General Discussion: Primaries should be

[waiting for hope]

renamed to:

All Hail the Messiah. It would make more sense, I can't see how any Clinton supporter can survive. I'm still neutral, but for Pete's sake, this is just God awful ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5668383

[balantz]

1. As it looks like Obama will be the nominee I am starting to see

what people are saying, that Obama just might lose to McCain.

What a f**king disaster!

I wonder if during his upcoming FOX interview he will be asked about his recent "praise" of McCain? Let's see him stammer his oh-so-evasive professor brain into a hole with that question. He won't be amongst his fawning, kool-aid drinking lemmings at FOX.

If McCain wins in November I will be unable to speak for a day or so out of disgust and disbelief.

[waiting for hope]

2. I was just reading this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042302980.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

and thought to post it....... and thought why? No one here would even pay attention or grasp the real facts and I would be flamed. All that OP did in my above link was try to garner support among Clinton fans and they got mocked, dismissed and crapped on. The last time I looked, Obama hasn't won yet and many are asking why he can't close the deal. We are screwed.

[balantz]

3. It looks to me like a very fair and unbiased bit of story there.

But I know what you mean. No meaningful discussion will come of it at GDP

[Catchawave]

4. Oh, I know what you mean "out there" it's....

"You're either with us or go to hell". Real team unity, eh? :sarcasm:

[Andrea]

5. There was a very similar article in the NY Times today

I wish I had a handle on how many of the Obama supporters are real kool-aid drinkers. It's hard to tell, because the most vocal ones are the ones most deeply attached. I know that some of them are looking at things realistically. We hear from those in the Gore threads. They say, along the lines of, "I can see what you mean and I wouldn't mind Obama being the VP for Gore." I just wish I knew what percentage falls into each category.

The vocal ones, the ones that have pretty much ruined DU, are a very strange bunch of people. If this election weren't so important, it would be interesting to study their behavior. They don't want to hear anything about facts at all. They insist that "he's our nominee" and "he's going to tear McCain up" despite all evidence to the contrary on both those points. It seems to me that they have some serious mental problem going on. Either they are terrified of all opposition, or they think they can bring it about by simple willpower, or they are filled with extreme bitterness and resentment toward people they perceive as having oppressed them in the past - I'm not sure. Maybe it is some combination, or something else, but what we are seeing is not normal human behavior.

They seem to have absolutely no regard for their own personal reputations. They don't seem to care that when all this is over, no matter how it turns out, they are going to be stuck with the horrible impression they have created of themselves with other people - that they are arrogant, elitist, delusional, selfish, crude and hateful people, who put their personal preferences far above what is good for the party and the nation. They have made it really clear that all they care about is winning the nomination - even if that dooms us to a loss in the fall. They state things that they have no way of knowing as if they are indisputable facts. For example, anyone who expresses any reservations about Obama is a racist. That's just absurd, but they'll insist that it's true. How could they possibly know what is in the heart of someone they have never met? They seldom say something like, "What you said sounds racist." They just jump right to "You're a racist."

Among other things that have me worried about the future of the party, is this influx of crazy Obamabots. I keep hearing about all these new people registering and I hope that they are not predominantly kool-aid drinkers. If they are predominantly Obama supporters, but yet grounded in reality, that may be okay. But I sure don't want the Democrats to become the party of the demented, or of the hateful.

What do the rest of you think is going on with these people?

[Two Americas]

7. I agree

I was slow to come around to ClericJohn's point of view, but I think he is right. We are seeing a cult-like emotionalized and irrational movement. A certain segment of the liberal activist community was very susceptible to the sort of mob insanity we are seeing with Obama supporters.

I don't know how many of the Obama supporters are "kool aid drinkers" but that doesn't really matter. The kool aid drinkers are driving the movement and are the core of the movement. Beyond the rock star phenomenon, there is nothing to the campaign. It is the quintessential American cultural movement, a combination of snake oil salesmanship and tent revival emotionalism. It is more like a marketing campaign than a political campaign, both in its intentions and in its effects.

We are seeing the high water mark for the campaign, which is not good for the party in the general election. The very things that are attracting the core followers are the things most rejected by the general public. The tactics and rhetoric that advance the cult, also limit its growth.

Obama is all things to all people. People who have the exact opposite political opinions on different subjects think Obama is representing them. There are those opposed to racism and those opposed to acknowledging or discussing or confronting racism who both think Obama is speaking to and for them. On issue after issue, no matter your opinion you can "hear" an echo from Obama. The elitist thing was interesting, with half of the Obama supporters bragging that they are elitists and the other half denying it, and no one seeming to notice that the two defenses of Obama were mutually contradictory.

What I find really strange is that when you challenge many Obama supporters on their behavior and rhetoric, they defend themselves and deny the charge with exactly the same behavior and rhetoric.

The we have the projection. If you want to know what Obama supporters are thinking or doing, the best way to learn that is to pay attention to what they are accusing their enemies of doing.

Then we have the cognitive dissonance - the stress caused by the discrepancy between what people know on some level to be true, and what they are required to "hope" and "believe" to be an Obama supporter. This explains the many long threads with nothing but Obama fanatics talking to each other, reinforcing the false alternative reality for each other and driving the truth they all know (or they wouldn't feel the need to do this) as far from view as possible.

I have a couple of dozen posts out there right now from the last couple of days that are being completely ignored by Obama supporters - they drop the discussion mid-stream as soon as any reality is offered up that clashes with their fantasy. That is the result of the cognitive dissonance again.

Then we have the absolute emptiness and meaninglessness of the campaign. There have been a couple of threads recently where Obama supporters were invited to make the case for their candidate without bashing Clinton. They can't do it. There is nothing there beyond being in love with him for reasons they cannot explain very well, and beyond an opportunity to express hatred toward others. That hatred is expressed against safe targets, and is completely irrational.

I have watched some people whom I formerly respected catch the Obama fever and it as though they have become different people - very alarming and disappointing.

[Andrea]

8. Excellent analysis

I can't remember who said it, it may have been you TA, but someone compared Obama to the Chauncy Gardiner character in Being There. I think that is pretty accurate. There is no there there. There is no substance, but no one wants to be thought of as "stupid" for not "getting it", so they all nod in agreement while he says basically nothing.

It seems very much like a personality cult to me, very reminiscent of Jonestown. What is new for me is being around people that are caught up in a cult like this. I know there have been mass cults on national scales elsewhere in the past, but I've never experienced one directly so I'm finding the behavior of cultists toward non-cultists to be very surprising and disturbing. I guess if I had spent much time thinking about it before, it might not surprise me so much.

I wonder what is going to happen with these people when it all ends. I doubt very much that Obama could be elected, even if he became our nominee. Even if he were to be elected, the delusion wouldn't last forever. Soon the reality would sink in. They would see that having Mr. Wonderful in the White House isn't putting food on the table or shoes on the children, that their jobs are still going overseas, that the climate is still warming, and that kids are still being killed in Iraq. So, one way or the other, it's going to end. What will they do then?

Will we have a large population of emotionally distressed people that can't deal with reality? Will they attach their cult to some other chameleon? Will they turn against us in some kind of violent way? Will they turn against him? What do you think will happen TA?

I'm interested in learning more about this phenomenon. I have tried reading True Believer and it's so dry I just can't get through it. Can anyone suggest some other books on the subject?

[balantz]

9. I think those in power behind the scenes will manipulate the O supporters all the way.

Should he actually become president the oligarchy will use the fervid support and skew things whichever way they want to. They will completely use the blind, cult-like behavior and channel that energy to suit their agenda in so many ways. The support for "no there there" will be gold-putty in their hands. It will be a mess, and people will not know at whom or for what real reasons they are angry because they have swallowed a big fat lie and will be as yet unwilling to chuck it up.

Should McCain win, the anger and bitterness of the cult will be used by the oligarchy to create more division and "class war." Only, it will be so confused (as you can see there already is so much confusion amongst their ranks as TA has pointed out) that people will be herded into lashing out in all the wrong directions for us, and all the right directions for the oligarchy.

Either way it will be an ignorant ugliness of lemming-like behavior. And with the economic and etc. rouble headed our way it will be ugly. We would be wise to do a thorough study of different cult situations and outcomes. I know books have been written on the subject.

[balantz]

10. And I should add,

should Clinton win the nomination, or anyone else be nominated, we will see the same kind of bitterness be used by the oligarchy.

[Andrea]

12. Well, given that it will exist regardless,

I'm sure whoever wins will try to use it. The question is, what will they use it for? If it's McCain, I could definitely see him using it to stir people up and then use their acting out behaviors as an excuse to take away what civil liberties we still have.

If it is Clinton, maybe she would just use the cultists as a distraction while she continues her corporatist schemes. It's bad enough, but less dangerous in an immediate sense.

Of course, I hope we end up with Gore and I could see him trying to channel that emotion positively.

In any case, I'm not sure how feasible it would be for anyone to really control it, so I think we are in for a bad series of unintended consequences as the cultists respond in unpredicatable ways.

[balantz]

14. Remember, whichever personality is allowed to win is just that and nothing more,

a personality. Clinton or McCain or whomever will do what they are told to do by the oligarchy.

[Andrea]

17. Do you mean oligarchy

in a kind of capital O, Bilderburg way? I was thinking you meant in a small o, government is always an oligarchy kind of way.

[balantz]

22. I'm not sure who Bildergerg is.

Is that a big "secret family" thing? I just mean the giant corporate entities owned by the "elite few" that try to control us and profit off of us in any which way. They tend to not care about Earth or the hordes of little people, like the you's and the me's, or about Constitutions, or about Democracy, unless they can use these for their own control and profit. I especially mean the neocons and their fascist, military industrial complex thingy. Not sure what all the correct terms are.

