Journalist and historian Rick Perlstein’s new book, The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo: How the Democrats Can Once Again Become America’s Dominant Political Party, begins with a “political parable” about the rise and decline of the American airplane giant Boeing. Founded in 1917 with a singular vision of cheap, accessible commercial air travel despite its huge risks, Boeing ultimately became one… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (31)Page 1 of 1 pagesI most heartily concur with Rick Perlstein’s prescription for how to fix what is wrong with the Democratic Party today. He seems to draw similar conclusions to those of Thomas Frank in his fabulous, must read book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” The Democrats must draw the line on a number of issues that will define who they are to the American people. Those issues, in my mind are: health care, education, the environment, and national security. The Dems must not endorse corporate giveaways in the form of the 2003 Medicare bill, NCLB, and the recent bankruptcy legislation. The DLC Dems are ceding vital territory on economic issues that their own party took decades to claim! I propose a purge of the Democratic party leadership. Harry Reid must go as Senate Minority leader, as must Nancy Pelosi in the House. The Dems need to find a fiery, but tactful leader that will show to the American people what their party stands for. And when Dems reclaim Congress and the presidency, they must pass legislation that makes ALL campaigns publicly funded, that way corporate America will have no more influence on the election process than you or me. A man can dream can’t he?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 21, 2005 at 7:43 PM THE LINE that democrats (read liberals, which don’t include the likes of Joe Lieberman), is that, democrats must place the interests of public health, safety and welfare ABOVE the interest of corporate profit. THAT is all the distinction they need, and all the distinction there is.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 22, 2005 at 1:51 PM I don’t disagree with that, Lefty. It seems that if the Democrats have a core set of values, in this case one, then it is pretty clear what kind of issues they will and will not support. The simpler the better. Heck, it worked for the Republicans in 2004.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 22, 2005 at 4:07 PM I agree with all three comments above and especially Lefty’s comment which implies correctly that Joe Lieberman does not fit the mold of either liberal or Democrat.
After subscribing to The New Republic magazine for over 15 years I cancelled my subscription following their editor’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman for president. That was the final straw which was a compilation of other past editorials which wee segueing more than ever in supporting Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq. Again, in a incredulously worded editorial they described the failure to find WMD in Iraq a “great embarrassment.” Ugh!
But, as I have stated here before and on other topics I agree that the tone of the message and rhetoric must change dramatically if the Democrats are to compete in future elections in this country.
I still believe, in spite of my often cynical observations on the state of affairs in the Democratic Party, that Americans are waiting and hoping for candidates who can support everyday working people who have been taking a beating as we see more and more jobs outsourced to other countries.
There has to be a better solution than the Bush assault on our workforce which has seen a continuing loss of health and retirement benefits and all-out attacks against Social Security by the greedy, corrupt Republican plutocrats whose goal it is to eliminate it completely, sacrificing it at the altar of private corporations and Ponzi Scheme Wall Street hucksters. On Social Security, the Bush privatization plan has lost, not gained support.
The message on protecting Social Security was delivered correctly and the lessons learned from that successful counterattack must be applied to other issues as well if Democrats are to make any gains in 2006 and beyond.
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 22, 2005 at 4:39 PM I could not have said it better myself Richard2. The Democrats refused to concede on Bush’s privatization scheme and he backed down. That was the only case I can recall in the last 4+ years where ALL Democrats grew a spine and stood up to the President. Now only if they had done that on Iraq and the Patriot Act….
Posted by Liberal on Jul 22, 2005 at 5:19 PM Wow, it’s great to see a little liberal continuity in a thread! I’m so used to seeing neocons with their heads up you know where messing up the line of thought on each issue.
I think we absolutely must become more aggressive and relentless in presenting our plans and viewpoints. We have to be fearless in putting it out there and just letting Republican potshots roll off our backs like water on a duck’s. We see, as the author astutely points out, that that tactic did work for Social Security.
The Republican spin machine that keeps droning on about how we have no plans has got to have a big lemon pie-full of well-formed plans shoved into their face. Things like the DSM’s and Rove are really starting to help us out. They will be weakened by the Terri Shiavo thing as well as Iraq, Rove, terrorism continuing to grow, etc. So, the hot iron must strike now.
A little off-subject, but on Air America yesterday the guy who was sitting in for Ed Schultz was talking about if Roe v Wade is overturned. Both he and the caller were opining that that act would doom the GOP, as most Americans, while not actually pro-abortion, are pro-choice. What do you think?
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 22, 2005 at 11:09 PM Susie Q, you wrote, ” Air America yesterday the guy who was sitting in for Ed Schultz was talking about if Roe v Wade is overturned. Both he and the caller were opining that act would doom the GOP, as most Americans, while not actually pro-abortion, are pro-choice. What do you think?”
First of all, I’m not pro abortion but like many Americans who fit somewhere in the middle of this issue, I’m for the right of a woman or her entire family, in discussion with medical doctors, to make that choice and decision to have an abortion for themselves. I do not support “abortion on demand” simply because some air head gets pregnant and decides to cavalierly have and abortion. I think it’s a serious decision but I do not think for one minute that the moment a woman gets pregnant that her body and what she does with it belongs to the State.
That was and still is, the crux of the Roe Vs Wade. It wasn’t abortion, it was the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the key question that Robert Bork flunked miserably in his rejection by the Senate in the largest rejection margin in the history of a candidate for a U.S. Supreme Court appointment.
As for Air America, I’m not sure how many of you have heard this but Ed Schultz is NOT pro choice. He has said so on the air but you can correct me if I’m wrong on this. Also, Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, is NOT pro choice and while I’m at it, I’ll throw in Hillary Clinton who also wants to get the abortion debate out of the either/or, black or white polemic. I think her attitude reflects one that many of us (speaking for myself) want to see put forward. There is a middle ground and I think there can absolutely be compromises. Most states, including very liberal California either have or will have a Parental Notification if an underage minor seeks to have an abortion.
Back to Ed Schultz, I don’t like listening to him all that much because he reminds me of Rush Limbaugh and his pontificating makes me vomit the same way as Limbaugh’s nauseous blather does.
