Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Better World’s In Birth (Maybe)
If it feels to you a bit reminiscent of 1968 these days, that’s because it is.
And that’s a good thing.
It’s starting to look like 2011 was the year of Basta!, when people finally woke up and found the voice with which to say Enough! To say that it comes in the nick of time is like saying that Rick Perry could afford to study a bit harder. In fact, this development is long overdue.
I don’t see much evidence to suggest extensive linkage between the various national uprisings we’re witnessing, or even much of a contagion effect – except perhaps in the Middle East – but nevertheless a host of countries have produced unprecedented popular dissent movements over the last year. In fairness, it’s probably accurate to say that 2011 actually started in 2009 in Iran, but this year alone has seen major uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Bahrain, Greece, the UK, the US, and Israel, among others. Now, even Mother Russia has been added to the club, while China appears to continue along on something of a slow boil.
Such developments often come in generational waves. The events of 1989 might be an example, though they were more regional in nature, and were the product of a singular cause, the collapse of Soviet hegemony in its neighborhood. 1968 provides the better exemplar, when France and Mexico and the US and Czechoslovakia and other countries rather spontaneously and rather separately experienced highly significant near-revolutions. Though the direct relationship between these respective events was rather tenuous, they shared a common ethos of a young generation rejecting the inheritance they were being offered by an older one whose core value system – rooted in materialism, war, prejudice, hypocrisy and multifarious forms of planetary destruction – was, oddly enough, increasingly found wanting.
It strikes me that we’re seeing some of the very same sort of behavior today. That’s no surprise. Indeed, the only shocker to me is that the response has taken so long, and that it continues to be so tame. The foolishness of our day’s ruling class day is epic in its proportions. As if that isn’t bad enough, foolishness is actually a far too generous diagnosis. Like, say, a Newt Gingrich or a Barack Obama, these are not stupid people, and therefore the malady which besets us is far worse than some product of world class bumbling. More than anything, ours is time characterized by greed, on a scale which can only be compared to a Hitler or a Genghis Kahn, or other great historical predators. That may seem like a ridiculous stretch, but one look at the political mechanics behind our policy indifference (on a good day) to the threat of global warming alone produces an indictment few figures in history can match. Add in the wars based on lies, the absence or dismantling of social programs in order to feed the greed of untaxed billionaires, the mortgaging of our children’s futures to pay for the same, and more, and you’ve got a pretty grim bar tab the oligarchy has run up there.
Lucky for these agents of destruction that heaven and hell is just a myth to feed the little people they exploit so adroitly. It sure would be funny to watch what would happen if one of them actually started believing in that crap and felt compelled to do some serious truth telling, a la Bullworth. Well, funny, that is, for about five minutes, until that individual inevitably came to experience a rather inexplicable but nevertheless quite sudden and quite enduring absence of consciousness. Must have been something he ate. The Lobster Cyanide, perhaps.
I’d feel a lot better (which is far from saying good) about what they’re doing to the rest of us if I thought they were mere idiots. It’s just unbearable to me to know that our demise is instead the product of a combined greed and cynicism that is all but unfathomable in its scale. These sociopathic Masters of the Universe have learned just how easy it is to animate and motivate the pathetic army of clones amongst the hoi polloi to do their bidding and hand over all manner of riches to a one-tenth of one-percent who have long ago exceeded even the capacity to spend the additional sums. What mutant DNA or childhood trauma causes a billionaire to rabidly pursue further billions at the cost of millions of people’s basic livelihood and dignity? And what missing CPU chips make it so easy for those millions to exchange their modest perch in the middle class for a nice war or two against a brown-skinned dictator who only yesterday was on the CIA payroll, or the warm feelings that come from some tasty racist, sexist or homophobic discrimination closer to home? The mind fairly reels.
Ah, but here we are, nonetheless. It’s quite amazing when you think about it. Just at the same moment when particle physicists are on the verge of unlocking the secrets of the Higgs Boson, you can still get tens of millions of slobbering American rednecks to dance in the streets over the prospects of murdering some poor mentally retarded SOB on death-row in Texas whose drunken lawyer slept through the trial, and whose appellate court ‘justices’ didn’t see any harm in any of that. Did I mention that the individual in question was not part of the one percent?
At the same time, however, there is some good news, which is that such idiocy seems to fast be going the way of, say, the novelty of Paris Hilton. It’s yesterday’s titillation, today’s embarrassment. Part of that, at the risk of being crass, is owing to pure generational replacement. Older people in America – as a generation, certainly not always as individuals – are simply more ignorant, malevolent and backward compared to their grandchildren, which would be more problematic than it is except for the fact that they are at least decent enough to be dying off.
Meanwhile, though, what makes 2011 2011 is the growing sense that waiting for Grandpa Bucephelus to do the right thing and help heal the planet a bit by departing from it is no longer enough. Young people are staring down the business end of both barrels of a wholly bleak future right now, and – go figure – they’re not happy about it. And, no, thank you very much, Mr. Perry, Ms. Bachmann and friends, they’re not very interested in trading their quality of life for a blivet full of prejudices, phony wars, or some laughably contrary but far less laughably pernicious shuckster’s moral lessons derived from the tribal skirmishes among certain Jordan river valley nomads thousands of years ago.
Yeah, imagine that. You take a bunch of twenty year-olds, load them up with debt from all the misadventures and crimes that you (adding special circumstances to your original felony) refused to even pay for, show them a future of living at home with mom and dad while fighting amongst themselves for the honor of toiling away in an unpaid internship at some soul-numbing corporate palace of predation, and – surprise, surprise – they get a bit rowdy in response. Like I said, the only questions are why it’s taken so long and why is the response so tame?
That latter question may grow moot over time, as it did, for example in Libya. Meanwhile, though, despite the seeming spontaneous and indigenous quality of each of these various national uprisings, it seems to me that they share three things in common.
