EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Profound and Jarring Disconnect
Democracy: de-moc-ra-cy, government by the people; the common people of a community, as distinguished from any privileged class
According to the latest poll conducted by CBS "60 Minutes" and the magazine Vanity Fair, 61 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on the wealthy as the primary way to cut the budget. The same poll finds that the second most popular first choice for cutting the nation's budget deficit, at 20 percent, is cutting the military budget. That is, 81 percent of us--four out of five--would cut the deficit by taxing the rich and/or slashing military spending.
Only four percent of those polled favored cutting Medicare, the government-run program that provides health care for the elderly and disabled, and only three percent favored cutting Social Security.
President Obama meanwhile, appointed a so-called National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (quickly dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by critics) to come up with proposals to cut the budget deficit. He named as co-chairs former Republican Senator from Wyoming Alan Simpson, a troglodyte sworn enemy of Social Security who publicly declared it to be "a milk cow with 310 million tits," and Erskine Bowles, a retired investment banker and former chief of staff to President Clinton who says he want to cut spending, not raise taxes, which, when it comes to Social Security, means lower benefits for retirees.
The writing on the wall appears to be that the White House, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress, are looking to raise the retirement age, currently 66, to 68 or 69, to reduce or at least limit the inflation adjustment in Social Security benefits, and perhaps also to increase the payroll tax on current workers. What they want to do is balance the budget by screwing with our retirement. What they do not want to do is raise taxes on the rich and on investment income, two steps which, if taken, could fully fund Social Security indefinitely into the future.
Already, the president and Congress have agreed to extend tax breaks for the rich, even though the vast majority of the American public wants the rich to pay higher taxes.
A second poll, this time by CNN, reports that 63 percent of Americans oppose the US War in Afghanistan and want it ended. Only 35 percent say they support the war (now in its ninth year).
Yet the president, who originally promised he would end US involvement in 2011, is now saying the US will "end combat operations" in that war-torn country in 2014--a turn of phrase that doesn't even mean the war would be ended that year (US combat operations allegedly ended in Iraq last summer, but some 50,000 American troops and many more private mercenaries are still there today and will be next year too, unless they are thrown out by the Iraqi government).
Even on the matter of cutting military spending, and with the US currently at war, a Financial Times/Harris poll found in November of last year that a third of Americans thought cutting the Pentagon budget was a good idea, and another third said it would not be a bad thing, with only just over a third saying it was a bad idea. Only 30 percent said that they were concerned that cutting military spending might pose a security risk. Instead of cutting though, the Obama administration with Congressional backing has continued to raise military spending to record levels not seen since World War II, when the US was in a state of all-out war and full national mobilization.
Last April, while Congress was considering the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill, a Pew poll found that 64 percent of Americans favored regulations placing a maximum limit on the permissible size of a bank. Only 27 percent opposed such a limit. Yet Congress passed, and the president signed into law, a bill that allows banks to grow even larger, without any constraint on size.
A Pew Charitable Trust poll released last March found that 52 percent of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions by vehicles and power plants, even if such limits meant higher energy prices. Only 35 percent opposed such limits on emissions. And yet Congress and President Obama have refused to offer up with any plan to limit CO2 emissions.
Finally, for decades, a majority of Americans have favored some kind
of national healthcare system, whether a fully socialized plan such as
that in the UK, or a so-called single-payer type plan where the
government is the insurer of all citizens, as in Canada. In May 2009, as
the battle over health care reform was heating up, a CNN poll found
Americans favored a government health plan by 69-29%.
What polls showed Americans didn't want was a system of private
insurers with a government mandate that everyone had to buy insurance
or pay a penalty. Guess what kind of "health reform" Congress and the
President gave them? Hint: It wasn't socialized medicine.
What's wrong with this picture?
On every key issue of public concern--protecting Social Security, reforming and universalizing health care, re-regulating the banking industry, ending America's endless wars, cutting the military budget, and taking serious steps to combat global climate change, the government in this supposed democracy has gone against the wishes of the majority of the public.
Clearly, whatever it is, this is no democracy we are living in today.
