This followed successful negotiations this evening in Dublin between Ireland‘s finance minister Brian Lenihan and the finance spokespersons of the opposition parties to pass the finance bill by Saturday.
They agreed to a timetable to pass the crucial finance bill that will implement harsh austerity measures outlined in last December’s budget
It is also interesting to note that any party which had opposed it and run in the next election with a promise to either repeal it or put it to a referendum would have had a good shot at winning, but it appears none have chosen to do that.
Betrayal.
And worse than betrayal, the politicians are such lapdogs of monied interests, so desirous of keeping their access to imported luxury goods and being treated nicely by European elities, that they won’t even seize the opportunity to be powerful, to win an election. This is similar to what we have seen in Washington, where the checks and balances the Founders believed would keep everything on an even keel have failed because politicians are more interested in money and their post-electoral careers, more concerned with being buddies with the rich, than they are with protecting or advancing their own power.
With a left like this, who needs the right?
As I’ve said before, this entire generation in power, “left” or right, must be swept from power. As a group they are either faithless or gutless, always willing to stand down or sell out, never willing to fight for the people they claim to serve.
Tom Hickey
Now what was clear in the past is becoming abundantly clear around the world. There are no real parties or factions. There are the privileged and “the little people” (and I don’t mean leprechauns). An aristocracy inevitably forms. Time for another revolution. The students screaming “Off with their heads” at the royals get it. Let’s see where it goes as the screws of austerity tighten and the next crisis hits.
The accumulation of wealth is always from economic rent — land rent, monopoly rent, and financial rent, rent being the surplus over the due of the factors of production. Economic rent is parasitical and extracts wealth from the economy without returning anything to it. This is always the basis of the rise of a privileged class, unless it is through outright confiscation by force.
Whenever there is a financial crisis, the financiers always work it so that they get recapitalized by households. It is is ever the same principle, although the mechanics may be different.
Finally, the people get fed up revolt and throw the bums out, and soon enough a new crop of bums takes over.
jcapan
“Finally, the people get fed up revolt and throw the bums out, and soon enough a new crop of bums takes over.”
I’m currently reading a masterful depiction of the Russian revolution–Bertram Wolfe’s Three Who Made a Revolution. And as always I’m struck by this tragic, repetitive truth. That the new bums were once the principled leaders of a just, promising movement.
I’ve come to think that if my personal Aladdin whisked all the rightists from society, that in a far briefer period than I care to admit, a new crop would miraculously generate itself out of the remaining population. Every society nurtures its fascist and socialist communities. Sadly, the latter group always seems to rise to the top, or at least high enough to fuck things up for the rest.
anon2525
How bad were conditions in Tunisia? Worse than in Ireland? Worse than in Latvia? And will the Tunisians sweep the decks clear of the dreck? Or will some lurk in the shadows only to return after the smoke clears?
Bruce Wilder
Between grief and nothing, I’ll take grief, says the resigned cynic. “Sell-out” was a real category, circa 1965; there actually was someone buying, then. Not now.
The preservationist instinct is born of a deep lack of imagination, as well as the absence of moral integrity.
Facing the collapse of a system that was manifestly not-really-working for quite some time, and to respond by trying to preserve and restore it, as if imagining and building an alternative that actually works, is beyond our poor powers — whatever that is, is certainly distressing, but it is not fully captured in the phrase, “selling-out”.
We are so far, now, from the visionaries, who were the architects of the systems now crumbling about us, that we act almost like children, whose faith in the constancy of their environment is built on one-part ignorance of the young, and one-part neurotic compulsion to deny the obvious risks. This generation of leaders has had no idea that they were creating crisis, with their neo-liberal (or neo-conservative) magical incantations. And, the crisis comes, and they have no idea how to make use of the crisis. They don’t see themselves as responsible for the immediate past, or the immediate future; they are just along for the ride, but these things happen, and we do the best in the circumstances, and we should strive to be prepared to do better, the next time something like this happens, as it inevitably (nod sagely) will. Things happen, and these leaders see their job as coping and reacting and patching things together — it is a childlike response in many ways, the response of a creature with little sense of control or power.
In the short run, it may be rewarded by more than just gratuities from the grateful, plutocratic winners. A large body of reactionaries of more modest means but greater numbers (at least in the U.S.) lack the imagination to reward creative restructuring reliably. They are preoccupied by their resentment at lacking the opportunity to continue in the pursuit of the oil-fueled pursuit of the American dream, classic distant suburb edition. The ex-urb SUV driver resents mass transit, CFL light fixtures, global warming and hates $3/g gas and liberals.
We lack the imagination to conceive of better institutions, both at the leadership level and at the followership level. Politicians are genuinely afraid of the power and responsibility that comes with architectural design, and not just petty, piecemeal reform. And, they are, of course, afraid of making acute and immediate enemies, in exchange for dubious and resentful and mournful friends: breaking the old system will make break someone’s yolk, and that someone will know who did him harm; founding a new system will lead a lot of people into a period of mourning for what was lost, which may go on for quite a while, before any joy can be felt in the new.
guest
So disappointing. I was hoping they’d stick it to the Bundesbank.
Morocco Bama
I blame it on Tony Robbins……er…I mean Tony Bobbins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQnOC0L8pWc
Walt Wit Man
Amen brother.
I view the “progressives” in America as the real enemy. They are the ones truly enabling our crony-capitalist government. The conservatives at least have the decency to admit they want neo-fascism and crony-capitalism. The “progressives” pretend they support liberal policy but their actions reveal otherwise.
Instead of drawing the logical conclusion, that the Democrats do not support progressive policy and instead represent the rich elite, the progressives hold out false hope that they can somehow influence the Democrats. I don’t even think they believe this anymore–they just want to feel good about themselves and feel morally superior to the right wing so they pretend they are actually fighting for some sort of vague “progressive” policy when in fact they are institutionalizing the very crony-capitalism and neo-fascism the conservatives advocate.
Progressives are the real enemy are doing far more damage than the conservatives.
John B.
Walt says:
Progressives are the real enemy are doing far more damage than the conservatives.
I think that is taking it to far. I get the point, even half way agree with it, but the real problem is nobody is leading and speaking up for the majority of us non-elites. Nobody knows what form real change would take because no one is talking about it and leading by example. That’s a big problem as their is no image or competing narrative with the oligarghic plutocracy…
Walt Wit Man
John,
I too was alarmed that I was reaching such conclusions about Democrats and the progressives. I assumed they may be natural allies of people like me.
But according to my Webster’ 9th New Collegiate:
enemy = 1. One that is antagonistic to another; esp : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent.