[Andrea]

25. There are so many different terms used and it gets kind of

confusing. "Secret family" is probably as good a term as any to get at what I was talking about. Some people believe in that to an extent that feels very uncomfortable to me. I can't rule it out entirely, but I hope it's not true. What it means is that basically nothing we do could result in any real change, because no matter who is elected they are all part of this secret group that runs everything, or else they have no actual power at all, so no matter what their intentions are it doesn't mean anything because this secret group is running everything. I do believe that there is a kind of informal coalition of the members of the military industrial complex, which is pretty easily held together because they all have the same motivations, money and power. But, at least for now, I believe that if we can hang onto free elections (a big if) we can keep them from controlling everything and even push back against them with the right people in office. I know a guy locally who believes strongly in this secret conspiraqcy thing. He thinks it doesn't matter at all who is elected. He thinks if John Edwards was elected, he would be basically the same as GWB, for example, because he believes they are both part of that "secret family". If I ever start to believe that, I certainly won't spend any more time volunteering for any candidates.

[balantz]

27. We can only be sure to escape such horrors if we own our government.

Complete separation of government and corporate interests. Elections paid only by taxes. A free press. Etc. I want to see a poor person have a real shot at being president.

[Andrea]

29. Me too! n/t

[Andrea]

11. What you say sounds very plausible to me.

I'm worried enough about what is happening in this country without contemplating a large population of angry and confused cult members. We do need to study this and be prepared. I think this would fall under the heading of social psychology, although there are no clear edges to those categories and it could be considered sociology.

I'm really disappointed to find so many Democrats buying into this insanity. Remember when Bushco declared they were the "faith-based community" and we proudly called ourselves the "reality-based community"? These cultists are every bit as delusional as the so called "faith-based community".

I've often been accused of being too logical and rational in the past. Sometimes in personal relationships it is bad to be too logical, but in matters of politics and governing, I truly believe it is the right way to be.

[balantz]

13. believing in a fairy-tale, religious or otherwise, makes people delusional.

They then have a false identity of themselves that is based on illusion. Their whole everything is based on a lie, and when it crumbles their identity crumbles and we have a big ugly emotional melt-down that has no cohesion and runs right into the gutter of confused action.

[Andrea]

18. Yes

that is the way it is. I'm just disappointed that a large part of this party was susceptible to it. This points to another problem we have on the horizon, and we could have both of these at the same time. If we have Obama cultists and evangelical cultists melting down at the same time, that would be a very complex situation.

[Two Americas]

21. it has always been odd

Back over a year ago, I thought there was something odd about the Obama phenomenon from the responses I got from Obama supporters when I asked them why they supported him. They would get this twinkle eyed glazed look on their face with a little smile, as though they knew some wonderful secret that the rest of us didn't know. They would say "read his book" which was weird enough, but the way they said that gave me the creeps - as though one's life would not be complete if they had not read "his book." So I read the book, and there is nothing there.

Now they say "go to his website." In other words, you are just a novice, a beginner, a person beneath us, not worthy of being in the inner circle where we share secret knowledge. If you don't "get" it - if you are not the kind of person who can "get" it - then you are beneath us and we have nothing to say to people of your ilk - you are not capable of understanding. Go to the website, read the book, see if you can't get yourself spiritually cleaned up a little, so that you "get" it, and then come back and we will talk.

That reminds me of Amway salesman - dropping little hints, then trying to get you in front of "the plan" in a controlled setting. It also reminds me of Amway the way that the product - Obama - is promoted in the most vague ways, with the main sales pitch being about how awful the only supposed alternative is.

The pitch goes like this: "there is something missing in (or wrong with) your life - you know there is, so don't deny it. What you have right now is bad, and very scary. You don't have any alternative, so if you don't do something new and different, your fate is sealed. Many have tried and failed, and we have all been looking for the way out. Obama is new and different - no denying that, right? Many are afraid of new and different - poor dumb bastards - and will not have the courage to reach for something new and different. Others will try to make you feel bad, or invalidate you, and hold you back that way. You can't control them, but you can control your own attitude. We will teach you powerful phrases and chants that will help you through the rough spots. You can go with those unhappy people and be negative, and wind up with the same bad results you have been getting. They are always trying in many devious ways to make you feel bad and to discourage you. Be alert to them at all times! You will get better at identifying the enemy so you can protect yourself from their negative ideas.

Or, if you are one of those who is smart enough, good enough, perceptive enough - if you are one of those exceptional people - you can join the happy people, the new group, the successful ones, the bright, shiny, powerful ones who are going somewhere, who are not just hiding with the sheep."

- The definitive (but empty) book, the leader's book, to which all questioners are referred.
- The charismatic and mesmerizing leader that no one can quite describe - "you need to hear him."
- The need for people to "get" something on an intuitive and mysterious level.
- The fanaticism, and the smug secretive "knowing" of something.
- The demand that people "believe."
- The pack behavior and immersion in the mob.
- The vicious scape-goating of outsiders, and targeting of those deemed to be "other."
- The larger than life good versus evil drama.
- The endless repetition of mindless phrases and slogans.
- The supposed desperate need for something "new" and "different" that is not defined.
- The huge public rallies of enthusiastic and emotional people.
- The imagined leaving behind of the old world, the old life, and heading into the new.
- The contrast between happy, hopeful feelings, and nasty brutish behavior.
- The justification for brutal behavior being "they had it coming."
- The grandiose "change the world" pretensions.
- The intolerance for any expressions of caution or any reservations or doubts.

[balantz]

26. I won't read his book. How can an empty facade write anything of real substance or value?

My Dad, who I got into the Edwards camp while it lasted, started with Clinton, went to Obama, then to Edwards. Now he is back to Obama. He tells me the book is a good read. I am not in the market for an empty platitude. Perhaps it is worth reading for a between the lines look at a false pretense. Many Democrats don't seem to realize that the party is an empty platitude. We live under the umbrella of wealthy lies in this country. It will get blown away and leave us crying in the rain of fascist piss someday.

[Andrea]

31. I have the book.

It was a gift. I intended to read it before things got so crazy. I thought it would be good to know more about him, just in case. Now I feel like it would be a waste of time.

[Andrea]

30. It is very much like Amway salesmen, or any

of those pyramid schemes. It's also exactly like evangelical churches. It reminds me of those infomercials for the various get rich quick schemes. Instead of explaining to you what their program is, how it works, etc., they spend the whole time "convincing" you that it's good to be rich. As though that was what they have to sell you on. "I made $500,000 last year in my spare time. Now I have time for my family and I own this beautiful house and I never worry about bills."

This mindset they have where if you don't agree it means you don't "get it" is completely circular thinking and very useful for quickly dismissing any contrary viewpoints or healthy skepticism. "Born Again" people are masters at that. As soon as you agree with us, you'll agree with us.

[Two Americas]

36. brilliant

"As soon as you agree with us, you'll agree with us."

That's it. And if you don't agree with us, well then you are the sort of person who doesn't agree with us, therefore an enemy, and we will have nothing to do with you. Notice the repsonse from many Obama supporters if anyone says that the campaign is alienating people - "so what? The hell with them. We don't want that kind of people anyway. They will get what they deserve."

[Andrea]

40. Thanks and yes

"And if you don't agree with us, well then you are the sort of person who doesn't agree with us, therefore an enemy, and we will have nothing to do with you."

It is very dangerous for any group to feel like this. They surrender all their power to their "leader" because they give up their right to think critically. I wouldn't care if my best friend got elected president, I would never adopt this attitude. It's just not safe to limit yourself to one viewpoint exclusively.

"Notice the repsonse from many Obama supporters if anyone says that the campaign is alienating people - "so what? The hell with them. We don't want that kind of people anyway. They will get what they deserve."

It's so disturbing. That thread you and I were in where someone was denouncing the voters in PA who did not support Obama was like that. They simply wouldn't or couldn't see that those people were voters and as such we should try to win their support (as a party). They didn't even acknowledge their basic rights as human beings. And it struck me how reckless they were about it. They didn't seem to care at all that they were setting us up for a McCain win with that attitude. Also, they seemed unable to comprehend the idea that another person's experiences might have given that person different, but equally valid, opinions. I get the sense from them that they don't respect humanity. No one is worthy of the most basic level of respect unless they agree with them. It's an extreme kind of elitism. They, of course, are blind to it.

[Two Americas]

46. being right

People would rather be right than succeed - that is the chronic weakness of modern liberalism. Being right is the consolation prize in politics. People are consoling themselves with being right because they have abandoned any hope of real political effectiveness. Blaming the people fits right in with this - "we are right and if the people are too stupid to see that, oh well then it is their loss the stupid idiots."

After the left collapsed in the late 60's, there was a sudden shift in the viewpoint of many intellectuals and activists. It was an amazing thing to watch - it happened almost overnight and suddenly you heard many people all saying the same things. Modern people, especially educated people, want to think that they are independent free agents, but people move in herds and rugged individualism is largely a myth. They gave up, basically, but used a particular rationale as cover for that. One day people were saying "we need to organize and mobilize and overthrow the war machine" and the next day they were saying things like this:

- Politics is not really were the truth is. We need to change people spiritually.

- I am going to work on improving myself, that is the way to change the world.

- We need to take baby steps and do the little things that we can to make things better.

- We can work within the system, and gradually change it.

Those ideas are in place to this day and have a powerful grip on all political thinking. Challenge those, and people get very angry. Since that shift, the left has been getting weaker and weaker and the right wing stronger and stronger. Now we are teetering on the brink of total catastrophe, but still people cling tightly to this weak political philosophy of modern liberalism - New Age spirituality, individualistic approaches, charity and consumerist social activism, alternative lifestyle choices, compromise and compliance with the system. People use their politics to establish a personal identity rather than as a guideline for effective organizing for mass action. The personal identity that can be established by being a modern liberal is not one that appeals to, is available to, or is needed by the majority of people in the country, and never will be. Political effectiveness that requires as a prerequisite that people become "like us" before anything can happen will never be effective - will never even really be political at all.