First, the participants recognize an absence of real democracy in their governing structures. In some cases, such as Egypt’s thirty year dictatorship complete with sham elections where HMFIC Mubarak would win over 90 percent of the vote, this is more obvious than in others. Like, say, for example, the American system, where sham elections instead consistently give more than 90 percent of the vote to the two wings of the same Corporate Party. Regardless of whether you have the choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, or are merely confined to voting for Tweedle D. Dumb alone, people everywhere seem to be recognizing that they in fact have no choice, and thus no democracy, at all. If Americans, for example, ever had a one-person-one-vote system, they sure don’t anymore. Now it’s strictly one-dollar-one-vote. Heads, corporate America gets subsidies, deregulation and externalized production costs; tails, you pay their taxes for them. Usually, though, it’s heads and tails, at the same time.
Which brings us to the second characteristic that these cases have in common. It’s not an accident that real democracy is off for an extended holiday in each of these countries. It must be, in order that the kleptocracies these nations have actually become can continue to function, largely unimpeded and uninterrupted. Turn your nose up in haughty disgust at Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe if you want (and you definitely should), but I’ve got some bad news for you. Bad Bob’s ugly regime is only different in scale and overtness from those of Egypt, Russia or the United States. To choose what is merely the most prominent example, right now the United States spends more on its military than all the other countries of the world combined – that’s nearly 200 nations, for those of you keeping score at home – and yet has no serious enemies anywhere on the horizon. Gee, I wonder why that is. Then there’s the case of global warming, which appears to merely be the greatest threat to imperil the planet since the last massive meteor hit and wiped out most life on Earth. No biggie, though. I’m sure it’s all just a massive coincidence that we’re doing nothing about the collective future of ten billion people and the fact that filthy rich, well-connected fossil fuel peddling corporations would lose money if we did.
All of which leads to a third commonality in each of these cases, which is that of young people surveying the landscape of their future and being a whole lot less than excited about the wreckage they see already strewn thereupon. And what’s not to like? Corporate loyalty to employees and lifetime tenure in good career jobs went out with the transistor radio. Public commitment to inexpensive quality education got real quaint real fast when investor bots like Mitt Romney figured out there was money to be made there. Thirty years of tax cuts for the wealthy have to be paid for, and those folks sure as hell not going to be doing it, leaving the tab to you and me instead. The one environment on the one planet we have has been knowingly pissed away by corporate Strangeloves who have absolutely set the all-time world record for sociopathy. But, hey, so what if it’s hot and stormy outside? These kids will be hunkered down in their parents’ basements for the rest of their lives, anyhow, at least when they’re not serving up double mocha lattes.
I am amazed at how long people stood by and watched these conditions develop, especially outside of thuggish dictatorships like Russia or Egypt, where dissent came with real and permanent risks to one’s health. Shame on Americans, in particular, for being so stupid and lazy as to buy into the transparent lies and distractions of the Age of Reagan, and sacrifice their futures and those of their children in exchange for the occasional infantile satiation of their worst tendencies toward violence and bigotry. Aren’t you glad we got Noriega, now, Billy Bob?!?! Isn’t that satisfying, even though you don’t have a job or a house anymore? And thank god the queers can’t get married, eh?! Building a wall to keep Mexicans out sure is satisfying, isn’t it? Yeah. Too bad, though, that we had to trade away the middle class for those seedy little thrills, and drive the country so far into the ditch that we actually solved our illegal immigration problem. Mexicans have literally stopped coming to the US because they can get as much jobless poverty as they want just by staying home, without the nasty demonization crap from drunken gringos trying to paper over their insecurities.
A recent piece in the New York Times summarizes our condition well: “In a Bertelsmann Foundation study on social justice released this fall, the United States came in dead last among the rich countries, with only Greece, Chile, Mexico and Turkey faring worse. Whether in poverty prevention, child poverty, income inequality or health ratings, the United States ranked below countries like Spain and South Korea, not to mention Japan, Germany or France. ... No nation has ever lost an existing middle class, and the United States is not in danger of that yet. But the percentage of national income held by the top 1 percent of Americans went from about 10 percent in 1980 to 24 percent in 2007, and that is a worrisome signal.”
But America’s short-term future looks even more dismal than the present, if that is imaginable. The Republican presidential field this year could have stepped off the set of any B-rate Hollywood horror film. Or maybe “The Sting”. True to form, a good half the candidates are straight-ahead shucksters, pure and simple, who have borrowed directly from the pioneering Sarah Palin’s playbook. It turns out that you can make a boatload of money in Republican politics without actually having to do anything remotely onerous, like, say, knowing something about the issues (China has nukes?) or actually serving a full term in office. Two of these confidence men have actually been the GOP flavor of the month at some point this year (four, if you count Palin and Trump, who were so skilled at the game that they never even got in before getting out), and one of those two now looks like he’s going to win the nomination.
Somebody (I wish it had been me) recently described Newt Gingrich as “a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like”, and boy is that ever the truth. He might also be understood as an amoral sociopath’s idea of what a good person sounds like. You can get just about everything you need to know about Gingrich from this one exchange between him and Wife Number Two (of three, and counting) in an Esquire feature published last year:
“He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
“He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
“The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, ‘How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?’
“‘It doesn't matter what I do,’ he answered. ‘People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live.’”
It’s worth noting, by the way, that Gingrich had asked his third wife to marry him before telling his second wife that he was having an affair and wanted a divorce, and that this repeated the pattern of how he left his first wife. But now he’s Mr. Faithful, Mr. Pious and Mr. Moral, lecturing the rest of us on proper codes of ethical behavior. This from a guy who proposes scrapping child labor laws. This from a guy who would deny the Palestinian people even the essence of their identity in order to pander yet further to the Likud Lobby and its stranglehold over American politics. This from a guy who – as Barney Frank rightly notes – is more or less singlehandedly responsible for the poisoning of the well of American political discourse these last two decades. This from a guy who ditched his first wife on her hospital bed as she was recovering from cancer surgery, so that he could marry the woman with whom he had been having an affair.
