The First Step in Crippling Our System of Government Is To Convince

[MineralMan]

people that it is worthless and can't fix anything. This is not true. It is FUD. But, the more people can be convinced that the system cannot deal with current problems, the closer it comes to making that so.

I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't an organized group whose goal is the destruction of our system,in the hopes that they'll be able to impose whatever system it is they have in mind. I really am.

We have a viable system of government in the USA. I have not found one that is more capable of governing a nation as large and diverse as this one. So, when I hear people who pretend to care about government spreading the word that "All is lost," "It's too late," or "It's hopeless," I have to wonder if the real goal isn't to destroy the system to replace it with something they don't seem to want to define.

Negativism is not a system of government. It is not an economic system, either. Negativism is a destructive force. Now, it may come from genuine pessimism, of course. But, in 2010, it seems too well-organized to be that. So, it makes me wonder. It really does.

Has anyone else noticed what seems to be organized negativism? Shall we discuss it?

[arbusto_baboso]

1. Well, since all of us ARE the government, does it not follow that if the government is broken then

we are part of the problem?

[MineralMan]

2. But, you see, that posits that the government is broken.

I don't accept that premise. My point is that there appears to be an effort to make that so, or at least to convince people that it is.

The only result I can see coming from that is the destruction of Democratic control of the government. The Right would be more than happy to fill the gap. That's why I'm so concerned with the growing FUD that is being spread around lately.

[arbusto_baboso]

5. I didn't say it was broken. Messed-up certainly. But... I guess the point I was trying to make...

is that so many of the "government is bad" types see themselves apart from our government. No one here is. NO ONE.

Which makes us all responsible for government working properly and serving the public good. ALL OF US.

Anyone unwilling to do that.....

Well, let's just say that we're reviewing the 14th Amendment for all the wrong criteria. Maybe we should review it and revoke citizenship for those who have an Us VS Them mentality about national governance.

[MineralMan]

10. Ah, OK. I see. You may be right. I've certainly seen many people

express the view that they are "beyond government" or words to that effect.

[asdjrocky]

3. Learning that political activisim no longer works-

Is the very first step to getting our country back on track.

Direct activism is the only means of change left open to us in the USA.

[treestar]

8. What is the difference between political and direct activism?

[asdjrocky]

I'll answer with Howard Zinn's speech from John Hopkin's U in 1970-

(By the latter part of May, 1970, feelings about the war in Vietnam had become almost unbearably intense. In Boston, about a hundred of us decided to sit down at the Boston Army Base and block the road used by buses carrying draftees off to military duty. We were not so daft that we thought we were stopping the flow of soldiers to Vietnam; it was a symbolic act, a statement, a piece of guerrilla the after. We were all arrested and charged, in the quaint language of an old statute, with "sauntering and loitering" in such a way as to obstruct traffic. Eight of us refused to plead guilty, insisting on trial by jury, hoping we could persuade the members of the jury that ours was a justified act of civil disobedience. We did not persuade them. We were found guilty, chose jail instead of paying a fine, but the judge, apparently reluctant to have us in jail, gave us forty-eight hours to change our minds, after which we should show up in court to either pay the fine or be jailed. In the meantime, I had been invited to go to Johns Hopkins University to debate with the philosopher Charles Frankel on the issue of civil disobedience. I decided it would be hypocritical for me, an advocate of civil disobedience, to submit dutifully to the court and thereby skip out on an opportunity to speak to hundreds of students about civil disobedience. So, on the day I was supposed to show up in court in Boston I flew to Baltimore and that evening debated with Charles Frankel. Returning to Boston I decided to meet my morning class, but two detectives were waiting for me, and I was hustled before the court and then spent a couple of days in jail. What follows is the transcript of my opening statement in the debate at Johns Hopkins. It was included in a book published by Johns Hopkins Press in 1972, entitled Violence: The Crisis of American Confidence.)

I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong, that the wrong people are in jail and the wrong people are out of jail, that the wrong people are in power and the wrong people are out of power, that the wealth is distributed in this country and the world in such a way as not simply to require small reform but to require a drastic reallocation of wealth. I start from the supposition that we don't have to say too much about this because all we have to do is think about the state of the world today and realize that things are all upside down. Daniel Berrigan is in jail-A Catholic priest, a poet who opposes the war-and J. Edgar Hoover is free, you see. David Dellinger, who has opposed war ever since he was this high and who has used all of his energy and passion against it, is in danger of going to jail. The men who are responsible for the My Lai massacre are not on trial; they are in Washington serving various functions, primary and subordinate, that have to do with the unleashing of massacres, which surprise them when they occur. At Kent State University four students were killed by the National Guard and students were indicted. In every city in this country, when demonstrations take place, the protesters, whether they have demonstrated or not, whatever they have done, are assaulted and clubbed by police, and then they are arrested for assaulting a police officer.

Now, I have been studying very closely what happens every day in the courts in Boston, Massachusetts. You would be astounded-maybe you wouldn't, maybe you have been around, maybe you have lived, maybe you have thought, maybe you have been hit-at how the daily rounds of injustice make their way through this marvelous thing that we call due process. Well, that is my premise.
All you have to do is read the Soledad letters of George Jackson, who was sentenced to one year to life, of which he spent ten years, for a seventy-dollar robbery of a filling station. And then there is the U.S. Senator who is alleged to keep 185,000 dollars a year, or something like that, on the oil depletion allowance. One is theft; the other is legislation. something is wrong, something is terribly wrong when we ship 10,000 bombs full of nerve gas across the country, and drop them in somebody else's swimming pool so as not to trouble our own. So you lose your perspective after a while. If you don't think, if you just listen to TV and read scholarly things, you actually begin to think that things are not so bad, or that just little things are wrong. But you have to get a little detached, and then come back and look at the world, and you are horrified. So we have to start from that supposition-that things are really topsy-turvy.