It is not that any of those ideas, and the activism and organizations that promote them, are necessarily bad things. The problem is that they have come to replace real politics. People will deny this - "we can walk and chew gum at the same time and it is not an either/or." It need not be an either/or, that is true, but in practical and functional effect it is an either/or. That is because all modern liberal activism was designed as a replacement for politics, that is its utility, that is what attracts people to it.

Being right is the consolation prize. When you start out with the idea that only a few enlightened beautiful people know the truth and are therefore right and try to base a political movement on that, you are doomed to failure. Obviously, a political movement based on the elite few can never become a mass movement. People want to think of themselves as being among the elite few - more caring, smarter, better - and that is a club that we can't let just anyone join. Modern liberalism is set up to give individuals the opportunity to reinforce their self-image as being one of the superior ones. It is such an obvious set up for political failure.

[Andrea]

49. Okay - Warning - Long

Let's see, your post brings several things to mind. I was too young at the end of the 60s to know any more about what was going on than what I saw in the press and heard from my parents (I was born in 1960), but the comments you mention sound to me like things people say when they are trying to heal themselves after a bad experience or failure.

If that is right, then my question would be, why didn't they return to their activism after taking time to heal? I know that there are many reasons for that, depending on the person, but I'm wondering about the most common reason or reasons.

In a way, when you explain it like this, it seems like a natural progression that ultimately leads to the Obama cult (and nothing worse, I hope - but don't know). The walk and chew gum analogy is apt. I do believe I am a person who can and does do both. I think part of the problem, and it's not easy to get a real handle on this, is that people are looking externally to define their personal identity. That is why they set up this kind of "club" you refer to. People on the right do the same thing, in a much more broad and oafish way (ditto heads, etc.). The kind of liberals you are referring to may fool themselves into thinking they aren't doing it, because they are not so clumsy and oafish. Also, many of the things they do are things they really believe in (food co-ops and recycling, for example), but they aren't what I would call "root issues".

For example, I have a friend who is about 10 years older than me, so she's probably part of the group you were referring to that changed overnight. She went through an extremely long period of disability and has just regained her health in the last year. Because she now feels better, she wants to "give back" and part of the way she's doing that is getting involved in reproductive rights. I don't object to the goals of that movement, but I can't understand why anyone would bother to work on that issue when we have lost habeus corpus. She and her fellow RR campaigners can't understand why I am so concerned about civil liberties - which is my main issue. To me, it's obvious. Without our civil liberties, we can't really do anything about any other issue. They don't seem to get it that we are about two kicks from a police state. Any ideas on why that is?

Now, I know a large group of people that are all around that age and all live in the same part of town and have similar lifestyles. They are good, kind people, but they seem oblivious to the real danger facing us. (None of them are Obama supporters. They had different preferences at the beginning, but have now pretty much settled on Hillary although they aren't adamant about it.)

I have another large group of friends that are 10-15 years younger than me. These are the people who live in my neighborhood (inner city) and belong to the arts community. They are very cutting edge culturally and also very good, kind people. They don't understand why I'm so concerned about civil liberties because they all feel completely impotent in the area of politics - no interest, no hope, nothing. Some of them don't even vote.

The few people I know that are my age, are pretty much on the same wavelength with me. So is this some kind of generational thing? But on the other hand, I think these Obama cultists are over a wide range of ages. It's hard for me to figure out what's going on.

I can certainly sympathize with the people that want to give up fighting. It's hard to keep going when you've been hurt as much as we have, and frustrated, and watched all these things happen. My brother and sister both live in suburban yuppie areas - mindless, red-state people. I don't like to go out there. I remember the first time I went to my brother's house after the stolen election of 2004. As I left the center city area, which is so solidly blue, and headed into Jesus Land, I felt so vulnerable - like a turtle without it's shell. But, I know we can't just hide in our bubble and expect to accomplish something.

And as far as being "right", that is such a juvenile goal. With maturity, people realize that it is much more important to reach your ultimate goal than it is to be personally validated along the way. And this applies in all areas of life, not just politics. So why are they living like that? If you make convincing your boss that you're right more important to you than convincing your boss to do whatever it is you want, even if that means letting her think it's her idea, or letting her take some detours you don't like along the way, you won't ever get what you want. You'll occasionally get validated, but you won't make any substantive gains. Futhermore, you'll be seen as someone that just wants to argue about window dressing and "make points".

I don't expect you to have "the answers" to all this, but I do think it's important that we explore the problem, and I value your insight.

[Two Americas]

56. long is good :)

I was too young at the end of the 60s to know any more about what was going on than what I saw in the press and heard from my parents (I was born in 1960), but the comments you mention sound to me like things people say when they are trying to heal themselves after a bad experience or failure.

People who didn’t see it first hand probably cannot imagine — tanks and troops in the streets of Detroit, half the city on fire, the continual sound of gunfire, bodies stacked at the state fairgrounds are a few of my memories. The college campuses occupied by National Guard troops, FBI banging on the door in the middle of the night, phone taps, cops charging and gassing and clubbing demonstrators, Civil Rights workers murdered, thousands of young men coming home from overseas in body bags, everyone I knew spending time in jail.

Funny, I am thinking back to a particular long and heated conversation I had with a gal I went to school with. She was in law school and was arguing that her choice of the path for her life was better than mine. "Don’t get me wrong, I agree with all of your goals, but…" she said. Then she said that if you want to help people, you need to help yourself first and that once she became an attorney she would be in a position where she could make a difference and help people in real ways, whereas my demonstrating and political rabble rousing and activism were futile, because no one would listen to me because I was a nobody. In other words, one must become a "somebody" before one can have any impact. Of course, becoming a somebody is not neutral. She became a corporate attorney—of course—and wrote checks over the years to liberal causes and voted Democratic, and has a "green" and "organic" personal life and drives a hybrid; nice house in the suburbs, kids and a divorce, and an investment portfolio, goes to the Unitarian church.

I had never heard that "one must become a somebody and then you can help people" argument before, but it is pervasive today. It is liberal doctrine, not to be questioned.

If that is right, then my question would be, why didn't they return to their activism after taking time to heal? I know that there are many reasons for that, depending on the person, but I'm wondering about the most common reason or reasons.

An industry arose—the liberal progressive industrial organic consumer complex lol. People wanted "alternatives" and commercial interests provided them. Liberalism is wildly profitable—even in non-profits it is lucrative for individuals who have made a career out of it. But mostly it was cowardice, sad to say. People were given a way out and they took it.

In a way, when you explain it like this, it seems like a natural progression that ultimately leads to the Obama cult (and nothing worse, I hope - but don't know).

The Obama phenomenon is the ultimate, and maybe final expression of a movement that has been building for 35 years, I think.

...people are looking externally to define their personal identity.

Exactly. There was a dramatic and sudden breakdown in the 60’s of church, community, family and politics, and people were set adrift from their cultural moorings. The resulting alienation and isolation left an emptiness, and cults and self-actualization regimens and alternative spirituality movements arose to fill that emptiness for people. Activities and organizations ceased being things people did and became who people were. That was the most potent social force in the 70’s, I think, the mad scramble for people to establish an artificial identity.

That is why they set up this kind of "club" you refer to. People on the right do the same thing, in a much more broad and oafish way (ditto heads, etc.). The kind of liberals you are referring to may fool themselves into thinking they aren't doing it, because they are not so clumsy and oafish. Also, many of the things they do are things they really believe in (food co-ops and recycling, for example), but they aren't what I would call "root issues".

Very perceptive and accurate. In organization after organization, and activity after activity, you could see things change in front of your eyes into cults throughout the 70's. One no longer "did" things, one was "into things" and became something, and then identified themselves as that.

In the 60’s and 70’s I traveled around to the old time fiddle contests around the country, and I used to play at a lot of square dances. Those were all rural conservative older people. Then one year, the suburban liberals "discovered" what they called "old timey" music, and descended in their tens of thousands on these events and completely ruined them. A whole mini-industry arose to satisfy these suburban upscale consumers, with phony "old timey" music cranked out and peddled, and people now had a lifestyle that they could "get into" and they could buy all of the stuff they needed to be a bona fide member of the cult. Square dances — which had been held in Grange halls and church basements and were just everyday farm people, became "workshops" for college oriented suburban people, with lessons and booklets and classes and all sorts of junk. Many old timers still survived, but were ignored and driven out of this new "movement" that the beautiful people were now "into" as a hobby activity and a way to personally define and identify themselves. Rather than just f-ing dancing or playing music, as people had done for generations over the centuries, without any pretense or self-consciousness or self-importance, the newcomers, all striving, aggressive, successful, educated suburban people with disposable income for hobbies, had no respect for the working class people whom they were ripping off and commercializing, and it became an insular and silly cult. That destroyed traditional music in the name of "preserving" it, and in the same way the liberal cultural juggernaut has swamped, co-opted and destroyed all of our traditional culture.

I remember at one fiddle contest in North Carolina, one year there were still about 500 people—half of them spectacular and brilliant musicians, though unknown, most of them older farmers - and the next year there were 10,000 "hippies" — relatively well-off college suburbanites - and hardly any musicians except for some urban folk interpreters who were paid big bucks to perform on stage. That drove the traditional musicians out and was the end of the gathering as anything authentic or traditional, or even tolerable for me. Lots of drugs, lots of alternative lifestyles, lots of New Age spirituality - but no real music anymore and no "red necks" welcome anymore. Don’t say that to the people who have been going for the last 35 years though, or they will get very angry. They are "into" traditional music, and don’t try to tell them they are not, nor challenge their identity as a traditional music person.

