This Election Could Transform the Country, the GOP, and Capitalism

[CrisisPapers]

| Bernard Weiner |

As I write this, things are looking good for an Obama victory, perhaps one of huge proportions. But well aware of the GOP's history of massive voter-suppression and voter intimidation (examples of which are in the news each day**), and the below-the-radar vote-counting manipulations, and quite cognizant of the dark strain of racism in American society, I'm not assuming the election's in the bag.

A landslide Obama turnout may not be enough. It may take an electoral victory of tsunami proportions to counter the Rove-ian dirty tricks operations, which is why so many of us are heading toward swing states this week to help make that happen.

So as the campaigns enter their final week, I thought I'd take a longer view of the political landscape and see what the post-Inauguration future might look like. Short version: Were Obama to emerge victorious, this election could well be transformative in a number of areas beyond the obvious one of celebrating America's rendezvous with history.

NEVER-CEASING GOP CAMPAIGN

Republican leaders are quite aware of this transformative possibility and will do everything between now and next Tuesday to make sure that doesn't happen. But if Obama were to win, even with a blow-out victory, one can safely predict that a President Obama would enjoy no traditional "honeymoon" in his first months in office. The HardRightists, the same ones who have been fighting Obama so viciously and disgracefully during the campaign, are not about to call it quits after November.

Palin got their blood boiling, their prejudices affirmed, their extremism sanctioned. The HardRightists on their way out will not take kindly to being separated from the levers and organ$ of power. They will do everything to ensure that a President Obama will face unwavering attacks from his first day in office. No surrender, no making nice, no civil discourse. This likelihood will be even worse if the Republicans hold on to enough Senate seats to continue filibustering Democratic proposals.

These rightwing forces more or less did the same thing to Bill Clinton right after he assumed the presidency in 1992. From day one, they invented supposed "scandals" one right after the other to upset his momentum, distract him from governance, hope some of the mud would stick; eventually, they even went so far as to get him impeached, thus wrecking any movement of his centrist-liberal agenda throughout much of Clinton's second term. Luckily, the American people widely agreed that the Republicans went way too far in hounding Clinton -- that lying about sex did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses -- and successfully pressured the Senate not to convict.

HOW REPUBLICAN PARTY COULD SPLIT

It's obvious that if the Republicans are swept badly in both the presidential contest and in the Senate and House next week, there will be major soul-searching within the party, perhaps even a split into two openly warring camps rather than the relatively covert civil war currently being waged, as fingers of blame are being pointed over their current chaotic campaign. It will be the night of the long knives as the two sides try to control the future of the Republican Party.

One camp, more ideological at heart (with Sarah Palin, if she's not indicted in Alaska, perhaps playing a key role), will argue that the Republicans lost because they "weren't conservative enough," that they sold out the ideological "purity" of the party by taking wishy-washy stands instead of proudly championing more solidly "conservative" causes. In essence, Palin staffers are starting to propound this case and, at least according to key McCain staffers, who have referred to Palin as a "diva" who is shedding her McCain minders and going "rogue," she can be expected to strike out even more on her own along these extreme lines. You betcha.

The other camp, the more pragmatic-realist side (with perhaps a key role played by Colin Powell), will argue that the voters are telling the GOP loudly and clearly that Rove's narrow, base-oriented political strategy doesn't work anymore. The Republicans, they will say, blew their opportunity by going too far to the right and, in so doing, took the country into an unwinnable war, wrecked the economy and risked destroying the party. An obtuse McCain, full of himself and his biography, made no changes from that base-only strategy. To regain power, these traditional conservative critics might argue, the GOP has to distance itself from the extremists and neo-cons, jettison the smear-politics, and move closer to the Republican Party's moderate locus.

In this scenario, the Democrats would rule from the center-left, and the Republicans, to be competitive, would have to offer a more center-right agenda, resting on a conservative ideology but made more palatable to an American citizenry that eschews extremism and hovers mostly around the middle.

It's not likely but it is possible that the two competing Republican wings will be unable to find a way of sharing power, the result being two distinct political parties, perhaps with the extreme rightwingers joining forces with all sorts of fringe parties and groups.

HOW THE DEMOCRATS COULD SPLIT

If Obama carries his party to victory, especially so if the Democrats sweep both the House and Senate, the new president might well be able to pass significant changes in laws from the CheneyBush years, dealing with tax-reform, education and health care, as well as restoring respect for Constitutional protections and starting the withdrawal from Iraq, etc.

