EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Palin's Madison Rally is Overwhelmed by Protest Crowd
Tom Paine wrote at the toughest moment of the American revolutionary struggle: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
On Saturday, in Madison, Wisconsin, there was plenty to be thankful for.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the paid spokeswoman for the tepid Tea Party movement, jetted into Madison, Wisconsin, for what was supposed to be a victory party. Unofficial returns released Friday for the state's highly-controversial Supreme Court race show the candidate of conservative Republican Governor Scott Walker leading his until-recently unknown challenger by a 50.2 to 49.8 margin prior to an anticipated recount. And, though implementation of Walker's anti-union agenda remains stymied by a court order, the governor is freshly returned from a star turn before a congressional committee in Washington where every effort was made to suggest that he had effectively overwhelmed the mass opposition that his proposals have inspired in Wisconsin.
That's not much in the way of good news for Walker, whose personal approval ratings have tanked, and whose Republican legislative allies now face recall elections that could cost the party control of the state Senate. But the spin doctors were ready to claim some kind of momentum.
All that was needed was a great big rally to seal the deal, or so Walker's allies and funders -- particularly the billionaire Koch Brothers, who paid for Saturday's event via their generous donations to the group Americans for Prosperity. And Palin was brought in to pull the crowd.
As it happened, she did pull a crowd -- but not for Governor Walker and his agenda.
Walker may have had Palin -- even if the governor chose to attend a bridge-naming event outside Madison, rather than be photographed with the Alaskan. But Walker's critics had the numbers.
Madison's ABC News affiliate reported that, "pro-union labor supporters surrounded smaller groups of tea party members waiting for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to appear outside the Wisconsin Capitol" while the NBC affiliate reported: "A solid core of tea partiers were near the stage, but they were flanked on all sides by union protesters who have dominated protests at the Capitol for months. The tea party folks had the microphone, but the crowd had the volume, literally and figuratively."
What happened? Wasn't Palin supposed to be the rock star that rallied conservatives on what she called "the frontlines in the battle for our country"?
When Palin got to the frontlines, she was greeted not with a warm embrace but with a throngs of Wisconsinites holding signs that read: "Grizzlies Are Not a Native Species," "The Mad Hatter Called... He Wants His Tea Party Back," "I Can See Stupid From My Condo" and "Wisconsin Loves Tina Fey!" -- a reference to the comic who famously parodied Palin on NBC's "Saturday Night Live."
To be clear, there were some Palinites present. Just not a lot of them.
After a week of relatively mild weather, Saturday came wind-blown and bitter cold with freezing rain turning to snow by the time Palin wearing designer clothes and a grimace. Instead of the masses of Tea Partisans that had been predicted, the group the former governor addressed outside the state Capitol filled a 20-foot by 35-foot space between a riser packed with television cameras and a stage area where organizers with money to burn had erected an entirely unnecessary big-screen TV and concert speakers.
Even if the Tea Partisans packed into the space as tightly as possible, they could not have numbered more than 600 or 700. Local concert promoter Tag Evers, who has organized hundreds of events over the years (including some of the recent rallies at the Capitol) and has an eye for crowds, put the number of Palin enthusiasts at 500. Defending Wisconsin PAC's Jeremy Ryan announced after rallying against Palin that: "There were probably about 500 of them... and 5,000 of us... Even when they bus people in from other states, they still can't form a majority."
But let's be generous. Let's say that, with the smattering of Tea Partisans who were outside the enclosed and heavily-policed area where Palin spoke, the supporters of Governor Walker's agenda numbered 1,000.
That would mean that the Tea Partisans were outnumbered more than 5-1 by the mass of anti-Walker protesters that surrounded the Palin event, ringing cowbells and shouting "Shame! Shame! Shame!" so loudly that many of the Tea Partisans who gathered in the Palin pit complained they could not hear the Alaskan deliver a listless speech that focused mainly on national issues. In her rare references to Wisconsin, Palin offered Orwellian rewrites of reality, such as a claim that: "(Walker's) not trying to hurt union members. Hey, folks he's trying to save your jobs and your pensions."
Though it was organized in only a matter of hours, the protest against Palin and Walker easily overwhelmed the gathering of those who came to support the former Alaska governor and the recall-threatened Wisconsin governor. Police estimated that roughly 6,500 people were on the Capitol Square Saturday, and the vast majority of them were the firefighters, police officers, teachers, public employees, farmers, small business owners and their allies who had come to wave signs that read: "Scott -- Pull a Palin -- Quit!"
Worried that the media might miss the real story of Saturday, Madisonian Bill Bunke said, "I hope the cameras they've got focused on Palin turn around and tell the real story of what happened today."
That's a tall order, as Palin and the Tea Party continue to enjoy inflated coverage not just from conservative media outlets such as Fox News -- the subject of posters carried by union activists that read "Fox Will Lie About This" and "According to Fox I'm Not Here" -- but also mainstream national media outlets that present Palin, a failed vice presidential candidate who resigned her governorship, as a serious spokesperson for the right.
But the crowd that surrounded the Tea Party event knew how things played out Saturday on Palin's "frontlines." They were declaring victory as the Alaskan was jetting out of town. "Who would have thought that Sarah Palin would give this movement a boost?" joked Terry Fritter, a veteran United Food and Commercial Workers union activist who has attended most of the anti-Walker rallies at the Capitol.
Fritter started his day at a rally on the opposite side of the Capitol from the Palin event. Organized by the Wisconsin Wave coalition that brings together union, environmental and community groups, the rally featured all Wisconsin speakers -- unlike the Tea Party event -- and was addressed by newly-elected Madison Mayor Paul Soglin, who noted the dramatically larger turnout by union members and their allies.
Soglin was not alone in noting the distinction. The energy and volume of the thousands who came to protest Palin (and Walker) unsettled many of the speakers at the Tea Party event. A local consrvative talk-radio host shouted from the stage that union backers should "shut up." The controversial blogger Andrew Breitbart, one of many national conservative figures flown in for th event, told the union members and their allies to "go to hell."
