Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Time to Reset Our Moral Compass
Progressives are suffering from debilitating cognitive dissonance. Incapable of reconciling President Obama’s rhetoric with his actions, they have created an elaborate, but flimsy, structure of rationales to harmonize this dissonance. These rationales began shortly after Obama took office, with progressives blaming all those nasty triangulating, progress-by-tiny-increment advisers from the Clinton Administration, who were leading him astray from his principles. From the outset, the Administration supplied it’s own excuses for its failure to achieve audacious goals: “Change comes slowly” and “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Then, despite control of the House and a sizable Democratic majority in the Senate, the party was deemed the problem, because it couldn’t keep its troops in line to get the 60 votes required to pass his agenda. This morphed into a much larger obstacle—the Republicans, following the 2010 landslide. In the recent debt-ceiling debate (and particularly with progressives’ denial that he would actually cut Social Security and Medicare) we’ve seen a rebirth of the meme: “He's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.” Numerous current articles indicate that we now face an epidemic of “he’s just not a competent negotiator” rationale.
In the 1930s, Dorothy Parker said, “Which is worse—the perpetrators of injustice or those who are blind to it?”Glenn Greenwald adroitly addressed this in his April 14, Salon.com article, “Why Do We Assume Obama’s Actually Trying to Enact a Progressive Agenda.” The crisis is now so threatening that a rational mind can no longer make such excuses credible. His supporters correctly maintain that he’s a man of extraordinary intelligence. They seem blissfully unaware that it is impossible to hold this belief concurrently with the notion that he is just not capable of learning the most basic negotiation skills, or that his advisers, who have been both hardened politicians and businessmen and who, after all, include a vice president who was a senator since 1972, are incapable of instructing him in these arts.
Let’s look at the argument that his advisers are preventing him from delivering on campaign promises. Name a manager any field who is not held ultimately responsible for hiring choices. Again, if we assume that the fault is with the advisers, we must concede that Obama was so politically ill informed or did such a poor job interviewing these people that he had no idea what they stood for—not to mention that he refused to fire them upon learning they were reading from a different play script. Further, we would have to entertain the absurd idea that he is powerless to override his appointees’ suggestions. Beyond that, we would have to acknowledge that not only did he make poor choices with his first appointments, but also that he chose badly the second time around, i.e. William Daley and Jeffrey Immelt.
We are long past the expiration date for denying that the Obama we now know— through his actions rather than his words —is anything other than the real Obama. We must come to grips with the fact that much of the rhetoric we heard during the campaign was fraudulent—or more charitably, that we heard only what we wanted to hear. How many ominous signals did we ignore during the campaign?
• The choice of Joe Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate. And his campaign on behalf of Lieberman over the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
• NAFTA. Obama professed to seeking changes in this trade law, but when he was about to give a speech in Ohio (a state devastated by NAFTA), Austin Goolsbee delivered a message to Michael Wilson, Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S., that his criticisms of the agreement should be considered campaign rhetoric, not to be taken too seriously.
• Reagan as hero: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.”
• FISA. Though an Obama campaign statement declared, “Senator Obama is unequivocally opposed to retroactive immunity,” for telecom companies participating in Bush’s warrantless wiretappging, he still voted in the telecoms’ favor.
• Safety net. Politico pointed out before inauguration that Obama echoed “Bush’s claim of an entitlement ‘crisis’, warning of ‘red ink as far as the eye can see’ in Social Security and Medicare. Obama promised that those programs would be a ‘central part’ of his plan to reduce the federal deficit.”
Should liberals blame themselves, as so many are suggesting, for missing these red flags? How can we when so many were convinced of his sincerity? He is the most gifted orator in generations. He made us hear what he wanted us to hear. We so needed to find hope after eight dispiriting years under Bush that we had to believe—the alternative, that he was just another slick-talking politician, would have been nihilistic.
We must stop making excuses for him and stop blaming ourselves for blindly supporting him. Rather, our fault lies in not holding him accountable and pushing back firmly when early in his presidency it was clear that he was not putting up even an appearance of fighting for the changes he promised.
If memory serves, it was during a press conference in which he was defending himself against socialism charges that he astoundingly said: “In many places in the world, I would be considered a conservative.” This may be the most revealingly honest statement he has made, but it’s certainly not what his campaign was about.
