Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dispatches from the End of Empire
Well folks, there’s good news, and there’s bad news in America today.
The good news is that people seem to be waking up just a bit to what’s being done to them.
The bad news is that it really is just a bit that they’re waking up.
The good news is that the Republican Party is showing some serious signs of preparing for self-immolation.
The bad news is that that leaves us with Barack Obama and the other Republican Party as an ‘alternative’.
Such is the state of America at the end of empire.
This week, one of the reddest districts in the country voted to send a Democrat to Congress. There was a special election to fill the seat, after the highly moralistic married Republican who had been holding it previously got busted sending out hunky topless pictures of himself as he trolled for a little babe action on Craigslist. What a shock to find that those who lecture us incessantly about our sexual morality turn out to be, er, somewhat hypocritical about it all, eh? If you ask me, it’s one of the few iron laws of political science. You can bet the house that any politician who makes it his or her business to speak and legislate on your sexuality is, in fact, secretly one of the most twisted vines in the jungle. Count on it.
But back to our story. A Democrat won the special election in a hugely Republican-leaning district simply by pointing out that her opponent had said that she would have joined almost every other Republican in the House in voting for Paul Ryan’s Medicare Massacre. Interestingly, that alone was enough to destroy the GOP candidate in what was otherwise going to be a slam-dunk victory. Then, amazingly, Harry Reid actually stumbled accidentally into going on the offensive for the first time in his life, and forced a vote on the same legislation in the Senate, the very next day. Almost every Republican voted for it there as well.
But they sure didn’t want to. Talk about your proverbial rock and a hard place. Your Scylla and Charybdis. These guys are really in a bad way. And, remarkably, because of their own ideological inanity, they are poised to lose a presidential election in 2012 to a guy who by then will have presided over four years of vast unemployment, high gasoline prices, endless wars and unpopular legislation. I mean, think about it. Just how ugly do you have to be to pull off that feat? And all this after having won a crushing victory over Democrats just six months ago.
The problem for Republicans, of course, is Republicans. The problem is that they take their rhetoric and their ideology sorta seriously. Well, that’s fine, but sooner or later one would expect Americans to cease hoisting themselves up for their regular voluntary piñata beating. Yes, even in America, where there seems to be almost no imaginable limitation to the depths of political stupidity, you’d think the laws of political physics would ultimately kick in, and, if nothing else, naked self-interest would be enough to shut down the national rape factory that is today’s GOP.
For a while there, I was wondering if we hadn’t somehow shot through the wormhole into some alternative universe where gravity was inverted or something. As it turns out, what it was instead was that inane voters were more than happy to vote against “wasteful spending”, provided that term referred to welfare for negroes and foreign aid for, well, foreigners. Once you start talking about their own gubmint bennies, well then that’s a whole ‘nuther story, brother.
Which brings us from the laws of physics to the laws of mathematics. Even the magic of religion is not enough to turn lead into gold, try as one desperately might. If you insist on spending even more for ‘defense’ than we already do, and if you insist on cutting tax revenues even more than we already have, and if you agree that defaulting on the interest owed from previous borrowing would be a very bad idea, you then come up headlong against a very stiff and well constructed wall otherwise known as basic math. Even by slashing social spending mercilessly, you still cannot remotely balance the budget given the above sacred cow assumptions as your starting point. Indeed, since the Ryan plan calls for slashing taxes even more than they already have been these last thirty years, what Republicans never tell you is that – according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis – it will actually produce the precise opposite effect to that which is being claimed in order to sell it. It will actually increase debt, not lower it. That’s right. When all is said and done, and the smoke clears, seniors will be far sicker and far deader, in exchange for which the national debt will have only grown fatter. Such a deal.
But the thing for the GOP today is that they have become so rabid that they cannot divorce themselves from their own litmus tests and fairytales, and they are now eating themselves up from within, like the rapacious cancer they in fact truly are. What can you possibly say, this side of Lewis Carroll or Salvador Dali, about a party in which the likes of Newt Gingrich is drummed out for being insufficiently regressive, and just plain lacking in an adequate degree of meanness?
