Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Are Cornered: There's No Way Out Without a Fight
There is no cavalry coming over the ridge to save the people from massed capital. Certainly not the Democrats, whose self-caged left wing now finds its marginalized encampments under lockdown by their own president's hostile patrols, while the GOP and its Tea Party irregulars howl from the circling darkness. That's what happens when progressives maneuver themselves onto the same side of the battlefield as Goldman Sachs, as they did with abandon in 2007-08, deliriously fighting their way into a cul-de-sac in which they are now surrounded.
The leftish brigades rallied to a commander who styled himself an incarnation of Abraham Lincoln, but turned out to be a General George McClellan, the Union's first commander of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan was great at rousing the troops and putting his army on parade, but constantly overestimated his Confederate adversaries and, in Lincoln's final estimation, refused to fight. The political roots of his reluctance to crush the Confederacy became clear after his dismissal when, in 1864, he challenged Lincoln on the Democratic "peace" party's ticket. McClellan never really wanted to win the war, or, at the very least, saw victory in a very different way than Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.
It has long been clear that Barack Obama's idea of victory required decisively defeating the Left of his own party. Everyone to his left is to be neutralized, while those to his right rate an open hand and endless concessions, the scenario from the very start of his health care "negotiations" with the drug and insurance industries. Victory in the racial arena means an end to race agitation, a Black stand-down, which remains largely in place. Success in war, not pursuit of peace, is his goal, one that will surely elude him, but not for lack of trying.
Obama and finance capital began an early, thoroughly vetted, and white hot love affair that was anchored in mutual contempt for those who would challenge the rule of money. He has delivered the highest return on corporate campaign investment in the history of bourgeois democracy, allowing Wall Street to pocket at least $12 trillion in return for contributions of less than $1 million per investment house. (Goldman Sachs was top giver, at $994,795.) Obama was BP's biggest political campaign recipient: $71,000, an investment that boosted the corporation's value by billions -- albeit temporarily -- when the president opened up offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Obviously, Goldman Sachs and BP considered Obama a "greater good," in terms of their interests, than John McCain. And they made out like bandits, confirming their assessment of Obama's immense value to their side in the class war. The question is, how in the hell did lefties conclude that Big Capital's and Big Oil's "greater good" candidate was also the progressive side's fountain of Hope -- or even a "lesser evil" -- in 2008? Both camps placed their bets on Obama, but only one side could possibly win.
It is the Left that wound up trapped in the cul-de-sac, with every major item on its 2008 political wish list betrayed, sidetracked, mangled or spat upon by Obama and his friends -- although, to be fair to the Devil, the Left had often simply imagined they had Obama's ear or support when such was not even remotely true. On war, for example.
Most devastatingly, Obama and his Democratic legislative allies have successfully shielded their Wall Street masters from anything worthy of the name financial reform. This means finance capital and its "shadow," derivatives-based economy (nominally, ten times bigger than the "real" global economy) remain beyond the reach of meaningful public intervention by conventional methods. With the air knocked out of mainstream reformers' bony chests, Wall Street is poised for a Great Offensive against the political and social infrastructure of the United States.
Producing nothing of real value, fatally hooked on ever-mounting rates of return, simultaneously divorced from and a parasite on the "real" economy, and with the executive and legislative branches in their pockets, the Lords of Capital are set to devour the entirety of the public sector -- while forcing the public to finance the feast. The rallying cry is "austerity," but the motivation is not, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman maintains, ideological. Rather, it is hunger.
Finance capital is, at this stage of the system's decline, incapable of reproducing itself through productive investment, and so must feed on existing producers or on the State. Since Wall Street over the decades has already broken up, consumed and exported much of the U.S. productive economy, that leaves the State and all of its parts. Far from acting as a brake on his vampire friends, Obama leads the charge on corporate hijacking of public education, and signaled in January 2009 that all elements of the safety net, including Social Security, should be "on the table" -- which can only mean some form of privatization.
The pace of finance capital deterioration quickens, accelerating the timetable of the Right's offensive. As the hunger grows, Wall Street's servants become more aggressive and demanding, and there is nothing in the Democratic Party, as presently constituted, to stop them.
