The key to understanding the Bushoilini Regime - deserves thought (imho).

[TahitiNut]

Long ago, I learned (from people far wiser than I) that 95% of solving any problem was in fully understanding what the problem really was. I learned there is no alternative.

For every 'solution' there's a marketing group - fans (or purveyors) of that particular nostrum. Such groups most often mount up like vigilantes in search of those who commit that particular social crime they most detest. (DU has no shortage of single-issue vigilantes.)

I have repeatedly read, both here on DU in elsewhere, that "they're all ______!" "They" being the right-wing, the right-wing politicians, or the cabal of criminals currently infesting the White House and "______" being, at one time or another, "racists," "bigots." "misogynists," "sexists." "gun nuts," "fundamentalists," and a variety of other specific viruses in our body politic.

When it comes to the Bushoilini cabal, unarguably fascist (imho), I firmly disagree. I voiced that disagreement deep in another thread, but I believe it may deserve it's own thread. This is that thread. Here's what I posted:http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/321
I don't believe there's a snowball's chance in hell that we can rid our nation of such an evil unless we can at least first agree on what it is, and then act to counter it. This thread, then, might be my best attempt to precipitate a common comprehension of the nature of the problem we, our nation (and the world), faces. We've faced something similar, but more external, before. It's now occupying the White House - instead of being seen and opposed by the White House.

We can't kill this Hydra by cutting off it's heads. We must aim for the heart.

Let's discuss.

[gordianot]

1. It is not entirely political.

What we are witnessing is human behavior. Our flaw is that we are too effective at survival. These people are reverting to human behaviors that were sucessful in the past. Unfortunatly killing your human competition, salting their fields, and total domination of the tribe is not as easy as it once was when our tools were not as effective. The neo-cons were inevetable we may need to evolve faster.

[TahitiNut]

5. I'm not at all sure that our current level of understanding of the dynamic

... of past civilizations and the role of conflict in survival and natural selection is significantly useful (or precise enough in the nuances) in gaining a better understanding of the current political condition of this country. Indeed, even such reductionism may not be fruitful. While I casually focus on the 'political' facet, I don't either pretend or intend to imply that these dynamics are isolatable within conveniently labeled buckets such as 'political,' 'sociological,' 'psychological,' and whatever.

Nor do I assume that there's not crossover and overlap between the "fear factors" (phobias?) being exacerbated and exploited. What I see, however, is an 'affinity group' (which I'll call corporatists or the power-obsessed) that has, through closer and closer cooperation, assembled an array phobic constituencies. What's clearest to me is that those "pulling the strings" are not themselves easily reducible or categorizable into the phobic constituencies they're exploiting. Stated more simply, fear-mongers are not themselves as easily manipulated by the fears they monger.

What's ironic to me is that the "front-man" is himself thoroughly infected with one of the most fears - the fear of non-existence. Narcissism isn't a phobic constituency like the xenophobes, the homophobes, the racists, the bigots, the zealots, or the sexists. What's ironic to me is that the senior handler/strategist is himself quite possibly an overcompensating, insecure survivor of some homo-erotic trauma in his youth. Who better to innately develop amoral skills in the manipulation of fear/phobia than such a survivor?

The grand hypocrisy is the Hallmark of this regime - the "War on Terror." Rather than fighting 'terror,' they exploit it. In all its forms. If anything, they're jealous of others' use of terror as a tool - and want the exclusive franchise for themselves. (Further, as a Viet Nam veteran I'll tell you that war is terror itself - state-sanctioned terror. The phrase "war on terror" is innately self-contradictory. An insane oxymoron.)

[gordianot]

25. The American Republic was predicated on an ideal, "we would be different".

The jury is still out but we are in the process of learning "It can happen here". Idealism is reverting to typical human behavior. The Khan's, Charlemagne, Caesar's, Machiavelli, Bonaparte, Hitler, 19th Century robber barons, and Cro Magnon tribal leaders would understand how the current crop of Alpha Males are governing 21st Century America.

Bush and his minions still act like apes. When in groups humans are still governed like animals.

[Octafish]

2. 'Hydra' is the right word.

...as that is an excellent name for the NAZIs who escaped to the Americas after the war.

Herakles had heard about the multi-headed beast and went looking for it. Every time Herakles cut off a head, another would grow back. He needed help from his nephew-charioteer Iolaus, who brought a torch and cauterized each head's stump. That stopped them from bighting back. The final blow, however, required the last head be cut off and buried under a rock.

Maybe there is a faster way. Skip the heads and go straight to the heart.



It will take all of us standing up to the monster. They, like the boss of the NAZIs of 1945, won't go out easy.