What kills me is that tens of millions of Americans could want to put this obviously tortured soul in the White House, drooling, chanting and hollering in response every invocation of violence and hatred he casually tosses out like so many rhetorical hand grenades. But then this is the nature of our politics. There is this incredibly sick segment of the country – people who look to politics as a chance to vindicate their resentments, justify their hatreds and exonerate their stupidity – and the contest among the GOP candidates is to find the individual who can throw them the most red meat. If you’ve watched the crowd response at any of the debates these lot have been conducting the last few months, you know exactly what I’m talking about. But it’s been there a good long while. Reagan got elected, in part, because he promised to kill more foreigners than Carter would. No joke. Lil’ Bush ‘won’ his first term (as did Clinton, in part) pretty much on his record as a proud and overt serial murderer of Texas death-row inmates. Then, this dress-up-macho Vietnam coward ‘won’ his second term by out tough-guying a dude who actually did fight in a real war, or at least Bush did so in the minds of these very unwell Republican voters, whose capacity to grapple with the cognitive dissonance driven by avalanches of pesky factual data makes Lindsay Lohan look like a paragon of mental health by comparison.
So there is every chance that Brute Thing-Itch might be the next American president. I thought for sure it would be Tough Guy Rick Perry, instead, but GOP voters surprised me by demonstrating that they actually do have a stupidity threshold of some sorts. It’s perfectly fine to tell them the most obscene lies (like where Palin says she reads “all” them journal thingies, or when Mutt emphatically changes his position on everything imaginable). You just can’t reveal that you’re as dumb as a Texas governor (even if you are one) on national TV by doing that deer in the headlights thing. If you’re gonna list three things, well godammit, you need to come up with more than two. (Christ, Fool, just make them up if you need to! Like that would be so out of character for a GOP politician or voter.) Anyhow, call it tough love if you want, but Republican voters appear to have their standards, and Oh-Shit-I-Left-My-Brain-Back-At-The-Ranch-(Again) Perry doesn’t seem to meet them. I guess when national politics is part of your personal mechanism for avoiding embarrassment, it’s important that your candidate not play the drunken fool in front of millions...
Anyhow, it now looks like Fig Newton could well be standing on the inaugural platform in January of 2013, and I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing in the short term or the long term. I’ll be delighted to see Obama humiliated and destroyed, for one thing. My antipathy toward him (and Bill Clinton) in many ways surpasses that for the GOP line-up of thugs and bugs. All of the above have the same fundamental commitments to the same cadre of ruling plutocrats, but Obama and Clinton have also managed to destroy the New Deal Democratic Party and the reputation of progressivism in the bargain. And their deceits have been all the more treasonous because of the millions of progressives (including loads of young people, politically mobilized for the first and possibly last time in 2008) whose idealism, compassion and genuine love of country they’ve so callously trampled upon.
On the other hand, now that Obama is ramping up the Big Lie machine once again, many of those people will get just what they deserve. What was that line Bush mumbled about fooling me twice? I’m astonished to see progressives gearing up to be abused a second time by Obama – who is all of a sudden sounding like a progressive again – like they’ve walked right out of a Stockholm Syndrome field manual or something. Are we talking about the same guy here? The one who put the actual bandits who wrecked the economy in his cabinet? The one who has not prosecuted a single Wall Street bankster? The one who bailed those thieves out, but has done nothing remotely serious for the unemployed and homeowners? The one who pretends to fold in every negotiation with Republicans? The one whose staff regularly disses progressives?
That guy? Hey, liberal idiots. I have a question for you. Do you really think this bastard is going to become FDR in his second term? Do you really think he’s going to seriously slash military funding in order to save Medicare? Do you really think he’s going to rescind his deal with the insurance industry in order to provide genuine public health care access? Do you really think he’s going to replace Timothy Geithner with Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz? I mean, this is a guy so beholden to Wall Street that he pretended not to have the courage to nominate Elizabeth Warren to the new consumer affairs position she invented. Are you really going to be wooed by him again? If so, if you’re so easily abused by your political class, you might as well line up to be Newt’s fourth wife for all the street smarts you’re displaying.
This country – and likely this global economy – are going to have to go through a shit storm over the next two or three years, and in many ways I’d much rather have some GOP jerk in the White House to make things worse and get the blame than another four years of Half-a-Bama, carrying water for Wall Street while dissipating the anger of stupid liberals who cannot recognize their own enemy just because he puts ‘D’ after his name, and especially if he does so while being black. We have to get to the point of utter rejection of kleptocratic politics in this country, and the way I see it, a second Obama term drowns that process in molasses, while the sure to be utterly egregious Gingrich could instead be the perfect lightening rod to fully energize the street. The guy is a disaster in every way imaginable, and is a plague I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy (that would probably be Gingrich, anyhow), but right now he might be just the chemotherapy needed for a very, very sick country.
Yes, we’ll lose our hair and vomit continuously.
But perhaps we’ll finally destroy the cancer of greed which has metastasized in the American body politic.
- Posted in


97 Comments so far
Show AllGood piece, but why does Mr. Green limit the illness to the body politic?
This is the best piece Ive read on CD: move over Mr Hedges you've just met your long lost Twin Brother.
________________________________________________________________
Could you imagine a Green/Hedges ticket or Hedges/Green ticket? Imagine the monkey wrench in the system if Nader was appointed head of Justice, and Greenwald Sec. of State, and Amy Goodman Sec. of Defense. Where the norm of law would be respected and crimes against humanity would be the first order of business starting with prosecutions of Messers, Obama, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Clinton, Guethnier, et al. This could kick off huckster month by cutting the military budget in half and using the money on Single Payer, and sustainable energy. Just imagine, instead of downsizing the social programs they could be boosted. Next order of business is a living wage of 18 buck per hour... and, oh well, its Christmas time, we can all dream before we awake in the next nightmare of status quo corruption and greed of either another Obama presidency or his twin Newt Romney Paul.
"Could you imagine a Green/Hedges ticket or Hedges/Green ticket?"
I don't imagine politics anymore. I mean, I just don't put any energy into believing anything positive will come from the American version of "democracy." We're too far over that at this point.
Once again, for those in the back row: It's all up to us. Forget the dreams.
Yet another powerful post. Thanks.
"It's all up to us. Forget the dreams."
If the government were actually the seat of power, and if had we any power ourselves to effect any change in the government, and if voting had anything to do with who is in power, then it would perhaps make some sort of sense to consider your suggestion.
There is far more wrong with the system than merely having the wrong people holding offices. I don't think the current system could ever be used to benefit the many, since it is so exquisitely tailored to serve the few.