The amazing thing there is how quickly and completely and permanently that event changed, and how oblivious to and in denial about that the herd of beautiful (suburban, intelligent educated successful, fashionable)people are. Upscale academically-oriented suburbanites are completely unaware of the effect that they themselves have on things — the prejudices and bias they bring to the table. They are observers and analysts, aloof and neutral and superior and free of any ethnicity, any cultural identity except that which they choose for themselves as the enlightened educated and intelligent ones.

[balantz]

58. Sounds like a lack of cultural identity and a lot of disposible time and income.

The corporate profiteers swooped in to provide that, and lots more!

I know that's a simplistic explanation, but I was born in '62 and grew up during the programming.

Our culture is built on a plastic dream which is being manufactured in Asia and other places. It has no real continuity or validity of its own.

Pop a pill, you'll be alright.

[Two Americas]

60. the practical political effect

The political effect of this is the preservation of white suburban privilege, especially for those who are college educated and "into" various cultural and New Age spiritual doctrines. We can dress it up with fancy labels - "organic, green, progressive, liberal" - but that does not change the essential character of it.

Those close to power - successful white suburbanites - do not need an overtly expressed cultural identity, since their culture is seen as the standard, the norm, and therefore as neutral and benign. It is others who "have" ethnicity. Those with relative privilege and power can make up identities and play around with them, while ignoring and denying their true cultural identity as well as their political role. They can also pretend that power and economics do not exist as an important factor in politics. For those who have those, where is the problem? Power and money? Just make the "right choices" like we did, like any intelligent person who was not a "loser" would do and everything will be fine. People who are benefiting from the system do not want to look very seriously or closely at the unfairness of the system.

It is true that before the ruling class could destroy other cultures, the culture of the privileged class of northern Europeans (other people have been granted honorary status as WASPs if they conform to social norms and do the job that WASP intellectuals are supposed to do - defend the interests of the ruling class in exchange for some status, security and trinkets) must first be rendered impotent and weak.

I should dig up Malcolm's "house Negro" speech he made in Detroit in the 60's. He describes this phenomenon better than anyone I have ever heard or read.

[Two Americas]

99. as promised

Message To The Grass Roots
Malcolm X
delivered on 10 Nov, 1963 in Detroit, MI

(excerpt)

To understand this, you have to go back to what the young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro - back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food - what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.

On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro - those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lin'" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were - a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.

The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro - remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant - and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -- that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.

Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man's going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they're not doing anything to you. So you sit there and 'cause you've got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don't know what's happening. 'Cause someone has taught you to suffer - peacefully.

The white man do the same thing to you in the street, when he want to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and don't have to be afraid of your fighting back. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me, just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Don't stop suffering -- just suffer peacefully. As Reverend Cleage pointed out, "Let your blood flow In the streets." This is a shame. And you know he's a Christian preacher. If it's a shame to him, you know what it is to me.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxgrassroots.htm

[balantz]

103. Thanks T A n/t

[Andrea]

62. Does anyone remember this?

Buy a big, bright green pleasure machine!

It's not like people weren't warned.

[balantz]

53. Here's a bit of my thought on that.

"Self-actualization" has helped me (not necessarily a Maslow thing). I owe everything to do with my understanding of life and my ability to be at peace, despite the odds surrounding me, to my investigating within. I have opened up to an inner-grace that has for the most part wiped out a life-time of depression, and has eliminated some extreme addictions. This is a personal path that is transforming for me and helps me to see more clearly what is going on in and around me. A few years ago I wouldn't have as clear a picture of what is happening in me, or in the world around me. I don't regret it at all. But I don't mean the looking for violet lights for my new-age altar and making sure my dog is given energy attunements once a month. There are a lot of people who appear to be chasing shadows and still live in ignorance of who they are, or of what is happening in the world around them.

My observations of others of course are only that. And not everyone can be lumped into a single stereotypical explanation.

[Andrea]

54. I think I would say

that I have been on a similar path, with similar benefits as what you mention. I do think there are some who while seeking, are not finding, or not finding yet. And yet, they seem unaware that they aren't finding. They seem to be stumbling around in the dark, bouncing from one "fad" to another, and not realizing that's what they are doing. I wouldn't want to condemn anyone who is making the effort. But yet, I see some people who seem to not have an inner anchor and they might be vulnerable to getting caught up in this cult we've been talking about.

I think about myself 20 years ago, prior to this exploration, and I still don't see that I would have jumped on the Obama train. I've always had a healthy suspicion of any mass movement.

BTW, if I were you I'd start getting the dog the energy attunements pronto. You don't want a dog with unbalanced chakras! :rofl:

[balantz]

55. Oh God No!

They can get viscious!

And they need all of our help in finding their inner-puppy you know!

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

61. that is great

I know that I criticize self-actualization, but I have no issue with it except as it is used as a substitute for politics - which I think is happening.

[balantz]

63. When you say in place of politics

do you mean in place of awareness, involvement and ownership of society and government?

I think I see what you are saying now.

My personal self-actualization (and of course it's not "done" yet) actually got me to a place of wanting to look under the hood of American politics and get more involved. When I was just a dysfunctional and ignorant liberal (albeit always a low-income one) I was off in between la-la land with a fantasy of my spirituality, and a horrid depression which I self-medicated. I was ill because I was living a lie about who I thought I was in a fake world. I lived in a fantasy. Society helped reinforce, actually gave me the framework for that fantasy. And that includes the mainstream religion I grew up with, the lies about the heroes of America, the lies about the "good American agenda" in the world, and the quazi-spiritual new age stuff. Most of it I was always able to see through to a point, even as a youngster. I must add though, some of the (mostly ancient) eastern teachings that the new age stuff based itself on have helped me quite a lot. I am mostly refering to advaita teachings and such.

[Two Americas]

66. two manifestations

There are two ways that self-actualization becomes a replacement of politics.

First, the obvious way is when people ignore politics and focus solely on themselves.

Secondly, and more dangerously, people apply self-actualization models to political activism and political philosophy.

The politics of the left say that it is within the context of community-actualization that we find true freedom and individuality - as members of cooperative communities. The right wingers and the progressives say that it is through self-improvement that communities get better.

Here is a good way to see the lie of both forms of self-actualization - the liberal "progressive" version, and the Reagan bootstrap version. If you were stranded alone on a desert island the rest of your life, what good would "free markets" do you, and how would you become a progressed enlightened individual when there was no one to compare your progress to, and no one who noticed or cared?

Now, obviously, people would work out strategies in that situation to stay sane and improve their lives and themselves - while always hoping and yearning for rescue and companionship. But once they were back in a community - and all people prefer that; it may be a more important necessity for life than anything else - we would once again be facing the challenge of how to live in a community - not how to live as isolated individuals.

[balantz]

68. I think one thing that has confused me when you use "self-actualization"

is that you mix in material success. I understand what that is in our society, but my experience of self-actualization is separate from material actualization.

Many people equate spiritual self-actualization with materialism. In fundamental ways they are distinct things.

I think that is where much of the problems lie. Keeping them separate is a path that leads to material equality for all.

If I am not after a selfish agenda to be materially comfortable for "ME" as a "spiritual" goal, then I am capable of channeling resources for the good of all.

Does that make sense?

[Andrea]

72. It makes sense to me.

I think some, or many, people lack a kind of emotional or spiritual depth and thus their version of self-actualization ends up being involved with material success. I tend to use Maslow's definition because that is what I learned: self-actualization needs are morality, creativity, problem-solving, using one's talents to their fullest extent, and accepting the world as it is (which in no way implies giving up on bettering it). There is nothing in there about material needs, but because some people lack that spark (for want of a better term) of creativity or a moral quest, they actually settle for a lower level in the hierarchy which involves fulfilling material needs and they amplify it beyond satisfying the needs into excess. I think they are usually completely oblivious to this.

[balantz]

74. I googled self-actualization earlier and came up with Maslow.

I think I learned about him twenty years ago in a psychology class but had forgotten about his philosophy.

What I study lately are philosophies like non-duality, zen and the advaita of Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi. In that there is even very little emphasis on "morality, creativity, problem-solving, using one's talents to their fullest extent". The accepting the world as it is would be a part of non-duality. The things I quoted from your post I guess would be some possible, natural outcomes form a non-duality view-point.

Actualizing non-duality (which is what advaita means in sanskrit; "not two") would be another thing entirely wherein the egoic self is completely transcended and oneness with all creation, or unity consciousness prevails. The source of consciousness is known to be oneself and all things emanate from That source. But that is another animal entirely.

Anyway, just thought I'd post that stuff for interest.

[Andrea]

75. You are out of my league in your study

of Eastern philosophy. I do feel an affinity for it, though. It's the only thing approaching religion that I don't feel antagonistic towards. If I hadn't developed my own free-form spirituality, or if I felt the need to be part of a spiritual community, I would probably study Buddhism more and become involved with it.

One thing, though: Maslow was not a philosopher, he was a scientist. As such, his theories are based on the scientific method and verified through experimentation. I'm secular enough that that matters to me.

I think one could say that the way one fulfills their self-actualization needs can be influenced by their philosophy, and thus, for example, much greater emphasis could be placed on acceptance than on the other needs. that only applies to people who actually have a philosophy, of course. Those without probably get hung up in those material needs.

[balantz]

76. You're right, sorry, Maslow was a scientist.

I look into the source of mind and feel that ultimate answers to what I am are beyond thought. Types of Buddhism are attractive, being simple and clean and non-deity. The formless absolute is the source of self, that kind of thing.

[Andrea]

77. Did you have to contemplate the ideas for a long time before you could integrate them?

I find them hard to get ahold of.