But if Obama were to be aced out of the presidency due to clear illegalities and outright theft of the election -- being the third Democrat to be so denied under suspicious circumstances in just a few years -- the despair and anger unleashed would be incalculable. Talk about "revolution" and/or leaving the country might suddenly become very real for many. This would especially be the case if the "losing" candidate and the Dems didn't put up a fight in the courts for an honest, transparent recount in states where the evidence of electoral fraud is widespread.

Internally, there would be major blood-letting and transformation of the Democratic Party. As with the Republicans, the Dems might well carry out a political civil war between two opposing camps.

One can well imagine that the more centrist/party establishment camp would think long and hard before nominating another African-American as its standard-bearer. They would look for a plain vanilla, non-controversial candidate, one willing to compromise principles and imitate what the successful Republicans do. GOP lite, in other words.

The more progressive wing of the party might well argue that the party "lost" because it moved away from its traditional Democratic values and principles in a desire to make itself more palatable to Independents and wayward Republicans. In other words, because it "wasn't liberal enough."

As speculated above with regard to the Republicans, it's possible but not likely that the fractured Democratic Party could split into two openly warring political entities, with the progressives, for example, attempting to make an alliance with the Greens and Naderites and disaffected moderate Republicans under a new party banner.

THE APPEARANCE OF SEMI-"SOCIALISM"

But regardless of who is installed in the White House in January, one thing is clear: American capitalism's financial and social/political system, which has undergone enormous shocks in the past few months, may never revert back to the status quo ante.

The clearest signs of this transformative shift:

1. George W. Bush and Henry Paulson, true believers in unregulated free-market capitalism, overnight became semi-"socialist" in behavior. Reality made it necessary for them to compromise their free-market ideology and partially nationalize banks and giant financial institutions. A monumental catastrophe does that to you. You can't return to the conservative shibboleths that clearly had failed.

2. Alan Greenspan, the grand doyen behind the American economy for nearly four decades, admitted in public testimony before Congress that the laissez-faire deregulation philosophy that has guided his life is badly flawed. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank said the current economic meltdown in the U.S., which has now spread its major recession all over the globe, rested on faulty "models." He was shocked, shocked!, to learn this. We're supposed to believe that the possibility of widespread failure of those greed-at-any-price models never occurred to him. Right.

Those "models," which were pushed by far-right conservative thinkers like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, derived from an ideological belief that a free market always corrects its excesses, thus keeping the dread hand of government off the financial tiller. Now, Greenspan admits, there appears to be a necessary role for government regulation when banks and other financial institutions don't act in their own self-interest. It's still "SELF-interest," you see, since the Randian conservatives, of which Greenspan is one, refuse to recognize the concept of a "PUBLIC interest."

REGULATION NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL

Given the complexities associated with a global economy, and the unsupervised power of financial entities to do harm to themselves and others, in a sense it doesn't really matter whether it's McCain or Obama in the Oval Office. Both would have to concern themselves with righting the ship of state and the financial institutions that keep it stable and functioning. Doing so requires government oversight and regulation of the giant corporate and financial behemoths. In short, America will become, to a greater or lesser degree -- with enough greed-loopholes built into the new system to satisfy the Wall Street elites -- a distinctly American variant of the "social democracies" in Europe.

Even McCain now realizes the necessity for action in this direction; Obama would be more amenable to the kind of regulatory change that will be required, and might even borrow other ideas and policies from FDR's Great Depression/"New Deal" era in the 1930s, such as government-sponsored jobs programs that would quickly pump money back into the economy from the bottom up.

What's taking place right before our eyes is a seismic shift of tectonic economic plates in America, with all sorts of transformative implications to society, the economy, the political parties themselves. We are in for mighty interesting times in the decades ahead.

THE ATTACK ON SYRIA

These times have become all the more interesting because, as I write this, the CheneyBush Administration has attacked yet another country: It sent four helicopters, two of them full of special forces commandoes -- that is to say, U.S. troops on the ground -- to blast a construction sight in Syria ten miles from the Iraq border. The action is less surprising than the timing, a week before a presidential election.

I think one has to interpret the action in light of that timing as possibly a way to change the headlines and focus as McCain's chances grow slimmer, a way to highlight the "national security" issue that supposedly helps McCain, a way to make sure a President Obama would have even more foreign-policy messes to deal with. Maybe all three at once. No doubt, more will be revealed in the coming days. These guys are desperate and will try anything.

