The election is (mostly) over, and it’s become clear that, barring a miracle, the other folks won. I congratulate them, and hope they have a joyful night full of hugs and victory toasting and party hats.
I’m sad Bush won re-election (although I sure hope he winds up winning it cleanly), and I’m pissed as hell that the anti-gay Ballot Measure 36 passed in Oregon (as did its counterparts in 10 other states).
But you know? The fight goes on. And if Kerry had won, or if Measure 36 had failed, then the same fight would still have gone on. Sure, the playing field might have looked a little different, but our opponents wouldn’t have rolled over and died. They would have played on, getting every victory they could. We need to do the same. And those of us who are far enough left so that we want to transform society, not just win elections – our fight really doesn’t change that much depending on who’s in the White House.
Bush was president last year, and we didn’t despair, we didn’t give up. Next year Bush will still be president, and I for one will not despair, will not give up. Why should I? Nothing has changed.
Get drunk. Get joyful. Get laid, if that’s what you’re into. Get high. Get giggly. Get dancing. Get some damn sleep already. And then get back up, and get active. Get ready to get started, because the next four years will need you more than ever.
Decent of you to concede before Kerry. Can’t blame him, though.
I’ll probably blog on this tomorrow, but for what it’s worth, this represents a golden opportunity for the bona-fide left. The “respectable” Democrats have demonstrated that they cannot win. Everybody knows Clinton was a freak; the mainstream Dems don’t have anybody with 10% of that charisma in the wings. So the party is doomed.
Which means that progressives can set the agenda for a loyal-opposition minority left party, if they can get their stuff together and forget about the Kucinich-types. We *need* a LOMLP. America doesn’t trust you to govern, but we could be persuaded to listen to you think.
Don’t know if that’s a consolation for you, but it would be for me, if I were on your end of the spectrum. Good night!
It ain’t over yet; go read Kos on the provisionals and absentees…..
Drunk and pissed and it isn’t over yet.
Americans are frightened and afraid to change horses in mid-war. They overwhelming hate where Bush is taking the country, but they think his psycho-action hero shtick can better fend of terrorists. Meanwhile, the Republicans have built up a fantastic ground organization (which we on the Dem side once again horribly underestimated) based around precinct level organizing and have also gerrimandered the hell out of several states. Whil I agree that the Dems need to swing more progressive, we primarily need to build up our own ground organization, revitalizing our precinct level organizing. Or so say I, a drunk, angry political neophyte. That does it. I will be calling the Dem party tomorrow, and I will be running for one of those empty precinct posts next election. I urge anyone else in the moderate left to full-on left to do the same.
What fight are you talking about? I don´t want to sound pessimistic, but is over. Bush is going to name new Supreme Court Justices..say bye to any gay civil rights, to abortion – yes, they will overturn Roe-. And lets not talk about enviroment and social security. Whatever was left of enviromental protections will be gone in the next four years and social security will be privitized. Welcome to the american empire and may God -assuming the son of a bitch exists- have mercy on our souls.
Until we here are all hiding in foreign lands, or locked up in detention camps, it is not over.
Look at the defeats handed to the right in the 60’s and early 70’s: the death of American apartheide, the creation of landmark environmental legislation, the ERA movement, the beginning of the feminist and gay rights movements, AIM, the Warren court. Did the right curl up in a ball and declare that it was done, socialism would rule the US from here to eternity? Probably, but some parts of the right organized and rebuilt. Ten years later, an extreme right winger took the presidency and started the undoing of our victories. Thirty years later, even worse extremists control the entire goverment. Even as we mourne this horrifyin g defeat and contemplate on the misery our rulers will inflict on our own people and on millions across the globe, we should remember how we got here. Do what they did. Organize and rebuild. In another decade, we will be rebuilding on the ruins of the Bushist empire.
don’t despair… i agree with everything Ampersand said. we lived through Reagan, didn’t we? well, some of us did… like Robert said, all this really shows is that the Democrats never offered a real choice to begin with.
as Ms. Roy states:
The urge for hegemony and preponderance by some will be matched with greater intensity by the longing for dignity and justice by others.
they are not gods. they are not emperors. they are not kings. why wait four years?
so, what time is it? time to organize.
Okay. That cheered me up a bit. Not sure why.
Sergio, calm down. We survived 1 1/2 Nixon terms. I’m thinking we’ll survive this.
Pick an issue you care about and be prepared to fight for it. No use in just sitting in the corner weeping.
I confess a certain amusement in noting that Daschle has been sent packing in his home state. He and people like Kerry represent everything that’s wrong with the Democratic Party. If the Party doesn’t want to find going the way of the Whigs, it’ll get some fresh blood and fresh thinking infused at the top, and quick.
As for me, I’ll be looking for alternatives, as always. The Democratic Leadership Council has now more or less completed the party’s transformation into a headless and heartless beast, bereft of any courage and completely unable to communicate with the “common” people it allegedly serves. (Thanks, Clinton. You shithead. :p ) I won’t be dumping one more vote or one more dime into it anytime soon.
