For all the hype about generational and gender wars in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, we have a class war on our hands. And incredibly, corporate America’s preferred candidate is winning the poorer “us” versus the wealthier “them”—a potentially decisive trend with the contest now moving to working-class bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania. In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (26)Page 1 of 1 pages“As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust Belt under banners promising “change,” this bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all.”
The “Change” slogan is just that, a slogan. Obama hasn’t the power to deal with big money any more than an ordinary citizen can get his letter read by his “representative”.
Stockholders can no longer influence the companies they “own” and an individual voter cannot communicate with his elected officals above the local level.
Corporations’ CEOs and members of Congress have far more in common than either with their constituents. They have been working hand in hand through their middleman, the lobbyist to care for each other for decades. This is truer than ever before as evidenced by the diminishing job quality, benefits and purchasing power of the average American.
Go to the U.S. Census Bureau website and read:
Changes in Median Household Income: 1969 to 1996.
With more people per family working we are still far worse off.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM *sigh*. So true and yet so frustrating...just when I started to “get fooled again” by reading some of Obama’s speeches - which are extremely inspiring to a progressive like myself - here comes a bit of truth to wash it away.
As whaththeheck aludes to - as Ralph Nadar continues to say - there really is just one party in America and that’s the Corporatist party.
When you think of it, in a world of competing interests, why wouldn’t the most powerful entity every devised - the modern corporation - find a way to protect their interests? Still you come off sounding like a raging looney when you talk about runaway corporate power.
Yet most people would never argue against the concept of checks and balances. Clearly we need some checks as a balance to corporate power, and sadly we need to stop hoping - every four years - for the democrats to do this. How about publicly funded campaigns, instant runoff elections, and third parties??
---
Eric
change the world, one post at a time
www.changeany1thing.com
Posted by eheller on Feb 8, 2008 at 3:38 PM Sirota’s article is very insightful, and provides an important piece of the big puzzle. Class warfare would seem to be an appropriate battlefield for two Marxist class warriors.
A different piece of the puzzle that Sirota does not address is the nature of the debate within the two parties:
* Clinton and Obama have very similar views on the important policies: out of Iraq and into populist Socialist economics. But the Democratic Party’s long absorption with identity politics is revealed to be a fraud. Identity politics was the tool of party bosses to organize and marginalize the various tribes to their own benefit. Blacks, Chicanos, women, unions, academics were there to provide workers and money for the political campaigns that solidified the central control of leftist demogogues.
If you doubt this, consider the actual status of Blacks. In reward for unswerving support to the Democratic Party, the ghettos of Los Angeles, Detroit, and New Orleans are permanently mired in poverty, crime, stagnation, and identity politics. If the Democrats wanted to do something, anything, to help Blacks, forty years of Democratic dominance in these cities should have accomplished something, but what has been accomplished? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
LBJ, Hillary’s hero when she decided to play the race card against Obama, was the most overtly racist SOB that ever graced the halls of Congress, much less the Oval Office. So it is with amusement and bemusement that we view the current identity crises that beset the Democratic Party; the monster that they have created is out to destroy them.
Bill made an unholy pact with the devil when he pretended to empower feminists and actually was coerced into a qui pro quo pact with Hillary, in which he agreed to support Hillary’s presidential ambitions in order to consolidate his own tarnished presidential legacy. The HillBillys reconned without the other tribes, namely that a bright, articulate Black might claim his own place in their sun; after all, the Democratic Party was the chanpion of diversity, was it not?
So, now we have a furious conflict between two of the principal tribes of the Democratic coalition, Blacks and feminists. Who will win? Who knows? Who cares? Does anyone care about the actual problems that confront the Republic?
* Well, yes, as a matter of fact. The Republican debate is not about who is the Blackest or who is the most feminine. The Republican debate is actually about issues, of all things: the War Against the Terrorists, taxes, spending, the things that actually make a difference.
So, can the Democrats actually continue a content-free campaign while creating conflict and confusion between two of their principal constituents? And what are their chances of success in such an endeavor?
My contention is that Socialist/collectivist philosophies exist to promote the status and power of the leadership. It makes no difference whether these ideologues bill themselves as Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, or Fascist, or what ideological clap-trap they espouse; the important consideration is to maintain the status and power of the incumbent. Bill Clinton has likely blown the cover of his self-serving ideology, just as he blew his cover in pretending to be anti-racist.
Posted by scorp on Feb 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM scorp & eheller
I’m afraid my expectations of the citizenry in general is pretty low and falling.
It appears that the majority are swept up with the vaccuous calls for change without thinking of how little is even being offered or, more importanty, how unlikely the Congress is to do anything to “change” the status quo.
While some people really meant to help minorities through government welfare programs, I can’t help believing the resulting dependence they created were not expected by their political designers.
One of the freedoms which Americans exercise in extreme is the freedom to remain uninformed of history and uncaring about the responsibilities which maintaining freedom demand.
People on the street don’t know the most important individuals past or present or how our system is supposed to work. Regarding the economic stimulous I heard a woman on TV say, “ They should do this every year, but the richest people always get morre back than I do at tax time.”
I think politicians operate based on this quote from H.L. Menchen —
“No one, as far as I know, has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of plain people.”We might add that they don’t lose elections for the same reason.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 10, 2008 at 7:50 AM This essay is an example of how something can appear balanced but is definitely slanted towards Obama. First, the candidate is Hillary Clinton, not the Clintons. Yes, having a former president as a spouse means the media will cover him with a lot more interest than the media covers wives of other candidates who have not yet earned the publicity level accorded a presidential family. Nevertheless, that is the media’s decision to cover him and the Clinton campaign is using that desire to its advantage, albeit with some challenges.
Secondly, a senator representing his or her state’s voters will vote for or against legislation as best benefits those constituents. That does not mean the senator would hold those positions or causes as president. Similarly, Obama’s job as a community organizer does not mean he will hold the same position as president that his employer asked him to support as an organizer.
The Obamas represent the high-powered dual-worker family. The Clintons represent the people who chose public service. Yes, I know that is extremely simplistic but it is important. Most women, and most men, are not living in a high-powered, dual-income family. Most women I’ve encountered do not want to have the high-powered jobs; they want the jobs that will allow them to have a house, medical care, and time for family or their own community service.
