EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Daley is a Reflection, Not a Cause
Few things interest me less at this point than royal court personnel changes. I actually agree with the pro-Obama/Democratic-Party-loyal commentators who insist it doesn't much matter who becomes White House Chief of Staff because it's Obama who drives administration policy. Obama didn't do what he did in the first two years because Rahm Emanuel was his Chief of Staff. That view has the causation reversed: he chose Emanuel for that position because that's who Obama is. Similarly, installing JP Morgan's Midwest Chairman, a Boeing director, and a long-time corporatist -- Bill Daley -- as a powerful underling replacing Emanuel isn't going to substantively change anything Obama does. It's just another reflection of the Obama presidency, its priorities and concerns, and its overarching allegiances.
There's a section of my forthcoming book about the rule of law which examines the direct causal line between the vast number of Wall Street officials in key administration positions and the full-scale exemption from accountability which financial elites enjoy even for the most egregious lawbreaking. When you compile all of those appointments in one place, the absolute stranglehold large-scale corporate interests exert over virtually all realms of government policy is quite striking. But it's nothing more than what the economist Nouriel Roubini meant when he told the makers of the 2010 documentary "Inside Job" that Wall Street has "captured the political system" on "the Democratic and the Republican side" alike, or what Simon Johnson describes as "The Quiet Coup": "The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against" elite business interests.
Shipping in a JP Morgan executive to be White House Chief of Staff isn't a cause of any of this; it's just a nice symbol for what our political culture is, more than ever in the Era of Change. It's the other side of the revolving door that sent Peter Orszag to his multi-million-dollar a year reward at Citigroup for his 18 months in an administration which lavished that bank will all sorts of gifts. Getting exercised about Bill Daley's empowerment is like going to the beach and being angry that it's full of sand: this appointment is the inevitable by-product of the essence of Washington and of the Obama presidency. It's what they do and who they are. As Matt Stoller suggested, the most surprising thing about the Daley pick is that he has no Goldman Sachs experience.
Read the full article at Salon...
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...
127 Comments so far
Show AllWell, Glenn G obviously doesn't read the comments of posters on CD.
Progressives have abandoned Obama.
Perhaps a definition of progressive would be "someone who does not support the corporatist policies of recent US administrations."
If Obama gets elected again, it won't be because of progressive voters. At least how I define them.
It's in some respects a semantic thing. He's talking about Democrats in general, who re-discovered the word "progressive" in 2008, because they thought that word described Obama. They still do, but now they believe that he has to shovel our money to Wall Street because he has no other choice. They are a stupid bunch, Democrats.
I also want to say that I now have a major man-crush on Glenn G., whose analysis is so rock-solid, and probably even more compelling that Chris Hedges, on whom I also have a man crush.
HYM: I agree about the definition, thing. Otherwise this reads like another "bashing/blaming the left," when the corporate state makes money (which the left has far less of) do ALL the talking!
Also, who sees Moveon.Org as progressive? Even Rachel Maddow?
In my view, Glenn missed the boat on this one.
Someone on CD offered evidence of a new poll suggesting a large percentage of voters would go for a 3rd party at this point. (I don't have the link.)
And now this...
"Won't you go home, Bill Daley, Won't you go home..."
Sioux:
I don't usually use language like this, but for me this GG article ROCKED!!!. His criticism of progressives is right on and richly deserved. I agree with and support most progressive values, however, progressive politics HAS NOT DELIVERED in 40 years.
While the progressive analysis of symptomatic level problems is often quite good, their solutions for achieving progressive values has failed again and again. Like Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald would comfortably fit the label of "progressive" intellectuals. Yet both are critical thinkers and intellectually honest and therefore both have been forced to see progressivism as ineffectual. If "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" is a definition of insanity, then progressives have been guilty for a long, long time. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that the problems we face as a nation, and indeed globally, are systemic and structural in origin. This kind of thinking, which "goes to root of the problem" (the definition of the "radical" analysis) is beyond the pale for progressives (let alone contemporary Liberalism). This is a big problem for progressives - no matter how you define your progressivism. For example, if the problems are systemic and structural, progressive solutions like: "taking over the Democratic Party", voting third party, "getting off the grid", "going vegan", going "local" etc. are not going to solve the problem. Rather than dismissing GG's criticism of progressive politics, it should be embraced. Progressives live in the world of illusion. It is time for them to become disillusioned (without illusions) This is a necessary step before they can embrace real solutions that bring about real changes.
