September 24, 2008
Socializing Debt, Privatizing Profits & Power
If I had pick one defining feature of the politics of the last 8 years it would be the tendency of the current US government to use any real or debatable or fictitious emergency to accrue greater executive power while curtailing transparency and accountability. Even a financial crisis seems to require Bonapartism. Karyn Strickler in Counterpunch:
“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
-- Language from Section 8 Treasury Financial Bail-out ProposalBreathtaking in its scope and staggering dollar amount, the Treasury Financial Bail-out Proposal to Congress is a parting power punch from the Bush Administration. Even as the American economy melts down, George W. Bush and his cronies are taking advantage of the emergency situation to turn over $700,000,000,000 of American tax payer’s money to bail out the same greedy, corrupt corporations that got us into this mess; transfer most of the scant remaining congressional power into private hands and eviscerate judicial or administrative review of the process.
“The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation,” and so begins the Proposal that is perhaps the biggest peacetime (or anytime) transfers of power from Congress through the Administration to private corporations, in history.
Democrats, the American people and patriots of every partisan position, should not drink the $700,000,000,000 Power Punch. There is no circumstance under which we should tolerate this open theft of public funds, and permanent transfer of Congressional and Judicial power through one man, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, directly to private sector corporations, without oversight, review or accountability.
The upcoming Congressional elections and the fear inspired in the heart of every incumbent politician are certainly no excuse to capitulate to this brazen, corporate power grab. Democrats, true-blooded Republicans and the American people should not be intimidated by the rushed, fear-mongering tactics of King Henry Paulson.
While our economy is in historic trouble, it’s simply impossible that more of the same power without oversight – the same unmitigated, unregulated nonsense that got us into this mess – is the cure to the precipitous plunge the American economy is taking.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:42 PM | Permalink





Comments
"Democrats, the American people and patriots of every partisan position, should not drink the $700,000,000,000 Power Punch."
I know! Perhaps we can fix this by having more *empathy* for Republican belief systems... ?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 24, 2008 1:20:07 PM
Republicans are really looking out for you and me. In vetoing the 7 billion dollar child health care bill, Bush was courageously tackling the problem of overpopulation.
Posted by: Jared | Sep 24, 2008 1:25:50 PM
my 2 (unpublished) cents to the NYT
----- Forwarded message Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:59:07 +0100
Subject: "the executive of the modern state"
To: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor:
Re: "Dazed Capital Feels Its Way, Eyes on Election" By JACKIE CALMES, September 20, 2008
Millions of hard working Americans lost their houses, livelihood or health during the last year yet none in the Republican administration seriously entertained the possibility of extending to them and their children (compassionate) financial aid. Now "after decades of deregulation and free-market fealty, antiregulation small-government Republicans are putting the government in control of a big chunk of the financial sector": a half-trillion dollars - the same amount spent thus far in Iraq -is miraculously available to help Wall Street when proposals to address social issues (like health care insurance) are shelved for years.
The Republican administration almost validates Karl Marx's 1848 observation: "the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
shiko
Posted by: shiko | Sep 24, 2008 1:34:45 PM
my 2 (unpublished) cents to the NYT
----- Forwarded message Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:59:07 +0100
Subject: "the executive of the modern state"
To: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor:
Re: "Dazed Capital Feels Its Way, Eyes on Election" By JACKIE CALMES, September 20, 2008
Millions of hard working Americans lost their houses, livelihood or health during the last year yet none in the Republican administration seriously entertained the possibility of extending to them and their children (compassionate) financial aid. Now "after decades of deregulation and free-market fealty, antiregulation small-government Republicans are putting the government in control of a big chunk of the financial sector": a half-trillion dollars - the same amount spent thus far in Iraq -is miraculously available to help Wall Street when proposals to address social issues (like health care insurance) are shelved for years.
The Republican administration almost validates Karl Marx's 1848 observation: "the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
shiko
Posted by: shiko | Sep 24, 2008 1:37:09 PM
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws" — Mayer Amsched Rothchild
Posted by: Jared | Sep 24, 2008 1:52:37 PM
Or perhaps, Steven, this could be an opportunity for Democrats to demonstrate to the ordinary working folks that the Republicans don't give a damn about them... but maybe the Democrats don't either.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 24, 2008 4:43:14 PM
This is like the husband apologizing to the wife, once again: "Honey, I promise I'll never do it again. Just give me another chance."