It is not an accident that youth are looking at the Obamas. They seem to have it all: jobs, a very nice house, power, money, children. Listen to young women talk, they say they don’t identify with women of Hillary Clinton’s age; the younger women say they can have it all and the older women want to make them choose. Obama is promising them everything and the youth, many of whom think all content on the Internet should be free, without realizing that somebody has to pay for creating the content, are buying into the idea that everything Obama says he supports will be something on which he will devote time and energy to achieve.
Posted by SillyLeftist on Feb 11, 2008 at 5:07 AM Polling consistently shows that Americans distrust corporations (it’s been in the upper 70% for several decades), yet no politician can win the presidency by attacking corporations in our era.
You can look at the campaign donations for one reason, but the corporate media plays a big role as well. You can obviously see it in debates as the candidates that would address corporate power get asked ridiculous questions like Kucinich and UFOs. They also ask less questions of them. I watched a recent Republican debate where Ron Paul wanted his turn in the back and forth between Romney and McCain and CNN host Anderson Cooper promised Paul he would get his chance in just two minutes, it was a lie as Cooper never went back to Paul until a good ten minutes later and on a different subject.
You see it when the Cable newsies blab on and on about the “front runners” thereby giving them far more name recognition. Right from the start they were doing this lining up their favorites.
In the past corporations didn’t host and run debates. They fired the fair and unbiased League of Women Voters. Why? Partly because the LWV didn’t try to provide entertainment with stupid questions or inquiries that are made only to cause anger or embarrassment. The other reason was for profit, to make sure the format allowed for commercials when they wanted them to run. I don’t know how many times I saw a candidate get cut from making a response and then promised the rebuttal after the commercials, and of course weren’t given that chance afterwards.
Sure Barrack and Hillary are exactly as Sirota describes, they have to be in a corporate campaign season. Hillary has to appear to be anti-corporate, with a wink and a nod to the corporations. Barrack has to appeal to corporations and wink and nod toward voters. The big question is how will they act as president. Most progressives totally distrust Clinton once in office, the unknown is whether Obama is using a code word with “change” meaning he really does mean BIG changes.
Be that as it may, if today we could name one or the other they would wipe McCain in the general election. Problem is that this thing could go long, convention maybe..and that is going to mean about 50% of Democratic voters are going to be a bit mad if it comes down to super delegates making the pick.
Posted by Jon B on Feb 11, 2008 at 10:35 AM Nicely said Jon B. The only thing I’ll add to this very engaging conversation (ain’t the web great?) is that it is certainly true - and eloquently put - that “no politician can win the presidency by attacking corporations in our era”.
But there is reason to believe - or at least hope - that this won’t always be the case. Dominant power structures are always being challenged and - eventually - undermined. It could take half a century and there’s no promise that the alternatives are always better (Weimer and National Socialism, after all), but at least change offers opportunities.
Certainly the web offers an opportunity for new voices to shout out in a way that corporate-dominated media has long stifled. Could be that a new progressive era is underway right now, as we write this. At least there’s a chance, anyway.
I’m holding out hope....
---
change the world, one post at a time
www.changeany1thing.com
Posted by eheller on Feb 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM You make a very convincing arguement scorp as to the democrats being inaffective and not talking issues,and the republicans talking about issues.The bottom line is that it all amounts to crap! What have the republicans done for and to us for the last seven years.There is no difference between the two parties.They all talk big to get elected and renig on all that talk when they get elected.The same as the so called “first one hundred hours"that the democrats espoused.
Posted by eddiemyboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 at 10:19 PM Slow Eddie -
Fast Eddie you are not.
There is no difference between the two parties.
The most mild and most predjudicially jaundiced glimpse of the “two parties” reveals just how fatuous your observation is:
* Terrorists attacked us multiple times during the Clinton administration: Somalia, the African embassies, USS Cole, WTC I, etc. We made no meaningful response to these multiple attacks, and bin Laden was convinced that the USA would not defend itself, hence 09/11. After Bush’s vigorous response to 09/11in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have not been attacked again. Al-Qa’eda has substantially destroyed its credibility and effectiveness trying to fight us in Iraq. The Demonicrats’ race to surrender to the terrorists before we achieved victory in Iraq has been lost.
* The Afghanistan/Iraq wars have been the most successful military efforts undertaken by the USA since WWII, and have resulted in minimal American casualties, minimal civilian casualties, and rank right down there with the French and Indian Wars as the least expensive wars in American history.
* The pervasive personal corruption of the Clinton adminsitration (conviction for lying, FBI files, Chinagate, Monica, etc, etc, etc) has definitively been stopped under the Bush administration.
* The pervasive institutional corruption of the Clinton adminsitration (Enron, WorldCom, etc, etc, etc) has definitively been stopped under the Bush administration, and the perpetrators are in jail.
* During the last full year of the Clinton administration (2000), the budget was in deficit in two of the four quarters, the budget deficit was $108 billion for the year, the NASDAQ lost $3 trillion in value and the DOW peaked and started down, and (you probably do not know that) major market crashes such as these invariably result in recessions or worse. Fortunately, the Bush tax cuts and fiscal reforms minimized the damage, and we have had an unprecedented period of healthy growth and productivity, unlike the NASDAQ dot.com Bubba Bubble, which threatened our economic well-being.
The only dark spot on our domestic horizon is the housing situation, which somewhat resembles the S&L;crisis in the 1980, but much smaller in magnitude and without the institutional corruption. So we will probably survive the housing slow down as we have survived so many previous business cycles.
Enjoy.
Posted by scorp on Feb 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM Scorp & Eddie,
Re: There is no difference between parties
Change is the popular word these days, so how about this…
The biggest change in the two party system is they no longer fit there long time descriptions.
• Democrats were known as the party of Labor and considered liberals. • Republicans were known as the party of Business and considered conservatives.The words conservative and liberal are also misleading. Neither party has done much top conserve American values and neither is liberating — whoever gets the power wants to make us fit into their idea of what’s good for us.
The lines have become very blurred on many issues as “Special Interests” have fractured the voters into different “markets”. (A lot like the magazine business — gone are the really big categories and are replaced by many small volume publications.)On economic issues both parties are under the influence of big money through lobbyists. George H.W. Bush initiated NAFTA and Clinton pushed it through. The Democratic Congress operated for years was replaced by Republicans under George W and Wall Street hardly missed a beat until the tech bubble burst in 2000.
