Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dwight Was Right
So...it turns out President Eisenhower wasn't making up all that stuff about the military-industrial complex.
That's what you'll conclude if you read Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's War. (You can read excerpts of it here, here and here.) You thought you voted for change when you cast a ballot for Barack Obama? Um, not when it comes to America occupying countries that don't begin with a "U" and an "S."
In fact, after you read Woodward's book, you'll split a gut every time you hear a politician or a government teacher talk about "civilian control over the military." The only people really making the decisions about America's wars are across the river from Washington in the Pentagon. They wear uniforms. They have lots of weapons they bought from the corporations they will work for when they retire.
For everyone who supported Obama in 2008, it's reassuring to find out he understands we have to get out of Afghanistan. But for everyone who's worried about Obama in 2010, it's scary to find out that what he thinks should be done may not actually matter. And that's because he's not willing to stand up to the people who actually run this country.
And here's the part I don't even want to write -- and none of you really want to consider:
It matters not whom we elect. The Pentagon and the military contractors call the shots. The title "Commander in Chief" is ceremonial, like "Employee of the Month" at your local Burger King.
Everything you need to know can be found in just two paragraphs from Obama's War. Here's the scene: Obama is meeting with his National Security Council staff on the Saturday after Thanksgiving last year. He's getting ready to give a big speech announcing his new strategy for Afghanistan. Except...the strategy isn't set yet. The military has presented him with just one option: escalation. But at the last minute, Obama tells everyone, hold up -- the door to a plan for withdrawal isn't closed.
The brass isn't having it:
"Mr. President," [Army Col. John Tien] said, "I don't see how you can defy your military chain here. We kind of are where we are. Because if you tell General McChrystal, 'I got your assessment, got your resource constructs, but I've chosen to do something else,' you're going to probably have to replace him. You can't tell him, 'Just do it my way, thanks for your hard work.' And then where does that stop?"
The colonel did not have to elaborate. His implication was that not only McChrystal but the entire military high command might go in an unprecedented toppling -- Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command. Perhaps no president could weather that, especially a 48-year-old with four years in the U.S. Senate and 10 months as commander in chief.
And, well, the rest is history. Three days later Obama announced the escalation at West Point. And he became our newest war president.
But here's the question Woodward doesn't answer: Why, exactly, can't a president weather ending a war, even if he has to fire all his generals to do it? It's right there in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: The President's in charge of the military. And so is Congress: the army can't just march over to the Treasury Department and steal the money for wars. Article I, Section 9 says Congress has to appropriate it.
In the real world, though, the Constitution's just a piece of paper. In the real world, a President who fired his top military in order to stop a war would be ruined before you could say "bloodless coup." The Washington Post (filled with ads from Boeing and Northrop Grumman) would scream about how he was the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. Fox and CNN (filled with "experts" who work for think tanks funded by Raytheon and General Dynamics) would say he was a girly-man who had to be impeached. And Congress (which experienced its own escalation in lobbying from defense contractors just as the Afghanistan escalation was being decided) might well do it. (By the way, if you want to listen to Lyndon Johnson talk in 1964 about how he might be impeached if he didn't follow the military-industrial complex's orders and escalate the war in Vietnam, just go here.)
So here's your assignment for tonight: Watch Eisenhower's famous farewell speech. And then start thinking about how we can tame this beast. The Soviet Union had its own military-industrial complex, which is one reason they got into Afghanistan...which is one reason there's no more Soviet Union. It happened to them.
Don't think it can happen to us?
- Posted in
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...
327 Comments so far
Show Alli have no doubt in my mind.
Although Moore only briefly touched upon the corporations that the Pentagon brass go to work for when they retire from the military, it is those corporations that own the DC electeds and really call the shots.
Until Americans acknowledge that corporate control of government is the root of all of America's problems and take action to go to publicly funded elections, more and more money will be squandered on the miltary industrial media complex (MIMC) and less money will be available to sustain the health and well being of the US.
The great thing about Common Dreams
is the quality of the participants.