Just wondering, Tom Larsen, what are these solutions you speak of?
I ask that question a lot on this site. The only actual something-to-do solutions anyone puts up is armed revolution and I don't think that would work because I think they have us outgunned and would use any and all of it, including tactical nukes, to do in any attempt at insurrection. A lot of people who post this option seem to blame the people for not having done it already.
I don't.
I have never seen many people seriously argue for "armed revolution." I see many people claiming that this "option" is being promoted. There is an enormous amount of territory between what we are doing now - "activism" that is merely a form of self-expression and talking about voting - and "armed revolution."
The rulers always have the people "outgunned." So what?
The line of reasoning you are using here serves to intimidate people and herd them back into the fold. It is also deceptive - "since armed revolution is unthinkable, and since that is the only alternative to working in the system, we had better not get too radical." In other words, the purpose of the argument is to get people to moderate their political thinking, not to prevent violence as claimed.
If I were to do a little scrolling cutting and pasting over the past few days I could show you posts that do seem to go beyond what you conclude about what mine implies, that to me (and to whoever might be lurking in) say that we've got guns it's time to get it on.
But if posts by mere me could "intimidate people and herd them back into the fold," I had better stop right now. Wouldn't want to be blamed for keeping the system in place by "moderating their political thinking." You put quotes around "since armed revolution is unthinkable, and since that is the only alternative to working in the system, we had better not get too radical" as if I had said that. I didn't, but if what I did say can be taken that way, I guess I BETTER stop. For the record, I don't think working within the system stands ANY chance of altering the increasing progression towards all hell breaking loose in a big messy die-off.
I'll quote the Smith Act of 1940:
"Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both..."
Wikipedia says the act is still on the books but that prosecutions continued until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957 threw out numerous convictions under the Smith Act as unconstitutional. Today's Supreme Court seems to have no problem declaring citizens "enemy combatants" deserving of unlimited detention without representation (which is way worse tyranny than taxation without representation was, though we have that too).
I think I will just "lurk" for awhile and watch how this progresses. Some of those who post here seem to me to be writing in order to entrap others into making potentially persecutable (I used word instead of prosecutable deliberately) statements (ooo-eee-ooo it strikes deep, into your heart it can creep; whatever you post may be printed out and used against you in a kangaroo tribunal) and have begun to think this whole site may be a spook plant, a way of finding out who is thinking and saying what sorts of things, who they are, how to find them and which ones might be effective change agents -- obviously not me.
I'm very religious -- a devout coward. I hope (faint hope to be sure) that things will work out some kind of way that won't lead to widespread suffering, bloodshed, and death.
here,here!
Thanks. I see what you are saying now.
I didn't say that you were trying to herd people, rather that a certain argument serves that purpose.
Replying as you did to my post implied that I was making that "certain argument."
I will reply to your question of "So what?" to the government having "the people" outnumbered: What it means is that, if push came to shove, they would have the means to mow down as many demonstrators, insurrectionists, sympathizers, innocent child bystanders as was needed to restore "order." And they would do so. Past posters have asserted that the troops would not do it. I'm certain they would, and would use state of the art weaponry including (if needed) tactical nukes and predator drones to do so, and the Tea Party people would rally to the side of the government they profess to hate so much because they would believe that the insurrectionists were commieislamofascist terrorists.
Until "the masses" (what an appalling reductionist term that is) actually reach critical mass (which would probably have to be at least a majority), there is no chance of any armed action doing anything but bringing on martial law. It's not enough just to have guns. You have to be trained to use them skillfully even when taking fire and casualties amid "the fog of war."
If Social Security is tossed into dumpster huge demonstrations of the elderly with rapidly emptying oxygen tanks and wheelchairs whose charge has run out were to rally in huge numbers could maybe happen. But I suspect even they would be "taken out" expeditiously.
I don't think I would want to live in a world that would be the aftermath of a bloodbath, especially one where there was no transition plan and little chance of the "left" agreeing on one.
The only hope is to somehow change the proverbial "hearts and minds." It may be possible to outsmart them but not to outshoot them. I may post part of this rant on the top item on Saturday's CD The "Lock and Load Rhetoric of American Politics Isn't Just a Metaphor," which mostly deals with the shooting US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona.
But aside from, like Iago at the end of Othello "From this time forth I never will speak word," at least on this (now suspect) site.