And our topic is topsy-turvy: civil disobedience. As soon as you say the topic is civil disobedience, you are saying our problem is civil disobedience. That is not our problem.... Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem. We recognize this for Nazi Germany. We know that the problem there was obedience, that the people obeyed Hitler. People obeyed; that was wrong. They should have challenged, and they should have resisted; and if we were only there, we would have showed them. Even in Stalin's Russia we can understand that; people are obedient, all these herdlike people.

These words are as true today, as they were 40 years ago. It's kind of unsettling actually, how well they fit. Click the link and read the whole speech.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/CivilObedience_ZR.html

[MineralMan]

9. As I have done so often, I give you Al Franken.

Or, I should say, a lot of political activism gives you Al Franken. You posit that political activism doesn't work. I reject that premise and provide an example for you.

Now, define "direct activism," please. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. It covers a very wide range of possibilities.

[asdjrocky]

15. I see your Al Franken and I raise you a Howard Zinn-

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience.“

[MineralMan]

21. Howard Zinn is dead. He was an influential figure in

political philosophy, certainly. I was influenced by him in the 1960s, and he was partly responsible for my going to Selma in 1965 as a 20-year-old. Yet, it was not he who passed the Civil Right Bill. It was Congress. I ran into him again during anti-war actions a few years later. Again, it was not Howard Zinn who ended the Vietnam war. It was government that started the war and government that ended it.

I have no brief against civil disobedience. I've been involved with it many times. However, civil disobedience is not government, and those who engage in it have more of my respect than those who talk about it and don't engage in it.

If you believe that civil disobedience will accomplish change today, then I encourage you strongly to engage in it. But, realize that it is not the civil disobedience that makes the changes. It is only an educational tool that leads the people to elect people who will make those changes.

Thus has it always been. Howard Zinn changed nothing. He wrote and spoke. The protesters changed nothing, except minds. The changes came from government.

[asdjrocky]

25. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Have you ever read a single thing Zinn has written? You show clearly that you are totally ignorant of the life lived by Howard Zinn, or his past experiences.

[MineralMan]

30. Actually, it is you who have no idea who I am or what I know.

You have no idea what I have read, nor what I have done.

[asdjrocky]

34. Maybe not.

But I can read the words you write, and that tells me everything I need to know about what you have read.

[MineralMan]

36. Not really. Again, you know nothing about me, and I'm not in the

mood to educate you right now. Please feel free to believe whatever you will believe.

[asdjrocky]

37. Oh, thank you so much for the premission to belive what I believe.

That means the world to me.

[MineralMan]

38. The point is that you need no permission from me or anyone else.

I'm in no position to give or remove permission for anything. For pete's sake. I disagree with your point. You tell who you think I am and what you think I know. I tell you that you are incorrect and that I'm not going to bother with the subthread any longer. Nice try at changing the subject. I'm not buying it. See ya...

[27inCali]

55. nice trolling

get over yourself.

and quite a bit of personal attacks towards someone simply for clarifying that civil disobedience in and of itself cannot bring change. Voting intelligently for good people so they can the laws of the land is the other side of the coin, good for you that you've read some Howard Zinn, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD HIM! and it definitely does not mean you have been given license by his writings to be rude and condescending to your fellow posters.

[RainDog]

56. So Martin Luther King did not bring change through civil disobedience?

The students who refused to stop when they were arrested at lunch counters did not bring change?

The point, to me, is that change doesn't happen at the political level until there are people OUTSIDE of the circle of the political powers-that-be that FORCE politicians to address the will of the people or the justness of a cause based upon our national myth about what this nation's aspirations are - as a land of the free and home of the brave, in its simplest form.

Martin Luther King had access to some people in power but he was not part of the power structure of American political life. Neither was Ghandi - he was a lawyer but he was not a member of the (British) colonial power elite in India.

The politicians ALWAYS lag behind the will of the people. They are closed off and sheltered from what people experience outside of the bubble of their confidantes and associates, for the most part. They are embedded in the structures of power; they are cloistered and flagellated by lobbyists to do the bidding of corporate interests, not the interests of the American people.

A politician who is not this way is rare.

Obama told people to "make him" do the right thing. When people organize and speak against what they think is the wrong thing, we're told on DU that this makes activists "immature, pony-seekers, republican-enablers, etc."

But, in fact, it is the purpose of democracy to move politicians to respond to the will of the people and the only means available to do this at this time is via direct action (not necessarily illegal action) that will let politicians know there are issues that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of various groups. When those groups get big enough and loud enough - politicians respond - or the lose elections.

[asdjrocky]

116. You said it right Rain Dog.

With more compassion and patients then I could have managed.

[27inCali]

129. Back then they actually covered marches on the news

they don't do that anymore unless it's a march of teabaggers or someone else who supports the corporate line.

Don't believe me? -look at all the anti-war marches that were and are ignored. I'm not knocking the accomplishments of anyone, but times change, we have a corporate run media now, marching just does not accomplish the same level communication it used to and I just think is dangerous to assume that it does.

[sabrina 1]

70. So in your mind, it is far more successful to keep re-electing

the same people who then vote against what they claimed to support in their campaigns, always with some excuse or another, because they are 'the lesser of two evils'? This method is superior to getting the people involved, to let them know that we will not continue to re-elect them if they do not vote the way they campaigned?

If that were true, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

So you're against Civil Disobedience because according to you it doesn't work. Neither has reelecting people who have voted for such vile bills as the Military Commissions Act.

What in your opinion does work?

[27inCali]

130. I'm not against civil disobedience

I just think the corporate media knows now to ignore it and ruin any attempt to use it as a tool to communicate. If you wanna go march down Market street in SF, meet a bunch of like minded Liberals and express yourself, fine. But you need to a lot more than that.

What I know is that there are plenty of Dem Representatives right now who voted a number of times against their own interest (re-election) because they thought it was the right thing -and they are going to be slaughted because the base is pissed about the dumb shit that is going on in the Senate.

[sabrina 1]

134. Well, I agree with you regarding the Dems voting against their

interests. Actually against our interests. And now they are seeing the result of not standing up for the people. They have said so to the White House. They should have fought for the PO at least, an issue on which a majority of the American people would have supported them. Instead, they let the WH twist their arms to vote for Corporate AMerica.