But as you say, you may as well dream.
Two Americas;
I'd like to share a thought with you. I had to make a fundamental decision regarding my time. A group of men have been in a 'conversation' about matters of the day. The time had come to decide if we should move from discussion to "activity" which meant a greater level of commitment. Considering the enormity of the struggle. all were not ready to challenge this situation of "structured injustice", A brief internal struggle ensued. I decided, if all I could do was talk about the situation, I would do that with all my might. Further, I would not knowingly engage in any activity that strengthened this situation of "structured injustice". There is a spirit about, that seeks union to increase its presence.
Understood. Well said. I agree.
I agree with you 100% twoamerikas. I was just being ironical. Don't take any wooden nickles, my friend... :)
A 10 out of 10 for Green. His last paragraph lingers to bite, though. Yeah, if you have no kids or grandkids, you can root for the GOP in the next election, waiting for the coming of the Holy Grail in an election to come, but if you place any value at all in the well being of our species, not to mention the well being of our planet, you won't be rooting for the likes of Gingrich or Mitt. Am not saying I would vote for Obama in 2012 but I would pause to consider the consequences of a GOP victory. Am not anxious for Armageddon.
Actually the left and democrats would rise up to fight the policies of a republican president.
With Obama the left and democrats simply roll over for the Very Same policies a rightwingnut would push.
Don't buy the Lesser of 2 Evils strategy - because if you look empirically at the effect of the Lesser of 2 Evils strategy over the last 30 years it's been an unmitigated disaster - now the democrats are further to the right than the republicans were just a few decades before.
Just look at the Tea Party -They stand their ground and they kicked out incumbent republicans in the primaries and it pushed the debate to the right.
Still, you have to consider history: if Gore had won, we would not have had Iraq. We would not have had tax cuts for the rich. In that instance, at least, the lesser-of-two-evils strategy would have had a good payoff.
We don't know that - following that line of thought IF Obama had lost one would say 'at least Obama wouldn't have bailed out the banksters' Or ' at least Obama would have ended the wars and quit the outsourcing to private military contractors.
Obama would have reinstated the fired Ag's.
Obama wouldn't have Extended the Tax Cuts for the rich.
Sorry but I'm not buying your argument.
Bush still needed Demo-craven support in the senate to pass his 2001 tax cut. Of course, the D's came though for him.
.
Also, the Bush tax cuts for the rich are now the Obama tax cuts for the rich ... O took ownership last year when he extended them ... to the tune of something like $800 billion dollars ... and a just a few weeks later proposed a budget that cut over a trillion dollars mostly from programs that help the middle classes and poor.
,
And Iraq? Clinton imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in the 90s that Unicef says caused the deaths of about half a million children due to high malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases that spread more rapidly as the country's infrastructure began to break down. When asked by 60 minutes about the deaths of half a million children that were caused by the sanctions... Clinton's Secretary of State said "we think the price is worth it." .... that's 5000 children dying every month.... "worth it."
In 1998 the assistant secretary general of the UN who was in charge of coordinating the UN's humanitarian efforts in Baghdad resigned saying that the sanctions hurt the Iraqi people and increased Saddams power and that "I don't want to administer a program that amounts to genocide." Two years later his successor at the post resigned as well ... calling the sanctions a failure and "a true human tragedy."
.
If that's not war ... I don't know what is.
.
Here's an inconvenient truth for you .... during the 2nd presedential debate (Oct 2000 Wake Forest University) with Bush Al Gore said "I was one of the few members of my party to support the former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution. We (the clinton administration) maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further."
.
Al Gore was even more of a war hawk than Clinton ... hardly distinguishable from Bush. During the same debate Gore even admitted there was hardly any difference between his proposed Iraq policies and Bush's .... asked by the moderator "Is there any difference" between the two candidates middle east policies .... Gore said "I haven't heard a big difference."
.
And the coups de grace? The fact that Al Gore chose the pre-eminent and bloodthirsty war hawk (and also the Senatorial mentor of the current President) Joe Lieberman as his running mate.
.
If Gore had won ... we would have had Iraq.
.
We are both indulging in speculation. Gore is/was more intelligent than Bush and better informed about issues. He would not have declared war against Iraq because Iraq played no part in 9/11. He probably would have sent troops into Afghanistan after 9/11--that is, assuming he would not have headed that tragedy off before it happened. Probably fair to assume Gore's environmental policy would be more sensible than Bush's. No, you put a dumb bell into office and you pay the consequences. That is exactly what we did when we elected Bush.
Al Gore was an Iraq hawk way before 2001 ... Al Gore said he wanted to go beyond the murderous sanctions in order to topple Saddam ... Al Gore said there was no difference between his middle east policy and Bush's .. Al Gore chose the insane right wing war hawk Joe Lieberman as his running mate. These are all facts ... not speculation.
.
Democrats told us that Obama was going to be better on the environment than Bush ... How has that worked out? O's environmental team was in Durbin SA last week doing everything it could to delay any action on climate change. A few months ago O torpedoed the EPAs new smog regulation, and now we're left with regulations that are less strict than the ones Bush proposed! O has also staked his so called jobs plan to a "regulatory look back" which is supposed to somehow create a more friendly business climate by undoing pollution controls and other regulations.
.
Remember BP? 3 weeks before that happened Obama adopted a proposal that Bush had made and opened up the East Coast to deep water oil drilling saying that this would allow us to become more energy independent (even though the oil will be sold on the international market) ... and somehow that it was step towards investing in clean energy.
.
I remember Thom Hartmann reaching the asinine conclusion it was a good move because it undercut the drill baby drill crowd by adopting their policy... As if having Obama drill baby drill would somehow be better than if say ... Romney was doing it.
.
Which also seems to be exactly what you're saying. Listen to Thom Hartmann much?
.
And don't count on Obummer to stick his neck out to stop the Keystone XL ...
Are you forgetting that that Gore was part of an administration that waged an atrocious war of crippling sanctions and bombings against Iraq through the 1990's??? The death toll from Clinton's Iraq war may even be higher that Bush's war.
"He would not have declared war against Iraq because Iraq played no part in 9/11."