However, nothing other than their own cowardice and hypocrisy is stopping Democrats in power from calling for impeachment.
You know I’m not really worried about Bush being President. He really doesn’t have what it takes to do anything. What frightens me is that The Republican Party has control of the House and the Senate. That Frist, now that’s a scary man.
As a friend said now that Bush has a second term that gives him card blanche to do whatever he wants. With the Republicans controling the House and the Senate I’m waiting for the 22nd Amendment to be repealed. Shortly after I expect a repeal of the 13th amendment and a reinstatement of the 18th amendment. And I won’t even go into the loss of the Miranda rights.
Okay so there’s my rant. I have to go now I want to see if I can find a shack closer to the plantation.
So Alsis38 who do you see as the new lead of the Democratic Party and exactly where do you want it to go
The republicans think they have won.
These are the same people who believe in the al quieda/Saddam connection and that there are still WMD in Iraq aren’t they?
We will rise again dammit! Don’t believe the hype, think about the daughters bleeding to death from illegal abortions, think about the dead in Iraq.
The reason it’s close is because the democrats allowed Karl Rove state the way this battle was thought (or possibly fought), Democrats could have fought harder and more iconically than they did.
If Bush wins, wasn’t because Kerry wasn’t good enough, it wasn’t because we fought for our Ideals too much, it was because we failed to redefine the fight to our favour.
The founding fathers used non conventional tactics to beat the british, Iraqis are beating america with unconventional tactics, we must recreate how we fight for reality, fight for America and fight for the world.
Kerry fought on Bush’s terms at every turning and in every engagment, the fact that it is even close shows how well we did when you think about it.
The election will only be the desicive battle that the republicans want it to be if we allow it be such a thing.
This is about how much we allow ourselves to be beaten, it’s a psych war, against terror and against the terrorists, which can yet be won before ’08.
Never surrender, never let them take the future from us and our children. fight them in the streets, fight them in the halls of power and fight them where ever they don’t want us to, we must win.
I could care less about the Democratic Party, Kelli. As I said before, I’m looking elsewhere. You are talking about a Party that rubber-stamped an unjust and pointless war. One that passes itself off as a champion of feminism because it has –barely– managed to keep a law on the books that allows abortion in 15% of U.S. counties. One whose chief moneyman had the utter gall and hypocrisy to acuse its sole true opponent in this last race of being a product of “corporate backers.” One that has no answer to the brutality of the world free market but a call for more market freedom, a few more bribes for American-based companies, and a timid murmur for a $7 per hour Minimum Wage. Shall I go on ?
You worry about the Democratic Party, Kelli. I’m done with it. Morally and ethically, it’s a dead rat on the floor, and the only question to me remaining is this: Who will finally have the courage to publically pick the corpse up by the tail and toss it unceremoniously into the dumpster ? :p
Hate is popular now. I have to say, I don’t see much to be optimistic about in my fellow citizens. Too many have a fascist mentality. The Supreme Court is gone, we will lose many civil rights. Women and gays are the first to go. I fully expect Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas to be overturned, and also expect that the public will applaud this, outside a few states and larger cities. I hate to say it, but I am taking down my yellow ribbon – I don’t care to show solidarity with soldiers if it means siding with people who gleefully sent them there. And I look forward to a draft – let ALL families lose children and parents and siblings. If people want to do stupid things and die for them, let them. If people want to vote their values and reject their gay children, let them.
The saddest thing to me is that this only solidifies the divide between the rural and urban populations in this country–The Great Divider is going to make it so that people cannot even speak to their families anymore.
A tremendous victory for the Culture of Fear and Hatred! Hooray! And why did this happen? Alsis has it nailed, the incompetence and hubris of the DLC.
This was the Democrats last round with my support. Bush has become the first president in US history to win re-election when the economy was significantly worse than when he took office. And the DLC blew it. Not only could they not win an election that should have been an easy victory by any competent and organized opposition, they continued to lose ground in the legislative branch.
Let me say, NEVER AGAIN. Never again will I give my time, money or vote to a party that not only doesn’t represent any of my major issues but also is not an effective opposition party. I was ambivalent about it this election, but wound up giving them a try (for the first time in over a decade). I gave time, money and my vote even though they offered me nothing. I was very ambivalent about it all along, not voting for what I thought was right. alsis is, once again, correct and I’m a boob on this one.
And let me tell you Democrat vigilantes out there that you are in large part to blame for having lost my vote in the future. Instead of giving me reasons to vote for your party you have called me names and come just short of threatening me for 4 years. Well I’ve learned my lesson. I’m not giving my vote to a bunch of thugs, even a bunch of thugs who are not as bad as the other bunch of thugs. Especially when they can’t even figure out how to win an election that history says belongs to them. (Clue: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” and “Where are the WMD in Iraq?” That should have been the Dem mantra, but it was nowhere to be found.)
