When Americans returned the Democrats to marginal control of Congress in 2006, I was hopeful. But, after a year of the Permanent Campaign/Money Primary and a year of being sold out on every issue of substance (Iraq War, Iran War (Kyl-Lieberman), FISA, impeachment, subpoena power...) by a totally corrupt Democratic Party leadership, I now am willing to consider the unpleasant fact that progressives in America have pretty much been ejected from the councils of the Democratic Party leadership and reduced to a spoiler role.
Read the Congressional voting record. Roughly half the Democrats have a spine. That means they are outnumbered 3-to-1 by corporatist Dems and theocratic Repubs. Just because 75% of Americans oppose Bush does not mean that 75% of America is progressive. Look at the money primary - hundreds of millions for corporate hacks. A million for Kucinich.
As a spoiler, our role is to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think that is the only pragmatic thing to do. Now, that would seem to make the choice simple. The theocrats are Rapture-ready, they are drooling to nuke Iran, they can't ruin the environment fast enough. So, it seems like a slam dunk to vote for the corporatists.
Why then is this such a hard decision for me? Precisely because it is being presented to me in a false manner, a manner which will result in the true progressives being tarred with the corporatist brush.
If 2008 rolls around and my choice is some corporate hack (fill in your favorite corporate hack here) and any of the GOP anti-Christs, vampires, or thugs, I will hold my nose and vote for the hack. BUT I will not have anyone on DU put words in my mouth that this corporate hack is a "centrist", or a worthy candidate of the party that used to stand for the rights of working Americans against corporations.
I will only vote for a hack if I am allowed to stand up and say: this person is a hack, but this person is the lesser of two evils. I do not endorse them so much as I am utterly appalled by their opponent. I will not make a positive endorsement that will only be thrown in my face later, as an example of inconsistency. I completely distrust corporate Democrats. In fact, I think that honest, and equally disenfranchised anti-theocracy, anti-crony-capitalism conservatives are progressives' most trustworthy ally at this point on the subject of restoring the Constitution (as opposed to stopping the theocrats, which can be done without restoring the Constitution).
But, every time I have tried to reason my way towards this hard-to-explain course of action, I have run into what I call the sophistry squad at DU. After a few repetitions of their talking points and my rejection of them, these people have tried to beat me into submission to their ludicrous contentions that a) Hillary holds a traditional Democratic position and b) the current situation is nowhere near a fascist coup. Failing that, they shout me down at every turn. And I ignore them, and will continue to do so.
I just want to point out to these people that, had they not been so vicious and personal in their attacks, had they really tried to reason with me, instead of trying to silence me with every condescending insult they could find, I might have gotten to my current position sooner.
Instead, I found the reasoning to lead me to my current position from a few simple exchanges with DUers who were actually willing to discuss things. Those are the kind of people who used to be everywhere at DU. But, since the arrival of the sophistry squad, people like that are scarcer than live ducks after a hunting blind has opened fire.
I am grateful to DUer Kurt_and_Hunter for first framing this "lesser of two evils" choice in a World War 2 metaphor that resonated with me:
"If we could be allies with Uncle Joe Stalin, I can be allies with Hillary. So I dislike Hillary-schism because it pre-demoralizes people, while conceding that she's not my idealogical dream."
With that metaphor in mind, I started the thread: "What is the relationship between corporatists and theocrats?" I wanted to hear what other DUers thought about how a corporate Democrat would behave towards the fundamentalist coup in progress. And, I found a politely reasoned and coldly rational debate from DUer Didereaux, of which I have reproduced large chunks below.
I highly recommend that pragmatic progressives read what Didereaux has to say. Its fine to disagree with him, and I might do so when I have time to reflect. But for now, I find what he has to say worth thinking about.
So, there you have it: sophistric vinegar vs. pragmatic honey on the subject of the DLC.