Understood. The authorities have massive power at their command. Of course.
That is always true. we may as well say "those in power have power." Of course, power over our minds is the immediate problem, and intimidating us and making us fear their might is a big part of that indoctrination.
Here is the problem - your post suggests that we should be cautious for fear that "if push came to shove, they would have the means to mow down as many demonstrators, insurrectionists, sympathizers, innocent child bystanders as was needed to restore 'order.'"
But that is what is already happening. We fight back to stop that, not to cause that. We are living in the bloodbath. You don't see it or experience it because you are among the fortunate few.
The argument you are using here could, and was, used against the Abolitionists. They were told that "there was no transition plan" and "little chance" of the anti-slavery people "agreeing on one." The same argument was also used against organized Labor and against the Civil Rights movement.
The argument is this - be careful! There will be a bloodbath if we resist! And you don't have a plan! Things could be worse instead of better!
I reject that argument. From the time the British boarded their ships and headed for home the wealthy and powerful have been fear-mongering and using this argument you are using here.
Leaving things as they are is what is causing bloodbaths, causing innocent people to be killed. Telling people to be careful and cautious, to fear the authorities, merely cements the power of the ruling class and perpetuates the violence.
The following link has a very interesting lecture (and discussion) on the history and use of violence/nonviolence in struggles for justice. Highly recommended:
http://wearemany.org/a/2010/07/is-violence-necessary-to-change-society
I only have a dial-up connection, so I could not download your link, so could you just tell me, do you in fact propose armed insurrection?
No.
The only thing that I am "proposing" is the building of a mass movement. But that mass movement must have a systemic analysis: in short, the mass movement must be anti-capitalist as capitalism is the systemic source of the problems we face. The idea is not to build a revolutionary army to take on the US military, it is rather, to convince the members of the armed services (the majority of which are working class Americans)to join the mass movement - a mass movement for democracy, both political AND economic.
RE: Just wondering, Tom Larsen, what are these solutions you speak of?
Two things are required:
1) The correct analysis, which in my view is a systemic or radical one (the progressive/liberal analysis and program is bankrupt).
2) The building of a mass movement (using a systemic analysis). We have had mass movements before, but not since the 1930's with a systemic analysis (that's why it was so effective and why the reforms of the New Deal occurred). In the 1960's the goals were reformist (liberal/progressive) in orientation. Many of the most important movement leaders were folded into the Democratic Party where their activities could be contained and ultimately became irrelevant to creating real reforms, which of course was the desired goal of the ruling class. See "The Democrats: A Critical History" by Lance Selfa for a detailed history of this phenomena.
I didn't speak of solutions; I spoke of the preconditions for real solutions. The solutions, if they materialize, will be by the collective actions of a mass movement and therefore will not be determined by me. I can say with confidence that if the actions, strategies and tactics of that mass movement do not have a systemic analysis, they will ultimately fail.
An historical example: For the (real and brutal) imperialist crimes of the Vietnam War, the Weathermen sought to overthrow the US government. They were revolutionaries without a revolutionary theory, without a systemic analysis. They saw imperialism as the problem. They did not (and still don't) understand that imperialism is a natural outgrowth of interstate rivalries of competing capitalist nations. Ending the Vietnam War (a worthy goal) would not, and could not, end imperialism. And, they sought to overthrow the most powerful military and government in the world by guerrilla actions of a few middle class kids - who had no mass support (not even within the peace movement, let alone the greater society). In other words, they could not reach the goals they hoped to achieve with the analysis and methods that they chose. The progressive "movement" today faces the same problem.
BTW: I am not a pacifist, but on the whole, I don't really think that the use (tactic) of violence would be successful in the American context.
This is crucial information you are offering TL. I've never specifically heard of this term of systemic analysis but the implications carried within is great. For common minds to turn to such analysis would be an indicator of great change. The first step we need of awarness of what we are really facing in our time.
In regards to violence such as what happened in Arizona, it has absolutely nothing to do with real healhty change nor will it ever, unless our country gets to the point of turning on it's own people such as emperialistic, Communistic or Socialist states have in the past, which was the beast going insane, that kind of violence will guarantee to bring the monster down as is written in the sands of time. That is why we must change, because the violence we will witness if we ever do in our times will not be acted by us, but acted upon us. A systemic analysis of history will bear out this truth. This fact of the powerful and how those at the top become crazy when they assume too much power is probably what drives those of us who speak of some possible violence we sense may occur in our times. We all carry in our collective beings the scars of past events that marked themselves forever in our minds. We know it, we fear it and we want to fight it.