As to John Kerry, I supported him in 2004, even before he officially became a candidate for president. I am totally disappointed in the way he and his campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, handled the Swill Boat mob and I think that hurt Kerry tremendously. That, as they say, is water under the bridge.
This is the reality for me, and believe me, abortion and Roe Vs Wade is not my priority. I’ll say it and mean it that #1 issues for me are universal health care, worker protection rights, the right to strike for better wages and protection of pension plans, medical care and environmental protections for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat (sans BSE) and the absolute guarantee of tax credits for fuel efficient cars and alternative energy such as natural gas to heat and cool our homes.
Two, four, six, eight, who do I appreciate? Like a floundering boat ready to capsize, I’m either looking for the petcock to go down with the ship, or tar up the leaks and start bailing out the water and then getting the engine restarted. I wish I could find a captain though.
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 23, 2005 at 12:03 AM You know, I wish I could hand my vote over to someone I thought would use it more wisely than I can. I mean, I try. I read article after article, I read the news in our local daily and then I go to the indie journals to get the facts. I spend at least an hour every single day trying to figure out what’s going on in my country and the world. And either there aren’t any facts or else I can’t keep them in my fool head. I know why so many Americans voted for Bush—he’s basic. You don’t have to keep track of anything, you just have to believe him. I’m sorta screwed. I don’t believe in him, but I can’t keep track of anything either. And STILL I get to vote. Now who’s dumb idea was that?
All of the above is to say that while these follow ups are interesting, they are essentially a forum by which to “preach to the choir.” Where’s the reasoned explanation of the rationale of the other side? Haven’t we gotten past asserting that all corporations are devoted to greed and all non-rich republicans are dupes? Isn’t that a little simplistc? On the other hand, for the reasons stated above, simplistic is about all I have the mental capacity for, it seems.
So, since I cannot legally give away my vote to the American of my choice, would one of you folks who is so much more astute at keeping track of the good guys and bad guys please send me a list of who to vote for, but not why…I’ll never remember the why anyway.
Posted by Unbehrable on Jul 23, 2005 at 12:48 AM Part One:
This is a very interesting thread. I’m intrigued that so many people still believe that the Dems can or will pull us out of this mess. Apparantly, you guyz believe that the system, tho twisted, even broken, can be fixed, and that the Democrats are the “tools” we’ll need to use to do so.
I just don’t see how this can be true.
Some time ago, I was reading about FDR’s internment / imprisonment of Japanese Americans, during - and after - WWII. This led me to pieces about the relatively indiscriminate bombing of known civillian targets throughout Germany and Japan during the war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. In Dresden, he used Napalm on a relatively large population, mostly of women and children, a monsterous deed by any human standard. Dresden was not the only city which was napalmed. FDR was an enthusiastic supporter of the Manhattan Project, and there’s little reason to believe he’d not have done what Truman did, had he lived.Truman, another splendid Dem., napalmed dozens, perhaps hundreds of Japanese cities - filled with non-combatants, killing millions. Then he dropped two atomic bombs on cities with the deliberate intention of killing enormous numbers of civillians to frighten the Japanese Government into surrender. There is, of course, considerable and well-documented evidence that Japan was seeking to sue for peace throughout this period, and that the nuking of hundreds of thousands of innocent people had nothing to do with saving American lives or ending the war more quickly.
Truman also started the CIA, the National Security Council and the NSA. He created the group that eventually became the American Military Command, Vietnam. He was the first President to go to overt war without waiting for Congress to declare it, in Korea. He’s responsible for sorrow and death and horror on an almost unimaginable scale.
Kennedy invaded Cuba and sent some napalm along, with some CIA pilots, in the process, burning 60 or 70 Cubans to death. He sent troops to Vietnam along with enormous amounts of napalm and various defoliants, like agent orange - which kills crops, trees, animals and people, and also busts up the chromosomes, so that the population still suffers the effects. Johnson continued the horror, of course. He and Kennedy dropped several hundred TONS of explosives on this little country for every man, woman and child who lived there.
We burned them to death, we used plastic cluster bombs, in addition to metal bombs, because the plastic was difficult to see, and made it harder to surgically save these victims. We defoliated their whole world… Our aim was to create horror and despair…More very shortly… - joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 23, 2005 at 8:53 AM Part 2: (Couldn’t post all this blab in one submission…)
Clinton, a sweetheart by comparison, moved the country sharply and deliberately to the right. He forced single mothers with children off of welfare and out into the minimum wage workaday world - let the chips fall where they may.
He “got tough on crime,” and on “drugs,” putting even more people of color behind bars while giving speeches about his deep and abiding concern for blacks and Latinos and Asians. He felt strongly that, generally, there is “too much democracy.” Throughout his presidency, huge, powerful corporations became even larger and more powerful - there were mergers everywhere - in banking, media, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, airlines, agri-business.He bombed Serbia, pounded Serbia, telling us that the Serbs were involved in Ethnic Cleansing - genocide, actually, and that we just had to get involved. A significant number of independant groups have investigated the genocide and have been unable to find it. Such documentation is significant. Among other writings on this subject, Michael Parenti’s book title is instructive: “To Kill A Nation.” We hammered them, killing many, many thousands of innocents, and demolishing much of the infrastructure - water, sewer, power-plants, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools…
Yes, of course, the Republicans are just as bad. They may be even worse, if Bush has his way. These are dark times, indeed. But, surely you can’t see the Democrats as the folks to turn to. They’ve been as bloodthirsty and enamored of empire as the thugs on the Right. Can you really believe that people can murder and rape and torture huge populations overseas and then return home to be a “good parent” here? (My daddy is a mass-murderer, but he’s nice to me!)