Most of what passes for economic news is misleading sound bite BS. The surplus under Clinton was based on continuation of the irrational tech bubble profits taxes. The was extrapolated into budget surplus which Clinton skillfully took credit for and Bush used to justify a tax cut. The tax cut went overwhelmingly to the wealthy and was justified by the myth that they invest and create jobs. The jobs created went to foreign locations, but who’s counting?
Now the parties are so closely matched Congress can accomplish nothing (or at least is act that way). The next election, with “Change” as the media is happily reminding us is the big idea currently, may bring more change than most of us can be happy with.
Obama’s website promises detail what in most speeches he only lightly touches on between cheers and rallying cries. A close reading of his proposals reveal a whole host of goodies for all of us with little clue as to where the money will come from. Even a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts will not come close to funding these programs. Cutting the military spending sounds good, but an historical check on our military spending as a percentage of GDP shows that even the big numbers we often hear (adjusted for inflation) are not so outrageous.
I voted for Obama when he ran as our Senator, but his run for the Presidency is premature and he has shown his talent to be as a salesman and more glitz than substance.
-------------------------------------
Last night I learned that the Super-delegates who are up for reelection are receiving campaign contributions from the Presidential candidates. Obama has so far contributed twice as much as Clinton (once again money is in control). This could get very interesting if one candidate gets the popular vote and the other wins due to the Super --delegates’ decision.
-------------------------------------I will vote for McCain only because he is the only one who is steadfast on the protection of our nation. He knew the Iraq invasion was undermanned from the git-go and has held to it no matter how unpopular. His economic ideas will be based on the “expert” advice which has created our current subprime mess, growing inflation and falling dollar.
However, IMO, if we do not protect our borders and view the Islamic threat as more than that of a few irrational individuals we can reason with — NOTHING else will matter — not the economy, not Medicare and Social Security, not jobs, not class — nothing!
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 16, 2008 at 10:55 AM WTH -
I have long been amused and bemused by your nonsensical statements on the economy and on politics.
You seem to think that everything that happens is bad, all these bad things are the politicians’ fault, and the politicians do all these bad things for the worst possible reasons. All of your assumptions are wrong. For example:
On economic issues both parties are under the influence of big money through lobbyists. George H.W. Bush initiated NAFTA and Clinton pushed it through.
During the Great Depression, we deliberately restricted trade in an attempt to save American jobs, and all we accomplished was to make the economy worse. Of course we did some other foolish things as well, like raising taxes and reducing the money supply. But now we know - WE KNOW - that free trade benefits everyone who participates. Empirically and theoretically, economists have demonstrated that free trade improves everyones’ lives.
This is because work moves down to the people who can do it most cheaply (low tech), and up to the people who are most capable (high tech). It does not make sense (or money) to waste high tech American labor on stuff some Chinese peasant can do efficiently and cheaply for our benefit.
If free trade caused employment to fall you might have a case, but the only time in the last fifteen years that employment fell significantly was when the Bubba Bubble popped, and the NASDAQ fell $3 trillion in Clinton’s last year. But that had nothing to do with free trade. Employment has been at near record levels for many months, and free trade has helped promote this high employment level.
Your next argument (you have made it many times) is that our employment figures are faked. That is nonsense, of course.
Posted by scorp on Feb 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM SCORP as usual blinded by his wish for one party rule (Republican) fills his post with lies.
But I’ll only comment on employment figures, not faked, but flawed methodology. Scorp, that means collecting the data has many problems.
To save myself time I’ll paste from Wikipedia this;
The unemployment rate may be different from the impact of the economy on people. The unemployment figures indicate how many are not working for pay but seeking employment for pay. It is only indirectly connected with the number of people who are actually not working at all or working without pay. Therefore, critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account the 1.5% of the available working population incarcerated in U.S. prisons (who may or may not be working while incarcerated), those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants, those who have retired before the official retirement age but would still like to work (involuntary early retirees), those on disability pensions who, while not possessing full health, still wish to work in occupations suitable for their medical conditions, those who work for payment for as little as one hour per week but would like to work full-time. These people are “involuntary part-time” workers, those who are underemployed, e.g., a computer programmer who is working in a retail store until he can find a permanent job, involuntary stay-at-home mothers who would prefer to work, and graduate and Professional school students who were unable to find worthwhile jobs after they graduated with their Bachelor’s degrees.
Back to me...further, it’s based on household surveys. I’ve never once in my many, many years of working or not working been surveyed. How do they do a survey? Phone? If a person can’t afford a phone (not working might be a cause) would they be surveyed? Does the huge transition from land line to cell phone change the methodology...after all cells can’t be located to a region which is a factor in data collection.
The household survey is based on 60,000 household samples, is this ample sampling in a nation of 300 million?
What of illegals? With all these construction jobs drying up and we know illegals do construction (just ask Mitt Romney) do they then get counted as unemployed? They would have been counted as employed.
It’s not about being fake (implying intended deception) , the questions are about methodology and accuracy.
I don’t expect scorp to answer any of my questions, he never does.
Posted by Jon B on Feb 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM What ended the Great Depression was a massive public works project called World War ll.
Without this enormous infusion of government spending into a stalled economy, the Depression would have become the normal state of things. It turned out that high unemployment and low wages - with a small percentage enjoying a high standard of living - could work just fine. The Depression lasted over ten years, after all.
Honestly, I’ve been watching scorp’s comments here and I’m glad the very bold letters to my right “please be respectful in your comments” has kept me from going against my personal commitment to conduct myself online as I would in person.
All I can say is the world is a whole lot muddier than scorp’s neat black and white scenario - where heroic Republicans are the saviors while evil “demonicans” (clever, that) seek to undermine our freedoms and toss us to the enemy. I mean, this is a cartoon interpretation. Nothing in this world is this simple.
In college I was a very narrow-minded thinker; I worshipped Ronald Reagan and thought anyone who criticized the government should shut up or leave - at that time, it was protesters against our involvement in Central America. Then one day a friend politely but devastatingly put me in my place by saying “sounds like you’ve been talking to your father again.” It was especially hurtful because it was so true - I was nothing more than a parrot of the pleasant arguments my father had been regaling me with. I wasn’t thinking about anything with my own brain, using my own experiences, or my own personal values. I was hostage to an ideology and thus rejected anything that threatened this comfortable place to be.