Robert is right, to a limited extent. There needs to be a vocal and organized and actual left wing party. That is the only thing that will wake up the Democratic Party. Well, that and an infusion of money and volunteers to said hypothetical party. And between the two, maybe there will be a viable party that stands for at least one or two of my core beliefs.
I’ve been thinking for a while on this, but it’s still half baked.
What we need to do is split the Democratic party; the fraction of the party that believes in the New Deal/ Great Society tradition should take the name. Stake out a real left, give people an ideal to strive toward. Work for the issues that matter so much to us, with passion and verve.
The remainder of the party needs a new name. Some kind of Governance Party or the like; it should be ex-Democrats from the South & Midwest, a party that stands with the Democrats on some issues, but walks to its own beat when it has to. Hopefully, without the baggage of the label Democrat (which, I suspect, prevents 50%+ of Republicans from ever voting for even the most promising candidate), and without social issues to divide, they can win their home states again. They can restore a centrist, budget balancing party between two (somewhat) balanced extremes charting a course. Besides, such a party would give moderate Republicans people to ally with (or to join) in opposition to their wing nutty brethren.
Meanwhile, I’ll await the outbreak of scandal and finger pointing that seems to doom late 20th century presidents in their second terms.
I think you’ll be waiting a long time, Scott. There were already enough scandals and enough opportunities to point fingers in the first term , and nobody had what it took to actually make use of them. The mandate has been sounded, and it is not a mandate for improvement.
If a newly re-energized left emerges, so what? We’d still have to convince people in the small towns and across the prairie that their economic interests supercede their “moral” interests, and that social pluralism has value that they clearly don’t believe it has. Sisyphus got off easy.
Yes, the Democratic Party would be ever so much more effective without those pesky women, gays, and darkies.
It is interesting to see Jake Squid’s post — “There needs to be a vocal and organized and actual left wing party”
And ScottM’s post one after the other — “They can restore a centrist, budget balancing party between two (somewhat) balanced extremes charting a course.”
If you ever wanted to know why the Democratic Party cannot win elections these two posts sum it up better than any pundit could ever do.
Jake, Alsis, and NancyP: If national socialistic economic policy is less important to you than personal freedom than you may want to have a look-see at the Libertarian Party. No big government social programs, decisions left to the States and the freedom of your own community to govern your own ethical and moral standards.
I’m actually a firm believer in Socialism, js. Libertarianism makes me break out in a rash. I no more believe in an unfettered free market than I believe in having tigers roaming loose in my living room. Try the next door down, why don’t you ?
Jake, don’t feel bad. I “boobishly” was championing Kucinich a year ago, remember ?
Yeah, alsis said it. I am a Socialist (or at least a believer in a much more socialist economic system than we have). Libertarianism makes me think of that whole leaving the old and infirm out to die of exposure. But, hey, as the US goes I’m pretty damned well off. Getting rid of welfare and social security, expanding the gap between rich & poor and eliminating the middle class isn’t going to hurt me nearly as much as it is going to hurt most of the people who vote R.
But can a left wing party be organized in a country where socialism was brutally supressed first by Roosvelt and then by the Mcartism of the cold war? And worse, betrayed by its intelectual figures (look at neocons and many other marxist intelectuals who switched to the extreme right..or those who still try to portray themselves as socialists, like the magazine “Dissent” and yet support things like the war in iraq). I think the situation in the US is desperate…and I despair to think about it.
What we NEED is independent media with a wide, wide viewership/ listenership/readership. The blogs do a good job, yes, but are too easy to write off. People believe everything they see on TV…
Yes, I think a left wing party could be organized in the US. But it will have to avoid the term “socialist,” which is the mark of doom here. But in order to succeed it would need to emulate the socialist party of the early 20th century in actually doing non-political things to aid its constituents.
Jake, you need to email me. I’ve got something to forward to you that might interest you.
Sergio, I never claimed to have all the answers. All I know is that despair is not the answer.
Of course, I hated Kerry from the start, so I feel more vindicated today than depressed.
The problem Jake is that I don’t think socialism and liberal progressives can work in unison. One of the greatest problems with socialism is that on a national level it is for all intents and purposes the same government model as facism. The will of the federal government is shoved down our throats without so much of a say by the individual states (no child left behind).
A good example is no child left behind. Californians know that they went from the best public educational system in the world to one of the worse in the U.S. The State did not need the feds to tell them how to make it better — they already knew they needed to make it better. Who better to educate our children than the people who grow up with them. Does Washington have any clue about the difficulties of educating the children of California, Tiajuana, Somalia, Vietnam, and Rowanda in one classroom? Of course not.
Liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. This is a far cry from socialism but it sounds a lot like libertarianism.
Libertarianism: A theory which advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Sounds like . . .
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority and stringent socioeconomic controls . . .