One truth remains: only a massed people can defeat massed capital. If the American Left is capable of bearing that in mind in the critical times ahead, it might just escape the cul-de-sac and make some modest contribution to the world.
134 Comments so far
Show AllI remember when electricity de-regulation came to Maine in 1998-2000. Governor Angus King was interviewed by a local television station about his work bringing finance company MBNA to Maine. His statement was "The only thing they emit is money". Kinda like fuel cells emit water, heat and electricity. I guess his biomass business wasn't doing so well and the Enron guys taught him well........
I applaud Glen Ford and Aaron Dixon for not resorting to the many euphemisms most writers and many of us CD posters resort to...Ford and Dixon present the raw truth!
In another recent thread, a poster called 'Americanabroad' shared this wonderful quote from the Declaration of Independence, on complaints against King George III. In gratitude to that poster's resourcefulness and scholarship, I'm posting that quote again below _
1.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
2. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
3. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Good work.
Joe
Thank you all for appreciating the message. Years ago I visited my brother in NY who had a b/w television. We watched a talk given by a black, stand-up comedian whose name I don't remember (and if anyone does, please let me know). It must have been very soon after the terrible riots in Los Angeles (1968?).He was speaking to a hall full of college students at a college which accepted black as well as white students. At one point the camera swung around behind him and showed the audience: on one side of the aisle the white students, on the other the black.
This is what I remember he said, 'The next time you're home visiting your parents, and you see a riot on tv, cars being turned over, shop windows broken, looters carrying away all those things they can't afford to buy - stand up next to the tv, look at your family and recite: 'That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends' ... and so on. I cried, and so did my brother. Then he gave me a red-white-blue button on which were the words, 'If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.' That button made an impression on every pupil and student I gave English lessons to in Germany and The Netherlands during the next 40 years.
So, friends: 'If we're not part of the solution ...'? The first problem, imo, in coming together is that it depends on a medium we haven't got. The mass media are totally dominated by capitalist criminals like Murdoch, the web reaches only those who are literate, concerned and possibly willing to be active. The unions are being steadily eroded and the schools and colleges are useless. Somehow we ought to be able to duplicate Obama's miracle campaign but I don't know how. HOW DID HE DO IT?
The complaint against George III was peanuts compared to what we have put up with with Obama and his recent predecessors.
from the article:
~ One truth remains: only a massed people can defeat massed capital. ~
yup...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...unanimous, planetwide rejection of the modern world...
cessation of property ownership and industry...
the return of individual engagement in daily, local living...resource management, sustenance, governance and defense...
communities interacting with their surroundings in ways intentionally fostering a thriving natural environment...
Obama was elected on a wave of Populism, the first rising wave of a multi-ethnic, multicultural US. Clearly Obama, the Democratic Party and the Wall Street interests backing them surfed this wave expertly. Once they got in, they have "refudiated" (Palin op cit) their populist left. Left? It's not even a left, but progressives or liberals. We now have a political mash-up called the "tea party" which is fueled also by populist sentiments, albeit a very confused mash up (see Mayer's article in New Yorker on funders behind tea party)the populist appeal is very useful you see and can be manipulated which is just what Obama et al have done. A real populist movement is what Mr. Ford is speaking about I believe, one not up for manipulation by the Kochs or Obama
Dems.
Amen and Amen. It is great to see a commentator on CD who really gets it and Glen gets it. He uses terms like "class war" which the wimpy liberals never do. His analysis of the parasitic nature of Finance Capital and its relation to the Democratic Party is spot on.
I'm sickened unto nausea at all the "if only Obama would..." and "...the Democrats need to..." comments here. Anyone still writing like that definitely doesn't "get it"
I live among Obamabots who blame Dubya and Nader for the outcomes of Obama's devious behavior and would add Glen Ford to their blame list if they read this article, which they would never do because they suffer from a terminal case of denial.
Welcome to the club, raydelcamino. That's how most of my friends and neighbors are.
Oh, well. People are people. What can we do?
Two-faced Obama is General George McClellan "kowtowing" to the right
and Robert E. Lee betraying the left. How half & half of him. So mulato!
Obama is not two faced...anybody who listens to the content of his speeches knows where he stands...with the big money interests and against you and I.