Well, not Gore but certainly Joe Lieberman would have pulled a "Cheney" on Iraq.
"Probably fair to assume Gore's environmental policy would be more sensible than Bush's."
Clinton's record on the environment was not good at all and DMG is just as upset and angry at Clinton as he is with Obama. Gore may have written a nice book on the planet and created his own TV network but he would never do anything in his political power to stop the anti-environmental policies from going through. In fact, he actually went out to support anti-environmental policies such as NAFTA and went mum on Clinton's "faith based" giveaway to Big Auto. Oh, and by the way, how come Gore never lobbied against HOA hell on solar panels even after he ran into a snag in his manor and why does he still support "clean coal" and "safe nuclear" ?
"No, you put a dumb bell into office and you pay the consequences. That is exactly what we did when we elected Bush."
That point is getting moot and DMG would agree that you could substitute "Bush" with "Obama" in that sentence alone.
"Considering history" does not, cannot include things that did not happen - by definition.
Exactly.
"you have to consider history: if Gore had won, we would not have had Iraq."
What nonsense! History? I thought about ignoring this and then I realized that it may be you're just too young to know....
It was Al Gore who wasn't satisfied with HW Bush's (or Pres. Clinton's) Iraq policies, criticizing both for not going far enough. He advocated a coup against Saddam Hussein, either by Iraq's military or the CIA. Once, after a Gore speech, a member from Voices of the Wilderness, Danny Muller, confronted him about the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children due to the Clinton administration's policies. Gore actually laughed and said he'd think about it later. He refused to respond and Muller was hauled out of the room by Gore's security officers.
mtdon:
You posted: " ... the left and democrats would rise up to fight the
policies of a republican president."
Don't bet on it. The left and the democrats -- with few exceptions --
DID NOT fight the selling job that the W's administration did to get
us into a war in Iraq. They were so intent on getting re-elected that
they were afraid to say anything or do anything. Sold-out is sold-out,
and never will dare to be anything else. Don't fool yourself into
thinking that complicity in wrong-doing will suddenly metamorphose
itself into right-doing. It's not that easy to get ourselves free of the
gang of schemers that we've fallen among.
You're correct - which demonstrates to us the absolute folly of the lesser of 2 evils
drosera:
I agree with your caution about what purposes we should let motivate
us. If I see disaster looming on the near horizon, I should not let either
thrill-seeking or despair impel me to rush into the disaster. There are
the children to think of. In any generous and just minds still functioning
in my age-group, sixty-five plus, it will eventually "dawn" upon us that,
hey, we've had our fun, lived whatever life-styles we chose, and through
it all "did it my way". What's left for us to do? What's left for us is to
GIVE THE CHILDREN A CHANCE.
The Newt (aptly named) is so self-indulgent in his own notional purposes
that he would happily go out in a blaze of glory, singing: "I've got to be
where the lights are shining on me"; the famous Newt! If you liked W
you'll love the Newt. He'd take us all down with him. The NEXT war being
schemed is likely to be the killer of a "republican form of government",
which was once guaranteed to the states; but AFTER NEWT, no longer!
WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER WAR OF CHOICE. We had better
govern ourselves better. We'd better reconsider what we're about to do
before we (deliberately or not) make things worse in the hope that some
reaction against the worsening will make things better. Making things
worse is an exercise in "make believe", as in "I'll make you believe".
WE HAD BETTER NOT DO IT.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that GOP victories mean "Armageddon."
If one placed any value at all in the well being of our species, not to mention the well being of our planet, one wouldn't be thinking that the outcome of this sham election has any impact on any of that.
Can you not see that the nightmare we are now experiencing with the current administration is the direct result of the ideas you are advocating with this post?
No one is saying that you should "root for the GOP in the next election, waiting for the coming of the Holy Grail in an election to come." No election can ever be, will ever be, a "Holy Grail." One need not "root" for Republicans in order to stop being driven by fear into looking to elections as the solution, and forced into losing all integrity and critical thinking ability by supporting the exact same agenda as the one you fear so much merely because it is marketed under a different brand name and different sales slogans.
Responst to post ofTwo Americas:
You say "GOP victories" as a general class of events in prospect.
[In 2012 there'll be many GOP candidates, some victors, some not.]
I prefer to consider the specific prospect of a Gingrich victory. In a
matter of seriousness, men of common sense will insist on specifics.
A man who is observed at length will, at some times, let slip some
indications of his real intents. Newt Gingrich called Palestinians an
"invented people". If they are termed "invented", they could be treated
as a group artifically collected, and thus liable to be dispersed. As
though to say: Send them across the Jordan river; or send them to
Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, anywhere but in the Jews'
ancestral lands. You may want to say that no "Armageddon" would
result from President Gingrich's policy in the Levant, which has been
fought over for millennia. I dissent from any such saying. Gingrich
may WANT war over the Palestinians. He may want war with the Arab
nations in the region. I reckon that's what he'll get if he decides and
acts according to his "invented people" comment. Was his comment
a "slip of the tongue"? We don't need a president with a slippery
tongue. (Armageddon was prophesied to be fought in the Levant.)
Holy Grail? As an imaginary treasure at the end of an election? As an
idealized result, not to be expected? "Holy S- - -!" There is no holy
grail. Even those who profess faithfulness to a gospel do not hold any
belief in any holy grail. Why speak of it? "Come now let us reason
together." If one does NOT, must NOT, look for an imagined result
(holy or not) from a post-2013-2016 (Newt-ian) presidency, even so
one does NOT, should NOT even be accused of, being " ... driven by
fear into looking to elections as [ANY KIND OF] solution". What's fair
for you to say I ought not do in 2012, likewise is fair for me to say you
ought not do in 2016. But unless you're expecting SOME so-so good
result from or after a Newt presidency, why are you so non-critical of
him? Would THAT Republican victory be "non-Armageddon-ish"?
The doctrine of the evil of the lesser-of-two-evils-proposition should be
judged -- in a common sense reasoning -- to be a formula of words
that has no use in a republican form of government. If the evil of the
lesser-of-two-evils is to be our guiding principle, then why EVER vote?