From that point on I decided to make up my own views. I became a History minor and read like mad. I developed a set of values but never an ironclad ideaology. I learned that the “Freedom Fighters” were nothing more than armed thugs. I saw the pictures of the de-faced young men at the hands of these same Freedom Fighters (and other things unfit for repeating here), and while the other side was also not always so wonderful, I at least recognized a much more complex situation.
That’s where insight - wisdom? - begins, I think.
So I’ll extend that metaphor to scorp, with the respectful suggestion that you turn off the AM radio, or cable news, or whatever one-sided propaganda feed you spend your time listening too for about 6 months. Then spend your time taking in all political viewpoints. No philosophy - and I mean none - is 100% correct about all things, all the time. Trust me.
------
www.changeany1thing.com
Posted by eheller on Feb 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM Scorp,
Why am I not surprised you are still locked into the idea that if life is good for you, it is good for all? ("What’s good for GM is good for the nation.")
“You seem to think that everything that happens is bad, all these bad things are the politicians’ fault...”
There is enough fault to go well beyond just the politicians. People who only see what is happening to them are content elect to those people most likely to protect the status quo. If you still see NAFTA as a positive for the U.S. I’m afraid you are beyond help. If you deny my assertion of a Republican and a Democrat bringing it to our doorstep, you are in total denial. If you see a difference between the two — let’s hear it.
I have never spoken against trade so there is no conflict — unless you think what we have is genuinely “Free Trade.”
The current participation in what is passing for free trade does not include a good many U.S. citizens and is beneficial primarily to corporate management and large shareholders.
If you think “work moves down to the people” you may feel comfortable and avoid any guilt, but this is typical textbook mythology. Comparative advantage, trickle down, tax cuts to the rich, supply side and many other commonly accepted theories have a hollow ring to the middle aged, not well educated and and out of work. These theories are beginning to appear so to even a lot of well educated, white collar work-related refugees.
“Your next argument (you have made it many times) is that our employment figures are faked. That is nonsense, of course.”
We don’t have to resort to the Chinese peasant to realize just who benefits by off-shoring U.S. jobs — look at the trade deficit, the dollar decline/gold price rise. But then, if you are a believer in the “official” government stats you already see that. Right?
We don’t have a liquidity problem we have a solvency issue. The Treasury and the Fed are desperately trying to inflate it away, but raising rates didn’t boost the 10 year and lowering has only taken it down slightly. They have now resorted to just passing out cash directly to the people — using the cause of a problem as a solution to that problem is idiotic. Bernanke’s greatest fear is DEFLATION.
Oh, I forgot, you only see the good numbers and can explain away those which don’t belong in your “What me worry?” approach to life.
Ask yourself, “Am I better off because of the economic policies which have brought us to our present state? If you can answer yes, then ask why millions more have no health care who once did. Ask why the financial leaders are resorting to a stimulus handout to try to pacify the masses.
You may remember me saying this before too —
Let’s compare notes a year from now on the state of the economy. I’ll repeat — buy gold and energy, sell the dollar and I’ll add grain as a good bet. Stocks in general are in for a long dry spell.
I am old enough to remember better times. To borrow from that great sage, Groucho Marx, “I’ve had a wonderful time… but this is not it.”
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM To scorp.Yes it is true that I am not fast eddie,and thank you for your critique.I do plod on and tromp through the muck and mire,until I get tired and have to rest.I pick myself up and try to make sense of what is going on around me.I like eheller try to get information from all sides and humbly try to make sense of what I see,hear,and read.I am not a great thinker and yes I can be slow,but I do my best.The problem is that the information that we have to pick through is so biased that it becomes difficult,to say the least,to find the truth.Everybody has their version of the truth and that makes it even more difficult.
Hmmm,minimal civilian deaths!I believe that over 500,000 civilian Iraqi’s have been killed,Where I come from that is not an insignificant number and especially to somebodies son or daughter.A war that we did not even have to be in makes it even worse.4,000 + american deaths!Hmmm,that is not insignificant ,to me,either.Your priorities seem to be so much different than mine scorp that I wonder if you see and understand these numbers as people rather than just numbers to be bandied about?
You seem to think that the bush administration is creating a land of wonderful opportunity for a new and better way of life.I,on the otherside see this administration as an oligarchy that defines the word.Did any of those people,the workers,from Enron get their retirement,benefits,or anything that they should have gotten,while a very few who were responsible for that debacle went to jail?Is bush/cheney being held up to the light on illegal spying on americans?Is bush/cheney being held accountable for an illegal war?Where is the bright future of this economy in renewables?Where are the laws that protect the ordinary citizen from corrupt officials and when will those laws that we have begin to work for everybody?The laws are in place,but are not being used.
I see no bright future for this country,only gloom and doom,despite your pollyanna outlook on this countries future.
Posted by eddiemyboy1 on Feb 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM Eddie -
I do plod on and tromp through the muck and mire,until I get tired and have to rest.I pick myself up and try to make sense of what is going on around me.I like eheller try to get information from all sides and humbly try to make sense of what I see,hear,and read.I am not a great thinker and yes I can be slow,but I do my best.
Eddie, you are far to modest.
Is (sic) bush/cheney (sic) being held accountable for an illegal war?
George Orwell was talking about you and people like you when he said:
One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool.
I defy you to find any legal justification to support your contention that our current conflicts amount to “an illegal war”. We are not talking about Clinton’s illegal bombing of Serbia, for gosh sakes. We are talking about the conflict in Afghanistan, approved by the Congress of the United States of America and by our NATO allies, and the conflict in Iraq, approved by the UN and the Congress of the United States of America.
You elite Socialist fools have no value whatsoever except as entertainment.
Posted by scorp on Feb 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM I’m almost SHOCKED..scorp ONCE again takes a quote out of context.
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Orwell, when he wrote that in 1945, was referring to a few in Britain that thought the Americans entering the Second World War were doing it to suppress an English revolution rather than fight the Germans. He was talking about British conspiracy theorists, that’s all. But taking quotes out of context and getting caught makes scorp the big fool, as if he hasn’t proved this repeatedly before.
“You elite Socialist fools have no value whatsoever except as entertainment.”
Now I’m quoting scorp the big fool directly. He hasn’t realized how entertaining his blather is to all of us. And didn’t we settle in another thread from In These Times that you scorp are the one who prays to one party rule (Republican) and thus you are actually a fascist as fascism is from the right? Isn’t it you who blindly repeats whatever propaganda your leaders (as you are a faithful follower) dish out for your brain to absorb? Limbaugh doesn’t call his listeners dittoheads for nothing.