-- BW

**Hundreds of thousands, maybe several million, of Democratic-leaning voters have been and are being purged from voting rolls; Bush has ordered the DoJ to start a "voter-fraud" investigation in Ohio, even in the face of a Supreme Court ruling ordering regular voting protocols to proceed for the 200,000 citizens involved; there are numerous cases of "vote-flipping" in various states on touch-screen voting machines; there are all kinds of voter-intimidation tactics being rolled out in various states, including attempts to keep college students from voting; and one can anticipate what happened in 2004, when just a few days before the voting, the Rove forces launched a massive "robocall" operation around the country supposedly coming from Dem campaigns, re-calling again and again at all hours of the day and night, in order to annoy and anger voters enough that they might decide not to vote Democratic. "Grand Theft Robo."

[defendandprotect]

1. We need to REGULATE and REFORM capitalism out of existence . . . fast --- !!!

Nationalize our oil industry, for one --

Replace tariffs --- end the freewheeling trade agreements ---

[BanTheGOP]

4. I've been advocating this since 2000...

...when Bush stole the election the first time. I surmised that Bush would enact a terrible tax policy during the first republican caused dot com bust which enriched his cronies at Enron, and with the 9/11 tragedy, firmly entrenched his destructive influence. Thank Gaia that we will be finally driving the nails into the coffin of capitalism, and bury it not just into the ground but into the deepest trenches of the ocean. As a minimum...

1. Nationalize ALL industries that deal with energy, transportation, and chemicals.
2. In fact, nationalize ALL corporations over 500 employees
3. Eliminate the traditional republicanized corporate boards that advocate profit before employee welfare, environmental considerations, and consumer safety, and replace them with democratic, progressive citizen boards that promote an organization that promotes just wages for employees, does not destroy the environment, and ensure the consumer is not screwed by shoddy product.
4. On the same lines, eliminate ALL free trade agreements with ALL other countries. This will ensure that the other countries develop their own, progressive industry that maintains fairness for their workers and protects the environment.
5. Immediately eliminate 25% of defense spending, instead allotting it to minority-run businesses who promote products to countries who will now be our friends once we eliminate the republican menace.

This is just for starters. We need to ensure that NO person profits more than 10 million dollars a year; they should be taxed 100%. In addition, anyone who makes over 1 million dollars a year needs to be taxed at LEAST a 70% rate; a more just rate would be 85%. Anyone making 75,000 dollars or more up to a million should be taxed a MINIMUM of 50%. Finally, anyone making over 60,000 per year should be taxed at a MINIMUM of 40%. Anyone making less will be taxed the usual rates. Since the vast majority of people make less than 60,000 dollars a year, they won't see any changes in the tax code, BUT we will now have a veritable influx of money to finance social projects that will help the neediest in our society.

The bottom line...we need to DESTROY capitalism, as it is the ONLY THING that keeps the republican party afloat...and the republican party is NOT...repeat, NOT!!...a political organization. It is, in fact, by any DECENT, JUST definition, a ROGUE, CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, and it's officers need to be TREATED as such, and it's ability to raise money needs to be utterly destroyed. Finally, we need to criminalize the entire concept of the republican party and all its wretched ideals.

[DirtyJersey]

5. I'm an ex-Republican

I switched over because of the hard-right stance that the party adopted. If the Democrats go to a hard-left agenda like the one you propose, I'll be right back out the door, and I'm not the only one.

[defendandprotect]

6. You were wrong to begin with and you'd be wrong again . . . but

that's your prerogative --

Republican party has supported welfare for the rich and free enterprise for the poor --

it's patriarchy and organized religions to support it wrapped up in capitalism.

Capitalism -- unregulated --- is merely organized crime swe have witnessed regularly

since de-regulation -- and before the New Deal.

Good luck --

[DirtyJersey]

8. Regulation vs. destruction

I absolutely agree that the Republicans have been hypocritical promoting welfare for the rich, and it's among the reasons I left the party. I also agree that capitalism should be regulated, and that "market fundamentalist" policies are bad for us as a nation, but that's a far cry from "destroying capitalism" as you've proposed.

[defendandprotect]

14. Why are you trying to protect a system that has constantly failed . .?

-- and is based on exploitation?

Is it fear of trying something different ---

something with a name you fear -- "socialism" . . . democratic socialism?

The point is, capitalism has been around 500 years --- 500 years of exploitive profit making,

thru genocide and slavery -- thru exploitation of women and all labor.

The world didn't begin 500 years ago -- capitalism succeeded feudalism.

We need to develop a system which is socially responsible and incorporates economic democracy ---

then call it whatever you want --- call it "boom, boom economics" -- call it "blessed economics" --

just don't fear labels.

Btw, it's not just Republicans promoting welfare for the rich -- it was the basis of the

founders support for the elites in land distribution, control of natural resources, etal.