Moreover, though the Bushistas are particularly savage, there’s no reason to think that things would be better with Kerry or Gore or any Democrat - except, perhaps, Mr. Feingold, or a few members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Ultimately, there’s but one party, as many have said: The Elite Party, the Party of Empire, the Corporate-Political State, which we are, and have been for a very long time. The trend of government intrusion into people’s personal lives, the trend toward union busting and lower pay and job security, the trend toward ever increasing defence budgets and ever increasing corporate welfare and “generalized abundance” for the rich and powerful with a corresponding increase in poverty and wretchedness and need - has been firmly in place since the 70’s. As someone wrote, fairly recently: “There is no longer a need for corporations to lobby the government to get what they want: The Corporations ARE the government…” Republicans AND Democrats…
Sorry if this is disjointed. It’s late and I’m scrambling to try, probably, to include too much. But, all of this is the barest sketch - just a glance at the overall situation. The current social and political conditions in the US are a direct result of the actions of both parties for the last century or more. We are where we are because both parties are what they are. Or, that’s how I see it. I’m looking forward to hearing other perspectives…
Thanks for listening, as it were. - joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 23, 2005 at 9:00 AM Joesph, you wrote, ” Apparantly, you guyz believe that the system, tho twisted, even broken, can be fixed, and that the Democrats are the “tools” we’ll need to use to do so. I just don’t see how this can be true.”
And later you add, “Moreover, though the Bushistas are particularly savage, there’s no reason to think that things would be better with Kerry or Gore or any Democrat - except, perhaps, Mr. Feingold, or a few members of the Congressional Black Caucus.”
Well, that certainly is a long dissertation which I read as an apology and an endorsement for the Bush administration. In a nutshell, you are simply arguing on the hypothetical that if Gore or Kerry got in office things would be worse. Of course, that argument is something those of us in the minority have been hearing since 2000.
But since you want to push this debate into the realm of hypothetical, here’s mine:
A Democratic administration under the current Republican-controlled U.S. Congress presiding over the horrendous and catastrophic Iraq War which has so far caused over 1,770 U.S. military deaths and upwards of 25,000 innocent civilian deaths, the Enron and breathtaking corporate scandals, record yearly budget deficits, all-out attacks on Social Security, $1.35 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of the population, record trade deficits ($650 billion in 2004 alone), record $8.4 trillion national debt, deliberately and traitorously jeopardizing national security for strictly retaliatory and vindictive political purposes, exploitation of religion and the American flag for political propaganda, major intelligence lapses in dealing with terror threats against the United States during and prior to 9/11 in the year 2001,—- any one of these disastrous policies and all collectively would have been grounds for impeachment.
There is no question in my mind or the minds of many others in this country that a Democrat president would have been out the door years ago given the gargantuan record of lies, deception and hypocrisy practiced by the Bush administration.
If your concept of leadership in this country is based on the Bush administration’s record, which it certainly is, and your premise and hypothesis that no other party’s leadership could have done better, then you have indeed set a bar so low that it is not only cynical but exceedingly depressing for all Americans.
I personally think we could have done better, and those who put bumper stickers and signs on their cars that said “Anybody But Bush” were absolutely right on.
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 23, 2005 at 3:53 PM Joe,
When a cabinet member of such power as Karl Rove can out an active, covert CIA officer and most people are believing a lying administration that this is really “irrelevent”, you can bet this administration has castrated the “free” press of our country. In no prior administration has the press been so cowed, and in any other Democratic administration, they would have impeached/removed.
Bush Co. has created a perfect scenario for fascism in our country. The press is not really free to report the actions of the govt. for fear of retribution by Rove, et al. Let’s see, he’s smeared John McCain, Cindy McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and the list goes on and on. Anyone who gets in the GOP’s way get’s their life slandered on the big screen now.
Yes, Dems led this country to VICTORY in WWII. So where does this Republican claim that Dems would be too scared to fight, that only a GOP (Bush) could keep this country safe. Safe?! Ha! Are you kidding? We have more terrorist out after us now worldwide than we ever did before Iraq. Even the CIA states that as a fact.
Enron, United Airlines, to name a few, now can allow their CEO to walk away with millions, billions of dollars, but the workers who have now lost their entire retirement fund are told to shove it. That’s the mindset of this Administration. Business uber alles.
We are losing this war in Iraq and, unfortunately, many more will be killed so that Halliburton can rake the bucks in. Where’s that oil money, by the way? Wasn’t that supposed to rebuild Iraq? Last time I looked, they never even located that 9B $ of oil money that “disappeared” in early 2004.
Social Security reform by this Admin. is a sick joke. At least the American people have wholly and summarily rejected that Ponzi scheme.
This President has made poor choice upon horrific choice, and then lied about it. This Administration is a house of cards built on a table of lies and deception.
One can only hope this Rove investigation will dovetail into the Downing Street Minutes and we will have an impeachment hearing shortly after the 2006 elections.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 23, 2005 at 4:34 PM Hi Richard2 and SuzieQ -
You folks concluded, from my critique of the dems, that I must be a republican. This is not, I think, accidental. The democrats and republicans, and the corporate power which they both are, would have us believe that our choices must be limited to what they offer us: Horrible - under the Republicans… somewhat less horrible - under the democrats.
Yes, life - all life, here at home and all around the world, has gotten much worse under the Bush Cabal. But I would argue that we’ve arrived where we are because of the generalized myopia, greed, self-aggrandizement and hubris of *both* parties. We’ve arrived where we are because the party of the far right, the Republicans, and the party of the “mid-right,” the Democrats, have consistently worked together for over a hundred years, to make the world ( and the US ) safe for Empire, and colossal corporate greed. And, they have succeeded brilliantly. So brilliantly, in fact, that when they - quite obviously, in my view - Together - take the country to the edge of a moral and financial abyss, most people still see events as in terms of the grand and classic struggle between these two groups… one good, one evil. But they are BOTH responsible.
One might wonder why the democrats have not stood up to the Bushistas. There have been, since 9-11, innumerable opportunities for them to stand against the violence and savagery of the republican response to the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. Yet, only one senator voted against the invasion of Iraq, and that same senator voted against the Patriot Act. Only one.
Why only one? Because, like their republican buddies, the democrats are bought and paid for by the corporate structures that actually run the country. They’ve not stood up for freedom or justice or sanity because they are infinitely more concerned with their own political and financial well-being than they are for ordinary folks here at home or in Iraq or Iran or Syria or Hati or Serbia or Mexico or Colombia… They’ve not stood up because they sold out a long, long time ago.