But while the sunshine patriots huddled near the Palin stage may have taken some solace from the taunts, the winter soldiers were unbothered and unbowed. "They're mad because we outnumber them," said Fritter. "They're mad because we're not backing down."
That is as Paine would have it. The Wisconsin democracy movement is young and there will be plenty of setbacks as it develops energy and focus. But, as the pamphleteer noted in The Crisis, "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."
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...
65 Comments so far
Show AllOh yay.....Dems are so wonderful!!!!!
John, as always, oh so........nothing.
I must disagree with you. I have been one of the Democrats' fiercest critics, believing them to be little different than the Republicans. But I certainly do not believe that Nichols is praising the Democrats as he is singing the praises of those who have rallied in support of the unions while noting how few Tea Party members arrived in Madison, Wi. in order to support Sarah Palin.
How in the world did you ever think that this article was about Nichols lauding the supposed accomplishments of the Democrats? Perhaps if you were to read the article again you would see that this is simply not the case.
Why are there so many Nation articles at CD? Really. Can't The Nation stand on its own? If I wanted to read these guys I'd go there or buy it----neither of which I'd ever do. They are a huge part of the problem(s) we face and should be dismissed as a viable partner in our common dreams. Please add Robert Reich to the list. Please CD, more fresh and honest perspectives.
Moonpie
I would also add that Common Dreams should publish articles by one of the best leftist writers that one will ever read and that would be Chris Floyd who runs the blog over at Empire Burlesque which focuses mainly upon American militarism. But for some inexplicable reason Common Dreams refuses to publish his essays.
Dennab
Perhaps you can help alleviate my confusion. Are not people who reside in the United States as well as its leaders called Americans? Since the countries of South and Central America are not generally considered to be militant to the rest of the world one would then think that almost all people who read my comment would have known that I was referring to the United States and not, for some bizarre reason, to either Central or South America. It also does not make too much sense if you believe that someone will for some unknown reason think that American militarism is alive and well in Vancouver, Canada and/or in any village or town that is located in Mexico.
I own the following books:
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War by Andrew J. Bacevich
The Myth of American Exceptionalism by Godfrey Hodgson
Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq by Susan Brewer
War and Empire: The American Way of Life by Paul L. Atwood
Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the above writers that I have mentioned should be sued for liable because they have somehow mislead their readers into thinking that they were writing about the abuse of power that is wielded by leaders of Central and Latin American countries?
I also have a bumper sticker on my car which states:
End American Imperialism Now!
Somehow I doubt that anyone who reads that message will believe that it is referring to imperialism that is emanating from countries such as Guatemala or Peru or Victoria, Canada or Tijuana, Mexico.
Your attempt to seem knowledgeable instead comes across as puerile as well as sad and unjustified.
And, too boot, is the reality that Europe is no more than a sub-continent at best. Even the name Eurasia smacks of Orientalism. I find it best to refer to the US Empire, but occasionally I use USA. Perhaps we should employ the term unitedstatesians/unitedstaters on a consistent basis. Long ago, people referred to themselves as Carolinians, or New Yorkers, Ohioans, etc., but a concerted propaganda campaign has mostly buried that weltanschauung.
Mr. Dennab, I find your comments to be an exercise in semantics. It is as if you were looking for something, anything to criticize and you decided to fixate upon this incredibly bizarre and jejune issue. You claim that I supposedly missed the point while never addressing the point that I raised and that is if you actually believe that people driving by will somehow think that my bumper sticker [End American Imperialism Now!] somehow refers to people who live in Canada or Mexico or Central America. Do you believe that the authors that I had previously mentioned in my previous comments were wrong in using the word American in their titles of their books because people who might buy their books might for some inexplicable reason think that the word American was referring to the government of a country which resides in Central or Latin America? Again, any logical and intelligent person would certainly realize that the use of the word American in the titles of their books as well as in that bumper sticker certainly refers to the United States and not to those who abuse their power in countries in Canada or Mexico or any town or village in Central or South America. I also suggest that you may wish to read some of the works that I had listed as it may help to enrich your knowledge, if I may be so bold as to state this, of American Imperialism.
It simply appears to me that you are looking for a reason, however odd and illogical, to start an argument for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever.
If you've ever read Erroll's comments before you'd know he doesn't favor Empire or Obama any more than you do. But if the most important thing is getting others to understand that "America" doesn't only mean the USA, and any leftist who does use the word America or American when they mean United States is really just another milquetoast liberal whether they know it or not, then your message is clear. The problem is, it comes at the cost of alienating every person who would otherwise be your ally, should they commit the unforgiveable sin of saying the word America(n) when they mean USA. This makes your point ultimately ridiculous and off the charts of meaningless and self-defeating political correctness.
Hello Hughnanimous.
Dennab wrote:
"It is not I who needs allies. I have nothing to lose. It is Liberals and Democrats who need allies and are in severe danger of losing more allies, . . . ."
- - - - -
My Comment:
So, you don't need allies. You say you have nothing to lose.
Presumably you also believe you have nothing to gain.
Can we conclude therefore that you have no concern that you will simply be left behind (no pun intended) by all those folks who are deserting the Liberals and the Democrats, because these erstwhile allies of the Liberals and Democrats might well just turn away from the arrogant and spiteful introduction you offer them to the language of Empire, as they focus on what they perceive to be the more immediately important parts of the struggle, including making use of Liberals and Democrats whenever that advances their own working class agenda?
* * * * *
Dennab wrote:
“I'm not looking for allies. I'm looking for consistency in language and actions.”
- - - - -
My Comment:
May I suggest that both you and I should be looking for both allies and consistency in language and actions and not insisting on either.
* * * * *
Dennab wrote:
“Leftists don't use "America" when referring to the United States. Liberals and Democrats do. Then again, Liberals and Democrats are not the Left.”
- - - - - -
My Comment:
You will be making real progress when those who desert the Liberals and the Democrats begin to drop the use of “America” and “Americans” when referring to the United States and people who live in the United States, not because of some new found but insecure need to conform to leftist doctrine, but because they "get it".
When non-leftists, maybe even some Liberals and Democrats, drop the use of “America” and "Americans" when referring to the United States and people who live in the United States, well then you will have made a lot of progress.