The problem is not Obama, its the people who vote for him.
"The problem is not Obama, its the people who vote for him."
No! It's a combination of both!
"As the hunger grows, Wall Street's servants become more aggressive and demanding, and there is nothing in the Democratic Party, as presently constituted, to stop them."
Reminds me of a section of Sam Shepard's great work, "Tongues", "...Nothing I ate could satisfy this hunger I'm having right now!...This hunger knows no bounds! This hunger is eating me alive, it's so hungry!..."
Not only have the Democrats done nothing to stop Wall Street, they have exerted extraordinary effort to enable and encourage Wall Street's devious behavior.
The Obamabankster bill adds token regulations that increase banking costs and lower returns for you and I, institutionalizes too-big-to-fail, while doing nothing to address, let alone fix any of the industry's structural problems.
This disparate group of leftists socialists and liberals are gutless toothless and armless.
lets keep writing on this blog while sliding down the drain. It is going to be too late when everything turns into a sewage farm.
Keep on Keeping on.
Love
Zero
Perhaps free-thinkers and pacifists should give General McClellan more credit than history has done. Given that the Civil War remains the most horrific in terms of casualties of all our many wars, six hundred to seven hundred thousand dead, untold numbers injured, and the national atmosphere poisoned for generations, it might be imagined that McClellan foresaw the awful coming carnage and held it off as long as he could, hoping for a political solution to emerge, and then offering one himself when none emerged. Lincoln, Sherman and Grant had no such qualms. Perhaps we and the world would have been better off if those two antagonistic societies had parted peacefully instead of forming the often unhappy union we have had since the defeat of the Confederacy.
Tony Vodvarka
Joshua Chamberlain...
Civil War historians have already revealed that had McClellan acted sooner and not hesitated as he did the South would have been quickly defeated, the war would have ended much sooner and far fewer Americans would have died. Go back to school!
So Civil War historians can reconstruct a hypothetical situation with absolute certainty. My, what smart folk they are!
Not saying I agree or disagree, but your reply adnoseum just made me nautious. Mainly because it continues the meme that violence is always the solution.
Fact is, no one can say what would have happened if both sides parted without a war and no one can say what would have happened had McClellan acted sooner - it is all speculation. You can agree or disagree and debate your point, but don't act like you - or anyone else - can say what would happen.
You are mistaken that my comment advocates the use of violence.
It simply refers to war strategy. McClellan's ineptitude ended up
costing more lives and in no way helped to end the madness of the Civil War
sooner rather than later. There is little need to speculate on it. It is a fact.
Actually, had the South acted sooner, they might have "won" the Civil War. Right after Lincoln's election, Washington was very lightly defended. As the southern states began to secede, the Union attempted to reinforce Washington by sending Massachusetts troops by train. However, the pro-slavery city of Baltimore rose up in popular rebellion and blocked the passage of the troops. It took weeks to redirect the reinforcements by sea. Had the Army of Virginia then moved to occupy Washington and the government, it might have been able to negotiate a peace from a position of strength.
The US south's secession and the US civil war were instigated by US elites. Had the nation been ruled in true democratic fashion, with the interests of the whole of the people accurately represented, it would have peacefully banned slavery like all the other nations had done at the time, and avoided the carnage. The seven or so hundred thousand dead and the millions of others adversely affected can thank the handfuls of elites (war funders, weapons suppliers, and others) for the carnage of the US civil war.
Have u ever read any of the sci fi writer Harry Turtledove? He has an entire set of books lovely devoted to just such a scenario. The most famous being "Guns of the South." Check them out. By the way I agree, I think the South and Midwest constitute a totally different country culture wise.
You could draw parts of The Midwest into this cultural difference. Having lived there and worked in a business calling on clients all through the region you could draw an outline, but not a bright line, of Old South influence. As my sister says,after living in St.Louis for 30 years, " this city doesn't know if it wants to be in the North or South, 140 years after the damn war. " It could be said of most border states, where urban centers and university cities seem comfortable enough, but whole counties are a step back in time. I, for one, could never even consider living or retiring in the South. My problema, not theirs, really. I've worked with Southern transplants quite a bit in the recent past here in the Northwest. FYI- Oklahoma is not OK. Their politics could be summed up by the word " peculiar ".