[Armstead]

3. I tend to agree

As maddening it is to see people supporting the GOP -- especially after all they have done and all they have screwed up -- it's important to understand why enough people support them to have gotten them into office.

(Even if you assume voter fraud, there would still be a huge chunk of GOP voters.)

I've tried the "empathy approach" of trying to listen and observe neutrally to understand he midset that would be opoen to the GOP version of reality...Although the hard-core wingnuts are basically a black hole, I can see how the GOP can make a convincing enough case that a lot of sensible people have gotten sucked in too.

At the moment, one factor is fear. I think back to the immediate aftermath of 9-11, and I went through a brief period where I wanted to trust Bush because I was both anxious and angry and so I wanted Bush to go over and kick ass big time...I got over that real quick, largely because I got back to normal. But it at least now at least helps to understand how some people actually got stuck and didn't pass through it back into the world of common sensse.

I also think,. frankly, that we have not really given people an alternative to GOP Happy Talk either. We have not gone for the core issues in the same way the GOP has....Whem Bush and otehr CONservatives spin their tales of how great the economy is because of their policies, for example, we need to hit back with the truth in equally direct terms.

ALSO -- Both parties have been sewing the seeds of a common veil of deception for many years. The Democrats unfortunately have not challenged the basic lies that are at the core of Corporate CONservatism. people have had that nonsense pounded into their heads for so long, they are already predisposed to agree with -- or overlook -- GOP memes like how it's good for the environment to destroy the environment.

Back to common sense and common decency is what we need to do IMO.

[TahitiNut]

6. Before we (again) talk about solutions, I'd like a better common

... understanding of the problem. I think that a diligent and thorough description of the manner in which neocon/corporatist/fascist power is being accumulated, and the common thread of exploiting fears is the strategy being employed, will yield a 'solution' almost anticlimactically.

You've brought up what I believe is one of the more fruitful approaches to comprehending it - looking into ourselves and examining our own inner experiences in actually being so exploitable. Sometimes disturbingly, I find I can "peek into the corners of my psyche" and find a basis for empathizing, not for the purposes of sanctioning but for the purpose of ultimately finding antidotes.

[Armstead]

8. They use half-truths and false conclusions

Okay, here's my theory of one way they have gotten power.

The basis of what they say often makes sense.

Take the whole rationale for our behavior in the Middle East that they give. "Freedom and democracy should be encouraged. It's a natural human instinct to want to live in freedom. People are also less likely to turn to terrorism when they live in a free society that respects human life. Therefore the United States should actively work to brinbg freedom and democracy to nations that live in tyranny, and support the forces of moderation in the Middle East. It will be good for the people in those societies, and it will make the world safer."

I agree with that completely. Most people do. So when Bush says that (over and over) it sets people up to go along with whatever follows that.

The problem is that the half-truths are then used as the justification for other things. "Iraq is under the heel of a tyrant. Sadaam is a bad, dangerous man. Therefore we are promoting democracy by invading Iraq and overthrowing him. Afterwards, Iraqis will be free to build a democracy, which will also make us safer."

That's a much more arguable notion. However, they atre able to make it seem resonable to many people by relentlessly tying it into a basic premise that people would agree with, an action that is reasonable -- promoting democracy" -- is linked with a conclusion that is unreasonable.

They also take it further by the use of wishful thinking as a subtitute for logic. "The people of Iraq are so eager for peace and freedom that they will unianimously and instantly welcome the United States and build a democracy. "

Wrong again. But it's tempting to believe that beforehand.

This template can be applied to much of what they say and do. They hook people people in with a basic premise that is reasonable and widely shared. But then they use that to go in a different direction that is promised.

[TahitiNut]

10. Let's look at the appeal to fear and examine the trigger words.

First and foremost, I notice this:

"Freedom and democracy should be encouraged. It's a natural human instinct to want to live in freedom. People are also less likely to turn to terrorism when they live in a free society that respects human life. Therefore the United States should actively work to bring freedom and democracy to nations that live in tyranny, and support the forces of moderation in the Middle East. It will be good for the people in those societies, and it will make the world safer."

Danger, Will Robinson! Live! Live! Life! Live! ... Safer.

Fear of death is one of the more fundamental triggers. In a relatively short paragraph, they hit on it FOUR times. The message is that there's a threat to human life and it's COMING TO GET YOU! (But we see it and we'll make you safe.) Altogether too many people (imho) regard "life" as an end, not a means. The operative assumption is that there is nothing more important than life, that they have it, that they're being threatened with taking it away, and the Reich is the only Daddy that will protect them. (You only have one Daddy, you know.) So, the ultimate 'good' is personally enjoying a 'life' ... soft couches, colorful TVs, fast foods, cozy homes (with locking doors), and plenty of toys. Meanwhile, Daddy goes out into that cruel, dangerous world and keeps the bogeyman away.