The US has been invading and occupying South and Central America for decades if not longer. We OWN THEM! (sarcasm) SOA ring any bells?
"As described by William Blum in his article, “A Concise History of US Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present”, the United States intervened in eleven different South and Central American countries during the Cold War, including Guatemala, Costa Rica, British Guyana, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. The main purpose of these interventions was to facilitate changes to regimes that were friendlier to the United States (and in almost all cases less friendly to the indigenous populations of those countries.) For this purpose, we developed the School of the Americas, which was used to train native personnel in the techniques and ideology of insurgency and counter-insurgency" from http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/365
Erroll:
You are absolutely correct in using "American" as a surrogate for USA'n, linguistically, semantically, and conventionally by general usage over decades the world over. I have no idea why dennab is jumping all over you and also your very nicely reasoned response with red herrings and non sequiturs, creating an unnecessary diversion from the main topic.
From my school days study of English decades ago, I remember being taught that English is a living language and spelling and grammar. Also the meaning of all cultural words are not etched in stone but are based on the way they are used in ordinary discourse by millions of people. "American" is used the world over by hundreds of millions of people to mean EXACTLY the clumsy "USA'n". Nobody with even a minimal facility with English usage would confuse that with Canadian or Mexican. "Canadian" has established itself as a legitimate and semantically correct (semantics does arise from logic but from the meaning that human cultures give to words) alternative to "American", which is exclusively preserved for Yankees.
Denab, what is your point in creating this useless diversion?
reasonisreligion
Thank you for your kind words and your support. I am not necessarily against criticism of the word American to describe the citizens who live in the United States. But in the responses that Denab has put forth he has not once stated what he believes should be used as a substitute for that word. He has also failed to address the questions that I raised in my other comments.
As I I had previously mentioned, it is as if he was looking to provoke an argument for some unexplained reason. It would not be all that surprising to see Denab jump all over Chris Floyd and his web site Empire Burlesque because he describes his blog as examining the American Imperium.
Exactly, the US hijacked the names America and Americans for themselves, the same way it stole the land it now occupies from its native inhabitants.
The name was ripped off from Americco Vespuccio, or Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian mercenary and land thief 'explorer' so at least the name ripoff is very fitting, no leftist should have a problem using America or Americans to describe the US or people from the US.
Thanks delia, for a dose of reality. errol and denab need to take a cold shower.
What did they call the empire at Wounded Knee?
Philip
Your ambiguous comment leaves me in the dark regarding your nebulous complaint against me.
RE: The words "America" and "American", and the language of Empire.
reasonisreligion wrote:
“Also the meaning of all cultural words are not etched in stone but are based on the way they are used in ordinary discourse by millions of people. "American" is used the world over by hundreds of millions of people to mean EXACTLY the clumsy "USA'n". Nobody with even a minimal facility with English usage would confuse that with Canadian or Mexican.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
I agree. But Dennab still has a point about the propaganda value of the language of Empire. Concern about the propaganda value of the language of Empire goes beyond just the use of “America” and “Americans” for example, when referring to the United States and the people who live in the United States.
* * * * *
Erroll wrote:
“End American Imperialism Now!
Somehow I doubt that anyone who reads that message will believe that it is referring to imperialism that is emanating from countries such as Guatemala or Peru or Victoria, Canada or Tijuana, Mexico.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
I agree.
* * * * *
Erroll wrote (addressed to reasonisreligion);
"Thank you for your kind words and your support. I am not necessarily against criticism of the word American to describe the citizens who live in the United States."
- - - - -
My Reply:
Good.
* * * * *
Dennab wrote:
“I'm not looking for allies. I'm looking for consistency in language and actions.”
- - - - -
Dennab wrote:
“I'm done with friggin' Liberals and Democrats who insist on using the language of the Empire, the Empire and its imperialism they purportedly abhor. “
- - - - -
My Reply:
I bristle every time I here (neo-con) Barack Obama or any other politician speak sanctimoniously about America and Americans. But, maybe you would be more effective if you focused more on consistency of action and less on consistency of language.
* * * * *
Dennab wrote:
“You'll never alter the Empire away from imperialism if even changing the imperialist language that you use is that difficult.”
- - - -
My Reply:
Actually, I think the fitful death throes of the Empire have put on display for us an Empire unintentionally destroying its own sources of power along with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, actually the lives of millions of people depending upon how you consider it, as well as the lives of many plants and animals who make up many of the other species that inhabit this planet. In fact we are in an era of massive extinction and the Empire has a lot to do with that.
* * * * *
Dennab wrote:
“I suggest a reading of Jose Marti's "Our America" published in El Partido Liberal (Mexico City), March 5, 1892.”
- - - - -
Dennab wrote:
”Again, I refer you to Jose Marti's "Our America" where way back in 1892 he recognized the imperialism in both the actions and the language of the USA.”
- - - - -
Dennab wrote:
“Ask the people of America outside the United States. They will tell you.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
Although I have not read Jose Marti’s “Our America”, I have nevertheless encountered these objections myself. I think Dennab is right. Quite a few people outside of the United States do object to this kind of verbal chauvinism on the part of the leaders of United States and many of the people who call themselves Americans.
* * * * *
delia_darrow wrote:
“Exactly, the US hijacked the names America and Americans for themselves, the same way it stole the land it now occupies from its native inhabitants.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
I agree. But some of the alternatives to “America” and “Americans” suggested here, although some people might consider them more accurate, are awkward and therefore more difficult to use for propagandistic purposes, which is the way the leaders of the United States Empire use the words "America" and "American".
* * * * *
delia_darrow wrote:
“The name was ripped off from Americco Vespuccio, or Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian mercenary and land thief 'explorer' so at least the name ripoff is very fitting, no leftist should have a problem using America or Americans to describe the US or people from the US.”
- - - - - -
My Reply:
Interesting point!
I expect that you mean with the exception of the indigenous native inhabitants of the land occupied by the United States and its people, of course.