Dear RichM, It seems to me that we have been so force-fed the Munich appeasement line in our political culture, an intellectual device that has been used to fuel our many interventions and wars, no matter where, that any solution that is not war-like has come to seem ineffectual, a natural point of view to develop in any aggressive national security state of seventy-five years standing. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if McClellan had the intellect to forsee six or seven hundred thousand dead, a million maimed, half the country in desolation and poverty for the next century, I wouldn't blame him if he recoiled from the prospect. One can say that some other outcome might have been worse, but what is certain is that what did happen was a terrible cataclysm for the Union.
I have no insight into McClellan's motivation either, truly not a scholar on the subject. It's just that it seems to me that the Civil War was such a disaster in our history, by its very definition how could it not be, no one profited except, once again, the very rich. But politically correct thought deems that we consider the Union victory as some sort of great progress, and considering the outcome, I really have come to doubt it. Anyway, "what if?" is always a bit of fun.
Slavery was the disaster. Slavery was the evil legacy that lives on. Racism is the undoing of the country.
Emancipation was the outcome of the Civil War, not "victory" for the Union.
"What if" is only "fun" for those who leave the struggle against slavery and racism out of the picture.
This "we" you are speculating about - would "we" have been better off with a different outcome - is, of course, a white point of view and no more than that. If you assume that "we" means the whites, then I would say that it is that attitude that lingers on and is the source of things perhaps being worse.
There is no evidence that McClellan had any high and lofty purpose, any humanitarian vision. He was sympathetic to the slave power, and he was extremely cautious and ineffective. We know those two things were true, we just don't know if they were connected.
Here is a "what if" for you - had McClellan not been so timid - to the point of cowardice, insubordination and incompetence - on the Peninsula and at Antietam, the war may very well have ended much sooner and untold thousands of lives could have been spared.
Thanks for your racially pure point of view.
I don't know what you mean by that remark.
It would be a happy day and good for the cause of solidarity also, when we of a generally similar progressive frame of mind adopted a more pleasant tone to one another, begging forgiveness for my past sins, of course.
I don't agree, sorry. I said nothing that was a personal attack in any way, nor was I rude or offensive.
There is no "tone" in text, pleasant or otherwise, except what a person hears in their head when reading. The calls for "a more pleasant tone" is always a call for suppression of points of view that make others uncomfortable. I am no saying that his is the case in our transaction (and I harbor no animosity toward you and make no judgments.) "We of a generally similar progressive frame of mind" is too often a ruse, a supposed attempt at building solidarity that is really an effort to suppress the Left so that more moderate views can dominate the discussion.
So, no, I do not agree that "we of a generally similar progressive frame of mind" are necessarily allies, nor that it would be "good for the cause of solidarity" if we "adopted a more pleasant tone to one another." I have never seen that argument used other than by moderates for the purpose of finding fault with and calling for the suppression of those expressing left wing ideas and social criticism in strong and unambiguous terms.
Stop being ridiculous and listen to yourself for a minute. What is it you advocate? Standing entirely alone as the only Real Leftist embattled on all sides by "moderates" who only want to suppress your dedication to a truth the rest of us just can't quite stomach? Have you even paid attention to what RichM and Vodvarka have been saying, or is your ego just too important to even consider that maybe solidarity among those of us on the left is ESSENTIAL if we're ever to achieve any of the goals the left has ever pursued? Haven't you even noticed that RichM expresses leftist viewpoints in here with total consistency, usually with more articulation and clarity than you bring to bear? And I say that with admiration for your posts, since I nearly always agree with them. But if it's that important to you that you stand out as far more authentically left than anyone else, good luck in your solipcistic endeavor. Will you carry out the revolution single-handedly?
Thanks.
Now here is an example of a personal attack, as opposed to my remarks which were falsely characterized as a personal attack.
Your entire post is about the messenger and not the message.
I don't consider most people who post on liberal and progressive boards to be allies. Why must I? Is this "solidarity" you refer to dependent upon the suppression of certain points of view?
Why is a personal point of view to be considered valid in proportion to the number of people who might agree with them? If we are only to express points of view that are popular, how can there be any serious criticism or analysis?