But even though now they understand why people are angry at them, this has happened before. So what should we do? Give them another chance and then let them cave once again when the WH asks them to vote to privatize SS eg?

They have lost the trust of the people because they did not fight. I agree about marches, they don't work because they are ignored by the manipulated, corporate controlled media.

So, what is the answer? We can't keep doing the same thing, re-electing people who forget who elects them until the election rolls around again. We tried that in 2006 and 2008 and now we have a clear view of how it works, which we did need to see I suppose.

So, what strategy do they people have to combat our corporated-controlled government? How do we get people who represent Goldman Sachs like Bernanke and Geitherner and those who represent the MIC like Gates et al out of our government, when Democrats are the ones putting them in power?

[EFerrari]

85. You've never read Zinn either, have you? n/t

[27inCali]

131. No! do I have to? Is he the only source of wisdom?

Is that what defines a Liberal these days? reading Howard Zinn? Can I not laugh a bit at some one for dropping the names of respected intellectuals to ballast their argument when the strength of their own thoughts should be enough? and not everyone reads for the same reasons.....

[inna]

107. pure projection on your part.

it is actually you who is being "rude and condescending to your fellow posters" in that post.

baselessly and maliciously accusing long-term, well-known and popular posters of trolling is beyond pale.

:thumbsdown:

[27inCali]

132. popularity should not be an argument for one's worth

rather an argument against it. It's condescending to hide behind famous intellectuals and use them as a crude bludgeon against those who disagree with you. Now excuse me while I misappropriate Noam Chomsky to explain to you why I know what I'm talking about and you dont! haha.

The memory of Howard Zinn has more important things to do than serve as a prop in a silly argument.

[wickerwoman]

53. That seems like an overly simplistic view.

Why did government pass the Civil Rights Bill? Because enough people's minds had been changed.
Why did government end the Vietnam War? Because opinion had turned against it largely due to the educational efforts of people like Howard Zinn.

We can go around in circles forever.

Government may put a stamp on the change, but the change happens first in everyday people's thoughts, hearts and actions.

This is happening now with the environmental movement. Government has known for forty years that we were headed for a serious environmental crisis. It's only the past five or ten (since greater environmental consciousness has hit the mainstream, and arguably largely thanks to Al Gore's efforts) that government policy has begun to seriously address climate change.

I take issue with you arguing that "The protesters changed nothing, except minds" as if changing minds is nothing. It's everything. And they deserve credit for the extremely difficult and important function they perform.

[MineralMan]

54. I didn't say, or mean, that changing minds does nothing. In fact,

it's the key to change. That's the point of this thread. It seems like some are trying to change Democrats' minds through Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If enough minds are changed due to this kind of negativity, there will be change, certainly. The change will be for the Republicans to regain power.

My point in saying what you quoted was to point out that, through changing minds, Congress passed the Civil Rights Bill. Before that, we got a Constitutional Amendment that provided equal suffrage for men and women. Every major change was due to a change in the thinking of the population.

I do not disagree that civil disobedience is useful, but it, alone, is not what brings change. What finally brings change is the changed minds, which results in the election of people who will enact those changes. Right now I'm concerned that minds are being changed in a way that will assure the return of Republicans in control of Congress.

[RainDog]

60. What you fear is the Democratic Party's tone deafness

to the voices of the people that elected them - who thought that voting itself was a form of activism - those who thought that phone banking and volunteering were going to undo much of the last 8 horrid years - and in fairly quick fashion since Americans had elected a Democratic congress two years before in the mid-terms - on major issues of Constitutional violations, for instance.

What you fear is that the Democratic Party is clueless - that it does not have its ear to the ground and that it is losing substantial support because its actions reflect a concern for the moneyed and powerful and socially regressive.

What you fear is that the Democratic Party continues to get played by the right wing - who advances the most outrageous bullshit imaginable and pretends it actually expects these things - when in reality, the right wing merely uses such tactics to gain a better position for itself and to alienate the democrats from their own base.

But instead of acknowledging this fear that the party is unresponsive, you blame voters who watched as Republicans trampled on the Constitution, as well as numerous other laws, who now walk away without consequence. It's not just Obama who is part of this. Reid and Pelosi were doing this same thing before Obama was elected.

It is the party, not Obama, that is failing the American people.

[MineralMan]

87. It's always a mistake to believe that

your voice is the same voice everyone is speaking with. It's a common error. The Democratic party must listen to millions of voices, all saying different things. Every political party in this enormous country faces that. There is no single voice that speaks for everyone. Every voice must be heard, and actions based on the common tone of those voices.

[tomp]

97. according to the democratic party...

....every voice except the left must be heard. it is the left that overwhelmingly needs to use civil disobedience.

to me, that is "broken".

[janx]

117. Where are you getting this information?

I'm unaware of any dem official saying such a thing.

[tomp]

127. don't be ridiculous.

they don't say it, they do it.

[RainDog]

119. Yes, it is a common error.

and that's why it is so astonishing to see Obama alienate long-standing voters for the Democratic Party by his misogynistic high-risk pool decision, for instance.

I lost respect for him at that moment.

[prolesunited]

4. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't an organized group whose goal is the destruction of our syste

There are. They are the neocons running the GOP

[MineralMan]

13. Them too. I wonder if there aren't some in that group who are

clever enough to pose as something they are not.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I have little doubt that your suspicions are correct.

I think that this has been a corporate/PTB objective for many years. Remember Reagan--"Government isn't the solution; government is the problem." And then, of course, he set out to prove it.

[treestar]

7. I think so

And a violent end to the government doesn't guarantee a left wing type of government; in this country there would be a risk of a right wing government. The extremes both want total power and that's their frustration with our system.

And our system can be frustrating (especially the filibuster, but that can be changed or eliminated) but that is the price of everyone having a say.