This stuff is a basic, simple, fundamental appeal to immature, ignorant fear, imho.


Then, I notice this:

"Freedom and democracy should be encouraged. It's a natural human instinct to want to live in freedom. People are also less likely to turn to terrorism when they live in a free society that respects human life. Therefore the United States should actively work to bring freedom and democracy to nations that live in tyranny, and support the forces of moderation in the Middle East. It will be good for the people in those societies, and it will make the world safer."

We're wrapped in the flag and we're the only 'force' in the world to make you safe. (Let's hear a Sousa march tune, now.) This appeals to xenophobes, imho - people who're wired to think "foreigner=stranger=enemy". There are millions of people who (literally) assume that the U.S. is some "Fort America" in a world frontier of savages and that ONLY here is there a (threatened) chance to "live free." They're told, "They're coming to get you! (But we'll keep them away.)"


Now, clearly there's no possible way that this can be contradicted. It's carefully-structured fear-mongering all dressed up in motherpie and applehood. The careful juxtaposition of "here=good" with "there=bad" takes time to deconstruct. Who the hell pays any attention ... especially when their strings are being yanked?

I think we need to clearly understand the discrete phobic constituencies before we can understand how to reduce their size and quell the headlong rush toward the precipice.

[Armstead]

22. I'm not sure it's all based on phobias

Where I disagree with your proposition is that I think such thinking is hard-wired into most people, even those who are relatively enlightened. Survival is a basic instinct, and most peopel are tribal below the surface..I'll plead guilty to having those underlying traits too.

I think the problem is that it requires an effort to keep that in perspective. It also requires a certain effort to avoid taking what those in authority say at face value. I think that's especially true in a democracy where we -- theoretically -- are the ones who choose our leaders. We want to assume that people who have risen to the top have the same basic adherence to democracy, even if we disagree with them.

So, especially in the wake of 9-11, it's been an uphill battle for Americans not to take the path of least resistance. That's easier for people like me and thee and otehrs on the "left." because we were already opposed to the GOP and the corporate fascistas before 9-11. So we weren't subject to the temptation to believe them because our instincts pulled us in a different direction.

However, to the people who were either already GOP/conservatives, 9-11 removed almost all of their ability to think critically, and resist succumbing to the "Let Daddy Take Charge" message.

And, more important, many in the middle, who don't have as many preconceived political biases, also found it harder to go against the grain of "fear" and the belief that invading a country in the Middle East is the way to make the world safer. So they got sucked into it too.

The morons who will support the fascists no matter what are probably an unconvincable lost cause.

However, the people in the middle can be convinced to wake up and smell the coffee., But it requires presenting an equally basic counter-argument that convinces then that they don't have to give up their freedom to be safer, and the US does not have to be beligerent and stupid to protect its national interests....Time and experiencing the results of GOP policies will also have something to do with it, I think.

[TahitiNut]

26. We're getting ahead of ourselves.

My purpose in initiating this thread was to describe the political problem. Rather than rehash ideological differences and differences we all have on a wide range of issues and keep leaping to the "outnumber em!" knee-jerk 'solution,' I merely desire to describe the current ways in which the right has collected a set of diverse constituencies and driven them to the benefit of this particular regime. While I'm certainly forsaking neutral, academic terminology and opting instead to use language that's value-laden, I'm not implying that every characterization is just a "solution in reverse" (get rid of it).

Let me take two terms and try to explain my reasoning in using them. "Fear" and "phobia." Everyone has fears. I do. You do. We all do. (Unless we're medicated to the gills, of course.) Without fear, there can be no courage. Don Quixote wasn't a hero because windmills really were a threat; he was a hero because he believed they were and was afraid. It makes no difference whether our fears are based in reality or not. The only difference is how we deal with them. That's why I use the term 'phobia.' I use it to portray a fear that takes over - that's not controlled.

Nowhere am I claiming it's not, to some degree, "hard-wired" or that some have it and some don't. At this point, all I'm trying to do is show the constituencies on the right and how they're being driven/manipulated. We have millions of posts on DU that, to one degree or another, make reference to various GOPhobe constituencies ... often making broad-brush claims that they're ALL like that. As I said in my OP, that's just obviously not true. We could split hairs and argue whether someone who EXPLOITS racism is a racist - but I'd take a firm stance and say that "political entrepreneurs" are opportunists, not racists. I think the same argument applies across the spectrum pf phobic constituencies.

Again, though ... I think it's important to take a phenomenological approach and describe the "problem" (THEIR 'success') as we OBSERVE IT before we argue/discuss/advocate 'solutions.'