Gingrich, a veritable cartoon of what it means to be a regressive today, pushed the self-destruct button on his own presidential election campaign when he called the Ryan plan “too radical”. It’s not like the guy all of a sudden found morality or something, notwithstanding (actually, despite) his newly-adopted Catholicism he is placing at the center of his campaign. Gingrich is absolutely capable of being, saying or doing anything in the endless quest to salve his boundless personal insecurities by grabbing the White House. So, rest assured that he didn’t make those remarks because he recently got clobbered by the honesty stick or anything like that. What he did was to make a political calculation that killing Medicare was an electoral loser, at least in a general election. He didn’t need New York’s 26th district to tell him that, though ironically he might not have gotten mugged so violently by his own school of pirana if he had waited to make the same remarks today, rather than a week ago.
Might. Quite likely, though, it still wouldn’t matter. There’s a certain powerful suicidal tendency to regressive politics today (which – by the way – suits me just fine). They are, of course, completely divorced from logic, empirical evidence, and, therefore, reality, and completely wedded to dogmatic faith in their magical incantations. That’s why you have to support the Ryan plan to have a prayer at the Republican nomination, even though it actually increases deficits, not lowers them. Math no longer matters. Objective analysis is for socialists. Truth is for pissing on when urinals are otherwise unavailable.
Which brings us to an interesting little field test of just how insane America truly is that is likely to play out over the next several years. The nature of this experiment can be boiled down to one more or less simple proposition and one more or less simple question. The former is that it is increasingly clear that no even remotely sane (or, more accurately, honest) person can hope to win the Republican nomination for president. Increasingly, this logic also applies to other races down the ticket, so that even a far-right senator like Bob Bennett can get primaried out of existence for lack of ideological purity. This is why we’re seeing the astonishingly hilarious sight of human prostitution machines like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty constantly trying on extremely ill-fitting gladiator costumes, and asking us to forget everything about their histories, in a truly pathetic effort to placate the tea party voters of the GOP, who (especially in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina) will be picking the Republican nominee. Get used to it. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. This is the sort of electorate for whom believing that Barack Obama was actually born in America makes you suspiciously Marxist.
So that’s the premise. No one who isn’t as regressive as The Inquisition and as caustic as sulphuric acid will emerge with the Republican presidential nomination. The much beloved (in hagiographic form, at least) Ronald Reagan could never satisfy these monsters, so tame was he in comparison. So the question then becomes, can such a person hope to win the presidency in the general election? And that is the aforementioned test of American sanity.
The last decade – and really, the last three – have not been so good in that respect. I confess that I have spent most of the last dozen years or so with my jaw firmly attached to the floor, incredulous at the idiocy of which Americans are capable. From impeachment, to Election 2000, to the tax cuts, to Iraq, torture and beyond, I have just been stunned at how unenlightened a people we are capable of being. And it’s not a simple matter of policy preference discrepancies, either. It isn’t just that I prefer Path A while others prefer the equally legitimate Path B. I’m sorry, but this is about national hallucination. And, worse, we have mostly been doing this tripping during times of relative prosperity, which raises the question of what the country is capable of when things get worse. Like now, for instance.
It’s hard to get a good reading on America these days. We are, more than anything, in an extended period of political oscillation which reflects, I think, a fairly profound fundamental dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. In 2002, the electorate went strongly for the Republicans and their fear-mongering campaign against the same foreign bogeymen GOP administrations had just gotten done ignoring or, earlier, even supporting. By 2004, this bit was already getting so tedious that a pair of turds like the Johns Kerry and Edwards could almost win the election (and actually may well have, but for the theft of Ohio) against an incumbent president fighting two wars, bathing in the ‘heroic’ glow of 9/11 and presiding over a decent economy. The floodgates then opened in 2006 and 2008, with crushing defeats of Bushism. But these were then quickly followed by the Democratic train wreck of 2010, which seemed a century removed from the election of just two years earlier.
What this represents, I think, is a sort of bratty toddler of an American body politic, badly in need of a diaper change. The little bastard knows that it is unhappy, though it can’t quite discern why. It is agitated and acting up in the name of change, but it wants somebody else to take care of the matter. This country is fighting three or four wars at the moment (or is it more? – I’m a professor of international relations, and I can’t even keep an accurate count), suffering through the worst and most prolonged economic crisis since the Great Depression, is plunged heavily into debt, and is (not) grappling with the über-crisis of global warming – and that’s all just for starters – and yet there were more votes cast recently for American Idol than there were in the 2008 presidential election. Need we say more?