[balantz]

79. What ideas?

Do you mean the "Who am I" of Ramana? The question is just a primer. It is not meant to be formed into words. It is a looking beyond thought, to the space between, for the source of manifestation. It is looking into what you are in the still space from which thought arises. Are you familiar with Eckhart Tolle? He wrote "The Power of Now". Now I just opened myself up for attack :D He is a popular new age kind of teacher for some. He is actually right on in my book, but he speaks more from a dualistic stance. He is kind of beginner advaita, if you will.

[Andrea]

81. All of the above

Especially the whole idea of looking beyond thought, or just being in the absence of thought. I've heard of Tolle, but I'm not familiar.

[balantz]

87. Dupe.

Weird, I tried twice to place this in response to your question, Andrea, and it wouldn't go in the correct slot.

[balantz]

88. Thoughts will always arise.

Being absent of thought is to not be chained to them. It is an acceptance of them and a letting go in one. Also, as beliefs drop away so do the abundance of thoughts. Ask yourself "Who am I" and as each thing comes up see that you are none of these. Are you the body? Are you the thoughts? Look for the answers. They will not come up because what you are is beyond these things. All of these things are just concepts in thought based on a past that doesn't actually exist anywhere, and projections of a future that also does not exist. If they exist, where are they? Ultimatley you are left with silence, emptiness.

[Andrea]

92. So how would you answer the question,

"Who am I?" I would answer that I am the values and ethics that I form my behavior with. I have a feeling that you would answer that in some way that is hard for me to imagine. When you say, "Ultimately you are left with silence, emptiness", is that your environment or is that you? I have a feeling you would say it is you, and that's hard for me to conceptualize.

[balantz]

93. That's because it is beyond conceptualization.

Like a baby or small child before the garden gets turned into a narrow view of accepted definitions. Before an acceptable "reality" is imposed upon the innocence of pure being.

[Andrea]

94. I have the impression,

and it must be wrong somehow, that one could live this way, with this world-view, if one were in a small contemplative community, but it doesn't seem that it can coexist at the same time with regular everyday life. Do you compartmentalize your life? Do you spend quiet time in touch with this, what? I don't even know what to call it because it's not a thought or a concept - maybe a state of mind? Do you spend some time by yourself in this state of mind and then later put it aside so you can go to work and do what people have to do to deal with reality? I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, but maybe you have an idea what I'm asking.

[balantz]

96. Thoughts always arise.

In fact they are more clear and less cluttered. It is just a type of deep meditation. It is our natural state. Thoughts are there for us to use if need be. In this world so many live for thoughts and the emotions that are perpetuated by thought. The thought/mind is a tool, not our master. When the thinking mind is our master we are forever carried away with this and that thought/emotion and never relax in the natural peace of simply pure being. I am gradually becoming more and more free of the enslavement of thought and ideas. We don't disappear without thinking. It isn't a state of mind but the ground from which mind, or thought arises. It is our natural state of being.

[Andrea]

95. Take your time answering, Balantz

Because I'm going to go to bed. I was up way too late last night. You know, I'm in the eastern time zone. I think TA is, too. Are you in mountain or pacific out there?

[balantz]

97. Mountain

Goodnight Andrea. Sweet dreams. :hi:

[balantz]

105. Actually if you use a question in words

it might be more effective to say "What am I?" rather than "Who am I?" That gets beneath the question of what is a who, what is a person.

[balantz]

110. To all those who have had to sift thru these few posts above

which have nothing to do with the political discussions of this thread and may be saying to themselves "WTF is this doing here?" I apologize. We went off on a personal discussion that should have been held elsewhere.

[Two Americas]

82. a more important distinction

A more important distinction than material versus non-material - which is a religious debate - is self-centered versus community centered - which is a political debate.

The idea that wanting material things is bad and wrong is part of an ongoing American melodrama. When we have so many people in desperate need, it is a little obscene to counsel people to not be attached to material things. It is injustice and inequality that we should be focusing on, and that expresses itself in material and non-material ways.

I have no objection to religion (or "spirituality," as people prefer to say now.) I think it should be kept distinct from politics, at least in our thinking.

[Andrea]

84. I think when I say materialistic,

I really mean selfish materialism or excess materialism. The idea that having lots of things is more important than, well, most everything else. Or of putting oneself above other people, feeling that one deserves more things, and that comes by virtue mainly of already having more things.

[Two Americas]

90. justice and equality

You are talking about justice and equality there I think, Andrea, and that should apply not just to what we have, but to what we can do as well, eh?

[Andrea]

91. Yes, that's how I see it

But not in a "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" communist sense. I'm really a Roosevelt Democrat and a capitalist. If I build a better mousetrap, why shouldn't I benefit from that? But, this is not a kind of laissez faire, free markets rule kind of philosophy. I believe in regulation and a social safety net. Ideally, people would let their consciences be their guides and things like gouging and profiteering and the drive for profits at the expense of safety wouldn't go on. But, I know that we can't rely on people to behave like that, so we need regulation. I also believe that by providing people's needs, especially when they are young, ultimately is best for the whole community, and this applies to basic needs like food and shelter and clothes and also to education, training and opportunity. I think adults need to take personal responsibility, but be provided with the means to do that. I think children should never be deprived because the adults in their lives are either less than responsible or less than able to provide for them.

[Two Americas]

98. small business versus capitalism

Urban people think of business and capitalism as being the same thing, but from a farming perspective there is an obvious difference. Capitalism is passively making money off of money. That is not the same thing as producing things of real value for people such as food. Farming is not capitalism, and running a farm is our traditional prototype and model for small business. Getting rid of capitalism or corporations is not the same thing as getting rid of businesses, nor does it mean eliminating private ownership or stifling initiative. In fact, I think the opposite is true - productivity and initiative would soar and there would be much more prosperity were not capitalism and corporatism suppressing and controlling our economy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the rest of us.

[Two Americas]

100. An Imaginary Conversation....

A modern fellow of genus Homo protests his innocence. "I don't work now because I worked much harder before", says he. "I labored for ten years at a crap job earning $30,000 per year and that earned me the right to live in miserable conditions in which the loss of my job would have made me destitute in weeks. But, I was not content to labor as my fellows. I got a second job at $20,000 per year and I was so thrifty that I spent not a penny of it but banked it all so that at the end of my time I had $300,000, a princely sum. I invested it wisely at 10% and now I can live for the rest of my life, if modestly, off the proceeds of only my own sweat, my own thriftiness, and my own discipline. And, if there was any luck to it - in my not facing misfortune or ill health or any other calamity - that was the product of my own luck too. I owe nothing to anyone. What I have is due to myself alone, and those who have much more than I, it seems to me that they must have arrived at it the same as I, perhaps over generations. What is this social power you speak of when it is only individual labor and individual property that stems from it? It seems to me that you merely envy that which you are too lazy to earn for yourself."

"My dear independent fellow" says we, "let us understand the simple arithmetic of your claims. If your story is as you say and we ignore all else that you report, still at the end of ten years, we see only $200,000. And, if you continue to live at this admittedly low level, nevertheless, you will have run through your entire accumulated proceeds in only 6 years and eight months. More than this, by your accounting, it would take one and a third lifetimes to create a single lifetime without labor, and this at the exceedingly low standards and exceptionally favorable circumstances that you assume. How then are we to explain those who live without labor for generations, and this at a thousand or ten thousand times times the level that you report? How many generations of 'thrift' and 'hard work' would this require? What you claim is impossible for you and beyond impossibility for those who live above you. Where is this magic of 'individual labor and individual property' that you speak of?"

"But you forget interest", protests our friend. "My money makes money, and simply by the act of having some which is not consumed in day to day living, that which I save is augmented. It is this which grants me my independence."

"We forget as much as your money 'makes'," answers we, "which is nothing at all. Set your money on the table and leave it there for as long as you like. Nothing happens to it. It remains the same. It is only by setting it in motion as capital that anything whatever is 'made' and that 'making' is the product of labor, the same as your own. Your interest comes from the command of the labor of others, just as your own was once commanded and after 6 years and eight months not a speck of 'hard work', 'thrift', 'good luck' or 'wisdom' is left. Neither is there any trace of 'independence' or 'personal property' You now live by the labor of others... by the transformation of your pitiful 'savings' into Capital, no matter how small the sum. It is your ability to command the labor of others as a social power that gives you your ability and that you have a poor man's caricature of that process changes nothing other than to lay fraudulent your claims to the right. You might as well claim innate superiority or the right of the sword as did the slave master or the god-given hierarchy of obligations of the lord or even the phases of the moon, if you like. You eat without working because you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which others work to feed you. You are the opposite of what you claim."

"You're just trying to make me feel bad.", says our friend.

"We don't give a shit how you feel", says we. "It is modest enough what you do... just as you claim. It is your willingness to ignore what is closer to your face than your nose that we tire of. "

Our friend orders another beer and pretends to watch the hockey game though he would be hard pressed to name two players on either team.


by anaxarchos, reprinted with permission

[balantz]

86. I used different words, but what you wrote is what I meant:

"A more important distinction than material versus non-material - which is a religious debate - is self-centered versus community centered - which is a political debate."

I'm not much into religion.

Material things are good and necessary.

Yes to separation of church and state in all meanings of the statement.

My personal "spirituality" cannot be separated from the rest of my life. But that is only my personal experience. Mixing philosophy, religion, God, any of that with politics is a big NOT in my book. We only need the freedom to believe as we choose and accept others beliefs as important to them, be they the same or different.

[Two Americas]

16. it will just dissipate, maybe?

I think it is like a hurricane, ferocious for a while - and how much damage will it do and how long will it last and where will it hit? But it will suddenly end, dissipate into thin air, and people will go back to their lives as though nothing happened. Between now and then, some weird things could happen.

I agree that we need to learn more about this.

[Andrea]

19. I could see that happening

Especially if it comes to the point where their beliefs are no longer sustainable and they can't bear to confront the insanity they displayed previously. A huge blanket of denial could come down on the whole thing.