First seek to understand, and then to be understood.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.


Reading the responses to this thread, it seems this isn't easy to get - or perhaps for me to clearly describe. Dunno. Maybe it's just not worth the effort - when this stuff sinks under the steaming pile of superficial, People Magazine Manure that, like a periodic tsunami of grunts and guffaws, overwhelms GD.

[Armstead]

30. Maybe you'te making it too complicated

My posts were intended to answer what I thought was your basic initial question and purpose, which I agree with. In order to fight these tactics we have to understand them.

My response was aimed at that. In a nutshell, I said that the GOP/Corporate Facistas have been successful because they take facts and beliefs that are widely shared == but then use them as the basis to go into entirely different territory and distort and undermine their own premise.

IMO that's the very simple and uncomplicated answer. Although it requires specifics, it does not require complex theoretical and academic analysis. It's simple at base, because the technique is simple. It's also glaringly obvious, once it is understood. Bush and GOP politicians and pundits do it every day.

I could use anotehr comparison. It's economic, but it's also based on the combination of appealing to fear and wishful thinking.

In the 1980's and 90's, the stage was set for a corporate takeover by claims by corporations and their backers in the political and media elite that made sense on the surface. For example, US businesses had to be allowed to become more flexible to compete in a global economy. No one could really disagree with that. HOWEVER, they then used that as a pretext to justufy and convinbce the population to accept all kinds of things that were actually OPPOSED to the economic interests of the majority of Americans and the traditional US economy.

It used the fear of economic problems as a pretext to allow needless and anti-competative mergers and monopolies to "preserve competition." Removing all protection of workers rights and job security, and to stifle benefits and wages would be good for workers, the GOP and Corporatists said. Allowing the rich and powerful to get more money would benefit everyone, becauzse they would spread it around....That extended into wishful thinking. You'll be better off if you blindly support the wealthy, and overlook the sacrifices you are being told to make. That's just temporary, because you too can be rich.

It made no sense if you really thought about it -- but if you took it at face value it could seem logical. So that became the national values system in the 1980's and 90's.

There are countless otehr examples. The basic principle they follow is is -- Start with something most people agree with, and then twist it to your own purposes.

The antidote is -- Start with something most people agree with. And then follow it to its logical conclusion without distortion or wishful thinking.

[TahitiNut]

31. "... appealing to fear and wishful thinking." Exactly.

Rather than complicate, it's my goal to simplify and organize a 'map' of their overall strategy and the constituencies being herded.

One of the things interesting about the corporate propaganda of the 80s was the failure of the nation to identify one of the more salient differences between the labor expenses in the US and the labor expenses in Japan and Germany ... the burden of employer-compensated health care in a health care system where privatization causes a 50% overhead for less effective care.

Then those employers able to take advantage of this, merely opened operations where there was no employer-compensated health care ... or much of anything else.

Corporatists have used fear forever in whipping their labor forces and keeping compensation low and profits high. The whole notion that 'ownership' is separate and distinct (in capitalism) from the labor which IS THE BUSINESS, is a legal fiction that can lead to horrendous abuses. That's why such an approach to business has been regulated forever. Once upon a time, the only 'owner' of the means of production was a monarch or aristocrat- which, by definition, WAS the government. In effect, that's TOTAL regulation. It hasn't been just communism that imposed state ownership on 'the means of production.' In fact, state ownership has been the rule for the vast majority of history where there've even been states and governments. That was based on FEAR, too.

So, I'm neither trying to be complicated or novel in my approach. I'm just interested in mapping the territory before attempting to re-invade it ... understanding their approach before defeating it.


I think, however, it's naive of me to attempt within an on-line forum that which works well in problem-solving meetings I've facilitated in organizations. It probably isn't actually feasible.

I had this vision of a thread within which we assembled a catalog (or taxonomy) of phobic constituencies (sometimes called single-issue right wingers), listed the proxy organizations arrayed to foment that fear, and analyzed bot the fears and the empty promises. At the same time, many of these are 'wedge issue' divisions, so the antonyms could be identified as well.

I think a parallel (or later) effort could yield a similar catalog of foreign coercions - the "carpet of gold, carpet of bombs" targets.

[Armstead]

34. Here's a good example of the counter-argument

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2158770

I saw an old speech by Ann Richards tonight that is exactly what our side needs to be saying to point out the lies of the other side and also provide a compelling argument for our side.

Check it out. It addresses a lot of the rhetorical substance you're raising.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Fear 'moves' people.