The only bad thing is the amount of
flack or chaff you have to sift through
that Buries the kernels of truth beneath
MOUNTAINS of swine excrement. I suggest we
come up with a troll filter software that
can automatically make mmmm certain mmmmmmmm
participants dis ap pear.. Who can do this?
There are forums with such filters, in the form of an ignore button. Once pushed that particular poster disappears from your view. Democratic underground had such I believe though it has been a very long time since I have been there.
This free speech thingie is, after all, such a nuisance, isn't it? You are suggesting that only our own ideas and ideals see the light......you can do that by talking only to yourself.
Thanks Mike Moore for a good article. I know you're a good guy and your heart is in the right place. I know you thought Obama was going to make a big difference for the good, a lot of people did, but it turns out those folks were wrong. I think a lot of people feel betrayed to say the least.
Keep up the fight for us little folk, we, (at least me anyway), really appreciate it. Unfortunately I'm not sure how much good it will do. Our government has been completely corrupted by money and is rotten to the core. I think it has now reached the point where it is unsalvageable. The corporations with the vast sums of money they have can manufacture consent for whatever they want the population to do.
Most people will believe almost anything if the messenger is slick and confident. Then you have the whole "I Believe!" thing. Those two words said together are the scariest words in the english language. The majority of people will simply "believe" things with no proof, and will make no effort to confirm if they are true or not. Never forget if a lie is repeated enough it will be believed by most to be true. A few simple facts the elite use to their advantage
TLDNR; Mike Moore is a good guy, who got snookered by a slick politician, oh and us little guys are screwed.
Tom,
I'd like to believe that about Moore (Sicko was a pretty good flick), but i caught on to him in '04 when i saw him on DN explaining that, although he agreed with Kucinich' stands on issues, because he (Kucinich) was (para phrasing), "never gonna get near the White House", he was backing Wes Clark(!) as the Dem candidate, (remember ole' Wes - the ex Gen. CNN "commentator" on the war in '03?) because he (Clark) was now (nominally) "anti-war" and he wanted a Dem to win. He hasn't really changed any, in that respect, IMO ....
His tactics have changed, and he, like many, has grown politically. Do you stand behind every utterance you have made in the past? Moore is engaged and working for change, are you?
"he, like many, has grown politically."
Is he now advocating abandoning the Dems, or just finding "better Dems"?
"Do you stand behind every utterance you have made in the past?"
Well, if i change my mind, I generally come out and say so. There is nothing in Moore's article that indicates to me he has. His statement that "it doesn't matter who is Pres." was said within the limited context of engaging in war and amounts to an excuse for Obama's continuation of it. Does he lambast the Dems for continuing to fund it? His claim that this is the way it is "in the real world" parrots the "practical" arguments we see on this site from unabashed DPAers.
He makes some good movies, but as a political pundit, IMO, he is simply another Dem supporter.
Wait and see where he goes when the rubber meets the road.
"Moore is engaged and working for change, are you?"
I wish i knew what "change" he's working for - I don't think it's changing the WH occupant. As for me, yup!
What doubledee said! If we pay attention, as we travel through life we grow, and a lot of that growth comes from disappointment in others. I've followed Mikes writings for a while and he has been changing his tune on Obama. I think like many "practical" people he figured he would go with someone who had a better chance to actually win an election, then figured that person could be steered to do the right thing. I guess we all know how that worked out.
"a lot of that growth comes from disappointment in others."
Amen to that! Kucinich defection was a wake up call for me, I "changed my mind" about him ....
Moore may be "changing his tune" on Obama, but I am still willing to bet that, at least at this point, the refrain will be "lesser of 2 evils" if push comes to shove .....
Here we go again...Implying that it was" impractical" to think Hillary could have won the Presidency. Hillary won the primaries and real popular vote and she would have won the Presidency. Yes, she would have done the bidding of the military/industrial/corporate masters who actually run this country, as all presidents since, hmmm, maybe FDR have done. BUT, she would have made them pay a social agenda price for her cooperation. Her words weren't "just words", they were promises she intended to keep. And she wasn't making promises she couldn't keep even if it wasn't what the people wanted to hear sometimes, ie: war would continue indefinitely in the Middle East and about accepting corporate lobbyists contributions.