Finally, corporate hacks, if you want the slightest hope of getting even marginally less grudging support than this, you are going to have ante up some deeds (words have no value anymore) BEFORE the election. You are going to have to pass laws or filibuster laws or refuse to consent to executive branch nominees that are adding to the power and the corrupting influence of theocracy inside and outside of our government. You are going to have to oppose the partisan, corrupt, unaccountable, and un-Constituional fraud of "faith-based" initiatives. You are going to have to investigate and eliminate the evangelical preaching and hazing inside the Air Force academy. You are going to have to defund the statistically-proven fraud and indoctrination of "abstinence-only" sex eductation. You are going to have to hold hearings on religious zealots who are sabotaging reproductive health issues in HHS. You have to prove to me that you actually are in opposition to the evil of theocracy.
Any person who has to stand in this god-awful political pig-sty would welcome a spray of perfume to cover the stench, however self-serving the dispensation of the perfume might be.
arendt
-------------------
Discussion by Didereaux (bold-face is mine):
Me>Possibility 1. The corporations are totally in charge. The theocrats literally take orders from the corporatists.
Didereaux: No, this is demonstrably wrong: If it were true the theocrats would all be going in pretty much the same direction. The various religious groups represented in the US are very much at odds on many issues: some of which are 'blood feud' fudamentals. So it is illogical to posit that religions are controlled by a singular entity. They cannot agree upon an imaginary super friend, how are they to agree on a mortal one?
Me > Possiblity 2. The corporatists don't care what the theocrats do. The corporatists are in charge, and the theocrats have no control whatsoever over the corporatists.
Didereaux: The first clause is very plausible. The why is that the corporatist does not care who or what (non- economic related) ism is running things. They do want stabilitity for the most part, for stability allows the fine-tuning of profits. It must always be kept in mind that the corporitist cares only that the political climate be favorable for his creating wealth, that is why corporatists do quite nicely under a quite wide ranging spectrum of government models: From socialist to their ideal the fascist.
The second posit is more problematical, for me at least. I think that the closest that such a thing may have existed was in late medieval early renaissance Italy. The Church wielded large powers, as did the feudal princes and both relied heavily on the other, but underlying their power and wealth was a sort of stone-age middle-class group which consisted of artisans, and more importantly the traders and merchants. The collapse of the princes, as well as the beginnings of the end of Papal earthly rule(lands, cities, armies) coincided with the rise of wealth in other regions created once again, or made possible by the traders and merchants.
I just do not see that a singular power structure by one or the other is possible if the other exists. It seems they must hang together or be hung together. Or be hoist on their joint petard.
Me> Possiblity 3. The corporatists find the theocrats "useful idiots" and use them for distraction, for cover, and to generally make trouble for democracy.
Didereaux: The 'useful idiots' metaphor is probably accurate, as I said before the corporatist is interested in two things only acquiring wealth and crating and maintaining an environment favorable for him to do so and continue to dos. It makes not a whit of difference whether he buys a judge, or a priest, or a Democrat. The Mafia is the fundamental business model in this instance.
However the second clause is totally at odds with reason: for instability is not a thing the corporist wants, it is the last. Instability provides opportunity for newcomers to acquire a foothold, and no corporist wants to further dilute the stocks. So to reiterate instability is sought by others, not the corporatists.
Me> Possibility 5. The theocrats are taking over the government, at the behest of the corporations, but the theocrats have their own agenda.
Didereaux: Restate the conditions: The theocrats are attempting to take over the goverment, for their own reasons, but no corporatist would request, order or wish for such a thing. It destabilizes, and worse the religious zealot is the least trustworthy corrupt government official: when bought they rarely stay bought, and eventually all theocracies in history have become avaricious to the detriment of kings, corporatists, and petty crooks in general. No, the corporatist would not ask or work for such a thing.
Me > Possiblity 6. The theocrats are the corporatists are two self-funding groups competing to control the post-democracy U.S.
Didereaux: Probably this is true to a greater or lesser extent if you allow that the only 'singular' group is the corportist. The post-democracy is hyperbole, but just barely.
Me> Which group do you consider to be the bigger threat?
Didereaux: Without any doubt, and with the full recorded history of mankind as support, I say the theocrats are the greatest danger.