Yes, things are horrible. Ten years ago, under Clinton-Gore, they were “Only” dreadful. You guys argue that we’ve got to find a way to return to dreadful, because horrible is - well, so horrible. I’m arguing that the democratic alternative to horrible is dreadful… not excellent, not good, not fair, not even “kinda crummy,” but absolutely dreadful…
Enron made most of its money, did most of its dirty deeds, Richard, under Clinton. Clinton described the “social security problem” as real (though, of course, it is nothing of the sort), then attacked the problem by approaching economics like a Hooverite, “we’ll balance the budget, then all will be OK.” Moreover, the corporations grew almost infinitely stronger under Clinton’s presidency, and this, along with his deliberate shifting of American politics to the right, made Bush possible. Had Clinton actually been interested in ordinary people, Bush could not have been elected. Bush is standing on the shoulders of Clinton and Carter and Lyndon and Kennedy and Truman and FDR
I don’t want to get back to “only” dreadful, Richard and Suzi. I think we, and the whole world, need more, much, much, more than that, and we’re never going to get it from the democrats…
Posted by joseph on Jul 23, 2005 at 7:41 PM So am I to assume you are Libertarian or an Independent?
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 23, 2005 at 8:41 PM Hi SuzieQ -
Well, I don’t know what I am, actually. I voted for Nader - not because I thought he had a prayer, but because he is so passionately opposed to corporate power. (Something NEVER discussed seriously by most members of either party. Have you read: The Corporation, by Joel Bakan? It’s factual, well researched, and frightening.)I was a democrat throughout most of my life, as were my parents and grandparents. But, after 9-11, I started reading voraciously. I did so because I saw Dan Rather on Letterman. He said that the terrorists attacked us because they were jealous of our freedoms. Also, I saw a piece on Nightline about the enormous amounts of oil in the Caspian Basin, and the decade-old plan to build a pipeline through Afghanistan…
Somehow, all this stuff did not add up for me. I just could not believe that a group of men who loathed our ‘freedoms,’ could be induced to move to Afghanistan for guerilla training, then move to the heart of the land they loathed for an indeterminate amount of time, till getting the word that they were now to commit suicide in a horrible act of mass-murder, all because satellite tv shows too many giggling American breasts and freedoms.Once I began reading, I came across: “The Project for the New American Century,” which is posted in its entireity on the web. In one portion, these neo-cons describe their objective of taking over the entire world, militarily and economically, and how they were going to do it. (I also, somehow - you know how twisted the link-clicking can be - found my way to a huge book by Zbignew Brazinski, Carter’s main man, called “The Grand Chessboard,” which is undoubtedly a blueprint for much of the neocon Project…) The Project says - in the fall of 2000! - that this effort to take over the whole world will be difficult because the American population may find out what they’re up to and slow them down. However, they go on - this could be counter-acted if there were “some grand Pearl Harbor type incident” that unified the people behind the government…
Well, I’m not saying that the govt. was behind the attacks (I’m not saying anything at all, right now) but I am saying that this stuff is right out there, signed by Cheany and Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and the whole Neo-Con gang, and I had never heard of it. Why had’nt the party of the people, the Democrats, brought it up? Why was this not an ENORMOUS part of Gore versus Bush? Why is it that, to this day, most people have never heard about it, if the Dems are so passionate about regaining their political superiority?
The more I read, the more convinced I’ve become that government itself is one of the greatest forces for darkness and repression and inequality, in the world. This conclusion, it seems to me, is inescapable. I have no solutions, but I’m certain that the Democrats are not going to pull us all out of a quagmire that they helped create and continue to passionately support in vote after vote in the congress.
In 2000, I think it was, Gore Vidal gave a speech at the National Press Club. He began with this line: “The smell of the Weimar Republic is in the air…” This was before Bush entered the picture.
I’m 54 years old. I have a nice house in a nice neighborhood. I’m not some freak driving an old VW bus covered with anti-war stickers. (Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with such folks…) But, what I mean is that I’m a rational, relatively sucessful guy who reads and reads and asks lots of questions…
Thanks for your note, SuziQ. - joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 23, 2005 at 9:51 PM Joseph, well there you go again as Ronald Reagan once said of his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale. It’s the same not-so-subtle bit of casuistry you employed earlier in highlighting the past failures of past presidencies in an attempt to disguise and soften the criticism and disastrous record of the Bush administration’s sorry and devastating 4 ½-year legacy of war and ruin of our country.
You stated: “Enron made most of its money, did most of its dirty deeds, Richard, under Clinton. Clinton described the “social security problem” as real (though, of course, it is nothing of the sort), then attacked the problem by approaching economics like a Hooverite, “we’ll balance the budget, then all will be OK.” Moreover, the corporations grew almost infinitely stronger under Clinton’s…”
Clinton did this and Clinton did that, ad nauseam.
Excuse me, but California where I live lost between $30 and $40 billion under the aegis of the Bush/Cheney FERC-mandated energy price-gouging. The Bush draconian energy policies first created their “mushroom cloud” energy “crisis” and then aided and abetted the crooks who jacked up electricity costs from $30 per megawatt hour to over $3,000 per megawatt hour. Maybe you can get a good chuckle out of the fact that it worked splendidly. I had electricity bills alone that topped $300 per month and friends we know with families paid even more.
This all occurred at the height of rolling blackouts in 2001 and during a time when Bush’s close family friend Kenneth “Kenny Boy” Lay was running the whole show and snickering all the way to the bank. Clinton caused this? Get real!
You say you do a lot of reading. Well, I have in pdf format thousands of pages of court testimony in California revealing the Texas oil connection and the manipulation by the Bush mob of Republican extortionists who, by the way, are still running the show.
With all that reading you did I hope it didn’t escape you that Karl Rove also played a big part in Enron as did many others who are still in Bush administration key positions.
The entire Republican Party isn’t even a shadow of its former self. The Bush mob of thieves and swindlers have no use for States’ rights, opposing and challenging them at almost every opportunity. The new Bush GOP believes in bigger federal government, greater, not less of a role for the federal government in the personal lives of every citizen (think Oregon’s right to die law, opposition to medical use marijuana laws and the Schiavo travesty for starters), borrow and spend profligates who see the U.S. Treasury as a personal piggyback, send men and women to war without a plan or proper equipment, didn’t have even a clue on what to do once they “conquered” and now own the broken country Iraq which had been living under severe UN-imposed economic sanctions for 12 years, drained our U.S. treasury with irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population while running record yearly budget deficits, and on and on it goes.