That is why the Bushler admin uses it, and does it effectively. Perhaps we could develop a methodology for discovering the weaknesses in their strategy, as well as develop a strategy to exploit them because fear is not the only motivator. We may find a more practical use of our time by shifting to a pro-active offensive position instead of defending against fear mongers. This, of course, does not preclude using the very same tactics of fear against them. There is a significant number of people in the USA that would respond quite viscerally if convinced that Bushler is the real, in the flesh, Anti-Christ.

[TahitiNut]

7. I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs offers a useful paradigm

... for assessing the motivating force of fear in context.

[many a good man]

9. Sum of parts

I disagree with this approach. The "heart" is the media-corporatocracy that glues together all the disparate parts. It is much too powerful to take on at this point.

Rove's strategy is "governing from the fringes" (see Garry Wills). The conservative coalition is a fractious combination of extremist groups artfully managed to form a cohesive electoral majority. They do not even try to appeal to their opponents (us), but use their dominance over the corporate mainstream media to win over the "squishy middle" swing voters.

Nearly a quarter of the US population have "authoritarian personality types" (see John Dean). These authoritarians overlap in several of the GOP's core groups. The core groups are easily recognizable: ultra-conservative religionists, the anti-government crowd, racists, the selfish rich and wannabe rich, militants, etc.

Issues are framed for the all important purpose of getting out the vote, getting out the base. Fear and propaganda is used to capture the squishy middle. The strategy is to keep the wedge issues at the fore because it motivates the GOTV efforts aimed at the base, and causes the squishy middle to vote based on emotion rather than reason.

The squishy middle is not totally without reason, that's why we are seeing Beelzebush's approval ratings fall. We need to fracture their coalition and appeal to reason using the strength of our convictions and common sense.

[BeFree]

11. At the risk of being labeled

...as a single issue DUer, It's the vote counting, stupid!

They would not have so much power if they had been kept from stealing it through the electronic vote counters.

The vote is our weapon of choice to take out the hydras, and that weapon has been vaporized. Not even a paper trail was left!

Until a full understanding about how they got power and how we can take it back, the rest is just pissing in the wind. (Putting on my raincoat!)

[Cleita]

13. No objection here. Until we have transparent and verifiable

elections so that we know for sure a candidate elected was the one who won, no matter how much we don't like him, everything else is empty rhetoric.

I think I would not object to George W. Bush as much if I knew that he had been honestly elected. I would have said okay, what do we need to do to get the people to understand that they elected a jerk?

[BeFree]

15. "..empty rhetoric." is much better than....

...pissing in the wind.

Indeed, had he been duly elected I too would say, ok. But I know better. I know the American people, as a whole, would not knowingly elect this scum to high office.

To think otherwise is foolish. We are not that stupid. Giving this bunch any electoral credence whatsoever is anti-democratic and without a sound basis.

The stolen elections are the heart and soul of this establishment and they have never been duly authorized by the people to assume the power they have.

[TahitiNut]

14. At the risk of being labeled "stupid," are you claiming

... that election fraud (manipulation of vote counts) is responsible for a Repukelicker majority in the House of Representatives since 1995? ... their gain of 9 seats in 1993? ... their gain of 54 seats in 1995? ... their gain of 7 seats in 2003? ... their gain 4 seats in 2005?

Is it responsible for a Repukelicker majority (or tie) in the Senate since 1995? ... their gain of 9 seats in 1995? ... their gain of 2 seats in 1997? ... their gain of 2 seats in 2003? ... their gain of 4 seats in 2005?

How about "Democrats" like Ben Nelson? When the Democratic Party supports right-wing candidates, is it due to their understanding of the election fraud or the way voters actually vote?

With all due respect, the "straw that broke the camel's back" is still a straw. It's not the fundamental reason the camel's back was broken. Grasping at straws doesn't solve problems.


While there's no question that election fraud is an abominable (and intolerable!) condition, the very FACT that it CONTINUES to be a problem and is NOT BEING SUCCESSFULLY ADDRESSED in states wherein there are majority Democrats or majority Republicans is testimony to the entrenchment of the politics of fear and the beneficiaries thereof.

In other words, it's a SYMPTOM of the problem! If the more fundamental problem were corrected, it's clear that election fraud would be long-ago addressed.


Postscript: I will also take serious issue with the claim that the vote is the sole mechanism available to citizens in a democracy. This is, I believe, the stance taken by people who seek to minimize their participation in democracy - limit it to the level of their participation in professional sports. When the degree to which we (couch potatoes) participate in our own governance is indistinguishable from the degree to which we participate in sports, we're already lost. It deserves repeating: Democracy isn't a spectator sport! Either play or pay. Voting isn't enough! Not by a long shot.

Furthermore, when the vote is no longer reliable, options up to and including revolution are available, and always have been! Nations that live under tyrannies can have revolutions. That people would rather accept the tyranny than expend the effort to revolt is testimony to the importance given to self-governance and the willingness to participate.