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
Morocco Bama
I have to say, I agree with Walt Wit Man. That’s been my experience. Chris Floyd has another excellent analysis on this very topic. He takes the “Progressives” to task.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2078-goonstruck-the-mysterious-mind-of-modern-progressives.html
I must have born too long ago, in a world that’s dead and gone. Maybe that’s why I can’t understand the “progressive” politics of our day.
All across the blogosphere — and in those few niches in other media where outright corporate harlotry and hardcore militarism don’t yet hold absolute sway — I see earnest, eager exhortations to our political leaders, urging them to act with wisdom, morality, mercy and justice. I see calls for those in power to think of the future, think of the children, think of the planet, think of the vulnerable, think of the needs and interests of working people. I see vast expenditures of mental and emotional energy devoted to parsing the politics of the high and mighty — and to devising the best strategies and tactics (especially the oh-so-savvy tactics) for advancing the fortunes of those top dogs whose rhetoric occasionally seems simpatico to the ideals of peace, freedom, equality and human advancement.
There seems to be a widespread, deeply held supposition that politicians – politicians! — will save us, if we can only put the right ones in charge of the power structure. And behind this supposition there is an unspoken — and, in many cases, unconscious — belief in the inherent goodness of this power structure itself. To be sure, it is a goodness that most progressives believe has been lost or diminished, or perhaps not yet realized. But there seem to be few doubts in the ultimate moral efficacy of this power structure, however lost or latent it might be at any given time. It just needs to be guided properly.
Formerly T-Bear
Seeing most commentors here have little or no contact with Ireland or what pertains to the Republic and are mostly blowing smoke to cover their deficiencies of awareness but vainly attempting to appear erudite none-the-less.
Ireland upon entering the monetary union surrendered their sovereign position to handle the country’s monetary policy which was subordinated to the common policy administered by the central bank of the union. Ireland was also a long time recipient of economic development aid from the even larger European Union (EU) to economically promote development bringing it from the impoverished nation it was on joining to a state closer to the average for the union. Farming was promoted (subsidized) and the Irish seas were opened to exploitation by other EU members. In addition, the Irish ascension to EU membership and being an English speaking and highly educated population was an open invitation for many multinational companies to settle on the island and have unhindered access to all the rest of the EU. The immense volume of business generated (also due to a low business tax requirement) soon massively increased the per capita GDP, and the public was led to believe theirs was this bounty. Germany of the deep pockets was funding much of the economic development in Ireland and was also demanding a low interest policy for the EU. Like petrol on a fire, that combination of low cost borrowing coupled with massive economic investment to develop, and the inflated per capita incomes fueled a massive inflation for the country. Prices rose at incredible rates, one increase triggering a landslide of price increases, real property was not unaffected and real property (land and hearth are traditional central social values) and its acquisition lead to a borrowing mania rarely encountered elsewhere. All went well until the EU noticed that Ireland’s per capita GDP had arrived at about the 4th wealthiest (per capita) country in the world. Economic development funds became greatly restricted, dot-com burst, prices had become so elevated that few were able to continue purchasing, businesses lost custom, laid redundant workers off, and even though the economic inertia carried the country for several years, its reverse happened concurrently with the recent collapse of Wall St. What pertains to the housing market in Ireland is exactly that which will befall the housing in the US, only to a greater degree in the US. The Irish government’s policy to support the debt structure of the Irish banks is in parallel with the TARP and stimulus of the FED, based upon the same economic fables. By following austerity measures, the actual Irish economy has been severely damaged and the economy has begun a death spiral, to which the Irish government has added additional weights in the form of additional taxes after clipping the economic wings by reducing wages as well as diminishing the social safety net to pensioners and poor (the country’s hospital and health care system was on the verge of implosion from the lack of adequate investment for quite some years before).
Actually the Fianna Fail is a centre right party in the Irish political spectrum, Fine Gael is more rightward still. The left parties are Labour, Greens, Sin Fein but are small as are the Socialist and Communist contingents, even in combination not enough size to put on a government together in combination but acting with either of the major parties in collaboration and providing some suppression of the political misadventures of their larger partners (or bringing down the government as the Greens did in this current crisis).
Ireland is the canary in the mine for the US. If Ireland can forestall its economic collapse using current theocratic-economic policies, there may be a chance for the US. For one, no money of mine will ride on that bet. Debt deflation is the order of this era, it would seem.
Natasha Chart
Yeah, so I’m a progressive and I can’t stand this crap. This is my fault? I don’t think so. I read this story and imagine there are a bunch of people over in Ireland who supported their set of jerks at their last election because they couldn’t think of anything else to do, and I’ve got to believe that they aren’t thinking any more than I am, “misery loves company, booyah!”
But seriously, what should we do differently? We vote out one set of bums, as noted, and the next set are no bloody better. We stay home or cast a protest vote, and the people who win are no bloody better. People in the past often reacted to this sort of ongoing disenfranchisement through violent revolution, and that usually produced a set of leaders who were even worse, but never any bloody better.
I’ve got to think that new leaders aren’t the answer. What do *we* do differently, then? How can we create a society with a better people, who understand the levers of power and press them effectively in favor of better government, in favor of systems that don’t invite corruption?
Everyone’s organized except the people, as they say. I really believe that’s a big part of why this keeps happening.
I don’t mean that in a blaming way, either. Activists and voters aren’t morally responsible for the bad actions and worse faith of elected officials. But at the same time, it seems that these are just the kinds of people we’re inevitably going to get if things stay as they are, and even if they stay as they are plus more yelling and better PR for the cause of good.
What I keep asking, and what I should keep asking, is what can I do differently. I don’t actually know. I don’t know anyone else who seems to know, and plenty of them are asking the same question. We tried making things better through the big NGOs, then more Democrats, then better Democrats, then trying to ‘make them do it,’ and we tried these things as hard as we could because these were all the things everybody said you were supposed to do to get change.
It totally failed. Spectacularly failed. Failed in such a big frakking way that I just can’t believe changing my political label is going to take away the sting or make a difference during the next round.
What should I do that would make a difference instead of maybe making me feel better? I don’t want symbolic or rhetorical analgesics, either, because they’re a poor substitute for computer games and a well-stocked liquor cabinet. Me, personally, without a vote in Congress and with a serious need to pay off my nearly-a-mortgage college loans at a square job, what do I do? What can I tell someone else in the same situation or, especially, worse, that they can do to make a difference?
And I ask that in all earnest. I hear that you’re mad at progressives, but what do you actually suggest any of us change?
Natasha Chart
And in clarification, in the opening of that last comment, by “this crap,” I meant left wing parties acting in bad faith and engaging in the same sort of collusion with the ultra-wealthy that had more commonly been associated with the right.
BC
Isn’t it obvious by now that both sides (left-right, conserv-liberal, neoliberal-neocon, etc.) are Trojan horses/proxies/lackeys for the same interests?