A corporatist can quickly convert to saving the environment and requires only your money to do so. The theocrat is just as apt to declare it some metaphysical entities desire that the planet should be destroyed. Remember corporatists only make and sell Kool-Aid...priests serve it!
Me> Given how destabilizing to world politics, and oil supplies, and the world economy, the Bush admin has been; it seems that the corporatists are backing Hillary to bring stability back, without having to give up any of the privileges they have gotten from Bush.
Didereaux: Our destabilization efforts have arisen from a small cabal of very patient ideologues cum napoleonic complex poster children (neo-Cons), They have been working on this 'plan' since the 60's. In fact you can easily obtain copies of their manifest Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith etc written by them during the Nixon administration when they were just beginning their careers. Rumsfeld and Cheney see-sawed back and forth as each others bosses, each carrying the other along as well as their less 'talented' believers. My point is they used any opportinity during those decades to further themselves and their insane ideas.
The oil corporatists Dutch Shell, Texaco, Chevron etc did not want to destabilize the region and would pay a pretty penny to anyone who could remove those who are doing it. Halliburton, although arisen from the oil-patch is NOT an oil as main product company, it's before Cheney as CEO main product was drilling, exploration, support. Cheney was made CEO to change that to a prime military contractor, he did that, and once that was accomplished it remained only for him or Rumsfeld to once again enter the government side in order to funnel those contracts. Rove chose Cheney, or someone did it doesn't matter. 911 was something even those insane megalomaniacs could only fantasize would happen. But they they were not slow in making full use of the opportunities. I have digressed to far from the point I fear, except to illustrate how far removed from the corporatist label the Cheney-Rumsfeld(and hidden huge money) really is.
As for the corporatists themselves, the Grummans, Boing, General Dynamics, it has taken them nearly three years to get a firm grip on any substantial shares of the US Treasury: which if looked at closely supports the contention that these two groups are very much separate.
Now would another Clinton administration support and protect the corporatists? Absolutely and unequivocally. Would that be bad for America? Not necessarily. It will require huge amounts of cash and backroom support from all sources in order to remove the Neo-Cons who have 'moled' up in government and corporate boardrooms. The Neo-CONS hegemonic scheme to control the world by force is the greatest threat America, and indeed the world faces...Al Gore not withstanding, they are a greater immediate threat than global warming. The Clintons, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd are the only Democratic candidates that have the knowledge of, and the contacts for attempting to stop the process now in place. All are corporatist leaning, but that is the devil you must deal with in order to deal with the devil who has lost its mind.
Lastly the rights we Americans have lost in the past years are gone forever, outside of alcohol Americans have never lost one and gotten it back. I don't like it any better than anyone else, but Americans simply don't seem capable of understanding what they give up in the name of more security or whatever other pap they want.
(NOTE: the last paragraph may be a point I would debate.)
Me> So, what then are we to make of Hillary's association with the fundie prayer circle in Congress, her pandering to religion and faith, etc. Is is just camoflauge, or is the former Goldwater Girl another stealth true believer?
Didereaux: Now that is one I am 99.99% confident in saying is not a thing that is possible... a Hillary Semper-McPherson is not possible. She is a pure 100% political animal, whether she is also so egomaniacal as to believe she can control zealots I am not sure. She is a Kennedy Democrat, and that is an animal completely incomprehensible to todays Democratic Party loyalist. She is a product of the 50's in her external views and opinions of Americas role, and a product of the 60's in her social views. But even the latter is tempered by conservative views. People have forgotten that the 'Liberal' Democratic Party of that era was anything but liberal by todays standards. No, Hillary is not a 'progressive', she is a 1958 cross between Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower. While Bill is a duke's mixture of Ben Franklin, Machiavelli and P.T. Barnam.
Sad to say that the pair of them may be the last chance we have to stave off the theocracy. It must wait for us to then begin dismantling the 'Unfair Trade' corporatists, or at least throttling them back severely with updated versions of the Sherman Act.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