[Beetwasher]

11. Of Course It's Organized, And It Is Meant To Destroy And Discourage

And it's probably coming from at least a couple of different source origins. It's pretty obvious that it's coordinated on some level.

The sad thing is, there are some people who probably are dissaffected "liberals"/"progressive" invovled, however, there are probably more than a few outright disruptors leading them by the nose and stoking their ire and fear so they do their bidding for purposes that are completely at odds with actual "progressive" values.

[MineralMan]

16. But, are people so easily led capable of governing?

And if they are so easily led, are they even intelligent enough to govern?

[Beetwasher]

19. No, But That's Not Their Purpose, Their Purpose Is To Disrupt

[MineralMan]

33. That could be right. All they need do is demoralize enough

Democrats to retake control of Congress. It seems they're working on it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Thomas Paine

Holding the government accountable is not "negativism" it's holding the government accountable.

[MineralMan]

14. Oh, I'm not talking about holding the government accountable.

We have an opportunity to do that every couple of years. I'm talking about a deliberate campaign to destroy government by insisting that it cannot function any longer to govern. That's a very different thing, I think.

[tomp]

100. you mean the mere election of obama equals holding bush/cheney accountable?

you may not realize it but you're losing this argument.

[NightWatcher]

17. what's worse, negativism or the promise of change that fell flat?

I bought the "change" meme, but have only seen more of the same. Now I'm falling into the 'negativism' camp.

Screw 'em all, I'm done donating, volunteering, ......voting, giving a damn....


Each side is trying to sell a product and I aint buying it anymore.

[Drunken Irishman]

20. You honestly believe that there has been no change from Bush to Obama?

See, you're the type of person I have no interest in waisting my time with because you're completely irrational.

[JuniperLea]

Managing expectations is a big part of it...

Some of us had such grandiose expectations... and still others didn't really listen, but chose to choose their own change and expect it, even though it was never promised.

Case in point, the wars. Obama never, ever said he would end all of the wars. Never once did he say that, and quite frankly, this is one of the points I really didn't want to hear from him. But from what you read here, on other message boards, and in media comments sections, you'd think that ending all war on the planet was his first and foremost campaign promise.

I had to tell a RW coworker to stop telling me what I think. He said, "You think you voted for a center of the road kind of guy, but what you got was a liberal." No... said I... Obama is not a liberal... I knew he was a centrist, and I specifically voted for a centrist. He's nowhere near liberal... I am a liberal... I'm falling off the chart liberal... but I don't ever try to fool myself and don't you dare try to presume you know what's in my mind because Limbaugh or Beck tells you what's in my mind.

I managed my expectations well it seems. I was an Edwards supporter... nice, huh? Then I threw myself headlong into my support of Hillary... when it became clear that she wasn't going to make it, I did the same for Obama. Not my first choice, but clearly he's the only choice for me right now. I'm not seeing any other viable choice. I don't agree with his reaching across the aisle deal... oh, I didn't mind so much in the beginning, but he's been turning the other cheek far too often for my taste. I wish he'd take the gloves off. But I'm still supporting him. He has gotten a lot more done than I expected, actually. But then, I manage my expectations rather well. I taught my children to do the same... starting with making sure Jonathan knew that when it's Joshua's birthday, Jon shouldn't expect a birthday present.

[MineralMan]

22. And yet, you are participating here. So, you have obviously not

given up "giving a damn." Is it your plan to evangelize your negativism here?

[JuniperLea]

18. Negativism...

No you can't... NObama... No... No... No...

Yes, we're faced with a lot of this. I think we need to keep in mind that good isn't always the sharpest tool in the shed, and the negative ones aren't the most stupid... evil geniuses have been in the ruling class ever since there was such a thing. Of course there are a lot of dull tools as well, parroting the evil geniuses.

"I have to wonder if the real goal isn't to destroy the system to replace it with something they don't seem to want to define." - Well, that makes a lot of sense. If you bash what you want to change long enough, some people will give up. It's easier to start from scratch, or so the dull tools think.

[MineralMan]

26. I'm pretty sure those who may be spreading this negative FUD

don't have the numbers to actually create anything. They may, however, have the numbers to return control to the Republicans by convincing Democrats not to care and not to participate. If that is their goal, they may well succeed. More and more, I think that may be the goal and that some are simply being dupes in aid of that goal. If so, that is a very sad thing, indeed.

And yet, so it appears to me, more and more.

[snot]

23. Hope this helps:

Chris Hedges's speech at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUKn19Sg0vo . He's a Pullitzer-winning journalist who resigned from The NYT when he was told he could not keep his job there while publicly opposing the Iraq war (more on Hedges at Wikipedia).

The video is long but well worth the time. Don't stop watching after Hedges stops speaking the first time; I found the other speakers worthwhile, plus Hedges delivers additional brilliant stuff during subsequent Q&A.

A couple of Hedges' MANY insights: "We forgot that the question is NOT, how do we get good people into power. The question is, how do we limit the damage the powerful can do to us?"

We've had a system that did that pretty well, in the past; but various safeguards, including the media, have been hijacked.

But we've had good gov't before, and we can have it again. BUT we have to muster the courage to face what we're up against, as well as the determination to do something about it.

Another really excellent video I've seen recently is at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13062.htm . It does better than anything else I've seen putting together the pieces we know about the oligarchs' takeover of the media, which has been playing a crucial role in misdirecting and brainwashing people and in achieving a number of specific conservative gains.

At this moment, the crucial battles -- which we're on the brink of losing -- are over the internet (net neutrality) and public education (which is being destroyed).

[Steely_Dan]

94. I Cannot Recommend This Video Enough...

Chris Hedges presents a pretty pessimistic view of what happened and what will happen. However, it is a MUST SEE. Yes, it is an hour long, but don't stop watching...I learned a great deal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUKn19Sg0vo

[Cha]

24. There've been henny pennys since the primaries

and everytime they cover themselves to keep the sky from falling on their precious little heads..it seems to work as they're able to make this miraculous recovery to be able to run around and do it all over again.

They'll always be those who say..No we can't and then you have those who become a President who said Yes We Can..in a time when we needed just such a leader.