No wonder the American government is so busy figuring out new ways to spy on and monitor us citizens, to militarize police departments, to construct ever bigger prisons, to restrict access to information, and to control and intimidate the media! Instead of being of, by and for the public, it has become the public's enemy.
Revolution: rev-uh-loo-shun, an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
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...
112 Comments so far
Show AllConcise summary here.
Joe
Indeed. It is an outstanding article and written in an engaging style, too.
The issues that Dave Lindorff presents are simply the essential facts of the political reality in our country today. The question is this: How does the elite minority in the United States manage to retain power while consistently denying the most important wishes of the larger population? It is quite a dazzling feat.
Any high school civics class that fails to center on these issues is not worth a dime of public money--and the same goes for all college courses in U.S. government, history, politics, sociology, American Studies, and probably many others.
It is time that we stopped pretending that this political arrangement is even minimally acceptable. It is not. It is an outrage. We need to do something.
Well, on second thought, I suppose we could just let things continue as they are going now. In that case, I recommend reading up on life during the Middle Ages, specifically feudal times. A lot of us may just find ourselves gathering sticks to burn to keep warm at night and eating food we can scrounge out of our neighbor's hog trough, before dying of an infected cut on our finger that could have been cured by a simple dose of antibiotics.
Could it get this bad? Hell, yes. I know people who have it this bad now in other countries. People need to open their eyes here--before it's too late. We are hanging by a thread.
Great article.
I wish this could be read aloud on every "news" show on television. But that's a major part of the problem isn't it?
Not with corporate shills like Chris Matthews manning the microphone. His denigration tonight of Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and Noam Chomsky reveals what a mothpiece for business as usual. Chris, have another military wonk on your show pimping for the Pentagon and then......" we thank you for your service". Yeah , keep up the war for the rest of the century, we can print the money ad infinitum.
Yeah, I heard him say that and I was livid. But hey, he's a "liberal," or so he says. No wonder we are so marginalized.
Dave Lindorff wrote, "Clearly, whatever it is, this is no democracy we are living in today."
Of course, the United States of America is a democracy .... a large-scale, republican democracy with a two party division of mega-corporate business interests.
Perhaps, Mr. Lindorff confuses representative democracy with direct democracy?
In small-scale, direct democracy citizens are accountable, and thus, responsible to their choices. Generally, we can witness this process at the local level of government - the school board, the hospital board, the county commissioners - in rural areas and small towns across America .... and Canada and New Zealand and Australia and the United Kingdom. Voters in small communities have a fairly good idea of a candidate's character, ability and history plus they all live in the same area. Generally, small-scale democracy reflects the views of its constituents. And, most importantly, voters are accountable, and thus, responsible to themselves.
Large scale, republican democracy, on the other hand, is farce on a grand scale ... a theatre of, for and by the absurd. The elections of GW Bush and Barack Obama should be evidence enough to support that claim. Under republican democracy, accountability, and thus responsibility are not required nor desired. Citizens, without a voice or any real power in determining their own political affairs, are disenfranchised and quickly become a mob of frightened sheep seeking a shepherd to calm and guide them.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
George Bernard Shaw
Canada?
Uhm, no. Canada concentrates a significant amount of power in the PM's office. We basically vote for a dictator every 4 years in Canada and our current one is no prize... a social conservative in the pocket of big oil who masquerades as a fiscal conservative to get elected (Canadians fall for this all the time). And even with a minority government he is able to do essentially whatever he wants because the "opposition" is bogus. Sound familiar?
Thanks for your reply.
The Prime Minister's office would be the large scale, representative sort of democracy that is absurd. I did not convey my meaning well enough, sorry.
I have trouble understanding how what you are asserting is true. The only people who vote for the prospective PM are the people who are in the PM's riding (district) right?
But I agree that the Liberal Party is pretty much a bogus opposition. Then again, I recall after the last election, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc tried to form a coalition, but the conservativies shut the Parliament down (with the help of that Royal Governor General - why do you Canucks insist on remaining a British colony?) to prevent it.