NOTHING in the Bush administration represents anything close to the once-proud, fiscally responsible Republican Party which stressed we should not send our U.S. military into harm’s way unless it was absolutely necessary, not because one individual, unilaterally decides to preemptively bomb another country because he can.
Bush and the entire new corrupt Republican mob have become nothing but greedy, disgusting, divisive individuals who exploit religion, politicize the American flag and most would sell their own parents down the river if they thought they could make a buck. There is only one word that really describes them in totality: CORRUPT!
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:04 AM Hi Richard2 -
Calm down, Sir. In most respects, we agree completely. That I point out that Clinton was a criminal does not mean that I approve of the Bush Thugocracy. Quite the contrary. I simply fail to see how the democrats differ in substance, from the republicans.In terms of the heartless greed and dedication to the New Corporate Reich, Bush may well be in a league of his own. But the democrats AND the republicans paved the roadway for babyBush’s easy ride into Babylon. The government, composed of BOTH parties, created a nation which allowed Bush to be appointed to office by the Supreme Court. Then, the Democratic party, in 2004, sent the nation an election opponent straight out of the Republican playbook: Very rich white boy, exactly like his opponent. Went to Yale, as did his opponent. Accepted into the very same ultra-secret, ultra-elite fraternity as GeorgeW. And his platform?
“I’ll be even better at prosecuting this war than Bush! I’ll be even more viscious than our current Boy Wonder! Hell: I’ll be a better Bush than Bush!” That was the platform set up by the party you support, for the 2004 election, Richard.
The party you support, sent John Kerry out into battle to help you with all the problems you mention above. There are lots of them, yes? But, Kerry did not mention any of the things you cite, did he Sir? Why not? Using facts in the post you just submitted, Kerry could have torn Mr. Bush from office with relative ease. He barely opposed Bush on any level. Why not? You could have beaten Bush, Richard. Why couldn’t Kerry?
I’ll reiterate my perspective, Richard. Kerry, and the party that nominated him, couldn’t beat Bush because the democrats don’t stand for anything substantially different than do the republicans. You seem to support one group of goons because the other group is even worse. To my way of thinking, both parties are essentially murderous, gangland-style organizations which are generally working together to see to it that they retain power over the ordinary people of the US… If I’m wrong, how is it that the vast number of battles in Congress, during the past 5 years, have not been battles at all. Were the democrats forced to behave as if they don’t care about you and I at all, Richard, or are they just doing what comes naturally?
Posted by joseph on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:51 AM Joe,
While I agree that both parties are almost hopelessly corrupted by corporate money and power, the hope for a viable third party here is still very slim. It would be great, in my opinion, to have another option. But we don’t.
Therefore, it behooves us to work to restructure the party with whom we best identify. As a Democrat, I am putting my efforts into getting more progressive representation into DC, as well as speakers who have some bravado and will face the GOP Goliath with David’s faith and determination.
I was just at an old-folks’ wedding last night, and I heard many complaints about the direction and leadership of the GOP. It was heartening. I know that party certainly doesn’t resemble the one I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s hearing about from my staunch Republican father.
Yes, I am very well-aware of the plan of world domination by the neocons. It is well documented online. Go to oldamericancentury.org. I read it daily for real news.
I understand your frustration, but to simply trash both parties instead of using that energy to revitalize them, to get the leadership some cojones, to put the family and the American economy/healthcare back to center and to put Americans in charge of their government again, we have to stop whining about how much we don’t like things the way they are and change them.
Posted by Susie Q on Jul 24, 2005 at 4:27 PM Thanks for your thoughtful note, SuziQ.
I wish you well… and Richard2, too.
- joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 24, 2005 at 6:49 PM This article is not an endorsement of the Democratic Party, but a prescription for how it can become better and gain more politcal traction in the years ahead. Yes, the Democratic Party has its flaws due in large part to the corporate funded Democratic Leadership Council and its offspring, the Progressive Policy Institute. But wasn’t it Truman who gave us the Fair Deal which was then summarily rejected by the GOP? Didn’t Truman integrate the military? Didn’t FDR give us the minimum wage, Medicaid, child labor prohibitions, overtime pay, Social Security, the right to organize unions, and a 40-hour workweek? Didn’t Johnson give us Medicare, and numerous civil rights legislation? As far as I can recall, Republicans opposed almost everyone one of those pieces of legislation. Kennedy wanted to get out of Vietnam before he was killed and also shut down Operation Mongoose, which perpetrated numerous acts of terrorism against Cuba. Barry Goldwater, on the other hand, wanted to use nuclear weapons against North Vietnam! No Democratic president broke into GOP headquarters and tried to undermine the democratic process to get re-elected and then covered it up unlike Richard Nixon. There was no scandal on the scale of “Iran-Contra” under a democratic president, despite persistent GOP efforts to smear Bill Clinton. Democrats do not question the patriotism of their opponents or appeal to the visceral nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies of white men. We could do a hell of a lot worse than the Democratic party, Joseph.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 24, 2005 at 8:04 PM Pt. 1 (Sorry, I guess I have to divide this) -
Hi Liberal. Thanks for your missive.
It’s thoughtful and well-meant, it seems. I thought, prior to these conversations, on this very thread, that should people come to learn what I’ve come to learn over the past 5 years, they would come to essentially the same conclusions as I have. I see I’m in error. It’s not simply facts, not simply a matter of education - but a matter of interpretation, which I should have understood…
I guess, to begin, I’d have to say that you and Richard2 and even SuziQ have all chosen to define the murder - and, murder it is - of literally millions of completely innocent human beings in Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Serbia, Iraq (far more innocents died in Iraq under the Clinton Admin., than have thusfar died under UberBush…)... - as a “flaw.”
This is by no means a complete listing. These murders were planned, thoughtful measures instituted by Democratic administrations for the good of Empire and the wealth and power of the very few. It’s September 11 raised to some amazingly great exponential power. Angry about the Sept. 11 attacks, Liberal? Then, surely you are staggered with horror about what I’ve just mentioned. It would be unthinkable to support Al Quaeda as a good government for any people anywhere. But, when white Americans slaughter people all over the globe, we still consider them - redeemable…
(Back in a moment)
Posted by joseph on Jul 25, 2005 at 1:29 AM You apparently believe that people who can butcher and crush entire populations all over the globe and still sleep well, are the sorts of folks who can be trusted to look out for us, and for our wives and kids… We’ll give such people immense power over every aspect of our lives, and, well, cross our fingers.