Apparently people are angry, but not angry enough to roll their obese American physiques off the couch, turn off the TV’s latest episode of “This Or That Cloned Breathless Police Drama!”, and actually take ownership of their democracy to the extent necessary to learn about issues and demand credible solutions. Such a combination of angry petulance and a lazy desire to have someone else wave a magic wand and solve the problem is, history has made emphatically clear, quite a fine prescription for disaster. Can you say, “Man on horseback”?
This is the main reason – among very, very many – that the Democratic Party generally and Barack Obama particularly are so disastrous. If no one provides real, constructive solutions, the scary monsters of the right will gladly offer the fake, catastrophic ones. The most charitable reading of Obama is that he seems to believe that affability is what people want in their president. Maybe in the era when Leave It To Beaver was the top show on national television that was true, but certainly not today. People want solutions to personal and national problems, and they want security above all, which has been rapidly eroding under their feet. Hence the electoral oscillations of the last decade, and hence the danger of the present moment.
Very few people will be voting for Obama in 2012, even though he’ll get lots of votes. Many of those will be much more against his embarrassingly lame opponent than for his embarrassingly lame self. His two greatest assets in that election will be the Republicans of yesterday and the Republicans of today. Even in a society as politically immature as is America, there does still seem to be some residual memory of the former, in the form of the national horror show known as Bush/Cheney, though still not enough to prevent the remarkable amnesia/dementia of Election 2010.
As to the present, the only folks on the planet capable of making Obama look like a political giant just happen to be the same folks going for the Republican Party presidential nomination. Gingrich? Palin? Romney? These are like the rejected extras for the midget riot scene from “Banana Republic II: The Empire Strikes Out”. You know you’re talking about a real stinker of a party when everyone’s lamenting the fact that Mitch Daniels has decided not to run for president. Apart from the fact that he’s bald, has bad skin, is about five foot five, and his wife ditched him to run off with some other guy, who she then later dumped to return to Mitch, somebody was bound to mention during the campaign the slightly inconvenient fact that the guy who would have been leading ‘the party of fiscal responsibility’ happened to previously preside over a full doubling of the national debt as George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget. If a loser like this creates a massive vacuum at the top of the GOP by choosing not run, you know you’re looking at a sad sack of a party, indeed. And you are.
I don’t think Obama’s prospects are great for 2012, though they are probably good for precisely this reason of the nature of his opposition. But I’d say the thing to fear is not so much 2012 as what comes after. Obama is not about solutions, unless, of course, you happen to be a partner at Goldman Sachs. So the oscillations will continue. People will vote for the party not in power – even if they just were a mere two years ago, and even if their solutions are laughable – to try for yet another cheap fix. But it won’t work, of course, and each round will breed further desperation. Which will breed further willingness to accept radical and radically destructive ‘solutions’. If you think I’m exaggerating about this, just look at the progression within the Republican Party from Gerry Ford to Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin. Trust me, you don’t wanna know what comes after that.
But the choices are all merely relative when the empire’s in decline. An Obama victory over the forces of madness would represent a mere postponement of the reckoning definitively headed our way, and it’s a very angry fellow indeed. The bad news is that even if the GOP loses, it still wins. Only it’s called the Democratic Party instead.
It may be the Wisconsin and New York’s 26th represent a liberal spring in America, or a long-delayed realization that regressives are not the friends of the middle class. I doubt it. More likely, certain stupid and selfish voters simply revolted from the mantra of slashing government spending when it became their turn to face the meat axe themselves.
But at this point in the history of what has now become a rapidly sinking kleptocracy of a polity, I’d happily settle for even the pathetic politics of self-interest.
Anything that could slow the national pillaging by America’s oligarchs would represent a step in the right (that is to say, left) direction.
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...


49 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Challenging-Obama.htm
It's amazing how few plutocrats it took to overthrow our republic.
But they've been working at it for over 100 years.
there has been an oligarchy since this "republic" was incorporated. Societies that use the currently dominant economic system in which interest is accrued on capital will inevitably be ruled by the largest accumulators of capital.