But out times are unique. We have the option of changing history and that is what we must do.
Well said.
Two things are required:
1) The correct analysis, which in my view is a systemic or radical one (the progressive/liberal analysis and program is bankrupt).
2) The building of a mass movement...
Hear, hear.
Seeking clarification here...Is the mass movement with "systemic analysis" that you speak of the Socialist Party of America? Please help me out.
As I understand it, the Socialist Party of America was dissolved in 1972*. The mass movement doesn't yet exist, so I can't speak of its characteristics. I can only speak of characteristics it should possess if it is to have long term success. Socialist parties are relevant as socialists - in the tradition of the 4th International - have always been about building mass movements - not armed insurrection by a guerrilla (i.e. minority) army. Socialist revolution, if it means anything, means that the majority of a society supports it. If it's not democratic (mass support), it isn't socialism.
*source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America
Greenwald seems to be growing in the depth of his analysis and is starting to focus on the overall nature of the system we confront. One of the reasons progressive politics has not delivered is that it has consistently failed to confront the system as a whole. Instead, it has supported an array of causes all mutually competing with each other for funding and staffing. What it lacked is an understanding of the unified nature of the power we confront.
GG seems to be coming to similar conclusions to Chris Hedges on the systemic nature of our domination, along with several other prominent progressive voices such as David Sirota. Michael Lebowitz illustrates the failure of progressive vision in the following passage, "Yet capital's power is not simply the power of individual capitalists against groups of employees; rather capital's power as the owner of the products of social labor is its ultimate power, and the is the power of capital as a whole." - "The Socialist Alternative", p. 111.
While Rachel Maddow excoriates the choice of Daly, she ignores what GG perceives - that it is the system itself that produces such choices as its logical outcome. Complaining about this is like being "angry at the sun" as one poster showed in the great Jeffers poem quoted. Our hope lies in the growing perception of these facts by leading progressive voices such as Greenwald and Hedges.
We need to reach a broad consensus on the follow propositions:
1) That the Democracy Party can no longer function as a vehicle for progressive change.
2) That a militant political movement must be formed that presses for a truly progressive agenda.
3) That we must rally disaffected forces in the Democratic Party and outside it to embrace a much more radical vision, one that embodies what our society actually needs rather than the crumbs we think it's "realistic" to sweep from under Wall Street's table.
Following your words of wisdom preceding the concensus you would like us to form, it seems to me that we need first to concede on the point that until we have unified clarity on the nature of what we confront we should avoid a consensus for confrontational action and act on confronting the lack of common clarity first. Tedious as it may seem when we are all itching for active solutions rather than studying the problem even further. But that seems to be the way of true change.
Right, Leea. We must find a basis for common clarity before jumping into action, but action must follow as soon as clarity is achieved. And frankly, clarity is starting to gel in the thoughts of many leading progressives, including Greenwald, Sirota, Hedges, Nader and others. Think of the movement that could be launched if they would unify behind a program that 3 to 5 million progressives could agree on. GG's article is symptomatic even in its title, "Daley is a Reflection, Not a Cause". The decisive sentence in the article is this: "The point here is that -- whether justified or not -- telling politicians that you will do everything possible to work for their re-election no matter how much they scorn you, ignore your political priorities, and trample on your political values is a guaranteed ticket to irrelevance and impotence." This is formula for the "Death of the Liberal Class" as characterized by Chris Hedges.
The message that GG seems ready to embrace is that the dehumanized automatism of most Democrats must be transcended. We will not behave in an automatic and dependable manner due to our fear of Republican domination because such behavior is a guarantee that domination of corporate interests will prevail whether Democrats or Republicans have nominal control of the government.
Yes indeed we will act once that common clarity is achieved and the clarion call from those in the position to sound their trumpets such as Glen will fall until it is heard at the common level. We are all common in the end, from high to low and if the message is true, not one will be immune to it. Habits unfortuanately even once understood as destructive, are very hard to break. The collective habits of a society, even harder. But as a society fails to flourish, the habits loosen until they give way to the new ones that are the order of the day because in the end humans must have order. For us to make this evolutionary turn gracefully we will all need to stay very aware for the crucial turning point in balance from old order to new. This unique process in humans that reflects a natural process we are all bound to, is the greatest thing to have understanding and awareness of, as it manifests around us all in our everyday life, in the littlest of matters. To know of it and to learn about it seems the true progressive order of the day.