By continuing to absolve him, we are unable to move forward with any progressive policies or to demonstrate to Congressional Democrats that we still hold firm beliefs in justice and fairness. The madness of the Republicans has lowered the bar to such an extent that Obama’s capitulations seem sensible by comparison. In the 1930s, Dorothy Parker said, “Which is worse—the perpetrators of injustice or those who are blind to it?” Friends complained about Bush’s war mongering and civil rights abuses, declaring, “Not in my name, do you do this.” Now Obama is expanding these wars (note the Administration’s drive to convince Iraqis to let our troops remain beyond the signed deadline—and remember, ending the Iraq war was central to his campaign). He also is accelerating civil rights abuses, yet I hear not a word of criticism from these same friends. Our silence is surely leading to the death of liberalism—and of hope. What sort of moral compass allows us to condemn actions by one administration only to be silent (complicit?) when our own candidate commits them?
We sit passively as Obama appears intent on proving that his hero, Ronald Reagan, was right: “Government IS the problem.” Progressives must not allow this to happen.
65 Comments so far
Show All"Progressives are suffering from debilitating cognitive dissonance. Incapable of reconciling President Obama’s rhetoric with his actions... By continuing to absolve him, we are unable to move forward with any progressive policies or to demonstrate to Congressional Democrats that we still hold firm beliefs in justice and fairness."
Response: I think Mathews' article makes a lot of good points; however, I think the problem is that Mathews is using the term Progressives to refer to liberals and Democratic Party supporters.
Agreed. The way I parse things these days, an informed Progressive can no longer support Obama. It is simply untenable that the erstwhile leader of the "Left" and of the political party whose clear charge is representing the 'people' should govern from such a far right posture. He is destroying the Democratic Party as an advocate against privilege, against the influence of power and wealth.
Real progressives--those of us who oppose war and corporate welfare--smelled the Obama-rat while he was still in the primaries. We are also used to the American public being easily hoodwinked, bamboozled and gulled into voting against their own best interests. America's moral compass has been pointing in the wrong direction for a long, long time.
Right on point, I'm sorry to say.
I know I caught a hell of a lot of flack from friends who fell for the Obama "hope-a-dope." (apologies to the greatest of all time)
Not sure America EVER had much of a moral compass. Dreamt of one, maybe. But we never got very close to that dream.
sj
The reals dreams were of war, power and money. I pulled this together from an intelligent writer who I respect greatly and depend on to tell the truth:
Gore Vidal interview on DemocracyNOW!
Amy Goodman asks GV to comment on GWB's comments:
“ President Bush said in his (2nd inaugural) speech: "Across the generations, we’ve proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one’s fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It’s the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it’s the urgent requirement of our national security, and the calling of our time." “
GV responds:
“…he seems not to know that the principle founders of the United States, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson to Madison, were all slave holders. So, we started a country with half of the country quite prosperous because of black slaves, African slaves, who were not in the least happy about being slaves, but they had been captured, brought over here and sold back and forth around the country. So, I don’t see how the founding fathers could have committed us to the principle that 'no man should be a slave, and every man should be a master,' or whatever the silly-Billy said. Well, this is a country based on slavery, is also based upon the dispossession of what we miscall the Indians. They were the native Americans, at least before — long before our arrival.
So, we were not dedicated to any of these principles. We were dedicated to making as much money and stealing as much land as we could and building up a republic, not a democracy. The word democracy was hated by the founding fathers. It does not appear at any point in the constitution, nor does it appear in any pleasant sense in the Federalist Papers.
So, we are not a democracy, and here we are exporting it as though it were just something — well, we just happened to make, a lot of democracy, and cotton and tin and stuff like that. So, let’s —-let’s do some exports of democracy. We don’t have it, and most countries don’t have it, and not many countries want it. Democracy was tried only once, and that was in the Fifth Century B.C., at Athens, and finally, they were overcome by an oligarchy from Sparta, and nobody ever tried again to establish a democracy in any country on earth.”
GV talking about Ben Franklin:
(And many of us know this first part) “He had read Aristotle, who explains how every republic has gone crashing. And he was leaving the hall (during Constitutional Convention), and an old lady that he knew said, “Well, men, what are you giving us?” He said, “Well, we’re giving you a republic, if you can keep it.””
“(Then BF was asked); “Why do you take such a dark view of the Constitution? It’s the best work of some of the best people in the United States. Why are you so skeptical?” And he (BF) said, “Well, Aristotle or indeed history tells us that every republic of this nature has failed because of the corruption of the people.””
Corruption of, by and for the people and making as much money and stealing as much land as we can. That is our legacy. We can ignore our responsibility and say it is the corruption of the corporations, but the people (voters and their representatives) are as much to blame. The hope I have is that we (people, voters, representatives) can use our Constitutional system to change this corporate/money/power/resource grab dynamic. Fat chance, but it's all I got.