Michael Moore is still excusing Obama, "For everyone who supported Obama in 2008, it's reassuring to find out he understands we have to get out of Afghanistan. But for everyone who's worried about Obama in 2010, it's scary to find out that what he thinks should be done may not actually matter. And that's because he's not willing to stand up to the people who actually run this country." He's still drinking the "cool"aid. Obama never intended to do anything but the bidding of the corporations who bought him the presidency and the bidding of other powerful politicians who have been corrupted by the money. His promises were "just words".
So could we please stop the discrediting of Hillary Clinton. She would have been a great President, as she has been a great Secretary of State.
Real Change: Quite the disingenuous moniker you elected for yourself. You did inspire me to make a word up just for you: shillacocious. Can you guess what it means?
Hillary gets to be a warrior without a penis. What a claim to fame!
And those Clintons...
What we would have done without Nafta, the eradication of Glass-Steagall, "Ending Welfare As We Know It," The "Wallmartification" of the U.S. economy, added to the deregulation of media that's allowed a handful of broadcast powers to control EVERY channel...
Yeah, Hillary sure would have delivered all that change we could believe in.
Check out her ready castigation of that awful tyrant Chavez... because he attempted to spread the wealth around.
I sure hope you're paid for sharing ridiculous opinions. What else could you possibly gain from publishing such nonsense?
Don't forget the expansion of the prison-industrial complex...
Folks here need to read what is being posted and not inject their own pet peeves that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I was commenting on Aquifers comment about the electability of Kucinich:
"I'd like to believe that about Moore (Sicko was a pretty good flick), but i caught on to him in '04 when i saw him on DN explaining that, although he agreed with Kucinich' stands on issues, because he (Kucinich) was (para phrasing), "never gonna get near the White House"
Do you even see Hillary Clinton mentioned anywhere in that comment, or mine?
I remember the night Obama was summoned to Hillary's house and he went a running, and then lo and behold, Obama's WH was really the Clintons' WH anyways, not much different from Cheney's as far as I can tell.
"And she wasn't making promises she couldn't keep even if it wasn't what the people wanted to hear sometimes, ie: war would continue indefinitely in the Middle East and about accepting corporate lobbyists contributions."
Count me out "Real" in joining you for voting for any "social changes" that include corporate lobbyists and indefinite war. Waging war, by the way, is a SIN.
Hillary and Barack are two sides of the same coin.
As to the materiality of article, who the author is, is without importance here. The truth is said about the status of the PREIDENCY and the control by the military industrial complex. There has been a long term, almost without limits bloodless , but monied coup of the United States. As I wrote bloodless just now I realized how untrue. There have been thousands upon thousands killed in our wars since World War II. This BEAST may be untamable. We appear a terminally sick nation and society kept divided intentionally that the politics not focus on those that really rule.
Spot on!
This Eisenhower speech goes far beyond the snippits from it that I have heard before. It is an amazing speech, and should be televised again.
I agree ....
Isn't congress suppose to support the constitution and maintain the president as commander-in- chief?
Yeah, I heard that somewhere .... in school, perhaps?
Congress has abdicated it's duty to rein in the war mongers and corporations, who are actually the ones doing the hiring. The money knows who is with them and who's against. So why should Congress make threatening waves when they have a good chance of becoming millionaires by going along! And the voters don't seem to mind so .... what the heck?
we're in an 'off the table' world, now...
whatever the issue...
Our continued existence as a species is "off the table."
Profound comments, Lord Buckley and Dubet.
The Owners aren't going to be any too happy, once the dumb bastards discover (too late) that The Bell also Tolls for THEM.
"So here's your assignment for tonight: ...start thinking about how we can tame this beast."
You have given us the answer in the very next sentence:
"The Soviet Union had its own military-industrial complex"...
Total economic collapse. It worked in Russia and it will work in the USA.