[MineralMan]

27. Thank you.

I believe we are at a turning point in 2010. I believe that we can turn toward the light or turn back to darkness. Which will we do? What are the intentions of the negativists? That's the question I'm posing. Followed by the question of what we can do to thwart their negativity.

[kctim]

28. Great topic

and I think you are kind of right. IMO though, it is the destruction of what our system has become that some people are after, while others are for the continued transformation of it.
People have figured out that complaining to themselves does no good. Some have seen the large numbers who oppose it, so now they are organizing in hopes of stopping the transformation.

[gulliver]

29. The Republicans are depressing me!

They aren't the "Party of No." They are the Party of Nothing. They gave us Bush and the Great Recession. Now all they can do is yell and try to hide their guilt by being accusers. The scariest words in the English language: "I'm a a Republican and I want to govern you."

[MineralMan]

31. Agreed. Which makes me wonder if the right is running this

campaign of negativity. I'm not saying that those who promote negativity are right-wingers...just that they may be led by some of the cleverest of those right-wingers. FUD knows no political party, requires little thought, and can be adopted by even the simplest amongst us.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

120. But yet they DON'T even "govern"

Most of them seem to see government as their own personal piggy bank for themselves and their cronies, as well as a tool to enforce whatever kind of *morality* and social order that they happen to believe in. For many of them, government isn't about making it sure things run smoothly or competently. For many of them, government is all about getting power and making sure nobody else gets even close to getting any say about what happens to them. That's why they howl so loudly and scream about Democrats "stealing" elections and being illegitimate whenever we end up winning. They seem to believe that THEY and they alone are entitled to wield power in this country thus to them any electoral success by the Democrats HAS to be illegitimate and abnormal.

The modern day Republican Party-it's goals and recent history- should be "Exhibit A" to support the case that it's simply NOT a good idea to vote for people who ADVERTISE that they are anti-government!!! :banghead:

[grantcart]

32. Negatives unite

The Tea Party is united in negative rejection

It will fall apart when they actually have to support certain policies because the people in the Tea Party are all made about different things.

Some are angry about the deficits and others about abortion. They are only united in opposition.

[MineralMan]

35. I'm not really talking about the Tea Party morons in this thread.

They can lead nothing. I'm talking more about a campaign to demoralize the Democrats into ceding control of Congress back to the Republicans. That campaign would have to be led by far cleverer people than the teabaggers, since they would have to recruit dupes from the left to promote the negativism. That's actually fairly sophisticated strategy.

[grantcart]

40. The same principles apply.

Those Democrats that are angry against the President are united only in their negativity.

[MineralMan]

49. It seems to me that it's difficult to make positive changes if

all you have are negatives to offer. That, to me, is the real problem with spreading FUD in an election year.

[EFerrari]

78. Isn't this kind of thing against the new rules? Group slurs?

Comparing Democrats you disagree with to tea party morons?

And why is this happening in GD? Didn't we have some kind of detente where inside baseball party politics mostly staying in GDP and social justice stuff mostly stayed here? That worked pretty well. Is that off now?

These threads, bashing most of DU, are destructive. They're not meant to really fix anything and they only create more bad feeling.

[MineralMan]

88. Why do you assume I'm talking about Democrats in general or

about any group DUers? This thing I'm noticing goes far beyond DU. And, since I notice that many DUers are responding favorably to my question and discussing the possibility I raise, it's difficult to take from that that I'm "bashing most of DU."

Perhaps you're reading something into the thread that was never intended.

[EFerrari]

112. No, I'm not. And I was responding to grantcart. nt

[grantcart]

114. It is a clear statement of fact

in a political contest negatives unite people of different opinions into a common subset this is why political scientists rarely examine the positive polling numbers and only examine the negatives. Negatives also contain a much more committed response as anyone who goes so far to openly express a negative emotion is assumed to give it more weight to someone who expresses satisfaction and may simply be going with the flow or hasn't really developed an opinion at all.

For example take the statement "The President's approval rating on handling Health Care has fallen to 40%"


a more careful look at the responses would likely show:


Approved of the President 40%
Wanted the President to include the Public Option and do more 20%
Thought that the President to take a less comprehensive strategy 20%
Was satisfied with the current system 20%.

While it appears that the President only had 40% approval the reality is if he was up against either

Do you think that the President should have done more or Do you think that the President did too much his rating on a binary question would have been 60% approval. Only when the the negative is left undefined, and all of the negatives combined does the President get 40%.

The fact that you would find this completely objective factual and and basic political science fact to be a 'slur' indicates that you either make it a habit of looking for such slurs where they don't exist or that you have made it a particular hobby to honor me in such a pursuit.

[Scurrilous]

39. Great post MineralMan.

K & R :thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

48. Well, I don't know about that, but it's something I've been thinking

about. It makes as much sense as any other explanation, I think. Who knows?

[Joe Fields]

41. I don't see organized negativism. What I do see are a lot of people

waking up to the fact that our once viable system of government has been hijacked from the top down. Many people, myself included, feel that no one is representing us anymore or looking to do the greater good for all of us.

[Odin2005]

42. Our "system of government" is a play put on by the Corporate Elite to give the illusion of Democracy

As long as there is Capitalism there can be no REAL democracy.

[MineralMan]

45. Well, here's a clue. Capitalism isn't going away. There's nothing

to replace it that can serve the needs of 350,000,000 people in a country the size of the USA. So, that's more FUD, as far as I'm concerned. Capitalism needs to be regulated. But it's not going to disappear an any time period that will be within any DUers lifetime.

So, what's your next step. Do you suppose the Republicans are going to regulate capitalism in any real way? How has that worked out in the past?

Or, if you know what system can replace capitalism in the USA, I'd sure be interested to hear about it. You'll have to be practical, though. Remember the population, size, and distribution of that population before you make your suggestion, or it will be laughable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. My problem is that both of you are arguing myth not reality

there is no capitalism in the US. It hasn't for at least a generation. It died a while ago... but it still serves a good place in the play of words. In fact, give me a little capitalism... I want all those monopolies broken (yes Adam Smith would approve) and some real free trade, not company A selling goods to a subsidiary of Company A. (Ricardo would also approve)

And that is the firs thing we need to overcome as a nation... the heavy dose of myth making.