Question: Are coalition governments really prohibited in Canada? Is it in the constitution of just a vague "tradition"?
True, you only vote for your MP but the PM in Canada has a long history of whipping those MPs in line with their agenda... the trash heap of Canadian politics is littered with those that did not tow party line as established by the PM.
Politics in Canada is about acquiring and maintaining power, period. Say whatever you need to say to get elected, do whatever you need to do to stay in power.
It is what all the parties want and they'll all say and do anything to achieve it... even the Greens. You know your country is in trouble when the most honest party with the sharpest leader is the Separatist party.
To answer the question SaboCat, coalitions are allowed in the Canadian parliamentary system, but many Canadians have been led to believe they are a bad idea and when "coalitions" are used for nothing but opportunistic power grabs (as the last attempt was) who can blame them.
Yet the seperatists are the party that the Conservatives are counting on to get their next budget passed without being defeated thus requiring an election.
We had a chance in BC of getting a form of proportional representation.
The first time through with such a high bar set (needing 60 percent in favor and a majority in favor in 3/4 s of the ridings it missed by just over 1 percent.
After that near miss the powers that be did all they could to discredit the notion in the next referendum and it did not come close.
Now the point is well made that in Canada the PMS office holds far too much power, but we are helped there in our system of federalism where the individual provinces are more power in the areas that count then the individual States in the US.
Harper can reign in his party members just by cracking the whip as could Martin and Chretien before him, but he has a much harder time with the provinces.
True GwNorth, the Provinces do hold some power but how has your Province been treating you lately? Ontario has been bleak for a while now. The same forces in play federally are in play provincially and if you live in a large Canadian city municipally as well.
The other thing that needs to be mentioned about the power of the PM is how our elections are designed to create a "vote for the leader" affair. The only widely broadcasted and attended debates are the debates between the party leaders. In recent elections Stephen Harper has even muzzled some of his MPs by prohibiting them from participating in local debates or making statements to the media. In many ways, when it comes down to how many people vote, the MPs are nothing but proxies for the "Leader".
So, forming a genuine ruling majority of a diversity of left parties (Lib, NDP, Bloc) that we can only dream about down here, is a "power grab??? I thought the real abusive "power grab" was Harper's/Governor General's shutting down the parliament to prevent it from happening.
As far as debates, after reading about the PM debates in the last election - where even the Greens and Bloc were allowed to participate - Canadian politics is likewise far superior to the US.
You do know that US presidential candidates like Ralph Nader and Green candidates, forbidden from participating in the debates, have then been arrested or threatened with arrest for merely attempting to enter the building where presidential candidate debates are held, don't you?
But yes, that Rush Limbaugh-like right-wing fat mayor of Toronto is quite a work of art.
"So, forming a genuine ruling majority of a diversity of left parties (Lib, NDP, Bloc) that we can only dream about down here, is a "power grab???" - SaboCat
Uhm, none of those are "left parties" SaboCat… I might allow you to argue for the NDP, but it will have to be good : )
The parties generally marched in lock step with our minority neocons until they saw a chance to take control... is that not a power grab? If you look at the voting record in parliament you see there is little to no resistance of government policy until all of a sudden power could be obtained by opposing it. Sorry, that's a power grab.
Even if you believe it was well intentioned, what killed it was a very quick media smear campaign, (same thing that killed proportional representation in Ontario). Not much different to the way things work in the US.
"Canadian politics is likewise far superior to the US" - SaboCat
Sure, we may be a bit better off because we are a few years behind in the use of the well-oiled neocon bullshit machine but Canadian politics is in danger of becoming the same charade perpetrated on Americans and it is being led there by the same forces (media, "think tanks", corporate interest, personal ambition and greed).
Widhalm19, think about this. When the Large Scale democracy controls the purse strings, the Small Scale democracy is rendered impotent. In fact the small scalers are left to decide on which side of the room the waste basket shall be placed and other matters of similar magnitude.
Thank you for your response to my comment.
Yes! you are correct when considering national politics in a large-scale, republican democracy.