This means i am even less optomistic than some of the pessimists that we as a species will avoid calamity.
Still, i enjoy watching the show and even play my bit part with gusto, but i no longer worry about, nor expect to influence the outcome much. Plant a big garden. Keep it weeded. Stay out of the hot sun.
Thanks for making the reading so funny. It kept me from crying.
I know that some of America's richest elites are intelligent, and I know that some of them care about the US, and I know that some of them want their children to live in a relatively decent and sane environment. I believe they will increasingly use their money and influence to step away from the insanity of today's republican party. How much intellectual degradation and moral vacuity are they willing to allow in order to maybe make a few extra bucks? Call me an optimist, but I believe we are quickly approaching the end of the line for cartoon look-alikes with serious possibilities as our political leaders. Yes, there are still enough bird-brained tea partiers that have an insanely strong ability to influence primaries, but if (and it's just a matter of time) elites turn the media against these buffoons, then it's all over but the drooling.
OK, you are an optimist. A WILD optimist.
The Republican Party is not the primary problem -- or at least not the sole problem.
Obama, Geitner, Summers, Bernanke -- these are all highly intelligent members of an elite currently running the country. In an abstract sense, I suspect they care about the future of the U.S. and what kind of world their children will inherit.
Yet they serve a system that is all about short-term profit and mollifying entrenched economic elites. Their obeisance to those goals may destroy the country down the road but that is not their immediate focus. They have been carefully selected to perform a role for the present.
The followers of the Republican Party seem to have become "shock troops" for the most regressive and fanatic policies that they can concoct. The party is now so addled by 'market fundamentalism', religious lunacy, bizarre litmus tests on abortion, 'entitlements', and global climate change, etc. that it is difficult to see how any reasonable person could gain control.
However, the 'reasonable' elites in the Democratic Party will compromise with many of these policies -- especially where they may maximize the short-term profits of their benefactors and compatriots on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms, and of course their own ample portfolios of stocks, etc.
They may attempt to slow some of the most egregious follies but if maintaining power requires compromise or even adoption of these policies -- slashing education & social safety nets, privatizing social security, etc. -- then they will adapt.
Essentially, the system is engineered to satisfy the interests of a small oligarchy. Since the public retains some control through voting, a great deal of effort goes into obfuscation, raw propaganda, sheer stupefaction, etc. This can be a bumpy ride but if both parties are owned by corporate elites then it is a "heads I win, tails you lose" arrangement.
We have a class war whereby the top 1% will manage policy -- especially economic policy -- for the other 99%. Ideologically, they will employ nationalism, religion, xenophobia, etc. to ensure policies -- endless war, looting of the Middle Class, a surveillance state, etc. to maintain their revenue stream.
I think it is optimistic to imagine that intelligent elites in an economic oligarchy share our interests downhill.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/151108/why_the_democratic_party_has_abandoned_the_middle_class_in_favor_of_the_rich/
We would need some kind of democratic and enlightened revolt from 'below' to change course and I am not an optimist.
I like your analysis and agree with everything you say, except the last sentence. I am optimistic that ultimately there will be a democratic and enlightened revolt-- unless there is a huge environmental collapse first.
Not only Americans are in the train that has no engineer and is running downhill over a cliff - everyone else is too. It is a game to make fun of the local clowns but it solves nothing. Humanity has over reached because of the industrial age and the oil glut and the planet cannot support it. Nobody is able to achieve the drastic changes that would have to be made right now to even marginally slow down the coming unraveling of all societies. The changes needed are not even able to be discussed openly. As for this country, if the best we can come up with is more American Exceptionalism and more nuclear powerplants, we can be proud of being #1 in speeding up the crash.