The vast majority of people in the Soviet Union had, for decades, no confidence and no faith whatsoever in the USSR Communist party and the brutal and completely corrupt system they ran. The horrendous statistics concerning suicide and alcoholism are one proof of that. So is the famous Soviet workers saying: "We pretend to work and you pretend to pay us." This played a major part in bringing down the USSR. Americans like to think that Ronald Reagan defeated the Russkies single-handed. They would, the boobs. What happened to the USSR is now happening to the United States. We're headed for the same sullen collapse.
the difference however is that:
the RUSSIANS and soviet people , Tyrannized as they were and for whatever cultural histories led to that, were actuallY OPEN_EYED about what was happening. they, as a people, DID NOT HAVE ILLUSIONS at all.
Americans however, as a people, have lived COMPLETELY under the illusion that "we have freedom and choice" .
I have spoken to a some people from the USSR or Russia - and they confirm this distinction. in fact, none of them are SURPRISED at all at what is happening in the USA..more like:
"we've seen it all before"....kind of shrug of the shoulders...and the few that would actually "open up" to talk a bit more about politics invariably give the opinion that americans are "naive people"...and not really "worldly" but like children...especially in their beliefs that "other countries" are MORE of ANYTHING that is BAD:
"more corruption in third world, russia, etc"...
"more inefficient in south america, etc"...
"more of anything LESSER in quality" ....
even if the USA itself is a monumentally disastrous Malfunctioning behemoth with a facade of "order".
teddy, you accurately note:
"RUSSIANS and soviet people , Tyrannized as they were and for whatever cultural histories led to that, were actuallY OPEN_EYED about what was happening. they, as a people, DID NOT HAVE ILLUSIONS at all.
Americans however, as a people, have lived COMPLETELY under the illusion that "we have freedom and choice" .
Yes, Russians knew they were in the belly of an Empire --- but the US is the headquarters of a much more sophisticated ruling-elite global corporate/financial/political/militarist EMPIRE which hides behind the facade of its TWO-Party Vichy sham of faux democratic government (aided by the equally Vichy media whores).
In Chris Hedges excellent analysis the US is an "Empire of Illusion".
We need first to break the Illusion and the people have to understand the awful truth that their democracy has been stolen from them by an EMPIRE.
Worse than the Nazi Empire which physically invaded France, occupied it and then set-up a thinly veiled and crude single party Vichy government ---- which (like the Soviet Empire) everyone saw through as phony, although the US was the first government to officially recognize the Vichy government --- this new and uniquely sophisticated global corporatist Empire we face today is fantastically guileful and has fooled almost everyone (even the broad neo-liberal Obama campaign, whose job it was to fool the 18 to 30ish kids into thinking that the crap Obama was shilling was real progressivism and would lead to a pro-democracy revivial).
Hell, anyone listening would have seen that this phony didn't even have the guts to WHISPER the word EMPIRE ---- he never told the kids that that was what had to be engaged in a battle of rebellion to accomplish anything!
What a sham.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Nader is the only candidate who ever promised us a real fight against EMPIRE to renew real democracy.
Alan MacDonald, Always good to see your name... No apologies...just straight shootin ThankYou Alan! Strange to see the allusion to "Illusion" on a site called common dreams! After all, aren't dreams illusions too, as long as you are still asleep???
"You have your illusions, but I have dreams! and "they" are deluded...!!!" I need 2know, What is REAL..!
"allusion is an 'indirect mention,' illusion is 'false impression,' and delusion is 'deception' which is much stronger than illusion" [http://Dictionary.reference.com]
HALF of your Federal tax goes to keeping this delusion pumped up with bribe and coercion money....sexy packaging...cultural respectability.....HALF!!! I.E. to create the illusion...of Democracy and a happy coalition!! Or is it delusion also??
P.S. Sane people have illusions, CRAZY people have delusions!! So, What will be your choice... Can we start a site, Common Delusions...????
We're headed for the same sullen collapse.