The first very easy step is to WALK AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and don't look back--be DONE with them--ALL of them.
Step one is easy, the rest, not so much--but at least get through step one!!!
You'll feel better too--and when you feel better and Independent--spread your joy--infect others with that FREEDOM!
It may sound corny to some, but I am proud of myself for walking away from the corporate DLC Party and voting Green and Idependent!
She voted Nader last time. That's what I saw from the 2008 archives. She's ahead of me but I started last year.
Excellent post!
Obama has tilted to the right in deference to the powers vested in corporate America by the new Supreme Court decision that allows it to fund and advocate any candidate, using secret or open funding in umlimited amounts.
Obama wants to take the corporate bullseye off of his reelection campaign and compete for thes unlimited funds.
For all his athletcism, Obama could never play wide receiver, as he hears his opponents' footsteps so clearly that he's afriad to take the ball into his own hands and make a play.
America is in its death spiral; that much is clear. So the question then becomes why Nader, Kucinich, and Dean have, each one of them, refused to come forth and challenge Obama in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary.
"If Obama gets elected again, it won't be because of progressive voters. At least how I define them."
How do you think Norman Solomon and the rest of the Progressive Democrats and the Progressive Caucus will vote? How do you think Kucinich will vote? Are they not "progressives" who do "not support the corporatist policies of recent US administrations"? Have they ever voted for a non-Democrat? Would they ever?
Why have Dean, Nader, and Kucinich all, refused to engae Obama in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary?
They'll prop up Obama--you just wait and see.
Do you recall when Kucinich stated on DemocracyNow.org
that he voted for the health care DEFORM bill to *save* the Obama Presidency?
They'll all be kissing Obama's arse--same with Sanders--bank on it.
Another thing--Dean is a phony "progressive" as he stated on MSNBC (during HCR debate) that it was the "looney left" who wanted single payer.
First, this is a lie--many in the main stream USAmericans want Medicare for all too (http://www.pnhp.org/). Second, his remark about the left being "looney" is not only absurd but it's not something a REAL progressive would say.
He's a phony and in the end a corporatist--just like the other aforementioned "progressives."
While I agree with what is delineated in this article, I think Glenn Greenwald overstates Obama's power. Obama is a tool, just as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are tools.
I also think (and I have said this before) that the simple fact is that You cannot be a progressive and simultaneously be a supporter of the democrats.
The democrats and the republicans stand upon the same basic beliefs and these are not progressive beliefs. They are primarily about capitalist money and power. Whatever illusion will win them votes and money and power is fair game to them. Everything is for sale to these people.
Anyone who votes for a democrat or a republican no longer has a right to complain. You are a fool.
BIRD: Right on! Any differences that at one point were substantial between the parties have UTTERLY disappeared. Both are intent upon stealing from the people to give to the rich, while doing NOTHING to offset climate change or alter the unbelievably costly march of folly deliberately engineered by the make-war state. More inane decisions would be difficult to come by. If we wanted psychopaths to lead the nation, we could just call into any major security prison and ask for the agenda du jour.
Recruiting our leaders from maximum security prisons might get us more capable Top Dawgs than we're getting now -- after all they have proven organizational and people management skills but for this: they seem to be unable to see that choosing up sides and fighting each other keeps them under the guards' (whom they greatly outnumber) control.
That's kind of analogous to the social situation here on earth.
I would definitely favor placing our leaders in maximum security prisons.
I would only add that this has always been true since the start of the country, and with all parties.
The politicians are not "leading the nation." They are being led by the wealthy and powerful who actually do control the country. Their job is to keep us at bay so that the wealthy few are not threatened by us - or even inconvenienced - while they steal everything.
I will point out that one definition of wealth is having extra capitol when one's basic needs are met. Though welfare services and employers etc. do try to prevent the masses from having too much of this, in the end, most Americans have their little bit of wealth. The powerful are those who convince this mass of minimally wealthy Americans to spend their wealth collectively on certain luxury goods. A luxury being that which is not needed to basic life. We seem to freely give our wealth, little as it may be to the few powerful corporate entities, China being one of the biggest. How many recognize this very simple dynamic? I recognize it but it seems I am as of yet powerless to change it even in my own life. That seems to be the ugly truth of power, once even had, even then it seems little can be changed. I wonder if I am in some great learning curve of power which in the beginning feels as though it is just another path to the same ending I have known before?