Why not just forbit voting? Why not, in 2012, contrive to have a tie in
the electoral vote totals, and then let the House of Representatives
SELECT the next president? Don't you see the silliness of citing fear
as a motive in the question of voting? If I vote as motivated by fear of
letting the greater of two evils have the rule over us, don't you not vote
as motivated by fear of having voted for either evil? But someone will
vote. And, as things stand now, he (they) will sell their vote -- in a round
about way to be sure, as in who'll do the best for me and mine only? --
but nevertheless, sell their votes.
I am not "driven" (as you say) by ANY DAMNED KIND OF FEAR.
I am nearing my threescore and ten of years. After that term my life is
just a bonus from (whatever name anyone wants to pin on her) "god".
Rant on that if you-all will. My purpose in this post, as in life mostly,
is to argue for GIVING A CHANCE TO THE CHILDREN.
aequum:
For my part, Friend, you done real good.
Continued response to post of Two Americas:
As to your non-Armageddon GOP "electees" (President W as one),
have you read in a post to CommonDreams that researchers working
in Iraq are said to have found enriched uranium in the soil of that
ravaged country? Supposedly, the very SOIL has been contaminated
with radioactive poisons. Also in recent news, the claimed "stable"
government in Iraq is "raveling" at the edges just almost to the day
when U.S. uniformed military personnel leave the country. To the
extent that you choose to cite a battle mentioned in the Bible, that is
Armageddon, supposedly only cited as a figure of speech, it doesn't
seem to me that GOP presidents are notably "non-Armageddon-ish".
It seems to me that one of them, W, wanted war. I reckon that one
new president-wannabe, Newt, also wants war. And I'm meaning a
hundred-thousand-boots-on-the-ground war, killing thousands of our
soldiers, and maybe a million of "them".
So GET OFF MY CASE, when all I was advocating was SAVE THE
CHILDREN. I do fear for them, with sufficient reason, and that's
children of all colors. I fear not for myself. Damn you for in effect
accusing someone (me?) of cowardice.
I have been for some time curious about the adamant anti-Obama,
jump-up-on-a-stump-and-start-preaching attitude, and as an extension
of that attitude, a damn-all-Democrats opinion. I don't have a dog in
that fight, but it sure seems to me that you do. I take your post above
as intending to say that electing Republicans wouldn't be so bad, at
least "not Armageddon". But voting for or electing any Democrat would
be betrayal of the 99% of the people -- we're supposed to conclude?
It seems to me that YOU'RE bringing party politics into posting that
might have been expected to remain non-partisan. Why don't you
declare your intent? Does my post here seem to be the work of an
unthinking man? Not so! I've thought through the issues at length,
and I believe that I've formed UNBIASED opinions, congenial to a
rational person. And insofar as I've criticized past presidents and
candidates for president, I have criticized them as INDIVIDUALS,
not as instances of party affiliation. I believe all such criiticisms have
been more than justified by the facts. For the record, I had high
hopes for an Obama presidency. I have been sorely disappointed
with him -- particularly in his agreeing to sections in the Defense
Authorization bill that will authorize military policing inside the U.S.,
and that will approve (mandate?) indefinite detention without legal
representation or formal filing of charges. How he will rationalize
that I cannot fathom.
I'm not afraid. If I were afraid I damn sure wouldn't be posting on a
public web site. I'm not afraid to vote, and I won't vote the way I do
as any consequence of any fear. As this is still a somewhat free
nation, I'll vote any damned way I want to. I'll vote BECAUSE I WANT
TO VOTE !
Vote to keep the right to vote. In Germany in the 1930's
and half of the 1940's, the people lost the right to vote,
after they voted for Hitler's political party once. He had
his OWN, "wholly owned" political party and quasi-military
enforcement arm. When I say they lost the right to vote,
I mean vote in any election with more than one candidate.
Beware of governments void of voting.
Voting does not do anything to protect the right to vote. The fact that it is at risk, as you say, tells us that something other than voting must be done.
I appreciate the heartfelt and sincere posts, and the time and trouble you took to respond to me. Thank you.
We see this a little differently, but I completely understand and respect your point of view about this. I am not unsympathetic to what you are saying. You make many good points.
Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt!
I'm glad I'm not the only one here on CD so disgusted as to say that a Gingrich presidency might mobilize the populace. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Newt has also suggested that the security forces of our homeland should allow terrorist attacks to happen so people could see that (Muslim) terrorism really is so great a threat that it is worth terrorizing millions abroad and tanking our economy. I’m paraphrasing.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php?call=search&key=Newt+Gingrich
And of course someone like Gingrich would be happy to arrange a false flag attack if one were not forthcoming. (From what I can tell, the FBI has been having the damnest time getting one rolling.) Because this is serious, folks! Those a-rabs have it in for us and our great nation! We must destroy the country in order to save it!
i did post last week that i hoped newtie would get the nomination and that he would then kick the shit out of obummer and for the same reason dmg has - total disgust with the manchurian candidate who is currently off on his 14th vacation - this one costing 4 million bucks
as time goes on though, i see that amerika is slated for the same fate as nazi germany - which is to say that amerika will pick more and more wars with more and more countries until such a time that the world will rise up and destroy the place
i mean, just how much amerikan crap do we think the world can stand
and it could be sooner than later
it could come from an attack on iran
an attempted coup in venezuela
or maybe the russians will just say to hell with it and take out europe and the us over the ever growing deployment of missiles bases around its borders
maybe it will be china who does it
all i can tell you is that we have acted like nothing and no one can touch us no matter what we do and that is delusional
sooner or later....
the litany of ills in the motherland continue to grow
homelessness, foreclosures, no health insurance, shrinking pay for increasingly lousy jobs, no jobs at all, offshoring of jobs, lawlessness accross the homeland ranging from stolen running shoes to miles of telephone wires for the copper
in california i think it was - someone stole a 2 1/2 ton bell for its copper
obummer said in a recent interview that he ranks his first term as the 4th greatest presidency of all time - which is dangerously delusional and out of touch
obummer has finished off the constitution and for a constitutional lawyer that is an accomplishment
i'm sick of him like dmg
bring on newt - hell bring on bachman if she'll get rid of clinton
bring on the quitter palin - at least you know she won't be wasting taxpayer money and time reading
if she were president we could have the first dude - todd
in the meantime as i said last week - newtie is the most appropriate candidate for the wh we have - liar, cheat, psychotic, sociopathic, predatory
he is the walking embodiment of where the country is at the moment
we should embrace ourselves - without being too gay about it and remember - no tongue, no tongue
Great rant, medmedude! So was D.M. Green’s, which touched on many of my sore points. Nice massage—man, my back feels looser already.