The whole nation has been abused and traumatized by their bullying tactics; we must maintain our resolve to stand up for ourselves.
Posted by: missvolare | Sep 24, 2008 8:18:52 PM
William Greider on Goldman Sachs socialism. A little like Keating Five socialism?
thenation
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 24, 2008 9:12:39 PM
I wish people would stop using the phrase 'socialism for the rich' -- the word socialism in this context is not used correctly and has become synonymous in the American mind with: 'gov't giving away taxpayers money.' Americans know little to nothing about socialism and to hear the term used in this manner is ridiculous.
Posted by: anechoic | Sep 24, 2008 10:27:20 PM
"There are no Libertarians during rescissions"
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 25, 2008 1:35:06 AM
The whole nation has been abused and traumatized by their bullying tactics; we must maintain our resolve to stand up for ourselves.
By ... electing more Democrats to Congress? It raises the question of who the Dems will suck up to after the Republicans wither away in a few generations.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 25, 2008 9:23:42 AM
wither away Chris? Sweet dreams are made of this, and speaking of: Debs '08! Change worth digging up.
Posted by: Jesse | Sep 25, 2008 10:16:12 AM
Jesse--sorry--that was a reference to another thread, where Steven was arguing that the only way to defeat Republicans is to outbreed them.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 25, 2008 10:25:39 AM
Ah, but that would just be borrowing a tactic from the bright lights across the aisle.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-6/122223371288730.xml&coll=1
Posted by: Jesse | Sep 25, 2008 10:49:30 AM
I'm beginning to think that this is the curse of Alexander the Great: invade Afghanistan, and your economic system/political empire collapses. It took a few generations for the British Empire, a decade for the Soviet Union, and only 7 for the process to start in the US.
Only voodoo will save us now!
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 25, 2008 11:47:42 AM
Chris, Vicki, Dave, Jared, et al:
At the risk of having Elatia declare me a Nihilist: isn't America ruled by the two moderately-different faces of a single autocratic, if mildly bi-polar, party? (Not to forget the fact that "minor" differences in personality at the top can result in the giving or taking of thousands of actual human deaths).
My redemptive breeding scheme doesn't really focus on "Democrats"... if I led anyone to believe so, it was surely an expedience on my part, for which I now apologize.
No: my Dream Generation would be raised to value life over property, quality of life over magnitude of production, Art over Ideology, personality over appearance, kindness over goodness, completeness over speed, comfort over wealth, sexual technique over religion, nuts over chips, zest over greed, mass transit over automobiles, the good-smelling over the clean-smelling and the witty over the merely clever.
You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 25, 2008 1:18:22 PM
Steven,
I agree. The U.S. is a kleptocracy ruled by a single corporate party that has divided itself into two parts in order to confuse the public. They could be called the Reklepticans and the Demoklepts. The US public suffers from a grevious malady known in the medical profession as LOBNH (Lights On But Nobody Home).
Posted by: Jared | Sep 25, 2008 1:40:34 PM
Steven,
I can sign on to that vision (except for maybe your emphasis on sexual technique, which has an air of overachieverism to it).
My point is that Democrats, including the one up for election to the Presidency, appear to be capitulating to the Financiers on this bailout. If we're not to be accomodationists, then why keep voting for them?
I want to take pains to skirt the charge of nihilism, myself. But this appears to have the makings of the greatest crisis of our lifetimes. If the Dems weren't keeping their powder dry for this, then for what?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 25, 2008 1:54:24 PM
Awww, Steven's just an ol' hippie after all!
The hippies won't come back you say/ Mellow out or you will pay!
Meanwhile here's a possible use for Aunt Betty and all the uncool people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvDHOW9gp3c
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 25, 2008 2:11:26 PM
It's official. Bush and Congress, along with Obama and McCain, have decided America should pay for its own economic rape kit.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 25, 2008 2:22:22 PM
Dave,
You're good!