What the hell are a few private families doing controlling our national oil resources?

Or gas -- or any other natural resource???

Again -- what's so precious about capitalism?

It's a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill System" intended to redistribute a nation's wealth and

resources from the many to the few --- and it's been highly successful at doing just that--!!!

[Two Americas]

27. destruction

Destruction is what we have now.

Capitalism means giving capital the higher consideration than Labor. And "capital" and "labor" are not abtract concepts, but rather classes of people - human beings. Capitalism represents the best interests of the wealthy and powerful few and attaches freedom and power to wealth, makes freedom contingent upon wealth. Labor represents those who must work for a living or starve.

This is not some radical or dangerous idea. I give you Abraham Lincoln on the subject:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

That is from Lincoln's first annual message to Congress, and can be found in other speeches of his, and here is the context for that quote:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

[defendandprotect]

28. Thank you . . . love reading Lincoln . . .

The Founders, of course, also expressed great fears of capital --

Seems to me there's always been an effort to try to link capitalism with democracy --

and if we really had a free press that illusion would quickly be washed from the minds of

the public. Amazing how little reality is discussed for the public to review --

nationalizing oil, electric cars, FED ....

[Two Americas]

30. yes

The American Revolution was not against the monarchy, it was against the British Crown corporations which dominated the colonies. Eliminate that from the narrative, and the DOI, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are stripped of their historical context and their meaning. In many ways the Revolution was betrayed, and the power and domination of the Crown corporations was replaced by an aristocracy of monied and propertied interests, but that does not change the fact that it was the corporations the people were resisting.

Lincoln saw that the battle against the slave power, and the Revolution, were variants on the age old battle of the working people against the entrenched interests wealthy and powerful few and the dominance of capital over labor. At a speech to striking workers in New England he compared workers organizing to slaves seeking freedom, proposing a coalition based on common interests that we have yet to fully achieve.

[defendandprotect]

31. Sadly great violence comes from these wealthy/powerful few who

want to dominate at all costs --

Possession by theft --- the dollar bill, land or official office --

And now for a long time they've pretty much been controlling a huge population thru

propaganda.

[Two Americas]

7. no

On issues of power and economics, the public is and has consistently been "far left" even when compared to the most liberal Democratic party politicians.

We are not going to be driven by these fear campaigns anymore. You are free to rejoin the Republican party, but for every person such as yourself who does that there will be 10 "Reagan Democrats" returning to the party of FDR, JFK, and RFK.

The entire country is trending Democratic now, and the party will be moving to "the left." You are not that important, and the days of driving people through fear campaigns away from supporting economic justice and equality are over. It is becoming a groundswell and you are swimming against the tide of history.

We won't be frightened and intimidated anymore. Go back to the Republicans if you like and I wish you the best.

[DirtyJersey]

9. I was an old school, moderate/liberal, Northeastern Republican.

Bill Clinton was the first Democrat I ever voted for, and I've remained there since, including being an enthusiastic Obama supporter this year. I've been pleased with most of the policies Democrats have advocated over the past couple decades, whereas I've been very disenchanted with the Republicans ever since the takeover of the Reagan wing. The policies outlined by the poster I responded to were very different from the types of things Obama and the Democratic Party have been talking about, and I was commenting that if they did adopt such an agenda (and I'm reasonably sure that they won't), they would lose my vote. I know I'm not alone because if you look at my home state of New Jersey, as well as a lot of other states in this area (Connecticut, Vermont, Delaware, etc.), they all went from Republican-leaning swing states to solid Democrat states. This is also true of states such as Illinois and California. This is because large swaths of moderate and liberal Republicans switched and became Democrats. I have no intention of rejoining the Republicans unless they radically alter their agenda, so if it left the Democrats it would be to become an independent.

[Two Americas]

10. not so

It is the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who are coming home. That was clear from analyzing the midterms, and I would point to Macomb county Michigan to support this, nationally cited as the quintessential example of the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon, which moved strongly into the Democratic column '06.

Those who are "socially liberal and economically conservative" are moving away from the Republicans in this cycle, but that is not the long term strength nor future hope of the party. For every one of those people we might lose, there are ten or more Reagan Democrats we will pick up.

70% or more of the general public supports very left wing positions on all matters of power and economics, and they will be heard and have had no representation. The hair-splitting and absurd partisanship over the "cultural war" issues as a determining factor for which party people support is dead. The right wingers invents that game, it has always been to their advantage, and it is collapsing now into a heap of smoldering wreckage

What we can look forward to is people like you moving into the Republican party and returning them to sanity. But we cannot continue to move the Democratic party to the right to gain the support of the demographic you represent while continuing to ignore the interests and needs of the poor and the workers. Not gonna happen.