The only reason scorp comes here is that the vast majority of right wing rags don’t allow commentary on-line. It’s that free speech thing his party can’t deal with.
Posted by Jon B on Feb 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM Jon B -
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Orwell, when he wrote that in 1945, was referring to a few in Britain that thought the Americans entering the Second World War were doing it to suppress an English revolution rather than fight the Germans. He was talking about British conspiracy theorists, that’s all. But taking quotes out of context and getting caught makes scorp the big fool, as if he hasn’t proved this repeatedly before.
Ummm, no, as a matter of fact. That is rich, Jon B. A more complete rendering of Orwell’s thought is:
It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. - George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945.
Intelligentsia is a Russian term originally referring to intellectual and cultural leaders in the nineteenth century, but the term was co-opted by the Leninists in the early twentieth century. Orwell was specifically addressing the “intelligentsia” and the “intellectuals(s) of the Left” (British Marxists, that is) and not your “conspiracy theorists”, though conspiracy theorists are often “of the Left”. So, Orwell is specifically addressing widespread muddle-headed thinking among people such as yourself.
Contrast Orwell’s quote from 1945 with “of the Left” Senate Majority Leader Reid’s more recent quote that the Iraq War is “lost”. How is it that such similar and mistaken ideas are found among Leftists so far removed in time and circumstance, but having the common principle that the thought is an attack against their own countries? And how is it that the British Marxists’ “hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed” finds so close an echo in the Demonicrats’ hatred for American democracy that forbids them from admitting that American plans are succeeding in Iraq?
Orwell is probably the only honest Leftist in all history. There are few enough honest people of any persuasion. Marx’s philosophy embraced dishonesty as an operating principle, much as the Thugee embraced ritual murder as a sacrament in his religion.
In fact, a careful reading of Orwell’s essay, Notes on Nationalism, is very instructive. Orwell’s essay is political in nature, but the first half of the essay could be construed, with few modifications, as a psychological essay on the identification defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are internal psychological tools that help a person to cope with anxiety, stress, and feelings of inadequacy. The identification defense mechanism, in particular, is characterized by the uncritical embrace of people or ideas that serve to reduce stress, whether the people or ideas make any rational sense or not. Thus British Marxists embraced alien political thoughts and rejected their own roots, despite the horrendous history of Marxism. Reid, Pelosi, and their ilk are now further conflicted by history since the collapse of the object of their affection, the Soviet Union; the Demonicrats now embrace a strange hybrid totalitarianism composed of equal parts of failed Marxism and murderous self-destructive Jihadism, and reject the idea of Western civilization defending itself from the Thugs and Thugees.
Now JonB, tell me again which part of this analysis I got from Limbaugh, or any other source. I am not an aural person (no silly puns, please!) and rely on reading, visuals, and experience for my understanding of the world. For example, my understanding of defense mechanisms was enhanced when I met Dr. E. Paul Torrance (look him up) some years ago while studying deviant and destructive personalities in management. Dr. Torrance was kind enough to help me understand the psychological factors that led to incoherence and inefficiency in organizations. It was later that I realized that the destructive elements in some organizations are quite similar to and institutionalized in the universal corruption and inefficiency found in Socialist bureaucracies. The two hours or so I spent with Dr. Torrance far exceed the total time I ever spent listening to Limbaugh by accident.
We have another issue. In an old thread, we started a discussion on Fascism, but the thread was terminated. You now say that Fascism is “from the right”, but what is your justification for that remarkable opinion? Mussolini was a Socialist agitator for the total of his career until he used Socialist principles as a basis for his Nationalist creation. In his essay quoted above, Orwell remarked on the mutability of the various Nationalist positions, whereby, in an attempt to avoid anxiety and feelings of inadequacy, Communists flip to become Fascists, and flip again as often as feels good, or at least as often as stress must be relieved. There are no great (or small) principles involved when espousing totalitarianism of any stripe. I defy you to make any coherent statement or distintion between International Socialist economic principles and National Socialist economic principles. Gramsci recognized this when he proposed Cultural Communism as a replacement for Marxism’s economic Communism. Discussions of Communist politcal and economic “principles” are a hopeless jumble of contradictory and self-referential nonsense, and cannot be distinguished from discussions of Fascist political and economic “principles”. The only coherent statement that can be made about Communism and Fascism is that they both institutionalize genocide and corruption, and Communism was both more corrupt and more genocidal by a full order of magnitude.
I am sure that you have no grasp of the possibility of rational behavior in your little ideological world. Pity.
Posted by scorp on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:10 AM OK Scorp..
So what English revolution was to be crushed by the US? It was nothing but conspiracy theory to think that the US was entering the war in Europe for that reason particularly as the US was aiding Britain prior to actually declaring war on Germany.
Orwell was a strange man in many ways. He disliked Great Britain’s empire after serving in Burma as a part of that wide ranging empire. Who he refers to as the intelligentsia is up for debate as he doesn’t even mention a name. The piece you quote is from an essay on nationalism, where he sorts out good and bad versions of it as he felt at that time at the end of the war. On one hand he disliked Great Britain’s empire, on the other he was nationalistic during WWII certainly because they were directly attacked on their island.
That other discussion about fascism was terminated by you. From Wikipedia;
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
Many of those elements are from the right, although some seem oppositional...for instance corporatism-opposition to economic liberalism.
*Nationalism, you see that from the right in it’s hatred of the U.N.
*Patriotism, if anyone on the left opposed the Iraq War or any war for that matter, the right would tell them to leave the country. Call them anti-American for the notion of freedom of speech.
*Statism as applied to the US happens from both sides of the political spectrum. Each side uses it in the way they want.
*Militarism, we are the most militaristic nation in the world. No one comes close to the dollars we spend to maintain a war footing. And I don’t know too many peaceniks on the right.
*Totalitarianism, let’s see, spying on Americans, “free speech” zones, now the Feds can search our homes without even informing us. The Repugs in my state want everyone to give up samples of our DNA. We are not there yet, but we are slowly sliding that way thanks to the Bushies.
*Anti-communism, the right has always obsessed about this despite the left rejecting it.
*Corporatism, the right loves corporations although too many in the Democratic power structure can be fit in the love category.