Posted by: Jared | Sep 25, 2008 2:32:23 PM
Okay, then: who, among the good-smelling reading this, wants to go in on the purchase of a mid-sized island in the Indian Ocean with me?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 25, 2008 2:42:16 PM
Yes, good one, Dave!
Steven, which mercenaries will you hire to protect your gated community?
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 25, 2008 3:29:48 PM
Vicki,
What does Reggie have to do with Aunt Betty? He was one of the most un-Aunt Bettyish persons I can think of.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 25, 2008 3:32:52 PM
Ruchira,
I think your Aunt Betty is different than mine. What Reggie has in common with my Aunt Betty:
-goes to church
-makes less than $50,000/year
-believes in Creation
-prefers chips to nuts
-prefers Folgers and donut to latte and croissant
-can't afford to send kids to fancy private school
-can't afford health insurance.
-thinks being nice and working hard will be rewarded, if not in this life then the next.
I know some Reggies who have voted Republican.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 25, 2008 3:59:45 PM
"the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" - the photo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bush.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1222380029-vKlmuPLEzgs2BJmXVf/BZA
Posted by: shiko | Sep 25, 2008 6:05:18 PM
This song is dedicated to Steven, in this here the sweetest of threads where y'll can pretend to hold hands and sing:
youtube
Steven writes: ". . . isn't America ruled by the two moderately-different faces of a single autocratic, if mildly bi-polar, party? (Not to forget the fact that "minor" differences in personality at the top can result in the giving or taking of thousands of actual human deaths)."
This is so true, isn't it? Which is what Congressman Ron Paul has been saying all along. Now that he's endorsed Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party candidate, you can vote for Baldwin, who might also agree to rule an Indian Ocean Atlantis. And at the same time, President Baldwin would end the rape of America caused by young "predatory girls"!
Arlo Guthrie endorsed Ron Paul, and he knew all about the mother rapers, father rapers sittin' there right next to him on the Group W bench.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 25, 2008 6:09:40 PM
On micro issues, the Dems and Repugs are different. Workplace, women's rights, the environment, etc there are clear differences.
But on the main issue, it is Pepsi and Pepsi Lite.
That issue is embracing a superstition based economy, which at this point needs to go, or most of us as a species goes. Any bright 10 year old can easily explain that one cannot expand indefinitely in in finite world, contrary to our economic and social organization.
Obama offers no solution to this main obstacle to our survival, and even wishes to further it.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 25, 2008 7:12:13 PM
Even if that's true, Dave, that Obama wants to further an economic system that threatens survival, I think we should vote for Obama now and work on economic superstition after November 4th. But you think we should "get over the voting thing" and that perhaps if McCain-Palin were elected it would bring about a more rapid resolution (as in system crash) to our problems. I disagree.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 25, 2008 7:40:05 PM
Critical-
As you know, I believe (from primary experience) that healthy anarchy is a better solution, and historical observation supports my case.
Do you think, through reformist politics, it gives us enough time "work it out later"?
If you have some evidence that this works, present it-- I'm not opposed to strategic voting.
A policy going forward with intelligence and wisdom, clearly seeing things as they are gives the planet the best chance.
I see no evidence of this in the current political process.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 25, 2008 7:57:13 PM
Just an aside, but I guess it was important to get rid of Spitzer:
washingtonpost
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 25, 2008 8:00:11 PM
Vicki:
So you seem to have bought into the notion that the Democratic party is indeed populated mostly by snotty upper class pointy headed atheists. Rush Limbaugh has done a number on you. How ridiculous is that characterization? At least as bad as Steven Augustine's Aunt Betty who is always, invariably, a piece of ignorant *shit.*
Your definition of Aunt Betty fits that of many Reggies I know. This Reggie was from Houston and here the Reggies tend to vote Democrat their "creationist, church going" credentials notwithstanding. What gave you the idea that my definition of Aunt Betty is an elitist one? In fact I made it amply clear in the previous thread the kind of Aunt Bettys I know and some of them are just as good at looking down their noses as the uppity Dems that you seem to so despise.