It is also interesting that readbetweenthe_lines recommends the work of a native author by the name Vine Deloria, who in 1964 was elected executive director of the National Congress of American Indians.
Also, the history of the United States includes the deeds of young Navajo men, known as Navajo Code Talkers, who transmitted secret communications on the battlefields of WWII.
But while your point is a good one, many leftists, as well as many other people who may not consider themselves doctrinaire leftists, will still object to the use of the words “America” and “Americans”, when the reference is to the United States and people who live in the United States. because of the potent imperialistic propaganda value those two words pact whenever the ruling class seeks to “juice” the Empire.
Dennab:
“It seems so simple to me. When referring to the country I live in I use: The United States. The United States does this. The United States is that. And as for the people who live here, I refer to them as: the people of the United States. If an adjective is needed then it is: The United States' idea of diplomacy.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
I almost exclusively do the same thing. Although I think the phrase “the people of the United States” can still be unwieldy, if used repeatedly in quick succession, or when used in sentences where one clause is stacked after another, which is the way I am sorry to say that I write too much of the time.
Sometimes I use the phrase “people who live in the United States”, because not everyone who lives here was born here, and not everyone who lives here, whether they were born here or not, wants to be associated with what the government of the United States does both here and abroad.
Also, calling people who live in the United States Americans, when the context clearly indicates that they are opposed to the imperialistic policies of the United States, does not in my opinion contribute to the propaganda of Empire. Everyone who lives in the United States with the exception of those people who live in Hawaii lives in North America and in that sense at least might be considered Americans.
I have even used the neologism “USans”, although I still feel it’s too contrived and I still don’t like it. But I will probably use it again sometime.
I do think it is important to pay attention to the language we use and the language other people use, and to talk about the significance of the language we use with other people from time to time.
But I think making the language a person uses some kind of litmus test regarding their character or their understanding about what is going on in world is a mistake.
Giving them hell for alleged “misuse” of language is a bigger mistake in my opinion, a mistake which strikes me as authoritarian, or perhaps an act of desperation, or perhaps simple bullying, or a combination of all three, I don’t know.
In your case clearly careful use of language whenever imperialism is involved is very important to you. I sympathize with that.
But a person can articulate their point about language use without starting a verbal brawl.
Conversation and argument can still be intense without blowing each other off, verbally smacking each other around, or persecuting each other simply because of the words we use.
There is just something very undemocratic and very disrespectful about that in my opinion. I don’t like it either.
Besides I do think there are more important things to talk about.
Dennab
You conveniently ignored my other question and that is whether you believe that the writers whom I had mentioned in my other comment who had written about American imperialism should be sued for libel because they, apparently in your estimation, misled their readers by daring to use the word American in the title of their works. Please let us know when you intend to file your complaint against these writers in civil court as I am sure that the readers of Common Dreams would be most interested in seeing how your case unfolds.
Dennab wrote (addressed to Erroll):
"...which focuses mainly upon American militarism." You mean UNITED STATES militarism. Why smear all the countries of two continents?
- - - - -
Erroll wrote (addressed to Dennab):
“Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the above writers that I have mentioned should be sued for liable because they have somehow mislead their readers into thinking that they were writing about the abuse of power that is wielded by leaders of Central and Latin American countries?”
- - - - -
Dennab wrote (addressed to PuffinThrush))
“It seems so simple to me. When referring to the country I live in I use: The United States. The United States does this. The United States is that. And as for the people who live here, I refer to them as: the people of the United States. If an adjective is needed then it is: The United States' idea of diplomacy.”
- - - - -
Erroll wrote (addressed to Dennab):
You conveniently ignored my other question and that is whether you believe that the writers whom I had mentioned in my other comment who had written about American imperialism should be sued for libel because they, apparently in your estimation, misled their readers by daring to use the word American in the title of their works. Please let us know when you intend to file your complaint against these writers in civil court as I am sure that the readers of Common Dreams would be most interested in seeing how your case unfolds.
- - - - -
Erroll wrote (addressed to reasonisreligion);
"Thank you for your kind words and your support. I am not necessarily against criticism of the word American to describe the citizens who live in the United States."
- - - - -
philiphoko wrote (addressed to delia_darrow):
“Thanks delia, for a dose of reality. errol and denab need to take a cold shower.
What did they call the empire at Wounded Knee?”
- - - - -
Erroll wrote(addressed to philiphoko):
“Philip
Your ambiguous comment leaves me in the dark regarding your nebulous complaint against me.”
* * * * *
My Reply:
Erroll,
Since when does a statement by Dennab or anyone else, that an author’s use of the phrase “American militarism” is a smear on all the other countries on two continents (i.e. other than the United States), imply that a forthcoming lawsuit is warranted or even desired?
Actually, as a reader of Common Dreams I would be disappointed if someone who posted here filed such a ridiculous lawsuit, although I would nevertheless have an interest in hearing about the outcome.
Perhaps, you would like to reply to Dennab's comment about the ease with which the phrases "United States" and "people of the United States" can be substituted for "America" and Americans" respectively.
But, please don't!
At least that sort of reply would be more "on point" as they say, particularly given your own admission that you are "not necessarily against criticism of the word American to describe the citizens who live in the United States."
I am not sure, but I would like to suggest that maybe your two lawsuit questions and your overall persistence about this "important" matter, particularly given the context of delia_darrow's comments, provides you with part of the answer you sought from philiphoko.
Regards,
Peter
Peter [PuffinThrush]
I do not believe that I said that the use of the phrase American militarism is, as you say, a smear on all the other countries on two continents. I thought the point that I had made was clear from the beginning and that is that since Mr. Dennab strenuously objects to the word American being used by Americans he would also object to the use of this word by these writers in the context of American militarism.
In regard to your other questions, I thought that I had answered one of them when I had stated that I was not necessarily against the idea of another word being used in place of the word American. But the suggestion by both Dennab and yourself to use the phrases that you have mentioned are, as I stated, just that, phrases, which, I believe, would be a poor and awkward substitute for the word American.