We get the government we deserve! For too long, we've apparently gotten better than we deserve. The chickens are coming home to roost.

[BeFree]

16. Prove it

Prove those elections were not the victims of theft. You can't.

But the premise of your thread here, I thought, was how to end the regime. And a plea to find the democratic principles to defeat it.

Let's say it's just a symptom of the problem. Is that not an admission that there is a conspiracy to eliminate our power by stealing our votes, and that they have been successful at doing so?

The way we take them down is through the vote. There is no other remedy available, is there?

So lets make sure that our votes are counted as cast, that everyone has an equal opportunity to vote, and that elections are as clean as can be: then you will see the hydra's last head placed under a rock.

[TahitiNut]

17. You demand the proof of a negative??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Get thee to a logician, sir or madam. :evilgrin:

(Hell, I can't even imagine what the color of a sky is in a non-Euclidean world, let alone 'prove' it.) :silly:

[BeFree]

19. See, I am right. You can't prove it.

You profess a basis of confidence in the elections that I do not.

You said it yourself that the whole bunch of them have let our elective voice be trashed. Well, my basis is that is why they have the power they do: they stole it by altering our votes.

Our votes are the weapon to destroy this monster. By allowing our weapon to be disempowered we have allowed the monster a second chance.

[Cleita]

18. To tell truth, I'm coming around to the revolution option. It's

probably my Latina genes (just kidding). However, revolutions don't need to be bloody. They can be stealthy. I have started meeting with local progressives who are attempting to take over our government county by county until we can clean out Sacramento, the state capital. Once we make basic change at the state level and in most states, we can shake up the federal government. This will take time and I won't live long enough to see the ultimate result, but it all starts at home, doesn't it?

Here in California we have already started pushing for national health care. On a local level some of our county's elected bureacracies has passed into law gender equality in those offices, both elected and appointed.

[TahitiNut]

20. True democracy is continuous revolution, imho.

Political change (modification of established systems to match the will of the electorate) is like plate tectonics. When change/progress is delayed, an earthquake (violent revolution) is inevitable.

Back to the original topic ...

We have a common perception on DU that our political systems (governmental organizations, economic systems, political 'leadership,' laws, entitlements, etc.) are more and more corrupt - i.e. that they operate further and further away from a national 'good' and the majority suffer while a small minority benefit.

Cattle can be herded into a slaughterhouse using FEAR or totalitarian control (imprisonment and physical control). There is no other method. Absent (yet) totalitarian control, how do we better understand the use of FEAR? Until we better understand it, I don't believe we can form a 'solution' that keeps us out of the slaughterhouse.

I've not yet heard a more comprehensive description of the core strategies and combined constituencies of the Reich than I outlined in my (Journaled) post. Thus, it seems we need to better understand it before devising a strategy to counter it (i.e a "solution").

[many a good man]

21. Fear and Ignorance can only be overcome by Security and Competence

Fear has been the major motivator in American politics ever since the birth of the national security state by NSC 68 in 1950. The first forty years it was fear of godless communism and then that well went dry. Now its Jihadist Terrorism.

Fear is used because it works. That leaves us two options: 1) utilize fear ourselves; or 2) start a campaign to eradicate fear (We're not afraid.).

Instead of fear of Terra, we can utilize fear of something else: global warming, debt, depression, fascism, etc. We must make our fears scarier than their fears, then we only have to convince everyone that we can competently address the new fear. Unfortunately this requires powerful communication and manipulation skills which we seem not to posess. It also requires that we have control of government.

If you're talking about transforming society in a way that will eliminate fear as its most important political motivator, then that may require an enormous external event. Western Europeans suffered through WWII and it transformed their view of geopolitics. The solution you're looking for is a transformative event that does not involve total destruction and devastation. That is the race we find ourselves in.

[TahitiNut]

23. There is no courage without fear.

Courage isn't the absence of fear; it's the presence of heart.

I regard the 'success' of the GOPhobes an indication that we lack character as a nation; we lack heart (l'coeur). ('Courage' is the same word in both English and French.)

In some sense, I regard the reaction to this thread, or lack of same, as an indication this is true.

[KoKo]

38. Interesting....this thought of yours....

I woke up in the middle of the night with a terrible thought that jolted me.

I had been dreaming about C-Span showing a hearing with or Dems standing up and giving eloquent speeches about something...and then the thought came to me in my dream that what they were saying wasn't real. It wasn't real....and that jolted me awake with this feeling of terrible abandonment.

Why have Democrats lost since 1994 in the House and Senate? Why have focus groups not been able to do anything for the Democratic message. And, where were the mainstream churches who stood by and watched as a Radical Fundamentalism took over our politics.