Did you take a good look at Reggie? Has it occurred to you that one of the many reasons Aunt Betty chooses to vote Republican may be because Reggie votes for Democrats? Please think about it.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 25, 2008 8:03:28 PM
Where's a healthy anarchy? Somalia?
How do you get from where we are now to a "healthy anarchy"? And what is that?
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 25, 2008 8:05:54 PM
"snotty upper class pointy headed atheists" - I know a few of those.
Anyway, I give up. Mr. Smith will never go to Washington again. The Democratic Party does a fine job of representing working-class Americans, a heckuva job. I'm sure that no matter what happens, we will continue to have the finest government money can buy. I'd like to imagine that I'd join an underground cell rather than run off to a neutral haven of good-smelling people who can afford the air fare, but probably I'm kidding myself.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 26, 2008 12:23:29 AM
CMI - I imagine Dave thinks that you have some connection with the eponymous bike ride, but technically that's a xerocracy, not anarchy.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 26, 2008 12:29:04 AM
Vicki, This is getting depressing. Mr. Smith never goes to Washington again? Next you'll be telling me that Clarence never got his wings, George Bailey jumped off the bridge and Mr. Potter succeeded in turning Bedford Falls into Pottersville. And then he used Blackwater to police the streets.
What would Aunt Betty say? Crikey?
Bike ride? You mean because Dave doesn't fly?
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 26, 2008 12:45:31 AM
Actually I am on the no fly list.
I think with the WaMu failure, even j6p and Jane zinfandel will notice that something has changed.
As a fellow anarchist Noam Chomsky observed:
No one said late stage capitalism wold be fun. It was great for a while if you were the right social class, and never ventured out of the shallow end of the pool.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 26, 2008 1:44:44 AM
"At least as bad as Steven Augustine's Aunt Betty who is always, invariably, a piece of ignorant *shit.*"
My judgment on Aunt Betty has been slightly distorted here: I say "Aunt Betty is a shit"... which is very different from calling her "shit". Henry Kissinger is also "a shit", for example, as was W. Somerset Maugham, neither of whom would I characterize as "ignorant" or just plain "shit". It's a colloquial taxonomy, but it has its fine distinctions.
Aunt Betty is a greedy, selfish shit; the old saying, "You can't cheat an honest Aunt Betty" applies to politics as well as it does to commerce. The poor (eg, everyone who isn't rich and is up to the neck in debt in order to "survive") wouldn't be so eager to support a nasty system (a system they can clearly see leaves the great majority of their fellow countrywomen in ignorance and poverty) if they hadn't fallen for the fantasy that they, too, will hit the jackpot one day. They fall for all of these fantasies because they have been trained, for generations, to empathize with the rich (McCain's wife wearing a one-third-of-a- million-dollars outfit at the RNC was no blunder).
Obama would be doing better if he were a billionaire.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 26, 2008 2:39:06 AM
Steven, thank you for the clarification. But why the Indian Ocean? Arthur C. Clark and Childhood's End visions?
They fall for all of these fantasies because they have been trained, for generations, to empathize with the rich (McCain's wife wearing a one-third-of-a- million-dollars outfit at the RNC was no blunder).
Obama would be doing better if he were a billionaire.
I agree. The notion that the poor are poor because they are lazy, is another ingrained Republican family value. Aunt Betty who runs a (very) small business or works at the Wal-Mart check out counter, fantasizes that she has more in common with Cindy McCain and Carly Fiorina than with Mr. and Mrs. Reggie. That, as also some other values she holds dear, is why she often votes against her own interests. (I don't begrudge Ms McCain her $300,000 outfit, seven homes and thirteen cars. She can do what she wishes with her fortune as long as her husband doesn't routinely vote against minimum wage increases and oppose universal health care) Also, what no one seems to bring up here is that this contradiction is partly fueled by Aunt Betty not wishing to be seen in the company of the "lazy" blacks and browns who are in line for government hand outs for health care, education and food stamps. She however, rarely militates (mild grumbling is more her tone) against Enron, Merril Lynch, Lehman Bros, Big Oil or farm subsidies.