Finally, to answer your last question, you seem to not realize that my persistence on this important matter, as you put it, was not raised by me but by a commenter called Dennab. I then replied a number of times to what I perceived to be his bizarre obsession that the word American cannot be used by Americans to describe the citizens of the United States or, it would seem, even American militarism. I am also puzzled why Dennab for some reason believes that it would be wrong if ALL countries which either have the same name which they share with other countries [i.e. the word America] or countries which live in North America cannot use that name-America-if they so desire.
Regards,
Erroll
Erroll wrote:
“I do not believe that I said that the use of the phrase American militarism is, as you say, a smear on all the other countries on two continents. I thought the point that I had made was clear from the beginning and that is that since Mr. Dennab strenuously objects to the word American being used by Americans he would also object to the use of this word by these writers in the context of American militarism.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
You are right. You didn’t directly use any phrase explicitly stating that “American militarism is, as you say, a smear on all the other countries on two continents.” My use of that phrase was a paraphrase of what Dennab said.
And yes, you are right it was reasonable to assume Dennab would object to the use of the word "American" by authors writing about American militarism or as Dennab would put it United States militarism.
My own use of the phrase “American militarism is, as you say, a smear on all the other countries on two continents” was in the context of discussing your question addressed to Dennab about a libel lawsuit.
In the “preface” to my previous comment I went so far as to quote both Dennab’s use of the phrase “smear on all the other countries on two continents” and your direct reply to Dennab’s use of the phrase “smear on all the other countries on two continents”. It was this reply on your part which brought up the lawsuit question which you posed to Dennab, I believe for the first time.
Here again are both Dennab’s and your remarks as quoted in my previous post.
> > > > >
Dennab wrote (addressed to Erroll):
"...which focuses mainly upon American militarism." You mean UNITED STATES militarism. Why smear all the countries of two continents?
- - - - -
Erroll wrote (addressed to Dennab):
“Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the above writers that I have mentioned should be sued for liable because they have somehow mislead their readers into thinking that they were writing about the abuse of power that is wielded by leaders of Central and Latin American countries?”
< < < < <
Also, here again is my own use of the phrase “American militarism’ is a smear on all the other countries on two continents” from my previous post with emphasis added through the use of ALL CAPS.
> > > > >
PuffinThrush wrote:
“SINCE WHEN DOES A STATEMENT BY DENNAB or anyone else, that an author’s use of the phrase ‘American militarism’ is a smear on all the other countries on two continents (i.e. other than the United States), imply that a forthcoming lawsuit is warranted or even desired?”
* * * * *
Erroll wrote:
“But the suggestion by both Dennab and yourself to use the phrases that you have mentioned are, as I stated, just that, phrases, which, I believe, would be a poor and awkward substitute for the word American.”
- - - - -
My Reply:
Actually, I have not attempted to persuade anyone on this thread to use these phrases. I have mentioned my sympathy with those like Dennab who think that the use of “America” and American” are part of the propaganda of Empire. But it is Dennab not me, who has attempted to persuade you, or perhaps more accurately to shame you, into using these phrases.
I have also discussed the occasional awkwardness of using these phrases in my own writing.
* * * * *
Erroll wrote:
“Finally, to answer your last question, you seem to not realize that my persistence on this important matter, as you put it, was not raised by me but by a commenter called Dennab. I then replied a number of times to what I perceived to be his bizarre obsession that the word American cannot be used by Americans to describe the citizens of the United States or, it would seem, even American militarism.”
- - - - -
My Reply;
I know that Dennab went after you first for your use of the word “American”.
And that you had trouble fending off Dennab's criticisms and attacks - without inadvertantly, I suppose - contributing to an escalation of the discussion / argument into a relatively minor verbal brawl.
If you want to see what happens to a thread when widespread verbal brawling breaks out, check out "A Primer on Class Struggle", article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4.
But a person is much less likely to get into and to get stuck in verbal brawls with another person posting on Common Dreams or anywhere else, if that person can at least follow the most important points made by each poster who is party to the discussion or argument, amidst all the other comments made in the thread, which I understand can be quite difficult at times; and if that person knows when, how and why to simply and skillfully withdraw from a the battle.
Hey, if Barack Obama knew this and was actually working to further the best interests of the . . . oops, shall I say "American people" or "people who live in the United States", then we would all be much better off.
One of the problems regarding verbal brawls, of course, is that it actually only takes one to tango, at least since we aren’t referring to tango dancing.
Unfortunately, it also only takes one to destroy a marriage, although two can probably destroy a marriage much faster.
But, it takes two to make a good marriage and now we might be talking tango dancing, and it takes two to make a good discussion or argument.
* * * * *
Erroll wrote:
“I am also puzzled why Dennab for some reason believes that it would be wrong if ALL countries which either have the same name which they share with other countries [i.e. the word America] or countries which live in North America cannot use that name-America-if they so desire.”
- - - -
My Reply:
I think that we can conclude with some certainty from Dennab’s comments in this thread that Dennab’s problem is with the United States’ exclusive and hegemonic appropriation of the words “America” and “American” for its own propagandistic purposes that bothers Dennab and people like the long deceased Jose Marti (author of "Our America" published in El Partido Liberal (Mexico City), March 5, 1892).
Absent this exclusive and hegemonic appropriation of the words “America” and “American” by those who control the United States Empire for their own propagandistic purposes, I expect Dennab would have no problem “if ALL countries which either have the same name which they share with other countries [i.e. the word America] or countries which live in North America , , , [used] that name-America-if they so desire.”
Regards,
Peter
P.S.
Erroll,
If you were to review the entire thread, I think you would find that I was participating in the discussion / argument with support for all points of view, because that happens to be the way I look at the core issue in the discussion / argument regarding the use of the words "America" and "American". But I paid particular attention in the beginning to offering a criticism of Dennab who had started the argument with what I felt was a rather dogmatic attack on you, and indirectly on anyone else, who might also make the mistake of not using "America" and "American" in a way that Dennab found acceptable.
Regards,
Peter
Indeed. Do a word search: not a single mention of "Democrat" in the whole article.
Oh well, let's bash Nichols anyway. It's the Common Dreams way.
Thank you Donny-Don.
Well, it may be the Common Dreams way for some of the people who post here.