Z
If reforming the democratic party is not the answer … and I personally do not think it is becoz the infrastructure is way too corrupt … and reforming the republican party is out of the question … I think that is totally out of the question … then why not start the hard and arduous work of building a 3rd party?; which is, by the way, what a lot of us have been saying to so-called progressives for many months … years … now only to too often to be muted by their obedience to the democratic party power structure … and the demozombie’s heroes like obama, and the clintons, etc.
I think a lot of the so-called progressives ought to look at themselves in the mirror and maybe reconsider their arrogance in shouting down … or muting … so many of us that have been trying to build momentum for a 3rd party. A lot of you in the blogosphere shut down talk of a 3rd party becoz you thought that people like bill clinton were allies … maybe those beliefs were self-serving becoz enemies if progressivism like clinton invited YOU to their little gatherings and called YOU by YOUR first name. If so many of these so-called progressives that essentially herded progressives into the democratic party for pragmatic reasons had principles that were more rock solid, then maybe a viable 3rd party movement would have begun by now.
And that doesn’t mean that it can’t start now, but I think a little humility, a lot less excuse making, and a little less attacking of those that were right a long time ago about the democratic party is called for to move forward together.
Z
Z
“we tried these things as hard as we could because these were all the things everybody said you were supposed to do to get change.”
Not everyone said that; they were just the only ones that too many progressives were willing to listen to.
Well, at least you admit that it was a failure.
Z
Z
This is the whole comment that I was referring to above:
“We tried making things better through the big NGOs, then more Democrats, then better Democrats, then trying to ‘make them do it,’ and we tried these things as hard as we could because these were all the things everybody said you were supposed to do to get change.”
Not everyone said that; they were just the only ones that too many progressives were willing to listen to.
Well, at least you admit that it was a failure.
Z
chicago dyke
up until Citizens United, i was with you, Z. but the fact is that today, any 3rd party movement would be seriously demonized if it appeared to be moving towards success. too many americans get their political information from the mainstream media, and accept it uncritically.
Ian’s not wrong, but at the same time, i think basically, to answer Natasha’s question, all we can really do at this point is wait. hunker down and try to survive, caring less about politics because it’s only costing us emotional energy over things we can’t change at this point.
i would guess most people here would agree: that which cannot be sustained, will not continue, eventually. we live in a global oligarchy bent on destroying all the good things that came out of political conflicts in the last century, and it’s likely they will. and thus, recreate the conditions in which those good things eventually emerge. the risk now is mostly environmental; there are so many more people and our leaders play with the very air we breathe in their criminal games. but eventually, instability will create conditions in which the excuses they use to continue their poorly considered policy won’t work for them any more. the only question i have anymore is whether or not i’ll see that great change in my own lifetime.
Z
My proposal is to try to build a 3rd party built upon one issue, an issue that the vast majority of the country should be able to agree with becoz most people don’t feel represented by either of these parties and believe that they are corrupted by big money. That issue is purely publicly financed elections. We should start a party to elect people that will vote for that. We can sort out the rest of the differences later, but we must regain control of the government or else nothing else in going to matter until it all falls apart and many more innocent people die.
I know it’s a long shot, but it’s best to work towards something and we shouldn’t just wait around and hope that we survive the collapse.
Z
cathyx
I think the biggest success we will have to overcome the business as usual in Washington would be for a Republican, yes I said Republican to take charge of the movement. But not our usual Republican as we know today, but the old style Republican who really is fiscally conservative and responsible, who doesn’t shrink if he’s challenged or criticized, can give as good as he gets it, and who is respected by both sides of the aisle. I say Republican because the left, who is fed up with the way the democrats are behaving would have no problem switching parties if we felt that this person was the real deal, and most of the right would only vote for another Republican.
Candidate John/Jane Doe would be strong, charming, single-minded in his/her goals to end the reckless ways of Washington and not care what the naysayers think. This person would have the respect of the world and Americans would rally around him/her because we are all sick of the way this country has been run the last several decades.
Natasha Chart
@Z I wouldn’t actually wish watching Glenn Beck on anyone, but it was on in the background at the office this evening, and your comment about building on ‘one issue people agree with’ reminded me of tonight’s episode.
Beck, with his nauseating platitudes, with his live bunny and chainsaw props, actually said a couple things I agree with. For example, he excoriated the advertising culture created by Bernays, et al, whose main underpinning is fomenting permanent dissatisfaction and emptiness in the viewer, and said it should be rejected. I happen to not only agree with that, I agree wholeheartedly. He then broke for commercials about gold.
And my point is this: there might be things Beck and I agree about in theory, but our conception of the solution space has virtually zero overlap, to say nothing of our opinions about causation.
I mean, this is a man who thinks MLK would have been on his side, and is peddling the lie that King never said anything about economics or wealth redistribution, but only cared about opportunity. That’s one hell of a lie, which I think even you and I can agree on. Worse, it’s a lie made possible because our ad + media culture has, as some say, turned MLK into a harmless, blank-slate Santa Claus figure.
Glenn Beck can talk about Bernays and advertising for an hour a week, hand the floor over to Annie Leonard for half that time, and I am never, but frakking never, going to be joining up with Beck to jointly push any initiative. That’s the problem with looking for an issue that most people can agree on. Most people don’t agree on jack, except that they love them some Social Security.
More, I say all this as someone who once cast a vote for Nader for president. I was so keen for the Green Party that I actually watched their inaugural press conference on C-SPAN and went to some meetings. And watching that press conference and going to those meetings, I saw exactly how it was going to go down, which is to say: in flames. I’m not pleased to have been right.
I don’t want to support a third party in a nation full of low-information voters (and really, people have other things to do with their time, that’s not a judgment,) a corrupt judiciary, a corrupt legislature and lobbying culture, a bought regulatory structure, in a country where the political culture has nothing on ESPN for depth. It’d seriously just drive me to hard drinking and despair, besides being pretty far beyond my personal scale of influence to set up and accomplish.
Because in case you hadn’t realized, there isn’t a viable progressive party in the US right now. It doesn’t exist. There’s nothing to join. Nothing except the remnants of a Green party that’s started taking in the Republicans’ laundry for hire.
Though yes, I’m guilty, I’ve gone to a couple Clinton events. I’ve even gotten to ask him some questions and shake his hand. Here’s something I wrote about the CGI conference, for example. Based on which, I have two things to say about your Clinton + blogger-related comments.
1) Who the heck do you think I am? I got into politics as an unemployed consultant who started a blog, continued that blog as a student, continued it when I had to drop out of college because of financial hardship, and now work in a not-especially-notable position (that I was lucky to get) in a very large union where I’m not even in the room when our political team makes decisions. I’m as near to no one as it gets.