Socialism is the genesis of fascism. Sergio (who I think is from Italy knows the effects of socialism). What if we put in a socialist president who helps the elderly with social security, the poor with increases in AFDC, controls industry through high taxes and tariffs. You must take the good with the bad — perhaps your socialist government will outlaw abortion (I am not speaking of abortion just the effects of socialism, Amp), outlaw dissent of the government, outlaw sodomy, and other things that big government can do. Socialists may be progressive in these areas, but they may not be in other areas. What happens if you do not agree with the socialist policies, there is no room or opportunity to change it. Not through the courts and not through the legislatures. Only if the people have the power, as they do with liberalism and libertarianism, can we have the freedom to effect change in our community.
Think about what Sergio said — socialists have been betrayed by the neocons. I don’t think the neocons betrayed the socialists. His statement is an example of what can happen through socialism. Neocons are still socialist, it is just that Sergio does not agree with the central government theories. The neocons are still falling squarely within socialist agenda it is just that the majority of people who call themselves socialist are really libertarians, that have been lured in by the socialist mantra “in our system of government the people will all work towards the collective good”. What the socialists did not tell you Alsis is that whoever is in charge will say what is the collective good for you and will tell you that you have to work towards it for the good of all (sound familiar). Right now the collective good they are telling you is “democracy” in a cesspool that has never known democracy and will not ever know democracy. Another good example is France’s outlawing of religious headgear in school. That is a good socialist regime that believes the government should tell everyone how they should think and what they should do.
Just something to chew on before you jump into socialism with two feet.
You’re boring as all get-out, js.
Ah, excellent a political/economic conversation.
I think, jstevenson, that we differ in our definitions of some terms. First, socialism is no more a form of government than capitalism. It is an economic model, not a governmental model. Secondly, I think that your definition of socialism is actually the definition of communism. I believe that a better definition of modern, real world socialism is a system in government in which many, but not all, of the means of production and distribution of goods are owned or controlled by the government. Particularly those resources which are classified among the necessities of life like water, electricity and health care.
But, then again, perhaps my concept of socialism is incorrect and what I’m really for is a social safety net, universal healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income, a maximum income and stringent regulations by which businesses must abide. What would you call that?
The key difference, shown even in the definitions you are using, between Fascism & Socialism is that Fascism centralizes authority (which seems to be political/governmental). Socialism, being an economic system does no such thing.
I think we also differ on whether or not socialism exists in the economic model of the USA. I say that it does, just not aimed where most people think of when they think of the term. Socialism in the USA exists in the form of tax breaks and subsidies for large corporations and industries. You can hardly say that that is part of a “free market” capitalist system. I think that you are also making a giant leap in terms of social policy/laws out of your fear of the term “socialist”. There are a whole bunch of socialist yet democratic countries out there. A couple that come to mind are Israel and Sweden.
Socialist economic system does not equal dictatorial political system. But most Americans think it does and that is why the term “socialism” is the death knell of any politician in the USA.
I can’t disagree with you more about people who call themselves socialist really being libertarian. The libertarian philosophy scares the fuck out of me. No social security, privatization of everything (including roads, water, etc.) and the “sink or swim on your own” mentality truly horrifies me. And I think most people who identify themselves as socialist feel the same way. They’re pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to economic system theory.
France’s regime outlawing religious wear in schools has nothing to do with socialism and everyting to do with their constitution and presently constituted democratically elected government.
Can we agree to seperate economic theory from political theory? Or at least agree that a “socialist” form of government isn’t any more autocratic than the form of government we currently have?
No JS is not boring us all. None of you is boring, but all of you are bitching and none has come up with an actual working solution.
Socialism will not work in a capitalist society. Pack that idea up and store it with communism. We have been capitalists for too long in this country to try and get these corporations to assist in the Socialists goals and believe you me the assistance will be needed.
Also when trying to pick a new party with new goals you need to look at your population at large. There are a lot more “bible thumpers” than you realize. For example there may be a lot of people who don’t want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean they want gay marriage.
Just like there are a lot of people who are pro-choice they just want some restrictions.
Also there is a laundry list of parties that have come and gone. We (Americans) are now stuck with a party system. George Washington warned about this, but nobody listened.
Also how far left do you plan to go? I mean there’s left and then there’s left of everyone else.
And moderate Republicans? The best you’ll get is new Democrats, but they aren’t going as left as you think.
Let’s face it folks you are pretty much stuck with the two parties you have. All you can do is pick one and find a way to make it work.
“Let’s face it folks you are pretty much stuck with the two parties you have. All you can do is pick one and find a way to make it work.”
Ummm… thanks. That’s very encouraging. [rolleyes] Unfortunately, I don’t think that there is any way to make either of the parties “work” without the spur of a third party. Or several 3rd Parties. It’s been done before, it can be done again. If you don’t believe that, pursue reform your own way, and others who disagree will pursue in the way we are convinced can work.
Jake: what I’m really for is a social safety net, universal healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income, a maximum income and stringent regulations by which businesses must abide. What would you call that?
