While Democracy and the Democratic Party may sound similar, the party leaders again showed yesterday that one has little to do with the other. President Obama and party leaders wanted the party’s platform changed to include a reference to both Jerusalem being the capital of Israel and God. The omissions however were not accidental and a high number of delegates opposed the change, which had to be agreed to by two-thirds of the delegates. As shown in the video below, in calling for a voice vote, the leadership was shocked when it appeared that more people voted no than yes — certainly well short of two-thirds in support of the changes. That did not matter. The leadership just declared the vote as having passed by two-thirds acclamation.
Many wanted to be neutral on the divisive issue of Jerusalem but Obama was worried about the political backlash among Jewish voters. Many others wanted a secular platform and to stand apart from faith-based politics. Obama himself has relied on faith-based politics and policies, as discussed in earlier columns. Obama objected to the removal of the word God and seemed to miss the secular purpose of the move, asking him “Why on earth would that have been taken out?” It appears that no one had the courage to answer that question by explaining to Obama that it is not necessarily that delegates do not believe in God but were standing against the use of God for political advantage. Instead, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted that “the platform is being amended to maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the President and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008.”
The problem is that the platform actually reflects the views of the party members and they did not agree. The GOP had already pounced on the omissions in the platform and the Democratic leadership wanted the issues removed regardless of the opposition of the membership. Waserman Schultz dismissed the omitted language as a “technical oversight” ignoring the obviously high number of delegates supporting the omission. When combined with the rejection of the clear vote, the statement left the convention looking like a Chinese Party Congress. The “technical oversight” in this case proved to be the views of the delegates who were told that they would decide the content of the platform to reflect the views of the party base rather than the party bosses.
In fairness to the Democratic Party, the GOP has relied more heavily on faith-based politics in the past as shown most vividly by George Bush in his first successful run for the White House. The GOP also did not show much commitment to participatory politics in their treatment of Ron Paul supporters. However, many of us have criticized the use of faith in politics as not only demeaning faith but often also injecting sectarian divisions into our political system. It also undermines principles of separation of church and state when politicians run on their intent to advance religious values in government. Yet, it is how the leadership forced through the changes that was the most unnerving for those who watched yesterday.
Party leaders dispatched former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland to push through the changes. Strickland started out by noting his credential as an “ordained United Methodist minister.” Strickland announced “I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party’s platform should as well. The 2008 platform read, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
It took three voice votes and the opposition was clearly loader than the support for the changes. Yet, Strickland simply declared the measure passed despite all appearances to the contrary.
For those long unhappy with the Democratic leadership, it was a telling symbolic moment. Once again, it appeared that Democratic voters (even delegates representing the most loyal activists) are given only the appearance of participation in their party. For years, Democratic leaders lied to their members about their knowledge and even support for Bush’s torture program and surveillance policies until it was revealed that key Democrats were briefed on the programs. The party leadership then worked with Bush to scuttle any effort to investigate torture and other alleged crimes to avoid implicating key Democratic members. Likewise, while the majority of Democratic voters opposed the continuation of the wars, the Democratic party leaders blocked efforts to force a pull out under both Obama and Bush. These controversies were seen by many that the Democratic Party is primarily run to ensure the continuation of a small number of leaders in power with voters treated as ignorant minions. It was a particularly poignant moment in an uncontested convention after Democratic voters were not given any alternative to Obama.
The image of the chair just ignoring the obvious opposition from the floor of the conventional symbolized this long simmering tension. For full disclosure, I have long been a critic of both parties and have argued for changes to break the monopoly on power by the two parties. It is really not the merits of these two changes that is most bothersome. Arguments can be made on both side of such issues. It is the disregard of the views of the members and the dishonesty in how the matter was handled. The illusion of democracy was all that the leaders wanted in the vote.
Notably, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seemed to be ready to acknowledge that the delegates clearly rejected the change on the first vote. He then insisted on a second vote and it got worse. He seemed about to admit the failure of the motion and then called for a third vote which sounded even more lopsided (with not just a failure to get two-thirds but even a majority). Yet, he declared the motion passed to the boos and jeers of the delegates.
In creating the illusion of democratic voting, the delegates might have just as well bleated like sheep in protest. It did not matter. The message was clear that the delegates are just a backdrop to be used by party leaders to celebrate their reign.
Source: CNN
Reblogged this on zynnnie.
I have been to convention (district and state never national) for both partys at different times over the last 42 years and I have watched the national conventions for both partys for 50 years. What happened was ugly but you know what? It happens at these things all the time. Voice votes are always subject to the ruling of the chair and this is abused whenever “necessary”.
I happen to think both issues are stupid and their inclusion in the platform a waste of time and effort but jamming them in there does not change a thing. Well, except to give the pundits and other GOP operatives something to talk about other than their failed social and economic policies.
I’m not happy it happened or the way it happened but it really is a non-issue
Agree it is a non- issue, Frankly. Fox news, Ryan and Romney were ranting about the godless, anti-Israel democrats. The Clinton speech was fabulous. So far the convention has been a huge success. We will have to see how Obama does tonight.
Democracy is ugly business
It looked pretty bad to me. It was clearly a 50/50 split or maybe a little more one way or the other. The woman saying let them do what they want with the implication the fix was in was almost Stalinesque.
What is that old ditty about counting the votes is more important than voting? I guess the leadership of the party is a proponent.
You just cannot spin this so it looks good.
A non-issue? Now THAT’S a problem! We cannot standby and watch our democracy being mocked! We must STAND UP and take back that which is ours!
He a minister so it’s alright that he participates in an obvious sham. I am sure God is very proud.
He is also the chair of the committee whose agreed to platform he just threw out the window but that’s ok, he is a minister.
I am sure that the argument for these changes is we had to do it to win. Well then I guess that is ok. Too bad the president didnt fight as hard for single payor Heath care.
I am a realist but this is wrong.
“GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said President Barack Obama’s administration “purged” mentions of God from the Democratic Party platform Wednesday.
“I think it’s rather peculiar,” Ryan said on “Fox & Friends.” “It’s not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision. I’d guess you’d have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform. There sure is a lot of mention of government. I guess I would just put the onus and the burden on them to explain why they did all this, these purges of God.” Daily Kos
The mayor and the democratic party finally found a way to have their cake and eat it too.
Just eat the cake and tell everyone it is still there for consumption.
hmm, that sounds suspiciously like their economic policies too.
I though Bill Clinton’s nominating speech was the finest moment of political rhetoric I have ever seen. In one 48 minute presentation he decimated the notion that politics is an all or nothing game, and gently chastised ideologues who view their position as the only valid one.
Bravo to a master!
The appearance of filling rules of Order was missed……. Not surprised…..
this isnt about God, it is about a foregone conclusion. Religion is personal and shouldnt be a litmus test for elected office. The problem is the spectacle of a farce perpetrated on the delegates to the convention.
Your comment: “the delegates are just a backdrop to be used by party leaders to celebrate their reign.” points to the fact that these two parties in fact have a lot in common. The RNC had their own voting drama last week. Brother, the D leadership and R leadership are just as happy to trample over the folks that they’re supposed to represent. I agree with Elizabeth Warren, that “people feel like the system is rigged against them.” No way will I be looking those turkeys to get the system unhinged though.
The republican convention did not even allow a vote, they put what to say on their teleprompter.
Whatever happened to the republican taboo on teleprompters?
good point Dredd. The DNC at least had the illusion of a vote. The RNC just railroaded on through. Not sure which hurts less.
It’s the oldest political dilemma: Should the leadership allow a group of party activists to derail the party’s chances with the broader electorate in the next election? The Republicans said “yes” four years ago and Barack Obama is President.
Leaving out the Christian mantra was a dead-bang loser for the party so the leadership railroaded it through. Pretty? No. Undemocratic? Yes. Good Political Strategy? Yes. Pragmatism usually wins out in these affairs. Pristine democracy on a voice vote of the party faithful that leads to defeat is simply taking your eye off the goal in the minds of the Democratic leadership.
julianmalcolm 1, September 6, 2012 at 8:50 am
good point Dredd. The DNC at least had the illusion of a vote. The RNC just railroaded on through. Not sure which hurts less.
===========================================
The DNC had the illusion of a result, not the illusion of a vote.
The RNC had the illusion of a vote and of a result.
As you say, neither is worthy enough, and both are hurtful.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57506976-503544/romney-democratic-platform-shows-party-is-extreme/ The Mormon bishop was attacking the godless democrats.
I note that many Ron Paul delegates were stripped of their credentials:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/ron-paul-delegates_n_1837955.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
And for the first time since I began watching elections in 1956 a candidates delegates were not permitted to bring signs into the Convention Floor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/ron-paul-convention-delegates_n_1841741.html
This was a real suppression of democracy because these delegates had been elected to their positions at the State level. And so it goes.
Let us look at the point in dispute in this post and examine it in terms of the real political world. We have a Corporate Media that has limited its convention coverage more severely than at any time in the last 56 years and I know since that is when I first started watching Conventions. I even attended the Democratic Convention in 1976 as an “honored guest” to hear Jimmy Carters acceptance speech ad since I was there for the entire session I know what goes on away from the cameras. This “voice vote” was nothing new at conventios ad I can cite hundreds of incidences where similar events have taken place in the 56 years that I’ve watched political conventions. I snarled as I watched the TV in 1968 as I saw a police riot outside and a “managed” convention inside. How much better for us all that principles prevailed and Dick Nixon became President. We kept our purity of principle as Nixon escalated the war for seven more years and destroyed the civil rights movement.
Our “Democracy” has been further threatened by Citizens United and by the fact that the media not only has a conservative pundit bias, but emphasizes only the “horse race” aspects of the Presidential/Congressional Races.
I don’t feel either issue should have been in the platform, except that for many years they were in the platform and with our media slavering to find something wrong at the Democratic Convention to balance things out, after the Republican debacle, so this change was going to be magnified beyond its proportion. When you have polls saying that may voters see Obama as a Muslim and polls showing a majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist, then this omission takes on importance.
As for the Jerusalem issue I’m sorry to say that this is an issue that resonates with me very strongly as a Jew. Please remember everything that I have written here over the years which includes my ardent dislike of the current Israeli administration and my dislike of some Jewish organizations such as AIPAC. further understand that I believe a two state solution is the only path to peace in the middle east. However, I also personally believe that Jerusalem should be the Capitol of Israel.
In both these instances the point is obvious that the Democrats were pandering to a constituency. So what else is new. all democratic politics, everywhere they exist in this world is the process of pandering to Constituencies. Is this shocking? I think not, merely process. However, many will say that principle must prevail over victory. Well they can vote as they choose. I, however, agree with Mespo regarding the Clinton speech which clearly laid out all the reasons this is a watershed election. I will add that I strongly believe that if the Republicans are elected this time all our issues will become moot, since even the pretense of “American Freedom” will have ended, women will be again relegated to subservience, minorities will be even more brutally suppressed ad the wars will escalate to other venues. However, some of us will be able to bask in the glow of our “clean hands”, even as we are taken away to prison for subversion. Unlike many of you, I am old enough to remember the McCarthy era,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?388124-Ron-Paul-delegates-furious-over-RNC-shut-out-%28mentions-signage-confiscations%29-RT-News Blog’s “favorite son”, Blouise’s words, delegates were shut out by the RNC.
Great speech from Clinton, although the man is known , not to keep order in the White house or the red house, he pulled this one well.
Why did Obama have to rub in Anything about Israel, Jerusalem, ? Was this a speech for International Affairs, and if so why was Israel singled out ? I don’t see the point – or do I ? When will everyone see the comedy ?
To be sure the Democratic party has its faults. Still, I’ll take that party over the Republican party.
The Democratic party gets criticized for this vote on a platform change. Where is the criticism for the Republican platform that is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-worker…for a party that is for voter suppression, for privatization of Social Security, Medicare, government services, for big tax breaks for the 1%, for eliminating social safety nets???
I just love the Chair’s reaction to the first attempt. That’s 2 minutes into the video
He was running to a script – flying on autopilot.
So he begins “In the opinion of …..” and stops dead.
It dawns on him that he’s going to look totally ridiculous.
OK. We’ll do it again.
And we’ll keep doing it until you get it nearly right enough.
It’s all very well to say that this just a pragmatic move to maintain power.
The question is – if they do that live on television, what would they not do when in power and behind closed doors?
Note: That question was rhetorical.
This is not democracy.
The voters are NOT running the show anymore, but we can’t merely act like we all just suddenly found out that Obama could care less.
Strange how the Dem party acts like the spouse of a wife beater, so afraid to leave and have any hope for anything better in life. The label sickness (and it is definitely a type of sickness) has dragged the entire nation down with it. The party simply does not care that it has been abused, makes feeble and futile excuses since before Obama’s first nomination when it because very clear that he would lie with intent to lie.
I got the distinct impression that poor ole Clint Eastwood had voted for Obama only to be bitterly disappoint about the constant lies and disreguard for the people of this nation. At least you have to respect Clint Eastwood for not be “down with the sickness”.
Why have we forgotten where we came from, our constitution and everything about our great country have been based on the bible and somehow now we think that we know more than almighty God on how to run our lives. Now we are paying the price for turning away from God and it will get only worse as we turn from our brother Israel and then God will turn from us ! Read the book of revelations to see our future.
“somehow now we think that we know more than almighty God on how to run our lives”
Robert,
Why do I get the feeling that your conception of God, is not my conception and then the question arises about who is right? With that question you see why you can’t use peoples faith as a means of running a country, or disaster ensues.
“This is not democracy.”
Sling T.
You are right, but then you see in the history of political conventions they have never been about democracy. In fact, though I hate to say it,
America has never been about democracy and our Constitution says so. Democracy has been used as a term of art by politicians since this country’s founding. The notion that “we the people” run this country is just a stale bit of fluff that more and more people have gotten wise to. The choice has always been between the bad and the rotten. As long as most of the people are distracted by the propaganda and the mythology of the on-existent “American Dream” and its corollary “Cowboy Rugged Individualism”, it will remain that way. This is why Gene Howington and I have spent so much time dealing with those things in most of our blog posts.
Mike,
And we shouldn’t forget “American Exceptionalism.”
Clinton’s nominating speech was a masterpiece in both design and delivery … medicare, medicaid, women’s rights, education and student loans, the economy/job growth, and “z-ero”.
It was a speech aimed at independents (notice the theme of cooperation) and disciplined to appeal to them. The battle isn’t for the base, it’s for all those people (44% of registered voters as of May 2012) who have left the base on both the right and the left. Clinton gave them substance to consider rather than rhetoric to repeat and in so doing acknowledged their importance with respect.
As for the lack of signs … consider Youtube and the social network technology. One stupidly worded sign can go viral and totally destroy a well disciplined presentation taking the focus off of the candidate and losing votes.
Complain about the Democratic Party leadership all you want but, hot da*m, that leadership isn’t stuck in the quicksand of the past relying on a bunch of old white men and denying that the world of politics has changed drastically.
A disagreement over wording on Jerusalem and god-given is all the opposition can find to talk about … that’s just more empty-chair talk for empty headed listeners and angry white men who can’t admit the good ol’ days are gone.
This was a matter of consequence. You can see that on the face of the woman holding the sign, Arab Americans for Obama. She and others who want real peace and real justice just got the big FU from president and party.
And yes, this was completely consistent with what is happening in politics. It was an open dismissal of the actual will of the voters in favor of what those in charge really want. Glenn Greenwald called it Stalinist and that’s what it was.
Elaine,
I must tell you the truth. The cheering, the applauding, the ignoring, the screaming to honor and elect a man who killed a young 16 year old boy, the death threats to people like Scahill for questioning Obama, the inability/refusal to understand that most Democrats are not on the economic, social issue side of the people are far more scary than Republicans. We all know who Republicans are, but Democrats–people won’t look at the truth. That is a much more dangerous situation.
The following is from Gene Sharp:
“Rejection of Authority
Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
Refusal of public support
Literature and speeches advocating resistance”
Republicans and Democrats are united in their inability to reject their party’s authority figures. This has a real result-unchecked power equals unchecked abuse and cruelty. This is fascist.
Read Matt Stoller at naked capitalism showing how the 2008 platform was never delivered on, not even close.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/broken-democratic-platform-promises-from-2008.html
Read Black Agenda Report as to why they don’t cover Republicans so much as they do Democrats. There’s a very good reason for it.
On the more snarky side when I saw this video here was my reaction in addition to exactly JT’s reaction:
Praise Jesus that a constitutional law scholar wanted god in the platform! According to those who write books like “Left Behind” (no, not your butt cheek!) when the capital of Jerusalem is restored to the the Israelites, Christ will return. (And yet, Obama’s already here and the capital has not been rightfully restored.) The guy with the really bad hearing aids looked a lot like the presenter at the children’s beauty pageant from “Little Miss Sunshine”. The movie guy did seem more honest though.
Elaine M.
1, September 6, 2012 at 9:18 am
To be sure the Democratic party has its faults. Still, I’ll take that party over the Republican party.
The Democratic party gets criticized for this vote on a platform change. Where is the criticism for the Republican platform that is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-worker…for a party that is for voter suppression, for privatization of Social Security, Medicare, government services, for big tax breaks for the 1%, for eliminating social safety nets???
—————————————————————————-
But a disagreement over wording on Jerusalem and god-given is so much more important than any of that stuff … just ask any empty chair.
robert sloan:
“Read the book of revelations to see our future.”
*************************
It’s not my future my deluded, history-challenged friend, but I earnestly hope it’s yours. Watch out for that seven-headed, ten-horned beast!
Swarthmore mom
1, September 6, 2012 at 9:15 am
see post for link
Blog’s “favorite son”, Blouise’s words, delegates were shut out by the RNC.
——————————————————–
Yeah, but that’s different … it was Ron Paul’s people … geeze!
I have to agree that every convention is messy and it is not true democracy, but either is our democracy. The same people who are complaining about God not being mentioned by name are the same people who want their God’s rules to be my rules. Frankly and Swarthmore have it right.
Mespo,
You are spot on that the Clinton speech was not only a masterpiece in public speaking, but a masterpiece in dismantling your opponents lies. And doing it with a smile on your face.
mespo,
Slarti turned me on to this link and I have been thoroughly enjoying the read.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/
Did anyone notice the R former President had the slot of, “He who must not be named,” versus the D rock star?
Talk about the invisible man!
The flourish at the end was a masterpiece of theatrical stagecraft at its best.
Thanks, Blouise!
Freedom Rider: Democrats Show Their True Colors
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
“Barack Obama and the Democrats are not the lesser of two evils, they are the more effective evil.”
If right wing Republican ideology didn’t exist, it would have to be invented. The blatant racism, bizarre shrillness, and appeals to patriarchy and misogyny are easily condemned. Attacking the Republican Party isn’t at all difficult, it is in fact a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. It isn’t surprising that an African American camerawoman was taunted and humiliated by Republicans at their recent convention. The Republicans have been working for decades to make themselves the party of, by, and for white people.
Republican racism and right wing extremism mean that the Democrats get credit for doing nothing or even for acting like Republicans. Their convention is being held in Charlotte, North Carolina, a city without one unionized hotel, and little wonder, North Carolina is a right to work state with the lowest rate of union workers in the country. The absence of outrage over the choice of Charlotte as the convention venue is proof positive of the ideological bankruptcy of the Democratic Party and the cowardice of its supporters.
“The Republicans have been working for decades to make themselves the party of, by, and for white people.”
As if the choice of Charlotte weren’t bad enough, an anti teachers union movie, Won’t Back Down, was shown at a convention event after being vetted by Democratic Party leadership. Michelle Rhee, the face of teacher union busting and the destruction of public education, appeared on a panel at the film’s screening. Rhee told the harsh and ugly truth about the way the Democrats are treating teacher unions. “There is no longer sort of some assumed alliance between the Democratic Party and the teacher’s unions.”
If teachers and other unions had any self-respect, they would boycott the convention altogether. Instead they will be front and center, proclaiming their love for a party that never passes up an opportunity to stab them in the back.
Barack Obama and the Democrats are not the lesser of two evils, they are the more effective evil, and their convention coronation proves it. They have the benefit of running against a Republic candidate who made a fortune by putting thousands of people out of work and who brags about it. While Democrats do not openly talk about putting Social Security and Medicare on the budget cutting table, the Republican vice presidential candidate makes eliminating Medicare his claim to fame.
“Residents of Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the victims of American drone attacks whether the president inaugurated in January is named Obama or Romney.“
The Democrats are once again committing the perfect crime. They present themselves as the friend of working people and as the defenders against racism, misogyny and homophobia. While a black camera operator will probably not have to fear being humiliated by Democrats, the residents of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not be so lucky. They will be the victims of American drone attacks whether the president inaugurated in January is named Obama or Romney.
Obama’s nominating speech will no doubt be better than Romney’s. There will be no strange decision to let an old actor give a rambling speech. The evils of Bain capital will be exposed to the world, but Obama would have agreed to a back room budget deal with Republicans if vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and other Republican congressional leaders hadn’t scuttled his plans.
The activists who opposed war during the Bush administration can’t seem to find their voices now. Instead they criticize Mitt Romney because he didn’t “mention” wars in his convention speech. It isn’t clear what these critics wanted to hear. Were they once again anti-war or had they already dropped those convictions once a Democrat became president? In any case, Romney has no room to criticize Obama because Obama is now the war monger in chief, with the body count to prove it.
“Were they once again anti-war or had they already dropped those convictions once a Democrat became president?”
Little children with abusive parents can be forgiven if they don’t know how to break free from their victimizers. Adults who claim to lead others have no such excuse. The union leaders, and the peace activists and all other progressives in the Charlotte convention hall should walk out in protest but they won’t. They won’t because their convictions aren’t really any better than Obama’s. They want to belong more than they want to be right.
Obama is the more effective evil because he is enabled by Democrats who are either afraid of their own shadows or who are as bad as he is. They should know that making the case for their demands, indeed having demands at all, is the sure path to political victory. But they don’t want political victory. They just want someone who is part of their crowd to get the top job. Too many people in the Democratic base are effectively evil too.
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.co
Seems to me people still rise from modest origins so I would say the American dream is still alive and kicking. You may not get rich but then no one is promised a rose garden.
As far as “Cowboy Rugged Individualism”, what exactly is that? Do you mean the small businessman who starts a business in his garage and becomes wealthy by pretty much his focus, drive and perseverance? Or the farmer who has to know how to weld, to plow, to birth a calf and stitch up a wound on humans or animals because the doc or the vet is too far away? What exactly is “Cowboy Rugged Individualism”, do you mean the people who went west with a few dollars in their pocket and some household belongings or the latter day small shop keeper who doesnt want to work for a big corporation because he wants to do it his way no matter how small it is?
We exist in society so we all benefit from each other but some of us think we should live how we want to live, providing of course we dont step on other’s rights, and some of us seem to think that we should live for society.
I think I see what “Cowboy Rugged Individualism” is all about. What is that Ibsen play? Oh yes, An Enemy of the People, he was also a “Cowboy Rugged Individualist”, not Ibsen [although he seems to be as well] the main character in the play.
Dont go against the grain, dont rock the boat, follow the party line. That is the antithesis of the “Cowboy Rugged Individualist”. So I guess it comes down to following your own mind or not.
Get along little dogies. Whoope Ti Yi Yo.
For all the criticism rightly thrown at the Democrats in the convention power play, you still must ask yourself: Which political party more closely embodies my political approach? You can always say neither, of course, but it renders you politically irrelevant. Ask Ron Paul. Even he’s a nominal Republican. His approach wasn’t to abstain, and he’s made some in-roads, modest though they may be.
I see stupid this day, reminds me of the time I tried to lite a match underwater. It can be done, with proper preparation. Remember don’t boo, Vote.
Bron:
“Seems to me people still rise from modest origins so I would say the American dream is still alive and kicking. You may not get rich but then no one is promised a rose garden.”
*******************
The best line of the night (attributed to Bob Strauss, former Democratic Chair), “Every American politician wants you to believe that they were born in a log cabin that they built with their own two hands.”
“The flourish at the end was a masterpiece of theatrical stagecraft at its best.” (OS)
Wasn’t it! How to take the focus from a star like Clinton and politely return it to the candidate … have the candidate humbly thank him and escort him offstage. Skill.
Blouise, it was the political equivalent of the handing off the baton in a relay race at Olympic level. Literally.
I’m most surprised the normally competent Obama campaign ever let the changes occur in the first place. So stupid of them to serve up the the Republicans such a gift on a silver platter in the first place. It makes me mad at all the idiots in the party who want to push their petty agenda at the cost of the greater good.
OS:
That, plus bumping the other guy off the track. Well played, indeed.
Obama is afraid the churchies. It hobbles him terribly.
@Bron: some of us think we should live how we want to live, providing of course we dont step on other’s rights, and some of us seem to think that we should live for society.