With regard to the New Deal, Fair Deal, Civil Rights, and other relatively benevolent pieces of legislation, I am no longer able to view them as “gifts from above.” (And, btw, Truman’s FD was opposed by both southern / conservative Democrats, and Republicans)
I’m unable to find, throughout these last five years of study, a single “right” - in Civil Rights, in Labor, in in personal / physical rights such as privacy and abortion, in health care, etc., that wasn’t paid for - and then some - in lives and blood and tears and enormous sacrifices by ordinary people. That is: You and Richard2 and SuziQ and others like you and I forced the government to act. All of what we now call “our rights” were wrested from government/Elites, by ordinary folks. That’s wrested! Not one fraction of a jot was just handed over. Not one. Moreover, Liberal, most of the legislation you cite, above, was opposed - not only by Republicans and conservative Dems, but by raw Corporate Power. Simultaneously, the Dems who, for one reason or another, supported the legislation, had their heads deep in the corporate trough, slurping and slogging as much blood-money as possible. Johnson’s Great Society sent billions to the poor, Bless His Heart. Most of that money was, unfortunately, waylaid by the monsterous and generally “democratic” burocracy set up to administer the funds.About Kennedy, I’ve spent hundreds of hours trying to convince myself that his assasination was a significant conspiracy. I believe it was / is. I also believe that Kennedy wanted to get out of Vietnam, though the reproduced documents I’ve perused haven’t completely convinced me. In any case, he napalmed tens of thousands of innocent Vietnamese and dumped hundreds of tons of defoliants on tens of thousands of others. His work is Vietnam transcends the horror of 9-11 ( again, a horrifying act of terror ) exponentially…
Richard2 seems to believe that my general disgust with both parties makes me some sort of de-facto Bush supporter. SuziQ believes that the Democrats are our best, our only real, hope. You think we could do a lot worse…
We all see the same things, but interpret them differently. And we disagree. Profoundly.
But, also, respectfully, Liberal. To me, we’re all in this together. If you or any people here know of some “neutral space” in which we could further debate these perspectives, in far greater detail and for days or weeks or even longer - I would very, very much enjoy doing so. That’s both a wish, and a challenge.
Thanks again, for your reply. -joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 25, 2005 at 1:32 AM Since there seems to be some aversion thus far to introducing the elephant in the room, allow me to do so. Bush didn’t just happen, nor did Clinton nor Reagan, nor Nixon. We, the American people, let them happen and if they hadn’t happened in the last century they surely would have in this one. It is not the politicians: they are human beings just like we are susceptible to the same weaknesses and vices that we are. More corrupt? Perhaps more corrupt than some of us, but not all. They are different because they have opportunity and means. The means from their own various resources, financial and otherwise, but opportunity due to a system of governance that has become too unwieldy. The watchers aren’t being watched anymore because the people whose job that is—the American people—are too busy just trying to stay ahead of the bills (albeit including the one for their new gas guzzling SUV). Absolute power corrupts absolutely and eternal vigilence is the price of liberty. People will always be people. The brilliance of the American politcal system was that it gave the power to choose to the people. But it assumed the people would have the wherewithal to make informed choices. That is no longer the case and until it is again, somehow, our country will continue to suffer in the clutches of one megalomaniac after another by whatever name from whatever party.
Posted by Unbehrable on Jul 25, 2005 at 5:02 AM Great note, U.
I’m looking forward to getting back to you, as I’m most intrigued. However, my house is demanding that I do things for it, right now. (No one owns a house. Houses - and things in general, own us -but we claim the superior position… perhaps out of embarrassment.)
Soon, I hope -
-joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 25, 2005 at 6:05 AM Hello, again to U, and Ur elephant -
SuziQ, above, says something that relates to this, too - she says that we have to put the American people in charge again.
I’d say you guyz have certainly struck an artery. Let’s thread our way in, and head toward the heart…
I’m sure we’ve all thought much about the apparent “lack of interest” from the American People. We’ve been told, all our lives, that we live in a country in which the people give their “consent” to a small group of people to represent their interests in what is called “government” by and for the people.Some years ago, I was reading Zinn and Chomsky. Both were talking about the almost unbelievable savagery of our government, both abroad, and here at home. I started to wonder: When were “we - the people” actually in charge? Since then, I’ve read lots of history - about the various “rebellions” before and after the revolution, about the struggles of Native Americans and Blacks and women, for some sort of power over their own lives. I’ve read about the Robber Barons and the various struggles by the IWW and the wobblies and various anarchist groups to find a way to give the workers some control over their work and over their lives. The whole history of the US, in fact, is a moving portrait of the struggles of ordinary people to be treated as worthwhile, valuable human beings. But, how can that be? Wasn’t the country DESIGNED to place us ordinary folks in control? If there was some sort of coup, when did it take place?
We often hear “Left-leaning” people say: “The Founders must be rolling over in their graves.”But, recently, I was reading an interview with Chomsky, in which he referred to Madison. Madison called you and SuziQ and Liberal and Richard2 and me - and our families and our friends and our whole “world,” - “The Great Beast.” Chomsky said that the Founders never intended the US to be a democracy as most people think of democracy… I couldn’t find too many other references, though. However, I knew that Madison was really the ‘centerpiece’ of the Constitution,so, I dug around for a few weeks and, recently, found a book called: “Toward An American Revolution - Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions,” by Jerry Fresia. It seemed very relevant, and Mr. Zinn, whom I much respect, liked it, so I ordered it from Powell’s.