*Populism, I’m fine with populism at least the American version, you know...We the People. Huckabee has been labeled a populist as was Edwards.Opposition to political liberalism...this is what I consider you. An ideologue right winger that would be most happy if any party to the left of your far right views vanished, you want one-party rule. What ideas for instance are you open to that would reform our political system? Any?
Limbaugh was an example, stupid, of the different propagandists that dish out the talking points that originate out of right wing think tanks (stink stanks, as I call them), and you use so many of them it’s pitiful. They tell you things, you repeat them just like a faithful parrot.
Posted by Jon B on Feb 20, 2008 at 7:50 AM Jon B -
You have gone from uncomprehending to incoherent. Why don’t you take some time and actually read what Orwell had to say in his essay, Notes on Nationalism? You would learn many wonderful things and save yourself from further embarrassment.
So what English revolution was to be crushed by the US? It was nothing but conspiracy theory to think that the US was entering the war in Europe for that reason particularly as the US was aiding Britain prior to actually declaring war on Germany.
Like all conspiracy theories, this one is nonsense. But Orwell clearly identified this conspiracy theory as coming from the British “intelligentsia” and from British “intellectuals of the Left”. My dictionary says that “intelligentsia” is a Russian term expropriated by the Communists to describe themselves. Moreover, Orwell gives several other examples of nonsensical Leftist statements undermining British efforts in the War against the Axis Powers.
So, why were British Leftist intellectuals indulging in “nothing but conspiracy theory”? If they were so smart, couldn’t they find anything better to do? Answering these questions was the object of Orwell’s essay, and you have completely missed the point.
We see very similar conspiracy theories now, as the “Truthers” fantastic explanations for 09/11. And consider Iraq. In 1998, 100% of the United States Senate voted (by acclamation) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was a threat to the United States and to the world, and that it was United States policy that Saddam be removed from power. The law was the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and President Clinton signed it. Now many of your fellow members of the elite intelligentsia, including many Demonicrat Senators who voted in 1998, insist that President Bush “invented” the WMD for the purpose of starting an unnecessary war. These are, of course, more nonsensical Leftist statements.
But the whole purpose of Orwell’s essay was to describe the illogical and erroneous effects of what he called Nationalism, and Orwell took pains to describe both positive Nationalism (jingoism) and negative Nationalism (such as the British Marxists who found murderous and corrupt Communism more attractive than their own country). Orwell’s Nationalism, as I explained, is very similar to the psychological Identification defense mechanism, and both lead to distorted perceptions and faulty logic.
Just out of curiosity, why the longish quote from Wikipedia?
Opposition to political liberalism...this is what I consider you. An ideologue right winger that would be most happy if any party to the left of your far right views vanished, you want one-party rule. What ideas for instance are you open to that would reform our political system? Any?
You do well to distinguish contemporary “political liberalism” from “philosophical liberalism”. Philosophical liberalism is most clearly stated and enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Political liberalism today is a bastardized totalitarian ideology as practiced by the elite intelligentsia.
American radicals and socialists began calling themselves ‘liberals’. - Friedrich A. Hayek, 1960.
So, who tries to restrict firearms, to restrict the practice of religion (Christian only), to establish speech codes, to reduce the sovereignty and increase the dependency of individuals, and to create a flexible Constitution they can interpret any way they please? Your political liberals do, of course, quite in opposition to the liberal philosophy and ideals of the Constitution. It is Conservatives that defend the Constitution and it’s values. And since I am the one defending the Constitution and its values, I am not greatly concerned that you think I am “far right”. I am no more far right than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who actually were quite radical for their time. The thing that was radical in the new Constitution of the United States was that the individual was established as the sovereign power in this new nation: not the kings, or the nobles, or the popes, or the commissars, but the individuals. And the Demonicrats are doing their best to overturn our system in favor of a foreign ideology that has proven repeatedly not to work.
The only virtue the Constitution has is that it works, and works quite well. I do not understand why British Marxists and American Marxists think that they can improve our democratic systems by plagiarizing Socialist values that have repeatedly failed. The biggest American Socialist experiment in history was LBJ’s Great Society; the War on Poverty alone cost $6 trillion, and the only result was to substantially destroy Black family life in America. Before the War on Poverty, over 80% of Black children lived in families with two parents, and now the figure is less than one in three. But then, destruction of family life and values is one of the principles of Marxism.
Socialism is the biggest threat to the world. Muslim terrorism is a relatively small threat, unless nuclear proliferation spreads. China is no threat, as it is rapidly becoming locked into a cooperative partnership position, just as Nixon intended. Due to the spread of free market economics, hundreds of millions of people have escaped from the direst poverty in the last thirty years, primarily in China and India, but also in South Korea, SE Asia, some places in Africa, and most of Latin America, particularly Chile. None of this progress is the result of Socialist planning or practice, and the states that are the worst off and those that are becoming less well off are overtly Socialist: North Korea, Cuba, and now Venezuela.
Financially, our biggest problems are Social Security, the energy equation, and infrastructure. The only possible way to solve these problems is to reduce taxes, and thereby increase investment, productivity, and growth. This formula worked for Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush. We have encouraged the entire developed world to cut corporate taxes in order to increase investment, and now Japan and the United States have the highest corporate tax rates; this has started to worsen our competitive position with other advanced economies.
The energy sector is in particular need of additional investment to free us from foreign hydrocarbon sources. Halliburton is the most likely company to make a technological breakthrough to provide low-cost energy. No Socialist system has ever produced a significant technological breakthrough in any field.
For someone who does not like Limbaugh, you certainly seem to be familiar with what he has to say. I do not have a clue what Limbaugh says, or what positions he takes. Does Limbaugh quote Orwell? Hayek? Friedman? Djilas? These authors I find very thought provoking, and they explain the world without self-indulgence in failure or illogic. Unlike you Socialists.
Posted by scorp on Feb 21, 2008 at 9:28 PM Scorp, let’s clear up some “housekeeping.”
First, as usual you have completely changed the subject of the original subject of David Sirota. I keep forgetting about your classic tactic of blatant essayist red herring.
Second, as usual, and as I predicted you don’t answer the questions I put to you. 9 posts back I asked several questions about unemployment statistical methodology and then put this at the bottom of the post “I don’t expect scorp to answer any of my questions, he never does.”
I wonder if you will continue to live out my prediction or actually answer those questions.