What we see as our Party is not REAL anymore....was my terrifying thought. And if that's the case then we are in very dark times indeed.

I have to hope it was just a bad dream that left dark thoughts with me that aren't any more real than my thinking that our Democratic Party isn't real.

[Cleita]

12. What you say about "they" is true. "They" have always been

with us and will always be with us. The problem is that "they" are our lords and masters right now. It's really a small group that has taken our country but "they" hold most of the power. Many conservatives are beginning to realize that their political party, the GOP, has been turned into a political force for their agenda of global dominance.

When I lived in Chile, there were parties covering the political spectrum from fascist on the right to communist on the left. All were legal and all held seats in their parlaiment. Of course, our meddling country always preferred keeping the right wing in power because they were friendlier to the interests of American companies operating there, than were the left wing groups or populist and labor dominated parties.

When the country elected Salvadore Allende, a socialist, our country staged a coup, something that had never happened in Chile before since it's emancipation from Spain, and installed a true fascist government in the person of Augusto Pinnochet for their own interests. Chile is now returning to it's former democracy and multi-party system. Without foreign interference from the Americans and British, Chile would have been a very rich democratic nation today because the system of government was heading in that direction.

Our problem is a two-party, winner take all system. If we find the will to make a multi-party system out of our House of Representatives, we too can allow parties from across the political spectrum to have a say in government. Ideologically, the extremes of both sides would be very small in numbers and would not be able to operate with impunity like our GOP is doing these days. I mean the majority of the American people, including conservatives do not condone, torture, preemptive or preventive war, privitization of everything like the extreme right wing of the conservatives are trying to ram down our throats today.

How do we fix this?

[sandnsea]

24. Which "Hydra"?

There is the "Hydra" of the current band of neocon maniacs whose 'heart' is pure Machiavellian power.

Then there is the "Hydra" of traditional conservatism which the maniacs manipulate in order to keep their power.

The best that I think we can ever hope for is the constant fight against the heart of the god-fearing, independent American nexus of the country.

Has anybody ever gotten to the heart of the international monied elite, the maniacs? The 100 or so men who run everything - and are no longer all white I don't believe.

I'd imagine we ought to try to learn from history, maybe.

Gotta go, looks like a great thread. Will check in later.

[hunter]

27. So. How do you teach your neighbors not to be afraid?

How do you make them strong?

[TahitiNut]

28. Again, that's jumping ahead.

I don't assume anything about 'solutions' in an attempt to describe/characterize the dynamics of the GOP approach to assembling the support of a variety of constituencies whose fear-based motivations (arguably) subordinate their reason and comprehension of other issues.

As I've said above, I don't believe a reasonable goal is to not be afraid. Courage can't exist in the absence of fear. I merely wish to examine and better understand the relationship between the current right-wing power structure and their constituencies who, from my perspective at least, are chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

It seems to me that a taxonomy of fear-based groups and the methods and approaches employed in motivating (stampeding) them might be fruitful. I think we could each peer inside ourselves and see the 'dark sides' where we feel tugged/repulsed.

[sweetheart]

29. They key is that they believe in torture

As they seek to legitimize abuse, it appears they believe in the law of the jungle where the big leader is a
screaming angry ape who will kill anyone who challenges him. And they believe that all power behaves in this
narrative of abuse, and authority exists to abuse and imprison, as otherwise it is not respected. In every single
pot they've put their collective finger and individual fingers, the abuses have increased, abuse is legitimized,
and with it, the total loss of any moral power until the situation is reversed... the total loss of the right
to govern, no longer derived from the people, but from the boot of the police who attack the poor, systemically;
a culture that abuses its poor and women sickly, degenerately, all on the rise thanks to bush and his degeneration
in to abuse.

This pathology, i agree, must be outed, and i hope a more pscyhologist type person can write some
very clear indictments of the way abuse is established as a psychological narrative that repeats itself generationally.

[TahitiNut]

32. Is there anything more emblematic of a fear-based strategy?

In my view, there's absolutely nothing clearer than the fact that this cabal resorts solely to threats, power, punishment, and other forms of fear to achieve their goals: ever greater power and wealth.

Imagine! The "compassionate conservatives" just don't seem to comprehend the word 'torture'!!

What part of the word 'torture' don't they comprehend?

I have a suggestion for them. Have them subject themselves and their children for one month to ANY technique they condone. Put Jenna and Barbara in abu Ghraib or Gitmo for a month if the treatment there is humane. Let that be the test. Just a month. Shorter than pledging a frat. Put up or shut up.

[blm]

33. The KEY to BushInc is what they have done since WWII to make fascism work

for them in THIS country. They had to gain some power before they started to make their plays, and that is why the 70s, 80s, and 90s are SO key to what's happening today.