And some of us that think you should be allowed to live how you want to live have a far different conception of what, precisely, your rights should be, and how, precisely, you should be required to pay for the protection of them, which costs us lives and money.
Jill:
Margaret Kimberley has effectively explained to us that she hates both parties. Now what ? Throw up our hands and push for Vermont-style direct democracy and use the internet. Telling us neither side is perfect is wonderful exploration in a few thousand words of the obvious.
No mespo,
She and other people like myself and David Swanson have given you an answer time and again. Act like a citizen. Stop being an authoritarian.
If you believe in the actions of your party, then by all means applaud them. That is your right. If you do not believe them then do the following:
“OF COURSE you should not vote for Romney. But civil rights were not gained by avoiding the responsibilities of citizenship in order to pretend that every day is election day. Today is not election day. Today is an opportunity to communicate a message to the holder of an office that has been given unprecedented power (again, by allowing Bush to walk free). Women did not vote themselves the right to vote. The labor movement was not built by the current strategy of funding a corporate political
party with working people’s hard‐earned pay. In that moment of voting, vote as you see fit. But censoring your criticism of your government, cheering as a spectator for one half of a corrupt government, treating government of the people as a spectator sport is working against what has always done the good you are intending to do here. We don’t need well‐meaning props in electoral commercials so much as we need activists, organizers, mobilizers, educators. If we reject any cuts to our
Social Security and Medicare, if we insist on an end to all the killing, we will move the culture of the country and with it all the politicians. That’s what’s worked for centuries. Avoiding ugly facts has never gotten us anywhere.”
David Swanson
P.S. you profoundly misunderstand Ms. Kimberely when you say she hates both parties. She is trying to jog your conscience, asking you to face what you are really doing. She is asking you to be a citizen.
Go figure the founding of your country was a Republic not a democracy, & the founders of it despised democracy.
The same thing happened at the RNC, both parties care nothing of people, only power.
In caving on Jerusalem, Dems pulled back the curtain on the lobby:
Last night was an amazing moment at the Democratic National Convention; for an instant, we saw the Israel lobby naked on the national stage. When party bosses stuffed the phrase, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel,” back into the platform, reportedly at the command of the president himself, and the Democratic rank-and-file on the floor bridled at the command and booed, and even the convention chair, Mayor Villaraigosa, looked to be following orders, the curtain was pulled back on the wizard of Oz– to use the great conspiratorial figure of a previous American century– and the press and the informed public were left to discuss what we had all just seen.
I just had to look @ the title of the post and knew this would be the longest comment thread.
Turley misses the point. God spelled backwards is Dog. The Willard put God in a crate on top of his car and drove for thousands of miles. There was nothing in the RepubliCon Platform about The Willard’s blasphemy.
Jill:
“you profoundly misunderstand Ms. Kimberely when you say she hates both parties. She is trying to jog your conscience, asking you to face what you are really doing. She is asking you to be a citizen.”
******************
Citizens vote; they don’t pick up their marbles and go home leaving the running of the country to their opponents. She’s not jogging consciences; she’s engaging in a meaningless surrender that is sure to be looked on with disdain by the victor and bewildered disappointment by the party’s inevitable loser. Ask Al Gore what he thinks of Ralph Nader’s principled run that cost Gore the 2000 election. But then again that wasn’t surrender; it was suicide of his principles. Walking out is a vote for Romney and his uber-right wing allies no matter how much pomp and circumstance you accompany it with.
I’m not big on making choices that aren’t there. If you are waiting for a party that perfectly meets the dictates of your conscience, I suggest you start one. That’s what Ross Perot did, sort of, and we see how that fared.
Tony C:
I dont know how you see it, but in the entire history of the United States I think there are only about 4, maybe 6 wars which should have been fought.
1. The Revolution
2. The War of 1812
3. The Civil War
4. World War II
5. Maybe the First Gulf War
6. Afghanistan on a very limited basis
Just because you fought or died for your country doesnt mean you get to dictate what constitutes a right. You fight and maybe die protecting those rights. That is why war should only be used when the survival of the Republic necessitates its use.
Politicians have played fast and lose with the lives of our military in the late 19th and throughout the 20th century. I wonder if there is a connection? I think there is but you wouldnt believe me.
I think I am going to start calling you Jean Jacques C.
mespo:
that is right, people should vote even if they cant vote on principle. I bet a bunch of Germans after the 1933 election regretted voting on principle. There were 6 or 7 candidates that year, had they voted for the second place candidate he would have been the first place candidate and the history of the world would be entirely different.
@ Mike Spindell: The choice has always been between the bad and the rotten.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
100%. ALWAYS.
Strangely, democracy is within our reach technologically now and completely beyond our reach as a society — forever. This is the fault of the Democrats, the Republicans, the these and the those, and it’s just true. To be more indignant that the Democrats have not produced democracy than that the Republicans have also not seems to me to be silly posturing.
Not only has nobody promised us a rose garden, but anybody who has, has been lying while stealing our roses and disarming our thorns. All we have left is “get over it” but I can’t.
mespo, Still whining about Nader having the temerity to fight the duopoly. Let it go, man. That resentment will give you agita…or worse.
James in LA
1, September 6, 2012 at 11:06 am
Obama is afraid the churchies. It hobbles him terribly.
——————————————————————
I honestly don’t think it’s fear. There are religious folk out there looking for a candidate so he’s invited them to dinner. That’s not hobbling … it’s just good manners.
Just for fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
nick:
“mespo, Still whining about Nader having the temerity to fight the duopoly. Let it go, man. That resentment will give you agita…or worse.”
***************************
If merely stating historical fact is “whining,” I have to wonder who taught you English.
mespo,
You’ve left one very important fact out of Gore’s decision regarding his Presidential run … keep Bill Clinton at arms’ length … hindsight suggests that was far more destructive than Nader’s involvement.
The choice is to act as a citizen. Vote however you want but be willing to oppose wrongdoing, openly. Work for justice. Vote one day, work for justice everyday! There is no reason not to do so except if one secretly agrees with Obama’s abuse of power. If you do, applaud evil and remain silent before injustice. If you do not, speak up!
I think many Democrats have come to agree with the abuses they earlier opposed. I think that is why so many people will not speak out. The Democratic “leadership” has effectively purged their left wing, leaving behind those who agree with a great portion of a far right, neo-liberal agenda.
Those who don’t agree with all of it can be easily worked around, as was the case when a clear no vote suddenly became a yes vote by fiat. The rule of fiat has become normalized to the point where very few people will even speak up about having their own voice silenced.
Others with doubts are easily manipulated by appeals to the fear mongering of the day. This fear mongering, along with strategic hate management has moved Democratic voters to support actions which only 3.5 years ago, they called anathema.
Democrats continue to believe they are far too superior and intelligent to be manipulated by their party “leaders”. Yet no one should go from supposedly deeply help positions to their diametrical opposite in such a short time, without some kind of propaganda.
Lots of good comments here.
Clinton’s speech was a masterpiece, both content and delivery.
Comment in article by Margaret Kimberley: “Barack Obama and the Democrats are not the lesser of two evils, they are the more effective evil.” So true.
Romney’s assertion re: God so important to our forefather’s. He doesn’t know history.
God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Religion is mentioned once, in the first amendment.
A requirement that candidates affirm a belief in God was defeated.
God is mentioned once, in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, as “Nature’s God”.
His specific reference to the motto, In God We Trust, is what was added in 1956, as was the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
JIll:
“Vote one day, work for justice everyday! There is no reason not to do so except if one secretly agrees with Obama’s abuse of power. ”
******************
Pity that’s not what your cited author suggests. She’s a boycott freak.
The good Sisters of Saint Joseph taught me English quite well, thank you. Life experience taught me to identify whining, the good Sisters merely taught me the meaning of the word.
Blouise:
You’re exactly right about that.
nick:
“The good Sisters of Saint Joseph taught me English quite well, thank you. Life experience taught me to identify whining, the good Sisters merely taught me the meaning of the word”
********************
Good, then I can blame you alone for missing the point and the manner in which it was conveyed by a country mile.
@Bron: Even without wars, American police officers die in the line of duty about every other day, at an average age of 38. Of over half a million such officers, about 10% are assaulted in the line of duty each year, and 2.6% sustain injuries requiring medical attention.
I do not believe my service to the country gives me any privilege any other citizen does not have; but I DO believe that only citizens collectively can determine exactly what RIGHTS we should have, not you or your misguided philosophy or religion or beliefs.
In order to have any meaning rights must be protected collectively, otherwise they are just an unnecessary excuse to fire a gun. For example, if you believe you have a Right to protect your property with lethal violence, the rest of society has to agree they will not punish you for using lethal violence in that way: Your “Right” means nothing if they burn your house down with you in it anyway. If you believe you have a Right to life, it does you no good if the rest of society hasn’t made a commitment to find and prosecute anybody that deprives you of it.
“Rights” not protected by the collective are just empty rhetoric, an excuse that means nothing, because if the collective does not agree to sacrifice its time and money to protect and enforce those Rights then they can be violated with impunity.
All of which means the collective is the final arbiter of what our Rights shall be, not you or me or anybody else.
I am a citizen and I vote for whomever I decide is the best candidate. Sometimes that vote is easier than others. But just because someone may not like who I vote for, does not give that person the right to claim that I am not acting like a citizen. I at least have participated in the process in every election since I was 18. I have also protested, and worked for change, and I still work for change, but I have always voted. I even voted for a 3rd party candidate once and that protest vote did not get me or the country any closer to a better situation.
mespo727272 1, September 6, 2012 at 12:25 pm
nick:
“mespo, Still whining about Nader having the temerity to fight the duopoly. Let it go, man. That resentment will give you agita…or worse.”
***************************
If merely stating historical fact is “whining,” I have to wonder who taught you English.
=================
Mespo,
You have many opinions with which I agree but on this topic, you’re the one ignoring historical facts and perpetually whining.
Gore actually won the popular vote in FL as the media recount established.
There were other candidates besides Nader who got more votes than the “official” gap between Bush and Gore.
Five individuals in black robes are the ones who appointed Bush, not Nader.
Gore didn’t even win TN, his home state. If he had, the FL loss wouldn’t have mattered.
Nader’s votes came from Democrats and Republicans, many of whom would not have voted for anyone else.
More Democrats voted for Bush than the difference in the “official” outcome.
NO candidate is ENTITLED to any votes. Every voter has the right to vote for whichever candidate they want. Gore wasn’t entitled to single vote that went to Nader.
Anyone who overcomes the onerous hurdles to get on the ballot deserves to be on the ballot and to any votes that s/he gets.
Get over it.
bettykath, Bravo!!! I voted for Nader and I am proud of that vote. I voted for John Anderson and Ross Perot. Although, to be honest, I was glad that little whacko Perot never got his hands on the nuclear football.
bettykath:
Official Florida vote count:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
Wonder if all those principled Florida progressives and Democrats who stayed home election day now wake up at night with a start knowing they ushered in George W. Bush.
Made sense to leave G-d out, that is thr more inconclusive, even if of Faith not all use the name G-d. This was expediency pure and simple. Take off one more way for the repubs to distract from their lack of platform.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/allen-west-ad-slams-dem-convention-three-times The dems knew these ads were coming, lee.
From West is meaningless but I agree with the initial platform for above stated reason re G-d. Jerusalem I don;t know enough about that to have a position on right or wrong. To me too though when saw on news this am vote sounded like at least 50 – 50
Swarthmore,
Consider the source of the ads. Allan West is one of the most hyperbolic and least intelligent members of Congress.
This is an interesting thread on many levels and I haven’t commented because my experience is so contrary to the other posters here but, what the heck, I’ll be the contrarian on the thread.
The first presidential elections I remember are the Eisenhower v Stevenson elections when I was 4 and 8 yrs old. My parents were party loyalists/activists and my godparents were machine operatives and for most of my youth I attended precinct meetings, went with my parents to canvass the assigned neighborhoods to hand out literature and knock on doors, and sat in my godparents office surrounded by stacks of campaign letters and inserts, addressing/stuffing them into envelopes, and attending endless political rallies and events. Good times. Lotta’ talk about politics, external and internal to the party at the ward, state and national level, and both clean and dirty politics.
Never in my political ‘apprenticeship’ or thereafter was it ever giving to me to understand that the presidential convention or any local (city, state) party function was an exercise in inter-party Democracy. Never. I really am surprised that so many people on this blawg (people with opinions and knowledge I respect) think that it is. Did I miss a revolution? These are party events controlled by the people that control the party. We can be as disappointed that naked political considerations take precedence over the will of the delegates but surprised? Srsly, surprise has never been on the table for me even if I don’t particularly like it.
I have seen (as have you all I’m sure) the same voting maneuver done on the floor of the House of Representatives and in state legislatures. That’s always a shock and a slap in the face, but at a convention that’s just business as usual.
What has surprised me is the blatant vote fixing regarding Ron Paul. Caucus votes were ignored and primary votes were fixed post factor to steal his votes. Similarly the vote for Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Prosser was blatant theft. The in-your-face nature of election fraud shocks me. As well, the use of security measures to stifle dissent and control the active space inside and outside of any political event has reached a new high- a 100 block security zone for the Democratic convention? Amazing. The use of the police isn’t new but the sophistication has evolved to a new level. I’m shocked by that. What happens inside the hall though? Meh.
commentary on convention security by my favorite news show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2—democratic-national-convention-security
Disillusioned Obama Supporter In Romney Ad Is Actually GOP Staffer
By Pema Levy
September 6, 2012
TPM2012
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/rnc-staffer-plays-obama-supporter-in-gop-ad.php?ref=fpa
Excerpt:
Republicans debuted a new ad Thursday in which a frustrated former Obama supporter expresses her disappointment with the president. The only problem: The woman in the video is actually an RNC staffer.
The new ad features Republican National Committee Director of Hispanic Outreach Bettina Inclan, who in the ad purports to be an average woman voter who supported Obama in 2008. She describes her disillusionment with the president in the ad as a romantic relationship gone awry.
“You’re just not he person I thought you were,” Inclan says in the ad, addressing a cardboard cutout of Obama. Inclan lists out-of-control spending and Obama’s penchant for hanging out with Hollywood celebrities as reasons for the break-up. “It’s not me, it’s you. I think we should just be friends.”
The ad asks people to share why they’re “breaking up” with Obama.
The RNC says its ad, which first appeared on television Thursday is not dishonest.
“It’s a lighthearted ad to show how millions of Americans feel about President Obama — he’s not the person we thought he was and it’s time to break up with him,” an RNC official told TPM. “But let’s be clear, it is an ad.”
Inclan began her current RNC post in January 2012, and has worked in Republican politics since well before Obama’s 2008 election. She did Hispanic outreach for Rick Scott’s 2010 Florida gubernatorial race worked on Capitol Hill for Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and as national executive director of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.
A Nun on the Podium Takes Apart Paul Ryan
By John Nichols
September 6, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169786/nun-podium-takes-apart-paul-ryan
Excerpt:
CHARLOTTE — The focus at this Democratic National Convention is on speeches, big speeches.
But one of the most remarkable — and well-received — speeches of convention was delivered by a nun.
According to some right-wing talk radio hosts and Republican strategists, the Democrats are waging a “war on religion” in general and the Catholic church in particular. They raised such a ruckus when the Democratic platform arrived without a mention of the word “God” that the document was quickly amended.
Yet, when Sister Simone Campbell walked onto the stage of the DNC Wednesday night, she was greeted with thunderous applause. The execitive director of the Roman Catholic social justice organization Network didn’t really have to announce that she was one of the “Nuns on the Bus.”
Everyone seemed to know that she and other nuns traveled the country this summer to call out House Budget Committe chairman Paul Ryan for proposing a budget that the women argued was at odds with Catholic social-justice teaching. Now that Ryan, who claims his proposals to shred the social-safety net are inspired by Catholic doctrine, is the Republican nominee for vice president, Sister Simone is turning up the volume:
Paul Ryan claims his budget reflects the principles of our shared Catholic faith. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the Ryan budget failed a basic moral test, because it would harm families living in poverty.
We agree with our bishops, and that’s why we went on the road: to stand with struggling families and to lift up our Catholic sisters who serve them. Their work to alleviate suffering would be seriously harmed by the Romney-Ryan budget, and that is wrong.
During our journey, I rediscovered a few truths. First, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are correct when they say that each individual should be responsible. But their budget goes astray in not acknowledging that we are responsible not only for ourselves and our immediate families. Rather, our faith strongly affirms that we are all responsible for one another.
I am my sister’s keeper. I am my brother’s keeper.
That last pronouncement earned sustained applause from delegates who had packed the Charlotte convention hall to hear former President Bill Clinton make the case for reelecting current President Barack Obama.And the crowd listened intently as Sister Simone recalled visits with Americans who are in need of education, social services and health care.
The crowd listened intently as Sister Simone told the stories of Americas who are suffering without access to social services and health care:
In Cincinnati, I met Jini, who had just come from her sister’s memorial service. When Jini’s sister Margaret lost her job, she lost her health insurance. She developed cancer and had no access to diagnosis or treatment. She died unnecessarily. That is tragic. And it is wrong.
The Affordable Care Act will cover people like Margaret. We all share responsibility to ensure that this vital health care reform law is properly implemented and that all governors expand Medicaid coverage so no more Margarets die from lack of care. This is part of my pro-life stance and the right thing to do.
At what is arguably the most pro-choice Democratic convention in history, speaking from a podium where just minutes later reproductive rights champions such as Sandra Fluke and Planned Parenthood Action Fund president Cecile Richards would present powerful arguments for the right to choose, Sister Simone was not merely welcomed but embraced by the delegates.
Sister Simone recalled the “seamless garment” stance advanced by progressive Catholics such as Joseph Cardinal Bernardin who argued that to be “pro-life” one must be opposed to unjust wars and capital punishment and strong supportive of social welfare programs.
That’s a long way from where Paul Ryan lines up on the issues.
The Racial Politics Behind the Right Wing’s Poll-Watching
Voting Rights Watch 2012 and Brentin Mock
September 6, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169783/racial-politics-behind-right-wings-poll-watching
Excerpt:
Last month, we published a story on a Tea Party group called True the Vote, which trades in voter ID law advocacy, voter registration challenges and poll watcher trainings. Challenging people who may have illegally registered to vote, and training people to observe poll activity are innocuous activities, but only when divorced from their racial history in the United States. A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice, “Voter Challengers” details that troublesome history while spelling out just how problematic such poll-watching activities can be, especially when administered by hyper-partisan and racially insensitive groups like True the Vote.
“This history of discriminatory voter challenges casts doubt on the fraud-prevention arguments traditionally used to justify these laws,” writes Nicolas Riley, author of the report. True the Vote, and their many allies, often cite voter fraud as the reason for militarizing the polls, but countless studies have shown that the notion of massive voter fraud is mostly bunk, as meticulously noted in this News 21 investigation.
Still, thirty-nine states allow private citizens to challenge voters at the polls. According to the Brennan study, election officials in those states are “under immense time pressure to decide challenges quickly in order to avoid voting delays.” True the Vote is aware of this, but they put it differently, saying at a recent poll watcher training that election officials are “under immense pressure to do the wrong thing”—namely let undocumented immigrants vote, and let people vote multiple times.
Scarier, of the thirty-nine states that allow random people to challenge voters inside polling places, only fifteen of them require the challengers to prove that the person they’re challenging isn’t an eligible voter. Which means that in twenty-four states people can wage all kinds of frivolous accusations—that a person is an “illegal alien,” or that they are using a dead person’s identity to vote—to burden if not intimidate voters. In these states, the poll challenger statutes can be abused and used for racial profiling, when not sending a chill effect to others who might be vulnerable for no other reason than having a Latino surname.
In those states, people can make up a reason to challenge a voter’s rights without any evidence backing them up, and do so with impunity. It’s the same as when people drum up charges of voter fraud to pass voter ID bills and go unpunished when it’s revealed that no such fraud exists. You can’t fabricate a police report by saying you were mugged if you weren’t; you can’t file a false claim saying you lost possessions in a disaster. In both cases, you face jail and fines for bearing false witness, but not if you fabricate voter fraud or voter ineligibility in many states.
The Brennan report points out that South Carolina and Virginia allow people to challenge voters even if it’s nothing but a whim. Consider that both South Carolina and Virginia both have passed voter ID laws. In South Carolina, that law is currently being challenged in a federal court, where it was discovered that the law’s author Representative Alan Clemmons made racist comments about black voters in an e-mail while discussing how to pass the legislation.
Both states have strong True the Vote connections. In South Carolina, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Cibby Krell, is a True the Vote volunteer with the Spartanburg Tea Party. In Virginia, the Virginia Voters Alliance is a group that trains Tea Party groups in challenging voters while pressuring Virginia election officials to engage in reckless purging processes.
It so happens that many of the states with lax regulations around poll watcher activities are states where True the Vote is most active. But in some of those states, True the Vote leaders—people who have trained thousands of Tea Party volunteers via webinars—don’t seem to know the state laws themselves. In a June interview with Erin Anderson, at the time a True the Vote regional director, I was told that “Wisconsin allows a poll watcher to make a challenge to a voter. Most states don’t have that [law]. Texas doesn’t have that for example.”
mespo727272 1, September 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm
bettykath:
Official Florida vote count:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
Wonder if all those principled Florida progressives and Democrats who stayed home election day now wake up at night with a start knowing they ushered in George W. Bush.
——–
Mespo, I’m truly sorry that you’ve taken the very narrow view that only one fact counts, the fact that skews the overall picture.
I don’t dispute the “official” vote count as being what you say. Less than 600 votes out of 6 million should trigger a complete recount, especially when it determines a national election. The recount was underway due to FL Supreme Court rule but the US Supreme Court intervened.
Obviously, at least to me, there were a lot people in Florida, as in the rest of the country (somewhere around 50%) that didn’t vote but it’s more likely that they, left, right or center, didn’t see a candidate worthy of their vote or that it mattered one way or the other. You are responsible for your vote, not theirs. I do wish that 50% had all voted for Nader : )
Instead of blaming Nader, how about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot that resulted in nearly 4000 votes to Pat Buchanan that were 4-10 times what was legitimate?
I apologize for the “get over it” comment. That’s snarky and appropriate.
Tony C:
““Rights” not protected by the collective are just empty rhetoric, an excuse that means nothing, because if the collective does not agree to sacrifice its time and money to protect and enforce those Rights then they can be violated with impunity.
All of which means the collective is the final arbiter of what our Rights shall be, not you or me or anybody else.”
So how does the collective come to a consensus? On what do they base their concept of rights? Do they pull them out of their nether regions, vote on them, make them up? Does everyone have to agree or do we need just 51% to justify “our” collective rights?
how do you have a society when the chances of everyone agreeing on collective rights is slim to none? It seems to me your collective rights lead to the domination of one segment of society over another or you split society into little fiefdoms.
Rights should have an objective basis and be rooted in the nature of man, that is what our founders tried to do for us. Collective rights are to have no individual rights at all.
bettykath:
No offense taken. I just wanted to point out the now historical fact that Bush won the state due to many factors not the least of which was apathetic voters who couldn’t fit ol’ boring wooden Al Gore into their paradigm of the ideal candidate. Bo, their principled stand worked so well that it gave us Bush and his gang of marauders. Principle is fine; it’s just expensive.
“Never in my political ‘apprenticeship’ or thereafter was it ever giving to me to understand that the presidential convention or any local (city, state) party function was an exercise in inter-party Democracy. Never. I really am surprised that so many people on this blawg (people with opinions and knowledge I respect) think that it is. Did I miss a revolution? These are party events controlled by the people that control the party.” (lottakatz)
——————————————————————–
Your experiences as a child somewhat mirrors my own except it was one parent at the Republican conventions and another at the Democratic conventions starting with Eisenhower/Stevenson contests. Eventually my father become the chief financial committee chair for a now retired, long serving member of the House and thanks to my parents’ involvement, I have attended more than a few Inaugural Balls in D C for both parties.
Your assertion that never was it given to you to understand that the conventions’ function was an exercise in inter-party Democracy is correct. Now you realize that in saying that, we have seriously disturbed an intentional spin and/or revealed a lack of experience.
One thing I have noticed that has really changed is the excitement level within the hall. I used to come home with the funniest looking hats, buttons, flashlights, goody bags full of things only a child would love. Conventions used to be like carnivals. You celebrated and charged up to hit the pavement for your candidate. I suppose it’s still happening, just not on camera though I did see a male child all dressed up in a suit and tie sitting quietly … hope he’s having more fun in the halls.
Mespo,
Correction: “That’s snarky and appropriate.” I meant NOT appropriate.
Ok. Let’s dismiss the subject with the apathetic voters being the reason Bush won.
Of the 50% who didn’t vote, some of them are probably not progressives and would have voted for Bush or Buchanan or Browne, Hagelin or Phillips. The progressives might also have voted for Nader or McReynolds. I’m not sure where Moorehead was on the left/right scale but she also got more votes than the “official” margin.