Sadly, I agree. The forces of destruction Industrialization set in motion 3 centuries ago are speeding up as we rush headlong into a world with 9 bil. people with a rapidly warming atmosphere fueled by a soon to be runaway pollution culture. Nothing and noone will stop this now. Its way too late. Huge resource wars lay ahead as everyone rushes to have a Hummer in China and India. The Himalaya glaciers are melting and this will eventually cause massive water shortages in India and China and WAR ( probably nuclear in nature) and this just the frosting on this shit cake. The acidification of huge swaths of the oceans is also well underway, with it will come the dying of our food chain from the bottom up as microscopic life perishes and then everything above it begins to die as well. Its too late to stop a world gone "Soylent green" and "Zardoz' ( 2 1970's ear eco-horror films that in retrospect hit the nail on the head ). The wealthy will use their $$ to live in whats left of the planet and they will kill anyone who tries to stop them. We are on the edge of this calamity and oddly most are either in denial or ignorance.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-Dwight Eisenhower, Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower, his brother (8 November 1954)
Yes, Ike, but those stupid people run the country now. And, like fleas, they're a lot harder to get rid of than you might think.
DMG: "Even in a society as politically immature as is America, there does still seem to be some residual memory of the former, in the form of the national horror show known as Bush/Cheney, though still not enough to prevent the remarkable amnesia/dementia of Election 2010. "
One of the Democratic Party's biggest campaign weapons is the amnesia/ignorance of Democrat followers to recognize that the Bush/Cheney years were the Bush/Cheney/Democrat years.
The Democrats supported the Iraq war before and after. The "Bush" tax cuts were passed with the help of Senate Democrats and Obama and the Democrats not only extended those cuts but expanded them. Patriot Act? Give me a break, Democratic support and once again extended by the Democrats.
green spins another gem from the vault
but there is a serious side to the situation that transcends the mess of party politics:
1. gmo food - poisoning our children
2. wars
3. poisoned drinking water
4. chemtrails
5. fascism creep
6. corporate takeover
7. no healthcare
8. no jobs
9. deficits
10. zion
i could go on.........
1. crashing ecosystems
2. extinction crisis
3. dissolving coral reefs
4. low plant stomae numbers
5. halved oxygen producing plankton
6. radiation, enough nuclear warheads to knock the earth off its orbit
7. overpopulation near biodiversity hotspots
8. overpopulation of American consumerists
9. human value placed on meat
I could go on . . .
"If you think I’m exaggerating about this, just look at the progression within the Republican Party from Gerry Ford to Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin. Trust me, you don’t wanna know what comes after that."
I know what comes after that -- Rick Perry.
Ricks Scott and Perry
The best way for the Republicans to defeat Obama would be to let him run unopposed.
"As to the present, the only folks on the planet capable of making Obama look like a political giant just happen to be the same folks going for the Republican Party presidential nomination. Gingrich? Palin? Romney?"
Many of us on this site have been saying this for some time.
What we are watching here is political theatre. The line-up on the political right is deliberately lame, even laughable, so the way can be paved for Obama to waltz in for a second term. Why? So he can continue to do the nefarious work of the political right, assisted by those on the left and the center who still believe that because he is an African-American running in the Democratic Party, surely he can't be all bad.
Folks, Obama has done and will continue to do more damage to progressive causes than any of these yokels in the Republican Party whose motives would quickly be clear and unleash an immediate backlash from the left.
As for the far right's plans for this nation? Think back to the times of western imperialism at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. Entire countries and continents were stripped of any effective representation for the people and rendered powerless to corporate expoitation. Entire work forces in Africa, India and elsewhere were reduced to the cheapest form of labor: slave labor.
That is the future for this country as it is being planned by multinational corporations and other powers behind our federal government IN BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES.
Furthermore, Obama is their choice to lead us down this path because they know there are still people on the left and the center who will forgive him a great deal simply "because he is not a Republican."
Ignore the way Obama walks and talks. It's the way he votes that counts. And his votes are fulfilling the right wing, multinational corporations' wet dreams of a nation devoid of representation for the people and lying prostrate and powerless to resist corporate exploitation.
Our resources are what these multinational corporations want, and they will destroy any government or sense of country or community standing in their way. To accomplish this, they carefully identity and promote any politician who will work with them to eliminate any semblance of government of, by, and for the people.
Sorry, but Obama is one of those politicians.
OLD GUY Absolutely true, and well said. Thank you. Can you donate any brain cells to Greg R? He can't seem to see the Light of Truth, even when elucidating comments like yours are put right in front of him.
Somewhere in his writings, H.L. Menken said that no one ever went broke who underestimated the stupidity of the American populace.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Underestimating their stupidity is a common mistake and will make you go broke every time.