[DirtyJersey]

11. I don't think you understand where I'm coming from

I didn't just leave the Republicans over social issues - I left them over economic issues too. I'm in favor of consumer protection laws, a progressive tax system, labor union protections, environmental regulations, etc. In other words, a center-left agenda like the one the Democrats have been espousing the past couple decades. This is a far cry from "destroying capitalism" as the post I originally responded to was calling for.

Also, "Reagan Democrats" is just a stupid, annoying political buzzword. Look at the elections from 1992 onward versus the ones before it; there were a number of "Clinton Republicans", most of whom have stayed in the Democratic Party, but they never received the attention of the "Reagan Democrats". Ironically, Reagan is the guy that had me starting to look for the exit, and his union-busting played one of many roles in that.

[Two Americas]

12. ok

I see.

"Reagan Democrats" is of course a stupid buzzword. It is not mine. However, the swing by blue collar workers to the Republicans in the 80's and their swing back to the Democrats is significant.

If you are "in favor of consumer protection laws, a progressive tax system, labor union protections, environmental regulations, etc." then you should know that this will never happen without the people and ideas you are objecting to. Politics is an ongoing negotiation. You are describing the end result of the negotiations, but we can't start with our "settle for" position. That means that some of us will continue to push to the left, even if that means losing you.

[defendandprotect]

19. Again . . . what so desperately frightens you about democratic socialism . . .

or any other socially responsible economic system based on economic democracy ---

called by any name you wish?

And what in heck has kept you with the Repugs so long --- didn't you notice anything?

PS: Capitalism, as usual, has "destroyed" itself --- again!

[defendandprotect]

15. Democrats have always greatly outnumbered Republicans in every area ---

The GOP propaganda/lies of the last decades --- followed by computer/electronic voting

scams and "October Surprises" -- etal have confused the public; including the loss of

any kind of informative press.

That's all that's happened ---

Republicans/neo-cons did not stage a revolution ....

electronic voting steals put them in office.

There is no way that the GOP has any legitimacy -- it's all been theft.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. I don't think there is any chance of the "hard left" getting in anywhere,

with blanket nationalisation of large industries, but real Socialist governments everywhere, yes. In other words, all but point 2 of defendandprotect's post, above. Although it's not something any of the politicians will be envisaging or wanting at this point - apart from Dennis and Bernie.

Incidentally, when the elections become honest and lawful again, your votes are unlikely to be needed.

[defendandprotect]

29. If you are correct, it is only because of the unwarranted power of the corporate/elites --

monopoly corporations should be dismantled --

and corporations should be barred from any participation whatsoever in our elections --

When the public understands its stake in the nation's wealth and resources --- and who

actually controls them -- capitalistic illusions will fall.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. I think you're a bit naive about a thorough-going Communism. You see, contrary

to the claims of the far right, you can legislate a communal spirit and human decency to a degree, although not entirely by any means. In fact, Communism, in a post-Christian context - I think in China it was a great blessing to the vast majority of the people - is a recipe for the strongest and most durable consolidation of totalitarian power at the top, as our recent history attests.

Nor is it at all necessary for everyone to receive the same level of income. The worldly-wise who have always controlled this word and will continue to, are by nature, less spiritual than manual workers, and accordingly need more money. The chap in the betting shop who thinks you can't go wrong betting on the favourite almost certainly thinks he'd love to win the pools or win a fortne on a big accumulator, but the fact is, if money really did mean that much to him, he would save his money and find some way to increase it. Many others who are very wise, don't even want a fortune; or it is very low on their list of priorities.

The relatively limited longevity of the despotism/kleptocracy of the sorry, purblind jackanapes of the far right right is painful enough - in may significant ways, much more so. We must thank God on bended knees that those He wishes to destroy, he first makes mad. As a result you have the prospect in the US of a wonderful new beginning, which will also renew and give impetus to the Old World's social democracy/Socialism, which was runnning down under the fatally pernicious influence of the far right and its endless lies.

But, as I said, I agree with every other one of your points.

[defendandprotect]

33. The history of the New Deal -- it's success until recently dismantled --

suggests otherwise ...

Also keep in mind that Democratic Platform which JFK ran on in '60 called for
NATIONALIZING oil industry -- that was part of impetus for the coup.
FDR considered it but was persuaded by LBJ not to --


How much do you think the public likes monopoly control of our oil industry after
last years, their huge profits -- ??
And many still don't even yet fully understand connection between burning fossil fuels
and the devastating Global Warming it's created--!!