I’d call that a mixed economy. And it’s not the same thing as pure socialism, but it’s what I beleive in.
So you’re saying, what? That capitalism will be here forever more and that it is the alpha and the omega? Or that socialism can never have any influence on the US? Or…..?
I think that certainly capitalism will eventually disappear. It’s predicated on the need to grow forever, and I can’t see how that’s possible. What comes after that? I have no idea. Socialism has already exerted some tremendous influences on the USA. Think about Social Security, food stamps, the 40 hour work week, etc.
As to how far left? At least as far left as I am. Really, at least as far left as advocated for some of my issues.
Or are you saying that this discussion has no possibility of being constructive or educational?
Okay, I’ll go for that. A mixed economy.
No I’m not saying that the post is non constructive or educational. Personally I feel any strongly given comment is educational, although constructive is all about interpretation.
In true all societies eventually disappear in some way and come back in others, but I can’t see America going socialist.
It’s a people thing. Some folks aren’t as into sharing as I think you need to be in a socialist society.
Now a mixed economy. I like that idea and I think that’s the next step on the societal evolutionary chain when it comes to economics.
The question I have now then is: Is the type of economic society you are control the type of government you are?
I didn’t frame that last question right. What I mean was:
Does the type of economic society you are control the type of of government you are?
I understood the question, and it’s a good one. I believe that the answer is “no,” within certain limitations. Look at the different types of governments that exist with the same sort of basic economy. It really runs the gamut from totalitarian dictatorship to very representative democracy. But then again, totalitarian dictatorships don’t really seem to have very free market capitalism. But when looking at an economic system I think it is important to classify it properly rather than assuming the current label is correct.
Maybe the type of government you have limits the range of the types of economic systems you can have? Hmmm, I’ll have to think about this more.
Well put Jake. Alsis, come on, be nice please.
Jake, my wife is Norwegian by upbringing and I think that system works extremely well on the small scale. In practice, it is virtually impossible to have an economic theory where the system is controlled by the government and separate it from the political theory. Yes socialism is an economic theory, but it the theory is exercised by democratically elected officals or dictators.
I agree with you regarding socialist type safety net, I just think the federal government has been dismal in implementing such a safety net. Additionally, our economic problems stem from the fact that we are a socialist country masquarading as a capitalist country. Why do I say that? Norway and California as examples — Norway has high tariffs on imported goods so does Sweden, although not as high. Norway’s taxes, which are as high as the California and Federal tax combined, benefit all the citizens of Norway and then some. However, in California, a person cannot get good health care nor can we get a good education. In Norway their taxes allow them to take vacation for 6 weeks, California — vacation?
“. . . what I’m really for is a social safety net, universal healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income, a maximum income and stringent regulations by which businesses must abide. What would you call that?” I would call being a good citizen who believes people will support each other in the community. People are inherently good and will work to help others for the benefit of the whole society. Corporate greed and individualism has won in this country.
A good winning party would be one which champions individual liberty, personal responsibility, and advocates for the common good.
Just like the Republican and Democratic parties the Libertarian party has been negatively defined by their opponents. Libertarians, not the psycho-lunatic fringe which is a problem in all parties, believe that people are able to govern themselves they hold fast to liberal ideals, but think that the people are better at providing a social safety net than the government.
A good example of this is the “government cheese” program. Catholic charities provides a full meals to families for a fraction of the cost the government pays for a hunk of processed cheese. For the secularists out there, the United Way, Volunteers of America, and AmVets are able to provide the same services because Americans are inherently good people who care about each other. If we outlaw Corporations and make people personally responsible for their actions then I am sure we will make a better country. Now we are not teaching our children to be responsible for their actions. If their position is bad it is the governments fault if their position is good it is because they did it themselves — unless something goes wrong, then it is the other guy’s fault.
As for this: “Or at least agree that a “socialist” form of government isn’t any more autocratic than the form of government we currently have?” I think we have a socialist government now. It is masqurading as a capitalist one.
Alsis, again, please be nice. I am sorry if I offended you by my tolerance of other’s views.
Me, I’m looking forward to getting a chance to vote for Charles, drunk, pissed or sober.
i emerge from the lurk – forgive me…
Only if the people have the power, as they do with liberalism and libertarianism, can we have the freedom to effect change in our community
y’know, actually, almost half the country last night said they wanted a new president – fat lot that freedom to change things got them, huh?
in terms of the question of relationship between govts. & the economy…
governments are still restricted to the conceptual & organizational level of the nation state. corporations (the most advanced form of capitalist organization) have already transcended such political fictions. this is one of the reasons why elections are largely theatrical bullshit – no government on the face of this planet controls the largest multinational corporations or their legislative bodies (yes, influence… but no, not control) – our elections, ultimately, are meaningless to them (& in any case, they fund both major parties) – this is the reason why we must cease looking to governments or parties to protect us from such extralegal entities – no government will ever grant us freedom from such – they can’t even grant it to themselves
i am also with Jake in allowing a slightly larger definition of “socialism” than Mr. JStevenson (who could also be nicer) – there is, of course, anarchism, which has existed alongside & in opposition to marxist/state socialism, consistently advocating the achievement of socialist economics through decentralizing political power. and which also is largely founded upon the principle that human nature (given the right conditions) is pretty good natured (yes, liberalism’s not the only philosophy to have come up with this one).
