Something interesting I've learned through this HCR process- Repubs and Dems are not one party, BUT-

[coti]

they see their roles as serving the very same monied interests. Obama must have made some mistakes through this all of this, considering how transparent the "realpolitik" has become.

I'm not saying that "there is only one party," in the way that Ralph Nader does. I do not believe Democrats and Republicans collude with each other behind the scenes for a grander corporate agenda in the way that he seems to imply. No- on the contrary, I think what we've seen is that the Democrats and Republicans compete with each other, as separate entities, to gain the support of those with money and power, in a way very similar to how rival gangs compete for control over turf. But, in that way, because they serve the same master, ultimately their goals are nearly the same.

The main difference between the two gangs is that they have cordoned off separate voting blocs via their outward ideologies and culture- their "images"- which they feed off of in order to get the power to serve those monied interests. Republicans pay lip service to one group of people, and Democrats pay lip service to another, who they then use for the votes they need to get elected to office. They also fight over those voting blocs where they can, attempt to steal them from each other, to kick each other out of office, climb the ladder and gain more power.

Meanwhile, however, their real power comes from campaign contributions, with a wink and a nod, from wealthy individuals and corporations. It’s that campaign money that really allows them to throw their weight around, buying advertising, hiring spokespeople, etc., on top of the power they hold through their office. Now, if it was possible to get into office just using the votes of those with money, they would, but of course they can’t- there aren’t enough of those people. So they have to put on a political "show” for the votes, and then have the real goings-on behind the scenes, which play to those who have financed their campaigns.

In other words, although the parties are separate entities competing with each other, any outward ideological differences between them are really just for looks, for the voters. They're playing to their voting bloc to climb the political ladder, but their aim is only to serve those with money, the source of true coercive power in our society.

[Wanet]

1. This is very wise

I've never thought of it this way, but your're right. I'm going to save your post. -- Wanet

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. That's a very perceptive comment

It's clear that neither party is putting ordinary people first.

[BeFree]

3. The Elites

With their money and influence are the real power.
They hide behind the smokescreens you so aptly describe. Good work.

Some of us common folk have seen through the smokescreen but there remains a large majority that haven't yet. They live, to our detriment, in deep denial.

We need them to become alive and see the reality. DU is, as your OP proves, a place we can clear the smoke and bring more of our fellows into the clear light.

[rudy23]

4. I think the voter blocs are largely divided among different types of sensory perception

I think that's why they're so effective in distracting us with the R vs. D fight. They've got us perfectly split up between those who value concrete, survivalist ideals, and those who favor abstract, empathetic ideals. It like splitting the ego and superego perfectly.

[coti]

5. That's probably the most interesting part, the sociological aspects

of how they do that.

[dajoki]

6. I cannot disagree with you n/t

[grahamhgreen]

7. Spot on! They're basically two marketing campaigns for different groups, but marketing the same stuf

[coti]

9. That's another great way of putting it. nt

[rudy23]

12. Coke vs. Pepsi. Or, "Brawndo has electrolytes!" vs. "this is not a Fugazi t-shirt"

The Dems thrive on marketing that poses as anti-marketing. Like certain strains of alternative culture--certain clothes, bands, food stores, etc.

The Repubs thrive on direct marketing. Here's what you want, and we're gonna give it to you.

[Lorien]

20. Yep, it's nothing more than marketing campaigns aimed at two separate groups

We the American people may have different philosophies, but our politicians do not. So they've figured out how to package and market the same ol' shit so that we all feel as if it's tailor made for us.

[readmoreoften]

18. +1

[leftstreet]

8. K&R

[nebenaube]

10. Here...

I think I coined a phrase for this, call it "Ponzi Politics".

[sabrina 1]

11. That makes a lot of sense ~

[FredStembottom]

13. Hi, Coti!

I struggle with trying to put real causes behind our elected Dems disloyalty, dis-ingenuousness and betrayal all the time.

What you say here is quite clear: "Now, if it was possible to get into office just using the votes of those with money, they would, but of course they can’t- there aren’t enough of those people. So they have to put on a political "show” for the votes, and then have the real goings-on behind the scenes, which play to those who have financed their campaigns."

It is just as you say: a show to get millions of us to pull the levers - then a crisp, snappy pivot in the direction of a small monied elite. Every time. They even seem quite weary lately of trying to appear otherwise!

But... here's the thing..... why not get those millions of votes (and I am convinced) millions never gotten before, the way FDR did? Why not help millions of Americans in distress move into a life without all that distress? The votes would FLOOD in - without a campaign penny being spent! Easy-peasy. lemon squeezy.

Clearly winning isn't enough for some reason. Some threat or pay-off, fear or reward makes Dems take this convoluted, deceptive road to a win.

And there is nothing to disprove the darkest suspicions you can think up! Think they behave the way they do because they have been infiltrated by The Family? Think they are all on secret Israeli, Turkish, Saudi (whatever) payrolls? Our D.C. Dems don't seem to mind a bit! I haven't reached the point of suspecting things quite so dire but nothing in our D.C. Dems' behavior is inconsistent with such horrors.

They help a tiny, wealthy elite over and over and over - at your and my expense, literally!

Why not shower help on those you hope will vote for you? Wouldn't that be logical? Yes. _So_ logical that you'd think that Dems would fall all over each other to get as much help to as many voters as possible. Jobs, health-care, vacations, retirement incomes for the millions would cement a nearly permanent voting block into place... kinda like the one Democrats had for about 50 years (1933-1980).

So..... Why is helping off-the-table?

There's more to this story, somewhere.

[coti]

14. Great questions.

I have no good answers for them, but it may have something to do with media conglomeration.

I just don't know, cuz you're right, it seems to me the surest route to power is common-sense populism. I think they may believe that what is popular is too easily manipulated.

[The_Commonist]

15. They have become two wings of the Corporate Party.

I was telling people that during the 2000 election.
That was a fight between the Global Corporate Socialists and the Global Corporate Fascists.
The Global Corporate Fascists "won" because fascists steal things.
Once the damage was done, and the fascists brought us to the brink of collapse, it was convenient for the Global Corporate Socialists to be in power for a while, so that the risk could be socialized. After the profits were privatized.

"Democrats" and "Republicans" have, for the most part, become convenient labels to use to keep the proles at each others' throats. The corporate media capitalizes upon this, and uses it to be sure that the interests of the uber-wealthy are not put at risk by us proles having a clue as to what is REALLY going on.

[coti]

16. There is quite a bit of truth to that as well, especially as to the role of the media

in our politics.

Like I said above, I don't believe there is much collusion between the two parties, but the money is doing most of the steering so ultimately that doesn't make much of a difference.

[readmoreoften]

17. Yes, two wings of the same Party is a better way to put it.

Obviously they're not "the same party." But they are competing for the favor of the plutocrats they largely represent.

[Lorien]

19. There's a puppet on the Left and a puppet on the Right

but the same guy has his hands in both of them.

[lutefisk]

21. You're a real downer, coti.

Good analysis.:thumbsup:

:kick: :hi:

[coti]

22. LOL. Sorry! nt