I reject the "purism" line of argument, the suggestion that this has anything to do with who is or isn't pure in their beliefs. I reject the entire personal beliefs approach to politics.
I object to your implications, insinuations and speculation as to my personal motives or state of mind.
The purism arguments, the "you are a fringe and no on agrees with you" arguments, and the insinuations as to a person's anti-social mindset, their tone, their agenda or motivations, or their imagined mental state are commonly used methods for attacking leftists and have no place in a serious political discussion.
I have paid much attention to the posts of both RichM and Vodvarka for a long time. I happen to disagree with each of them, on separate and different points, in this discussion.
We are all "embattled on all sides by moderates" who only want to suppress our shared dedication to the truth, and that is something all of us are struggling to understand, wouldn't you say?
I hope you will consider what I am saying here. I have no "tone," animosity, nor any intention to attack anyone.
Two Americas is absolutely correct, racially, politically and socially.
If anyone sees racism it is because T.A. points to the natural tendency of people to express their(we) point of view.
To add my two cents a read a good book about a Union sympathiser and White husband to Black women in Arkansas.
This book hinted that the Union actually lost the war when Grant stopped battling Regressive Souterners during his Presidency and allowed Jim Crow to be instituted losing much of the racial gains of the civil war.
It is not an attack on the other member.
Racism permeates the society. I don't think some are and others are or are not racist. Racism exists in ideas expressed, in actions and is institutionalized in various ways, it is not in some interior state of being. I don't think anyone "is" a racist, and I think we are all liable to thinking and expressing racist thoughts.
Not sure what "high & mighty rhetoric" might be. That is a charge often leveled at those of us on the Left, and has no meaning.
If I misunderstood the point the other poster was making, or if they misspoke, that is easily cleared up.
I have no intention to attack another member. I accused no one of "being" a racist nor a "mindless cheerleader."
I agree entirely with your economic analysis of the origins of the war. When I studied history, the primary cause of the conflict was said to be the imposition of tariffs, especially on southern cotton. Better said, the ability of the northern controlled Congress to impose trade restrictions that favored northern industries. I also agree that the Constitution allowed states to secede. That did not matter because Lincoln suspended the Constitution. As you say, a by-product of the war was the abolition of slavery but, except for a brief period during "reconstruction", what continued was for most, slavery by other means.
abvodvarka@yahoo.com August 25th, 2010 11:54 am
"Perhaps we and the world would have been better off if those two antagonistic societies had parted peacefully inste-"
Excellently reasoned! If only the north had accepted that slavery is a tradition like any other, the tragic necessity of the confederacy defending itself in the war between the states could have been avoided.
And, today, tourist plantations with GPS-ankle tagged darkies singing spirituals and swinging hoes at sunrise would present a more stirring and venerable face of the south than the fluff of Disneyworld.
You might take into account that few in the north, and especially not most of Lincoln's party, gave a damn about slavery. What came out of the "victory" of the Civil War, a hundred years of share-cropping and Jim Crow, was little better than slavery. The machine age of the late ninteenth century would soon have made the institution of slavery obsolete and with its collapse, Blacks would have been either a majority of the population, as in Mississippi, or a sizable minority, and probably much better able to bring political pressure on the individual states. Anyway, it's not much to get snotty about, just a "what if?" sort of question.
Yes, Lincoln and most Republicans' primary motivation for preventing secession of the South was their very real fear that California would side with the South and manifest destiny would be down for the count.
As any grade school student of US history knows, manifest destiny is the force that got America from sea to shining sea, made America what it is today, and continues to drive the direction America is headed..think eternal Ir-Af-Pak occupation.
For what it is worth, that isn't true. Most of the leaders of the Republican party cared about slavery.
Pro-slavery people before the war claimed that the slaves lives would be no better after Emancipation. The fact that bigotry, oppression and terror continue after the war does not negate or mitigate in any any the value of Emancipation.
Perhaps slavery would have died out on its own, as many hoped before the war. However, the trend was in the opposite direction and there were powerful forces working to perpetuate it.