So back to my initial point: Don’t blame Nader. If you can accept that, I’m quite willing to blame all the voters who didn’t bother to show up.
The distinction that Blouise and lottaKatz has made regarding the lack of any inter-party democracy are the most helpful of the day, (for me anyway). I can hardly stomach the county party meetings so I’ve never even gotten near the conventions – chalk me up as among the inexperienced.
Still, it seems to me that both right and left feel disenfranchised with R and D, more than usual, (I think most Americans have always hated politicians with a few exceptions). Do the more experienced among us have suggestions on how to wrest control back? Perhaps, not at the conventions, but at a more local level perhaps?
@Bron: There is no real objectivity, all rights are based in reasoning about what typical people emotionally value. Like staying alive, for one, or not being beaten into compliance, for another.
Typically arriving at the decision on rights should require a super-majority. That is so the Right remains stable and cannot be easily tipped; if you allow a Right to be established by 50% + 1 vote, then the entire Right rests upon no single advocate switching sides. i.e. the collective opinion might change within a few seconds of passing the Right.
That would too fragile a state for something we want to term a Right. A vote of 75%, however, is a much stronger indicator of a stable and persistent perception or belief or emotional commitment.
Your perception of “objectively” defined rights is nothing of the sort, you emotionally value your life, time, profits, and stuff you own. There is no objective reason to survive, all reasoning in that direction boils down to what you want and value emotionally.
Collective Rights do not lead to the domination of one segment of society over another, for two reasons: First, because the super-majority that agrees on a right can be composed of different people in every instance. Second, because in fair system (which can be judged objectively) any law declared must apply to all, including those that declared the law. Nobody is “dominated” if everybody is subject to the same set of rules.
But, I will stipulate that depends a lot on the definition of “dominate” and “segment.”
If you still think it is domination, what gives you the right to dominate serial killers by punishing murder, or the right to dominate professional thieves by punishing theft? In a state of nature where those are legal activities, those “segments” of the population will not agree to be punished for the activities they enjoy and survive upon, so outlawing murder and theft is necessarily not a 100% decision, either. It must be made by a super-majority. If that is the sense in which you want to use the word “domination,” then sure, in your view the super-majority is oppressing and exploiting the “ruthless” segment of society.
Messpo,
Not chasing you but must take issue with you on a point of what democracy is. You adopt the pragmatic, we are here to win elections POV. All well, what is the point otherwise of participating.
“Pristine democracy on a voice vote of the party faithful that leads to defeat is simply taking your eye off the goal in the minds of the Democratic leadership.
———————-Messpo
But, I though that it was the people who steered the party, and that the platform was determined by the people.
Not by the candidate and the party leadership.
Would wish for views on that, but can’t impose on you. That is my naive POV.
If you take a step back you will see conventions are quite tribal. The different states[tribes] w/ their banners jumping up and down. The chiefs on the podiums preaching to the choir. Lottakatz I think understands this.
Mespo, Are you a Red Sox fan. They love to hash over losses from decades ago, it’s sad and tedious…not neccesarily in that order.
Elaine, Do you get a commission from The Nation? I go to a coffee shop in Madison where Nichols has his unofficial office. Very bright guy but quite full of himself.
If it was the people (and not money and party) who steered the party we might have more choices in our potential candidates.
julianmalcolm,
“Do the more experienced among us have suggestions on how to wrest control back? Perhaps, not at the conventions, but at a more local level perhaps?”
In many cases it’s just a matter of showing up with a few like minded people. I attended a D committee meeting. It was 4 Dems and me.
It’s how the tea party took over the Rs. They showed up in numbers and outvoted the regulars.
Ron Paul got as many delegates as he did by knowing the rules and having dedicated people who took advantage of the rules. Of course, those with the power used it mercilessly to put him down. Paul won in a way by showing how abusive those in power can be in order to maintain their power. It’s what they’ve been doing to him for years and what both parties due to those who want to participate outside the two parties.
hmm, this started out to be positive but got mired in real life. : (
Blouise,
Arriving late. You say:
“One stupidly worded sign can go viral and totally destroy a well disciplined presentation taking the focus off of the candidate and losing votes.”
Then OK, it is not democracy, it is a staged performance just like a speech on the stump, but without the hecklers.
In Sweden, we say: Vinn eller försvinn. Win or disappear.
Why not eliminate conventions? There were no choice making except the elimination of Paul’s delegates (I believe). What is left to decide here? How did that platform get out of committee without God and Jerusalen?
Bill’s speech was meant to talk to money issues with the independents.
Again consider what JT says, the red/blue and the electoral system makes decided states uninteresting. JTs 2010 blog is more and more attractive.
Use the time for debates.
No answer requested.
This is NOT a serious question. First off, this convention is more a PARTY than a political conventioin. I was also unaware that there was a faction of Democrats who were pushing for the omission of God and of Jerusalem as Israels capitol. Had there been any REAL opposition to the changes, they could have appealed the chairs ruling, and forced a division of the house or a roll call vote.
The opposition to the changes were more like the request at a party to do something that the organizers want. After the party gets going, I can guarantee you, most anything will get vetoed. Let’s get real here. It is NOT Chicago 68 style politics.
julianmalcolm,
“Do the more experienced among us have suggestions on how to wrest control back?”
There are so many suggestions written all over this blog. Stick around and add some of your own. Experience can sometimes be a hindrance to problem solving so jump in with both feet!
If that’s what the Zionists want, then just give it to them. After all, Israeli
help will surely be appreciated in some future 9/11,
id707,
(I don’t know if I’m supposed to respond or not based on your last sentence, but what the hell, why not)
“Then OK, it is not democracy, it is a staged performance just like a speech on the stump, but without the hecklers.”
Party conventions were never democratically run … expecting democracy within either the Dem. or Rep inter-party functioning is not an illusion, it’s delusional. So yes, it’s a show and a pep rally and an organizational meet and a networking event and as long as one stays away from the cameras, it can be a hell of a good time. The televised portion is mainly geared towards attracting votes for the candidate.
BettyKath,
“hmm, this started out to be positive but got mired in real life. : ( ”
I thought that was a good summary:
—-of the American system, which is not of, by nor for us.
—-the conventions, which are like professsional wrestling
—-how it all began with the Constitution, has been and is now.
Blouise, On more than one occasion suspected that we were twins, separated at birth somehow.
You got the full menu, column A and B! I often think that the best political education is the that starts with activist (or participant) parents that drag you along. Man, there are stories to be told and many of them are not pretty. That’s OK though, the ugly ones are just as important, maybe more so, than the more uplifting ones; they make the uplifting ones more heroic considering the ambiance. It also teaches that democracy is a full-time job, or second job. The process is relentless.
Ms. Blouise: “I used to come home with the funniest looking hats, buttons, flashlights, goody bags full of things only a child would love. Conventions used to be like carnivals. You celebrated and charged up to hit the pavement for your candidate.”
Yes! I loved that stuff, and at the local meetings and fund-raisers (which were very much like church socials- and many were held in church parking lots and halls with games for the kids etc.) the hosting wards were responsible for setting up and cleaning up the hall. All those wonderful and tacky freebies left on the tables when it was time to clean up were MINE- bwahaaaaa, all mine! Considering that some of it was campaign specific, buttons and the like, I wish I had kept them instead of playing with them until they were all lost or destroyed.
You didn’t have to outgrow that stuff either, something I learned way late! My Godmother and mother were always sights to see with their ‘finery’ and hats, like Mardi Gras. When I got into my mid-teens I was too cool to dress up in red-white-blue shirts or outrageous hats and wear/accumulate all that uncool kit… what a silly twit I turned into for about 10 years.
I never got to the inaugural ball level but I spent many nights, almost all night, in the homes and some back rooms (nobody chases a kid/teenager out- we’re kids, ignored except to fetch or construct drinks- something I learned early on in my godmothers basement office) for both wining candidates and losing candidates. The next election was talked about starting then, that night. Re-lent-less.
Professor Turley has said again and again that the R/D dichotomy and paradigm makes a mockery of the presidential election. What shall we guess it is, just to make his point as I understand it? Is it maybe 2,000,000 people out of 350,000,000 that decide the election?
Accepting that as fact, let me repeat, as I remember, MikeS’ point that we through our elected representatives do not control our Congress. And in his view the three branches are under the thumb of a cabal. Do not his words disturb you.
Now JT and MIkeS are shining lights here. And get often many kudos, etc. But why do their words not find a willingness to act on our part? I am confused.
We badmouth the process today, excuse it as being OK as a process, a show for he stupids, etc etc. Add your own to my list. Is this all we do with all the comments today?
Shall we take a vote, pass a resolution, adopt a press release expressing the majority views, with dissents attached as an appendix.?
Is this instead a meaningless exercise? Discussing democracy, but not using it in any meaningfull way?
Speaking as a inexperienced user of English, but does not inter mean between and intra mean within.
So if we are discussing politics within the Dem party, why are all saying it is interparty discussion?
Just asking…..
nick,
Not only do I get paid by The Nation–I get paid by the word, doncha know?
ElaineM, I LOVE that you can laugh @ a gentle ribbing. I’ve had face to face and email discussions w/ Nichols over the years. He also writes for a local paper here in town. We share an admiration for Feingold..that’s about it.
Elaine,
That is a great gig working for the Nation!
Democrats Retreat on Civil Liberties in 2012 Platform
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform
By Adam Serwer on Tue. September 4, 2012 9:02 AM PDT
What a difference four years makes.
In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor—and the Democratic Party’s 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform. Here are a few places where the differences are most glaring:
Indefinite Detention
2008: “To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court.”
2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has maintained the practice of indefinitely detaining certain suspected terrorists. It has also made use of “proxy detention,” by which foreign countries detain US citizens under questionable conditions, although the administration did do away with the Bush-era “black sites.”
Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act
2008: “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war…We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”
2012: The platform is silent on this issue. This isn’t surprising since, at the urging of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats passed up the opportunity to reform the PATRIOT Act when they had a majority in both houses of Congress.
Gitmo
2008: “We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years. With these necessary changes, the attention of the world will be directed where it belongs: on what terrorists have done to us, not on how we treat suspects.”
2012: “[W]e are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.” In 2009, most Democrats voted against funding to close Gitmo, and there were substantial internal battles within the administration over doing so.
Racial Profiling in Fighting Terrorism
2008: “[W]e will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.”
2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has in fact retained the FBI’s Bush-era guidelines allowing race or religion to play some role in investigations.
Torture
2008: “We reject torture.”
2012: “Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office.” Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody. It does not appear as though anyone will face charges over the Bush administration’s torture program, including those who went beyond its legal guidelines.
The section of the 2012 Democratic platform titled “Staying True to our Values at Home” states, “We must always seek to uphold these values at home, not just when it is easy, but, more importantly, when it is hard.” The distance between the 2008 and 2012 platform shows just how hard it has been, and starkly illustrates the extent to which the Democratic Party has given up on its 2008 promises to roll back the national security state that emerged and expanded in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
julianmalcolm: “Still, it seems to me that both right and left feel disenfranchised with R and D, more than usual, (I think most Americans have always hated politicians with a few exceptions).”
———————
True. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a hard core of people that love the process, the rock & roll and find politics, warts and all, dirty as it is, an honorable personal endeavour. It’s a duty that can be great fun as well as great work.
I’m watching excerpts from Rep. Lewis’ speech and an interview with him. I remember those times. I was turned away from downtown food counters when I went downtown with my black friend. The only black faces were restroom attendants and elevator operators. John Lewis is lucky he wasn’t killed. The current state laws targeting the poor, the elderly, people of color, the handicapped, students are treasonous. I saw the pictures in LIFE magazine of the bodies being pulled from their impromptu graves. Now, (Republican) legislatures just pass laws to accomplish the same thing. They are aiding and comforting enemies of Democracy. They are the enemies of Democracy.
Poor as the choice is, flawed as the standard-bearers are, as far from the ideal- or even the norm as we have sunk as a democracy, elections and the process are all we have; our revolutions lite. Who gets elected is important and I actually over thought it. The quazi-fascist or the quazi-fascist the traitors are fixing the election process to benefit?
I’d like the process to be better, I’d like the parties to be more responsive. I’d like the the Gilded Age to be a historical reference and not a destination but I’m not going to confuse the little picture with the big picture. I have a vote, that’s it, that’s all I got left. Little picture as it may be and even though I may hate the politicians I am asked to consider, I am compelled to use my vote to the best effect I can.
ID- you’re right inter v intra- I get them confused.
—-
Elaine,
A good sense of humor is a wonderful thing, cite on sister!
Elaine … the Nation is one paper where I’d love to be.
lotta … as a teenager one of the things I enjoyed the most were dinners. My dad was a Republican and their dinners were always in the ballroom of the fancy hotel. My Mom was a Democrat and their dinners were usually in a Church basement. I would go with my Dad and listen carefully to the warm-up jokes. the next week I would go with my Mom and the jokes would be exactly the same except for the punchline. Exactly the same.
The best joke teller was Sen. John Kennedy in the basement of Holy Cross. Young Bob Dole was the funniest Republican and he continued to tell jokes out in the hallway.
Yep, I learned to make a killer martini by the age of 9 and how to pull the tap so that the head was just right by the age of 11. Very valuable skills.
betty, what a great post. Put it out there! The one thing I would add, is on the ”reject torture.” We still reject torture, but we ADVOCATE enhanced interrogation! That’s all right, see! A rose by any other name . . .
It’s just so obvious! Instead of doing what was promised, he marched straight down the same road we were going before, only making it even worse. The elimination of due process just turns my stomach!
LOL Blouise, I envy you your bi-partisan exposure, and seeing President Kennedy in person. I liked politicians like they were rock stars- he was just the most handsome man, he had the mojo.
My godparents were Irish Americans- hard liquor drinkers, and my folks were beer drinkers so I got bar-tending skills at about the same age. I just know you were also ahhh, precocious, and sipped/sampled your wares at some point: quality control and all.
I think that’s why I was never really a drinker. You don’t have to sample many drinks at the age of 8/9 to realize that none of them taste good so why would anyone drink that stuff for fun? There was almost always some ice cream in the freezer so that kept me wiling kitchen help.
Bettykath, Kerry spoke at the convention a bit ago, he was lauding Obama for (among the list) ending torture. Not quite, as your list states.
Lotta and Blouise,
Thank you for your insights and perspective on the reality of politics. I love your reminiscenses of your involvement with the inside of politics. You provide the context that informs this discussion.
Mike,
I want to echo your comments laying Lotta and Blouise.
lotta,
“You don’t have to sample many drinks at the age of 8/9 to realize that none of them taste good so why would anyone drink that stuff for fun?”
Soul sister!! That is the truth!!
BTW … Kerry just surprised the hell out of me … he hit his mark and stayed there.
I first met Kennedy in ’55 when I was 10 years old. I don’t remember thinking of him as handsome. What I remember was his coming into the kitchen where I was standing on a stool in front of the sink emptying ice cube trays into a punch bowl. He offered to help and stood there next to me for 10 minutes talking about where I went to school and what I wanted to do over Christmas and when he found out I was a musician he had all kinds of questions. He liked kids. Three years later I was in the Capitol with my parents and he came out of the chamber and all the young girls standing along the red velvet ropes started screaming. He’d become a star.
Great memory Blouise. Sounds like there is a book in there!
The Democratic is anti-God and anti-Israel. They are pro-gay and believe in tax funded abortions even into the 8th and 9th months and even killing a child that didn’t die during abortion. That is a recipe for God’s judgement!
Does this come as any surprise from a corrupt party that, in 2008, refused to allow a floor vote, bullying Clinton delegates from states like California to acclaim obama in violation of their states’ election laws binding them to cast their first ballot for Clinton?
Or the party that rigged the MA primary this year to ensure that Chicago’s anointed one, Lizzie Warren, did not have to face the embarrassment of being shown up by the upstart Marisa DeFranco?
A pox on both their houses. We need new parties, with new politicians, and quick!
Mike and Rafflaw, thanks for the kind words, I feel like an old codger thinking about things that long ago. Blouise’s Kennedy memories are amazing. The (sadly) few Kennedy years entirely distorted my view of politics and even today informs some of the fundamentals of my political views as well as affection for some political conspiracy theories.
Lotta,
I feel the same about the Kennedy years. I still can remember the good Benedictine nuns turning the tv on when the news from Dallas hit the airwaves.
Blouise, Kerry was excellent. He surprised me. Gabby Giffords made me cry.
LK,
The killing of JFK affected all my feelings about politics and this country for ever after.
Tweet of the day: “Still accepting answers. How does Bill Clinton’s speech compare to George W. Bush’s keynote last week? #dnc2012″
OS,
Priceless. Thanks
Repeal the 22nd Amendment!! I’m voting Clinton.
Excellent tweet OS!
Blouise and LottaKatz,
The time zones force me to miss the fun here. But warm kudos to both of you for your unusual insights. You were not ordinary children, there certainly were others who were not allowed to be there. And to say that you bloomed as others thought you would, is to belabor the obvious.
Do a book: “Kids who did Stepenfetchit for Politicians”
I treat a convention as a party’s parliament, and that parliament should remain supreme. I’m, frankly, disgusted by this, and yes, it happens all the time. A chair tried to rule a constitutional change the leadership wanted by voice vote at a convention I attended in 2001 and I had to move for division. We lost narrowly, but far too narrowly for the chair to have made a ruling.
This stuff IS a big deal because it reaffirms that party leadership is able to use representatives as simple counters for the will of the party leadership. That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work.
As I said, let’s get real about this. It was NOT a constitutional change, nor even a serious vote on a substantive issue that had major support. If I had been a delegate, I too would have joined the NO vote. The sight of the chairs face when it was obviously turned down would have been worth it. That NO challenge to the ruling was forthcoming, nor the formation of any opposition caucus to the ruling, makes it clear it was NOT a serious issue.
I am not about to abandon the Democratic Party because of this ruling. Conventions, especially Democratic ones have a tendency to be feisty affairs with some such thing as this. As I said, let’s get real and look at serious issues.
I maintain that the right of a party to govern itself instead of acting as a support structure for a cadre within the party is a serious issue. That Democratic delegates do not is worrisome.
And please don’t assert that I’m arguing that people should abandon the Democratic Party in response. I can contain multitudes and believe they remain the best American political alternative despite a scene that would have looked more at home in 1968 than 2012. I contain multitudes.
mespo,
If you wait four years you might be able to vote for the female version and keep the 22nd intact.
id707,
All I can tell you is that my parents were part of the Greatest Generation and firmly believed that responsible Citizenship demanded active participation in self government. My mother used to call it, “Brushing your country’s teeth.”
The delegates showed their independence in this vote. Obviously, the leadership thought it was just simply a housekeeping measure that needed no preparation with the delegates. If anything, it showed the independence of the delegates and the ability to screw up things if they so chose. The GOP convention would not have had such a thing. They would have been good GOPbots and done what they were told to do.
Then there is the fact that the GOP nominee has contempt for much of his own platform and will not take it seriously, and indeed argues that in public. Obama on the other hand has enough respect for the platform to try and tweak it to his specs which is his right as the nominee. That there is not a major outcry about this shows the relative seriousness of the opposition. As I pointed out, I too would have voted NO just to be contrary. It was and is not a serious issue. Get a sense of humor and lighten up. Let’s fight about something that matters.
The grassroots should be running the party. In my district a few years ago there was a D. candidate I could have supported. I found out about his candidacy from friends and went looking for him to offer support. Couldn’t find him, he had quit. Seems that the power folks in DC has decided that a prosecutor was their guy and the one I liked had to quit. Not even allowed to run in the primary to let the party voters decide. He had already collected a respectable amount of money, small amounts from a lot of people, but the county honchos were being told to support the other guy. Too bad. The only time in years that I considered support for a major party candidate. Their guy won, served one term and is back in obscurity. Not doing Ds (or Rs) any more.
randyjet,
“The GOP convention would not have had such a thing. They would have been good GOPbots and done what they were told to do.”
I’m surprised that no one seems to remember that the new rule that allows the leading candidate to replace delegates s/he doesn’t like. What I saw was the chair ruling a yea win when the nays were much louder. Points of order were ignored. imo, the powerful (I was going to say leadership, but it’s my idea of leadership) of both parties exhibited the same patriarchal behavior.
Sorry, but you lie. He did NOT have to quit. There was no cop knocking on his door telling him to quit or else. He chose to quit accoding to his own judgement and reasons. It was obviously apparent to him that the other person had more prominent political support and money, so he CHOSE to quit.
That is called politics. If you don’t like it, don’t complain about it since that is how democracy works. He could have continued his campaign no matter what. He would not have gone to prison. He would not have lost everything he has. Just because you lose, does NOT mean it is a dictatorship or not democratic.
Turley takes a daily shot at the Democrats and Obama for this or that but no gripe about the RepubliCon Convention where the Ron Paul delegates were not allowed in. This dog is voting for Ron Paul! Not for the Willard, Unless of course I get some sense and vote for Obama. Todd Akin fans in Missouri are said to be organizing to vote for Ron Paul and not The Willard because of what the Willaard said about Akin. Why do they call the RepubliCon states “Red States”? Are they communist?
We never had Red State/blue State maps of elections until recent years. Everything used to be in black and white. Like on the front page of that newspaper in 1948. Dewey Wins In Landslide!
The illusion about Democracy is in Turley’s head.
Soooooo.
The US is not a democracy.
It’s a republic.
This must mean that the Republicans are the good guys and the Democrats are the bad guys. Seems simple to me. I can read.
Although… there’s some hints that the Republicans fall short of being republicans.
The US needs another revolution to bring it back to its roots.
So everybody vote Ron Paul.
This will upset both parties just about equally.
It sounds like the fairest thing to do.
No?
randyjet 1, September 7, 2012 at 11:14 am
Sorry, but you lie. He did NOT have to quit.
———————————
First of all, don’t call me a liar because you choose to misunderstand what I write.
Of course he didn’t have to quit. He chose to because the guys in DC made it very clear that they wouldn’t support him. It was his choice to fight or not. He chose not to.
The bigger question, and the reason I made the post, is why did the guys in DC make it their choice and not the voters in the district. I’m disappointed that “my guy” didn’t fight, but I’m livid that the guys in DC exhibited the autocratic/patriarchal behavior of making the decision for the people in the district.
I’m livid that the guys in DC exhibited the autocratic/patriarchal behavior of making the decision for the people in the district.
Once again, you are not accurate at all. The folks in DC did NOT elect the candidate. It was the people in his district. There are many factors in running for office, and support is one of them. Your guy could have run, but he obviously felt that without outside support from DC he could not have a viable campaign, Or it could have been any number of reasons of which we have no idea.
For example, length of party service and history is a factor. I would hardly expect somebody from outside the party to come in one day, declare his candidacy, and then expect the whole party to fall in line behind him. Sorry, but you need to learn something about politics, instead of looking for conspiracies and finding fault with everybody else. You and your friends are NOT the only people in the Democratic Party.
Blouise,
Well, your folks were not ordinary either. My mom took me to Adlai Stevenson’s reception at the hotel. I was about ten. She did not have the energy for more. Politics as
your parents did takes energy and time, I believe.
ARE,
ARE:”…. nor the formation of any opposition caucus to the ruling, makes it clear it was NOT a serious issue.”
Was there time to create a caucus? This was a last minute change I believe. But I was not there, so???
So the leading candidate gets to “take out” a delegate and substitute a puppet. Democracy in action.
Lottakatz and Blouise,
Thank you both for sharing your stories. I envy your insights based on real-life encounters and experience.
This was quoted today from Truthout as Tom Hayden expresses exactly where I’m coming from. Sorry about the length, but I wasn’t sure if people would follow the link:
The threat of a Romney-Ryan regime should be enough to convince a narrow American majority to vote for Barack Obama, including the disappointed rank-and-file of social movements. A widening of economic and racial inequality. Cuts in Medicare and Medicad. More global warming and extreme weather. Strangling of reproductive rights. Unaffordable tuition. The Neo-cons back in the saddle. Two or three more right-wing Supreme Court appointments to come. Romney as Trojan horse for Ryan the stalking horse and future presidential candidate.
The consolidation of right-wing power would put progressives on the defensive, shrinking any organizing space for pressuring for greater innovations in an Obama second term. Where, for example, would progressives be without the Voting Rights Act programs such as Planned Parenthood, or officials like Labor Secretary Hilda Solis or EPA administrator Lisa Jackson?
But the positive case for More Obama and Better Obama should be made as well. History will show that the first term was better than most progressives now think. A second-term voter mandate against wasteful wars, Wall Street extravagance, and austerity for the many, led by elected officials including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, Jim McGovern and Keith Ellison, would be, in the language of the Pentagon, a target-rich field of opportunities.