Agreed. I don't think we ever had much of a moral compass, either, despite our "Christian" pretensions. As to Obama I despise his slick hypocrisy and I am steeling myself for the details of his latest betrayal.
Exactly why I voted for Nader. I'd much rather vote for a sincere candidate who hasn't the ghost of a chance of winning than one who's clearly a hypocrite.
When I saw the movie "Lord of the Rings", I sometimes felt terrified and hopeless.
It's much harder to grasp that we're living it now.
Reality 2011 is much worse than WWII and much more diabolical and clever.
Evil rules!
And there's no Frodo and Sam willing to take the ring and destroy it. Only those that wish to own and use it.
I recommend instead of only viewing the film, you read the books.
I suggest you read the Sword of Truth series if you are interested in fantasy. In that book, there is the Imperial Army hiding behind the Creator's(fundamentalists) idea of what the world should be. They have no qualms of killing, raping or destroying lives to achieve that purpose. Behind them is the Old World basically living in squallor to help them achieve that goal.
That is the same as those that support the wars against Muslims, sending their kids to the meat grinder. In essence, what the US is today. Giving up or freedoms, social safety nets ect, so the MIC can take our money to achieve their goals.
Good series.
Obama is a lying con man who does not care that he is killing millions abroad and destroying the US. The people who still support him are just as stupid as the Tea headers.
Evil rules, indeed.
Interestingly, e-v-i-l spelled backwards is live.
One of the titles of the film series Star Wars was The Empire Strikes Back. What we need here in the United States is to see a real life enactment of The People [and/or The Rebels] Strike Back.
Great essay Norman Matthews. Can you press your theatrical, artistic and literary colleagues to contribute in a similar vein?
~ Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice. ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander. ~ holocost museum
I often hear that Obama is a centrist. Maybe in this age of neocon fascism he's centrist but few would argue against the fact that he is farther to the right than both Reagan and Nixon ever were. Pathetic and alarming.
Mr. Obama is a political invention, pure and simple. I wasn't aware Lieberman was his mentor. That explains even more. Scary actually.
"Should liberals blame themselves, as so many are suggesting, for missing these red flags? How can we when so many were convinced of his sincerity? He is the most gifted orator in generations. He made us hear what he wanted us to hear. We so needed to find hope after eight dispiriting years under Bush that we had to believe—the alternative, that he was just another slick-talking politician, would have been nihilistic."
Yes, liberals should blame themselves for missing those obvious red flags. The alternative would not have been nihilistic but realistic. And I must take exception to him being a "gifted orator." I find his speeches wooden and full of vacuous statements. There is a mechanical quality to his speech, as though the man has no passion about anything. Clinton was a far better orator, and equally committed to the oligarchy's agenda of dismantling the New Deal.
"We must stop making excuses for him and stop blaming ourselves for blindly supporting him. Rather, our fault lies in not holding him accountable and pushing back firmly when early in his presidency it was clear that he was not putting up even an appearance of fighting for the changes he promised."
No, the fault lies in getting caught up in personalities and not seeing the pattern: that all presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, serve a corporate agenda. We must focus on getting rid of a corrupt system, rather than hoping for a superhero president to come in and fix it for us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't 'push back' when a president goes so far astray from his campaign promises. But we have to wake up to the bankruptcy of hoping for sweeping political change at the federal level through the electoral system.
I agree with you, Memory_Hole.
While reading the article, I added the grain of salt perspective that Mathews is obviously addressing mainstream, conventional liberal-lites and progressives milling anxiously and forlornly right in the center of the bell curve.
It's as if he's firmly, but gently, rousing some uneasy sleeper in the grip of a nightmare, hoping to wake them up without further upsetting or traumatizing them.
Thus, he bends over backwards to avoid making them feel worse by ladling on soothing, even anesthetizing, treacle like this:
"He is the most gifted orator in generations. He made us hear what he wanted us to hear. We so needed to find hope after eight dispiriting years under Bush that we had to believe—the alternative, that he was just another slick-talking politician, would have been nihilistic."
I hope that this comfort-the-afflicted approach proves as salutary and therapeutic as Mathews hopes.
The only problem with reinforcing, and provisionally buying into, the face-saving assurance that liberals acted out of the right instincts, attitudes, and reasons when jumping onto the Obama bandwagon in the first place is that it fallaciously credits those instincts, attitudes, and reasons with being essentially sound and unimpeachable.