The fantasy about a peaceful separation, so cherished at the time by pro-slavery people, since that would mean a victory for them, is highly unlikely since all of the causes of the war and points of friction would still exist. A war between two countries would have been no better than a Civil War.
'Peace at all costs' has costs. We may actually be there again, where a McClellan, no matter how well-intentioned, makes things worse by not confronting the 'devil' sooner. I think that, at this point in time, we are all, Obama included, scared of the right. We're beginning to realize they are like the South, certain that their superior morality is due to superior certainty. The right thinks its right, because it thinks so. It is completely past having to justify itself. Its aligned itself with the richest section of the richest nation on earth, and that is all the justification it needs. Has finance reform ever generated the interest that a mosque at Ground Zero has? If not, then a fight is brewing and the right expects to win it. If they thought about finance reform, they would see it is in their interests. But thats the point: they are not allowed to think about it. For them, the real devil is the proximate one, the one trotted out, like clockwork, in front of them, like walking a cat past a caged dog. If the masters open the cage, the cat dies. But the masters won't open the cage if the left stops calling for finance reform. That's how it works. We're just going to have to sacrifice the cat, to take down the owner.
McClellan paused and, thus encouraging the slave-owners, probably made Lincolns and Grants job much, much worse. I think Obama is also pausing, and history suggests this is just going to make it that much harder for the rest of us. There is now no middle ground with the right. They're just going to have to be put down. We thought we'd done that in 2008.
Interesting take. Mr. Ford has his well reasoned critique of the " leftist cul-de-sac " we've got ourself into but I have said many times and in many places that it is not to late to split this country, amicably, right all the lines of the Old Confederacy. It could be informative and entertaining. Those states brought into the Union after the Civil War could simply vote up or down on which form of gov't and Constitutional interpetation they preferred. It should begin as a nat'l survey to see if the idea has merit. Then the survey could go on to explain the transfer of wealth from the North, East and West to the South in the form of revenue sharing: every frikkin' budget cycle for the last century. It could stretch itself to include ??s like, " The minimum wage in Texas is $3.55 an hour, in the Northwest it is $8.55 an hour, if your were a slave which state would your prefer to labor in? Or, " The South has a historic reputation and legacy for voter and civil rights violations, an apartheid mindset if you will, so knowing this: Are you more or less inclined to attend a church in a certain region of the country which could be firebombed while you're in it? " Finally, " Does our overstressed and underfunded health system really need to perform triage on a whole region of the country which prides itself on overindulgence and poor health outcomes? "
CommonDreamers,
It is racial agitators like Glen Ford that have destroyed the "Left" in American politics. Glen Ford is the executive editor of the "Black Agenda Report". To racists like Mr Ford, civil rights means black privilege. For some unconceivable reason, the "Left" cannot comprehend that racist politics cannot undo racism in the United States.
Typical racist horseshit, calling Ford a racist because he's the editor of Black Agenda Report. You're projecting, Widhalm. You can't disguise your own racism by calling a black man a racist because he dares to speak up about gross inequalities in a racist and classist system, and the betrayal of a black president who builds alliances with the far right.
Although I don't find evidence that Glen Ford is a racial agitator, I would support his thesis even if he was a racial agitator, just as I support the (mostly Republican) States Attorneys General lawsuit testing the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate, even though I have never voted for a Republican.
If self styled progressives and liberals won't hold Obama accountable, I will support racial agitators and Attorneys General (including Republicans) who will seek accountability.
I have never seen Glen Ford advocate anything that would not be advantageous to all ordinary people. Our economic and political needs are very similar.
I think you have him mixed up with someone else.
Joe
Rubbish. "Reverse racism" does not and cannot exist. Claiming or implying that it does betrays a profound misunderstanding of the concept of racism. That just happens to be a misunderstanding relentlessly promoted by the most extreme right wing and racist people in the country, but I am sure in your case that is merely coincidental.
T.A. As correct as you are about everything else, I think reverse racism exists in that some citizens are deflecting OilyBombers deficites by saying it is good there is a (one half) Black President.
Funny how all Blacks are Black even though we know many are half non African.
But OilyBomber screams out to be indentified as being one half of both races.
I guess one tends not to want to put such a hugh amount of betrayal on just one race alone.