Vicki:
No, the Dems have not done a heckuva job for the working class. But they are still the lesser of the two evils in the current scenario. At least they deign to bring up the minimum wage, health insurance and college tuition in their campaign platform. You can criticize them for their ineptitude and even for their hypocrisy. But to sing the praises of Republicans (at least, by omission if not commission) and cheering Aunt Betty for voting against her own interests seems to me a fine way to get Mr. Smith to Washington. I am not really sure what you are getting at unless it is all a tongue-in-cheek "empathy" exercise for you. But God fearing, church going, creationism believing, less than $50,000 making Reggie is sticking with the feckless Democrats because he is not yet welcome by the other party, no matter how much you wish he would join Aunt Betty.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 26, 2008 10:46:04 AM
--Nova
Posted by: dave Ranning | Sep 26, 2008 11:18:54 AM
As for living on islands----
Not many can do it. I lived in Micronesia for 2 years (one year without electricity), and spear fished to support my place in the community, and another 10 years on Maui. Anyone can live 8 months on Maui, very rarely longer that 2 years.
Steven- where in the Indian did you have in mind? Not much left, and many islands are disappearing from ocean rise from global warming.
Any experience with taro or spear fishing?
The two most valuable things on the islands that I have lived are fish and cannabis--
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 26, 2008 12:00:55 PM
That should have been Arthur C. Clarke.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 26, 2008 12:37:43 PM
Smite the kulak! Liquidate the reactionary elements! So long Aunt Betty, you must go, for the good of the country, it has been decided. I'll miss your rhubarb pie.
He was born in Oklahoma,
His wife's name's Betty Lou Thelma Liz
And he's not responsible for what he's doing
Cause his mother made him what he is.
And it's up against the wall Redneck Mother,
Mother, who has raised her son so well.
He's thirty-four and drinking in a honky tonk.
Just kicking hippies asses and raising hell.
Sure does like his Falstaff beer,
Likes to chase it down with that Wild Turkey liquor;
Drives a fifty-seven GMC pickup truck;
He's got a gun rack; "Goat ropers need love, too" sticker
And it's up against the wall Redneck Mother,
Mother, who has raised her son so well.
He's thirty-four and drinking in a honky tonk.
Just kicking hippies asses and raising hell.
Well,
M is for the mudflaps you give me for my pickup truck
O is for the Oil I put on my hair
T is for T-bird
H is for Haggard
E is for eggs, and
R is for REDNECK.
Thank you Jerry Jeff Walker, for that inspiring tribute. I will never mention Aunt Betty again.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 26, 2008 1:10:09 PM
Jerry Jeff Walker is playing at Hardly Strickly next weekend in the Park in San Francisco.
Check this out
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 26, 2008 1:25:57 PM
In this conversation, race is a distractor. I don't think Vicki meant for Reggie's blackness to be pertinent to his Aunt Bettyness.
I think Vicki's point is that Steven's island paradise excludes a lot of people who aren't going away. Some of them may vote Republican, seemingly against their interest, some may vote Democratic, but that doesn't get them onto the island.
A world where everyone and everything are just what you want them to be is more than a utopia. It's a delusion that impedes our willingness and ability to participate in a world that will never meet our bill of particulars. Dave Ranning and Steven Augustine seem to be announcing that until the revolution comes they are taking their ball and going home. I don't quite get this sense from you, Ruchira, which is why it's jarring that you seem to be siding with their cultural absolutism.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 26, 2008 1:47:04 PM
I wish people would stop using the phrase 'socialism for the rich' -- the word socialism in this context is not used correctly and has become synonymous in the American mind with: 'gov't giving away taxpayers money.'
Don't think so, old chum. Whatever it is, socialism is not binary: a country can be more or less socialist, depending on the amount of state/collective ownership of economic activity. No-one is claiming that the US is suddenly Marx's paradise, but when the government steps in and uses a colossal portion of its capital to take de facto control of a huge sector of the economy, it is employing a socialist method.
This leads into something Stephen should get into his head: the current actions of the US government are entirely opposed to stated republican ideals (small, unobtrusive government, laissez-faire economic liberalism, etc.). You may want to consider this the next time you want to take yet another ill-informed shot at the Haidt article.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 26, 2008 2:04:51 PM
Come now, Nick, how a about some good old fashion dialectical materialism?
