2 articles, swamped by Saddam, herald major changes in USA

Two articles today, I believe, are worthy of attenton amid the discussions about the capture of Saddam. They deal with major changes in American life -- one predicts the decline of the two-party system as we have known it, and the other focuses on the changing nature of what it means to "have a job" in our country.

The headline identifying the first article on the Washington Post homepage is: "The Decline of the Two Party System?" A few paragraphs are not sufficient to convey the writer's theory of the possible emergence of a new American political system, with Howard Dean as the forerunner:

Q: What will happen when a national political machine can fit on a laptop?
A: See below

By Everett Ehrlich

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58554-2003Dec12.html

To an economist, the "trick" of the Internet is that it drives the cost of information down to virtually zero. So according to(economist Ronald) Coase's theory, smaller information-gathering costs mean smaller organizations. And that's why the Internet has made it easier for small folks, whether small firms or dark-horse candidates such as Howard Dean, to take on the big ones.

For all Dean's talk about wanting to represent the truly "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," the paradox is that he is essentially a third-party candidate using modern technology to achieve a takeover of the Democratic Party. Other candidates -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark -- are competing to take control of the party's fundraising, organizational and media operations. But Dean is not interested in taking control of those depreciating assets. He is creating his own party, his own lists, his own money, his own organization. What he wants are the Democratic brand name and legacy, the party's last remaining assets of value, as part of his marketing strategy. Perhaps that's why former vice president Al Gore's endorsement of Dean last week felt so strange -- less like the traditional benediction of a fellow member of the party "club" than a senior executive welcoming the successful leveraged buyout specialist. And if Dean can do it this time around, so can others in future campaigns.


The second article, also from the Washington Post, addresses the economy, but more importantly, what "having a job" now really means to many Americans:

Main Street : Stories of the American Economy
At Recovery's Dawn
Behind the Numbers and the Euphemisms Lie Some Messy Realities

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62464-2003Dec13.html

More people are working part time than ever: Last month, for the first time, the number exceeded 25 million.

More are classified as "involuntary" part-time, meaning they would rather be working full time: 4.9 million in November, an increase of 600,000 from a year ago and 1.6 million since the recession began in March 2001.

More are working for less pay than they have worked for in the past -- the sectors of the economy adding jobs pay an average of $14.65 an hour, while those discarding jobs pay $16.92, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington research center.

In addition, more people are cobbling together a working life of two or three part-time jobs to keep up with bills. More jobs come without benefits, the chance for mobility and the security of long-term stability. Wages for most workers are not keeping up with inflation. The number of manufacturing jobs has declined 40 months in a row. The average time spent looking for work is now more than 20 weeks. And many people remain not working at all. Even with the addition of those 328,000 jobs, the total number of jobs is still 2.35 million lower than before the recession.

I have to take issue with one point made in the first article:

Second, the evangelical right will become a separate political party in the near future, and will hold its own conventions and primaries.

Sorry, but the "evangelical right" already has its own political party. It's called the Republican Party. Every one of the GOP leaders in Congress are "christian" right people; the "Christian" right's agenda is the same as the GOP's, etc. Check it out: http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Otherwise, the article is quite interesting. More likely is that the rest of the republicans, those who disagree with the extremism of the current leadership, will try to wrest back control. When they fail, they will be the ones to set up a separate party.

the Democratic party, what happens to the remaining shareholders, i.e. the Dem county and state officials and party workers?

When I read the article I was immediately reminded of a recent story on, IIRC, Bill Moyers' NOW, about how SaraLee Corp. had bought a textile company so it could acquire the patent on knitted thermal underwear, then ship production overseas. The workers left behind were devastated.

And maybe that's the problem I have with Howard Dean and why I can't completely support him: I feel as if he's thumbing his nose at everything a lot of us well-intentioned Dems have stood for and tried to do, and he's saying the only way we can save ourselves is to abandon the only ship we've got.

The article made a lot of sense to me.

The second one made even more sense. It's the reality of my life the past five years.

The over-educated and unemployed,

Tansy Gold

seems to me that no one can touch them. No Christian "lefts", in other words, have any significant say in the politics of the religious "right' that is connected to Bush and the upper echelons of the Bush administration. Many of the mainstream religions have their rightist factions and organisations. They would support Bush.

It seems to me that Bush, an ignorant and stupid man, has successfully defined what Christianity is for the majority of people in the US who support him,even though he knows nothing or very little, of the actual theology, because no one has seen fit to challenge him on any of his distinctly non Christian initiatives.

Why is that?

Beats me!

The country will get what it deserves if it supports Bush's Christian doctrine that is, certainly, headed toward a theocracy for that is the only thing that would support his fascism.

He knows that is one way to get the people behind his fascism--appeals to their "religion" and all of it's mysticism and it's ethereal tenets.

Appeals to the prejudices that are taught by the Christian religion is a powerful force for bias and for intolerance also. One only needs to read the bible to get a sense of that.

Once the religion gets into that slippery slope, it has , in effect. surrendered it's religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution. If it supports Bush wholly on the majority of single issues, it is forever joined at the hip to the government and has , by all intents and purposes, relinquished it's own autonomy.

Do religious people undertand that and deliberately choose to be under the auspices of the government of this country?