Sorry, personal rant.

[Selatius]

79. Capitalism is built upon the notion of free markets. In the US, monopolies dominate many markets.

Not even Adam Smith appreciated a select few gaining such power over a market as to be able to manipulate that market to their advantage, to the detriment of the many.

[MineralMan]

90. Then, it is not capitalism to which you object, but monopolies?

That I can agree with, certainly. We do need to deal with monopolies and fix the overbalance they create in our capitalistic system. We can do that, but it's not going to be a one-step or fast process. Of that I'm certain.

[inna]

108. Odin, I just have to say this... You went through so much growth in the last few years, judging by.

the changing nature of your posts on DU. I mean it as a highest compliment. :) You must've been reading a lot of Chomsky, or something. :D

Keep it up, you're wise beyond your years. :thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

121. As a matter of hact I have, just got his new book last weekend.

[NJmaverick]

43. One of the key liberal values is that the government is an institution

that can help the people and make the nation better

[MineralMan]

46. Very true. And Democrats are the most likely party to do those

things. It's not likely that there will be an immediate shift to an absolutely just society. I don't see a path to that. However, if the Republicans regain power, we will quickly revert to even more injustice. Just because current changes have not produced an ideal society does not mean that those changes have not been positive. Throwing the Democratic baby out with the bathwater certainly will not produce good changes.

FUD is always negative, and always produces negative results.

[JNelson6563]

44. A valid point MM, well worth considering

I have always found spending my time complaining bitterly/just reading lots bitter complaining on the tubes contributes greatly to one's sense of impotence.

Julie

[MineralMan]

47. You have a point there, truly.

[uponit7771]

50. Such organized group is called the GOP

[quiet.american]

51. Yes, I've noticed. And the worst thing is that it oftentimes a self-fulfilling prophecy. nt

[MineralMan]

52. Exactly.

Sometimes it even seems like people are discussing how to do this somewhere, then coming here or to other Democratic forums and posting in specific threads to spread FUD and negativity. That's sort of what got me thinking that there might be an organized effort involved.

[KittyWampus]

57. Cynics hate progress. It undermines their core philosophy. So they have a lot invested

in ignoring positive changes and retarding progress.

[scheming daemons]

58. You see that everyday with DU's cynics that won't acknowledge the incredible changes already made

...under Obama.

[KittyWampus]

59. which is why I spend so little time here anymore.

[ProSense]

67. Cynics hate

when their candidate loses.

The doom and gloom and claims that Democrats are no different from Republicans is largely due to that. A claim that didn't seem to apply when everyone was campaigning their asses off to convince America that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich was going to be the true savior.

In fact, a lot of the cynicism is mostly from people who can't get over the fact that Obama won, trying to pass off their negativity as revolutionary insights.

[Number23]

123. You're absolutely right.

[laughingliberal]

61. Reagan's contention: Government can't do anything right.

The more of Reagan's policies which are adopted, the more true the statement became. Sadly, we have a lot of Democrats these days who advocate for Reaganesque policies.

[azmouse]

62. kick

:thumbsup:

[Born_A_Truman]

63. K/R!

Sorta like talk radio, as one example.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. We go through these every so often

and sooner or later it will be terminal. No nation lives forever... but that is another rant. And for that matter, no system survives for ever. But we have seen these cases of the don't work before. And historically it usually is followed by populist rage (check), and people demanding transparency (check), as well as reform (check)

What is different this time is Citizens United. That is a serious stumbling rock, err Mountain, in the way. If and when we take care of that little problem... then that populist anger and the rest of it, will start taking place as usual. It is part of the process.

[laughingliberal]

72. Well said! eom

[Bonobo]

66. This thread belongs in the dungeon.

"I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't an organized group whose goal is the destruction of our system"

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

74. I think he just means, this would be a great board if it weren't for all goddam

vampires.

lol

[Bonobo]

75. Thanks for the translation.

It's been years since I took poli-sci in college and my DLC double talk is rusty.

[EFerrari]

76. I just watched "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" again.

Have to keep my chops up!

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

77. I agree, conspiracy theories are not supposed to be allowed in GD..

But apparently CTs are fine if it's liberals who are supposed to be the bad guys.

Go figure.

[Bonobo]

80. You should listen to pragmatic woodchucks more pal.

They know how to wait for nuts to drop from the sky. Or if not nuts, perhaps squirrel poop. 50/50 proposition.

[Fumesucker]

81. People who live on the beach learn not to stand under the coconut palm..

Those coconuts can give you a splitting headache.

[Bonobo]

82. Simply untrue.

[Fumesucker]

83. LOL.. I rest my case..

Splitting headache, brain damage, it's all good.. errr. bad.

[JackDragna]

68. Our government IS worthless and unable to fix anything..

..but not because the mechanisms aren't there to do so. Rather, it's because of those who occupy the seats of power and the rigged system that keeps them there. So long as we let money rule elections and continue to send the pawns of the wealthy and powerful to Washington to represent our interests, it will continue to be so.

[MineralMan]

92. If that is the case, then it stands to reason that election activism

is the solution. If a group of hard-working activists can get Al Franken elected, then can that not be done in other places? Despite the influence of corporate interests, the electorate demonstrates over and over again that they can often elect people they want elected if they work hard enough at it.

That, in short, is what I'm proposing. A positive approach, followed by hard work, to insure that Republicans do not regain control of Congress and that more progressive legislators are elected.

Influencing Democrats to not vote because it is useless to do so is not a positive approach. It is negativism. I do not believe that is difficult to understand. So, I ask the question: Is the current negativism, and I don't mean just on DU, being fed from outside of the Democratic Party?

That's the question I'm posing. Nothing else. What do you think about that question?