I meant to compare and contrast the structure of small-scale, direct democracy to large-scale, representative democracy. With small-scale, direct democracy people have a measure of power and a voice in their own governance. Under large-scale, republican democracy individual citizens and communities are bleating sheep.
What results have you had writing letters to your congressmen?
How has the sign carrying protests been going?
What has changed politically by writing comments on Commondreams?
Sir, what is your alternative to large-scale, representative democracy?
Large-scale, representative democracy can work if it is truly representative. Public campaign financing is needed; or instant runoff voting. If those election reforms prove impossible to achieve in the current system, Lindorff suggests the alternative in his final sentence.
Your solutions are correct, but the US election system after Citizens United is a freight train hurtling in the opposite direction.
Not to mention the ever present spectre of electronic voting fraud.
And corporate capture of the initiative and referendum processes.
And (please add your favorites here...)
Lindorff is right. We do not have even representative democracy now. As Lindorff clearly shows, the Feds don't remotely listen to what the people want-- therefore they don't adequately represent us. Polls are as close a tool as we have now to effect direct democracy-- but they are ignored. Rather, the elected government represents the big money which gets them elected. They often do a 180 on many issues they "campaigned" on after getting elected.
"Large scale, republican democracy"
-----------------------------------
You're a little confused. "Republican" simply refers to any government not a monarchy. That's been the definition since the 17th century. It doesn't mean "indirect" or "fraudulent", as you seem to think.
Dave, Dave, Dave...
You do know that the only reason we are still polled as a populace is that it helps the elite better package their agenda as they ram it down our throats, don't you?
See, if 60% want to raise taxes on the rich - that means that TPTB have to crank up their think tanks to come up with a new marketing ploy/strategy for CUTTING taxes on the rich and corporations.
64% of the peons want real bank limitations? Ooh, get back to us when the number's 80%, they say, we still have our complicit 33%.
65% want a government health plan? Hahahahahaha, we can't hear your what with all this corporate campaign cash shoved in our faces. Don't worry, when it gets to 90% we'll roll out some limited shell of what you want and tell you that's all you're going to get.
Polls are just their way of measuring us, Dave.
Their way of determining which "message" is needed for the continued theft and subjugation of the American populace.
It has absolutely nothing to do with hearing our grievances.
It has everything to do with control.
Unfortunately, you're right. Good post.
Will people realize at long last that they're being played? Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
Elizabeth H.
Well said. I would also add that one should never underestimate the stupidity of those who join the military as they have done so, for the most part, because they have believed the propaganda that they were given by the military, the corporate media and the government.
Wizards First Rule from Terry Goodkind's book:"People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they think it is true or are afraid it is". Basicalky, most Americans are stupid! Present company excluded. How else do you explain the Tea Parties stupidity in not even knowing they were being used? Or voting for the same thugs that destroyed the economy, got us in 2 plus illegal warss or keep joining the military to go off and murder people for the corporations? People ARE stupid.
Well put. Well put.
Good point. Polling is market research - it tells the politicians which lies will be most effective, and where and when and how they need to lie.
POLY: Luminous insight. Right on!
Poly: Right on target! "Polls have absolutely nothing to do with hearing our grievances ". If they had a poll that said 90% of the American people were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does anyone out there in cyber space really think it would make any difference?
Well what would happen in THAT case is the White House would get rid of its Press Secretary, hire another , and people like John Nichols would write articles outlining how this new face will be better at getting the White House Message across.
Thats called "Progress"!
That was my same gut feeling too but you said it better.
I think that one of my buttons has a nice take on this article. It shows four tanks in the background while also observing:
I Asked For Universal Health Care... And All I Got Were These Abrams Tanks!
As another one of my buttons accurately states:
Healthcare Not Warfare
Great article. Nothing to add.
Ditto.
An obvious but most often ignored action (fed by liberal illusions..."love me love me love me i'm a liberal" --Phil Ochs) is for a voter to take a principled personal stand and LEAVE the Dem & Repub parties! If you're "ready" to register GREEN, check out your local area or contact your state Green Party...help organize...don't mourn...thanks Joe Hill!