Capitalism has never existed without a strong central state to enforce it's rules, as it arose in the 15th Century Italian City States.
Often these rules are enforced violently.
"small, unobtrusive government, laissez-faire economic liberalism, etc" is a story line and myth from heuristically thinking people, who are either historically challenged, or incapable of thinking critically.
But, your point is well taken that the stated republican ideals are that, but reality and history counter any of these arguments.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 26, 2008 2:23:01 PM
Goodbye Aunt Betty, goodbye Tom Joad, goodbye Woody Guthrie, goodbye Frank Baum, good-bye WJ Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech, goodbye Resurrection City
Ruchira, doesn't it bother you a little to see some one portray the snotty upper-class pointed-head so well? Someone who really seems to think he's a morally better person because he doesn't like floral air freshener and prefers nuts to chips?
As for Mrs. McCain's outfit, I don't think it flies all that well with the demographic I have in mind (notice I didn't say the name) My grandfather once saw Eisenhower at some farmers' conference or other. What really impressed him was that when someone urged Ike to stand on the table and give an impromptu speech, he demurred because he didn't want to get the tablecloth dirty. This is the perspective of a person who knows how much work it is to get a tablecloth white. People who grew up without indoor plumbing, like my parents, tend not to see the romance in dirt and they like things to smell clean.
Believe me these people annoy the hell out of me, but they are still family so I can't help but have empathy. (they aren't rednecks either, but Minnesota Nice) I do stay far away but the idea of severing connection, the idea that we aren't all in some way "in this together"...
I live in one of the most liberal towns in CA and above a certain income level everyone's bottom line is still their property values, just like in the most culturally benighted suburb.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 26, 2008 2:23:10 PM
Vicki:
Many things that bother you, bother me as well - on both sides of the political aisle. I made that clear in the previous thread where I also pointed out that I have friends with whom I get along personally but disagree politically. I too have gotten along (and still do) with family members with whom I have severe disagreements on cultural and religious issues. And unlike you, I live in Texas and have lived in Nebraska. I was and am surrounded by people with whom I don't see eye to eye on many matters but co-exist peacefully. I live in a congressional district which until 2004 was represented by Tom DeLay. Most of my neighbors voted for him year after election year. How much more do you think I could disagree with a politician and still not hold a grudge against those who empowered and enabled such a hideous man?
I was arguing with you, not with Steven Augustine or Dave Ranning regarding why certain people should not be voting Republican. You chose not to answer my specific questions. Instead you responded by conflating what others are saying with my distinctly separate views. May be that is why Chris thinks that I am taking an absolutist position here. You have explained to me in every which way why certain section of the working class votes for Republican candidates. What you haven't yet told me is whether it is a good idea.
Chris:
Race is not a distractor here - it is utterly pertinent. Believe me, it plays a major role in why some working class whites do not vote Democratic (remember Nixon's Southern Strategy) and why still others will not vote for Obama. I have heard more than one lapsed white Democrat tell me that the Democratic Party no longer represents "real Americans." Read that as you will.
As for absolutism, I consider both parties inept, greedy and dishonest, one of them more than the other. I am too old to wish for a revolution. I am looking for incremental changes in the direction in which I wish the US to move after several decades of going the wrong way. The Democratic Party, in my opinion, is more likely at this time to accomplish that goal than the Republicans. I am also too comfort loving for an island adventure, catching fish and living without electricity (cannabis won't make up for the enormous effort that will take). Camping out in my own home with an extension cord from a neighbor's house for thirteen long days without electricity after a hurricane (we got power back last night), eating crackers, fruit, both "chips and nuts" with luke warm tea for several meals, is my idea of toughing it out. Oh, Ike did not disrupt our water supply. So I managed to "smell good" through the ordeal.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 26, 2008 5:12:42 PM
Chris and Vicki:
Although I don't wish to see anyone liquidated, kulaks and reactionaries included, I do somewhat like Steven's idea of out-breeding the opposition.
I have done my share.
Also, I very much doubt Woody Guthrie would vote for McCain-Palin.
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 26, 2008 5:25:22 PM
Post a comment