in short… if the government is best that governs the least, then the bestest government of all would be… ?
btw, i’d love to hear all y’all who’ve been proposing various “dustbin” theories go explain it to someone who lives under the heel of our current economic order. explain to them how there’s no alternative to capitalism. that it’s just the way things are & they just need to learn to make the best of it.
there is no reason not to fight for the whole enchilada, yes? why should some get more?
jam, can you give a short summary of your view of anarchism? And maybe why that differs or the end result would be different than past experiments (like Spain). I don’t know my history nearly well enough to begin to comment on anarchism as a possibility.
I think you and I disagree on what the word “tolerance” means, js. If I could not “tolerate” you, I would not be here. At any rate, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to have me pretend to respect your opinions when I find them so fundamentally flawed that I wouldn’t even know where to begin dissecting them. Frankly, whenever someone starts to go on about “personal responsibility,” my eyes start to glaze over big time. It’s a meaningless phrase as espoused by conservatives and Libertarians.
Do you have any non-Libertarian-authored links that would demonstrate your claim that the United Way is more efficient at redistributing wealth than is the existing public social safety net ?
I think we have a socialist government now. It is masqurading as a capitalist one.
P.S.– I believe Nader, amongst others, has indeed referred to our current system as “corporate socialism.”
I really like Nader. Do you agree with Nader’s definition? If you do not agree with his characterization is it just because I agree with it and you have to disagree with my “fundamentally flawed” opinion? :-)
I am actually an active consumer advocate. One of my most aggressive efforts at Camp Pendleton and Miramar San Diego has finally borne some fruit. See Pinkofeministhellcat “Stealing from soldiers isn’t very supportive” July 22, 2004.
Additionally, Alsis, you would be surprised at what you and I agree on. Personal responsibility is not meaningless. Many people were telling Rummy to take personal responsibility for Abu Ghraib — was it meaningless then? Personal responsibility and accountability is not a meaningless phrase and I don’t think Conservatives use it at all nor do they practice personal responsibility for their actions.
As for non-libertarian links regarding redistribution of wealth and the United Way — of course not and I never would. Jake was talking about a social safety net not redistribution of wealth.
As for redistribution of wealth that is not a safety net it is a free lunch. Anyway, I think Capitalism has completely destroyed the inherent potential for good in us as Americans with respect to acknowledging the workers who made our success possible. We live in a “free-agent” society (feel free to dissect that if you like). Look at the CEO-Worker pay ratio. In Japan, the ratio was around 16:1 in 1995 here in the U.S. was well over 300:1. It has only gotten worse. That is a problem, but taxes won’t fix that it will just send jobs to lower labor cost countries.
We must stop this every man for himself mentality and it starts with “personal responsibility” for your fellow community members. Perhaps a little socialism will do us all some good. I just don’t want to become a “National Socialist”. Not good for my health.
Well, upon reflection, js, I guess I’m more in line with Amp’s “mixed” model/link, if that helps. :/
J, I just wrote about the difference between actual accountability and “personal responsibility”, a term that is predominantly used, at least lately, to attack women who cannot manage to destroy the patriarchy on their own.
This is an interesting discussion, and I don’t have much to add, but I will say this. Libertarians are often pretty intelligent people and I cannot for the life of me see why they stick to a pig-headed political ideaology. Nothing substantial gets done without government. Not one thing. People cannot get shit done without banding together, be it democratically or under some kind of authority, but community is the main thing.
Libertarians I meet are generally men who are conservative but still want to fuck around and don’t like the Christian right. Beyond that, I don’t see the point.
Amanda, I will check out your post. For the record, I am not conservative, but I like to fuck around. I am however staunchly dedicated to my awesome, trail-blazing wife. So she is the only one I fuck around with — around the kitchen, around the living room, around town, around wildlife, well you get the picture.
I think the libertarian principle does not work on the local level, but it does work well on the national level. “Nothing substantial gets done without government.” Is a true statement and that government should be localized not 3000 miles away.
Okay so now we have defined the types of governments there are and some of the types of economies.
Now the question is what political parties or do you even need political parties.
What kind of party accepts the things like socialistic capitalism.? (I like the sounds of that)
I have to say that as far as I can see the two parties we have in the system now offer the best options for the majority of the country. And I doubt that creating a third one is going to fix anything.
And I doubt that creating a third one is going to fix anything.
History disagrees with you. For example:
A brief history of Socialist Candidate/Firebrand Eugene Debs.