It is Dennis & Bernie who deal with these realities ...

Capitalists/corporatists are really smart about really stupid things --

And ... Why should corporations be running our elections--?


What "communism" ...??
It's over -- in fact never existed, except as J. Edgar Hoover rightly always
called it "TOTALITARIAN Communism."

And as far as totalitarian systems .. considering our own Empire
I think capitaslism/corporatism wins for longevity -- 500 years+ --
including theft of a continent, genocide, slavery, oppression of the majority gender.

And who, but you suggested this .... ??
Nor is it at all necessary for everyone to receive the same level of income.

Agree .. most of us just want to live our lives in peace.

We can only conclude something wrong with those who seek to dominate ...

The relatively limited longevity of the despotism/kleptocracy of the sorry, purblind jackanapes of the far right right is painful enough - in may significant ways, much more so. We must thank God on bended knees that those He wishes to destroy, he first makes mad. As a result you have the prospect in the US of a wonderful new beginning, which will also renew and give impetus to the Old World's social democracy/Socialism, which was runnning down under the fatally pernicious influence of the far right and its endless lies.

But, as I said, I agree with every other one of your points.

And true unregulated capitalism cannot survive but briefly for it is theft ...
For capitalism to survive it requires regulation ... that's how FDR saved it---!!

It is difficult to rejoice in "new beginngs" which come at expense of such suffering,
pain, loss of life... and fatal damage to the planet. Rather, it is illusion --!!

[AdHocSolver]

34. The problem is not capitalism, but "corporatism" or "corporatocracy".

The Soviet Union nationalized their industries and it did the people not one bit of good.

The problem in the U.S. today, as it is in any colonial empire whether Rome, Spanish, Portuguese, German, or Soviet, is too much concentration of power.

If you nationalize all of the industries, you will wind up with the same concentration of power, you will merely change the power elite who control the country. Eventually, you will wind up with everything controlled for the profit of a few "leaders", just as in the Soviet Union.

Instead of nationalizing industries, which will leave power concentrated in the hands of a few, a different few, but a concentration of power nonetheless, what we need to do is break up the giant corporations to create real "competition" in the economy, with the government acting as umpire and overseer to protect the public interest.

What we witnessed in the recent bailouts was a form of nationalizing of the financial sector in which a cabal of crooks in power used taxpayer funds to enable one group of corporate crooks to buy up the competition to create what amounts to a government sanctioned monopoly.

Nationalization won't help. The government has to be an independent umpire setting up and enforcing the rules of fair play and watching out to protect the public interest. The problems we have had the past twenty eight years is the government siding with the corporate crooks against the people. Nationalization per se won't change that, if the rules aren't changed and competent, fair-minded people aren't put in power to enforce them.

Universal health care, changing the trade agreements like NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and changing the organization of the Federal Reserve, changing the tax laws to prevent corporations from evading taxes, and change the laws so that corporations are always treated as business entities which do NOT have the same status as individuals under the Bill of Rights. These are solutions that will help the U.S. become a better country.

[defendandprotect]

2. It would also be nice to permanently bury the GOP ---

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. Make it the Gone Old Party, or the DGOP: Done Gone Old Party, or GFEOP: Gone For Ever Old Party.

[Two Americas]

13. doesn't matter

The Republicans act onbehalf of their wealthy and powerful clients, who do not need the Republican party. They are merely using it, and will use something else when it is no longer an effective tool.

[defendandprotect]

16. True . . . the power here has also been largely in political violence . . .

assassination and vote steals ---

That's been the power behind the corruption that has occurred in America ---


and that's included the power to destroy any bit of a "free press" we had left after

the cover up of the coup on JFK, which should more correctly be understood as the 1963

coup on the American government --- !!!

[Two Americas]

17. whatever it takes

The program is this - move all wealth out of the control of the people and into the hands of the few. Whatever it takes to do that they will do. The wealthy and powerful few do not care about the Republican party, let alone the supposed "issues" the Republicans run on. There is no secret cabal, grand plan, or organized conspiracy either. Nor is there any "ideology" or "philosophy" involved. They can bribe and control politicians with a "D" after their name just as easily as they can those with an "R" after their name, or they can render the entire electoral process irrelevant. Come to think of it, they are pretty well along now in doing just those things. Who are "they?" The few who happen to control most of the wealth and income in the country - and therefore all of the power - and who seek to keep it that way.

Humans have been here before, and the battle against the tendency for the few to control everything while impoverishing the other 99% has been going on forever. It is our turn to take up the battle, that is all.