(Hey, let me divide this, as above… lest the submit form yell at me about my blab and babble)
Posted by joseph on Jul 25, 2005 at 7:55 AM So -
In short: Founders = very rich, powerful, white guys and most powerful colonists. They feel that England is “bad for business,” literally! So, they foment revolution, though the vast majority of the population was against it. They win. Now, they live under a new law of the land: The Articles of Confederation. The Articles are, all in all, pretty good for ordinary folks. Local and regional social and political groupings have significant power, thus ordinary people are *naturally* encouraged by self and community interest, to be involved in social and political life. They could stop usury, unfair business practices, illegal and unethical seizures of property. They could change or even eliminate laws designed to “screw” them or their neighbors. VERY many local groups intensely disliked slavery and intendured servitude and were often working around these injustices, or were actively trying to eliminate them. There was even a spirit of cooperation between white-folks and the Native Americans. Ordinary people were developing a social and political sense previously unknown in Europe, and were taking control over their lives!
This horrified the Founders, who felt that rich, “propertied,” agressive business people were *better people* -and that everyone else was a member of the great, frightening, ignorant herd. Participation in government by ordinary people was - gasp! Democracy - a wicked, UNNATURAL idea, which would eliminate their dream of Elite control of a country hell-bent on big business and big empire. So, they - again, literally - snuck off and composed the Constitution, in secret. Checks and Balances??? To check and balance the power of the “Great Beast,” who would always threaten the rule of the few… They worded it so representatives of the “Great Beast” would not find it too disturbing, then sprung the document on generally unwilling and unready state governments and “slicked” them into passing it into law… (Much of this activity was against the law of the land. The Articles of Confederation had definite methods designed to change the structures of government in the new nation. What the “Founders” were doing was criminal.) In Pennsylvania, the state reps refused to even consider it, and a dozen or so folks went home so as to prevent a “quorum.” Thugs and agents hired by the Founders / Federalists, went and kidnapped these reps and dragged them into the state house and tied them up. With a quorum, the vote could now take place. In several other states, reps raised very substantial doubts about the document. The Federalists said: “No problem! Pass it now, and amend it later! It’s easy to amend. Don’t worry, you’ll get what you want.”
It was passed, and, of course, not amended.
Now: No local or regional control over living conditions. Now: Property ALWAYS trumps human beings - except rich, powerful, elite human beings. Now: Business trumps community needs or welfare, always. Now: All ordinary people are consistently discouraged from participating in - or even thinking about politics…
Little by little, more and more Elites controlled more and more “information.” Colonial and American History was now being written - by the Founders. Soon, ordinary folks got the message, starting at birth: You are the little people. You must live on your knees - beg, and perhaps it will be given to you. You are not in control. In fact, politics and government are none of your business.
Thus, perhaps, U., all this “disinterest” from our fellow “citizens,” is all exactly as the Founding Fathers planned it - right from the start. A disinterested electorate is easily led hither or yon…
-joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 25, 2005 at 8:52 AM Joe,
Thank you for this. It delineates in ways that I could not some universal truths about human nature.
Do you, does anyone remember the famous experiment at Yale U. back in the late 50s, I think, wherein ordinary citizens were duped into “torturing” someone whom they though was a fellow experimental subject by being told they were helping them learn new material by shocking them? One aspect of the experiment that I thought was particularly instructive (and hopeful) was that when the real subject of the experiment was face-to-face with the “learner” it became much more difficult for the “scientists” to coerce them into delivering the shocks. The point was that humans are not as good at hurting people with whom they are in close contact. In fact—and Joe your comment about whites cooperating with Native Americans underscores this perfectly—the only level of government at which people maintain any conststent level of honor is very local, shall we say tribal.
Psychologically, we are only equipped to behave fairly with a sharply limited number of others who dwell in close proximity to us, outside of which their very existance becomes an abstract concept. And it’s not only easy to take advantage of a concept, it’s often fun. How many of us are really above kicking the soda machine if we know it will cause it to malfunction and drop down a free soda? Same thing. In fact, the difficult thing is to care to the point of self sacrafice about someone you’ll never meet. Let’s be honest, what’s more likely to brighten one’s day, booking a vacation or sending that money to local food pantry? Not to say that we aren’t capable of altruism (not to say that we are either) but it is just not as much of a boost as doing something mice for ourselves.
To date the most successful political unit over the long term (and please feel free to argue this point—I want to be wrong) is the community. It is by no means perfect. Tribes, clans, etc. fight wars over resources and disputes within the group are common as well, but at small levels with almost no stratification, system cheats are more successfully dealt with. Further, within an almost completely self sufficient group, there is less to be gained, and therefore less desire to form outside alliances. Please note, I am not asserting that any govermental system could or will totally eliminate corruption; only an evolutionary step in human behavior can accomplish that. However,the larger the political unit, the larger the bureaucracy, and the larger the bureaucracy, the easier it is for cheaters to make opportunities to prosper and the less sense of loyalty they to deter them.
Posted by Unbehrable on Jul 25, 2005 at 4:47 PM I for one DID NOT support either the Vietnam War, the illegal contra wars in Central America, AND the last two American wars in Iraq. The last time I checked, opposition to those conflicts arose from the Democratic side of the aisle. Do the names Fulbright, Kerry, Kennedy, or Byrd ring a bell? I in NO WAY condone the murderous legacy of U.S foreign policy but realize it would have been carried out with even greater viciousness by Republicans. I was no supporter of Clinton’s hard line against Iraq or his massive bombing of the Balkans under the myth of stopping repression. Please do not put words into my mouth!! Robert McNamara admits that Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam before he was murdered. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I approve of his policy towards Cuba or his familiy’s support of the McCarthy Inquisition during the 1950s. I merely assert that Republicans would have been more murderous with an even greater disregard for international law in their conduct of foreign policy.
The Democratic Party did not fully embrace progressive reforms bu they were more open to it than their counterparts across the aisle. Eisenhower sent the National Guard into Little Rock to prevent integration while Kennedy embraced the idea of Civil Right legislation before he died. To state that Democrats were in charge when most progressive reform were encated DOES NOT overlook the grassroots organization that made these reforms possible. Believe me, I am the last person who would take these improvements for granted. In the end I agree with most of what you say, although I believe the Democratic Party is the redeemable one of the two parties in this country.