================
except that the USA, being so "Exceptional" is doing it kicking and screaming and breaking things in the "IRaq shop, Iran Shop, Afghanistan Shop, Palestine Shop, LEbanon shop." and wanting to do it in the "china shop"....
but look at the pattern of american "affairs"...it always takes countries that are weaker PIECEMEAL. sanctions, isolation from "allies" (who continue to dwindle and those that remain are two-timing the USA)...or even in regions of similar cultures and closer historic ties (such as Middle east arabs) -- by also isolating within the group to deal with , say , 1 billion people's will.
but what if the USA really openly tries that with CHINA and ITS highly NATIONALISTIC 1.3 Billion folks with a proud civilization at least 30 times older than the USA?
for the record, with all due attention to brinkmanship and of course simply partnerships of convenience or forced circumstance (geography, historic ties, etc.) ....
CHINA and RUSSIA - two days ago reiterated and confirmed "CHINA and RUSSIA as PARTNERS are FOREVER".
This is another big misconception, I think. The capitlists over there aren't going to start a war--at least a major war--with capitalists in the U.S. or vis-versa. Deals were cut long ago--lands divid up. Those at the top of the food chain aren't going to start lobbing ICBMs at each other. Its all about the money, and there's no money in taking your country into a nuclear war, and damn sure no money in fried real estate.
I could be wrong, people do stupid things. They might kill off our oceans, pollute our air supply, but they know a nuclear war would be the end of themselves.
But, then again, people do stupid things. :)
you summed it up so well:
after all is said and done:
"people do stupid things".
frightening in the world situation as it is.
[We're headed for the same sullen collapse.]
I have no doubt that the usa and the countries that slavishly follow their 'theories' (including my country of Canada) are headed for the edge of a cliff. We cannot continue the system that has been built up even before the days of Ronny Raygun, it's not sustainable and never was. Ronny is just blamed for selling the best version of 'you'll get pie in the sky'...
The thing I disagree with you on is the idea the the usa would be as willing to just go into the night, quietly... Not a chance in hell. Unlike the USSR, (which, arguably had a population and a government that had a target that could and did accept the blame for what went wrong) the usa will not go gently into the night. Their leadership will do anything to deflect blame from where it deservedly rests, and launch more wars in hopes of a WWII style of 'glorious victory'.
That quest for 'glorious victory' coupled with the desire to punish 'traitors' who stole defeat from the jaws of 'victory' in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (soon Iran as well), will bring about the end that has long been feared. Only thing is, when I was young the propaganda had me convinced that it would have been the evil commies who launched the war that ended the human race.
After all, they didn't fear any consequences in the afterlife...
I wa sin my teens when Pierre Eliott Trudeau in power. I grow up in North Alberta in the atmosphere of "contempt" for the Liberal Party under Pierre. I could not help but "inherit" some of that dislike.
I sure miss him now...I also miss Diefenbaker and Robert Stanfield and David Lewis and Ed Broadbent and that time when no matter the Political stripe the leaders seemed to have the best interests of the people at heart and not the Corporations.
It all went downhill with "lying Brian".
I agree with you.
Wasn’t ‘Lyin’ Brian’ a contemporary of Ronnie Raygun?
Just asking.
_____________________________________
If we are silent, even stones cry out.
spinwing
Agree with you both. Lyin Brian was Ronnie's buttboy.
I liked how Rick Mercer described brian one day when his show was supposedly forced to apologize to brian for all the things they called him. Then listed them all.
Nasty stuff then 'lantern jawed, damn yankee wanna-be' etc.
"Total economic collapse. It worked in Russia and it will work in the USA."
That's most likely what will happen. The problem is that the communists were civilized enough to realize it was over, and peacefully dissolved. Not so sure about the US. This country may very well choose to go out of existence violently.
This country may very well choose to go out of existence violently.
===========
THAT IS EXACTLY what the usa is ALREADY doing. in fact, the US Culture is INTRINSICALLY tied to VIOLENCE in all its forms...so that it can not BUT EXIST or CEASE to exist IN violence.
it is in its DNA.
does a Leopard change spots?
from Columbus on the USA
has been
BORN IN SIN: genocide, slavery, racism, destruction of others
LIVING IN SIN: imperialism, Capitalism, greed and selfishness, hypocrisy
DYING IN SIN: hubris, wars, invasions, torture, more destruction and depravity
What you basically wrote is an off-topic, toxic rant pursuant to nursing a useless 2 year-old grudge regarding Mr. Moore. What possible constructive purpose does your rant serve? Get over it.