[balantz]

38. It will be used against us.

The bitterness about the race thing will be turned against us. The neocons and the Dems who work with them will use the big "O" failure to try and divide us socially or "tribally", as they have always done. It is an effective fascist tool. They have many card tricks up their sleeves. That's the difference with the neocons. They don't spend energy on thinking of ways to improve our lives and our government for the people, they spend their energy and resources on finding ways to manipulate and divide us for their greedy interests. Divide and conquer is the motto. It is the way of petty kingdoms. It is what Democracy was invented for, to keep the monarchies at bay. Now the royalty, the elite, have reared their ugly, collective head for one last big hurrah. The stage is set for our final battle. Will Democracy prevail? Or will they dine on our remains?

[balantz]

39. I know that may sound a little silly when I wrote this:

"Now the royalty, the elite, have reared their ugly, collective head for one last big hurrah. The stage is set for our final battle. Will Democracy prevail? Or will they dine on our remains?"

But I'm not trying to sound mythical like some epic movie or something. I really do think that the world is at the brink of a lot of potential disasters all at once. When was the last time we the people actually had a say in how things are run? They, the corporate oligarchy if you will, have got the world by the stomach.

[Andrea]

42. We ARE definitely on the brink of several disasters

That's why I can't just sit back and think, oh well, here's another election where I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Things are getting very, very bad all over the world, and especially here in the U.S. as far as civil liberties. I dread the thought of what might be coming. I am completely serious when I say that I may need to leave this country. We should all be considering it and making preliminary plans, because it is possible that it will get to the point where we can't leave. A lot of people don't believe it is that bad, but I'm sure there were people in Germany in the 30s who thought it wouldn't get that bad.

[Andrea]

41. I see them that way to.

I didn't used to see them that way. Pre-Reagan it seemed that at least some of them wanted to do what was "right", but completely disagreed with me about what that was. Now it seems that they have no altruism, nor even a conscience. They remind me of sharks. Sharks are just big eating machines. Nothing else factors in except getting food. The Republicans nowadays are like that. They want their money and their power and nothing else factors in at all. This is John Dean's thesis in his book "Conservative Without Conscience."

They really do seek to divide us at every turn. That is why the corporate-controlled media pushed Clinton and Obama. It was a sure way to divide us and it has been very effective. Now we are doing their work for them, tearing ourselves apart. If Edwards had been the nominee, we would have been strongly united. I actually think any of our other candidates would have united us, just not as strongly as Edwards. No one would have been as divisive as either of these two, and we got stuck with both of them. I don't know of any of their supporters who realize this, or will acknowledge it. But they have most definitely been duped.

[balantz]

43. Yes, and we all suffer because of the duping.

And it is easy to be duped if you buy into the media program of what we are supposed to believe ourselves to be. Propaganda is an ancient tool used by religions and governments, and now it has become quite effective for mass manipulation here in the electronic age. When we were young media wasn't quite as invasive and social programming moved along much more slowly. When I was a child in the sixties and seventies it was closer to the time of the beginning of massive media manipulation.

The neocon agenda is old. If you look into shrub's family you can see ties to banking and fascism going back at least a few generations. When Reagan was in office as the neocon puppet of the eighties we were still more innocent to the pervasiveness of their agenda for America and the world. It wasn't so obvious what they were up to. Some of their actions were more easily excused as just conservative. But now the cat is out of the bag and we can see how the neocon agenda is tied to corporate-elite power and has been in play for generations now. And look where we find ourselves. It is a nightmare to wake up in. Unfortunately there are a lot of citizens, even "liberals", who haven't quite woken up to the whole truth yet. It is in part because they have built an identity on an illusion. They are not yet ready to let that whole world, that belief structure, to crumble so that the truth can be revealed.

[Andrea]

45. The neocon agenda is old, but

there used to be some on the right who were not part of it. They were just of a different philosophy than us. Those people (like Goldwater and Rockefeller) were driven out of the Republican Party as the neocons gained in power. They tricked their own people into electing Reagan, and that was the end of the traditional Republican Party. They moved SO far to the right. If Nixon were alive today, he'd be a centrist Democrat. He was far to the left of where these people are now.

I might be one of those liberals that hasn't quite woken up yet. I think I have a pretty firm grasp on the enormity of the immorality of the neocons, but I don't believe that they hold absolute power in this world. I do think it is possible for us to take the power back. Events of the next seven months will probably determine whether I continue to believe that. It does seem like time is running out. The more they chip away at our freedoms, the less chance we have of defying them.

[shimmergal]

107. It scares the hell out of me!

And , what could happen afterwards, even more. Combine an economy in a downward spiral, a leader who stirs the masses thru oratory, and a bunch of irrational "worshippers." Germany c. 1930, anybody? And truly, while I don't think Obama has any intention of falling into this trap, the siren song of emboldened followers like his is very hard to resist. Especially when the problems don't seem amenable to any other solutions.

[Andrea]

6. Another thing I was wondering about these people

Don't they find it really boring and pointless to read the other Obamabots' posts? Seriously, would any of us have bothered to post 50 times a day, "John Edwards is the best. Everyone else sucks. If anyone disagrees, they're lying." That's all that most of their posts amount to. Even if I agreed with them, I would find that a colossal waste of time. Is it some kind of ritualistic behavior? Or something like schooling behavior in fish?

[Two Americas]

15. weakness

That behavior betrays extreme weakness, I think. They have an idea. If they could arrive at a decision through reason and logic that the idea they had was indeed true, and had the courage to stand by it, that would be the end of it - that would be strong. But they cannot arrive at that decision. Yet they cannot emotionally accept that the idea they have is not true, either. In other words, not only is their idea a lie, but they know that it is. They are trying to make something that is not true, true, by repeating it and by seeking agreement with others. One person alone could not keep that up, but if a mob can be formed and induced to chant together and reinforce each other, then the person can ride along on that wave. They are not strong enough to stand on their own. They call the herding together, the losing of themselves in the mob "unity."

Your questions are great. There is much to think about and discuss, and I don't have the definitive answers, so I am just tossing out a few thoughts.

[Andrea]

20. That makes sense.

So, in a sense they are inflicting their own brainwashing out of an intense need for whatever it is the cult represents to them?

I remember back in the 70s, when I was a teenager, cults were something of a hot topic. There were various religious cults active in the country at that time (Children of God was one) and the Moonies were either just starting or just becoming famous, and then we had the Jonestown massacre in 1978. I remember hearing about what kind of people were vulnerable to being taken in by cults. there was a lot of discussion in the press and on TV because people were worried that their kids would get caught up in one. It seems to me that most of the characteristics were the same as those of kids who are vulnerable to pedophiles. People who were lonely or needy, didn't have a strong sense of self, were adrift, outsiders, that kind of thing. do you think that could explain this kind of mass cult?

It just doesn't seem likely to me. I have a hard time imagining that there were so many people who were so hungry for belonging and acceptance. I guess maybe you start with a core group like that, and then other dynamics come into play as the movement spreads.

I'm really glad to be able to have a thoughtful discussion about this issue. I think it's too complicated for any of us to have definitive answers, but I think it's too important not to try to understand. I hope in the morning that others will weigh in, too, but both of you have said things I'm really glad to hear and think about.

[vanboggie]

50. I still think Rove hired them

Look what the nastiness of the two groups has done to the Democratic Party. Nuff said.

[vanboggie]

23. I don't feel like a Dem anymore

I don't know why I even clicked on this thread, but it made me sick.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5676426

Good grief, they're dancing on air about speculation that Obama may have tapped Pelosi for VP. Pelosi? Madame "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi? :argh:

I don't understand Hillobama people. My Party isn't what it used to be. My excitement level about this election is zilch, and I miss being hopeful.

[balantz]

24. I must say that seems to me to be a brilliant move if it's true.

I think that ticket would sell to the rank and file Democrats.

I personally despise (politically and socially) Pelosi. She appears to me to be as elite as they come. I try not to despise people on a personal level because it is not worthy of my energy.

[Andrea]

28. Oh, yuck

I tried to read that thread because you referred to it. I couldn't make it through. How disgusting. They are all presenting their little theories about who he might pick without one piece of evidence to support any of their views. Just rank speculation. Several of them mention Webb and then one pops up and says "Sounds like it'll be Webb." It's as if they really believe they are conjuring reality in their little echo chamber.

[Catchawave]

102. He'll need a "cheney" behind the scenes

somebody with actual CEO experience. There's more to running a country than pumping your fist in the air at rallies :evilgrin:

[Two Americas]

33. Edwards Democrats

As Edwards Democrats, we may be in a unique position to observe and understand what is happening. As I said to Andrea, I don't have this all figured out, so what I am saying is not all that authoritative or coherent.

Here is what I see: the party is splitting, and there are actually three groups, not two.

1. The DLC triangulating third way inside the beltway Dems, as represented by Clinton.

2. The "socially liberal, economically conservative" relatively upscale New Age liberals, as represented by Obama.

3. The old school FDR New Deal Dems, economically liberal and populist as represented by Edwards.

[balantz]

34. Yes, three groups, not two.n/t

[Andrea]

44. I agree

We are splitting into three groups, as you outlined. The people in the first two groups don't even realize the existence of the third. They think that we are just a few "misfit" voices laboring under delusion. And yet, somehow we scare the hell out of them (especially the Obama people). The fear is palpable in the way they attack anyone who questions their candidate and promotes John Edwards, Al Gore or anyone else.

It is possible that the third group is actually the largest, because we are mostly "under the radar". We have the advantage of being the only group that has retained it's objectivity and ability to think critically. We are trying to understand what is going on, while the other two groups don't even acknowledge that there is a problem, or they completely misread the problem and hang it all on their opposition.

We have another advantage, I think, in Howard Dean. I think he is in the third group. When I see him on TV talking about the mess the party is in over the nomination, he reminds me of John Edwards representing the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party.