This strikes me as promoting the unintended consequence of setting up his target audience, or congregation, to make the same misjudgements and mistakes over and over again.
It's reminiscent of a sympathetic parent or other authority figure counselling a heartbroken and bruised child who has become trapped in an abusive relationship-- let's say escaped from the relationship, for the sake of discussion: encouraging the victim to not give up on love, or marriage, or the prospect of learning from such traumatic setbacks and emerging the stronger and wiser for it.
As here, it takes the form of consolation that "it's not YOU, it's THEM".
The wiser counsellor includes-- pardon the hideously misused cliché--
"tough love" into the mix to allow, even force, the victim to confront the inconvenient truth that relationships are always and inevitably transactional.
If they are to avoid falling back into the same errors and traps, they need to confront and work through the issues that ARE "them", and not the abuser.
This is why I've never countenanced the popular "positive thinking" that is really low-level hysterical optimism-- the self-conscious insistence on seeking and staying "positive", and self-righteously rejecting and deploring so called "negativity", "cynicism", and the bugaboo of "nihilism" as toxic and corrosive.
By definition, it willfully and deliberately represses or numbs the critical faculties to preserve the psyche's feelings of well-being and capacity for confidently or enthusiastically taking action, and concomitantly avoiding the risk and prospect of painful but honest negativity, i.e. bad or hard feelings that induce apathy or despair.
Applied to this context, the determination to remain "positive" and avoid "cynicism" and "nihilistic alternatives" on principle is exactly the resolve that will make disappointed and disillusioned victims of Team Obama suckers for the next Pied Piper.
I stand by George Bernard Shaw's lapidary observation: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
OS, agreed. I like the Shaw quote. Reminds me of Aldous Huxley, who said:
"Unless you are steadily and unflaggingly cynical about the solemn twaddle that's talked by bishops and bankers and professors and politicians and all the rest of them, you're lost."
Regarding Obama's oratorical skills, Jerry Ford was arguably the best athlete to occupy the WH. So what?
"We must stop making excuses for him and stop blaming ourselves for blindly supporting him. Rather, our fault lies in not holding him accountable and pushing back firmly when early in his presidency it was clear that he was not putting up even an appearance of fighting for the changes he promised."
The oligarchy established long ago that we place our trust in representative government. Our fault lies in placing our trust in professional politicians that represent the highest bidder,.
"If memory serves, it was during a press conference in which he was defending himself against socialism charges that he astoundingly said: “In many places in the world, I would be considered a conservative.” This may be the most revealingly honest statement he has made, but it’s certainly not what his campaign was about"
Though Obama is a conservative capitalist, he fuels the myth that socialists can't also be conservatives like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc..
Policy over party is an important mantra to consider. We need to hold to old sayings such as "the proof is in the pudding" and not support candidates simply because they talk a good game. They must also "walk the walk."
Regarding Obama's military positions, he made it clear, including on his Change.gov website, that he supported expanding the military and the use of drones, in addition to sending more troops to Afghanistan. Why did progressives not take these points into great concern- if a Republican candidate had offered those platforms, they would have been attacked for them.
Regarding his environmental policy, his track record had been largely non-existent, and he made his support for nuclear and coal known early on.
American citizens put too much faith into rhetoric and not enough into the voting record of a candidate. We must expect and demand better from our political candidates.
Campaign finance reform and electoral reform, combined with reigning in corporate power, remain critical components of the change we all want to see in Washington. Fairvote.org is one source of information on electoral reform, Move to Amend is another.
Elected officials are irrelevant --you could vote every incumbent out of office and the central casting of all political establishment in this country would rustle up a new batch of equally incompetent clowns to repopulate the White House and both houses of Congress.
Those with the real power are the unelected appointees (from the Supreme Court to congressional and senatorial staffers to the directors of the various federal administrative and regulatory agencies). They, in conjunction with tax exempt think-tanks and foundations as well as their corporate patrons, are the ones who drive policy, amend and pass laws, and waltz through the revolving doors of conflict of interest to ever greater wealth and power.
Waldo, your 100% right and I am right there with you. What's the solution? What are we the people to do?
What you are asking is the equivalent of someone in the final stages of cancer asking for a cure.
This civilization is doomed economically, politically, socially, and culturally. We are Babylon prior to its being overrun by the Medio-Persians, Rome with the Vandals and Visigoths at the gatest--we are a country hooked on nostalgia for a past that never really was and could not be brought back if it ever existed.