And that is the most chartable thing I can say. Less charitably, I would call you am FBI cointelpro-style agent-provcateur. Your rant is exactly the kind of divisive stuff the FBI used to break up the US left in the 1960-70s.
But futhermore, your argument has no merit. If you visit Moores web site, you will see no articles or blog entries advocating support for Democratic party - or even any individual democratic candidates. And, even if for arguing, Moore has been simply a shill for the DNC, you should be happy that Moore, in the past few months, seems to be finally "getting it."
No, no - He says it, right here in this article "It matters not whom we elect."
Michael is finally saying, vote for the candidate of your choice!
WELCOME ABOARD MICHAEL MOORE!!
Michael Moore actively campaigned for Nader against Gore saying the same thing.
He Grudgingly went to the democrat side, possibly out of guild for being perceived as having helped Bush get into office, possibly because he did not want to alienate those who went ahead and voted democratic anyway and thus they wouldn't pay attention to his message.
his film "Capitalism: A Love Story" probably caused more people (even mainstream types) to question a main root cause of our problem than anyone had dared to do since McCarthy
but still we have people shrilly ranting against him because of a few things he has said implying that he at times is as gullible as most of America... geesh
Leaving the birthing pangs of the American Greens alone for the nonce I would remind you of Moore's recent history vis-a-vis the Democratic Party. His strategy has been to take over the local democratic club in his area and try to effect change that way. I would hesitate to call that settling for the lesser of two evils, but I fear you have an axe to grind with Moore.
The Greens, or any other third party movement in fact, faces a gigantic uphill battle with the duopoly party holding all the cards. Your rant concerning their stance counters their platform actually and I provide a link to the 2004 version thereof:
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf
I fail to see, other than a call for violent revolution and change from democracy, what "playing games" has to do with attempting to gain elected office. Greens are slowly winning local offices, more each cycle in fact. That they wish to change us from within, that they wish to keep our democratic processes and use them to make our nation a better place seems a worthy goal to me. Apparently not to you.
Moore's strategy of the grassroots level takeover is a newish one thus your hearing about it ten years ago is rather puzzling. But less so after reading the tripe that followed. Truth is just not your metier, apparently.
You assume I am in love with capitalist democracy but that assumption comes to you because you are nothing less than a shallow and foolish man who cannot see that opinions are germs of ideas and not proof of ones stupidity only because those ideas conflict with your own. I am in love with democracy, wherein did you find the love of capitalism, you quarrelsome and increasingly boring little thinker?
You seem stuck in your political adolescence, thinking that only a wholesale, and possibly violent, revolutionary upheaval is the only way to change what is wrong with this nation. Good luck with that. I need to longer speak with you if stupid sarcasm and distortion of my words is your response. Insulting child that you seem to be you have now drawn me down to your level, happy with company in the mud?
I think the jury is still out on the Greens. They have a good platform and, frankly, for those who still believe in ballots over bullets, they are about the only game in town, IMO, for now. If you are at all interested there is a good book, "Independent Politics" edited by Howie Hawkins, that details some of the internal struggles they went through in their "safe-state" strategy in '04 (which i found execrable). The thing about the Greens, IMO, is that they are a "party" but an inchoate one, in many respects, and folks who are interested and believe in the concept/necessity of a "third party" have an opportunity, IMO, unlike with the well oiled co-opted Dem/Rep machines, to actually push them in the right (as in correct) direction.
If they have been "absolutely marginal in building any real opposition and Movement against the two government parties", perhaps it is because too many are standing on the sidelines "waiting" for "them" to do something. I don't really know where they will go, but i know they won't go anywhere if too many "wait" for "them" to "prove" themselves, so i am giving them a try. I'll admit i have been a bit frustrated at times, but there are some good Greens, IMO, Hawkins (running for Gov. in NY) being one of them.