So please understand this: I don’t have the power to do the things you’re accusing me of. I can’t ‘silence’ progressives, or anyone else, for that matter. I can’t prevent people from joining or forming political parties. I couldn’t even get my preferred candidate to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. If your analysis of the reason why there isn’t a viable third party in the US includes me as part of the class of lead actors, I’d urge you to look for other root causes.
2) Your assumption that I agree with all the goals and motives of someone based *solely* on the fact that I agreed to meet with them is pretty far off. I don’t really think you’re qualified to make that judgment of me, nor do I think you’re qualified to make it of some of the other people I know who’ve attended similar gatherings. It is, perhaps, true of some. But I’m not a corporatist, not a centrist, and neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama are numbered among my heroes (though I have liked them more, or less, in times past.)
Those things are just not true of me, and in spite of my extensive trail of public writing, you’re not going to find enough evidence for a conviction. So I’d ask you again, analyze the situation a little more carefully.
Z
Natasha,
Where does glenn beck come in to this? Do we need glenn beck’s buy-in to start a 3rd party movement? Does glenn beck have the majority of the country behind him?
We share a Nader vote in common … and I have zero regrets for voting for Nader; he was the best man in the 2000 election IMO and it is the vote that I am most proud of.
“I don’t want to support a third party in a nation full of low-information voters (and really, people have other things to do with their time, that’s not a judgment,) a corrupt judiciary, a corrupt legislature and lobbying culture, a bought regulatory structure, in a country where the political culture has nothing on ESPN for depth.”
Why not? Do you think that your support of the democratic party has reaped many dividends? You essentially admitted that the party has failed you. Why not try to start something that you can be proud of, even if it does go nowhere? Isn’t it better than compromising principles and getting little in return?
I read your post that you linked to … in fact I commented on it and you responded to my comment with an accusation that wasn’t true: that I said that clinton’s charity was definitely being used for his wife’s campaign. And I never wrote that, I wrote that I wouldn’t be surprised if it was while you seem to consider yourself qualified to definitively declare that it never was. How do you know? I know I don’t … and I strongly suspect that we’ll never find out. Then you followed that with basically a partial defense of clinton’s role in the deregulation policies that went down during his time in office.
I was not stating that you personally muted 3rd party movements, but I do know that the blog that used to write for, openleft, often did. And what that blog primarily stood for IMO was supporting the democratic party (though writers like David Sirota are a notable exception). I do know that you supported the democratic party and if you thought that you could work within the infrastructure of the party then you must have thought that a person such as bill clinton was someone you could work with. I think that is way wrong. I also know that your husband, who one could say was a progressive leader, wrote about how humbled he was that clinton knew his first name and had read an article that he wrote. Why?! I also know that he also very heavily backed a candidate that was a new democrat, aka dlc/3rd way democrat.
But what primarily irks me about your post is that it is an “progressive” excuse (“the democratic party was our only choice”) for selling out on many of their so-called progressive principles by coddling up to the democratic party power structure … that which some of you, and I don’t know if you personally have, benefited from. A lot of progressive groups have been coopted by the democratic party and this was done by flattering the leaders of the movements … and the people that have the most influential progressive blogs … by giving them a seat at the table. I think a lot of those progressive leaders misled members of their groups … and when I say misled, I mean not doing a very good job of leading becoz they compromised too much on what the groups were supposed to stand for … moveon comes particularly to mind … and IMO too often sold out for their own personal benefit.
I don’t know if that applies to you … I don’t know much about you … and I wasn’t particularly … or solely … addressing my post to you though I can see how you could have thought I was since I used YOU a lot. But I wasn’t. And I don’t think that you or even the people that have IMO misled the progressive movement are all bad … not at all … but I do think that a lot of them are arrogant and refuse to take a look at their own failures … strategic and personal …. and role in why progressivism has failed so badly in its attempts to work within the democratic party infrastructure.
Z
Rilen
Isn’t the problem that representative governments have been basically castrated at this point?
Small countries like Ireland mostly have their economic policy set by Washington and it’s minions at the World Bank and IMF. While on paper the Irish government may be beholden to the Irish people, in practice Washington controls a planet-sized military empire and the Irish people don’t. Political action outside of the U.S. to me seems to be mostly to consist of debating what sort of puppet should go over the hand.
There may be some hope of organizing a real political alternative in the U.S. itself, but it’s also possible that even American politicians have about as much real control over major policy decisions as the Imperial Diet did over the Kwantung Army. There certainly appears to to be little danger of “unSerious” ideas contaminating the debate no matter how popular they are with the U.S. public.
Rilen
oof, “…seems to me mostly to consist…”
Bruce Wilder
In practice, the political class is subservient to corporate money, across the 1st world. And, across the 1st world, supra-national technocratic agencies are being used to strip the nation-states of their sovereignty. The crazy thing is that these institutional structures are being relied on, and reinforced, even as they are manifestly failing.
To explain the actions of the Irish in a framework in which their politicians are overpowered by Washington or Frankfurt requires that those centers of power have strength. If they, and their systems, were strong, we would not be having this continual crisis.
I agree with Ian that a lack of moral integrity is a serious and global problem with the present generation of political leadership, but I see that fading of moral integrity as just another symptom of a generally failing system. What’s driving preservationist reaction isn’t expedience, per se, it is blind fear driven by the absence of imagination.
Z
Bruce,
I think that our rulers have decided that there are too many of us … more than they have a need for … and they have set out to systematically shorten our life spans. Maybe this wasn’t part of any grand plan, but it has evolved into this due to their insatiable greed and the lack of checks and balances upon it. They’ve pressed the economic and environmental systems to their limits and now their solution is to cull the human population that draws from those resources rather than risk disturbing the power order that they currently stand atop of.
Z
Bruce Wilder
@Z
Well, “we” are pressing those limits, certainly. I think they are choosing the squalor of China and India as a global model — no culling, really, just raising the average, while pushing down the median standard of living to some global standard of synthetic bread and electronic circuses: the mass of the population in a “services” and scam-economy to funnel the cash to the top. Perhaps, some dystopian version of the singularity will emerge in which the super-rich will use their vast claims on resources to speciate themselves into an aristocracy of genetically enhanced cyborgs?
Z
Bruce,
What happens when they have more labor than they need? Do you think that they want to actually support these people that they have no need for? Do you think that they want a large, desperate mass of people with a lot of time on their hands? Personally, I don’t think so becoz to keep the desperate masses placated, they’d have to shovel out some money to them thru social programs which would likely have to be funded with higher taxes on the only ones that can afford it: them.