Why Obama’s achievements are dismissed or denied by many on the white liberal-left is a question worth serious consideration. It may only be a matter of legitimate disappointment after the utopian expectations of 2008. It could be pure antipathy to electoral politics, or a superficial assessment of how near impossible it is to change intransigent institutions. It could be a vested organizational interest in asserting there is no difference between the two major parties, a view wildly at odds with the intense partisan conflicts on exhibit every day. Or it could even be a white blindness in perceptions of reality on the left. When African American voters favor Obama 94 percent to zero, and the attacks are coming from the white liberal-left, something needs repair in the foundations of American radicalism.
I intend to explore these questions further during the election season. The point here is that they cumulatively contribute to the common liberal-left perception that Obama is only a man of the compromised center, a president who has delivered nothing worth celebrating. The anger with Obama on the left, combined with broad liberal disappointment with the last three years, results in a dampened enthusiasm at the margins, which could cost him the election.
By their nature, the achievements of social movements are lesser versions of original visions. As the venerable socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas used to lament, when asked if he was proud of Social Security being carried out, “they carried it out in a coffin.” The limits of the 1935 Social Security Act lay in its token payments, limited eligibility, and lack of health insurance – all a result of political compromises thought necessary at the time. Because paying for the program by taxation was much too controversial, Social Security was based on employer and employee contributions. That is what Norman Thomas apparently meant in describing the program as the death of his original vision.
While the forerunners of social progress are disappointed in the results they achieve, it should be of some comfort that the gravediggers have been trying to bury Social Security for 75 years.
As the Port Huron Statement concluded, “If we appear to seek the unattainable, let it be said we do so to avoid the unimaginable.” With dreams like that, it was inevitable that most of us cynically viewed the reforms of the Kennedy and later Johnson administrations as tokenism. Many young radicals of my time – SNCC and SDS – distrusted the Kennedys as too gradual and Martin Luther King Jr. as too accommodating.
But despite all the inherent tensions and faction fights, social movements do achieve significant reforms, which I would define as empowering the powerless, opening up spaces previously closed, and expanding material benefits for those previously denied them. Prominent examples included:
The 1965 Voting Rights Act, which racists and Republicans have attempted to thwart from its passage to the present day;
The enfranchisement of young people who could be drafted but could not vote;
Migrant worker protections achieved by the United Farm Workers;
Medicare and Medicaid (1965);
The US-Soviet nuclear test ban treaty was a response to global pressure for peace (1963);
Creation of the Peace Corps in response to a student campaign;
The birth of opposition to the Cold War (1965 SDS march and teach-ins).
We could neither anticipate nor stop the Vietnam escalation starting in 1965, nor the growth of the National Security State thereafter. The collaboration that existed on domestic issues – cresting in the unity of labor and the civil rights movement in the 1963 March on Washington – did not extend to foreign policy where labor and the Democratic establishment were battling communist-connected insurgencies. But the achievements were not as token as we feared. Under moral and political pressure, Kennedy evolved from early managerialism to become a crucial partner on voter registration, civil rights and the arms race before his 1963 assassination. Were it not for the assassinations of that time, our movements would have been participants in a broad coalition that came to power. A strategy for social change grew from our direct experience, that of outside (often radical) forces taking direct action to awaken and link with establishment insiders to achieve all that was possible, and to lay the foundations for later movements.
After several historical zigs and zags, a similar progressive moment came in the year 2000, when a popular American majority elected Al Gore president only to be thwarted by the US Supreme Court. Gore would have given us a ten-year head start in facing global warming, tested the limits of an environmental presidency and, arguably, kept us out of the multi trillion-dollar Iraq War.
Some on the left still believe that Kennedy was an imperialist who would have been no different than Lyndon Johnson in sending 500,000 Americans to Vietnam, and that Gore was no different than George Bush. Such opinions are wrong on both the facts and conjectures, driven more by ideology or disdain for two-party politics than by the weight of historical evidence.
What these cynical worst-case analyses leave out is the role of strong social movements and progressive constituencies in shaping the political character of the presidency. Just as Abraham Lincoln was influenced by the slaves and Abolitionists, and just as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was shaped by labor and populist movements, so the student, women’s, civil rights and environmental movements carved an essential place for themselves in the future that might have been under John Kennedy and, later, Al Gore.
Barack Obama, like Lincoln, FDR and John Kennedy, has been criticized as too incremental by his base and too radical by his enemies. An irate Thomas Frank concluded that Obama will never pursue a second New Deal because “that is precisely what Obama was here to prevent.” (Harpers, September 2012) In much analysis, Obama’s role seems to be to give austerity and global imperialism an African-American face.
Liberal icons share the disappointment from their perspective, too. Paul Krugman, who supported Hillary Clinton, wrote of the 2009 stimulus package, “Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat.” (Grunwald, 237) A common complaint from the left and liberals was that Obama was too timid, as if oratory could have achieved the public option in health care.
There is another explanation, as first described in my book, The Long Sixties: From 1960 to Barack Obama. It goes like this: Obama was elected on the wings of social movements going back to slavery time and, concretely, by an extraordinary campaign that challenged the Democratic Party establishment and Iraq orthodoxy in 2008. “Hope” and “change” were code words for Obama’s signal achievement, becoming the first African-American president. In doing so, he opened the door to the presidency to Latinos, women, Jews, gays and lesbians, and others long assumed to be “unqualified.” In victory, however, Obama inevitably fueled emotions ranging from anxiety to hatred among the legions that became the Tea Party counter-movement. Vast numbers of Hillary Clinton Democrats accepted the Obama victory with mixed emotions, while most of the new president’s constituency relaxed their energy after two years of grueling campaigning.
This was not the Civil War when slaves and Abolitionists pushed the president towards Appomattox. Not the New Deal with 40 percent unemployment, thousands of workers occupying auto and steel plants, and a rising Left resisting the threat of fascism at home and abroad. Nor was it the Kennedy era when 200,000 marched for jobs and justice under the leadership of civil rights, labor and clergy organizations. Not even close.
In fact, polls as early as 2009 showed that government was as much the enemy as banks and corporations. By a huge margin of 63-28, Americans preferred austerity to stimulus and that cutting taxes was better than government programs. (Grunwald, 186) In 2010, a 52-19 majority believed erroneously that Obama had raised middle-class taxes. (Grunwald, 393) Surveys by Democratic consultants indicated the same thing: voters pinched in an economic recession were reluctant to part with their tax dollars for a bureaucracy they did not trust. There was a racial dimension that few pundits mentioned: white voters in places like western Wisconsin, the land of Paul Ryan, were less than enthused about sending their tax dollars to black Milwaukee.
The surprising truth, according to Michael Grunwald’s book, The New New Deal, is that the stimulus program – the American Recovery Act – worked beyond anyone’s expectations. Which is true? Krugman’s repeated story that the stimulus was inadequate? Frank’s claim that Obama’s role was to prevent more radical change? Grunwald’s conclusion that it was both an historic achievement and all that Obama could achieve? Grunwald’s well-documented account, based on two years of writing, holds up – and should be read by any doubters.
At the beginning of the Obama administration, the American economy was losing a net 700,000 jobs per month. In the first month alone of Obama’s presidency, 818,000 jobs vanished. “The shocks of 2008 were nastier than the crash of 1929,” Grunwald asserts, citing the eight trillion dollars in housing wealth that vanished overnight. (Grunwald, 427) That terrifying situation only began to improve when stimulus dollars began to flow. The Recovery Act funded direct employment for people in 100,000 projects including:
“roads, bridges, subways, water pipes, sewer plants, bus stations, fire stations…federal buildings, Grand Canyon National Park, trails, libraries courthouses…hospitals, Ellis Island, seaports, airports, dams, locks, levees, Indian reservations, fish hatcheries, coral reefs, passport offices, military bases, veterans cemeteries, historically-black colleges, particle accelerators, and much more.” (Grunwald, 13)
The green stimulus package transformed the Energy Department into the “world’s largest green energy investment fund.” (Grunwald, 17) The US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy grew from $1.2 billon to $16.4 billion in two years. Ninety billion in stimulus funds were invested in green energy programs, which leveraged another $100 billion in private funds. An advanced battery industry was built from scratch, and 680,000 low-income homes have been weatherized, 120,000 buildings retrofitted for energy efficiency, ten million smart meters have been installed, and 400,000 LED streetlights and traffic signals. (Grunwald, 425, 439) Renewable electricity doubled in three years, as promised. Wind, solar and geothermal projects approved on federal lands grew from zero to 29. (Grunwald, 435) Solar installations went from 280 megawatts in 2008 to 1,855 in 2011. Just five years earlier, the Clinton administration barely pushed through a five-year $6.3 billion clean energy initiative, just three percent of Obama’s $200 billion. Two Obama administration mandates on fuel efficiency, one in 2009 and another last week, will increase the standard from 29 mpg to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
In addition to providing unemployment benefits to millions of Americans, the Recovery Act,
“pushed 39 states to rewrite their eligibility rules in order to qualify for stimulus bonuses, dragging the New Deal-era unemployment system into the computer age (and) permanently extending the counter-cyclical safety net to part-time workers and domestic abuse victims.” (Grunwald, 435)
Grunwald sums up as follows: the Obama Recovery Act, in constant dollars, was the biggest and most transformative energy bill US history, the biggest and most transformative education bill since the Great Society, a big and transformative health care bill, too, the biggest foray into industrial policy (the auto bailout) since FDR, the biggest expansion of anti-poverty programs since LBJ, the biggest middle class tax cut since Ronald Reagan, the biggest infusion of research money ever, and it extended high-speed Internet to under-served communities, a twist on the New Deal rural electrification program. And it contained virtually no earmarks.
And, Grunwald adds, the stimulus became a huge liability in the face of nine percent unemployment, the rise of the Tea Party, and a Republican Party strategy to punish any Republicans who cooperated with Obama. The Republican obstructionism was unprecedented: whereas the Gingich-era Republicans sought to stop the Congress during the Clinton era, the new Republicans had no qualms in trying to stop the president from acting at all during the worst economic and credit crisis in 70 years.
Democrats flinched. They stopped talking about the stimulus. They even let Jay Leno get away with joking that it was communism, “or, as we call it in this country, a stimulus package.” A CBS-New York Times poll in February 2010 revealed that only six percent of Americans believed the stimulus had created any jobs. More Americans thought Elvis was alive.
The Affordable Care Act
Perhaps more than any other policy, Obamacare fed the disillusionment of the liberal-left with the new administration. They agonized in watching Obama retreat over months from his preferred single-payer position to a public option and finally to the only option which could pass the Congress, a huge subsidy to private insurers that resembled the bailout of banks. Liberals blamed Obama for his retreat more than the dinosaur Democrats and obstructionist Republicans who insisted on the final outcome. Thus, Obama received no liberal credit for being the first president to sign the biggest expansion of coverage since 1965.
Obamacare adds 32 million more people to the rolls, including those with pre-existing conditions, women seeking birth control options, and young people up to the age of 26. The provisions of Medicaid in the Obama budget will support elderly and disabled people, and children, as well as middle-class people needing future nursing home care. These Medicaid expansions will be slashed under the Romney-Ryan administration, in addition to Medicare being degraded into a voucher program.
Like the stimulus package, however, Obamacare fueled the Tea Party’s massive protests against the bogeyman of “big government,” even producing hallucinatory right-wing calls to save “our Social Security” from the State. Timid Democrats retreated from their legislative product again, at least for one year. The media headlined polls showing that Obamacare was wildly unpopular (though a closer reading would show that a slight majority either supported the legislation or didn’t think it went far enough.)
Was this an optical problem? Did the passage of Obamacare appear to be a step backwards when viewed against the original single-payer proposal? Or did the liberal-left actually think the spectrum of American politics ranged from themselves to Obama, leaving out the inconvenient truth that hordes of right-wingers were both numerous and highly-organized. It had taken 75 years to add health insurance to FDR’s original Social Security concept, but the politics had changed scarcely at all.
Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama was the first presidential candidate to succeed on a platform of pulling US troops out of an ongoing war (unless you count Richard Nixon’s secret plan for peace in 1969 and “peace is at hand” promise of 1972). By any rational standard, Obama fulfilled that pledge when the last American troops departed Iraq last year.
Many in the peace movement did not believe it then and dismiss it now. To the extent this is a rational objection – and not blindness – it rests on two arguments. First, some claim that Obama was only following the withdrawal plan already agreed to by George Bush. It is an interesting question for future historians to uncover what shadow entity orchestrated the Iraq-US pact between the end of Bush and the coming of Obama. That aside, it is logical to conclude that the immanence of Obama’s victory pushed the Bush administration to wrap up the best withdrawal agreement possible before the unpredictable newcomer took office. In addition, Obama increased his previous withdrawal commitment in February 2009 to include virtually all American forces instead of leaving behind a “residual” force of 20-30,000. It is true that as the endgame neared, Obama left open the possibility of a residual force after American ground troops departed, saying he would be responsive to the request of the Baghdad regime. Here, some on the left seized on these remarks to later claim that Obama had to be forced by the Iraqis to finally leave. There is no evidence for this claim, however. It is equally possible – and I believe more credible – that Obama was simply being Obama, knowing that the Iraqis could not possibly request the Americans to stay.
Dissecting diplomacy, like legislation, is like making sausage, in the old saying. Obama certainly knew that he would gain political cover if he could say with credibility that he was only following Bush’s withdrawal plan and Iraq’s request.
A more bizarre left criticism of Obama on Iraq is that the war itself never ended but instead morphed into a secret war with tens of thousands of Americans fighting as Special Ops or private contractors. Why it would be more effective to continue a losing war with fewer troops has never been asked. After all the talk of tens or hundreds of thousands of US personnel being left behind, the most recent numbers are these: in June of this year there were 1,235 US government civilian employees in Baghdad (down 10% since last quarter) along with 12,477 employees of U.S.-funded contractors and grantees (not all Americans; down 26% since last quarter). (Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, “Quarterly Report and Semiannual Report to the United States Congress.” July 30, 2012) The personnel are for intelligence, embassy security and customary logistical support; not an extraordinary number in a country seething with anti-Americanism. South Korea allows up to 28,500 US military personnel, and Japan some 34,000, not including thousands more dependents and civilian employees – that is what a post-war occupation looks like. (Chanlett-Avery, Emma and Ian E. Rinehart, “The U.S. Military Presence in Okinawa and the Futenma Base Controversy.” Congressional Research Service. August 3, 2012)
Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Long War
Like many who campaigned for Obama in 2008, I opposed the continuing US wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the military doctrine of the “Long War” against Islamic fundamentalism. Obama has proven true to his word, the critics have been proven right in our warnings.
According to Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars, Obama granted his generals an increase of 33,000 troops for an Afghan surge, but drew the line there and insisted that those troops would start coming home in 2011, a pledge he has kept. The 33,000 figure was disappointing to those of us, including Rep. Barbara Lee, who demanded that at least 50,000 be pulled out by the end of this year. Instead, Obama has promised the pullout of US ground troops and an “Afghan lead” by 2014. In doing so, Obama has triggered a dynamic towards the exits favored by overwhelming numbers of Americans and NATO citizens (Mitt Romney has opposed deadlines while at the same time accepting the 2014 framework).
While it will take years to know the truth, I believe there is a strategic and political reason for Obama’s 2014 timetable. He knows that Afghanistan is a lost cause, though this cannot be acknowledged and dealt with during the election season. Between 2013 and 2014, Obama will have a narrow window to replace Hamid Karzai with a power-sharing arrangement, and make enough deals with the Taliban, the Haqqanis, Pakistan, China and yes, Iran – to salvage and perhaps partition Afghanistan. At present, the neo-cons running Romney’s foreign policy team will not permit any diplomatic contacts with the insurgency even if it means leaving an American soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bigdahl, in Taliban captivity. An ultimate political agreement to try stabilizing Afghanistan will require diplomacy with several countries at the top of the neo-cons enemies’ list. Even then, implosion and defeat are Afghan possibilities which Obama dares not mention.
Others in the peace movement, along with civil libertarians, rage against Obama because of his secret escalating drone attacks. They are right morally to keep making righteous noise, especially about the official cover-up of casualty rates. But it will take a political-diplomatic strategy of ending the Afghan war in order to stop the drones. Civil liberties and human rights groups who are vociferous against the drones still refuse to oppose the Afghan war itself, which is the primary cause of the drone killings. Such groups also oppose the assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders and the prosecution of whistleblowers without opposing the underlying wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.
In summary, Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq has been clouded in left disbelief and overshadowed by criticism of his policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and beyond. On the merits, these criticisms are entirely justified. When they lead to opposing Obama’s re-election, they help Romney and the return of the neo-cons.
Where to Go from Here
The white liberal-left, however modest in numbers, is hugely important in a close presidential election, where the margin of difference may be one percent or less in states with large progressive constituencies. If Obama loses, it will be unfair to blame the left, but they will be blamed nonetheless. As a consequence they will become more marginal, far less able to connect with the progressive constituencies and mass movements with vital stakes in Obama’s re-election.
The potential toll can be glimpsed already in the current decline of the radical left amidst the greatest economic meltdown in seven decades. Of course radical movements will rise again, but more likely from the activist networks who tried to stop Romney and re-elect Obama, not from those who sat on their hands and believed it was all another circus.
There is plenty of time to still make a difference. First, some people on the left will have to become used to the idea that partial power only brings partial results. While we can establish enclaves for dreamers from Mendocino to Brooklyn, from Madison to Austin, we have to win support from the center in battleground states or risk losing decades.
The second lesson is for self-defined radicals to be immersed in the everyday problems of the mass constituencies that depend on presidents to make a small margin of difference in their lives.
One small example of how it works: there would be no federal consent decrees over brutal police departments were in not for Al Sharpton hammering at Bill Clinton to include lawsuits for unconstitutional “patterns and practices” in his otherwise draconian Omnibus Crime legislation in 1994.
Third, election seasons are perfect organizing moments when large numbers of people are open to persuasion on public issues. It may be springtime before the next cycle of activism comes around again. Now is the time to build local lists and structures for voter turnout in November and street turnouts thereafter.
This particular election offers the perfect moment to build opposition to Citizens United and “corporate personhood,” for renewed movements for a constitutional right to vote, the deeper regulation of Wall Street, and a constitutional right to vote for campaigns down the road. Does anyone seriously believe that the Dreamers and marriage-equality movements will accept a return to second-class status without the fight of their lifetimes?
It can be time to begin a realignment of the electoral left as well. The active Green Party networks need to shed their reputation as “spoilers” just as the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) needs to shed its appearance of only “tailing” the Democrats. Labor insurgents like National Nurses United, and even the formidable SEIU, are demanding a more independent role in coalition politics. One can almost feel a new politics trying to be born in the so-called womb of the old, a third “party of the people” both inside and outside the two-party system. What if the Green Party decided to invest in places of the richest electoral opportunity instead of campaigning vigorously where the stakes are 50-50? Why not a negotiated merger of the Greens and PDA in the close races, and PDA support for Green candidates where they are most viable? It is entirely possible to visualize creative leaps out of electoral traps while strengthening an independent left within the institutions of state power. Protestors in the streets should serve as a permanently challenging – and threatening – disruptive presence in constant orchestrated interaction with forces on the inside, too, not simply serve as occasional “street heat” to be enlisted when pressure is needed by the insiders.
Now through November, the radical left can be the effective One Percent. The 99 Percent will be appreciative.
For a thoughtful left perspective, please see also Bill Fletcher and Carl Davidson’s August 9, 2012 essay.
Update: My “Saving Obama, Saving Ourselves” commentary is being circulated widely in the blogosphere, which I am thankful for. Let me share my responses to some of the many comments I have received in their various incarnations.
Pathological
“Your fraud-man Obama is the ultimate slick suave lick-spittle corporate tool not just content to keeping the MIC/Pentagon well oiled and lubricated whilst greasing his greedy grubby outstretched palms throughout the obscene duration of his four year tenure.”
Get a grip and let’s be in touch. If you include your email address next time, then I’ll gladly write.
Radical disappointment
“Hayden now says our expectations were unreasonably high for Obama. But I and a friend heard Hayden speak a couple weeks (at Metro State in St. Paul) before Obama’s 2008 election and were surprised, even then, at how absolutely enthralled he was. He could not gush enough.”
Yes, I was emotionally moved to see Obama win the primaries and the presidency, achieving something I never imagined possible when I lived in Georgia during the civil rights movement. But I also founded a network in 2008 called “Progressives for Obama,” which stipulated that we would continue opposing him on Afghanistan, NAFTA and other issues, while strongly supporting his election as a victory for his progressive and multi-racial constituency.
I have an African-American child and it moves me deeply that he is growing up in Obama’s world. I strongly identify with the women, the LGBT community, and the student Dreamers who have so much at stake in this election. So much. The left should be on their side.
At the same time, every day since 2003, I have written and spoken out against the Long War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan-Pakistan War, the Yemen War, and their terrible domestic consequences in terms of budgets and civil liberties. Until we end those wars, and the Drug War as well, it will be next to impossible to protect civil liberties from constant erosion. There is no reason to think our cause would be advanced under a Romney presidency.
Substantive Dialogue
“I think Mr. Hayden racializes the question too much in order to discount why radical progressives view the Democrats and Republicans as a two-party tyranny even though there are obviously great differences between the two wings as to how the tyranny of the corporate feudalism is to be enforced. Hayden sets up a straw man fallacy that the argument against the two-party dictatorship is based on the notion that “there is no difference between the two major parties.” That is not an argument anyone is making, except in the most rhetorical fashion of saying when it comes to the issue of the power of wealth controlling the nation the differences are negligible.”
Good points all, including the rest of the comment and those similar.
I know the “straw-man” argument seems made up, but Ralph Nader in 1990 and the Green Party this year argue that there is no difference between the parties, that they are a “duopoly” of one ruling system. The apparent difference between the parties, in this view, is only a difference in ruling methods. So there is no way the rank-and-file can ever take over the Democratic Party.
On the latter point, based on my experience, I think the critic is right. But I am not sure I have ever believed or written that the rank-and-file can “take over” the Democratic Party. The critic holds to a top-down analysis of the two parties as different “wings” of the lords who rule; the Democrats try to buy off the middle class in order to serve the same corporate interests. Maybe, but middle class achievements like Social Security were won by mass movements who secured valuable concessions from those “lords” in the 1930s, and there is more than a small difference between Social Security and No Social Security.
My point is that the critic entirely ignores the role of rank-and-file social movements in forcing important improvements in everyday life from the political class. These should not be dismissed simply as ways to keep the rulers in power – if that was so, why were those rulers so madly opposed for so long to women’s rights, civil rights, labor rights – as some of them still are? Social movements influence the climate of civil society, which influences voter beliefs, which forces some politicians to sometimes make concessions that matter to us all.
We can threaten the stable rule of the power elite with popular movements. We can ally on issues with the one hundred or so progressive Democrats in Congress or statehouses across the country. We can continue strengthening immigrant rights, women’s rights, labor rights, and limiting the freedom-to-maneuver of the war makers and Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street was a starting point. The great fight ahead is likely to be against the power of great wealth over our political freedoms. It is good for our organizing that Obama stood up to the Supreme Court justices in front of the country, and good that he favors a constitutional amendment to roll back Citizens United. That provides a favorable climate for organizing – but we have to make it happen.
As for “racializing the issue,” I do not understand all the causes but facts are facts. White radicals are the leading critics of Obama. Polls have shown African American voters favoring him 94 percent to zero, Latinos around 70 percent, along with a majority of women. Okay, Cornell West, Tavis Smiley and Glen Ford, all black, attack Obama. I do not know their intended vote. But including their dissent, black opposition still rounds off to Zero.
The threat of a Romney-Ryan regime should be enough to convince a narrow American majority to vote for Barack Obama, including the disappointed rank-and-file of social movements. A widening of economic and racial inequality. Cuts in Medicare and Medicad. More global warming and extreme weather. Strangling of reproductive rights. Unaffordable tuition. The Neo-cons back in the saddle. Two or three more right-wing Supreme Court appointments to come. Romney as Trojan horse for Ryan the stalking horse and future presidential candidate.
The consolidation of right-wing power would put progressives on the defensive, shrinking any organizing space for pressuring for greater innovations in an Obama second term. Where, for example, would progressives be without the Voting Rights Act programs such as Planned Parenthood, or officials like Labor Secretary Hilda Solis or EPA administrator Lisa Jackson?
But the positive case for More Obama and Better Obama should be made as well. History will show that the first term was better than most progressives now think. A second-term voter mandate against wasteful wars, Wall Street extravagance, and austerity for the many, led by elected officials including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, Jim McGovern and Keith Ellison, would be, in the language of the Pentagon, a target-rich field of opportunities.
