For the past twenty years, the Republicans have pushed with 100 pounds of force, and the Dems have either simply collapsed or pushed back with a mere 20 pounds of force. This was true even when they held both houses of Congress, as in Reagan's first term.This has happened so many other times as well . . . One instance of many:
I remember during the beginning of Clinton's first term. Bruce Babbit got big-media attention for proclaiming his huge disappointment over the democratically controlled congress's voting to renew that old law which allows folks to buy public land at bargain basement prices if they can claim that they intend to mine it for precious minerals. (This law was started back during U.S. Grant's term in office -- but I forget it's actual name. Perhaps the "1876 mining law"??? or something like that.) It is this law that has allowed huge mining companies to buy land for a few hundred or thousand dollars that contain billions of dollars in minerals and precious metals. Babbit was angry because of the practical giveaway of public land, and naturally also because of the abuse and pollution of the land by by big mining companies, which like to use chemicals like cyanide to extract gold, and to scorch the earth with big machinery. I've even seen some conservative papers that have railed against the law since it was a "budget buster." Yet, Clinton (as I recall) remained mum on the subject -- despite Babbit being his Secretary of the Interior, and receiving major attention on the nightly news for his honest and beautiful statement. After that, Babbitt never seemed to have all that much "fire" left in him, capitulating (it seemed to me) to what he felt was apparently the inevitable.
But where big business prowls, both parties often capitulate.
Naturally this demo capitulation to the "big boys" can also be seen in regard to issues like the School of the Americas. Although the democratic minority, starting with former Rep. Joe Kennedy, have tried hard to abolish this abomination, Clinton and Gore have always stated publicly that they support its existence! Insane!
Maybe they should have started an organization called "Democrats against Democracy!" or "Hurrah for Organized, U. S. Taxpayer Funded Murder And Torture of Peasents, Priests and Children etc.!"
And we musn't forget Clinton's "Plan Colombia"!! Or his almost total support (up until near the end of his second term) for aid to the Indonesian military, which was busy committing genocide against the East Timorese! (He did change completely on that one, however, even attending an important East Timorese function -- I think it may have been their first inauguration -- after Bush had defeated Gore, and he was no longer in office.)
Also -- to Clinton's credit -- at least rhetorically -- he both apologized to the Hawaiian people for the U. S. taking over their land via force, and to the Guatemalan people for the U. S. overthrow of the democratically elected President Arbenz back in the fifties, and the subsequent U.S. covert support of the fascist governments there for the next several decades afterward. (See former Ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White's article on my web page at
http://www.geocities.com/polemical506/zpic2.htmlScroll down a little until you see the buttons that read "article." Each button is a different scanned page of the article, with the top button being the first page, the next button down being the second page etc. etc.)
Nor should we forget Clinton's near total support for the Drug War (though it must be stated that during his administration, he did allow one improvement -- a little more discretion at the local level for small drug offenses, rather than having to follow a rigid mandantory minimum policy.).
Better than Bush -- yes, absolutely,
no question at all!! But unfortunately, not
good enough really, for me. by a long shot.
Of course, I sympathize with those who feel that being too idealistic or "radical" only throws the election toward types like Bush -- but what they don't remember is that compromising has never really worked before either, to wit:
LBJ escalated the Vietnam conflict like crazy, and sent troops to protect the big sugar interests in the Dominican Republic, and told the Greek ambassador that their constituion and democracy could go to heck (expletive substituted), despite his having done incredible work for the civil rights movement.
President Carter, despite being great for the environment (such as the OSHA hearings that took place during his administration on vinyl chloride monomer), nonetheless argued against his Democratic leaders in Congress in favor of aid to the military dictatorship in Argentina, and also supported the Indonesian military and dictatorship. Maybe Carter should started an organization called "Democrats who like the protect the environment and the rights of workers and citzins against noxious chemcials, but who like to murder innocent citizens abroad, even though they have never done anything to hurt anyone, more or less."
No, we need something better than the same ole same ole, that's for sure. But is it possible?? That is the agonizing question! Or must we compromise and favor someone like Gore over Kucinich or Nader? My mind refuses to believe that we must compromise! We must overcome!! AHHHHHH!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