They’re not going to publicly announce a global human population life-shortening initiative of course; what they’ll do instead is cut back on social services … it’s called austerity … and let the physically and economically weak die off. It’s bloodless, it leaves no finger prints, and it doesn’t set off revolution alarm bells. It’s just the system … and the accountability for it is nebulous, which is just the way they want it.
Z
Natasha Chart
@Z “Where does glenn beck come in to this?”
People often disagree with each other about causes and desired outcomes even when they fundamentally agree in identifying a problem.
Finding one issue that will cause everybody to throw all previous affiliations and animosities away and join a third party is a pipe dream.
Re, starting my own third party, in my arrogance, I don’t think I’m qualified. Why don’t you do it? Why doesn’t everybody do it? I can’t wait for the rapturous day when instead of two parties tied up in huge ego trips and corruption, we have a million of the damn things that their originators wouldn’t let go of until you pried them out of their cold, dead hands. Sounds like a blast.
Also, why do you want a group of arrogant sell-outs to be the ones to found an entire new political movement?
Re, the Clinton thing, sure, let’s revisit that conversation. The donation lists were made public. Republicans still hate that guy a lot. You think there’s been actionable wrongdoing which you’re genius enough to discover, which somehow slipped by all the reporters and Breitbart minions out there, go find it. Get back to me.
(I don’t know why you want to revisit the deregulation issue, either. Or why you think bringing up that everyone in DC agreed with it, to the point of having veto-proof supermajorities in Congress, is a defense. I think you’re just throwing stuff at the wall. Again.)
The argument that nothing but a publicly funded election system is acceptable to you, personally, is also not a legal argument for misdeeds having been done under current law. And under current conditions, it’s going to cost about $1bn to run for president. So just as in previous elections, the winner is by definition not going to have run a publicly funded campaign.
Then this statement of yours, at that other thread, “And I also wonder if this particular charity wasn’t used in some way to help pay for hillary’s campaign,” remains as much a completely baseless smear as it was when you first typed it. Whether or not you claim absolute certainty.
I don’t say that because Bill Clinton is my personal hero, or because I approve of all actions undertaken by CGI ever. I say that because it’s pretty obviously a false accusation that comes from your distaste at the whole election process and the foundation world. I share plenty of that distaste, but, circling back to the beginning, I disagree with you that a solution to these structures starts with ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ sorts of statements.
So don’t dodge this with weasel words. ‘I never said they definitively did break the law, but …’ ‘I never said they did molest those kids, but …’ ‘I never said they did steal that money, but …’ ‘I never said they did have an affair, but …’
Don’t pretend you don’t know what you’re doing there. It insults your audience and makes you sound like Peggy Noonan. ‘Would it be irresponsible to speculate …’ Why yes, in this case, yes it would.
And you know what, the main reason why (speaking for myself) 3rd party arguments irritate me is because I really have gone a while since hearing a decent one, one not delivered by someone either deluding themselves or trying to get me to buy a line of bunk about the way the world works, or without any ability to admit in hindsight that Gore probably would have been better than Bush, or personally insulting everyone who doesn’t buy into their theories.
That last, btw, was the banning standard at OpenLeft. Personal insults got people banned (or, if you prefer, silenced, on one v tiny private website), it’s true. Making sweeping, negative generalizations and speaking as if unqualified group stereotypes were really true instead of convenient rhetorical shorthand, would get you banned there. I didn’t set that policy, but I remain okay with it.
So from that perspective, I’d like to add that if you don’t want someone to think you’re talking about them, don’t describe a class that includes them. If you loathe prog-bloggers who’ve met with Bill Clinton and tried to work within the system, I fall somewhere in that shrapnel shadow.
Also, I won’t act as an oracle for Chris’ opinions, but he went to work for Sestak under the following external conditions: he was the most progressive candidate in the race or who had any kind of chance to beat Specter in a primary, I broke my foot and lost my job, my large monthly student debt payments (non-dischargable in bankruptcy or death, $400 a pop in wasted fees to defer for a little while) didn’t stop coming due, and a whole bunch of other crap that I can’t even describe just fell right the f* apart the minute we got back from our honeymoon. Was he supposed to go work at a video store, clerk at a bank, what?
I have yet to be able to materialize rent money through the sheer force of my righteous indignation. If you have, please share your secrets.
And MoveOn, btw, puts their major decisions up for a membership vote. Now it’s possible in theory that their entire membership list has sold out and arrogantly rejects self-reflection by reflex, but insulting that many people is a little stickier than attacking the fairly small staff that acts to give those members as much more influence in the political process as they can manage. So, be my guest on that one.
Z
Natasha,
1. “Finding one issue that will cause everybody to throw all previous affiliations and animosities away and join a third party is a pipe dream.”
I don’t think that it is necessary that EVERYBODY needs to join a 3rd party for it to be successful. That’s a bit absolutist of you.
2. “Re, starting my own third party, in my arrogance, I don’t think I’m qualified. Why don’t you do it?”
Oh, I’m working on it … damn near every day.
3. “ I can’t wait for the rapturous day when instead of two parties tied up in huge ego trips and corruption, we have a million of the damn things that their originators wouldn’t let go of until you pried them out of their cold, dead hands. Sounds like a blast.”
??????. A third party has to be pro-gun? Why do guns have to do anything with it? It has to be violent? What are you trying to convey?
My proposal is for a single issue party based upon purely publicly financed elections and the premise that it is the best way to regain control of our obviously non-representative government and that once we do that we can sort thru the rest. And yes, I do know it is a long shot, but a shot worth taking IMO.
4. “Also, why do you want a group of arrogant sell-outs to be the ones to found an entire new political movement?”
I never asked you to. All I did was point out that there are other alternatives to the basis of the common democratic establishment progressive’s excuse is for progressivism’s failure: “we had to work through the democratic party … we had no choice”. And I also pointed out that many so-called progressives have done their best to thwart 3rd party talk. They have refused to entertain it and instead muted any talk of 3rd parties on their blogs. I will also point out that they had no Plan B … no plan to effectively “make them do it” … but hope that they would. And there was no plan … no strategy … to do anything but bear it when and if the democrats didn’t respond to pressure. And I think that the democrats on capital hill thought that the so-called progressive leaders would lead a cave-in to the democrats and continue to support them no matter what they do … and they were mostly correct.
5. “Re, the Clinton thing, sure, let’s revisit that conversation. The donation lists were made public. Republicans still hate that guy a lot. You think there’s been actionable wrongdoing which you’re genius enough to discover, which somehow slipped by all the reporters and Breitbart minions out there, go find it. Get back to me.”