Why Obama’s achievements are dismissed or denied by many on the white liberal-left is a question worth serious consideration. It may only be a matter of legitimate disappointment after the utopian expectations of 2008. It could be pure antipathy to electoral politics, or a superficial assessment of how near impossible it is to change intransigent institutions. It could be a vested organizational interest in asserting there is no difference between the two major parties, a view wildly at odds with the intense partisan conflicts on exhibit every day. Or it could even be a white blindness in perceptions of reality on the left. When African American voters favor Obama 94 percent to zero, and the attacks are coming from the white liberal-left, something needs repair in the foundations of American radicalism.
I intend to explore these questions further during the election season. The point here is that they cumulatively contribute to the common liberal-left perception that Obama is only a man of the compromised center, a president who has delivered nothing worth celebrating. The anger with Obama on the left, combined with broad liberal disappointment with the last three years, results in a dampened enthusiasm at the margins, which could cost him the election.
By their nature, the achievements of social movements are lesser versions of original visions. As the venerable socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas used to lament, when asked if he was proud of Social Security being carried out, “they carried it out in a coffin.” The limits of the 1935 Social Security Act lay in its token payments, limited eligibility, and lack of health insurance – all a result of political compromises thought necessary at the time. Because paying for the program by taxation was much too controversial, Social Security was based on employer and employee contributions. That is what Norman Thomas apparently meant in describing the program as the death of his original vision.
While the forerunners of social progress are disappointed in the results they achieve, it should be of some comfort that the gravediggers have been trying to bury Social Security for 75 years.
As the Port Huron Statement concluded, “If we appear to seek the unattainable, let it be said we do so to avoid the unimaginable.” With dreams like that, it was inevitable that most of us cynically viewed the reforms of the Kennedy and later Johnson administrations as tokenism. Many young radicals of my time – SNCC and SDS – distrusted the Kennedys as too gradual and Martin Luther King Jr. as too accommodating.
But despite all the inherent tensions and faction fights, social movements do achieve significant reforms, which I would define as empowering the powerless, opening up spaces previously closed, and expanding material benefits for those previously denied them. Prominent examples included:
The 1965 Voting Rights Act, which racists and Republicans have attempted to thwart from its passage to the present day;
The enfranchisement of young people who could be drafted but could not vote;
Migrant worker protections achieved by the United Farm Workers;
Medicare and Medicaid (1965);
The US-Soviet nuclear test ban treaty was a response to global pressure for peace (1963);
Creation of the Peace Corps in response to a student campaign;
The birth of opposition to the Cold War (1965 SDS march and teach-ins).
We could neither anticipate nor stop the Vietnam escalation starting in 1965, nor the growth of the National Security State thereafter. The collaboration that existed on domestic issues – cresting in the unity of labor and the civil rights movement in the 1963 March on Washington – did not extend to foreign policy where labor and the Democratic establishment were battling communist-connected insurgencies. But the achievements were not as token as we feared. Under moral and political pressure, Kennedy evolved from early managerialism to become a crucial partner on voter registration, civil rights and the arms race before his 1963 assassination. Were it not for the assassinations of that time, our movements would have been participants in a broad coalition that came to power. A strategy for social change grew from our direct experience, that of outside (often radical) forces taking direct action to awaken and link with establishment insiders to achieve all that was possible, and to lay the foundations for later movements.
After several historical zigs and zags, a similar progressive moment came in the year 2000, when a popular American majority elected Al Gore president only to be thwarted by the US Supreme Court. Gore would have given us a ten-year head start in facing global warming, tested the limits of an environmental presidency and, arguably, kept us out of the multi trillion-dollar Iraq War.
Some on the left still believe that Kennedy was an imperialist who would have been no different than Lyndon Johnson in sending 500,000 Americans to Vietnam, and that Gore was no different than George Bush. Such opinions are wrong on both the facts and conjectures, driven more by ideology or disdain for two-party politics than by the weight of historical evidence.
What these cynical worst-case analyses leave out is the role of strong social movements and progressive constituencies in shaping the political character of the presidency. Just as Abraham Lincoln was influenced by the slaves and Abolitionists, and just as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was shaped by labor and populist movements, so the student, women’s, civil rights and environmental movements carved an essential place for themselves in the future that might have been under John Kennedy and, later, Al Gore.
Barack Obama, like Lincoln, FDR and John Kennedy, has been criticized as too incremental by his base and too radical by his enemies. An irate Thomas Frank concluded that Obama will never pursue a second New Deal because “that is precisely what Obama was here to prevent.” (Harpers, September 2012) In much analysis, Obama’s role seems to be to give austerity and global imperialism an African-American face.
Liberal icons share the disappointment from their perspective, too. Paul Krugman, who supported Hillary Clinton, wrote of the 2009 stimulus package, “Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat.” (Grunwald, 237) A common complaint from the left and liberals was that Obama was too timid, as if oratory could have achieved the public option in health care.
There is another explanation, as first described in my book, The Long Sixties: From 1960 to Barack Obama. It goes like this: Obama was elected on the wings of social movements going back to slavery time and, concretely, by an extraordinary campaign that challenged the Democratic Party establishment and Iraq orthodoxy in 2008. “Hope” and “change” were code words for Obama’s signal achievement, becoming the first African-American president. In doing so, he opened the door to the presidency to Latinos, women, Jews, gays and lesbians, and others long assumed to be “unqualified.” In victory, however, Obama inevitably fueled emotions ranging from anxiety to hatred among the legions that became the Tea Party counter-movement. Vast numbers of Hillary Clinton Democrats accepted the Obama victory with mixed emotions, while most of the new president’s constituency relaxed their energy after two years of grueling campaigning.
This was not the Civil War when slaves and Abolitionists pushed the president towards Appomattox. Not the New Deal with 40 percent unemployment, thousands of workers occupying auto and steel plants, and a rising Left resisting the threat of fascism at home and abroad. Nor was it the Kennedy era when 200,000 marched for jobs and justice under the leadership of civil rights, labor and clergy organizations. Not even close.
In fact, polls as early as 2009 showed that government was as much the enemy as banks and corporations. By a huge margin of 63-28, Americans preferred austerity to stimulus and that cutting taxes was better than government programs. (Grunwald, 186) In 2010, a 52-19 majority believed erroneously that Obama had raised middle-class taxes. (Grunwald, 393) Surveys by Democratic consultants indicated the same thing: voters pinched in an economic recession were reluctant to part with their tax dollars for a bureaucracy they did not trust. There was a racial dimension that few pundits mentioned: white voters in places like western Wisconsin, the land of Paul Ryan, were less than enthused about sending their tax dollars to black Milwaukee.
The surprising truth, according to Michael Grunwald’s book, The New New Deal, is that the stimulus program – the American Recovery Act – worked beyond anyone’s expectations. Which is true? Krugman’s repeated story that the stimulus was inadequate? Frank’s claim that Obama’s role was to prevent more radical change? Grunwald’s conclusion that it was both an historic achievement and all that Obama could achieve? Grunwald’s well-documented account, based on two years of writing, holds up – and should be read by any doubters.
At the beginning of the Obama administration, the American economy was losing a net 700,000 jobs per month. In the first month alone of Obama’s presidency, 818,000 jobs vanished. “The shocks of 2008 were nastier than the crash of 1929,” Grunwald asserts, citing the eight trillion dollars in housing wealth that vanished overnight. (Grunwald, 427) That terrifying situation only began to improve when stimulus dollars began to flow. The Recovery Act funded direct employment for people in 100,000 projects including:
“roads, bridges, subways, water pipes, sewer plants, bus stations, fire stations…federal buildings, Grand Canyon National Park, trails, libraries courthouses…hospitals, Ellis Island, seaports, airports, dams, locks, levees, Indian reservations, fish hatcheries, coral reefs, passport offices, military bases, veterans cemeteries, historically-black colleges, particle accelerators, and much more.” (Grunwald, 13)
The green stimulus package transformed the Energy Department into the “world’s largest green energy investment fund.” (Grunwald, 17) The US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy grew from $1.2 billon to $16.4 billion in two years. Ninety billion in stimulus funds were invested in green energy programs, which leveraged another $100 billion in private funds. An advanced battery industry was built from scratch, and 680,000 low-income homes have been weatherized, 120,000 buildings retrofitted for energy efficiency, ten million smart meters have been installed, and 400,000 LED streetlights and traffic signals. (Grunwald, 425, 439) Renewable electricity doubled in three years, as promised. Wind, solar and geothermal projects approved on federal lands grew from zero to 29. (Grunwald, 435) Solar installations went from 280 megawatts in 2008 to 1,855 in 2011. Just five years earlier, the Clinton administration barely pushed through a five-year $6.3 billion clean energy initiative, just three percent of Obama’s $200 billion. Two Obama administration mandates on fuel efficiency, one in 2009 and another last week, will increase the standard from 29 mpg to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
In addition to providing unemployment benefits to millions of Americans, the Recovery Act,
“pushed 39 states to rewrite their eligibility rules in order to qualify for stimulus bonuses, dragging the New Deal-era unemployment system into the computer age (and) permanently extending the counter-cyclical safety net to part-time workers and domestic abuse victims.” (Grunwald, 435)
Grunwald sums up as follows: the Obama Recovery Act, in constant dollars, was the biggest and most transformative energy bill US history, the biggest and most transformative education bill since the Great Society, a big and transformative health care bill, too, the biggest foray into industrial policy (the auto bailout) since FDR, the biggest expansion of anti-poverty programs since LBJ, the biggest middle class tax cut since Ronald Reagan, the biggest infusion of research money ever, and it extended high-speed Internet to under-served communities, a twist on the New Deal rural electrification program. And it contained virtually no earmarks.
And, Grunwald adds, the stimulus became a huge liability in the face of nine percent unemployment, the rise of the Tea Party, and a Republican Party strategy to punish any Republicans who cooperated with Obama. The Republican obstructionism was unprecedented: whereas the Gingich-era Republicans sought to stop the Congress during the Clinton era, the new Republicans had no qualms in trying to stop the president from acting at all during the worst economic and credit crisis in 70 years.
Democrats flinched. They stopped talking about the stimulus. They even let Jay Leno get away with joking that it was communism, “or, as we call it in this country, a stimulus package.” A CBS-New York Times poll in February 2010 revealed that only six percent of Americans believed the stimulus had created any jobs. More Americans thought Elvis was alive.
The Affordable Care Act
Perhaps more than any other policy, Obamacare fed the disillusionment of the liberal-left with the new administration. They agonized in watching Obama retreat over months from his preferred single-payer position to a public option and finally to the only option which could pass the Congress, a huge subsidy to private insurers that resembled the bailout of banks. Liberals blamed Obama for his retreat more than the dinosaur Democrats and obstructionist Republicans who insisted on the final outcome. Thus, Obama received no liberal credit for being the first president to sign the biggest expansion of coverage since 1965.
Obamacare adds 32 million more people to the rolls, including those with pre-existing conditions, women seeking birth control options, and young people up to the age of 26. The provisions of Medicaid in the Obama budget will support elderly and disabled people, and children, as well as middle-class people needing future nursing home care. These Medicaid expansions will be slashed under the Romney-Ryan administration, in addition to Medicare being degraded into a voucher program.
Like the stimulus package, however, Obamacare fueled the Tea Party’s massive protests against the bogeyman of “big government,” even producing hallucinatory right-wing calls to save “our Social Security” from the State. Timid Democrats retreated from their legislative product again, at least for one year. The media headlined polls showing that Obamacare was wildly unpopular (though a closer reading would show that a slight majority either supported the legislation or didn’t think it went far enough.)
Was this an optical problem? Did the passage of Obamacare appear to be a step backwards when viewed against the original single-payer proposal? Or did the liberal-left actually think the spectrum of American politics ranged from themselves to Obama, leaving out the inconvenient truth that hordes of right-wingers were both numerous and highly-organized. It had taken 75 years to add health insurance to FDR’s original Social Security concept, but the politics had changed scarcely at all.
Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama was the first presidential candidate to succeed on a platform of pulling US troops out of an ongoing war (unless you count Richard Nixon’s secret plan for peace in 1969 and “peace is at hand” promise of 1972). By any rational standard, Obama fulfilled that pledge when the last American troops departed Iraq last year.
Many in the peace movement did not believe it then and dismiss it now. To the extent this is a rational objection – and not blindness – it rests on two arguments. First, some claim that Obama was only following the withdrawal plan already agreed to by George Bush. It is an interesting question for future historians to uncover what shadow entity orchestrated the Iraq-US pact between the end of Bush and the coming of Obama. That aside, it is logical to conclude that the immanence of Obama’s victory pushed the Bush administration to wrap up the best withdrawal agreement possible before the unpredictable newcomer took office. In addition, Obama increased his previous withdrawal commitment in February 2009 to include virtually all American forces instead of leaving behind a “residual” force of 20-30,000. It is true that as the endgame neared, Obama left open the possibility of a residual force after American ground troops departed, saying he would be responsive to the request of the Baghdad regime. Here, some on the left seized on these remarks to later claim that Obama had to be forced by the Iraqis to finally leave. There is no evidence for this claim, however. It is equally possible – and I believe more credible – that Obama was simply being Obama, knowing that the Iraqis could not possibly request the Americans to stay.
Dissecting diplomacy, like legislation, is like making sausage, in the old saying. Obama certainly knew that he would gain political cover if he could say with credibility that he was only following Bush’s withdrawal plan and Iraq’s request.
A more bizarre left criticism of Obama on Iraq is that the war itself never ended but instead morphed into a secret war with tens of thousands of Americans fighting as Special Ops or private contractors. Why it would be more effective to continue a losing war with fewer troops has never been asked. After all the talk of tens or hundreds of thousands of US personnel being left behind, the most recent numbers are these: in June of this year there were 1,235 US government civilian employees in Baghdad (down 10% since last quarter) along with 12,477 employees of U.S.-funded contractors and grantees (not all Americans; down 26% since last quarter). (Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, “Quarterly Report and Semiannual Report to the United States Congress.” July 30, 2012) The personnel are for intelligence, embassy security and customary logistical support; not an extraordinary number in a country seething with anti-Americanism. South Korea allows up to 28,500 US military personnel, and Japan some 34,000, not including thousands more dependents and civilian employees – that is what a post-war occupation looks like. (Chanlett-Avery, Emma and Ian E. Rinehart, “The U.S. Military Presence in Okinawa and the Futenma Base Controversy.” Congressional Research Service. August 3, 2012)
Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Long War
Like many who campaigned for Obama in 2008, I opposed the continuing US wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the military doctrine of the “Long War” against Islamic fundamentalism. Obama has proven true to his word, the critics have been proven right in our warnings.
According to Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars, Obama granted his generals an increase of 33,000 troops for an Afghan surge, but drew the line there and insisted that those troops would start coming home in 2011, a pledge he has kept. The 33,000 figure was disappointing to those of us, including Rep. Barbara Lee, who demanded that at least 50,000 be pulled out by the end of this year. Instead, Obama has promised the pullout of US ground troops and an “Afghan lead” by 2014. In doing so, Obama has triggered a dynamic towards the exits favored by overwhelming numbers of Americans and NATO citizens (Mitt Romney has opposed deadlines while at the same time accepting the 2014 framework).
While it will take years to know the truth, I believe there is a strategic and political reason for Obama’s 2014 timetable. He knows that Afghanistan is a lost cause, though this cannot be acknowledged and dealt with during the election season. Between 2013 and 2014, Obama will have a narrow window to replace Hamid Karzai with a power-sharing arrangement, and make enough deals with the Taliban, the Haqqanis, Pakistan, China and yes, Iran – to salvage and perhaps partition Afghanistan. At present, the neo-cons running Romney’s foreign policy team will not permit any diplomatic contacts with the insurgency even if it means leaving an American soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bigdahl, in Taliban captivity. An ultimate political agreement to try stabilizing Afghanistan will require diplomacy with several countries at the top of the neo-cons enemies’ list. Even then, implosion and defeat are Afghan possibilities which Obama dares not mention.
Others in the peace movement, along with civil libertarians, rage against Obama because of his secret escalating drone attacks. They are right morally to keep making righteous noise, especially about the official cover-up of casualty rates. But it will take a political-diplomatic strategy of ending the Afghan war in order to stop the drones. Civil liberties and human rights groups who are vociferous against the drones still refuse to oppose the Afghan war itself, which is the primary cause of the drone killings. Such groups also oppose the assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders and the prosecution of whistleblowers without opposing the underlying wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.
In summary, Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq has been clouded in left disbelief and overshadowed by criticism of his policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and beyond. On the merits, these criticisms are entirely justified. When they lead to opposing Obama’s re-election, they help Romney and the return of the neo-cons.
Where to Go from Here
The white liberal-left, however modest in numbers, is hugely important in a close presidential election, where the margin of difference may be one percent or less in states with large progressive constituencies. If Obama loses, it will be unfair to blame the left, but they will be blamed nonetheless. As a consequence they will become more marginal, far less able to connect with the progressive constituencies and mass movements with vital stakes in Obama’s re-election.
The potential toll can be glimpsed already in the current decline of the radical left amidst the greatest economic meltdown in seven decades. Of course radical movements will rise again, but more likely from the activist networks who tried to stop Romney and re-elect Obama, not from those who sat on their hands and believed it was all another circus.
There is plenty of time to still make a difference. First, some people on the left will have to become used to the idea that partial power only brings partial results. While we can establish enclaves for dreamers from Mendocino to Brooklyn, from Madison to Austin, we have to win support from the center in battleground states or risk losing decades.
The second lesson is for self-defined radicals to be immersed in the everyday problems of the mass constituencies that depend on presidents to make a small margin of difference in their lives.
One small example of how it works: there would be no federal consent decrees over brutal police departments were in not for Al Sharpton hammering at Bill Clinton to include lawsuits for unconstitutional “patterns and practices” in his otherwise draconian Omnibus Crime legislation in 1994.
Third, election seasons are perfect organizing moments when large numbers of people are open to persuasion on public issues. It may be springtime before the next cycle of activism comes around again. Now is the time to build local lists and structures for voter turnout in November and street turnouts thereafter.
This particular election offers the perfect moment to build opposition to Citizens United and “corporate personhood,” for renewed movements for a constitutional right to vote, the deeper regulation of Wall Street, and a constitutional right to vote for campaigns down the road. Does anyone seriously believe that the Dreamers and marriage-equality movements will accept a return to second-class status without the fight of their lifetimes?
It can be time to begin a realignment of the electoral left as well. The active Green Party networks need to shed their reputation as “spoilers” just as the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) needs to shed its appearance of only “tailing” the Democrats. Labor insurgents like National Nurses United, and even the formidable SEIU, are demanding a more independent role in coalition politics. One can almost feel a new politics trying to be born in the so-called womb of the old, a third “party of the people” both inside and outside the two-party system. What if the Green Party decided to invest in places of the richest electoral opportunity instead of campaigning vigorously where the stakes are 50-50? Why not a negotiated merger of the Greens and PDA in the close races, and PDA support for Green candidates where they are most viable? It is entirely possible to visualize creative leaps out of electoral traps while strengthening an independent left within the institutions of state power. Protestors in the streets should serve as a permanently challenging – and threatening – disruptive presence in constant orchestrated interaction with forces on the inside, too, not simply serve as occasional “street heat” to be enlisted when pressure is needed by the insiders.
Now through November, the radical left can be the effective One Percent. The 99 Percent will be appreciative.
For a thoughtful left perspective, please see also Bill Fletcher and Carl Davidson’s August 9, 2012 essay.
Update: My “Saving Obama, Saving Ourselves” commentary is being circulated widely in the blogosphere, which I am thankful for. Let me share my responses to some of the many comments I have received in their various incarnations.
Pathological
“Your fraud-man Obama is the ultimate slick suave lick-spittle corporate tool not just content to keeping the MIC/Pentagon well oiled and lubricated whilst greasing his greedy grubby outstretched palms throughout the obscene duration of his four year tenure.”
Get a grip and let’s be in touch. If you include your email address next time, then I’ll gladly write.
Radical disappointment
“Hayden now says our expectations were unreasonably high for Obama. But I and a friend heard Hayden speak a couple weeks (at Metro State in St. Paul) before Obama’s 2008 election and were surprised, even then, at how absolutely enthralled he was. He could not gush enough.”
Yes, I was emotionally moved to see Obama win the primaries and the presidency, achieving something I never imagined possible when I lived in Georgia during the civil rights movement. But I also founded a network in 2008 called “Progressives for Obama,” which stipulated that we would continue opposing him on Afghanistan, NAFTA and other issues, while strongly supporting his election as a victory for his progressive and multi-racial constituency.
I have an African-American child and it moves me deeply that he is growing up in Obama’s world. I strongly identify with the women, the LGBT community, and the student Dreamers who have so much at stake in this election. So much. The left should be on their side.
At the same time, every day since 2003, I have written and spoken out against the Long War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan-Pakistan War, the Yemen War, and their terrible domestic consequences in terms of budgets and civil liberties. Until we end those wars, and the Drug War as well, it will be next to impossible to protect civil liberties from constant erosion. There is no reason to think our cause would be advanced under a Romney presidency.
Substantive Dialogue
“I think Mr. Hayden racializes the question too much in order to discount why radical progressives view the Democrats and Republicans as a two-party tyranny even though there are obviously great differences between the two wings as to how the tyranny of the corporate feudalism is to be enforced. Hayden sets up a straw man fallacy that the argument against the two-party dictatorship is based on the notion that “there is no difference between the two major parties.” That is not an argument anyone is making, except in the most rhetorical fashion of saying when it comes to the issue of the power of wealth controlling the nation the differences are negligible.”
Good points all, including the rest of the comment and those similar.
I know the “straw-man” argument seems made up, but Ralph Nader in 1990 and the Green Party this year argue that there is no difference between the parties, that they are a “duopoly” of one ruling system. The apparent difference between the parties, in this view, is only a difference in ruling methods. So there is no way the rank-and-file can ever take over the Democratic Party.
On the latter point, based on my experience, I think the critic is right. But I am not sure I have ever believed or written that the rank-and-file can “take over” the Democratic Party. The critic holds to a top-down analysis of the two parties as different “wings” of the lords who rule; the Democrats try to buy off the middle class in order to serve the same corporate interests. Maybe, but middle class achievements like Social Security were won by mass movements who secured valuable concessions from those “lords” in the 1930s, and there is more than a small difference between Social Security and No Social Security.
My point is that the critic entirely ignores the role of rank-and-file social movements in forcing important improvements in everyday life from the political class. These should not be dismissed simply as ways to keep the rulers in power – if that was so, why were those rulers so madly opposed for so long to women’s rights, civil rights, labor rights – as some of them still are? Social movements influence the climate of civil society, which influences voter beliefs, which forces some politicians to sometimes make concessions that matter to us all.
We can threaten the stable rule of the power elite with popular movements. We can ally on issues with the one hundred or so progressive Democrats in Congress or statehouses across the country. We can continue strengthening immigrant rights, women’s rights, labor rights, and limiting the freedom-to-maneuver of the war makers and Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street was a starting point. The great fight ahead is likely to be against the power of great wealth over our political freedoms. It is good for our organizing that Obama stood up to the Supreme Court justices in front of the country, and good that he favors a constitutional amendment to roll back Citizens United. That provides a favorable climate for organizing – but we have to make it happen.
As for “racializing the issue,” I do not understand all the causes but facts are facts. White radicals are the leading critics of Obama. Polls have shown African American voters favoring him 94 percent to zero, Latinos around 70 percent, along with a majority of women. Okay, Cornell West, Tavis Smiley
Arthur,
The folks in DC limited the choice of candidates. They would not only not supported him, they would have actively worked against him. People with power who are more interested in retaining their power than allowing “the people” to decide are the biggest danger to our country. I include all those with the money to buy their own reps.
You assume that I’m a Dem. I’m not. Can’t remember if I ever was. I’m an independent who has worked on a number of campaigns in a number of capacities. I know about the dirty tricks and the situational so-called ethics, and the rules that get twisted to support whatever decisions those with the power and money want. I know what it’s like to collect tens of thousands of signatures to get on the ballot while an opponent needs a couple of thousand. I don’t like it and will continue to object to it.
In this case, I’m objecting to out-of-district people deciding for people within the district what their choices will be.
Just to throw something else out there, I also object to out of district money supporting one candidate or another.
In this case, I’m objecting to out-of-district people deciding for people within the district what their choices will be.
Your arrogance is breathtaking. So not only do you say you are NOT a member of the Democratic party, but now you think that YOU can simply waltz in and say who the party’s candidate should be. It should be YOUR candidate without even having lifted so much as a finger to support the party or served as an election judge or other grassroots position. I am outraged at this kind of thing!
It obviously never occurred to you that the other person who the DC folks wanted ALSO has supporters in the district who actually DO the shit work of politics. Once again, you think that the DC folks prevented your guy from running. You forget that you agreed that this was NOT the case. Once again, he could have run in the primary, and it would be the DEMOCRATIC VOTERS in that district who decide, NOT the DC folks. It is amazing that simple truth evades you, and that you think your wishes should be granted no matter what. If they are not, then it is corrupt politics, not your lack of work or thinking.
randyjet,
Your arrogance is absolutely breathtaking. I’ll need a break to get mine back.