I doubt any "Party" is going to save us.
How does one "leave" a party? How is one "in" a party?
You talk about the political parties as though they were organizations one could belong to, as though they were political movements.
They are not. The Green party is not an organization, it is not a political movement. It, just like the other two parties, is at best a sales and marketing office.
Registering Green and voting Green satisfies individual personal needs. That should not be confused with serious political action. Nothing wrong with it - I did it. But I don't kid myself that it is "the answer" and don't promote the illusion that social and political change will ever come from voting.
Agreed. Everyone should leave the Democratic Party and stop voting for its corporatist pro-war, anti-labor hack political candidates. But don't do it alone. I've long advocated mass marches on Voter Registrars' Offices, to leave the party in dramatic fashion, not one by one in the shadows.
But don't stop there. Join a union, and be active in it.
Get involved in local and state politics (as a Green, a Socialist, or whatever. Make oppositional politics and ideology real for people.
And don't forget to pop a little financial support to your friendly alternative media, whether that be Common Dreams or ThisCantBeHappening! or whatever.
Visit Dave Lindorff's new online alternative newspaper, ThisCantBeHappening!, at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Our Government's become a private police force for the rich.
Is there any other kind of police state?
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Hi Dave,
I do visit your site semi-regularly, because I like your writing. However, Common Dreams is where I can enter into discussion of your articles with an informed and aware community of commenters.
It was never anything other than that.
all right! welcome to the party, Dave!
I suggest a date: September 22, 2012...the beginning of the new way...the way without banks, without owning the living world...
rejection of the modern construct, localization of tribal identities and alliances, individual engagement in sustenance and defense, cessation of industry, ceasefire of chemical inundation...
the living planet cannot tolerate our activities, and we are driven to these activities by the criminals you see running our country via global murder...
a change in consciousness must take place that is twofold: able to deal with the violently dominating barbarians in our midst in a real and meaningful way, and able to correctly elevate the living planet to primary position on our pole of religious totems, toppling our own image from that ancient, wrongful placing...
the idea is to unanimoulsy, globally reject the world of finance and contract, which would be, generally, a non-violent effort...
the assumption is that this would bring violent reprisal, which would require a violent return...
hopefully, most individuals, especially those currently in enforcement, etc., would reconsider their life purposes, and join the common good, rather than punish...we'll see...
do you consider humans generally good, as I do? my belief is that the many good allow the few bad to control them because they are reluctant to dispatch the bad to the hereafter, preferring to go there themselves, instead, or watch their loved ones be sent there, per some sort of cosmic code of postponed justice, particularly regarding judgement and murder...perhaps because of conditioning?
at least we can put the illusion of national politics to rest...that's a great step...
dubet, my friend, I read this post yesterday and started to reply, but decided to see if anyone, anyone at all heard the wisdom in it. Sure enough, nada. It is beyond their experience and imaginations.
Conditioning is a key word. They are conditioned to think hair conditioner is necessary. They are conditioned to think bio-cides are a positive advancement in food production.
Even though they live in a system that is designed to make everyone their competitor, they are conditioned to trust in the system. The diabolic malevolent use people's goodness against them. They buy into the belief of "honest mistakes" and "well intentioned miscalculations" and "unforeseen chance dilemmas."
They are also conditioned to trust authority, a myriad of, but right here I'll only address armed government employees, cops and military. The images of Andy Taylor and Sargent York are myth. Somehow, people can't see the absurdity in trusting heavily armed buzz cut cops wearing aviator shades and black gloves roaming our streets. Good people enter the military, damaged come out. People are conditioned to think their security depends on guns and uniforms.
They are conditioned to believe their specialized jobs are an important contribution to society. They can't imagine growing their own foodstuffs or building their own shelter.
Kudos to Lindorff for using the taboo R word.
as always
Peace and goodwill
Buck
peace to you, brother Buck...
I keep my eye on the weather out Wisconsin way, thinking of you, and always feel glad to see another post from you, as that means you're probably doing okay...
to paraphrase John Ellis and Shadow Dancer, may we be truly grateful for another day in Creator's world...and do our small part to make it better by bedtime...