Read what I wrote in response to your reply on my reply on your original post. I’m not going to rehash why I don’t believe that neither the bush do”j” nor the present do”j” would ever look into that. I don’t have the means … or access … to investigate any possible wrong-doing and I don’t think that I have prove things to talk about the possibility of them. That’s mighty authoritative of you to chastise me for having the audacity to suspect … and share the suspicion … that our dear leaders may have done some wrong that they didn’t admit to and that it may not have been properly investigated by their pals … which go across party lines with the bushes and clintons … in the government.
6. “The argument that nothing but a publicly funded election system is acceptable to you, personally, is also not a legal argument for misdeeds having been done under current law. And under current conditions, it’s going to cost about $1bn to run for president. So just as in previous elections, the winner is by definition not going to have run a publicly funded campaign.”
Uh, I never made that argument. I never wrote “that nothing but a publicly funded election system is acceptable to (me), personally”. I suspect that you are trying to cast me as one of those purists that would never ever be happy about anything and unjustly criticize great progressives with fantastic intentions like yourself. I suspect that you believe … though I don’t know … that most criticism of progressives comes from purists. Why else would they criticize you? They must be unreasonable.
About the legal argument thing, I don’t know what you are talking about. I was proposing that a 3rd party be developed that elects representatives and senators that promise to vote for purely publicly financed elections. I am fully aware that it will need to be funded … that’s where party members come in. I do think that if money is used resourcefully, and the people are disgusted enough, that a candidate from the party that I proposed wouldn’t need to match corporate candidates dollar for dollar. I don’t know that though … I have no way of knowing … but I’m not willing to accept that wise progressives like you have already covered all the possible routes to representation. And, again, I believe that we are more likely to get representation through a 3rd party … or creating a viable 3rd party, though not necessarily a winning one … than going thru the corrupt infrastructure of the democratic party.
7. “Then this statement of yours, at that other thread, “And I also wonder if this particular charity wasn’t used in some way to help pay for hillary’s campaign,” remains as much a completely baseless smear as it was when you first typed it. Whether or not you claim absolute certainty.”
A smear? Just mentioning the possibility of something on a blog without absolute proof of it is a smear? Well, if your standard of a smear is that, then I suspect that you’ve smeared a few people in the past also … I think almost everyone has by that barometer. And I’d bet that a lot of that “smearing” was correct.
8. “I don’t say that because Bill Clinton is my personal hero, or because I approve of all actions undertaken by CGI ever. I say that because it’s pretty obviously a false accusation that comes from your distaste at the whole election process and the foundation world. I share plenty of that distaste, but, circling back to the beginning, I disagree with you that a solution to these structures starts with ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ sorts of statements.”
How the fuck do you know that my suspicion … not accusation … is not correct? Again, do you have access to all the financials surrounding the foundation? And how authoritative and arrogant of you to think that all the information has been made public by the clintons and has been properly vetted by our wonderful government … and that you know something that you don’t know: that the basis of my suspicion is false.
And my suspicion is not preposterous, there are a lot of international dealings and donors with the clinton foundation and I can imagine that some of these rich and powerful people in other countries might want to have a u.s. president that owed them a solid. Is it really that crazy to think that there may have been some way for this money to have been slushed around to support hillary’s campaign? I don’t think it is crazy at all. And, again, I don’t trust the bush or obama do”j”s to look very heavily into it or our wonderful government to verify the financials of a former president’s charity foundation. I don’t know why you do.
And I never said that bill clinton was your personal hero. I don’t particularly think that you are some sort of demozombie that votes for democrats no matter what. I do think … but don’t know … that you and your husband are quite happy to be invited to these meetings and are defensive about these powerful people because they allow you to sit at the same table with them … because you get rub elbows with them. That’s what I think.
9. “So don’t dodge this with weasel words. ‘I never said they definitively did break the law, but …’ ‘I never said they did molest those kids, but …’ ‘I never said they did steal that money, but …’ ‘I never said they did have an affair, but …’ Don’t pretend you don’t know what you’re doing there. It insults your audience and makes you sound like Peggy Noonan. ‘Would it be irresponsible to speculate …’ Why yes, in this case, yes it would.”
What the fuck? I’m an anonymous person posting on a blog … what sort of power do you think that my accusations have on a public person like bill clinton? I think that you are attempting to equivocate my suspicions that the clinton foundation MAY have been used to help fund hillary’s campaign with spreading very personal accusations about someone that is not in public life … equating it to saying that a neighbor MAY molest kids and whatnot with no basis for it. That’s not a fair comparison.
And they were not weasel words. I don’t know. That was very clear from my reply. Maybe if you weren’t so defensive about your “valiant” efforts as a progressive then you would read what I wrote with less emotion and more clarity. And maybe you shouldn’t be so defensive about bill clinton either. And what’s with dropping the peggy noonan bombs on me? Isn’t that a smear?
You’re a trip, you throw a bunch of “how could yous” at me and then start throwing me in with gun crazies, the peggy noonans, etc. And you wonder why I think that you are arrogant and don’t take a very honest look at yourself
10. “And you know what, the main reason why (speaking for myself) 3rd party arguments irritate me is because I really have gone a while since hearing a decent one, one not delivered by someone either deluding themselves or trying to get me to buy a line of bunk about the way the world works, or without any ability to admit in hindsight that Gore probably would have been better than Bush, or personally insulting everyone who doesn’t buy into their theories.”
Hey Natasha, you obviously know best … who am I to even question your wisdom … how smearful of me. Of course, just by definition … yours … it is a delusion to entertain the thoughts that a viable 3rd party could be built. Of course it is a delusion to think that you may be wrong about 3rd parties or wrong about the way the world works. And, of course, anyone that is that irrational to believe in the potential viability of 3rd parties and question your wisdom would almost certainly be of the belief that Bush = Gore crowd. You use some awful huge granularity to characterize people that are 3rd party supporters.
11. “So from that perspective, I’d like to add that if you don’t want someone to think you’re talking about them, don’t describe a class that includes them. If you loathe prog-bloggers who’ve met with Bill Clinton and tried to work within the system, I fall somewhere in that shrapnel shadow.”
Ahem … you came out with a defense of progressives … basically that everything that you did was right becoz there was no alternative and everyone that questions that is wrong. I didn’t agree with that defense. I attacked that defense. I never addressed my entire attack at you personally … if I did, I would have addressed my reply to you. I admittedly, when remembering some of the things that you’ve written in the past, included some of those things in my attack on progressives that aren’t real good at taking a look at their failures … and to be very clear, I believe that you belong in that subset. But the entire post was not dedicated solely to you … and not every comment in my post was meant for you personally. I probably should have been clearer about that.