But, personally I am glad that Common Dreams is still re-publishing news and opinion pieces about what is going on in Wisconsin and in Madison in particular.
John Nichols is associate editor of the "The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. He probably has a better sense of what is going on there, than most people who frequent Common Dreams.
I don't suppose it will hurt the readers of The Nation to be reading about what is going on in Madison either, particularly when what they read focuses on a mass movement of people resisting the political misuse of government to attack them.
Well, Erroll, i just inadvertently erased my post here. Darn!
Thank you for a thoughtful response. You are correct that the Dems aren't mentioned. I was thinking that since unions are traditionally supporters of the Dem party, which i am always finding in political rallies and marches, especially last october in DC, and since the Nation supported Obama in a big way and is still clutching at straws, in my opinion. And since the GOP is spoken about, which includes the Tea party at this point as well.........I am assuming this implies that the Dems are the 'good guys', although i will admit that this may not have been the authors intention. But it has been playing out that way in Wisconsin. And compared to psycho killers, non psychotic killers look good to many, many people. Lessor of evils again. I am betting the farm on it!
rita
rita (aka readytotransform),
Well yes, John Nichols didn't exactly criticize the Democrats, either.
And yes, elected Democratic Wisconsin state senators did respond to the massive protests in Madison, Wisconsin with an ultimately ineffective manuever to stage a sort of filibuster based upon a quorum rule.
The working class needs to continue to find and use their own power to push the levers of government power to their advantage without dropping their well earned skepticism about the loyalty of the Democratic Party.
The working class also needs to transform one of those levers of government power by expanding each and every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association when voters cast their votes at the ballot box in the future, thereby abolishing the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.
This can be done by forcing their legislators to replace Plurality Voting with a consent dissent grading scale based voting procedure like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV).
Both YNMS and CSPV give the people the voting power of the sovereign and the boss that they are supposed to be. After all, government officials and our representatives are supposed to be public servants engaged in public service on our behalf and in our best interests.
If we had either YNMS or CSPV in 2010 in the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election, maybe the ballots cast by many Wisconsinites, including all those "enthusiasm gap" Wisconsinites who did not vote in 2010, would have looked something like the ballots depicted below!
[Please note: The dashed underline is needed here to maintain the ballot's two dimensional structure upon entering the post as a comment.]
Are you ready to transform?
Regards,
Peter
* * * * *
EXAMPLE BALLOTS
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
Voters would have been able to oppose both the Republican Scott Walker and the Democrat Tom Barrett without expressing a preference between them while supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write-in candidates such as Mary Harris "Mother" Jones on the ballot.
2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Mary Jones ‘write-in’ supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
Scott Walker_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer
James James
Terry Virgil
write-in:
mary jones _ _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Mary Jones ‘write-in’supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ X
Jim Langer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X
write-in:
mary jones_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
Voters would have been able to express a preference between the Republican Scott Walker and the Democrat Tom Barrett without supporting either Walker or Barrett while at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write-in candidates such as Justin Case on the ballot
2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Justin Case ‘write-in’ supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
Scott Walker_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Tom Barrett
Jim Langer
James James
Terry Virgil
write-in:
justin case_ _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Justin Case ‘write-in’ supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
write-in:
justin case _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
Or perhaps the CSPV ballot might have looked like this, for which there is no YNMS equivalent.
Voters would have been able to express a preference between the Republican Scott Walker and the Democrat Tom Barrett while opposing both Walker and Barrett and supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write in candidates such as Rita Ready on the ballot
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Rita Ready ‘write-in’ supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X
write-in:
rita ready _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
Voters would have been able to express a preference for Democrat Tom Barrett over Republican Scott Walker, while supporting Tom Barrett and opposing Scott Walker, and also supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write-in candidates such as Norma Paine on the ballot.
2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Norma Paine ‘write-in’ supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
Scott Walker_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ X_ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer
James James
Terry Virgil
write-in:
norma paine _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Norma Paine ‘write-in’supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X
write-in:
norma paine_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
The main stream corporate controlled media only covered the Tea Party crowd and Palin, they ignored the anti-Walker protesters. You would have no idea that there was a larger mass of people protesting Palin and the right wingers surrounding her. Thanks to John Nichols for setting the record straight.
The media's photoshoots--staged events like this one--cannot defeat the local context's reality. It would be interesting to see what local Wisconsin channels broadcast versus the national propagandists. And given that Wisconsinites know most of the recall petitions have been filled and filed thus generating ensuing elections, the staged event provided further evidence of Wisconsin's politics being hijacked by wealthy out-of-state-interets that what to stomp on all Wisconsinites generally, which will help push fence sitters to the anti-Walker side. And I commend Nichols for casting the battle as being one for Freedom versus Tyranny, for that's exactly what it is.
TV coverage (a lot of people who post here say they don't ever watch TV, which is a reasonable approach to keeping one's sanity; mine is already gone so I'll watch and say what I see) showed Palin trying to be an even bigger blowhard than she usually is. The event did not look "tepid" as depicted. I know that on TV things are not often what is shown. Still, leftists-liberals-progressives have got our work cut out for us. Big mouth politicians become pop culture heroes and I don't think the left has one of those. JerzyJoe accurately describes things. It looked like a Palin victory rally.
The MSM, like the government - all 3 branches - and including the Federal Reserve Bank - are controlled and owned by the MIC and the big bank Financial Terrorist Network. The stock market, the economy - the whole thing is rigged - and the media aint gonna say a word because they serve the Financial Terrorist Network (that should be in jail for attacking the American people) and MIC that own Washington.
Kochs pay for this stuff, blatantly showing how the political process is bought and sold to the highest bidder. Our "government "is a joke. Palin is just another political whore in our electoral freakshow, along with Obama, Newt and all the rest.
""Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;"
And can't be conquered by government that represents the highest bidder.
If folks are interested, tonight on Paradigms I interview Lon Newman, a family planning and reproductive health professional in Wisconsin, talking about how the new right wing ideologues in state government are cutting budget neutral programs. 8 PM EST http://wbkm.org or podcast at http://paradigms.bz
"Sarah is a nothing just like the many time bankrupt blow hard trump, if he is a money wizard why does he keep going bankrupt. (?)"