You are asking for the way out of unsolvable difficulties. If you don't believe me, just watch how this coming week unfolds in Congress and the White House.
Better yet, wait till about this time next year when the peddaling of all the political candidates begins in earnest.
Class war, economic depression, and societal ennui are the equivalent of a death rattle for a dying civilization.
Barry is what he's always been a White Harvard trained Corp. lawyer inside a black man's skin. He's in short a Republican in drag.
I can't but feel the Tea Party phenomenon is part of this push to make Obama seem leftist (and sane) by comparison. Could what we are witnessing be that comprehensive?
ubrew12, yes, it could be that comprehensive. The tea baggers are the product of the Koch Brothers, Fox News, et al. The oligarchs' purpose is to push the whole spectrum to the extreme right, which then makes Obama's already rightwing approach seem "reasonable" after being laundered through the corporate media spin cycle.
I believe you are right. Indeed, the comprehensiveness of what we are witnessing has lately struck me in its global nature. I do a lot of reading at 'automatic earth', and they talk about what's going on in the Euro Zone lately. And its clear that the WHOLE THING, the whole shebang, is 'disaster capitalism'. The loose-credit Bush bubble years, the housing/derivatives bubble (not just in America, but globally!), the crash in which only the finance sector can emerge whole (thanks Fed!), the rightwing crazies unleashed to make 'centrist' politicians look sane. The rise of 'centrist' politicians who are actually pushing austerity measures on the general public (aka 'you pay for our generosity towards the wealthy bondholders, OK?'). Its happening everywhere, all at once, not just in the US. Greece may feel the pinch first, followed by Ireland or Spain, but you can see, already, the vultures lined up to dine on the American public.
Who here has voted for the lesser of two evils (viz. you didn't like the Democratic candidate, but the GOP's was a nut job)? Congratulations, you fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book. It doesn't require "comprehensiveness" just a docile public that doesn't look past the front page. Works every time and will keep on working, because frankly, Americans are stupid. The beauty of it is, it doesn't matter who gets elected, the corporatists win and the people (aka suckers) lose.
Memory: You defined the way I see it... these people work through media, so they understand the power of PR, staying ON message, that lies told often enough are taken for true, the power of spectacle, and the necessity of a compelling story line... it's all that and more, with HUGE $ behind it. Who needs Hollywood when elections are themselves the great cinematic deception of our era! (Down to touch screen voting that only counts for the candidate whose numbers are already programmed in; but heck, it's a convincing prop to most.) And those of us who see through are seen as the crazies, the conspiracy theorists, the tin hat brigade... that's quite an accomplishment, to turn Truth itself into the realm of the improbable.
This is what happens when the air waves that belong to The People are sold to the scum-likes of Murdoch. Five minutes of watching Fox News would send a person to an insane asylum WERE these times of sanity...
Two things: First the obvious problem of talking about "progressives" only in the sense of beltway definitions. Plenty of progressives in the rest of the country don't suffer from any cognitive dissonance at all, and see Obama for the total sellout he is.
Second is the assumption that we are able "to hold him accountable" in any way that would make a difference.
You only have to look straight at the MSM writers, comedians & other 'celebs' and other brain trusts (official or self appointed & spawned from families of privilege ) who did their part to force the elixir into the mouths of the desperate masses who quickly drank and swallowed the toxic drink called 'The Obama'. It's still their specialty Drink of the House, and by a number of recent essays, seems to be selling quite well.
Before resetting our moral compass, we need to find common sense. The corn syrup population in faster poo-food Amerikan doesn't have much. I rest my case with devotees of 'Mr. Oxycontin' on talk-hate radio... and the Tea-KKKlaner buffoons for the capitalist/fascist Koch Brothers. Rome is burning. But... that's okay! I have concluded we have to burn down the village in order to save it.
real hope only begins where illusions end. it's not the president playing the part of naked emperor here—it's 21st century capitalism, a dead man, a vicious deadly stinkin' zombie, walking around naked, feasting on brains, and folks struggling to pretend they don't see or smell the noisome pestilence, don't notice the heaps of victims piled all over the streets. look out liberals YOU"RE NEXT...
agree...
While the kindhearted gentlefolk of the left placed their ill conceived hope for peace and good government into the hands of a con man, the right wing neofascists laughed quietly all the way to the bank. "What fools these liberals be," they cried.
What now, oh gentlefolk? Back to the quiet parlor for wine and cheese?