12. “Also, I won’t act as an oracle for Chris’ opinions, but he went to work for Sestak under the following external conditions: he was the most progressive candidate in the race or who had any kind of chance to beat Specter in a primary, I broke my foot and lost my job, my large monthly student debt payments (non-dischargable in bankruptcy or death, $400 a pop in wasted fees to defer for a little while) didn’t stop coming due, and a whole bunch of other crap that I can’t even describe just fell right the f* apart the minute we got back from our honeymoon. Was he supposed to go work at a video store, clerk at a bank, what?”
I have much empathy for your physical and financial situation … I think it’s terrible that we don’t have universal healthcare and so many people are one bad break away from being in a terrible economic situation. But I don’t agree with strongly backing a new democrat, even if he is better than specter … whoppee! I can understand voting for him, but not pushing him when you call yourself a progressive and the candidate is not very progressive at all. I think that’s not doing a very good job at being a progressive leader and I think it ultimately … and justly … costs one credibility.
And finally,
“And MoveOn, btw, puts their major decisions up for a membership vote. Now it’s possible in theory that their entire membership list has sold out and arrogantly rejects self-reflection by reflex, but insulting that many people is a little stickier than attacking the fairly small staff that acts to give those members as much more influence in the political process as they can manage. So, be my guest on that one.”
One week moveon.org said that they wouldn’t support a healthcare plan without a public option. The next week their leadership was sending out letters to members asking for their support to primary any democrats that wouldn’t support the health care bill even though it didn’t have a public option in it. There was no full membership vote in between this u-turn; the leaders decided to do that on their own, most likely partially … excuse my baselessness … due to pressure from the obama administration. And no, I don’t know for sure, I wasn’t invited into the meetings, but that’s what I strongly suspect.
Z
Natasha Chart
@Z – You, previously, “And think about how this whole process leads to corruption and how this “charity” giving can be used as a shell game to conceal bribes to tap into these former government officials’ power and launder illegal campaign contributions.
… And I also wonder if this particular charity wasn’t used in some way to help pay for hillary’s campaign. She did use a ton of her own money, supposedly, to pay for her campaign. I certainly don’t expect eric holder to ever open up an investigation on the matter.”
Yeah, I can’t imagine how I’d have gotten the idea that you were suggesting that there simply must be corruption going on that, in a just world, would involve public investigation and possible prosecution by the US Attorney General’s office. Silly me.
Though I don’t know why I should take your arguments seriously when you’re basically telling me that they’re not to be taken seriously, that they’re hyperbolic, as are your interpretations of my comments.
Really, if you’re going to imply that I’m someone who never questions myself, what you’re telling me is that you’re pulling all this stuff right out of your bum. And you still have yet to make any kind of reasonable suggestion about what to do differently, except join something that doesn’t exist and stop trying to earn a living in politics. I mean, wtf is wrong with me that I’m not awestruck already by your predictive and political acumen.
Minor errata: 1) I didn’t say a thing about guns, I was making a point about a tendency towards vehement turf-protection that I’ve witnessed in one form or another in every single political organization I have ever been close to. 2) The specifics of your initial argument refers to a group of about, oh, 50-60 people, or less, out of about 300mn Americans. You do the math on why I started off taking this personally, perhaps also considering that I might know whether your comments applied to at least 10% of the rest of them. 3) A majority of MoveOn’s membership supports the president and he has high favorables with them, there’s no significant will to go hard against him, and no will in strongly Democratic districts among Democrats to primary members who supported the bill. 4) People who don’t agree with you might do so because they think you’re wrong, not because they haven’t thought about what you’ve said, just fyi.
Z
Natasha,
Shaking some of the straw of my positions that you keep heaping upon them …
You (quoting me in the first two paragraphs):
“You, previously, “And think about how this whole process leads to corruption and how this “charity” giving can be used as a shell game to conceal bribes to tap into these former government officials’ power and launder illegal campaign contributions.
… And I also wonder if this particular charity wasn’t used in some way to help pay for hillary’s campaign. She did use a ton of her own money, supposedly, to pay for her campaign. I certainly don’t expect eric holder to ever open up an investigation on the matter.”
Yeah, I can’t imagine how I’d have gotten the idea that you were suggesting that there simply must be corruption going on that, in a just world, would involve public investigation and possible prosecution by the US Attorney General’s office. Silly me.”
Me:
I wonder = must?
I think I know why you “have gotten the idea that you were suggesting that there simply must be corruption going on that, in a just world, would involve public investigation and possible prosecution by the US Attorney General’s office”: you selectively extract from what I say and then misrepresent what I write.
The process I wrote of was when these politicians pass legislation and trade policies that heavily help out corporations like wal-mart and goldman sachs … and that happened during the clinton era and clinton wasn’t some idle figure in that even when there were veto proof majorities that passed it, even though some of your defenses of him imply that he had zero role in it while people he appointed such as rubin and summers were running around trying to deregulate damn near anything to do with the financial world and wall street; and clinton wasn’t some shrinking violet in the odious welfare reform bill either … and then the corporations and their heads, who personally benefited from this deregulation and trade policies that were immoral and impoverished many people, later turn around and put money into someone like clinton’s charity and billy gets to strut and preen as a man of the people. I think that’s bullshit. I think the whole thing is corrupt and misleading. I think that you agree in some ways.
I also pointed out some deal that looked shady involving Kazakhstan and some Canadian mining financier where clinton flew with this Canadian, who later made a huge contribution to his foundation, to Kazakhstan and gave him access to the leader of that country and the Canadian guy walked away with a big deal to do some mining there. I said that the deal will probably facilitate the rape of the country’s natural resources and create environmental problems for the locals, but clinton will probably give a fraction of that charity money back to the country and many people here will cheer him and say what a great guy he is without ever looking at the entirety of what he helped effectuate.
I never wrote that there “must be corruption going on that, in a just world, would involve public investigation and possible prosecution by the US Attorney General’s office.” But I think there was corruption. Again, I don’t know … and, unlike the authoritarian in you, I’m not willing to assume that the matter was properly vetted by our all-wonderful government. But, hey you know these people, you rub elbows with them, so who am I to question your expertise about the situation.
You:
Though I don’t know why I should take your arguments seriously when you’re basically telling me that they’re not to be taken seriously, that they’re hyperbolic, as are your interpretations of my comments.
Me:
I never wrote that my arguments shouldn’t be taken seriously … not at all … I simply said that comparing me sharing suspicions about a public figure like bill clinton on a blog board to baselessly whispering to a neighbor that someone may be a child molester is not a reasonable comparison. With the neighbor I could seriously affect their life, with clinton it doesn’t. I don’t have that power, but not having that power should not lead to one’s views to not be taken seriously IMO. I’m actually pretty smart and very objective. I think that you’re smart too, I just don’t think that you are very objective when it comes to examining progressive organizations’ role in their failure to get much of what they said was so dear to them done.