Here’s another reason to vote for Newt: the economy’s not going to recover. It’s gonna really tank, I mean really tank, and whoever is in the Oval Office will take the blame. So I say
Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt!
Excellent article. I would like to add one comment about the prospect of Oblablah's second term.
Anyone who thinks that Oblahblah's re-election will free him from his right-wing political restraints and that he will suddenly become progressive is a fool.
In fact, the exact opposite will be the case. During his first term, Oblahblah has been straining at the leash to go far right and in many ways, already has. The only thing keeping him from going beyond Dumb W has been the need to fool progressives again in 2012.
If Oblahblah is re-selected in the mock election of 2012, expect more fascism, not less.
Agree wholeheartedly! The only thing the Oilybomber will care about are those $250,000 1/2 hour speeches.
Now that's one of the best articles I've seen on CD!
I agree with other commenters that it is a very good piece. I think we will have to deal with another Obama term, though. He is a loyal and effective gofer for the corporatocracy; and, besides, would you want to have a beer with Gingrich? His intellectual arrogance (utterly unjustified from what I can see) will do him in as it is a great sin in the eyes of voters. Super-salesmanship will win again. (I am already hearing the corporate/political machinery humming in the background to stabilize and minimize the rocking of the - lucrative - boat.)
I like David Michael Green very much, and miss his weekly essays. I do think that this one is mostly pie-in-the-sky, regarding 2011 and 2012.
Reminscent of '68?? Back then, when I was 1, political systems of the West were far more open and connected (somewhat) to general desires and needs. Suffocating corporate totalitariansim did not exist, and neither did the near total (okay total, after McCain-Levin) police state wall which now protects it.
And 1968 was the END, not the beginning. Here at home, it was the year they murdered King and RFK, neutralized McCarthy, destroyed the New Deal/New Frontier embodiment of the Democratic Party, elected Nixon/Agnew. And what happened in France, Mexico, Czechoslovakia in the following years? Also, a shift toward reaction. And then came the nitwit identity politics of the 70s, and then Raygun.
Also, what is DMG talking about by using Texas rednecks as the prime example of the people's worship of their own prison guards? Try visting NYC, Michael. Or the Yuppoid sections of Chicago, Seattle, Portland. Lovely Miami. The outer areas of Boston.
Try watching on-line the corporate sucking cable station known as NY1. NY1 spends all day showing us this week's inner city nigger beating up on upstanding white volken. Or memorialzing the latest dumb cop who was offed. Or giving Pimp of the Oligarchs Mikey Bloomberg a platform for his latest dectruction of what is left of the city's public school system and general commonweal.
The cancer is everywhere and spreading, far more than any Occupation. The "society" is now buying into the psychopathic filth that humanity is actually divided between the productive money-makers, and all those who leach off them.
The poor and working class, the despairing. Who notices now, or cares? The message is clear: you are waste product, the world would be better off without you; in fact, doesn't even see you. The generosity of the country's heart has shut.
The Occupiers are generally unprepared for the shitstorm which will rain down once the show stops and the corporate walls begin to crack (if they do), but they are the few honorable, those here in this once great city, now a lost heap of sorrow and rage who still try to do their best and to do good. They are fine troops, with the courage to live at war every day in a society now run by beasts.
"And 1968 was the END, not the beginning. Here at home, it was the year they murdered King and RFK, neutralized McCarthy, destroyed the New Deal/New Frontier embodiment of the Democratic Party, elected Nixon/Agnew. And what happened in France, Mexico, Czechoslovakia in the following years? Also, a shift toward reaction. And then came the nitwit identity politics of the 70s, and then Raygun."
Yep. 1968 was the revolution that failed. Murder led to reaction, and to the collapse of the Left in public opinion. That led right into the 1980's and beyond.
Definitely *not* a year to emulate, no matter how romantic the memories of it may be ...
I'd agree with that. And Woodstock was democracy's last hurrah, like the last dance at the Prom.
Don't underestimate the effect that Nixon and the devil incarnate Kissinger had by taking the USA off the gold standard And opening up China to the corporate outsourcers.
MITCHUM: You're very wise for your years, and a good writer, to boot! Powerful rant... lots of insights all through it.
"The poor and working class, the despairing. Who notices now, or cares? The message is clear: you are waste product, the world would be better off without you; in fact, doesn't even see you. The generosity of the country's heart has shut."
Very astute, Mitchum, but listen to this: "There is no difference between legalized robbery and highway robbery...If you listen to the other [upper] classes, you will have only three rights...to work, to starve, and to die."
Sound familiar? Well, this was said in the 1890's. The 1890's! They were going through the same shit back then. The Farmer's Alliance was created as a popular revolt against the capitalist/corporate system which was forcing them into poverty and creating a class of indentured servants. The same freaking thing is happening now! The same. It doesn't change, just the players change.
And like the popular revolt back then, we are seeing the rise of a popular revolt today. The difference is that we have history on our side to learn from. If we try to do the same thing the Farmer's Alliance did in the 1890's, we will be crushed, as they were. Power will not cede an inch. Ever. Speaking truth to power is as useful as speaking truth to a log. Fighting power will get you beat up...or worse. We need to do something else. Way else. We need to play a different game.
How we do that, I don't know. But we better start having that conversation 'cause when this house of cards finally falls, a lot of shit is going to roll downhill.
Yes. Obama gets away with policies more vicious than a Republican ever could, and as Mr. Green states, he has ruined the words "progressive" and "Democrat" completely.
My only bone to pick is that I'm not so sure that the people voted for Green's list of bad politicians; how long have we used teh machines?