…Debs of course wanted a good vote count, but he saw his presidential campaigns also as educational and his real concern was to spread awareness of his vision of a better society, where justice, fraternity and equality would prevail. Debs ran in 1900,1904,1908,1912 and 1920, the last race from Atlanta Prison. The slogan on a campaign poster in 1920 read: “From Atlanta Prison to the Whitehouse, 1920,” and a popular campaign button showed Debs in prison garb, standing outside the prison gates, with the caption: “For President Convict No. 9653, Debs received nearly one million votes that year!…
…The measure of Debs and the Socialist Party is not in vote counts alone. A cartoon from the same 1912 campaign portrays the competition for progressive ideas by the parties, ideas such as voting rights for women, restrictions on child labor, and workers’ right to organize unions. It is highly doubtful if the Republicans and Democratics would have been giving at least lip service to such progressive ideas as early as 1912 had not the Socialists been popularizing these ideas since 1900. In the cartoon just mentioned, Debs is shown skinny dipping, and sees Teddy Roosevelt making off with his cloths. Another candidate is watching from behind bushes, minus his cloths, and says: “Don’t be too upset, Gene, he’s Already taken ours…”
:D
Hmmm, Jake Squid… Social Progressive? :)
Kelli, I’m glad that you feel that the parties we have are the parties we need, but I don’t have any idea why you think so.
Does either party offer anything like an effective plan to decrease infant mortality, child and adult poverty, lack of health care, declining incomes, lack of access to education, reform of the judicial system to end the grotesque growth in prisons and particularly in the imprisonment of black men? If you see how both parties offer the best solutions to these problems, please let me know.
And remember, I am a Democrat, registered and (starting next week) volunteering, but I don’t feel any need to believe that the parties we have are the best parties we could have. I just think that changing the party is more likely to be effective than replacing the party.
Frankly, I welcome and support anyone who wants to work to build the Greens or any other third party (for different reasons: if the Repubs lose the Washington governors race, it will be because of the Libertarian spoiler). I agree completely with the socialist and populist party models. A powerful third party is far more likely to force its nearest neighbor to horn in to steal back its voters. Even in the past 4 years we have seen this, with Nader’s 2000 run being partly responsible for Pelosi’s House leadership position, and for the 3 progressive presidential candidates and the fake progressive presidential candidate. Not enough, but beter by far than Gore or Bradley.
J, you wrote:
I think you are wrong. Higher wages send jobs over seas, but higher taxes don’t. High corporate taxes lead companies to start playing games on corporate nationality (although low tax rates haven’t stopped the game playing, while stricter rules on what is required for a company to be non-resident might). Individual taxes have to reach astronomic levels (say 90% top bracket) before people actually start playing games with nationality and residence (and taxing non-resident citizens would probably make it possible to push the top bracket even higher, since few would be willing to renounce citizenship).
I think that’s an overly simplistic view of the role of government, j. Again, it strikes me that intelligent people fall for simplistic policy ideas like local vs. national government. Both are valuable for different reasons.
I don’t think it’s simplistic I think it’s the emotional cord.
I think when it comes to public policy what we choose to defend or support comes down to an emotional feeling.
There is also the most direct factor. Which will effect me most directly.
Libertarians I meet are generally men who are conservative but still want to fuck around and don’t like the Christian right.
Also, a lot of them are in favor of legalizing pot.
Libertarians are utopians. Utopia can work in a small scale. On a national level, no f’in way.
Okay Charles I know some where in what you said we agree and we also disagree and for the life of me (maybe because it’s rainy and dreary where I am) I’m having a difficulty focusing.
Going back through history I can’t say that we have seen a truly effective 3rd party. There have been ones who have spoiled elections for one party or the other, but they haven’t really made impact that a long lasting party needs.
So when I say they are the best I don’t mean there isn’t remove for major improvements within those parties, but I think they are the best for reaching the American public as a whole.
Unless a third party can be created with a strong focus message that can’t be turned into something flighty by the other two parties Americans will stay with the 2 party system.
Now saying that these parties have changed much over the years and Zoe Miller is a perfect example of that.
He is a Democrat, but he’s a Democrat from the days before the 60’s. He is an example of what the Democrats used to be and can tell how far we have come.
His speech and the RNC was a call to the old days for Democrats and it’s really scary to think that the Democratic party used to be like that.
(this is where I go slightly non-diverse)The Republican party is full of old Southern Democrats. If you study the Democratic party of Woodrow Wilson and find where the Democrats finally made a change you will probably be able to figure out what needs to be done to correct the Democratic party.
There’s no correcting the Republicans they will just change parties if they don’t like the way things are going. Talk about your Flip Flop
Charles: I think we are both right. Each pays it’s part in destruction of the employment base. It is true that Corporations will probably find another residence with higher taxes. Of course higher wages also send jobs overseas. Wages send certain jobs overseas. Taxes will send the rest. I used to say wages send manufacturing jobs overseas, but now I hear GM is outsourcing lawyers, YIKES!