You:
Really, if you’re going to imply that I’m someone who never questions myself, what you’re telling me is that you’re pulling all this stuff right out of your bum. And you still have yet to make any kind of reasonable suggestion about what to do differently, except join something that doesn’t exist and stop trying to earn a living in politics. I mean, wtf is wrong with me that I’m not awestruck already by your predictive and political acumen.
Me:
You want to insult people’s political acumen when the progressive movement that you are part of has been so ineffectual about so many things? WOW! Again, I think you have a problem at looking at yourself.
IMO, one of the reasons that the progressives failed was when the democrats didn’t react to their wishes … and, frequently, follow through on their own campaign promises … the progressives did not organize marches and put feet on the ground behind their beliefs … they did not lead a movement with a physical critical mass. There were very few marches against the war once obama came into office … very few marches about anything. IMO, that’s due to a lack of holding strong to one’s principles … of frequently putting one’s placement in the democratic party’s apparatus … one’s seat at the table … above those principles. I understand that you thought that you could work with the democrats to get those things done … and I don’t fault you for that … but once it became clear that you were being played on so many issues that progressives supposedly hold dear, you guys caved IMO and fell in line behind the party. Basically, the establishment progressives only threat was to bang that stylus thru the D selections on a ballot with slightly less vigor. That ain’t going to do shit and hence the party played a lot of these progressive organizations … and a lot of you ended up being coopted. Fuck, just look at some of the polling of the participants of the netroots convention when obama had something like 90% approval rating in 2009 … and, from his appointments to his cabinet, it was clear even back then that he was a corporatist … and even his super high approval ratings in 2010 when it extremely clear that he was a corporatist.
You:
Minor errata: 1) I didn’t say a thing about guns, I was making a point about a tendency towards vehement turf-protection that I’ve witnessed in one form or another in every single political organization I have ever been close to.
Me:
What you wrote: “we have a million of the damn things that their originators wouldn’t let go of until you pried them out of their cold, dead hands. Sounds like a blast.”
Your incoherence at times leaves a lot open to interpretation.
You:
2) The specifics of your initial argument refers to a group of about, oh, 50-60 people, or less, out of about 300mn Americans. You do the math on why I started off taking this personally, perhaps also considering that I might know whether your comments applied to at least 10% of the rest of them.
Me:
You should take some of it personally, some of it applies to you … maybe all of it.
You:
3) A majority of MoveOn’s membership supports the president and he has high favorables with them, there’s no significant will to go hard against him, and no will in strongly Democratic districts among Democrats to primary members who supported the bill.
Me:
Again, apparently many … I’d bet the majority … of those members were at one time pining for a health care bill with a public option in it, and then the leadership tried to persuade them otherwise. Leadership, by definition, should help form opinions within their groups … they have some responsibility to the movements they lead … and from what I’ve seen, the leadership in moveon is principle-deficient and pathetic. I think a lot of progressive leadership is pathetic. I think a lot of the labor union leadership is pathetic.
In regards to the lack of will to go against the democrats, that doesn’t excuse moveon’s leadership from trying to primary democrats that held to their principles on the public option that moveon shared with them just days prior … and trying to lead a movement against their re-election if they held to those principles. I certainly don’t think that we need more democrats on capital hill with pliable principles. We have way too many of those. We should encourage democrats in congress to stick up for the principles that we consider moral. moveon didn’t do that; they did the opposite and threatened them if they held to them.
I’ll finish with this: from my exchanges with you, what I believe to be the difference between people like me and people like you is that I was sincerely hoping to be wrong in my contentions early in the obama administration that the democrats couldn’t be worked with … that they had no intentions to do many progressive things that they had promised to do becoz their actions didn’t match their words … particularly with obama … but I think that people like you are so egotistical that you would rather have a 3rd party movement fail just so you wouldn’t be proven wrong in that there was no other alternative. Becoz I think that there’s a lot of arrogance in people like you … people that can’t come up with any other plausible solution but the one that they chose, even when it fails … becoz I believe that you have an emotional investment in not being wrong. I don’t.
Z
Z
Natasha,
Here’s a link to a story about the mining deal involving the clinton donor: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html )
And if you think that bill clinton was simply a product of his times and didn’t help drive much of what happened during his terms, then read this by Dean Baker:
http://www.truth-out.org/the-progressive-case-against-obamas-new-team66702
Z
Rilen
It’s quite possible to be both quite powerful and genrerally incompetent. (Cf. the U.S.S.R. in the 1970s) That’s assuming that what’s going can be correctly characterized as incompetence, rather than an indifference to the welfare of the general public as compared to that of powerful individuals and institutions–corporate profits aren’t exactly hurting right now, after all.
Rilen
It’s quite possible to be both quite powerful and generally incompetent. (Cf. the U.S.S.R. in the 1970s) That’s assuming that what’s going can be correctly characterized as incompetence, rather than an indifference to the welfare of the general public as compared to that of powerful individuals and institutions–corporate profits aren’t exactly hurting right now, after all.
anon2525
As I’ve said before, this entire generation in power, “left” or right, must be swept from power. As a group they are either faithless or gutless, always willing to stand down or sell out, never willing to fight for the people they claim to serve.
Matt Stoller concurs:
The FCIC report is destined for the same dustbin of history as that speech. It is a document of and by well-meaning insiders that just can’t deal with the corruption they were supposed to investigate. It’s a psychological crutch maybe, or perhaps a denial mechanism, but it doesn’t really matter. This report is just a cover-up, the same kind of cover-up that is allowing the thieves to escape with their loot.
Nothing will come from the generation in power who created this mess. They just don’t have it in them. The bad guys will steal again. I mean, crime pays. Besides, who’s going to call it crime, anyway?
selise
“But seriously, what should we do differently? We vote out one set of bums, as noted, and the next set are no bloody better. We stay home or cast a protest vote, and the people who win are no bloody better. People in the past often reacted to this sort of ongoing disenfranchisement through violent revolution, and that usually produced a set of leaders who were even worse, but never any bloody better.
I’ve got to think that new leaders aren’t the answer. What do *we* do differently, then?”
natasha, from comments back in the days when ian was at the agonist, i think he may disagree (with my inclusion of nonviolence), but fwiw a suggestion for you is below. it’s a reading list based on your comments in this thread. i’m not going to pretend to have your answers (still working on finding my own), but i think you will find a whole other world about what can be done and maybe that will help you find answers that work for you.
1. Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt
2. Politics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp (Part 1: Power and Struggle, Part 2: Methods of Nonviolent Action, Part 3: Dynamics of Nonviolent Action). i especially recommend part one.
3. Doing Democracy by Bill Moyer
Rilen
This actually was the premise of a hit late-1970s TV series. I keep trying to convince myself that the real future isn’t going to look like that…the right wing isn’t helping.