Funny you should mention my two other favorite people that write here. John is a relentless advocate for the poor. I love it when others question his statistics and can't see the concepts they illustrate. does it matter whether it's 1 or 1.62%? Shadow is steadfast at pointing out the insanity of this culture. I love it when others are offended at his evaluation. The rebuttals usually prove his point. Both speak to the corrupted minds spawned by a corrupted society/culture living under a corrupted government. Clearly, both have spent many days and years contemplating life and the possibilities.
a short true story
I was sitting on a friend's porch waiting and watched ants carrying eggs down the 4x4 post in a typical ant two way stream, the second current going up for another egg. I noticed some going down empty handed. This puzzled me as ants don't party and aren't slackers. They have purpose to their every action. Every now and then a downward bound egg carrier would wander off the road, fumble around, clearly lost even though but an inch from the stream. Eventually, they would give up and turn around and start walking back up. The apparent skivers would physically grab the wayward, carry them to the appropriate stream, turn them around, set them down and send them on their way.
That's how I view you three.
Wouldn't it be fun if the four of us could get together? John can prepare the beans, Shadow play his guitar, you load the peace pipe and I'll tend the fire.
as always
Buck
that ant thing is hilarious...'no, no, buddy...you need to go that way...hard to see, I know...no sweat, you're doing great...just keep going that way'...
yes, your campfire with the four of us is a nice thought...I'll carry that one with me for a bit, this morning...
you should send me an actual, physical mailing address for you over here, if you have such a thing:
davenjulieboles@msn.com
The author obviously wasn't paying attention in his high school civics classes.
The US was founded as a Republic, and was expressly designed *not* to be a democracy, allowing (at the time) only a very small minority of "responsible" (wealthy) citizens the franchise, and maintaining that low voting proportion to this day through many direct and indirect means.
The Electoral College, representative government, the Executive branch and the President, the balance of powers, the Supreme Court, all were designed to prevent the "people" from having the final say on *anything*.
It's working *just* as it was designed to work, protecting the wealthy from the passions of the mob.
Creating a true democracy in the USA will require a lot more than mere rhetoric, but a fundamental and Constitutional change in the way the government goes about its business.
Duh. The author knows that (even if he wasn't always paying attention in grade school).
Of course much changed since the days of the nation's founding: Universal male suffrage, ending the property requirement. the vote for non-white males, Women's suffrage, the direct election of the senate, and the Voting Rights Act.
Saying that the US is a republic, not a democracy is really semantic gameplaying though, since the term democracy has evolved too. Furthermore, we refer to all manner of governments that elect representatives as "democracies." We call parliamentary countries like Britain and Germany democracies, too, though again, therse places are ruled by elected representatives, and as a result, by elites.
There is no country in the world I know of that is a true democracy ruled by the people in an unmediated fashion, and it is unlikely there ever will be, so I'd say dispense with the definitional argument, and fight for more popular empowerment.
Dave
Visit Dave Lindorff's new online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening! at www.thiscantbehappening.net
>> Semantic gameplaying?
Hardly. There is no "universal suffrage" in the USA. Significant portions of entire populations are *still* systematically disenfranchised through the rough equivalent of property requirements, specifically fixed residence (if you move around a lot, you have no legal "voting" residence in many locales), not to mention the requirement to have never been in trouble with the law, which impediment prevents a large number of African-American, Mexican-American, and other minority populations from voting at all, and sustains police departments whose primary activity is "rousting" minorities to "keep them in their place" almost as effectively as the old Jim Crow laws.
It's exactly the "Republican" incursions on any sort of real "Democracy" that allows official policies, laws, and activities to exist that *most* citizens don't like one little bit.
Thank you, Dave. I like your idea of leaving the Democratic Party en masse, but most Democrats won't do it because they're afraid of Sarah Palin. I'm not afraid of Sister Sarah because she would be no worse than Bush or Obama and give me hours of free entertainment to boot! These so called "leaders" are nothing but puppets.