[girl gone mad]

69. Obama is the ultimate embodiment of cynical politics.

How many times have we heard that he's incapable of doing anything remotely progressive and he must instead compromise and cave and endorse really shitty legislation just to get something in the 'win' column?

Him and his brand of pragmatism represent political cynicism taken to its extreme limits.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Capitalism must die

and our Constitution must be restored.

[MineralMan]

93. Interesting. What mechanism do you envision that will cause

the death of capitalism? Further, as far as I know, capitalism is not a subject addressed in the Consitution, so how is the Consitution not being followed, overall?

[IndianaGreen]

118. The guillotine!

It worked for the French!

[Kahuna]

73. It seems the left has adopted the tactics used by the right... All negativism..

all the time. Oy. It's freakin' depressing.

[MineralMan]

96. I suggest that we need not accept negativism, but can

apply activism, instead, to elect more progressive candidates to office. It's an individual decision, and activism is done one person at a time. Personally, in election years, the activism I want to encourage is personal advocacy for Democratic candidates, through actively working to help them get elected. It's easy, simple, and can be done, using as much or as little of your time that you can spare.

It starts by contacting the campaign office of the Democratic candidates in your own districts, whether state or federal, and asking what you can do to help them get elected. I can promise you that they will offer a number of ways you can help. Then, choose the method you're most comfortable with and the the best skills to do, and do it. That is the very definition of grassroots activism.

[JoePhilly]

84. Its a GOP strategy developed by Grover Norquist ...

Their goal is not to destroy the government. Their goal is to put the super rich in charge of everything and create an underclass of quiet compliant workers. Workers who know their place. Workers who understand that they are not part of the ruling class. Basically a form of corporate fascism.

It works like this ...

You (the GOP) endlessly claim that the government is BAD and incompetent. When your party is in power, you gut the government of real agencies that work and fill it with cronies and hacks who do nothing but your biding. That's how you get Katrina. That's how you get the DOJ scandal. Mining disasters. Oil spills. Regulators pass freely from industry to government, and back, you goal is to merge the two entities.

When you (the GOP) are out of power, you obstruct on all fronts. You impeach a President over a BJ ... you call the President a socialist, and you continue to scream that the government is bad and incompetent using the mining disaster and your oil spills as examples. You (the GOP) suddenly pretend to care about the deficit. Evil government, stealing from your kids to pay teachers while we have 2 wars. How unAmerican!!

You complain about taxes and spending, but you are very selective in that. Low taxes for businesses and the rich, higher for everyone else. But you claim you are protecting everyone from the "Death Tax", a tax that only effects about .3% of all families.

You trade spending on social programs like education, for spending that goes directly to private businesses. You pretend that war is free.

You allow money (via the rich) to decide elections.

Grover Norquist's famous quote is that he wants to make the government so small, that you could drown it in a bath tub.

Of course what he really means is that he wants to end all social programs because that frees money to be spent on private businesses. Businesses that you are merging into the government.

So the negativism is a tool used to frustrate the average person to the point where they throw up their hands and give up ... and become a nice quiet worker, happy to have a job at all, while the United State's Board of Directors, guides the hands of the US CEO, oopss, I mean President.

[SidDithers]

86. Good post...

Though I think we see the negativism more in the bubble of DU. Here, the small group of discontented "progressives" have a disproportionately loud voice. In the general public, or even the Democratic party at large, they're much less noticeable.

Sid

[Fumesucker]

89. Yep, here in the bubble where people are actually paying attention to the destruction of our nation.

A lot of us are discontented.

Out there in the real world, where American Idol and Jersey Shore are the things to which the majority pay attention, people are far less discontented.

Funny how that works.

[MineralMan]

111. What you say is true. Most people are not as fascinated by

politics as those of us who post on internet forums. However, something I've noticed when I'm doing precinct walking is that if you start a conversation by asking the people you're talking with a question, like "What do you wish the (state,local,federal,) government would be doing that it is not doing now," people generally have something to say. It's not that they're not aware of politics, it's more that it's not a constant thing on their minds.

The answer to your question is the beginning of the conversation and your opportunity to present the candidate's or party's position and plans regarding that particular issue. Focusing on the individual issue that has the person's interest is the key. Never argue with a voter. Never get negative. Always just present the candidate's or party's position in a positive light and let the voter decide.

Internet forums aren't really where support comes from at the local level. That's why individual activism in elections is so important. If you're the only person who has addressed the voter's concerns, you have a good shot at getting them to the polls, knowing what the candidate or party you're representing thinks about whatever issue is raised. People respond to this very well.

[MineralMan]

98. I'm not sure about that. I'm seeing it even in the voices of pundits,

who seem eager to publicize the negative and less eager to publicize positive trends. I notice it on MSNBC, especially. I believe this negativism is widespread, and that DU merely reflects what is going on. I hear all kinds of voices here on DU. They seem to closely reflect the various views in the real world.

[janx]

109. Pundits--

may be exaggerating. They are paid to stoke controversy, after all. And the amateur internet pundits, who are often unpaid but emulating the paid ones, are often the worst. We'll know the extent of it come November.

Fascinating subject.

[Romulox]

91. Our gov't oversees the transfer of wealth from working people to big corps with great efficiency.

And if you don't like it? Our government will likely invade yours.

So those things "work" very well. Basic infrastructure, however? Not so good.

[Brewman_Jax]

95. That's been the repub mantra for years

Government is useless and will not help you. Elect us and we'll prove it.

People then have the nerve to be shocked when the repubs do what they set out to do. :crazy:

[MineralMan]

99. That is true. Which is one of the factors that raises the very

question I'm asking. Thanks.

[Kahuna]

101. Yep. Keep in mind that george w. bush did exactly what he said he would do..

Yet, a lot of progressives weren't really paying attention as they cast their votes for nader.

[Steely_Dan]

102. Unrealistic Expectations?

I have little in common with my friends on the Right. However, I KNOW where they are coming from. When they side with corporations to the debt of people, it does not surprise me. There is very little that they do that surprises me. The problem is when my own party does not act in accordance with the tenets I fought for and grew up with. When they abandon those tenets, I'm not only disappointed, I feel betrayed.