Again, you end with “you socialists” in your long diatribe of falsehoods. Again, I will repeat, that you who want one-party rule (Republican) have no room to be accusing anyone of in this forum of not wanting democratic ideals. You, who supports the neo-conjob-foolery of the Repugs. But the last laugh will be on you (and all us “socialists"). All these efforts to have an imperial presidency will be transfered to the party you hate in November.
Things like the Bush signing statements “I will follow Congress’ law if I feel like it” will in the future be a thing that a Democratic president can do. Now, since I’m not a partisan follower of incompetent leaders as you are, this very much isn’t a good thing. But to you, I can just imagine how you will be tearing your hair out day after day under the imperial Democrat president.
I will comment on one of your pieces in your diatribe that shows your lack of understanding. The 1998 Clinton/Republican Congress vote was nothing but a bunch of so-called leaders that were stupid. If you are asking me to justify stupidity, sorry, can’t do it. You keep forgetting, I don’t defend stupid Democrats anymore than stupid Republicans. There were people outside the walls of our Beltway fun house that clearly didn’t agree with their assessment and said so and were correct. But the corpoprate media didn’t allow them a voice and even if they did it wouldn’t have mattered because nobody really cares about the truth anymore. You certainly don’t.
Posted by Jon B on Feb 24, 2008 at 3:05 AM Jon B and Scorp,
re: ...questions about unemployment statistical methodology
The Bureau of Labor Statistics spells out in detail how data is collected. However, a few facts are not included.
• In some states (as here in IL) do not allow unemployment insurance payments until a person has worked full time for one year at the same place.
.
• People who lose a job and become self-employed not only are no longer “unemployed” (regardless of earning or not), but are counted as a new job
.
• Ă‚Â Check out the practice of tallying the “birth/death” factor.There are many assumptions and questionable totals which is understandable since this is a very difficult subject to measure. But somehow the advantage always seems to be to the upside count…
• If those being surveyed were paid any amount for any amount of time during a given survey month, they are counted among the employed. For example: One hour of babysitting.
• Job quality (or lack of) is not factored into the data.
Could it be that those counting want to please —” the employers, the elected officeholders, the financial community? Does the Private tell the General what he doesn’t want to hear? How about if the Sargeant who told the Private what to say is standing within earshot?
This is NOT a function of which party is in office. This is human nature, but some have refined it to perfection. Bill Clinton jungled economics along the what is, IS line and reverted they when he left office.
Hedononics skews things like computer costs to make inflation less threatening — Computer A has twice the capacity of computer B, but the same ticket price. A is counted as half as costly. (Try deducting double by reversing the logic if you bought B.)
In “Maestro” by Bob Woodward, Greenspan disbelieved the data indicating service sector jobs were falling and instructed his staff to find what was wrong with the data (not seek the truth).
One staffer immediately relpied his wife, a lawyer, was very busy, so obviously the sector is not in a slump. They managed to come up with numbers more pleasing to the master.
Picture the media sound bite —” Greenspan: Service Economy Jobs Plentiful
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 25, 2008 at 8:39 AM Jon B -
First, as usual you have completely changed the subject of the original subject of David Sirota. I keep forgetting about your classic tactic of blatant essayist red herring.
Jon B, sometimes you are as dumb as a turnip. The title of Sirota’s article is, “The Democrats’ Class War”. The whole article is about Clinton and Obama saying one thing and doing another, and reversing positions, in dealing with those they perceive to be the lower classes. WTH introduced the unemployment aspect to the discussion. Clinton, Obama, Sirota, and you accept the class nature of the current political contest, not realizing that the United States of America is structured on egalitarian principles, and I am as free and equal as Clinton, Obama, Sirota, and you. You elite Leftists promote the idea of the lower classes because it gives you status and power among yourselves and those who can be bought into your nonsense.
That being said, virtually nothing on this thread has strayed far from the subject of Sirota’s article. George Orwell was the most perceptive and incisive commentator on English class structure after Marx’s time. The nonsense the British Marxists spouted seventy years ago is almost word for word similar to the nonsense you American Marxists are pushing now. You freely joined this discussion, and welcome. Now, after several on-topic interchanges, you have accused me of changing the subject.
So, after accusing me of changing the subject, you demand that I answer “several questions about unemployment statistical methodology”, which is sort of oblique to Sirota’s subject, but OK. Now, I do not feel obligated to answer every absurd comment by every Leftist on this site, and certainly not your clueless flailing. But let me comment on this to show you what I mean:
The household survey is based on 60,000 household samples, is this ample sampling in a nation of 300 million?
You obviously have never studied statistics. When you read a national political poll, the figures are typically based on the responses of fewer than 2000 persons being interviewed. When these polls are truly unbiased and truly selected at random, these few responses give a good indication (+/- 4%) of the mood of the moment. The key words are “unbiased” and “random”. The Household Survey is more detailed, and addresses all WTH’s concerns; the Household Survey is very large and samples everyone, not just the employed, the unemployed, the formerly employed, the sick, lame, and lazy, the rich and the poor, everyone. And it does not rely on past historical records, it is current. The Household Survey is more accurate and more current than any other methodology.
When dealing with polls, pay attention to “unbiased” and “random”. Most polls list their methodology, and their institutional biases are stated in the fine print. Most of the antique media routinely oversample Democrats by 10 or 20%, and say so. This obviously gives a distinct Democrat bias to such polls. This bias caused John Kerry much regret and chagrin in 2004, but that is his problem. Our problem was that you idiot Leftists concluded that the Republicans had somehow cheated on the election, when in fact the Leftist media had cheated in the polling methodology. Not only was there no evidence (plenty of accusations, but no evidence) of Republican cheating in 2004, historically voting fraud is the provenance of Democrats: LBJ’s first senate win, Kennedy in 1960, any big city Democratic machine on any given election day, and the MoveOn crews, such as ACORN.
If you want an unbiased poll and recurring updates to his analysis, try Jay Cost.
Again, I will repeat, that you who want one-party rule (Republican) have no room to be accusing anyone of in this forum of not wanting democratic ideals.
Absolutely false. I have long observed that when one party controls both the Executive and the Legislative branches, it is given to excess: the Republican Congress got greedy and sloppy, and consequently lost the Congress in 2006. Serves them right.