The solution lies in the mass rejection of both (the same?) political parties in the next election. It could happen... even though I doubt it if only because the majority of Americans still rely on corporate media to shape their opinions about anything and everything. If, hypothetically, voters voted for the likes of Ralph Nader, my guess is that corporate America would find a way to nullify the election. That could result in a civil war in which the rich and ignorant would probably come out ahead due to their superior firepower and deep pockets.
In any case, we have a rough road ahead of us.
This article is OK, but I wish that DMG weren't so obsessed with Republican "regressives" to the exclusion of so much else.
He's certainly progressed to a point where he recognizes that its the duopoly itself that is fatally flawed, and that the Democrats are virtually an extension or extrusion of the Republican Party.
But he seems excessively attached to a model of the political process that resembles a paddle ball*-- the toy consisting of a wooden paddle and a small rubber ball attached to the paddle with an elastic string.
DMG puts a lot of focus on the warped, splintery wooden paddle of appalling Republican regressives, and only pauses to note in a perfunctory, backhanded way that the Democrats are fully implicated in a pathological political dance.
But as I read him, he still implies that he regards the Democrats as different in kind, not merely degree-- as if he sees the Dems as reluctantly, even unconsciously, co-opted and coerced partners to the monstrous regressive Republicans.
Thus, he can still lapse into phrases like "[a]n Obama victory over the forces of madness". In DMG's view, Obama is presumably not PART of the "forces of madness", and moreover is a countervailing force, or opponent, to these nefarious forces.
And he doesn't rigorously explain or defend such highly problematic allusions. Apparently he still thinks that Obama (and presumably his party) is politically good-hearted and well-meaning, but too easily overwhelmed and undermined by the forces of reaction and regression.
DMG is uneven on this question, but in this regard he's not very far from the mainstream Democratic liberal apologists like Reich, Kuttner, Hightower, Parry, Nichols et al, insofar as he seems to think that (Team) Obama could rescue a perilous status quo if he just got his head together and his mind right.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_ballA
"Thus, he can still lapse into phrases like "[a]n Obama victory over the forces of madness". In DMG's view, Obama is presumably not PART of the "forces of madness", and moreover is a countervailing force, or opponent, to these nefarious forces."
*******
That line got to me too, O.S., and reminded me of a statement written by Chris Floyd a few days ago recommending Jane Mayer's recent New Yorker article about Obama's relentless attack on whistleblowers:
"Speaking of the Peace Laureate .... I guess it's OK to follow faithfully -- and extend and strengthen -- the very worst policies of George W. Bush ... as long as you don't wear funny glasses and talk about moose, or have a bad comb-over or something. That seems to be the solid progressive consensus in American politics today."
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2129-quick-takes-slaughter-suppression-and-fighting-for-the-light.html
Off with their heads.
Guillotines are not difficult to construct.
Oh, my, every once in a while we have reality based thinking in CD comments. It's unusual and refreshing.
If it was easy, everybody would go for it.
Nuance is important to me. You see Yugo and Ferrari as the same. Both cars. I look at it differently. As I recall there was not much nuance in Blood Meridian.
All the Pretty Horses was my first. There is a paragraph early on in that work that simply blew me away. As they headed out toward Mexico at once both jaunty and circumspect... The whole paragraph was so amazingly compelling. I don't think he'll ever right a better bit than that, but I will always read every novel he births.
I'm finally starting to understand Siouxrose's exasperation with Greg R.
His mealy-mouthed insincerity is like honeyed shit.
You're assuming it's a fair game. You're assuming corporate money, and just plain corrupt money, doesn't tip the scales toward getting corporatists elected. That's why there are so many weasels in politics and positions of power. Not many "genuine progressives" get the big money needed to win. It wasn't a fair game before Citizens United and now it's worse.