I am a big Chomsky/Zinn fan as well. I just finished reading “Hegemony or Survival” and found it fascinating.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 4:50 PM That litle line you had, Joseph, about Iraqis dying in greater numbers under Clinton than Bush is disingenuous since Bush has had only a little over 4 years as President and Clinton had eight! Who knows how many Iraqis have died due to this unjust invasion of Iraq and before when the economic sanctions were still in place. Bush didn’t oppose the sanctions because they killed Iraqis but because they gave the opposition a leg to stand on when they declared Iraq a contained state. You should know that, joe.
You seem to imply I was angry at 9/11 but not at all the people the U.S. has killed. That is unadulterated bullsh*t and you have no right to accuse me of that!! Tell me one goddamn American who wasn’t mad about that event!!
I have not supported ANY of Bush’s post-9/11 foreign policy. And do not accuse me of lacking introspection either. I know darn well that U.S. policy with respect to Israel and our support of Mideast dictatorships such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia had much to do with the attacks. If there is one thing I hate more than anything else, it is having some presumptuous shmuck put words in my mouth.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 25, 2005 at 5:11 PM Liberal, I think you should know by now as I learned earlier that the appallingly fractured logic that that some use is the same method used over and over by the Bush apologists to deflect from the problems we are faced with here and now, all of which are the result of policies pushed by G. W. Bush and his complicit, corrupt Republican-controlled U.S. Congress.
All I hear from the Right Wing echo chamber is Clinton did this and Clinton did that or that Kennedy was responsible for napalming citizens of Cuba, ad nauseam.
Citing the numbers of deaths of both military and civilians in past wars under past presidents says absolutely nothing about the reasons why Bush lied about WMD then preemptively bombed Iraq. The REASONS he bombed Iraq, then invaded and has occupied that country for the last 2 1/2 years are important. They are important because it sets a universal concept which other nations may also follow if they feel they might be threatened either now or sometime in the unforseen future and has led to an increased proliferation of nuclear weapons and thus world instability.
The initial reason Bush gave to America and the world was that if we didn’t bomb Iraq immediately we would soon see “mushroom clouds” over our cities. Granted, that kind of fear mongering is powerful.
But Bush has gone from saying “Iraq has WMD” that must be removed to the statement that “Iraq had WMD programs”, then to the preposterous statement, that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction-related program acitivities.” Given the stupendous lies that Bush has told and keeps telling, one would think a concerned citizenry would be outraged at such mendacity and lack of accountability.
Clearly, Bush has prospered politically with the assumption that you can fool most of the people most of the time. That may be all changing. But judging from some of the posts I’ve seen here, that assumption has worked as Bush intended.
Because Bush also is on record as saying “war is on my mind” and “I’m the war president” we all know that fear and threats of war are his best and closest allies. Yes, Bush and his acolytes stay on message and “keep catapulting the propaganda” (his words).
Posted by Richard2 on Jul 25, 2005 at 6:07 PM Good Day, - U., and Liberal and Richard2 -
Hey, Liberal - I certainly didn’t mean to offend you or accuse YOU of any sorts of crimes or bad-intentions. My ire is for the politicians - for government, both sides of the isle. But, yes, without a doubt, if either party can be looked toward for some semblance of humanity, it will be the Democrats. Moreover, I loathe violence in almost all forms, so I’m certainly not advocating some sort of violent revolution. Thus, in the short term, our only hope of some political group - with power - which might listen to the immense amount of dissent circulating within the country, is the Democratic Party. And, Richard2, again: Yes, I completely agree: Bush Inc., has almost pulled off a coup d’Etat. He’s creating a whole new realm of Presidential Crime; no easy task, in light of US history. And, we’re probably in a heck of a lot of trouble. In 1984, the “Elite” interrogator says to Winston Smith: “Do you want an image of the future, Winston? Picture a bootsole pressing down upon a human face - forever.” Bush, Cheany, Rumsfeld and the whole cabal seem to have something equally cheery in mind for all of us ordinary folks, here and everywhere…However, if Chomsky and Zinn and Fresia are correct, the rules of the game were designed to see to it that, ultimately, we “ordinary folks” always lose. Always. This fact has been at the heart of my “dissident” posts, here. And, I think that Unbehrable is entirely correct: only by creating a system that emphasizes and enthusiasticlly encourages community and regional participation and control over life and law and property, can we ever hope to have a chance to create a world that makes some semblance of sense.
We really have no idea what life might be like if we lived in a land which actually encouraged freedom and participation, instead of meaningless consumerism and slavish adherence to whatever government dictates. Reading about life under the Articles of Confederation might give us some indication: Perhaps we could cooperate rather than compete. Perhaps we could get together and talk and ponder and argue and wonder instead of isolating ourselves in front of “Must See TV!” Perhaps we could begin to see and listen to and learn about each other and begin to understand that most of the differences that frighten or enrage or disgust us, are relatively minor and meaningless. We’re all just trying to find a way to be happy and to feel good about ourselves and each other. In an atmosphere such as the one all Americans have lived in for 200 years, these sorts of thoughts seem like insane pie-in-the-sky idealism, though, don’t you think?
As it is, we - meaning roughly 90 percent of us - live always under some bootsole or other, no matter how dressed up or spit polished it is. Almost every nation in the world is organized in roughly this way: A very small group of rich and powerful people control the wealth and resources of the country and live in relative contentment and comfort and ease - while the vast majority of the population labors mightily just to survive, and many, many do not survive.
And there’s always the threat of war, where the elites of one nation gather up the children of the ordinary people and send them off to fight the children of other ordinary people to see which set of elites get to enjoy most of the spoils of the war… In the end, we’re endlessly screwed.
Perhaps if most people saw the system for what it is - bloodthirsty, heartless, greedy, anti-human, things would begin to crumble from the inside out, the bottom up. Don’t know. It would be interesting to collectively ponder the possibilities, yes? I believe that, strangely enough, it will be “thought” that will change things. Thought. Accurate and thorough knowledge and understanding of our true situation will give birth to something new and, hopefully, far more life-affirming.Thanks for writing, U, Liberal, Richard2. -joe
Posted by joseph on Jul 25, 2005 at 7:44 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Christopher Hayes
- The New Road to Serfdom
Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy" - Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy - What We Learn When We Learn Economics
Is a little economics a dangerous thing? - The Abramoff Babies
Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms. - The Good War on Terror
How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad - Economic Populism Proves Popular
To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