But the Demonicrats are not just another political party. JFK, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson were Democrats and anti-totalitarian. The “radicals and Socialists” that control great chunks of the current Democratic Party intend to overthrow our Constitution and government, and impose another Socialist disaster or Marxist catastrophe. But in their near-infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers not only made us all free and equal, but gave us the means to defend ourselves and our values.
Ain’t life great?
Posted by scorp on Feb 28, 2008 at 8:54 AM Jon B and Scorp,
Scorp is right in saying the Household Survey is the most accurate info we get on employment/unemployment. We need to realize this is an estimate it is not a precise tool. However, while it cannot measure everyone, it is far better than the polls we so often hear touted. In the survey every effort is made to get as accurate a count as possible whereas with most polls we have no clue what method was used.
My eldest son has a degree in statistics and has worked both in retail research and an agency job. Data quality is his specialty and clients who truly want accurate info must allow the researcher to phrase the questions and choose the people to be sampled. All too often the clients are more interested in “proving” their own point and go elsewhere to get the desired result.
Details of the collection we are concerned with may be found at:
http://stats.bls.gov/cps_htgm.htm
---------------
Here are a few selections…
There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. The sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States.
The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State.
Each month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months
Respondents are never asked specifically if they are unemployed, nor are they given an opportunity to decide their own labor force status. Unless they already know how the Government defines unemployment, many of them may not be sure of their actual classification when the interview is completed.
...people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment.
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
-------------
There are gaps which are not addressed. The ones which I have seen around our rust belt city include:
Job Quality is NOT addressed.
Those people now working at jobs for which they are over qualified.
Self-employed people — Includes professionals calling themselves consultants — too embarrassed to admit being jobless— and those fired and rehired by their former employer, but now without benefits.
Those working one or more part time jobs
For the most part these are people who are used to working. Many are in what was to be their prime earning years (40 and up).
Many are now tied to the house they can’t sell (our market was depressed before the subprime mess) and must commute to wherever they can get work — paying a high percentage of earnings for gas, baby sitters/daycare, and without benefits. Immediate family needs preclude retraining to some other field.
By ignoring millions who have been financially wounded by the economic policies of the last two decades, both Republican and Democratic parties have given Obama a topic ripe for exploitation.
His promises are without possibility of being fulfilled, but the anger and frustration built up in so many of us is working in his favor and could be enough to elect him unless others address the issue in a rational and sympathetic manner — soon!
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM At the time of posting this blog, the Democrats are invovled in a civil war. McCain is already traveling to Europe and the Middle East as if his election is a foregone conclusion. The latest issue of L.A. City Beat features an article called Democratic meltdown. The cover of Los Angeles City Beat also showed the picture of a little girl at a peace rally. For the sake of that little girl, and every other child, I am postin this blog.
We cannot afford a Republican victory I will admit I voted for Obama in the California primary - primarily because I just retired after a life time of teaching in inner city schools. Obama represents the dreams I have for all of my students. However, I also liked John Edwards and was sad that I did not get a chance to vote for him as well. I find a lot to like in Hillary Clinton. If she wins the nomination, I will definitely support her - even though she characterized me as a “latte sipper.” (Well yeah, I wouldn’t have a beer with Obama. But a low fat mocha latte - with emphasis on low fat? That’s another story.)
Can we please find some way to end the internecine, self-destructive war fare that is currently gong on. It discredits Democrats, particularly liberals and progressives.
We need to re-frame the priamries. Let’s stop calling them battles. Let’s call them showcases - i.e. each candidate gets to show case his or her ideas. Let’s end the name calling. Let’s end the attacks.
In addition we desperately need to re-frame and change our view of politics.
During my tenure at my former inner city high school I wound up sponsoring many extracurricular activities. I got drafted as the senior class sponsor not one - but FOUR times. As a sponsor, I always preferred to work work one or two other teachers as a team. Instead of the glory of being the class sponsor, I was far happier sharing the glory as one of the class co-sponsors. Such co-sponsorship always worked out better than my attempt to do it all by myself. Let that wisdom guide our primaries.
We cannot afford to simply choose one or the other. I realize that we can have only one presidential candidate and quite often vice presidenitial candidates are chosen out of a concern for Realpolitik. But this time, perhaps we need a dream ticket - either de facto or ex-officio. (We need to include Edwards in this dream ticket too in some way.) We need to stres the idea of a team. We need to demand a WE not a ME.
The only candidate worthy of heading the Democratic ticket is a candidate who understands the team approach. Let’s call it TeamAmerica. The only candidate worthy of heading the Democratic ticket is the candidate who puts the interests of the country and this party over the interests of him or herself,, and is willing to reach out and work with former so-called “rivals.” (Let’s start calling them colleagues.)
I would urge everyone reading this, regardless of where you stand on the Clinton-Obama divide to please think of that little girl on the cover of LA City Beat. What world do you want her to inherit? Then contact either Clinton and Obama and urge them to find some way to end the rivalry and the put downs. Contact your elected representatives, and any one you know that’s a Superdelegate. Let them know that the only candidate worthy of the nomination is the candidate who wants to work as a team
We can reunite our party. Let’s do so.
Posted by mwalimu on Mar 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM mwalimu -
Let’s call it TeamAmerica.
Naaaah. Call it Team Socialist. That would be more appropriate for a team led by Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.
Even at the height of the Great Depression, with its devastating social and economic upheavals, the American people were too smart to embrace Socialism. You Socialists want to overturn our Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms), the very things that have made our country strong, and install your own genocidal Socialism (USSR) or suicidal Socialism (EUSSR).
I find it mildly disturbing that you have attracted so many constituents to your mad Socialist schemes, but, given the facts, the American people have always rejected your agenda, from Henry Wallace to Gus Hall. And now we are rejecting your instruments: media (NYT and ABC/CBS/NBC), the academy (Ward Churchill and his ilk), and Leftist constituent politics (race versus gender).
What you fail to understand is this:
Edwards was soundly rejected because he was a Socialist. Obama is embraced by Blacks because of his complexion, not because of his Socialism, though there is a strong element of Socialism in Black Liberation Theology. Clinton is embraced by women because of her plumbing, not because of her Socialism, though there is a srong element of Socialism in Feminism. Both race and gender have limited constituencies, and Obama and Clinton are now fighting over a single nomination, unless one of them wants to start a third party.
Enjoy.
Posted by scorp on Mar 22, 2008 at 7:16 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 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?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