Hope I am not getting too far left purist radical communist socialist fringe on you here.

[defendandprotect]

18. I agree with you . . . except ---

I think we have to acknowledge the political violence ---

none of this could have been done without it --

Also, especially agree that this has largely involved Dems as well as Repugs --

Hope I am not getting too far left purist radical communist socialist fringe on you here.

I don't think you could get "too far left" for me . . .


:evilgrin:

[Two Americas]

21. violence

Violence is only needed by the authorities when there is resistance. There are worse things than peace - slavery and submission. There is no resistance to speak of in this country to the rule by the wealthy and powerful few. Hence, things are relatively "peaceful," although that is an illusion because only a relative few are immune from the daily violence against the working people and none of us are immune from the threat of violence by the authorities. People in the activist community are largely drawn from among those who are relatively comfortable and immune to the worst aspects of a predatory and violent system. That is why the "progressives" and modern "liberals" have become the most conservative segment of the population.

We are all more or less in voluntary compliance and submission for the most part. I believe that the general public is ready to resist, but people in the activist community at all levels are blocking that. They tend to be more successful and upscale, and have something to lose so they still look for an easy way out.

Placing our hopes solely or primarily in a corrupted and compromised electoral system and a "free market" economy driven by the financial industry represents submission and compliance. Being opposed to those is not to be opposed to "America" nor to "the government." It is opposition to the rule by the few and the corrupting and compromising of the government. Challenging that "work within the system" approach so loved by the activists usually elicits the charge that one is "advocating violent revolution," but that is false. The full range of possible political actions can be found between those two polls - submission to the system as we have now and the unfortunate and inevitable result of doing that - social upheaval and escalating violence. Radical and left wing politics do not lead to extreme and violent outcomes, they prevent them.

By the way, it is the threat of violence that keeps people in line more so than actual violence.

[defendandprotect]

22. I'm talking about POLITICAL violence . . . assassinations . . . coups . . .

which have occurred openly in America over the past 45+ years --
the record of genocide, slavery and female oppression before that is no
better. I'm just discussing overt acts understood as coups by the public.
The slaughter of liberal leadership during the 1960's.
I'd also include others -- Paul Wellstone, for instance.

Yes, police brutality does count and is political, but only as directed
by the elites in control. Prison population/racist police brutality
across the nation - phoney Drug War.

There has been great resistance which is why the Congress has been so
thoroughly bought out and why it was necessary to buy out the press and
put it totally under corporate control.

By the way, it is the threat of violence that keeps people in line more so than actual violence.

That's what they say the main purpose of torture is . . . to intimidate
others.


I'd also mention, if you're not familiar with it the idea that we probably
haven't had honest elections since the coup on JFK -- very shortly thereafter
the big computer counters used by media came on line -- and gradually the
electronic voting machines at local levels.

During the late 1960's, two Florida reporters began investigating
the computer breakdowns and questionable results -

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[Two Americas]

23. yes I see

Sorry for going off on a tangent. I see what you are saying now.

Hey, defendandprotect, speaking of assassinations, here is a really interesting theory. I don't get credit for it, it came from Loren Bliss. He said to me that the thing the rulers fear is not any particular ideology, but rather broader participation in politics by the public. That is something that great leaders can cause, aside from what their politics and ideology may be. JFK, RFK, MLK brought more people into political awareness and participation, and that is why they were a threat. More recently, Dean was doing the same thing, and was politically assassinated with the whole "scream" nonsense cooked up by the MSM. Now, we have Obama bringing more people into politics, for whatever else he may do. It is not any particular leader that is a threat to the rulers, it is the people who are the threat. No matter what politics a leader has, if he or she brings more people into the process they become dangerous to the ruling class.

Since then I have realized that broader participation in politics by the public and left wing politics are really one and the same. Interesting way to look at it, eh?

[defendandprotect]

24. I think we're both saying the same thing . . . just a little differently --

I don't know Loren Bliss but will look him up --
I've no doubt he's correct.

The question of a need for leaders has been strongly challenged here at DU by at
least one or two posters I've encountered --
But, I think we need them to awaken the public, to suggest remedies - things our "free press"
certainly aren't doing. The masses cannot speak with one voice except thru leadership and IMO
that's why they're making sure that we remain leaderless, knocking out anyone who arises.

They also need to keep the public tuned into the propaganda delivered by the corporate-press . . .
and I think that's been failing with people tuning out and removing themselves from its
inane influence. I even see less reports here these days of what FOX and CNN anchors are
saying - etal.