In my opinion bankruptcy is a capitalist, economic tool to be used sparingly when extenuating circumstances lead to extraordinary debt. DT uses the bankruptcy laws to game the system and profit from it. Kinda like being "borned again". All your sins are washed away by the sacred blood of the holy Lamb of God! Sorry to all the genuinely kind Christians, but Easter season is upon us and I'm getting that mega-church vibe!
Good for the Wisconsin people, Sarah is a nothing just like the many time bankrupt blow hard trump, if he is a money wizard why does he keep going bankrupt. Fox news does have the market and sadly enough people are dumb enough to watch their far right brainwashing. Americans for prosperity is bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and should not be able to get away with anything. When these people started telling Wisconsinites to go to hell they should have been pelted with cheese balls. They are sincere ass hole Koch whores just like Fox news and Sarah Palin.
As Nichols and commentators note,
"Palin and the Tea Party continue to enjoy inflated coverage not just from conservative media outlets such as Fox News . . . but also mainstream national media outlets."
Missing is an analysis of why "mainstream national media outlets" present "the Tea Party [with] inflated coverage." Relevant to such an analysis is, this being a longstanding feature, constituted is disposition. A disposition, in turn, is a personality characteristic. As a personality characteristic, it constitutes a bias, an intrinsic a priori value. The "mainstream national . . . media" being an abstraction of individual journalists, "the Tea Party inflated coverage" is a manifestation of the personality bias of individual "mainstream national" journalists. Exceptions exist, of course, but, sorry, that's the logic.
Thus, "the Tea Party . . . inflated coverage . . . from [the] mainstream national media outlets" is a manifestation of an ingrained right wing prejudice among members of the "mainstream national media outlets." Speculatively this prejudice reaches back to the election of Ronald Reagan, so that the careers of an entire generation of journalists have developed in an era dominated by the right wing. Assuming so, "mainstream national media" journalists unthinkingly presume (prejudge) the default values of the American public--however defined at the moment--are right wing.
If this is correct, necessary is for any not of the right, when interviewed by the media--local, state, or national--to ALWAYS prominently and constantly speak of "THE RIGHT WING MEDIA." Perhaps ridiculing at first, my suspicion is journalists will quickly evolve to frustration when continually met with this phraseology, and then awkwardly scramble about to appear "fair and balanced." Then, and in the current environment, only then will "the mainstream national media" bestow legitimacy on the left. No, strike that last word in the immediately preceding sentence. Bestow legitimacy on the left and center.
Wow, Phalin must be running out of money to be there and M0r0n Walker couldn't make it...Wow!
Kudos to the protestors that got in the faces of the Fleabaggers, they deserve it.....Keep it up, that is what needs to happen and be reminded of the real truth and not the one that is made up by the Reichtie Handlers.....
The truth is: there was a 230 Billion Dollar Surplus at the beginning of the decade and now is all spent by the Reichtie/Republican Congress at the time during George Moron Jr. reign, whom btw didn't nothing about the spending. Then there was the 12 Million that was taken from the Treasury put on Pallets and sent to Iraq without a paper trail....Cold Hard Cash!.....No, you will never hear a Fleabagger talk about it, or even where it went.....The Reichties/Republicans spent like drunken sailors and nothing, not one Fleabagger said anything about it. In fact when something did get said, those people were called pessimistic and whiners....Now, who is being pessimistic and whiners????
I never hear a Fleabagger talk about the 2 Wars, and the Closing of Gitmo which is costing this country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!....They could careless, in fact you never, never, never hear them mention the 2 Wars anymore they are almost like Farts in the wind now.....Nothing but a political tools to them!!!!!
No, these people are pisst off because there is a Black Man in office!....They don't care about the deficit, if they did care there wouldn't be one, the Reichties/Republicans wouldn't have spent like drunken sailors when they had the majority in the first part of the decade......The point is, THEY DON'T CARE!
FYI, here is an article that everyone should read:
EXCLUSIVE: US Chamber’s Lobbyists Solicited Hackers To Sabotage Unions, Smear Chamber’s Political Opponents
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/10/lobbyists-chamberleaks
I am once again telling everyone or anyone who will pay attention. The role of the mainstream media is anything but what someone like Thomas Paine would think it was here in america, home of the lost and bewildered.
How can 4 or 5 owners, neocons everyone and heavily into controlling the gateway of information, of the source of information for what amounts to the dumbstream garden expect the people to be able to form any kind of informed thought? You lose the value of a real M$M, you will just about lose everything. Breaking these monopolies up is imperative to getting people on some kind of real thought process which should have a strong basis in education which is just as important as the M$S being what is should for a functioning democracy of this republic.
I would say, and it would take a certain amount of time to break the narcotization the current M$M has inflicted on the people, but if the media were broken up into the 50 or 60 owners it use to be comprised, it would become harder to deceive and misdirect the people.
Reading is important and Thomas Paine is very important as are the shunted and decried modern day authors as Zinn, Choamsky, Chalmers Johnson, Naomi Klein and others to find basis as to what is happening and how it was done to subvert the information system in america which has to be looked at as totally worthless for the most part because with the 'great' invention of information gathering and editing the computer allows and the distractions of empty t.v. showw, disinformation and no information that abounds, that 'worthless' point is PROVEN!
And the M$M following the everything about the malcontent Palin is, thus reveals her the poster child of the degree it is worthless.
Street Theater!
My sense of humor craves Palin as President. Wouldn't it be great? We'll die laughing before her ineptness kills us! A good way to go, no?
Seriously, though, quit voting for the demopublican swine. Voting doesn't mean much, but might as well vote Nader/Paul. Just pick the strongest anti-war anti-corporate (or at least anti-Fed) candidate and stick with him.
Visit The Onion for hilarious article on just this thing! And I'm with you on the potential comedic-value. Interesting philosophical exercise: if you knew that humanity had to end within the next 20 years by some method of your choosing, would you choose the quick, painless and unforseen comet, or the side-splitting hilarity of Palin et. al., doin' their thing? Perhaps Buddhism should adopt this as the "fifteenth" of their famous "fourteen unanswerable questions."
