrist" proudly in the PA 4th congressional district and thinks his fiscal conservatism will get him reelected without progressive or union help. I think that the district will go back in Republican hands and put him back in his old shoes as UPMC health care lobbyist where he belongs. The Republican victory will clear the way to have a real Republican to run against in 2012. Perhaps we can get a real progressive to oppose him--that's not such a bad thing. Hang on --we're in for a bumpy ride.
John Atcheson, are you finally seeing the light? It's been pretty obvious for a long time that both sides of our political system are two sides of the same corporate coin. The Democrats don't start out stupid, nor even necessarily cowardly. But they are greedy. And greed breeds stupidity and cowardice. Both Republicans and Democrats are working for the Man, and will continue to do so. Our whole political system must be changed before change can happen.
The author is also living in lala land. The Democrats aren't cowardly. They are in on it. Both sides in Washington are on the take. Getting their pockets stuffed with bank, drug, oil, and defense lobby money as fast as they can take it in. It isn't a matter of moral duty, conviction, responsibility or anything else. Our legislators are bribed and as much on the take as an Afghan warlord. Change that and you can change the government.