Maybe with these advantages, we will be able to turn things in a sustainable direction. Some days I'm more hopeful than others. (BTW, have you guys seen mention of the so-called "Denver Plan"?) If we succeed and manage to get Gore or anyone other than Obama/Clinton/McCain elected, we will still have a lot of problems to deal with, of course, and one of those problems is going to be how to deal with all these cult members.

[Two Americas]

64. yes!

It is great to read some intelligent and perceptive political analysis - so rare.

"...somehow we scare the hell out of them..."

Oh, we very much do scare the liberal establishment. We were talking about cognitive dissonance - the tension caused by the discrepancy between what people know to be true on some level, and what they are desperately holding to be true. They know that on a level playing field, the message of John Edwards would be supported by the majority of people in the country. But why are they threatened by that? Because it gives the lie to modern liberalism, with all of its prejudices and bigotry, and that undermines their self-image and personal identity and also threatens the power, status, income and influence of the leaders of modern liberalism.

It is possible that the third group is actually the largest...

Politics has always been a battle between several small groups, each of which is vying for public attention and support. That is why dismissing the left as "a small fringe group" is meaningless. All political movements are promoted by small fringe groups, and always have been. The small fringe group that best speaks to the public (or best suppresses the public) leverages that into power. The people arguing against the "fringe left" and promoting culture war liberalism are also a small fringe group, but they have superior resources and are better at suppressing the public than we are(we are committed to NOT suppressing the public.)

We represent the needs and desires of 70% or more of the public. The faction controlling the Democratic party and liberalism only represent the needs and desires of about 10% of the public - of the two factions within that faction, Clinton represents the needs of more people than Obama does. The Republicans represent the needs and desires of about 1% of the population.

[balantz]

65. How will the majority of "common people" be engaged by our end of the Party?

How can we gain enough traction to get our agenda through all of the obstacles?

I could come up with more questions, but that's enough to start.

Oh, and why aren't more people at this forum jumping in I wonder?

[Andrea]

70. Well, here's one idea

Recently I was in a discussion somewhere on DU about the huge mess we have in our nominating process. (So few people will discuss that, because they sense that it undermines the legitimacy of their chosen candidate). I can go back and try to find who I was discussing this with if anyone wants me to; if no one asks, I won't bother. I have quite a list of things I would like to see changed about the whole process and this woman brought up one I had not thought of before and I think it's brilliant. First, we have to do one of the things on my list - eliminate all caucuses and replace them with primaries. Then, this woman suggested something called "acceptance voting" which is kind of like instant runoff voting.

Everyone votes for both their first and their second choices for a nominee. The votes are weighted and counted. If we had that kind of voting this year, we would probably have seen results where (I'm going to make this simple by only discussing the three top contenders) maybe 38% picked Obama as their top choice, 32% picked Clinton and 30% picked Edwards BUT about 65% would have picked Edwards as their second choice and he would have been the nominee. This would have been the right choice for the party, because Edwards was acceptable to far more people, even if he wasn't their first choice. Thus, you end up with the candidate most likely to win in the general.

I think if we revamped the whole nomination process, as well as the process for the down-ticket offices, we would have a far better chance of having our candidates gain traction.

In case anyone isn't already sick of hearing them, here are my ideas for fixing the process:

Institute uniform practices for every state

Eliminate caucuses and replace them with closed primaries

Publicly finance all campaigns

Schedule the primaries according to the Delaware Plan

Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and make all cable channels subject to the same rules we used to hold broadcast channels to

Make every state's primary winner-take-all UNLESS we eliminate the electoral college, then make every state's primary proportional

Use acceptance voting

If we had that plan in place, we would most likely be looking at a very successful Edwards campaign for President this fall. If it ended up not being Edwards, it's possible it could have even been Kucinich because we would have a level playing field.


Now, as to your question about why more people aren't jumping in, I don't know. I thought they would. This forum is the best place on DU to have a serious, thoughtful, civil discussion about important matters. Maybe it's the weather. Maybe everyone is outside enjoying the spring.

[balantz]

71. Well I certainly hope they are, the weather is beautiful!

All of those ideas should be implemented. What we have now is completely bastardized, unfair and manipulated by corporate interests.

I really like that acceptance voting. That is a very good idea.

[Andrea]

73. Yes, it makes perfect sense doesn't it?

I think there is a side benefit to acceptance voting, too. I think it keeps people from getting too emotionally invested in their candidate, because it makes them think right from the start about the idea of more than one candidate being acceptable. It dissuades people from the opinion that "if my candidate isn't the nominee, I'll vote for the other party."

[Two Americas]

106. fixing the primaries

I like your ideas.

I have a radical view on this - dump the primaries altogether and go back to the "smoke filled room" method. Local party caucuses send reps to state conventions, state conventions send reps to the national, and the national elects candidates. We need more wheeling and dealing, more horse trading, more contention, more participation, more of a mess - the control freaks have a stranglehold on our politics. Trying to clean up the process will always backfire. People sitting around watching TV and then pulling a lever every now and then, while powerful interests put together slick multi-million dollar sales and marketing campaigns to persuade people to buy their bright shiny product - that is not democracy.

Fair means that all have a voice, and pulling a lever is NOT the same as having a voice. As we all know, without a real voice, by the time we get into the voting booth there ARE no choices that mean much of anything. Half of the electorate stays home, not because they are lazy or stupid, but rather because they accurately perceive that the whole thing is a sham, that we have no real voice in anything.

I think there is too much obsession over voting. Elections are more of an effect than they are a cause, and they are the last step, and the smallest step, in the political process. "Choice" as the end all be all of politics is not democracy, it is a popularity contest, a media circus, an illusion.

[shimmergal]

108. Excellent suggestions!

In fact, I'd independently come up with about 3/4 of them. The only significant difference was, I'd envisioned one national primary on the same day, to minimize the opportunity of MSM talking heads and their bosses etc. to create bandwagons and distractions. But the Delaware Plan (is that the one with regional primaries scheduled on a rolling basis?) could possibly work too. I'm just not sure about our ability to reinstate a Fairness Doctrine very soon.

But we certainly need to be discussing this, and working on it in coming months & years.

[Two Americas]

109. hi shimmergal

Thanks for joining in.

"...to minimize the opportunity of MSM talking heads and their bosses etc. to create bandwagons and distractions..."

I fear that with one national primary day, that the MSM will then have total control over the process. Also, the smaller states will get no attention from the candidates, and national ad campaigns will be the sole determining factor in choosing the nominee. Candidates with the most money, and those with the most support from the corporations and the media giants will be the only ones with a chance of succeeding.

I think media driven popularity contest are the problem, not the solution. The right wingers will always have the advantage in that environment.

[Two Americas]

78. a stab at answering your questions

"How can we gain enough traction to get our agenda through all of the obstacles?"

We can't. Nobody cares about OUR agenda. THEIR agenda on the other hand....education, jobs, housing.

"Why aren't more people at this forum jumping in I wonder?"

Because this is status quo conservative central, the gate keepers' stomping ground? I know that sounds counter-intuitive...

The bait in the trap looks a lot like food, everyone says it is food...come on in... :)

[balantz]

80. Well, my agenda IS their agenda. Education, jobs, housing, access to good affordable food and water.

Etc.

[Andrea]

83. Same here, but you didn't mention my number one

restoring civil liberties. Ordinary people would say "preserving our freedoms". I believe they care about it.


Edited for spelling.

[vanboggie]

48. Well said, Two

I also think there are more in the our group (the third group) than in the other two. I think that had Edwards been "allowed" to continue, he would have been supported by disillusioned Republicans, too (those who refused to become Rethuglicans).

My guess is that the same marionettes who pull the Chimp 'n Cheney's strings are directing the entire Hillobama fiasco.

[Andrea]

51. Yep

Regardless of the genesis of their campaigns, at least by now both Clinton and Obama are solidly under the control of the right wing.

[balantz]

52. I tend to agree with that assessment.

It doesn't go over well with a lot of people.

People don't like to see how completely they are being manipulated, it kind of pulls the rug out from under their "reality." They don't like to have "no ground to stand on."

I have no ground to stand on but the fair Earth beneath my feet. When I fell that's where I stood up, on the good, hard earth. It is hard to pull a rug out from under my feet.

Human institutions become so corrupted with greed and stuff!

[Creideiki]

112. Except Obama's not really socially liberal

Social liberals don't think they're the only ones that are supposed to have rights.

Obama is at great risk of really alienating the gay population. Sure, some may vote for him out of a perceived, "He's a Democrat, so he must be better than McCain." But it won't be the usual level of support. On social issues, I can see Obama triangulating to serve up the gay minority to the social conservatives--he's already done it after all, as his record in Illinois shows.

Edwards got this. You could tell at the first Logo debate that he got it. Elizabeth got it, and you'd better be damned sure that she's one strong lady.

Edwards got that we're really all in this mess together, and it's only by working together and everyone giving each other a helping hand that we'd get out of the mess together.

(I also think that others like Kucinich understood this. Hopefully Kucinich can wind up high in the Democratic House leadership--I think it would be a great time for him to be Speaker.)

Fortunately I've got a great Senate candidate this time in Mark Udall and a great Congresscritter in Diane Degette to support. Might just leave off the top of the ticket this time, as his Highness is almost certain to be the nominee.

[balantz]

113. Good point.

Is he as socially liberal as we can get? If people who are supporting his nomination view him and themselves as socially liberal then that is really telling about "liberals" in this country. Liberalism has become something else, like maybe moving closer to Libertarianism?

[Creideiki]

114. Except Libertarianism is moronic

Until you can live on Walden Pond without any reliance on public goods. But that's what happens when we tie the social and fiscal axes into one political-geometric scheme. The Democratic Party is basically fiscally liberal to moderate--there's an overarching belief that government can provide more public goods than we are currently.