Nader? maybe.
Paul? Not!
My hopes would rest with Bernie Sanders-Russ Feingold-Dennis Kuscinich-or even Eliot Spitzer running with Elizabeth Warren...Any one or two of these, in any combination would be better than what we are saddled with in the near future...
Not one person in the Political arena are worthy, none of them have any integrity or are working for the people. They ALL work for corporations, and are all Criminals,Liars and weirdo's , so we are in big trouble no matter which way it goes....
Sarah Palin is a dangerous sicko wack job, ego maniac,I would like to knock McCain in the head, for bringing her to America, the lower 48, she is just one more disaster.....that we did not need !
Do Palin and Walker together add up to a full Governor?
No.
I least not in my opinion.
Given the obvious importance of language in propaganda and the concern here in this thread about the propagandistic uses of "America" and "American", and considering the various opinions about that usage that have been expressed here, including the interesting and somewhat different perspective of delia_darrow, I thought readers here might want to consider the propagandistic use of the word democracy by the United States Empire.
So, I am reposting the following comment from another thread as a Reply to this comment :
Article: "The Strange Politics of Fitzwalkerstan: GOP Clerk "Finds" Votes to Reverse Defeat of Conservative Wisconsin Justice."
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/08-2
Excerpt from “A Primer on Class Struggle” by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011.
“The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle.”
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
- - - - -
VeniVidiVici wrote:
“Considering the massive vote fraud in the 2000 & 2004 Presidential Election, many of us wondered, "Who are these people" and "Why are they still walking the streets" How is it that Vote Fraud is not a Capital Crime? To defraud the citizenry of this country is the most heinous Crime there is in that it Violates the Constitutional Rights of us Citizens. If we do have a Democracy, than "stealing" an Election is tantamount to Treason. Treason is a Capital Crime. Off with their heads !”
* * * * *
My Reply:
The United States has never been a genuine democracy, not even a genuine representative democracy.
At best the United States has been during certain periods of its history a well-functioning proto-democracy. A proto-democracy has regular elections that permit voters to choose which members of the elite will governed, but not whether or not the elite will govern.
A proto-democracy can be a precursor to genuine democracy, because proto-democracy includes a number of the important characteristics of a genuine democracy, e.g. relatively fraud-free elections and protection for individual civil rights.
A proto-democracy is not functioning well as a genuine proto-democracy, when there is massive election fraud and serious violations of civil rights.
It must be repeated again.
The United States has never been a genuine democracy.
That is actually good news.
It is good news that the failures of our government and the failures of our society are not the result of the shortcomings of genuine democracy.
It is easy for cynics and pessimists to recount the corruption of the past.
The hard work is figuring out how to establish genuine democracy in the United States.
Unfortunately, too many people don’t really even seem to know what a genuine democracy, either of the direct or representative kind, even looks like.
I expect that the people of Wisconsin will continue to fight back.
They need our support.
And yes, I agree with you, VeniVidiVici. To defraud the people of this country is a heinous crime.
Election fraud might be "a time honored practice", but it is still against the law.
Even proto-democracies make such corrupt behavior illegal. After all the illegality of election fraud is part of the charade, part of the propaganda of free and fair elections.
Even if election fraud was not illegal, it would still be immoral.
But there are more fundamental problems with our elections.
Plurality Voting unduly restricts every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association in ways that prevent the determination whether or not the consent of the governed actually exists for any of the candidates on the ballot.
What is more the restrictions on every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association imposed by Plurality Voting favor the wealthy elite.
The truth of this statement can be found in the very language we use to describe election politics.
Think "lesser of two evils" dilemma, vote splitting, the spoiler effect, wasted vote, the money primary, campaign warchest, the bandwagon effect. The people who control our elections are the people who control the nomination process, and who have the power of large amounts of money at their disposal.
Plurality Voting presents a choice between alternatives giving voters the chance to express a preference with no chance to reject all of the alternatives. Plurality Voting betrays the voters when it denies them the ability to directly vote in support or in opposition for or against each and every candidate on the ballot individually.This is not the way hiring someone for a job works anywhere else in our society.
We the people, who are mostly working class people, are according to the proto-democratic civic myth we learn as children the ultimate sovereign of the nation. We are supposed to be the boss, while government officials and our elected representatives are supposed to be public servants working for us in our best interest.
Consent dissent grading scale based voting procedures give the people the power of the boss, the power of a hiring manager, because these types of voting procedures determine election outcomes in a manner similar to that used by for profit corporations and non-profit corporations when hiring people for a job.
Given the existence of consent dissent grading scale based voting procedures like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting which expand each voters freedom of speech and freedom of political association and genuinely empower voters, given the restrictions on every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association imposed by Plurality Voting, restrictions which favor the wealthy elite; Plurality Voting violates the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
I agree with Milton Friedman at least about this. According to Naomi Klein, author of " The Shock Doctrine", economist Milton Friedman once observed that “only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
The crisis is here!
What we must do is transform our poorly functioning proto-democracy into a genuine democracy.
Replacing Plurality Voting with either Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting in single member district elections is just one step toward establishing genuine democracy in the United States.
Even in federal elections the United States Constitution gives the authority to state legislatures to choose the voting procedure which will be used in our elections.
Demanding genuine democracy should be part of every protest, every demonstration; whether we are standing on street corners, marching in the streets, or occupying the halls and meeting rooms of our state capitols!
PT you say "...consent dissent grading scale based voting procedures like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting which expand each voters freedom of speech and freedom of political association and genuinely empower voters, given the restrictions on every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association imposed by Plurality Voting, restrictions which favor the wealthy elite; Plurality Voting violates the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law."
My reply
Plurality Voting reminds me of a time in Clinton's presidency where he wanted to appoint a woman named Lani Guinier to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in April 1993
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=563
Her Cumulative or Proportional Voting Method theories were subject to the Republican smear machine who took her out like a welfare queen.