This is from a post I made the other day - from the Memory Hole:

>>>>

Oil and drugs have been the cornerstone of the Bush family's REIGN in this country and their maneuverings around the world.

Afghanistan has had our forces in there for FIVE years and the drug supply out of Aghanistan is greater than ever? Should that make sense to any THINKING American?

Wanna bet the purges at the CIA were also about protecting the BFEE's drugrunning department?

Bush was never in Afghanistan to get Usama - not when drugs, oil and wars are so lucrative to the BFEE and their fascist cronies.

Read this and understand the drug/war/oil connections and HOW the BFEE operates - they do it in South and Central America and in the Mideast and surrounding regions.


http://www.thememoryhole.org/kerry /

Background

>>> In 1987/8, two subcommittees of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held three 14 days of hearings on drug trafficking. Headed by Sen. John F. Kerry (D - Mass.), the panel heard evidence of official corruption in Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and the United States. The next year, the government published the transcripts in a 4-volume set that has remained a touchstone for anyone interested in narco-corruption, particularly as it involves US intelligence agencies.

The trouble is, this 1,800-page goldmine of information has been incredibly hard to find. The Memory Hole's copy was given to me by a friend of the family—Lorenzo Hagerty—who told me an interesting story. As soon as the Kerry Report was published, Lorenzo ordered a set of the transcripts from the Government Printing Office. When it arrived, he began reading it and realized how important it was. He immediately called the GPO to order another set. He was told that the set was already out of print and would not be published again. It had been available to the public for one single week.

Small portions of the Kerry Report transcripts have been published online, but they are only a fraction of the entire four volumes. The Memory Hole is planning to scan and post the entire thing. The first volume has been posted as HTML, and the second two have gone up as Acrobat files. The front page and the email updates will contain notifications when the final volume is posted.

The one-volume final report based on these hearings—also very rare—has been scanned and posted by the National Security Archive. It's available here

More info about the hearings is here.

>>>>>>>>

[sweetheart]

37. from that report:

"A major problem reported by all criminal justice participants is
the inability of the criminal justice system to control the drug problem . . .
through the enforcement of the criminal law. Police, prosecutors and judges
told the committee that they have been unsuccessful in making a
significant impact on the importation, sale and use of illegal drugs,
despite devoting much of their resources to the arrest, prosecution and
trial of drug offenders."

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/north06.pdf

So everyone knows that the drugs war of criminalization does not work,
even the congress, and all of them are too cowardly to say anything.

[benEzra]

35. Guns.

From the other thread:

Hestonesque guns-as-penis-implants crowd

It's this type of ignorant stereotyping that helps perpetuate the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme.

Some facts that poster should consider:

Approximately half of all gun owners (including yours truly) are not repubs.

One in three women own guns.

Nationwide, approximately 1 in 4 Democrats are gun owners. In many swing states (including mine), that percentage is much higher.

Gun owners are somewhat more likely to be college educated than the population at large (duh, since it takes disposable income to buy guns).

Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.


The truth is, W would never have won in 2000 had Gore not lost his own home state on the gun issue. Carrying TN and WV (which Gore lost on the gun issue) would have given him the electoral college WITHOUT Florida--and he would have won Florida by a wide margin were it not for the gun issue (Florida voters tend to be VERY defensive on second-amendment issues).

The gun issue also hurt Kerry/Edwards greatly in swing states in 2004 (and were a major factor in Edwards' losing his own home state, pro-gun NC).

For those who wish to understand where pro-gun Dems and indies are coming from, instead of merely throwing poop at them: Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Hamlette]

36. John Dean came as close recently as I recall

in his book Conservatives without conscience. It is a personality type that likes authority (to be in authority or to have someone in authority telling them what to do). The ends always justify the means to these people and they do not care if they are hypocrites. They used religion, since so many people of faith like being told what to do, to gain a majority and they pretend that it the authority of god that they are following.

So, as Sam Harris said, if you can't question god, you can't question these people. It is the same kind (and often is the same) faith in an authority figure/party/church/god. We've hit a brick wall.

Until we can find some way to say "hey, you may feel safe believing god will make everything right, but its not true" we're doomed.

Maybe we can chip away at the edges (wedge issues) by using god against the GOP as in Who would Jesus torture campagins. (seriously, saying stuff like Jesus was not a republican, he believed in helping the poor, peace and love not war and tax cuts for the rich, the eye of the needle etc.) but I don't hold out much hope for that.

maybe we just have to wait until this 3rd great awakening fizzles. Or study why/how the 2nd great awakening fizzled and try to bring it about more quickly. Won't be much left if it goes on much longer.