A question for curious souls like me, is a president a luxury good?
Keep in mind that over half of the population is now struggling to meet basic needs.
Belief and faith in our so-called "representative democracy" is definitely a luxury, and one that we can no longer afford.
Obama certainly doesn't have my support and no Democrat ever will. I think a lot of the "base" are with me on this. We have been betrayed and lied to too many times. Eventually the pitcher goes to the well once too often.
Greenwald is generally a superb commentator--cogent, well informed, courageous.
This post is a bit meandering and repetitive but the point is certainly accurate.
A lot of posters on Common Dreams concur.
I did not vote for Obama the first time (Green) and absolutely will not vote for him the second time. In many respects Obama is worse than Bush (although he has not started any NEW large scale wars yet).
Obama has consolidated the most egregious policies of Bush/Cheney: torture, expansive police state spying, executive assasinations, military empire, Wall Street giveaways, the erosion of New Deal protections.
It is ironic if not amusing that the 'hope and change' candidate has done his utmost to strangle both.
Indeed.
From Wikipedia:
"Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.
Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme Sorelian syndicalist political views along with nationalism. Though normally described as being on the far right, there is a scholarly consensus that fascism was also influenced by the left, but with a focus on solutions from the right.
Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism. Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety."
14 Early Warning Signs of Fascism:
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Disdain For Human Rights
Identification of Enemies as a unifying cause
Supremacy of the military
Rampant Sexism
Controlled Mass Media
Obsession With National Security
Religion and Government Intertwined
Corporate Power Protected
Labor Power Suppressed
Disdain For Intellectuals & the Arts
Obsession With Crime & Punishment
Rampant Cronyism & Corruption
Fraudulent Elections
Run though the list. If you agree that all fourteen criteria have been met, CONGRATULATIONS!! You are now living in a Fascist Police State.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
Those things all apply to every western capitalist nation state over the last two hundred years to one degree or another.
What we are seeing here in the US now is something far worse than fascism. Putting a label on it - a brand name - does not make it one thing or the other nor does it help us accurately perceive the objective reality.
One can also think symbolically on this. What is the "fasces"? a thick bundle of thin little sticks, any ONE of which can be broken. Bundled toghether, they are strong. The axe blade looks out (the "enemy out there". Another "fasces" most likely, ala george orwell) from this strong, thick, unbreakable bundle of sticks. Who wields this mighty weapon? That is not shown (the invisible, ruling elite perhaps, who wields ALL fasces? They always manage to paint themselves out of the picture).
The posters on Common Dreams have been consistently ahead of the curve. I don't think he's writing with us in mind.
Nader said that people chicken out when they get to the voting booth and end up casting a meaningless vote for the D/R Corporate Candidate. I doubt there's any danger of us doing that, and my only hope is that more and more people, as they begin to see through the lies, screw up their courage and abandon both parties. That seems to be our only power right now.
If we can get even 5% to commit to not voting for the Corporate Party on the left and 5% to commit on the right, that would be real power. We have to let people know that their power lies in not voting for either party.
I for one will vote for neither corporate party. I will never ever vote for BO. If that means Sarah or the Huckster get in, so be it. Let the country have its death wish.
I don't see how the peoples power is a vote. A vote seems more sensibly to be an outcome of power, not power. Power begins as a sense of having power. Most people seem to feel powerless and observe that others are powerful. It seems to me that once we find our power individually and collectivly then we will be the powerful even as others are too. This awareness of personal power that once collected becomes common power, is an awareness. An awareness. Awareness. Aware. A ware A w a r e. That is how it begins.
A we are, A we are powerful. :)
Unfortuanately most people once understanding this, will avoid, not embrace that fact. They will stand at the edge of the beginning of power, and they will not fall into it's embrace.
They will judge others as they fall, but they themselves will keep to the safety of what they know, powerlessness.
Very good and interesting expression of a truth, Leea.
rita
Thank you rita. I do my best moment by moment. Compliments to your being as well, there is a thread on the Nader 'no where left for liberals' editorial about Chris Hedges that you appear in that is also good and very intersting. I'll be looking for you now. :)