I'm inclined to agree with you. It is, after all, how the ugly fascist right took over the R's. The social democrats/democratic socialists will have to do the same to the D's. There is the "money factor" to consider. The oligarchs bankrolled the fascist R's, thus knocking off the "Ike" R's, through a bunch of primaries, over many years time. I imagine a "citizens' union" paying monthly dues to perform a similar bank-rolling operation for gov't of/by/for the people once again (they are few,with much money; WE ARE MANY, with a little money from each, like 50 or 60 million people, times 120 bucks a year= 7 BILLION plus, for a campaigning "warchest"; 14 billion every 2 years, 28 billion every 4 years,140 billion after 20 years operation). The socdems/demsocs/labor movement should have been doing this in the 80's, after the disaster-called-reagan happened( and btw, drop the "socs" name, to be just dems. The fascists don't use the "F" word, they just call themselves R's or D's). It is now very, VERY late in the day for such reform ( at least 10, maybe 20, years too late. I was incapacitated by libertarian koolaid during that time, as were many others. This was, of course, the sole point of oligarch-bankrolled, "think tank"-hatched libertarianism; to unwittingly enable the fascist take-over).
1. Some say the American empire is coming to an end, while others claim America is not an empire and never has been. A superpower, the greatest country in history,but not an empire. History is filled with empire, one after another. If they are so powerful why do they fail? An empire is not a thing. An empire is the collective action of a group of people to take things from other people and other places. They don't fail,they change their behavior until they no longer act like or are defined as empire. It does not happen overnight. This happens because the actions that define empire are not sustainable in the long term. History seams to imply that it is becoming harder to maintain an empire. It appears that the more modern empires are not able to control as many people for as long a period of time as those of the past. Empires decline because they are reactionary organizations. Those that loot and plunder are not capable of long term planning,and ultimately destroy themselves. Being completely reactionary in nature they eventually began to react to their own actions creating a feedback loop that ends with the empire consuming itself in an orgy of violent self interest. Defining common goals, long term planning, building a sustainable economic system these things do not stir the blood like the call to battle. Farmers and carpenters are not put on pedestals, and worshiped like heroes. Hard working nurses and school teachers are not given metals and parades like returning conquerors. We as a nation must develop political leadership that is proactive and progressive. We are at a point in our evolution that will prove if we are capable of avoiding extinction. War and plunder must come to an end or we will. Empires are top down power structures. We need a new paradigm. We don't need to destroy the the empire,but become actively involved in its evolution.
DMG, applause.
I just want to ask you and all progressive men to please stop calling politicians whores/prostitutes. Ladies of the night are pleasure-giving, savvy, hard-working folk who add loveliness and sass to the world. They deserve to be safe and unvilified. Politicians on the other hand are haters who are destroying the planet.
Thanks for the funny commentary. Humor still brings joy to my heart even as the American empire collapses. My hope is that the end of our empire will also end the fossil fuel based global economy and therefore begin the restoration of our biosphere. What's sad is that even the sane politicians believe the illusion that we should base a global economy on perpetual growth in pursuit of profit. Who knows, maybe our lunatic politicians will only hasten the collapse so that we all can start rebuilding our communities based on local, sustainable ecosystems.
But why wait? We better start building local, resilient communities now while we still have cheap energy to do it. We can't rely on the oligarchs who defy our republic every time they trample our rights under the Constitution. The rule of law is dead. We might as well build from the bottom up while we still can. Let them collapse the global economy while we grow our own food and collect water from our rain gardens. We'll probably be healthier for it too! Just have to laugh at the absurdity of it all.
Green asks: "...it is increasingly clear that no even remotely sane (or, more accurately, honest) person can hope to win the Republican nomination for president...the question then becomes, can such a person hope to win the presidency in the general election?"
The election is not for some right wing nut job to win - it is for Obama to lose. I raised money for him, hosted house parties to make phone calls and write letters while other friends went to Nevada and Ohio in person to help get him elected. Although I was not naive enough to think that he would bring about major change, I at least retained hope that he would show some semblance of leadership and some understanding of the Constitution and an interest in honoring and upholding it.
I feel betrayed and will do whatever I can to see him defeated and am certainly not alone although one of the saddest and most disappointing things for me is to see how many liberals just do not seem to care about his betrayals. In reality he has done almost nothing for these people except to be black, somewhat.
But where is the alternative - why aren't the seriously left organizations forming a coalition to present an alternative and where is the list of potentially suitable alternatives? I have had it with voting for the 'lesser of evils.' Evil is evil and I'm not going to support it. At this point I wish I had voted for McCain - at least I feel I could trust him more than Obama. What an Obamanation!