~“Older people in America – as a generation, certainly not always as individuals – are simply more ignorant, malevolent and backward compared to their grandchildren, which would be more problematic than it is except for the fact that they are at least decent enough to be dying off.”—DMG~
wow, david! you don't pull your punches, huh? a few months ago i watched a survey of high schoolers here in the u.s. the good news is. . . the majority consider themselves as hyphenated-americans. that in and of itself just may take the edge off ignorant, malevolent racism. perhaps this wild and crazy world now experiences the labor pangs and pains of a better more compassionate human consciousness on the horizon. i remember during the days of the freedom riders and hippy-dippy flower children thinking that we witnessed an evolution of consciousness moving toward a more loving, tolerant and inclusive society. then something inexplicable happened. we saw anti-war activists(?) bomb r.o.t.c buildings and that struck me as not so peaceful; obviously, something purely political not peaceful happening there. well, that generation our species might have felt one strong contraction. the pangs do seem to arrive at a quicker pace. speaking of birth, i'd say the one problem you overlooked is the population explosion, but i expect Mother Nature to respond with or without our cooperation. we cannot avoid the discomfort and blood but could, if we so choose to work with the physical world, make the transition easier on ourselves.
~“There is this incredibly sick segment of the country – people who look to politics as a chance to vindicate their resentments, justify their hatreds and exonerate their stupidity –”—DMG~
yep, our western consumerist-capitalism encourages, yea even rewards, ego-centric driven compulsive behavioral symptoms leading to vain self-indulgent, sociopathic bordering on psychopathic mental disorders. our governments locked into mutually enriching corporate collusion act as institutionalized evil step-parents, usurpers of the living spirit, resemble an armed and dangerous death cult in a suicidal feeding frenzy devouring the living as well as the fossil fuels, the coprolites and the very sangria del mundo. for too many of us these hateful, uncaring foster parents represent the only security we have known. they rob living citizens of our earned allowance and tell us they must "provide for the common defense" by protecting "american interests" in far away lands. just this week obama welcomed many iraqi-stressed veterans home telling them they fought heroically not for oil resources, but to bring wealth and freedom to the middle east. the homeless, the orphans and widows, the physically and ptsd emotionally crippled see the hypocricy of judeo-christian greed masquerading as exceptional altruism. the game of politics leads us to believe we can negociate with insanity so that even those who acknowledge the sickness attempt to compromise the future in order to maintain the only comfort zone we've known.
~“I’m astonished to see progressives gearing up to be abused a second time by Obama – who is all of a sudden sounding like a progressive again –”—DMG~
my online dictionary defines "progressive" as that which focuses on human industry to enhance civilization. one synonym for "progression" is a funeral march. in anthropocentric vanity our species has attempted to create a justice system for humans separate from the laws of physics. Nature thrives on diversity and has learned that a "too big to succeed" entity fails under its own gluttonous weight. one experimental, evolutionary failure in a diverse living biome allows for new growth. if we wish to preserve our species, NOW is the time to grasp that lesson!
Another possibility. Someone I knew in the Nineties told me she had been involved in a bombing I think at the U in Wisconsin..."we found out they were making napalm there, and we had to stop that. We did it at three in the morning so we could be sure no one was there--but it turned out some driven geek was in there working and killed by our bomb..." which she clearly regretted. So it wasn't necessarily a matter of agents provocateur, though there were certainly plenty of those (and are now, no doubt). I think there were those who, on realizing how corrupt and destructive the whole system was, felt they had to strike back.
"slobbering American rednecks"
While I agree with much of what DMG has to say, I have to cringe when he (especially for an academic) uses disparaging, dividing, insulting and such silly and childish language against a part of the poorer citizenry. After all, they've been led down the path of lies just like everyone else – including Mr. Green. That said, Mr. Green probably has a sackful of responsibility in this bag-O-shit nation's situation being he's a professor/teacher and, you know, all "that".
I'd like to hear a little something from Mr. Green that might shed some light on how he and his peers provided this wonderful destination we've (all) arrived at. After all, it is he and his peeps that taught us to kill, steal, cheat and manipulate. A "professor of political science" probably can do that, right?
As usual, MOON PIE, aiming at all the wrong targets, the very ones that would so please Newt, the right wing think tanks, the Koch Brothers, and other supporters of the deadly status quo. Take aim at Green when he finally gets it, as if you, from your ivory tower have done anything to shift the tide of history. So much easier to take aim at those who've tried to... you cowardly cyber assassin, hidden from the light of scrutiny as you take aim at those who are SINCERE.
Green has shown a remarkable evolution. It wasn't long ago that he did root for the Democrats, and even though visceral signs of disgust for martial displays of abject ignorance (those cheering for the execution of an impoverished Texas inmate) emerge through his writing style... he fully recognizes the utter sell-out and complicity of what once were truly distinct political parties.
Great essay, Mr. Green!
Hummingbird: It's difficult to discern where honest posters unconsciously buy into popular right wing memes (since media is replete witih them) or where they are purposely planting them. Why would you conflate the peace-protests of the 1970's with one event that may have involved an agent provocateur, that led to violence? Why argue FOR violence as the norm, since that's where your reasoning appears to lead. I hear things I resonate with in your lengthy posts, but then find that with these ideas engaged, odd conclusions are drawn. These intimations reinforce very status quo values. So many confuse the staged effects (or conditioned responses) with CAUSE itself.
It is painfully clear that Prof. Green despises the many.
~"Hummingbird: Why would you conflate the peace-protests of the 1970's with one event that may have involved an agent provocateur, that led to violence? Why argue FOR violence as the norm, since that's where your reasoning appears to lead."--Siouxrose
i meant to express my youthful naiveté and bewilderment concerning the violent backlash from those agent provocateurs. i almost added that line to my admittedly ramblings leaning toward prolixity. guess i inadvertently provided a great example of what i tried to say to 'moonpie, "any one of us who participates in these forums likely feels the sting when our words fail to communicate as he/she intended." believe me, my friend, in no way do i think "violence is the norm". i believe the errant capialtist rat race to the top creates unnecessary, unhealthy stress which bursts from some individuals who have teetered over the brink. hmm, i wonder? did my words about "not negotiating with insanity" lead you to conclude i promote violence?
nah, i just think we can act without waiting for the "misleaders" to experience sudden onset introspective rationality.
~♥~☮~♥~