Obama's approval rating among Democrats is still at 71% even if his policies have been shown to be consistently right wing. I don't think cognitive dissonance explains it. A simpler explanation is just that he was elected as a charismatic figure and retains support at that level without most of his supporters ever digging any deeper.. And it will probably be that way in 2012 too. But it shows the folly of electing someone on the basis of likability or charisma doesn't it. There's talk of a primary challenge to him in Iowa and I hope it happens but do you think most of those primary voters will in any way hold Obama accountable, will ever say that they will vote against Obama because he does not share their moral principles? No, they will vote for him again on a superficial triangulating estimate that he is a more "winnable." candidate. I wish we had Democrats with enough charecter to feel cognitive dissonance. Matthews talks about, " I don't like his policys but I want him to win." It's more like, " I like Obama and want him to win--what's that about his policys?"
Now, now, let's not slander moral compasses by claiming that Americans ever had one.
Wow norman, you must have felt the winds shift. It takes no courage to criticize "O" while everyone else is doing it. Where have you been for the last 30 months?
Now you try to spoon feed us what we already know and have known for a long time. Would the real journalists please step forward, if there are any?
First steps in resetting the moral compass: Don't allow youself to be influenced by "framing" of one element of the power elite or another. Look at the picture, not the frame. Eschew "cool" in all its manifestations . Don't let branding and manipulation get you all cuddly. Reject them as you would reject an alien parasite that entered your soul.
Good luck.
Dorothy Day: Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system.
"Hmm, I distinctly rember being told , repeatedly by gushing media persons that the obama admin was staffed by the best and brightest minds in America aka the academic elite."
And yet that statement may still be entirely true. Scary, isn't it? A bright mind isn't necessarily moral or ethical, and a beautiful mind, as Babs Bush showed us, is neither.
I for one don't buy the supposedly 70% or so approval rating among "liberals" that we here about in the news. At least if the people in my blue collar agricultural town are any indication.
The one and only thing Obama has going for him into the 2012 election is what this administration has been banking on since day one - "Who the Hell else are they going to vote for."
As to whether Obama is playing chess instead of checkers, this is the wrong analogy. What's actually happening is that we're witnessing the political equivalent of the fabled Tortoise and the Hare Race. Both are racing to the same goal of entrenched fascism controlled by a tiny ultra wealthy elite, but the Republicans are attempting to get there by leaps and bounds while the Democrats are taking the slow and steady pace.
The people actually do hold the true power in this nation. We have our votes which actually do matter and we hold the keys to the nation's true wealth which is our labor. The single largest problem in the U.S. as far as I can see is that we have a sufficiently large enough segment of the population who for lack of a better description are self loathing, working class sadists, who believe if they just shut up, do as they're told and participate in the oppression of their fellow workers they'll be amply rewarded. Too harsh? I used to think so, but not anymore. Take these Boeing employees in South Carolina who are celebrating the screwing of Boeing's Washington workers because their plant will gain more jobs. 50 or 60 years ago BOTH plant's workers would be on the same side because back then workers knew that to let one group get screwed just invites management to bend oneself over.
Here our local news station gathered a small group of Republican, Democrats, and Independents to see if they could come up with a debt deal while Congress flails. Well they managed to do it in only one hour. 2.4 Trillion in cut and tax increases. Yet these "average" citizens also cut Social Security and NOT ONE questioned why Social Security was being placed into the general budget. Absolutely F*ing amazing.
>>>>> As to whether Obama is playing chess instead of checkers, this is the wrong analogy.
Methinks he's playing water polo.
Nope, he's playing golf. With his buddy Boner.
"Now watch this drive!"
set the moral compase to when?
He not playing Chess, he's playing Twister.
If we listened to our moral compasses and acted accordingly we'd have no need for government.
I agree with this statement. What it implies, though does not say directly- is that if the government is in opposition to one's moral compass- then there is an obligation to oppose government and the foundation of its rule. Too often people believe they fulfill their civic responsibilities by abdicating their moral compass and voting for the lesser of two evils. This is not freedom- but a kind of bondage. It is one thing to recognize evil or misdoing- it is quite another to do something about it. I am firmly opposed to violence in any form. Yet short of this, there is much that we can do...
What can I say to this. I can live my life in accordance with what I believe. Something I am now doing. The harder government reacts- the greater the level of violence-the more it shows its weakness. However, I do not assume the inevitability of any outcome. The point of civil disobedience is not to be persecuted, but to effect change. Your words tend to engender fear- not action. I can chose to be non-violent- what others do, I cannot control or entirely predict.