To create fascist totalitarianism requires but a signature.
To create an informed change in society requires a century…..at least.
To lose heart and leave the field to the Kochs, their money in all districts, and to R&R is to put the pen in their hands.
Will you do that?
“Why do they call the RepubliCon states “Red States”? Are they communist?”
In war games the red team is the one which probes for vulnerabilities. In the case of the red team in Virginia it is a different sort of probe.
RandyJet,
Your vision of politics is astoundingly like that of Josef Stalin.
You write:
“It should be YOUR candidate without even having lifted so much as a finger to support the party or served as an election judge or other grassroots position. I am outraged at this kind of thing!”
Josef Stalin also thought it should be his candidate that he chose from Moscow, or his local standins, who would be chosen There was no opposition to him or his stooges.
None living anyway.
So what is the difference from Stalin’s USSR to your ideas that the local cadre should, on eventual orders from Washington, choose and finance the “right” candidate?
And that the candidates should be chosen from the local appratatchniks is of course neither true nor realistic.
Should we choose our future from the “hard workere who have been faithful to the party”?
Or should we choose people of principle, morals, and integrity and good ideas which we support?
You would quite simply give us “one candidate” elections.
That suits you, but not me or BettyKath.
Where did the famous phrase and practice of letting anybody throw their hat in the ring and stand up to appeal to the people?
RandyJet supports machine politics. And we have ample proof where thet leads to.
PS Thanks BettyKath for bringing up this important point.
“HOW TO ABANDON DEMOCRACY TO THE POL CLASS”
Mike S.
that was a long article from Hayden, but a great one.
randyjet,
Got my breath back. Let’s try again.
“So not only do you say you are NOT a member of the Democratic party, but now you think that YOU can simply waltz in and say who the party’s candidate should be.”
——-
I’m not a member of the democratic party but I’m an active citizen in my political district. As such, I have the right to support whatever candidate I think is best for my district regardless of party.
=================
“It should be YOUR candidate without even having lifted so much as a finger to support the party or served as an election judge or other grassroots position.
————
I actually have many years of political activism and activities. And even without this experience, as a citizen I have the right, even responsibility, to actively support (or not) candidates of whatever party.
=================
I am outraged at this kind of thing!”
———-
You are easily outraged.
================
“It obviously never occurred to you that the other person who the DC folks wanted ALSO has supporters in the district who actually DO the shit work of politics. ”
———-
So let those people help get him on the ballot, do the door knocking and phone banking and flyer distribution etc. etc. etc. for their own candidate. Then on election day we all make sure our candidates’ supporters get to the polls.
=======================
“Once again, you think that the DC folks prevented your guy from running. You forget that you agreed that this was NOT the case. Once again, he could have run in the primary, and it would be the DEMOCRATIC VOTERS in that district who decide, NOT the DC folks. It is amazing that simple truth evades you, and that you think your wishes should be granted no matter what. If they are not, then it is corrupt politics, not your lack of work or thinking.”
————-
I accept losing elections. It’s a necessary part of the process. Someone wins, not everyone. I do consider the influence of out of district power players bringing their full weight to discourage candidates from running against their pick to be corrupt politics.
I’ve chosen not to be a member of a party because I want to support the candidate that I consider to be the best for the job, regardless of party or lack of party. It’s an uphill battle, even harder when I have to deal with party hacks who can’t see that they’re supporting suppressive politics.
I have read straw arguments before, but 707 has broken the mold in this field. Not only is he incapable of knowing history, but he cannot understand the difference between Stalin and the US current politics. AS bettykath admitted, it was HER candidate who decided NOT to run. It was NOT because a cop was banging on his door to take him to prison if he ran. THAT is the simple difference you fail to understand.
Where did the famous phrase and practice of letting anybody throw their hat in the ring and stand up to appeal to the people?
Once again, you fail to understand that it was NOT the so called dictators in DC that did not allow that. It was the considered decision of her candidate who for many reasons decided not to run. My guess is that he figured out that hs support in the district was not enough to prevail and that the support of his opponent in that district was TOO MUCH for him to overcome. Sorry, but that is how democracy works. It is the height of arrogance to think that only YOUR candidate is the people choice. WE have ELECTIONS to decide that question, not your opinion.
As for machine politics. ALL government, political parties, and even revolutions are MACHINE politics. There has to be some organization and people making things work in elections, parties, and government. I am astounded that you do not understand that. Candidates just don’t spring up from the ground out of no where. You have to put in your time in working in the parties, politics, and other public endeavors. There is nothing wrong with working in political parties since that is how we decide things. if you chose to not do that, then somebody else will, and it is damn stupid and arrogant of you to think that you can simply waltz in and take over and run things for YOUR benefit and views. Try doing the hard work of politics instead of being a dilletante and spoiled brat.
Arthur,
Feel better now? Maybe a bit of chamomile tea?
It’s exactly attitudes like yours that keep me from joining the Dem or the Reps. A bunch of guys who think they are privileged and entitled, totally ignorant of those they step on.
707,
Actually, I came to thank you for the history but got sidetracked by Arthur.
You are absolutely right. The idea that multi-candidate elections are the anathema of the established parties is right on. In the case I mentioned, they threw their weight behind the idea that there wouldn’t even be an election to choose a candidate. No primary, no contest.
And for the final event, whether for president or any other office, candidates who are not a D or an R need not apply. The requirements to get on the ballot for independents are onerous in most states. And you know who makes those rules.
Arthur,
A shame you can’t see your words and how they condemn you and the American system.
Our holy FFs said all men are created equal. They did not say that those who work for a party shall be given the reins to rule us.
That is how politics work, you say. And dilettants like me have no place trying to help someone who tosses his hat in the ring. Would you also say that I may not vote for whom I wish?
I do not say that politics does not work as you claim.
It does indeed. But I prefer the idea that all men are equal, UNTIL they prove themselves BETTER. Then we can choose them to represent us.
With your politics we get no choice at all. Only duopolitics. And machine politics within each party.
Up to 80 percent of the voters reject your idea.
But as long as you have yours, that’s OK with you and your buddies, and your approved position. Time servers and political workers should control the choice options of the citizenry.
Same system as in the USSR, North Korea, and China.
Amazing you can not see that.
The long quote clains it is the movements that cause change. Not the politicians. That seems self-evident.
But not if you and your politicians can stop us. Right?
Raff,
Hayden’s article was one I wished I had the wisdom to write myself. I normally don’t put whole articles in comments, but for this one I hoped that people would at least read and respond to it.
BettyKath,
Again thanks for bringing up a very concrete, ubiquitous and lethal threat to “we the people”.
Your approval warms.
“The requirements to get on the ballot for independents are onerous in most states. And you know who makes those rules.” BettyKath—
It wasn’t the Founding Fathers. In all likelihood it was the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. But then came other parties, like the Whigs, and the Republicans,etc.
Paries which perhaps were meant to break up the duopoly.
I tried working with the League of Women voters who used to do a good job with the debates until the D/R corporation took over, but found them wedded to the idea of only two parties. I tried to work in a polling place, but you have to be D or an R. I observed in the BoE office enough to know that the reason they won’t let independents in is b/c they can’t control us. They want only party people that they control. They appear to be at odds, but there are many anti-people things that they do together that would be exposed if an independent got to see it all. I saw enough to know that there’s more.
707,
Actually, the FF didn’t want political parties to form but that idea didn’t last long. Madison liked the idea of factions so that no one group got too much power. Each faction would be kept from going too far afield by the other factions. Unfortunately, we now have three factions: party 1, party 2, and the larger group that won’t have anything to do with party1 or party2. With party 1 and party 2 factions working together to keep the larger group from getting any power at all.
You said, “Our holy FFs said all men are created equal. They did not say that those who work for a party shall be given the reins to rule us.”
Right. They also didn’t say that uppity women like myself had any say. Or that those without property (which, of course, includes slaves) had any say. Maybe randy and arthur are members of the landed gentry who are more equal than the rest of us. : )
MikeS selected Hayden’s article. It gave me needed insights. And it showed a panorama over the decades of our fight, and why we should not abandon our hopes so easily nor be blind to the progress that has crowned our efforts. The eternal radical striving, while worthy, must as Hayden says, be tempered by reality when election time approachs snd the ideal man or program is not on the ballot.
Leaving the field to the bad guys and leaving your ball for them to play with seems unwise, I believe he means.
And what says that Mr. Ideal Candidate would have done better under the incredible circumstances. Would you? Not I, not even in my dreams.
We know who the “Bad Guys” are. So let’s kick them. Or will you cut ALL our throats by staying home and cursing Obama?
Utter depravity. Democrats need a prophet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald
It would seem that this thread might benefit from the fact that political parties are not the government.
Political parties are nothing but an assemblage of usually like minds that offer a candidate and platform for any given office that are hashed out amongst themselves — by the rules the party internally adopts which is solely in their domain — for their own needs to hopefully establish one of their own into the government structure.
Most have forgotten the distinction between government and parties. Granted, the two parties have done everything in their power to encourage and enforce this lapse of distinction, but this is the populaces burden, not theirs.
Haden: “Protestors in the streets should serve as a permanently challenging – and threatening – disruptive presence in constant orchestrated interaction with forces on the inside, too, not simply serve as occasional “street heat” to be enlisted when pressure is needed by the insiders.”
*****
That is something that shouldn’t be understated or underestimated. Having a half-million people show up in DC repeatedly, constant agitation and even the violence got some serious changes in law and attitude. If you can’t reason with politicians showing them an alternative that rocks the boat to the point of capsizing it got things done. There was an internal revolution going on that lasted an entire decade (Longer actually, starting in the 50′s.) and killed some of our brightest national stars. It is distressing to think that real political responsiveness requires such a high level of threat. That’s what it is, a threat to the political well-being of the people in office.
gbk,
I understand the distinction, but I think people wanting to be part of the government create the kind of party institution that they are likely to emulate once they get in power. The government is just a bigger sandbox. The big rules there, e.g. the Constitution, are just pieces of paper that they are willing to ignore or actively subvert.
bettykath,
“but I think people wanting to be part of the government create the kind of party institution that they are likely to emulate once they get in power.”
So we agree.
“Most have forgotten the distinction between government and parties. Granted, the two parties have done everything in their power to encourage and enforce this lapse of distinction, but this is the populaces burden, not theirs.” (gbk)
Right on target which is why the title of this thread, “The Democratic Convention and The Illusion of Democracy”, confounded a few posters. I even would suggest that some have Democracy confused with Robert’s Rules of Order.
If one wants to reform either party then one joins that party and works to bring about said reform. If one disagrees with the direction in which a party is moving and does not want to get involved in reformation, then one leaves the party. If enough people leave the party … the party ceases to exist … quite literally, for all states have rules regarding parties from percentages of voters registered to percentage of votes cast for a party candidate every two years. Those who fall below the percentages are called “political designations” in many states rather than parties. On a state by state basis it would be relatively easy to get rid of parties … I find it strange that people don’t understand this.
Blouise,
“I even would suggest that some have Democracy confused with Robert’s Rules of Order.”
I didn’t want to go that far, but you’re right.
gbk,
It’s Friday night.
Blouise,
Damn, I thought it was Thursday! I thank you and the stars for the unerring reference!
I am neither surprised nor disappointed that as an atheist, I am unwelcome in the Republican party; it did however astonish me to discover that “my sort” is also unwelcome in the Democrat party.
If I were founding a forward progressive country, I would certainly ensure that were something in the constution to ensure no discrimination based on faith, or lack of.
Perhaps we shouldnt be surprised at the House vote (4th Nov 2011); it seems that only ONE QUARTER of ONE PERCENT of them actually support the First Amendment.
Correction 2.5% (Decimal point).
Mike, that was a lot of text to say: Obama’s a disappointment, I’m still voting for him, and white leftists opposing Obama must be coming from a racist place, considering 94 percent of black people support Obama.
I have to ask, what is so important about the extra two percent of black people that supported Obama over Bill Clinton that licensed white progressives to kvetch about Clinton’s failure?
Of course I’m angry at Obama. Of course I think he should be re-elected over Romney. (Though I still wish Krugman had showed up for a primary challenge in a couple of states, just to shift the debate if nothing else). But for those who can afford to be less picayune, I can understand why bombing civilians is worse than stop-and-frisk, that Obama’s done nothing to oppose. I can understand why workplace rights for trans people fall behind respect for international law. I can understand why some progressives want to make it known that a president only retains their support if the constitution breathes in their administration. I disagree that their inaction will have the intended impact, and thus I don’t share their views. If 4 years of Mitt Romney meant 40 years of Eugene McCarthy, I’d bite that bullet too, but that won’t happen… Most importantly, however, I can respect that view without calling them a cissexist or a racist or a classist.
gbk,
Ha! Obviously you are not blessed with small town high school football … one always knows when it’s Friday.
Blouise,
I avoid small towns with football teams due to having travelled through many on foot in my younger days and experiencing their need to, um, how shall I say it, keep the streets clean.
Democracy is more that the Rules of Order, but those rules make for democratic functioning in ANY organization. Without them,there can be NO democracy at all. Thus any person wishing to contest the chairs ruling had ample opportunity to do so. and did not. Nor do we have lots of pissed off platform committee members going to the press and denouncing the changes.
I am an atheist in the Democratic Party and I feel quite welcome. Now if I wish to IMPOSE MY views on the party by demanding that all members refrain from prayer or acknowledging their faith, THEN there will be a problem. It would be as bad as if a Muslim demanded that only prayers to ALLAH be allowed and that if others prayed to God, it would be an offense to Muslims. I have no problem with those who are religious expressing it and since the overwhelming majority of people are theists, it is dumb to think that it needs to be restricted and kept under cover so as not to upset atheists.
Blouise,
” If enough people leave the party … the party ceases to exist … quite literally, for all states have rules regarding parties from percentages of voters registered to percentage of votes cast for a party candidate every two years. Those who fall below the percentages are called “political designations” in many states rather than parties. On a state by state basis it would be relatively easy to get rid of parties … I find it strange that people don’t understand this.”
About 50% of the voters, don’t vote in Presidential elections. About 60% don’t vote in “off” year elections. In a close presidential election, the winner get votes of about 21%, the loser gets about 19%, and the others get the remaining 10% of the votes of all voters. Not exactly a mandate.
Since these are registered voters, they have expressed some interest in participating in the electoral process. They have expressed their disapproval of the two parties that control everything. They refuse to vote “lesser evil” knowing full well that lesser or not, it isn’t what they want. They are in effect voting “none of the above”. If it were an option on every ballot, NOTA would win a significant number of races. Of course, it would take the Ds and Rs to put it on the ballot. Since it is primarily their candidates that would be found lacking, it won’t happen.
Where are these voters to go? The two major parties have rigged the rules such that it extremely difficult for any candidate not blessed by the hierarchy of the two parties to get on any ballot whatever. They hand-pick their own candidates and have onerous hurdles for independents or third parties. Several other groups have tried to establish parties to varying degrees of success.
Even when other parties manage to get over the hurdles, they are, with few exceptions in local elections, not allowed in the debates. They are not invited on the main news programs. They are frozen out of nearly every venue that would show their capabilities.
Any successes are attacked one way or another to remove them from additional successes. Read Nader’s “Crashing the Party”. Also, check out Ballot Access News. Richard Winger has been tracking and documenting parties other than the Ds and Rs for decades. He also tracks court cases involving third parties.
It takes a lot of time, energy and money to establish an alternative even without the hurdles. With the hurdles it’s next to impossible.
Our electoral system is basic to the kind of government we have. It’s a terrible scam but it shouldn’t be.
It seems to me that both right wings of America’s Corporate Oligopoly Party have clearly declared Jerusalem the capital of the United States and Single Spook Animism the official national religion and test for political office.
gbk,
I’ll call you Reacher.
Blouise,
“I’ll call you Reacher.”
Ok. I’m ignorant to this specific cultural reference, but I like the sound of it!
GBK,
Google “Lee Child ” and find out about the complement you were paid.
Blouise,
The next book is being released on 9/11/12.
Bettykath: “Blouise,
” If enough people leave the party … the party ceases to exist …
It also appears that if you attract a majority of new people to your party that are sufficiently different then your party goes out of existence. The new conservatives have spent decades stitching together a coalition of people under the Republican banner that are not like the Republicans that I recall. It seems to me that the Republican party is gone and this new party needs a new name.
They can use the old one for the GOP, The Whigs!
Reacher huh? I have most of the Reacher books in paperback laying around here (I buy library seconds for half a buck if they sound interesting) but haven’t read any of them. Never got around to it. It seems I have been missing a good series. I’ll work harder on catching up.
randyjet, That’s cool, as long as they don’t advocate slavery.
Lotta,
You are right that a fringe and radical element has taken over the Republican party.
bettykath, (my internet connection keeps going down, very frustrating when trying to post)
I know the party system quite well and I believe it served its purpose and is now on the way out as presently constructed.
As of May 2012 those registered as Independents is up to 44% … different states show different rates of increase, for instance, I believe Mass. is up to 52% … but Independents as percentages are rising everywhere. Political Science people attribute this to those who are dissatisfied with the party system and leaving it but mainly to young voters who have totally eschewed the parties and view themselves as Independents desiring no party affiliation of any kind. It has moved beyond the definition of a trend into actual fact.
It really is happening and the mistake people make in looking at the fact is in trying to come up with another party to replace with. People don’t want parties of any kind. And all states have laws/rules regarding what constitutes a party at election time based on percentages as I mentioned above. (Check your state for the laws)
If enough people fail to register for a party or do not vote for a party’s candidate … the party ceases to exist and becomes what many states term a “political designation”.
The more people come to understand this, the sooner change can be accomplished. It is already well on its way.
Mike S.,
I have it pre-ordered
lotta,
Reacher is the cat’s pajamas … you’ll love him (author Lee Child)
I’m also waiting on Sandford’s next that Phuckin’ Flowers due shortly. That would be Virgil Flowers series
whew … got it all in before the next outage
Blouise and Mike Spindell,
I obviously need to read more fiction!
Except that I feel my life is fiction enough, so I tend to ignore other’s interpretations of the collapsed wave function because it’s such a personal thing and it takes so much effort just to justify mine — but it seems this perspective is to my detriment in this particular example.
Gotta finish writing a twelve bar four-part refrain and end up in the right key, wish me luck as it will truly be fiction to call the effort finished.
Thank you Blouise for the compliment, and thank you Mike for the clue.
gbk,
E♭ minor please … my favorite key … yep, I love to sing the blues
But let’s do Rachmaninov (or ff) for context:
Minor is my favorite … I think this is A minor (Orff’s)
My Gracious, the things one misses by sleeping when you folks in the USA are active and we in Europe must rest.
This is a long post, enthralling I hope, otherwise you will be bored. Very little bang-bang and no sex. But guaramteed drama. Reviews are welcome and cat-calls
inevitable.
Just to take issue with gbk, as he appeared recently out of a “from the beginning” disdain for me and attacked me viciously and solely personally only a few days ago, then I am glad when he gives me an issue to comment.
And to the issue.
I liked MikeS comment that it was a complement (sic) that gbk had received from Blouise. Yes, that is also true in the mispelled form, (freudian slip?). gbk does need a complement.
Or at least an addition to his partial truth.
gbk told only a fraction of the truth, not the whole truth, with regard to the effects and purpose of our duo-party system.
The major part missing is that the government, while not officially an organ of the D/R duopoly, it is an expression of their wishes, one of which is to retain their duopolitical advantages through legislation which gives them a strangle hold on the electoral system, whether it be at state or federal level.
The parties’ duopoly effectively control the candidates, the campaign promises, and their reepective platforms, the media drive, the monies available…..in effect all of the electoral space.
I wiil not ask the naive question if this is FAIR.
No, let me ask if this results represents potentially the results that could be obtained with an active participation of those ELIGIBLE to REGISTER to vote?
Now whether these elegibles are defined as 50% or 80%, those who participate are obviously far from representing the eligibles. The system has suffocated potential participation. And I put 100% of the responsibility on the duopolists for this situation.
The duties to the populace subsumed by federal cum state effectivization are belly issues. Will you starve, will you be sick and without care, will you have your house seized due to Wall Street and bank barracuda operations, are your kids going to dilapidated schools with bad testbooks full of religion instead of science…….
These are issues which should electrify an electorate.
On their feet, thinking and expressing THEIR priorities. IRAQ or good schools. Afghanistan or one-payer healh care for ALL. People employed surveilling the populace or a Wall Street regulating agency worth a name. Etc.
How are these non-registered persons and the non-voters hindered???
I think you are more intelligent than I and better-informed than I, so all can answer those questions.
So, to reiterate, I think the people are CORRECT in their placing equivalency between the R and D parties and the GOVERNMENT. And given that, considering the impossibility to influence/effect the parties in the face of corporate influence, and the impossibility of effecting an independent force, then what is left to choose?
THEY DROP OUT. We have become a nation with 80 percent dropouts in terms of political participation.
Is that the best we can do?
Is that what paralyzed the electorate in the Vietnam war? Leaving the streets as the only democratic venue available to those wiliing to take that route, ie the young and indeed daring. Is it better today than ’68??? With all the additional disabling legislation which has been added, the obvious answer is NO.
Has it always been so? BettyKath dealt with that. Only the rich, only white men who had property…..it slowly and very grudgingly expanded…. this hope for universal suffrage. But the control of the process was never lost by the parties.
So parties, I contend, as has already been said, are stalemating democracy. And keeping us in chains with their current control.
BTW, in their mottos the Canadians praisw Peace, order and good government.
We praise Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I think we should adopt theirs. It sounds naive in our naive ears, deafened by the glitter pumped in continuously of “do your thing—it’s the American way”.
What is not said, but exists in fact is the unsaid message: “We’ll take care of the rest. Get phucked.”
I will again thank gbk for the issue to discuss, although I don’t think he expected the responses from Blouse and others, but he could take small hints and encouragements delivered by her and others, and reply in a similar elite tone, finishing off with his proof of superiority by noting his musical tasks of the moment.
Beautifully done. Something to respect? No more than I respect the maneuvers of the R/D duopoly vv the electoral process
And thanks to the others who have expounded the message and from whom I have learned and have been inspired.
A simple comparison, you are known from birth or immigration in Sweden. And you are franchised at attained voting age. No one asks you which party you support or of which you are a registered member. This and a multi-party system keeps the pols contantly in contact with their electors, the people. New parties have reached parliamentary seats of weighmaster importance in the last 20 years. So new priorities and goals supported by the electorate can be effected. Platforms are up for vote EVERY YEAR. Corporate influence, even remotely, is a kiss of death. Try all this on for size.
Sorry for the length, but as you know, much more is left to say on this issue. And decades of work.
PS BettyKath. Thanks for the history lesson. Got a good book on such to recommend re the American saga?
There are some very smart minds here, and some highly trained/educated ones too.
So many seem to only engage them in the service of smartly and skillfully supported previously adopted opinions.
They manipulate the facts on issue to defend their dearly held positions, which they desparately clasp as though they embodied themselves, their very existence.
Others can at times free themselves and take a step back.
I commend the latter. Will not embarass with names.
Blouise,
Have you followed the Orff music while reading the lyrics?
New vistas are revealed.
Much more intriguing ones than the well-known ones embodied in the Merlin expression.
Thanks for bringing this piece up. Have listened to many different versions by different groups. Some very stodgy. Amazing differences.
Dear Folks,
I hope you read this. It concerns the two day old Swedish medicine thread.
I was totally caught up with other things that day and did not even open the emai notice on the thread.
Anyhow here is a reply/comment of sorts. Haven’t had the patience to read through all your comments.
Your motives should be questioned first. And your skillfulness in reading as a lawyer is another questionable aspect. Nate so far is doing well there.
I would be having a great deml of overrating my influence here to assume my praise of the Swedish health system or my many praises of Sweden could incite a lust to attack.
For uninformed attacks in this case are many and the volume of them is high in re the subjects importance compared to the tort impaired USA system.
If it is me who is a factor, I don’t mind. Critique can always be met. And when you spout you must be prepared to defend it.
So far that I have read only Nate seems to have engaged a competent mind in examining the data and a knowledge re common operating practice.
Now if you want Swedish horror tales I have very many ones, none of which have beer refuted when told to other doctors…..of course thay are hindered in concurring but refutation is not formally hindered.
But those are long tales and a waste of your time.
They have motivated me to minutely follow what is done when I am not under narcosis, and inform myself along the way. But most don’t bother doing that.
Just now I am following my case of Lyme disease. Is 10 days antibiotics enough as is practiced here? The Germans’ practice is 6 weeks. Can blood tests offer proof of non-infection, ie complete eradication??