But just as there are Republicans that aren't wholly Evil (Judy Barr-Topinka, the Illinois State Treasurer is fine with me, for example), we can't say that the Democrats are wholly Good.

[Andrea]

32. Guys, I am really enjoying this conversation

and I think we are discussing some very important things, but I have to get up for work in the morning. I've got to head to bed, but I hope we can continue this.

[balantz]

35. Gotta put my kid to bed.

I hope we have more discussion along these lines.

G'night.

[Two Americas]

37. thanks balantz, Andrea and everybody

You guys are the best. Rest up and see you tomorrow.

[Andrea]

47. Here is something of interest

This guy has a blog where he makes his case for an Obama cult, by simply using quotes from other publications and emphasizing certain parts. When you read these descriptions of events, and quotations from celebrities that endorse Obama, the cult-like quality is undeniable. It's downright scary to look at this:

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

[spooky3]

57. Great comments in this thread. Here is my lightweight take on things.

I am not worried about what the kool-aid drinkers will do if their hero is not the nominee. The depth of support is inversely related to the degree of frenzy. If they lose, they will simply throw themselves onto the floor, kicking and screaming, for a half hour or so. But then they will quickly glom onto the next "cool" thing, whether it be a new TV show, a new band, a new fashion trend, or anything else frothy, mindless, and fun. Those in the media will from time to time put together "opinion pieces" or "TV specials" to remind the rest of us how bad we are that we did this horrible thing to their hero, sandwiched between features on whatever Britney and friends are doing that week. Sadly, I suspect many of these kool-aid drinkers are people who are among the more fortunate of the Democrats (and I believe a few aren't Democrats at all). Some are still in school, and have been largely sheltered from the cruel realities of the disaster that is the Bush administration - and from the effects of bad decisions they may have made in their own lives, since few decisions have been big, irreversible ones at this early stage - because they have felt few direct effects on their own personal lives. Others are older, in good health, in middle-class jobs, with spouses or other family members who have incomes, protecting them from the most serious effects of job loss or job discrimination, and who have had little misfortune to deal with. They aren't veterans or disabled people. They have the latest and the coolest cell phones, but they aren't in high level, stressful, demanding jobs where dealing with reality is a daily event. They haven't been hit with many of life's major unfairnesses. So they feel free to gamble when the stakes are huge because they don't fully realize what they are gambling with. There is no talking to them because they don't see things coming until they get hit in the face - and then it is too late. But they know they are right. And You're Wrong.

Obviously I do not believe this is true about every supporter of a given candidate and I don't mean to be stereotyping or insulting. But I'd love to know whether I'm close to the mark for a substantial # of them.

[balantz]

59. I would agree with your blanket analysis.

[Andrea]

67. "The depth of support is inversely related to the degree of frenzy."

I think you may have hit on something here - something that actually makes me feel a little better. I have wondered how many of these are some kind of "fair weather" Democrats who will not be in the party for the long haul. I could imagine them (I'm talking mainly about Obama supporters here, because they seem to fit this characterization more frequently, to me) getting everything they want, Obama nomination, Obama presidency, Hillary imprisoned for crimes against the Obama (just kidding about that one) and then not even bothering to vote in 2010.

Maybe the reason they seem like such Kool-aid drinkers to some of us is because they have no frame of reference for politics or governance. They can't state a coherent argument for their candidate because their frame of reference is discussing the merits of Britney Spears vs. Ashlee Simpson - the kind of argument which by it's very nature has no substance. So, all they can do is keep repeating their preference, much like I did in an argument with a friend of mine when we were about nine or ten - he kept insisting the Cowsills were better than the Monkees. Obviously he was wrong and must not have known what he was talking about. I had no explanation for my position, because such a position is not reached by reasoning. So, in effect, they are not supporters of Obama, but fans. So, if they are fans, instead of cult members, maybe we won't be dealing with hundreds of thousands of emotionally crippled "Obama survivors" whenever the balloon bursts.

I do agree that most of the Kool-aid drinkers are very sheltered people. Direct experience of the real world humbles people. One can't maintain that level of arrogance once one has been knocked around a little bit by this world. That would also help to explain their lack of concern for the realities and details of policy positions - they just don't get that these things are going to have serious consequences in people's lives. To them it seems like a football game against a big rival. If your team loses, you get mad, drink too much, punch somebody, sleep it off and go on. You don't lose your health care or your home. They just don't get how important this is. That's why so many people complain in Gore threads that if he is drafted it "won't be fair", as though being fair were an important consideration.

[balantz]

69. Good points.

"It wouldn't be fair!" That is one that makes me wonder too. Good analysis.

Yes, in the pop band era it is a fan club more than a cult. Good one there Andrea. Though, I think there are a core who are into a cult and would want to see Obama succeed for certain reasons that are important to them.

[Two Americas]

85. good stuff there guys

Great insights.

[Two Americas]

89. is is contagious

Intelligent and inspiring discussions are breaking out all over. We started a trend...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3206931

[flyarm]

101. start reading other blogs..go to no quarter..i left here quite a bit ago

and do read this article..it is well worth it!!

sorry DU but you won't be getting money from me any longer..lets see how the college kids support thisplace!! ahahahahah..yeah right.

or the Obama trolls..i bet they will dig into their pockets to keep this place going..lol..


go to talk left..and there are many other web sites that give a much more balanced look at what is happening..and of course ..you can read daily the Rezko trial..so when the right wing pounces you will be up to date..since the media is holding off that stuff until we are totslly fucked with Obama..

read this ...

Scoop: Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00295.htm

Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games
Monday, 21 April 2008, 10:24 am
Column: Evelyn Pringle


Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games - Part I

by Evelyn Pringle

Previously:
Barack Obama - Operation Board Games For Slumlords
Barack Obama - The Wizard of Oz
The investigation dubbed “Operation Board Games,” into the influence peddling within the cesspool of corruption that encompasses Illinois politicians from both major parties, has developed into multiple subplots, many of which feature Barack Obama.


Therefore, Obama should start bidding for the starring role in the movie that is sure to follow the criminal trials involved in this case because he has absolutely no chance of winning the White House, even if the leaders of the Democratic party allow this sorry charade to carry on and his name appears on the ballot.

The major media organizations continue to ignore a story that is destined to become the biggest political scandal of the decade, except for a bleep here and there. By now this can only mean one of two things. They are either unwilling to commit the manpower necessary to connect the dots of all the subplots or they know the Republicans will supply the goods free of charge the minute Obama becomes the nominee.

This two-part article is the last article in a 3-part series. The first two, Barack Obama - The Wizard of Oz and Barack Obama - Operation Board Games For Slumlords, cover Obama’s rise to fame in the political mafia of Illinois, bankrolled by the now infamous Syrian-born influence peddler, Antoin “Tony” Rezko.


then read this........and tell me why was this white house trying to protect Obama ???????????

GOP heavyweights reportedly tried to oust Fitzgerald -- chicagotribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-rove-fitzgerald-web-apr24,0,2332070.story

GOP heavyweights reportedly tried to oust Fitzgerald
U.S. attorney allegedly targeted by Karl Rove, Bob Kjellander
By Bob Secter | Tribune reporter

5:02 PM CDT, April 23, 2008

In a bombshell disclosure before testimony began Wednesday morning in the Antoin "Tony" Rezko trial, a federal prosecutor said a former Rezko confidant was prepared to say that another friend of Rezko was trying to pull strings with White House political director Karl Rove to fire U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald and kill his investigation into Rezko.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton said Ali Ata would testify to conversations he had with Rezko in 2004 about the power play. The Rezko investigation then was in its early stages.

Ata, a former official in the administration of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, on Tuesday pleaded guilty in connection with Rezko-related corruption, saying that Blagojevich was present in the room when Ata and Rezko discussed swapping a $25,000 campaign contribution for a job in the administration.

Before the jury was brought into the courtroom Wednesday, Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve that Republican National Committeeman Robert Kjellander was working with Rove "to have Fitzgerald removed."


read the rest at the link:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-rove-fitzgerald-web-apr24,0,2332070.story



here is a new web site started by ex kos diary people..its a great new site..try it out!!
TEH CONFLUENCE AT :

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

THIS ONE AS WELL:

CORRENTE

http://www.correntewire.com/



fly

[Catchawave]

104. Good advice, also

I like this site: http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/

It's one stop shopping (daily highlights) for all the a-list blogs from both sides of the aisle. Redstate is my favorite conservative blog, at least Hillary and Obama are treated more respectfully than the sh*t I read in GDP. "Freeper" behavior is banned, even those from Free Republic....:rofl:.

[glowing]

111. Disgust is what I hear and see the most from people.. Nobody likes any

of the options. You have McCane, McSame, McWorse (and no one really wants to vote for Repug this year). AND then you have the "historical"--hysterical candidates. One is threatening to Nuke Iran and the other is Hope wrapped up in and American Idol wrapper. Everyday I hear more and more say can't Al Gore or John Edwards jump in and run. The favored would be a ticket of the two. I really think if John had been able to stay in, he would have started toppling the other two. People really liked what he had to say. Its a shame. Its a sham. Its going to take starting on the back end and stopping the corrupt enriched monied people at the beginning of the system. They rig it so that it takes a ton of money even to have a name on the ballot.. this is where the money needs to be thrown.. not at the pres. race, but in the local races where these people get their beginnings.

ON EDIT: Also, don't give up on people and try to avoid classifying people as mindless followers. There are some really great people in the world. Its easy, especially now, to give into the negativity of the situation.. and therefore manifesting our fears. Instead, we work with our hearts and our heads and our positive intentions. I believe that we can make it. The future has not been written. Everyday a new path becomes recognized, when yesterday it wasn't even reasoned.