"The Greens have not advanced the Antiwar Movement, the Labor Movement, nor any Movement against DP-RP give outs to the banks. The Greens play no role in a Movement for Homeless people or a Movement against Mortgage foreclosures. They are not there for the unemployed, nor women's rights. They simply are to the edge of the Democrats trying to get 'good people' elected."
I can't see that anybody out there, including many of the folks who seem most upset, has done anything of substance, lately, to advance any of those movements, so to single out the Greens for that "distinction" seems a bit unfair. They are woefully underfunded and understaffed making any kind of organized effort very difficult ....
I do not find them "stuck with the corp. Dems" at all, but they are at a stage where they are hammering out "strategy" which is always a sticky wicket, a stage that no other "challenger" from the left approaches.
Do you believe in the need for another party? And if so, which one, if any, do you have in mind?
Ardent,
I do appreciate your responding in a reasonable manner. I may, indeed, be a fool for continuing to believe in the legitimacy of the concept of the vote as a mechanism for "change" and I get the impression that many, if not most, of the posters here would agree that i am (for that, and for other reasons, no doubt), but even, or perhaps, especially, such "fools" appreciate courtesy.
My approach comes from my belief, through nature, nurture, and training, in "fixing" things that are broken, and not simply throwing things away for new or different ones. I think you would appreciate the value of such an approach taken by one who was in a field where the "broken" one dealt with were people. To "fix" something, you have to know how it works, what can be saved, what needs to go and, not only what can be fixed, but how to fix it.
My frustration on this site, as an example of my frustration in general, is that, as evidenced by the vast majority of comments, it seems that most folks here, apparently, are not of the "fix it" mentality. Either they believe it, whatever "it" is, and the usual "definition" is "the system", cannot be fixed or it should not be. "The system" in turn, seems to be defined as "capitalism". Why voting is considered part of the genome of capitalism, and, as such, must be jettisoned, quite frankly, is a mystery to me - no good case, IMO, has been made for such a proposition. It has been ravaged by the disease of capitalism, no doubt, but it, IMO, has intrinsic value, as did the patients i dealt with.
i realize that that preface is another example of my tendency to go on and on about stuff, but i think context is important to understand and deal with each other, if that is what we are really trying to do here (or is believing that just more evidence of my foolishness, do I really not understand what CD is all about?)
So, for the vanishing few that seem to believe, as you said you did, in the need for another party, the discussion then becomes a) what do we think this party should look like b) what should it do and c) how do we get there.
What is your criteria for such a party, can the Greens be "fixed" to meet it, if not, is there a party out there you have in mind that meets those criteria, If not, how do we start one.
I am very angry about what "the system" has done to the field i spent my working life in. I understand that it has infected everything else as well. I want to cure, heal, "fix" the country i live in. I want to do something NOW, not wait for some theoretical system to be realized. If there are tools at hand to start with, let's use them and modify them along the way as needed - that is the spirit in which i ask my questions ....
Sabo,
Your Moore defense was uncannily similar to the condescending posts in defense of Obama during his campaign for president.
I also have gathered ballot signatures and went door to door for Nader (in '00), and voted for Nader (even if I had to write-in) in '96 (Kentucky), and '00, and '08 (Pennsylvania). Regretably, in '04. I was allowed to be scared into voting for Kerry, after Nader was removed from the ballot by the Democrats (later finding out they illegally used state employees to do so). I'll never do that again.
You seem completely stuck, almost catatonic, on this "Moore is a Democrat shill" stuff. Personal vendettas do not a make for a program of successful activism.
I responded to ardent above, but ,after reading subsequent posts of his I think you may have nailed his motivation, sad to say. He is, at least, aptly named.
We have a similar political recent past in regard to supporting Nader intellectually,visually and vocally, I guess that makes us each some sort of ally.....;-)
Ardent, you may not know this but not all of us have access to the Green Party in our districts or even states. If that's not bad enough, we may not even have access to third parties or if we do they're even worse than the Democrats. If the Democrats out of the pile is the one farthest to the left without a Green Party or similar, then what do you expect people to vote for? I could do a write in for,oh say, Jesus Christ but that's useless.