That there are mistakes and big ones too is not denied by anyone here. The media has it constantly as a subject. Not because there are so many, but because we want to always remind them, Don’t phuck up. But when did you see such a case reach national media with a great public reaction. Does not this speak for the level of care we feel we reasonably can expect?
I am making assumptions as to the media reaction as I have not even read the blog, having jumped to the comments.
I still feel secure when I am awake. And what they do to correct the minor problems is constantly discussed as being too slow to “debar” incompdetent persons. This is a major one however.
If interested I can try to be of help. will read the blog. I hopped down to the comments direct when I saw the headline in the email.
In the meanwhile, consider whether some of this outrage expressed by yourselves or in the media is motivated by envy or outrage that people keep saying that America is the only industrial modern nation without universal single-payer health care. A little teensy-weensy bit?
Dear folks,
have read all the comments at Swedish man dies thread.
Am very satisfied that some did an excellent finding info and informing. Lotta, Nate. Bettykath, etc.
Here are my closing comments. Nobody is here to read them but for the record.
“idealist707
1, September 8, 2012 at 8:05 am
Having read through all of the comments, mea culpa.
After the first rabid attacks, to be expected, there came a neverending wave of thoughtful inquisitive and data filled comments.
Thanks to: Nate, Lotta, Gurl, BettyKath and many others for a good job. I can’t judge your comments, neither on america or sweden as i have not informed myself.
the judgement/compensation system was news to me, that it existed yes, but no more was known. We still have the question of disbarment and prosecution for criminal acts to define in the discussion.
Just a reminder, there are always Jour (backup) within minutes away, and in emergencies you push a button and help arrives in seconds, competent help. The decisions and actual happenings are not clear. So no more can I say on the current case.
Thanks to all for a discussion which did not attack each others throats. Is that due to something special about those who participated? Think about it. Yeah, I know, I was not nere. But it was some others I was considering.
The Thing Nobody Talked About at the Conventions
By Charles P. Pierce
9/7/12
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/conventions-2012-12454702
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — There are some politicians — not many, but a very distinct few — who, when they talk to you about one specific issue, you listen politely, agree wholeheartedly, and move along to the next topic, thank you very much. For example, when John McCain tells you what’s wrong with torture, there seems to be very little point in arguing with him about it.
(Although, it should be noted that, in 2008, while test-driving the utter obliviousness that he has ridden to this year’s Republican nomination, Willard Romney decided to argue with McCain about whether torture works. McCain looked at him as though Romney had sprouted another head.)
The same dynamic prevails when Congressman John Lewis of Georgia talks to you about voting rights. Nobody knows more than he does about their value because nobody knows more than he does about what they’ve cost. He was beaten nearly to death in the struggle for them. John Lewis tells you something about voting rights and you say, yes, sir, and you shut the fk up.
John Lewis gave a speech on Thursday night, in the first hour of the convention, that almost nobody saw, which is too bad, because it summed up the great unmentioned subtext of this year’s election — namely, that, between the new torrents of money that are overwhelming the system, and the rise again of voter-suppression legalisms in the various states, which are in many cases products of those same new torrents of money, the election is coming perilously close to becoming a puppet show. The Republicans didn’t mention that, because they have taken in so much of the new money, and because Republican governors and legislators in the various states are behind the new voter-suppression laws, and everybody knows that. The Democrats are caught in a bind, because they have to play in the new universe of campaign finance, too, and because they’re trying to keep up with a symphony of well-financed propaganda that seeks to make voter-suppression into a good-government initiative. John Lewis is not fooled. John Lewis has seen this before. And John Lewis told the convention what he’s seeing rising in the country out of his own past.
Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? Or do you want to keep America moving forward? My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. Not too long ago, people stood in unmovable lines. They had to pass a so-called literacy test, pay a poll tax. On one occasion, a man was asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. On another occasion, one was asked to count the jelly beans in a jar-all to keep them from casting their ballots. Today it is unbelievable that there are Republican officials still trying to stop some people from voting. They are changing the rules, cutting polling hours and imposing requirements intended to suppress the vote. The Republican leader in the Pennsylvania House even bragged that his state’s new voter ID law is “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state.” That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not just. And similar efforts have been made in Texas, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina. I’ve seen this before. I’ve lived this before. Too many people struggled, suffered and died to make it possible for every American to exercise their right to vote.
And that is simply the way it is, and, if you don’t like the truth there, you’re welcome to get your brains nearly beaten out of you on the Edmund Pettus Bridge so you would begin to have the most basic qualifications to argue with John Lewis about it.
I’m sorry that not many people saw his speech, because it framed perfectly the one thing that everybody felt — but nobody talked about — during both of these rodeos over the past two weeks: The game, to borrow Elizabeth Warren’s phrase, is rigged. The president talked around it a bit in his acceptance speech. I have never talked to so many people who were so thoroughly convinced that their vote didn’t matter, that it would not be counted, or that it would be stolen, or that their very right to cast it would be so hamstrung with official bother that it would cease to be a right and simply become another inconvenience. They’re angry. They still may try. But if you’re looking for a sub-theme for why things are the way they are in the polls, that’s my stab at it. The country’s dead-level, frustrated and angry, but not necessarily motivated, and a substantial number of people think the whole thing is a waste and an equally substantial number believe that it’s not on the square. If I were running the president’s campaign, I’d shut the hell up about Simpsonp-fking-Bowles and put John Lewis on an airplane and let him tell his story in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and everywhere else this atavistic authoritarian nonsense is going down. There’s more at risk here than anyone knows.
Lottakatz: “It is distressing to think that real political responsiveness requires such a high level of threat. That’s what it is, a threat to the political well-being of the people in office.”
Exactly, and very well said. Said with precision. That’s the problem right now. To reach to the level where you can offer any credible threat to the political well-being of NOT JUST the people in office but the people who WANT to be in office NEXT TIME, you have to give up the entire rest of your life. If someone had come to me at 30 and said:
“Here’s the thing: Either you can get married, have a kid, fight first an unending custody battle with a madman that will soak up your kid’s childhood, your money and energy, and your for-all-intents-and-purposes LIFE, for 35, 40 years,
OR
You can spend the rest of your life devoted to the cause of trying to make the goons in charge of government avoid turning this country into a total conscience-free international psychopathic power that will not only vest the corruption you now see and reward it with a blessing unto the seventh generation,
which would I have chosen? Hmmmm, let me see now, will you repeat the question?
@Blouise, BettyKath: I think you are both right.
However, I think before the Democratic or Republican party ever loses its certification in a State, the rules will be changed by bipartisan agreement. They are on the decline together, if lack of participation threatens one with decertification, the other will not be far behind.
Which means, more and more, that the party is important for fielding ballot candidates (since the system is rigged for that) but the membership is falling. The televised strong-arming of delegates at the DNC over the “God and Jerusalem” plank of the platform, despite the fact that the 2/3 vote was clearly not achieved, may seem trivial to most people, but it is precisely the sort of thing that erodes support, particularly among young adults (like college students).
Some of us (but particularly the idealistic) are extremely sensitive to hypocrisy, and there is no easier place to identify it than in the flouting of rules that an authoritative body has set for itself.
Stewart and Colbert ridicule it for laughs, and get them, but what is funny is the naked hypocrisy of the Party it exposes, and long after the laughter the residue remains for some as proof that joining the Party is pointless. Even if you rise to the level of delegate to the Convention you have no real control, you will be strong-armed into whatever the elite want, they will just lie about your vote and move on.
BK is right on the numbers, too, and I was wrong; as far as percentages of voting. I said earlier that 80% do not vote, that was a number I read on campus and it is only true for 18-24 year olds: 41.8% were registered in 2010, and 19.6% (of all 18-24) actually voted in 2010.
I think composition rules will eventually just be rewritten to “grandfather in” the D and R parties, just like the Party Secretary (or whoever it was) just declared a clear NO vote to be a YEA vote on the God and Jerusalem plank and brooked no complaint.
But it sets up an interesting dilemma for the future. Does anything change when the D’s and R’s each have 10% of the voters, and 80% are independent?
What if 98% of voters are Independent? I do not think that is such an implausible scenario, there are 137M registered voters, surely 1% for each, or 1.37M, is enough dues to keep a Party alive and kicking. There are 12 States with less population than that and full blown political parties.
I think that will be an interesting state of affairs, if we live to see it. However, perhaps once the Independents exceed 50% of the voters, Independent candidates will start to have a plausible chance at federal office and the White House, and the Parties will fall into disarray.
It may be that in the current information age, which amplifies the hypocrisy with video and audio and super simple access and sharing, the top-down decision making of the current Party systems will just collapse, and candidates will increasingly ditch the Party and go it alone, with their own fund-raising and Internet video speeches, presentations and appeals.
They won’t need that messaging, organizational machinery and financing. Since the price of that machinery is subjugation to the Party platform, finding a way to ditch it will buy them independence.
I think that if and when the Parties collapse, it will be a non-event; like when you hear a band has broken up and your reaction is, “Oh, were they still playing?”
People don’t want parties of any kind. And all states have laws/rules regarding what constitutes a party at election time based on percentages as I mentioned above. (Check your state for the laws)
I have to disagree that political parties are the problem. The real problem is that not enough people take part in them. What a lack of political parties would do is to ensure that the wealthy and those who are best known from publicity get power and stay there. There is no way for ordinary people to learn how to function in a democratic system. In places like Vermont, they have town meetings which are governing bodies and regular places for people to learn and take part in politics. In massive urban areas, this is not possible, and there is no venue for people to learn organization skills and parlimentary skills except in local party meetings, unions, and SOME churches. Most of the Protestant fundamentalist churches in our area are simply cults with a maximum leader. The Catholic Church is not a democratic organization either,
So the solution is not less political parties, but an invigorated participation in democratic bodies on a local level. You don’t learn democracy by sitting back and going to the polls every four years.
Elaine,
The voter suppression concept is the biggest non-issue of this election. When you have one side purposely preventing legal voters from being able to vote via state laws, it may not matter how much money you have to fight it.
John Lewis says the GOP is trying to suppress the vote
@Arthur: I disagree. Political parties, like businesses, end up in the “natural” hierarchical configuration of large groups of humans, with some powerful people at the top of the pyramid directing and deciding for those beneath them. Those beneath them do get to work on some details and make some decisions, but also direct and decide for those beneath them.
The result, by the time the bottom is reached, is all decisions are made, and the hierarchy protects itself. The bottom layers of the pyramid are involved in minimum wage type jobs, knocking on doors, calling people, posting signs, helping out by driving and moving campaign materials.
The vast majority of the political party has zero power in the political party, they have basically surrendered their decision making capability to the top three layers of the pyramid, one or two dozen people that can fit around a large conference table.
Joining a party means working for candidates you really did not get to vet, choose or endorse. You let somebody else do that for you. That is not always a bad thing, but the larger the organization the more money it has, the more temptations there are to abuse power, the more attractive it appears to sociopaths and con men, and the more likely it is to be corrupt and self-serving at the top.
Even if the self-serving part is just something like, “I don’t like that candidate so we are not supporting her,” that is an individual making a decision for the collective. I now point at the DNC bullying through the “God and Jerusalem” planks on the platform despite a NO vote by the delegates. The top of the pyramid does whatever it feels like.
Corruption is not inevitable, sometimes good fair people do get in, but the chances of corruption increase strongly as the power and money increase.
707, (sounds like your a cohort of Bond)
“PS BettyKath. Thanks for the history lesson. Got a good book on such to recommend re the American saga?”
Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of the United States” is a good start. Anything by Zinn. otherwise known as “what-you-didn’t-learn-in-high-school”. If Zinn’s work had been taught in HS, I might have done better. I knew I wasn’t being taught the whole story and was totally turned off. Interestingly, considering I hated history in school, that’s what I read now.
If you’re interested in third parties, Richard Winger’s “Ballot Access News”. This is a monthly newsletter, now on-line, that tracks all parties that are not Democrat or Republican, all lawsuits that affect those parties, how the parties are doing in qualifying for the ballot in each state, etc. His archive goes back just a few years but contains a treasure trove of information if this is your interest. His current issue contains a story about a Michigan decision that used false information as its precedent.
707, (sounds like your a cohort of Bond)
oops! your => you’re
id707,
I chose that particular arrangement because I’m a Merlin fan. I was really going for the difference between A and E flat minor mood.
correction … E flat minor and A minor
Tony C.,
The two points I was trying to make is that there is a lawful, and relatively easy way to reduce the power of political parties, if not eliminate them altogether as presently constructed, on a state by state basis AND … it is already happening indicating there is no real need to get it rolling … simply jump on board. It is a grass roots movement that has no leadership and no loud speakers and its numbers have been steadily increasing over the last three decades.
In a Presidential election year the number of registered voters increases but by May of 2012 what the numbers showed was no noticeable increase to registered voters for either major party but a 4% jump in Independents.
The void is already there. That void can be dangerous. I’m going to repeat … the void is already there.
Now why have we not heard more about this from the media? The answer is obvious … at least to me.
“I think that if and when the Parties collapse, it will be a non-event; like when you hear a band has broken up and your reaction is, “Oh, were they still playing?”” (Tony C.)
Exactly
BettyKath,
Thanks for the ZEN tip! hee hee. Zinn…
I think I’ll be glad to start with him/that.
“707, (sounds like your a cohort of Bond)
Who? James Bond? And the only cohort I understand are medical in research studies. Will check the dictionary.
Blouise,
I once dared a musical response to you and got silence.
You knew a noncompusmentis musically when I said BOO.
So, I claim all sorts of supernatural musical powers, but am a musilliterate. Like that word, My gift.
Minor is like porno, I knows it when I hear it. But keys???
Isn’t there a wonderful violin concerto by Mendellsohn, Yenudi played it when he was 17 and was never better. It is availabel on Naxos Classic:
http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=8.110967
id707,
gotta run out for errands and then dinner … will listen to the fiddle piece later this evening.
Don’t worry, Jonathan Turley and other Leftists, you will get your wish soon for an anti-Israel, anti-civilization, Pro-IslamoNazi fully Leftist Democratic Party. The people in the Democratic Party that wanted the Pro-civilization plank put in only did so for appearances. But soon, the appearances will be dropped, and then all of you Leftists can celebrate the end of any pretense of being pro-Israel, anti-civilization, anti-liberty, and anti-human rights. You will then be able to indulge in your Leftist perversions without any sense of shame. You will then be able to join hands with your fellow Nazis on http://www.stormwatch.com as well as IslamoNazis that you hold near and dear.
Ralph Adamo,
Always like when bats fly by. We used to talk to them via our voice transcriber—-you know the thingy which moves our voices up to their hearing range.
Unfortunately mine is broken now so can’t talk to you now.
Happy trolling.
PS Your squeaking is funny. Reminds me of der Hitler.
Ironic. I was weighing in recently on another bad-faith attempt of the right to conflate opposition to the occupation of Palestine with being pro-Islamist… If it was 1920, I would not be a Papist or a Fascist for wanting a cessation to the occupation of Ireland. And if the Brits treated non-state-actors the way the Likud party does, there’d be well-armed troops wearing Union Jacks in Dublin today.
@Adamo: Thank you for the good wishes. To my fellow leftists: One surrender does not a victory make; keep working to indulge our leftist perversions.
ValerieKeefe,
If we take the bigotry out of the Palestine vs Israel question there are logical arguments which must be addressed.
If party C makes decisions effecting parties A and B on the basis of the rights of a protectorate holder, how compelling are those decisions?
If Party B takes over Party C’s territory and refuses to obey a UN mandate to retire, but insteads impedes, seizes, destroys, kills in the name of revenge, etc. then how do we judge this?
You get my drift, of course.
Might makes right, that’s just it. The Americn theme song as well. But I am afraid that the semitic cousins via Ishmael would sing the same theme.
Does the UN have any value? Is John Bolton right? Is he Romney’s ambassador to Israel?
@Idealist: Without bigotry, and as an atheist that thinks Jews, Christians and Islamists are all equally deluded, I see the plight of Palestinians as largely self-wrought.
I think, when one country instigates a war against another, that country risks everything it has; its land, its people, its treasures. The history of the region is complex, but essentially it was lost, in WW-I, by the Ottoman empire which was allied with Germany.
So, at least in terms of any rights to land or citizenship, tough cookie for the Palestinians, they picked a fight and lost very badly. The land belonged to Britain, to do with as it pleased, and after WW-II they chose to create Israel. The expansions of Israel have also been due to neighbors picking fights and losing.
There are serious human rights issues going on the Palestinian territories, IMO war crimes perpetrated by Israel which I find despicable.
But with equal dismissal of any religious argument or reverence for any particular acreage by any side, I say countries that attempt conquest run the risk of being conquered.
TonyC..
Will give your words more consideration later. Bedtime for me, 1200 AM.
I find new surprising evidence everyday, by chance mostly.
The latest was a jewish lady who had family members who lived in Palestine, as it was called in the ’30s.
She said quite emphatically that there was only peace which reigned then there. Trouble came with the Zionist according to her. She is anti-Zionist, as apparently many USA and Canada Jews are. And they don’t apologize for it.
Not judging, just offering for what it is worth. Can give you the site later. Too tired now.
Will get back to you later. Don’t want to deal with your words hastily.
Ralph Adamo 1, September 8, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Don’t worry, Jonathan Turley and other Leftists, you will get your wish soon for an anti-Israel, anti-civilization, Pro-IslamoNazi fully Leftist Democratic Party. The people in the Democratic Party that wanted the Pro-civilization plank put in only did so for appearances. But soon, the appearances will be dropped, and then all of you Leftists can celebrate the end of any pretense of being pro-Israel, anti-civilization, anti-liberty, and anti-human rights. You will then be able to indulge in your Leftist perversions without any sense of shame. You will then be able to join hands with your fellow Nazis on http://www.stormwatch.com as well as IslamoNazis that you hold near and dear.
===============
This is as stupid as it gets.
TonyC,
“I see the plight of Palestinians as largely self-wrought.”
Can you provide a summary of why you think so?
———–
“I think, when one country instigates a war against another, that country risks everything it has; its land, its people, its treasures. The history of the region is complex, but essentially it was lost, in WW-I, by the Ottoman empire which was allied with Germany.”
With that motivation then Germany should have been dividede arbitrarily as was done to the Ottoman empire, without in the latter case consideration of the wishes of those who had been under Ottoman deominance. Othan than Alsace no territory was lost by Germany, and that was due to a mixed population.
==================
“So, at least in terms of any rights to land or citizenship, tough cookie for the Palestinians, they picked a fight and lost very badly. The land belonged to Britain, to do with as it pleased, and after WW-II they chose to create Israel. The expansions of Israel have also been due to neighbors picking fights and losing.”
The Palestinians did not choose to go to war at all, it was the Ottoman Empire who did.
The land did NOT belong to Britain, they had a mandate to administer a “protectorate” given by treaties. It was in fact a continuation óf the colonization epoch worldwide.
The British did not create Israel.
Your views on reasons for expansion are to say the least highly contested. Check what the UN officially says in its UN resolutions, passed by the Security Council with America’s participation. Check what Noam Chomsky thinks. Check what Einstein said about the establishment of a JEWISH state to the Knesset.
Zionists simply feel that they have a Manifest Destiny, the retaking of the lands that they once took by force.
Once forced into the Diaspora in 70AD by the Romans they want to get it back. Actually Alexandra had more Jews than Palestine before 70AD, so the disaspora had begun long before. The mometakin of Jews from around the world is the other simple and compelling answer.
=========================
” I say countries that attempt conquest run the risk of being conquered”
The British had the area, and contested with principally France in who would colonize it. That whole area of the ME were spoils of war, including SA, whose oil was unknown then.
Jews had immigrated there or remained there for centuries. Their own history relates that fact.
Thee existed in a peaceful relationsship according to some. I don’t know as I am not a scholar. But it is true that the Zionists were awarded a limited territory, and only cooquered some lands which remained under disputre since th 1948 invasion of them by Zionist forces. They were ruthlessly murderous before 1948 (Stern gant) and are so now.
The Nazis would be proud of their dedication to the cause. And that is meant to compare their dedication to suppressing undesireable elements and expansion of their territory to what was the historically original land, said by Moses to be promised by God, but won by blood.
The jews are a fascinating people and have an equally so history. Have read on book written by two rabbis, another by two Israeli scientists: archeolog and historian, Any recommendations covering the post-WWI era and the era 1,000 BC to 200 AD would be welcome
Thank god there is no SHOAH……yet.
Sorry for all the typos. Hope it is legible. Too tired to proofread before posting. Time for a nap.
@Idealist: With that motivation then Germany should have been divided
No, it means Germany could have been divided, it tried to conquer and was conquered in turn. What choice would they have if their conquerors HAD decided to divide them? Go to war? They had just lost a war!
If anything, Germany negotiated to surrender in a losing battle before all was lost, in return for not being dissolved.
As I said, the history of the area is complex and I was describing what was true, and which you agree with when you say, “The British had the area.”
The British Mandate For Palestine gave Britain the formal right to rule the area in 1920 as part of fallout of the WW-I defeat of the Ottoman Empire in October of 1918. There were myriad other treaties in the aftermath of WW-I, to be seen in the link I provided above, bus the Mandate was the key; Britain and France had already formerly agreed, in 1916, on territories and colonization of the area in the event they prevailed in WW-I.
The Mandate was perpetual, Britain voluntary ended it in May of 1948. At first it had been opposed and in the U.N. could have prevented the end, but agreed after some arm-twisting and concessions by the US and others.
Immediately upon the end of the Mandate, the Arab states initiated the 1948 Arab / Israeli War, that link provides the aggressor states: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi-Arabia, and TransJordan. They were defeated, and again, in my opinion the aggressor in a fight or crime has implicitly accepted the risk of losing their land, lives and country, The expansion of Israel is a result of that war, and the losses of those that instigated it.
The Jews and Arabs were not that friendly, either. For five months before the 1948 war, after the U.N. had adopted the partition plan but before the Mandate ended, 3000 people were killed in all out battles between Jewish forces and various Arab forces.
I do not care about Zionism or any other religion, religious beliefs are false beliefs that often cause people to do unnecessary harm, to themselves and to others, in the name of illusions. To me they are just another emotionally driven motivation, just another self-serving addiction we have to deal with, like greed or hedonism or power or fame.
I do not care what Noam Chomsky thinks, or Einstein. You are in error if you think I will ever, ever defer to the authority of anyone. I defer to logic, and reasoning, and fact. Names and reputations, fame and acclaim and agreement by others, at best, may spur me to work harder to comprehend an argument, but ultimately even if 95% of people agree (as they do on supernaturalism) and even if among them are the most celebrated intellects of all history, I am capable of rejecting their beliefs that are not backed by logic or fact.
That is good for those with whom I argue. Fame or reputation is not a prerequisite for my analysis. In fact, I expect far more transparent exposition from somebody with Fame or reputation than I do from a novice or student. For the latter, I am willing to do more work to find their real insight, and more ready to dismiss flawed language or terminology or awkward argumentation. Insight requires creativity, proper presentation is just training in the discipline.
Finally, you say, The Palestinians did not choose to go to war at all, it was the Ottoman Empire who did.
I have seen claims of this flavor often; they are a logical trap for those that make them. If you logically separate the “Ottoman Empire” from the people it ruled, then the people were mere tenants without rights to the land. The land of the country BELONGED to the “Ottoman Empire.”
The body that is empowered to declare war and send citizens to their death to fight a war, whether that is a King, Caliphate, Emperor, or Congress, is also inherently vested with the responsibility for deciding the fate of the country’s property and lands, because the risk of losing all ability to defend property rights is inherent in the decision to make war. The risk of conquest always carries the risk of being conquered.
In all political systems the final disposition of property belongs to the rulers. A ranch on our northern border owned by an individual cannot (successfully) declare itself an independent country effective next Monday, even with free and clear title one does not have full autonomy over one’s land. Whatever rights one has are protected by OUR government, and if our government is overthrown such rights are nullified.
Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan Can’t Say Which Tax Loopholes They’d Plug
By Laura Bassett
Posted: 09/09/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html
Excerpt:
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), stressed in interviews on Sunday that they would offset tax cuts for the wealthy by closing tax loopholes. But pressed on which loopholes they would close, both of them dodged the question.
“We think the secret to economic growth is lower tax rates for families and successful small businesses by plugging loopholes,” Ryan told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” “Now the question is not necessarily what loopholes go, but who gets them. High income earners use most of the loopholes. That means they can shelter their income from taxation.”
When Stephanopoulos asked him why he has refused to be more specific about which loopholes he would plug, Ryan suggested that it’s because he and Romney don’t yet know. “George, because we want to have this debate in the public,” he said. “We want to have this debate with Congress. And we want to do this with the consent of the elected representatives of the people and figure out what loopholes should stay or go and who should or should not get them.”