When you say that higher taxes will make corporations seek non-residency you are correct. High wages begin the process, but we still maintain corporate headquarters here in the U.S. Those headquarters provide 1,000’s of jobs for American white-collar workers. Once those companies (of course I speak of MNC’s) are taxed too high they will move to lower taxing jurisdictions and take their HR/Comptroller/Operations management departments with them.
Amanda: Simplicity is a handicap of the blogsphere. Four hours and a hooka would do my theory of local government control more justice. I agree that the national government is necessary to ensure we maintain national unity, speak to other countries with one voice, facilitate movement between the states, and mediate disputes that arise between the states.
Do you think the federal government should be in the business of legislating morality? That becomes a problem because this country is too big to speak with one voice. The differences in this country are best epitomized in the difference between Austin and Dallas or El Paso. I think the people of Austin are better equipped to speak for the people of Austin than D.C. But D.C. is better equipped to speak for America than the people of Austin. I know that is simplistic, but that model can fit into any specific scenario. For instance the war in Iraq. It is better for Washington to speak on that issue with input from the reps of each state than each state. Marriage on the other hand it is better for each state to speak on that than Washington. If there is a dispute between the States, (Loving, criminalization of marriage — Dredd Scott, what is a person) then Washington is there to moderate. The Constitution is a great document and it seems like the drafters thought of everything.
If GM is outsourcing lawyers, it would explain some of the bozos I have had to deal with. However, I think it unlikely–lawyers are careful to maintain a cartel here.
Okay, Kelli. 3rd Parties have never done anything of signifigance in this country because… you say so. Got it.
you know alsis38 if you don’t like my opinions you don’t have to comment. especially if you have nothing constructive to add.
Going back through history I can’t say that we have seen a truly effective 3rd party. There have been ones who have spoiled elections for one party or the other, but they haven’t really made impact that a long lasting party needs.
I think it really depends on what you mean by “effective.” It’s difficult to argue that any 3rd party has had significant electoral success. But you certainly can argue that 3rd parties have raised issues or ideas that the major parties have then picked up. The Prohibition Party was shut out of elections, but their big issue, outlawing alcohol, was eventually (albeit temporarily) enshrined in the Constitution. The National Women’s Party didn’t have any illusions that they were going to win elections, but they did put pressure on the major parties to commit to women’s suffrage. There is a history of third parties scaring major parties into adopting their positions, precisely because of the fear of spoiling. The problem is that you have to balance the potential benefit with the possibility that you really might spoil. There have been instances in which third parties have caused their worst enemies to get elected.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the drafters thought of everything.
I think that if they knew that our government would be trying to legislate morality (that doesn’t harm others) they would have just stuck it out with England.
I often wonder what they would think about their great experiment if they had known what we know now.
Kelli, You stated an opinion and I tried, in good faith, to offer historic evidence that you could– just maybe– be wrong. You had no response but to restate your original opinion again, with no additional point. Don’t expect me to respect your opinion all that much if that’s your idea of debate and discussion.
I think history books, mainstream middle and high school ones anyway, tend to downplay the importance of 3rd Parties in U.S. History. I don’t think I even heard of Debs’ name until I took Labor Studies in college. History, as they say, is largely written by winners.
Mythago: I said GM it was actually GE. http://www.blogsource.org/blog/2004/10/outsourcing_law.html
Kelli: “legislate morality (that doesn’t harm others). . [?]”
I am sorry Kelli, but legislating morality will always hurt someone. The morals of the majority will cause consternation with the minority. Legislating the morals of the minority will harm others if only by mental distress.
Yes Sally, you are right there have been issues that Third Parties have brought to the forefront. I was talking about them as a factor in becoming a party that would be around longer than their issues.
To me for a new political party to be effective they would have to stay around past whatever their initial issue was and create more issues. Something to keep the other two parties moving forward.
If there is a flaw in the two party system is that the competitiveness isn’t enough. It is easy for either party to get lacksadasical. And if the truth be told they both have.
The Democrats really have not found a message and Lord knows the Republicans have given them many chances.
And that damn “God, Guns and Gays” thing they’ve got going in the Republican Party has been around since Reagan. I still don’t know what that hasn’t gotten old for them.
When I said “that doesn’t harm others” I meant like making it illegal to Kill someone.
Alas, a blog for post election rants! Its true democracy works-against us!
8 years forward-4 years back.
I want Clinton back. Who cares if he’s a freak.
Unfortunately the only way to get Bill back is to have the 22nd amendment repealed and that would allow Mr C+ a chance to run again.
That leads me to a question: Do you think GW ran in the first place to get back at the Democrats because they booted his father out of office? I mean he always seems to be fighting for his father.
Blecch. Leave Clinton where he is. He’s done the Democrats and the rest of us enough damage as it is.
We cant get Mr. C back, but what about Mrs. C?
Pingback: Log: David Chess
Pingback: HungryBlues
Pingback: Bibi's box