And I completely agree with you on Howard Dean --- he's been very courageous and I'm not sure
that's been recognized. Nor do I think we sufficiently recognize how threatening the elite in
control can be vs any representative trying to break thru the myths. Truth is a huge danger
to them -- their myths are like large mirrors -- if you get close enough to toss a pebble of
truth in their direction the myth instantly shatters.

Since then I have realized that broader participation in politics by the public and left wing politics are really one and the same. Interesting way to look at it, eh?

This was repeated again this year with attacks on "populist" canedidates - Kucinich/Edwards --
quite openly stated re Chamber of Commerce planning to raise $60 million to defeat Edwards.
Quite threatening and openly done. Between the two of them, they were quite stirring the pot
of populism in very positive ways. That had to be stopped!

Just as an aside re your comments . . . keep in mind that the Democratic Platform on which JFK
ran on in 1960 called for NATIONALIZING the oil industry--!!!



PS: Try to catch up with the investigation of computers that goes back to the late 1960's . .
I think you'll find it fascinating ... couldn't believe it when I came across this info
more than ten years ago -- !! It made me rethink the Nixon/Humphrey race ---

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[Two Americas]

25. a radical notion

I have the idea, sometimes I think I am the only one who thinks this, that the public is not "asleep," and that they are on a profound level quite a bit more radical and left wing than most in the activist community. You have to get past the manufactured "culture war" nonsense the right wingers created, and also past some stereotypes to see and hear this. I speak from 40 years of experience living, traveling, performing, and speaking everywhere except suburbia and college towns - in the other America: from the churches in the poor Black neighborhoods in the northern cities to the little towns in Appalachia in the Deep South and the rural areas of the Midwest and Plains states and everywhere in between.

I believe it is the conservatism and "personal choice" ethic of the so-called left, of the activists, that is blocking progress now. There are Congress people who agree with me on this based on private conversations I have had, by the way - that they could move farther to the left if only the activist community had their back. The activist community at the grass roots level plays a pivotal role between the public and the politicians, between the public and the MSM. The chronic cautious and gentrified approach of the dominant ones within the activist community - go slow, take baby steps, don't get too radical, work within the system, settle for little successes, don't go too far - reflects the relatively privileged and upscale demographic from which the activists are drawn more than it does any political ideas, and that is a powerful force for political conservatism today.

[defendandprotect]

26. Didn't know I was speaking with a ....

"performer" . . . nor someoine having private conversations with Congressional members .... !!!

But you're saying what Noam Chomsky says . . . i.e., that the elite have to really know what
is going on in the nation and so they do have real polls taken and the results of them show
that this is a liberal nation ---

Chomaky says . . . even to the point of understanding that Mexicans once inhabited this land
and they don't very much question their return.

As for response to right-wing propaganda there has been little --
"the dogs who didn't bark," perhaps . . . ?
Rightwing owns enough of the Democratic Party to keep themselves covered --
One recent response I did love was the counter to "partial birth abortion" as
"Partial Truth Abortion" ---

... and hope you saw Samantha Bee's video/Daily Show comments re McCain and abortion
from the other night. Current thread on it now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4335230&mesg_id=4335336

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJNEkIoLWIc

As for activists, the progressive organizations seem to have no concept of joining together --
I always loved Kweisi Mfume at the NAACP for not only pleading their cause, but always remembering
to mention others oppressed . . . women, homosexuals, all people of color.
Oddly enough, it is always the most oppressed who have to deliver themselves to freedom and in
so doing they expand freedom for all of us. My feeling on this is that the most violent among us
have oppressed the most intelligent among us -- perhaps out of self-hatred?


I believe it is the conservatism and "personal choice" ethic of the so-called left, of the activists, that is blocking progress now. There are Congress people who agree with me on this based on private conversations I have had, by the way - that they could move farther to the left if only the activist community had their back. The activist community at the grass roots level plays a pivotal role between the public and the politicians, between the public and the MSM. The chronic cautious and gentrified approach of the dominant ones within the activist community - go slow, take baby steps, don't get too radical, work within the system, settle for little successes, don't go too far - reflects the relatively privileged and upscale demographic from which the activists are drawn more than it does any political ideas, and that is a powerful force for political conservatism today.

There's also the thought that there's competition for donations from the public they don't want
shared --

And, like our many medical organizations raising money, they don't really want to be put out of
business by cures, perhaps?

And, true, those who are most likely to have the educations for leadership and fund raising/contacts are probably the more privileged liberals among us.

Underlying this -- and most despicable IMO -- has been the Democratic Party co-opting of the
Green Party, weakening them and trying to block their populist messages.


Nice talking with you -- Best wishes --