Meanwhile, host David Gregory tried to get some specifics out of Romney in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Give me an example of a loophole you would close,” Gregory said, after trying and failing several times to coax the candidate into giving specifics.
Romney couldn’t give one. “Well, I can tell you that people at the high end, high income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions,” he said. “Those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise they’d get a tax break. And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers.”
You want to talk about stupidity? Why did the U.S. prevent the British and French from securing the Suez canal?
And why the hel* did President Carter give up the Panama Canal? Not intelligent decisions.
Veteran Spending Missing From Rep. Paul Ryan’s ‘Grossly Irresponsible’ Budget
Tony C. & id707,
I have found an interesting site that you might want to check out:
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ip/ipw48/ipw48.html
“The term refugees when mentioned in reference to Israeli-Palestinian issue is normally used in reference to Palestinians Arabs. Large numbers of Palestinians fled from the areas where the areas over which Israelis gained control. Historians believe that during the 1948 war that about 0.7 million Arabs fled or were expelled from the part of Palestine which became Israel. Less well known is that a similar number of Jews were expelled from Muslim countries where their ancestors had lived for centuries, in some cases predating Islam. Rather than being a one-sided refugee problem, there was in fact an exchange of population. The essential difference is that Israel absorbed and integrated the Jewish refugees, both the European refugees and the so called Oriental Jewish refugees from Arab countries. The Arab countries, however, did not absorb or integrate the Palestinian refugees. As a result, decades after the 1948 war, we are still talking about the Palestinian refugees, who are now mostly the children and grandchildren of the 1948 refugees.”
@Blouise: Another excerpt (with spelling corrected):
“Palestinians at this time could have declared a state as Israel did. Israel was willing to accept the U.N. two-state partition plan. The Palestinian leadership was determined on having a single Palestinian-majority state for all of Palestine. The situation was further complicated by the invasion of the Arab states. They were less committed to a Palestinian state and saw the possibility of expanding their own national territory. The Palestinians showed some interest in declaring a state, but both Egypt and Jordan opposed this step.”
It is just one guy’s writing, but if he is writing from sources it supports my contention that the Palestinian situation is brought upon themselves; the independent state they seek now could have been established in 1948 in keeping the the resolution that formed Israel, and Israel would have done nothing to oppose that, since their own state depended upon the same U.N. resolution being accepted in whole.
Of course when I say “themselves” I mean their ancestors, when it comes to countries we are all born on paths chosen by historical figures, as future generations will be on paths chosen by us.
Tony C.,
(The site originally started out as a history of boys’ clothing … I kid you not … a fashion guy writing on the history of the present-day Middle East. But, I spent some time checking his facts and he’s accurate. I figured you would appreciate his non-expertise expertise.
)
At any rate … this whole mess was created by those crazy Brits shortly after the end of WW I through the mandates of the League of Nations which the United Nations decided to continue. I realize that the Arab Nations threatened war all through the late 40′s discussion period and maybe no one actually thought they would do it … hell, maybe they got caught up in their own rhetoric and then felt honor bound to do it but it is true that the only really well trained Arab troops were those from Transjordan (Jordon) who were trained and equipped by the Brits and fought mainly in Jerusalem.
Crazy, da*m Brits better be our closest ally since they’re the ones who left the mess everybody else is trying to clean up.
Sorry, I go slightly bonkers when I start thinking about the incredible harm the British Empire did to the world.
and you’re right … I corrected the spelling on the passage I quoted
test
Thanks for the history of Israel
TonyC,
Back now.
I did not give Chomsky as an authority, but as a source of facts. The man is a walking data bank.
Einstein for his deep committment to peace and reasonably because I agree with his OPINION. Authorities don’t mean shit to me. My whole life speaks as testimony of that.
Tenants, if you call them that, for 400 years after military takeover by the OE, could be called so, just as you and I can be called that. But I would call them survivors of a cruel ruling aggressor. Just as the Arabs did earlier in their invasion of the ME including what is now Iraq and Iran. A military rule that fell out to the advantage of the successful military commander. They often were initially like the Turks, only interested in effective
rule of their territories, not converting souls to Allah.
It is a tradition dating back to the taking over of Israel, ie the northern part of what today is Israel.
by Babylon, after the Assyrians.
The less economically favored soúthern part was Judah, good for sheepherding only. So they took the leadership to Babylon in captivity leaving a functioning economy to rule and tax. The Judans paid a tax (not right word) and ruled themselves.
This is what the Ottomans did, the British did, and now Israel is doing to Palestine.
Thanks for the link.
By the way, you don’t have to claim the high ground for your use only. Others can think too.
You conclude by saying that he who controls the land may reap what is sowed by others. Sadly, true.
And we are suffering for that now in the USA., from out control by proxy methods, and the fear by the rest of the world’s 95 percent (?) population.
But it was Congress that was supposed to declare war, our representitives, but does not.
Your argumentation is effective, an expression of realpolitik, but fails to enlist my support nor function as a reason for the Israeli takeover, by British decision. Nor do I support the empirical expansionist methods in Washington.
And Israel should have retired to their borders after the June ’66 war. A UN peacekeeping could have been setup for security.
I return to the thread’s issue, leaving this issue to you. I know far too little to continue. Walkover win, if you wish to celebrate.
Blouise and Tony,
Thank you for clarifying the historical facts about the conflict that are often overlooked today. I would add the following:
The indigenous arab population was not, except in a few instances, driven out of Israel in 1948. The socialist Israeli government begged them to stay. They mainly left at the request of the attacking Arab states so they wouldn’t get in the way of the attackers who were “going to drive the Jews into the sea”.
The “West Bank”and Jerusalem were supposed to be Israel’s under the terms of the UN partition, but were seized by the Arabs in the 1948 war, and when the cease fire ending the war was negotiated by the UN, the Jordanians were allowed to keep the “West Bank” and part of Jerusalem. When Israel was attacked again in 1967 they won back the land they lost in 1948, only to have the UN declare they should give it back.
The Arabs who left Israel in 1948 were kept in camps by the Arab lands they fled to purposely to keep the issue alive, rather then granting them citizenship.
At one point in the 70′s Jordan allowed many of thos Arabs Jordanian citizenship, but had to expel them when the PLO attempted a bloody coup.
So many people are unaware of the historical facts in this conflict. I don’t like Israel’s current leadership, but I think their coming to power was due to the people’s frustration with a world that only accepts the history that puts Israel in the worst light. There are two sides to this story, but lately many only see one. While I believe that politically a two State solution and the end of West Bank settlements represent the best path to peace, it doesn’t make it the most equitable.
ID707,
Neither Chomsky, nor Zinn deal with this issue historically, since both of the approach it with a pre-set ideological bias. As for UN peacekeepers protecting Israel, they were in place in each and every war and retreated to safety when hostilities began. That is not spin, or opinion, merely historical fact.
Blouise,
Thanks for the site, although it clearly does not support my views, as is evident from the parts you cited. Your committment to the Jewish cause, if you have one does not obviously effect your points.
Others make them for you. Smile!
“the independent state they seek now could have been established in 1948 in keeping the the resolution that formed Israel, and Israel would have done nothing to oppose that, since their own state depended upon the same U.N. resolution being accepted in whole.”
On what administration should they base their claim of nationhood? No Arab states believed in such a solution. They understood that the Palestine territory and people were too weak even if supported by Arab weapons. ¨Jordan and Syria became the exile/refugee receivers. And Jordan expelled theirs as they found them to be all too active politically for the Palestine cause for the Jordan king’s taste.
To say that it was the Palestinian’s who defeated their own nationhood is patently ridiculous. Europe and the USA assuaged their conscience pangs, and the jews, well anchored around the world were smarter and had access to greater funds, wisdom and military minds. Good for them, but don’t blame the Palestinians for not claiming their right from the UN.
The UN then, and now, is run by the Security Council in terms of decisions effecting the world. Of course we have UNICEF etc thanks to the GA, but no power to force or justify use of power.
The UN was only a rubber stamp organization, of the League which expired decades before.
It it today also, the only effective Sec Gen was a Swede, Dag Hammarsköld, a spiritual man, a poet, a religious in the independent sense. AND a very effective driver of the UN. He was assassinated in the Congo, his flight shot down, in spite of secrecy measures. But I diverge.
The problem of sephardic jew integration exists still and is recognized by the israeli contacts I have had interhantional technical conferences, ie not the politicians. As does the integration of the refugee Palestinians.
My own knowledge does not suffice so as to say more than this little.
Our discussion is all the result of my taking a pro-Palestinian position, which TonyC took issue with.
Fine, but it won’t change history and the ones who did it are dead now or in a coma from a stroke.
Even if a two-state solution had been established with the goodwill and cooperation of both sides, muslime and jewish, who the EFF can say it would have been better. But it was as it is now, and only efforts today can solve it.
I just thought I was offering an expression of my sympathies, not a solution, past or present.
Hope that is in line with my first comment.
The backware glance at yourself tends to be gilded.
I don’t care for realpolitik, although TonyC says that is how it is. But we have to live with it, in spite of the UN charter. Bolton is a buddy to Romney and Röv, sorry Rove. You know what röv is, I mentioned it before. ASS. Not the four-footed kind.
@Idealist: I am not trying to win, I am trying to point out the reality of it. I think the Israelis are violating the human rights of of Palestinians, and inexcusably so.
At this point, I think (like Mike) that a two state solution should be implemented, and I have NO PROBLEM with Israel defending its border with a big damn continuous wall (on their own property) on every inch of border, if they want to do that. They probably should, after 60 years of violence that amounts to low level war, I can think of no other solution than overt isolationism and very tightly controlled borders. As long as people bear lethal hatred toward them, their only practical choices are a suit of armor or destroying the threat. Since I oppose the aggressive option, I’d say suit up, and if and when somebody finally does attack, hurt them back as much as possible. You really cannot negotiate if all the other side really wants is for you to be dead.
MikeS,
I have enough knowledge (if we are kind and can call it that) to state an opinion from the same high ground we all claim to own. I never stated I was a solid source of facts nor that I had access to reliable one.
In fact, there are many opinions on historical accounts, all differing on facts and bias, etc.
Realising I was too poorly equipped with facts I retired and left a walkover with that given as a cause.
Having stirred up a hornet’s nest. I am caused to defend myself and my views from “facts” advanced by others which support their point of view. Well, that.
But was it my leaving the field that excited their interest. Throwing stones after a retreating army is a well-known expression of joy.
It is odd that taking a stance here leads to being condemned by others, bearing their factual ammunition.
I am not a supporter of either side, but only driven by a sense of justice as I perceive it from the little I know. I am not informed well nor interested to be informed well. You, MikeS and Blouise have your reasons, and I will not impugn them for any reasons. You are both smarter and better informed. But I stand for my POV. Israel is NOT helping to solve the problem. As the Prime Minister who lies in a coma said: We will slice it in very thin slices and eat it up. (my paraphrase).
And as long as Israel persists in their white phosphorous attacks on civilian neighborhoods, and using instruments of suppression, occupying land outside of their borders, then people around the world will not favor their cause.
I was once a heartfelt supporter of Israel, but not anymore. The Shoah insured the former stance, the white phosforous sealed the latter.
MikeS and others,
I am wading slowly, comment by comment, down.
“The “West Bank”and Jerusalem were supposed to be Israel’s under the terms of the UN partition, but were seized by the Arabs in the 1948 war, and when the cease fire ending the war was negotiated by the UN, the Jordanians were allowed to keep the “West Bank” and part of Jerusalem. When Israel was attacked again in 1967 they won back the land they lost in 1948, only to have the UN declare they should give it back.”
This was indeed news. I assume that you have at least some source which supports this very well. The UN decisions on the original partition borders of the British mandate should be crystal clear. I therefore assume the rest of you statements are too.
With my tail between my legs and my head held high, I must retire and study the facts. That’s what I get for making an opinion without good support in knowledge.
Any suggestions to read? BettyKath suggested Zinn for American history. You deny him credence as a historian on this matter.
Were it not for the people involved, I would content myself with saying a pox of the whole of it. Both sides deserve to live in peace, with access to bread and water and olive trees. So do all, and then dissension begins.
I am not of the learned class, only the opinionated with a certain flair for spouting. And I won’t play victim here. Go screw if that is expected.
Israeli soldiers go try to create or experience another world outside on Israel (chiefly in India).
The trauma of enforcing the policies cause them to despair. Of exactly what I do not know. I hope their suicide rate is less than in our veterans and active soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now must stop spouting. For now.
Below is repeated my original comment. How many have read it? Not so many I fear. I gave a kick at the israeli’s semitic cousins through Ishmael at the end.
How many saw that. The Arab nations are despicable and have been so since 632 AD. But the people are the ones who suffer, whoever their leader/suppressors are.
I questioned the value of the UN, said that bigotry counts for naught, and that facts are what should be evaluated.
My use of the A, B, and C names for Britain, Israel and Palestines was an evident oversimplification which I acknowledged in a later comment. Not the names but an oversimplification the events leading to today.
That of course irritated Israel’s supporters or those who simply are better informed.
So, what is to complain about in what I wrote.
Bad facts, but a fair summary of today’s situation as perceived by millions around the world who badmouth Israel and the jews. MikeS alludes to that as a motive. Think the videos and the view of white phosphorous is a better choice of motivation.
“idealist707
1, September 8, 2012 at 5:12 pm
ValerieKeefe,
If we take the bigotry out of the Palestine vs Israel question there are logical arguments which must be addressed.
If party C makes decisions effecting parties A and B on the basis of the rights of a protectorate holder, how compelling are those decisions?
If Party B takes over Party C’s territory and refuses to obey a UN mandate to retire, but insteads impedes, seizes, destroys, kills in the name of revenge, etc. then how do we judge this?
You get my drift, of course.
Might makes right, that’s just it. The Americn theme song as well. But I am afraid that the semitic cousins via Ishmael would sing the same theme.
Does the UN have any value? Is John Bolton right? Is he Romney’s ambassador to Israel?
TonyC,
Do all palestinian want to kill the israeli?
In your words it sounds like you beieve so. Guess you were trying to simplify your argument in view of my limited intelligence. True or not, it is nice of you.
I don’t believe in Heaven with angels or houris.
I hope mankind will develop its cooperation instinct sufficiently and its need for dominance as solutions.
Faint hope.
@Idealist: Do all palestinian want to kill the israeli?
If I live in a neighborhood of a thousand people, and I know that ten of them are intent upon killing me, that is enough for me to barricade my doors and windows while I sleep.
No, all Palestinians do not want to kill the Israeli. Will you deny that a fair number would support their destruction? Claim to know nothing of terrorists when they in fact do know something? Vote for Hezbollah? Celebrate suicide bombings that kill Israeli children?
My posts do not paint them with one brush, it just acknowledges the factual evidence that Israel is surrounded by people willing to resort to anything, including suicide, in order to kill Israeli citizens.
That does not mean everybody, but it means there is a sufficient concentration that an open border policy means far more Israeli deaths than a tightly closed border policy, and I do not blame them for choosing the latter, despite the expense, hassle, and negative economic impact.
ID707,
My facts are correct and can be ascertained by reading contemporaneous sources if you choose. I really hate dealing with this issue because there are so many facets to it. Zinn and Chomsky for instance. Initially the Soviet Union was moderately in favor of Israel, because in its establishment as a socialist state the USSR thought they may have had a kindred spirit. However, Jews suffered at the hands of Russians and the Soviets to the extent that the leaders of Israel at the time, Ben Gurion in particular, would have nothing to do with the Russians. At that point the Russians ever competitive in the Cold War began to court the Arab Nations, more for ideology and to taunt the US. Then too, Mother Russia had always been one of the world’s most Jew hating venues and Stalin almost hated Jews as much as Hitler.
The USSR was particularly successful with Egypt and Syria, when the two formed the UAR. Now here’s where the rub kicks in. The American Communist Party (CPUSA) began to put out the meme that Israel’s existence was the result of US Imperialism and that the Arabs from Israel, who became Palestinians after the 1967 War as part of a Saudi financed PR campaign, were displaced colonial peoples. The radical Left in the US, which was rabidly
anti-colonial, bought that meme and its companion that Israel’s independence was due to US assistance. Zinn and Chomsky, who both rejected their Jewish heritage, were well equipped to buy that meme, especially because they could envision the US behind the “usurpation”. Unfortunately, when it comes to the US Chomsky and Zinn have it nailed on many points, so people would expect that they have it right o Israel. It is a blind spot of theirs and really counter-intuitive to both their theories of international relations. And so it goes
The truth is, as I stated here many times before, is that Israel won its independence with the US on the sidelines. Even though all the Arab States were acknowledging that they would attack when it declared its independence, the US and the Brits had an embargo against arms going to Israel. The Israeli weaponry was smuggled in by Jews and other sympathizers throughout the world. The Brits had been supplying the Arab Legion (Jordan) with the latest arms. To everyone’s surprise, including the US, the Israeli’s, outgunned and out-manned, beat back the Arab attack, though losing some territorial ground as I previously mentioned. The UN did nothing to stop the Arab attack, but rushed in quickly when the Israeli’s were winning to force a ceasefire.
Part of the problem for the world as I see it is that the only time most of humanity was sympathetic to the Jews was when it could view them as victims of the Shoah. You know the drill the images of Jews being marched off to the Box Cars, or the emaciated, naked, Jewish dead being pried out of the gas ovens. Since the dawn of Christianity the image of the Jews has been hook-nosed, small, weak people, who use guile to make their way in the world. The reality is that Jews never were pushovers in battle. They fought the mightiest Empire in the World of its time, Rome, to a standstill for extended periods over many years, those finally losing in the end. We have survived numerous attempts to eradicate us. Even in WWII there was not only the Jewish stand at the Warsaw Ghetto for seven weeks, there were many instances of Jews fighting off the Nazi’s and Jewish resistance groups.
Jews were among the greatest boxers in America in the 20′s and 30′s. They were the best basketball players in the 30′s and 40′s. Arguably the toughest, most violent gang in US history was Murder Inc., which operated out of Brownsville Brooklyn in the 30′s and 40′s. We have never been the “pushovers” that the false stereotypes make us out to be. Israel, made up of Jews, shocked into consciousness in the Shoah, had their backs against the wall with the Arabs bragging they’d “push them into the sea”. They won and this was not only difficult for the Arabs to stomach, but for most of the world too. So the US got the credit and falsely accepted it. The Eisenhower
Administration was controlled by the Oil lobby with John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State and Allan Dulles, the head of the CIA. Both of them, along with Prescott Bush were involved with a bank that helped finance Hitler’s rise, before WWII. They were in the pocket of the Saudi’s and
became “Israel’s Greatest Friend” more to keep the Israeli’s under their heels, then as true allies. The Israeli’s couldn’t even buy Jet Fighters from the US, while Saudi Arabia and Egypt got the most up to date equipment.
I could go on with this to the length of a large tome and I could back it all up with facts, however, I get tired of constantly reiterating this material to people who despite their insight into the intrigues of the world, believe this
“America is Israel’s Ally” meme. The best thing that Israel could do with the US is tell it to screw off. With 250 nuclear weapons, close to the world’s largest oil reserves and the missiles to deliver them with, Israel can defend itself. Problem is that Bibi is really a Neo Con tool and has allowed them and his Jabotinsky heritage, to mess up his thinking. North Korea, a far crazier and less technologically astute country then Israel has charted its own course and that with the billions in China at its back door.
The facts are that the Arab Nations attacked in 1948 expecting to win and lost though some face was saved by the fighting skill of the British trained Transjordon forces in Jerusalem/West Bank There really isn’t any way around that. There is no bias or walkover in stating facts.
Now, as to whether or not the mandate as constituted at the end of WW I through the League of Nations and reaffirmed at the end of WW II through the United Nations should have been … that is an altogether different subject and one far more interesting, in my opinion, than the history of the conflict once the Brits withdrew from the area in 1948.
MikeS,
A swedish lady once said to me that tales have to be repeated until the need ends.
Thanks for this time. My open mind to Jews is not impaired by my faulty views. Who would think that the meme “America is a friend of Israel” is faulty?
Can mention that I embraced one two days ago, so glad I was at seeing his golden star of David when he stood in front of me at the cash register in my grocery store. “You must tell me if there is a kosher deli in Stockholm”, I said.
Sturegatan 19, he said and held up a Hebrew texted food package out of his pocket. He’d just been there.
Jews have a lot to thank in their holding themselves to each other, but is this one root of the hate that faces them?
It is all too complex and I understand your reticence for that reason only.
Thanks.
PS Why a kosher deli? Someone in America is urging me to try liver on rye but without pickles. And half dill pickles. And a pastrami sandwich with mustard. Last one in 1959 in NYC. I might even buy some lox and a few bagels. Can’t stand the swedish bagels, and frankly did not like the ones in NYC. A jewish specialty?
No response expected.
After the Roman empire failed, a lot of the Roman soldiers stayed where they were. They weren’t Romans anymore.
Matt Johnson,
I take your point, but oddly there were pension systems for old soldiers and others who had served the empire. Marrying locals is not uncommon either.
This was a horrible embarrassment. I have always been critical of the Republicans abusing the voice vote process. I have seen it in Wisconsin, in state government and mostly recently at the Republican Convention with Boehner regarding governance of their party. They ignore the votes and gavel down the outcome they desire. At least Mayor Villaraigosa hesitated, but then he capitulated and ignored reality. While I do not believe the Nays ever had the majority, it was close and no way two thirds. To see the Democrats abuse the voice vote roll call like the Republicans was nauseating.
Whether this is the right thread or not, it will have to do.
I want to discuss, in snippets as needed, the article
written by Russ Baker on his WhoWhatWhy blog
He covers the “small things” from Syria as significant.
My comments should not be taken as critic of this issue of the blog, nor of him in any disparaging way. I don’t feel I know enough yet to do either.
“we ought to at least acknowledge that the crime wave and attendant terror did not just happen, nor was it caused by the Assad regime”.
He had preceded that by pointing to our tax money (how that is used was not explained.) which caused a high crime rate situation. He cites from a NYTimes article from Aug 8 which I had already read and found worth reading again.
At this point I take issue with what he I cite from his blog above.
The NYTimes article made clear that this crime wave chiefly seems to be connected with “security troops” previously paid by Assad and wealthy business men. With Assad cash strapped and the businessmen fleeing, the NYTimes with a correspondent in Aleppo, ventures that the “thieves”, kidnappers, etc are “unpaid security forces” living off the land. Ie being the main source of the rise of crime rates now.
Is the obvious departure by Baker from the NTimes articles narrative an indicaion of bias, need to drive an own theme notwithstanding facts in an article that one has acccepted as a suitable source, or is it sloppiness dut to haste or ????.
I don’t know (yet), but use this space to make you aware of the possibilities of misinformation in recommended sites and specific articles.
I will add the possibility that it is I who misread the NYTimes article, not Baker.. It is possible. No intentions however.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/president-romney-why-those-two-words-should-scare-you-action-election Micheal Moore says we should be scared by a Romney election.
In response to Taser this, the fact is that the issue was not a serious one for a host of reasons. First off, it was obvious that the leadership had no idea that there would be any opposition to this rather mundane and what they thought would be uncontroversial vote. Then the fact is that the delegates are bored,and/or drunk, and looking to have some fun at the expense of the chair. Had I been a delegate, I too would have voted NO, and the look on Villagarosa’s face was worth it, and his fumbling was even better.
Then if it had been a serious issue, the delegates could have appealed the ruling of the chair, called for a roll call, and done any number of things to get immediate redress on the unfair ruling. Then the members of the platform committee could have gone public, and raised holy hell about undoing what they had done. I was also unaware that there was any atheist and anit-Israel caucus that had forced the original language through. Had this been a real issue, ALL of those things could have and would have been done had this been a serious breach of democratic procedings. Going back to the 2008 language and the ruling, while looking bad from the point of view on the outside, it is much ado about nothing.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-culture-war.php?ref=fpnewsfeed Romney hits the campaign trail with Pat Robertson….. talking about the godless democrats and their convention.
idealist707 1, September 10, 2012 at 3:18 am
Matt Johnson,
I take your point, but oddly there were pension systems for old soldiers and others who had served the empire. Marrying locals is not uncommon either.
===========================================================
They have an old soldiers home for French foreign legionnaires.
.
Swarthmore mom 1, September 10, 2012 at 8:19 am
Micheal Moore says we should be scared by a Romney election.
====================================================
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D379436543310263692&ei=4hBQUI-6DcT40gH6yoHYBg&usg=AFQjCNHO3K5ZOyEBcvXA7-ZsiGPYKKyVSw
=============
Well. let’s see.
Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m inspired! Extremely useful information specially the remaining phase
I handle such info a lot. I used to be looking for this particular info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
As usual you might have delivered by having several very intriguing issues and also I have already included
this web site to at least one I am going to pay attention to .
! . !