So, you say that I had unreasonable or unrealistic expectations of our current President. I readily admit this. But consider the kind of campaign he conducted. In his defense, the campaign did take on a sort "life of its own." The optimism generated allowed people to "imagine"...to hope once again....just one more time, that we can realize our dreams as a country. We dared believed that we could turn around the nightmare of the previous administration. We "believed" that he "got it."

While I am responsible for my own set of expectations, is there any doubt that at least some of it is due to Obama himself?

I can only think of the seventh level of Hell.

-PLA

[tomp]

103. pretty much hogwash.

1) any suggestion that our government is not broken is laughable.

2) negativism is relative. for example, it is obvious that you are negativistic toward people who think
that the u.s. government continues to represent a workable system. in the absence of any objective
truth on the subject, you're as negative as anyone else. you dress up your language in "positive" clothes
but your goal is to destroy your opposition.

3) destruction is not an inherently negative thing. witness nazi germany or feudalism or slavery, for example,

3) your post is a transparent propagation of the meme that opposition to our government is negative.

4) i'll see your henny penny with one pollyanna.

5) your post is full of baseless assertions, like "We have a viable system of govt......"

6) the first step in crippling our system is to not fix anything.

7) your "all is lost" type quotes with conflates opposition to government and general doom and gloom. though you
apparently do not consider it, one may be completely pessimistic regarding our government while being completely
hopeful for the future.

8) what is becoming unavoidably clear is that there is an organized group on du whose goal is to destroy left wing
opposition to obama's rightism.

[ThomWV]

104. And that is the way to present a civil, but strong, argument. Well done.

[MineralMan]

105. OK. What I posted is my opinion and a question.

You replied with your opinion.

1. Your opinion is that the government is broken. My opinion is that it is not. As evidence, I would present that government operations continue, Congress enacts legislation, and we are still holding elections. That you do not care for those actions, that legislation, and those elections is not evidence of a broken government.

2. My goal is simple. It is to work to elect more progressive Democrats to office. I've stated that many time, in many places, and work toward that goal. Yes, I have a negative opinion of those who do things that make that goal more difficult to achieve.

3. My post is exactly what it says. It is a question about whether there is an organized effort to keep Democrats from voting. The question is simple. I do not know the answer to the question, which is why I posed it.

4. Henny Penny? Pollyana? Content-free point.

5. I dealt with your example of "baseless assertion" in point 1. We have a functioning government and are holding elections in November. Therefore, we have a viable government. It is governing rather poorly at the moment, but it is viable. November will decide its direction, to some degree. My OP is about that election.

6. Of course we must fix things. I propose we do that by working to elect more progressive Democrats at all levels.

7. If you have not noted statements to the effect that it is "too late" or "hopeless," then I cannot help you with this point.

8. I do not believe that "Obama's rightism" exists. He may not be as far to the left as we would like, but there are plenty of examples of rightism on the right to make your slur of President Obama meaningless.

My opinion. Your opinion. Discussion. Thanks.

[tomp]

106. on my way out. will respond later. nt

[TheKentuckian]

113. If it works only to funnel wealth to the rich, spy on it's citizens, waging unending war against

out matched and relatively unequipped enemies, to facilitate the interests of the few to the detriment of the many, and to dispossess it's citizens then that qualifies as broken.

Just because say a device does something doesn't mean it is functioning properly. If my TV emits a buzzing sound and displays a few bars of pictures that box is fucking broken and only a skilled diagnostic and am honest appraisal will determine if it can be repaired or if that puppy is a goner for sure.


The government is captured, all three branches and both parties. Our's is less of a pool of toxins in a waste dump but it is most definitely a toxic pool and without any serious question in a dump.

To suggest otherwise indicates being asleep for a generation or two or that one is acting to maintain a set of circumstances they either find advantageous or the thought of real change is either alien or abhorrent to the point that even unsatisfactory conditions are defended to maintain the known.

I don't know what your goals are but it looks from my perspective like burning the clock.

The old Dean Smith four corners routine.

Muted tones and calls for steadfast patience for days that seem further off rather than being approached slowly or not.

Be as positive as you'd like but be positive from reality not from what you have every faith it is. Your recipe for success is to plug along and play the game, again four corners, run out the clock, foul it off-whatever you like best is all I see keep doing what you've been doing and at some known point for magical reasons things will be alright and getting better all the time.

You believe as you will but it has no special wisdom or time proven paths, I believed as you do for decades and it is painfully hollow today. A fantasy for a willing stooge or an useful idiot, a calming tune to soothe the sheep on the path to the slaughter house.

It is a tough case to make that we are seeing a government that is promoting the general welfare, securing our civil liberties, or providing a framework for broad prosperity and to me that is broken especially over the kind of time we are talking about here.

The problems I see are deep and many structural. You maybe just believe some new furniture and a coat or two of paint will make it all good. I'm alarmed and if it harshes your buzz, oh well. Maybe it is time for Rip Van Winkle to wake the hell up from his dream that made eighth grade civics into a faith that no power could pervert, convert, topple, or capture for nefarious purposes.

No magic protects our government from being a rouse and an extraction scam and it had happened.
Those that have done this care not at all if the arrangement is popular, only that we are pacified enough to tolerate it and preferably enthralled into helping by whatever vanity, faith, desperate need, or most hopeful vision that gives them a lever to move you in ways that benefit their ill gotten wealth and power.

[tomp]

128. ok, a quick response.

1. Your opinion is that the government is broken. My opinion is that it is not. As evidence, I would present that government operations continue, Congress enacts legislation, and we are still holding elections. That you do not care for those actions, that legislation, and those elections is not evidence of a broken government.

******ok, i thought you might be serious but deluded, now i know differently. do you know anything about electronic voting? the fact that we hold elections has proved to be absolutely no indication that we live in a democracy. the functions of government continue? yeah, throwing bones and crumbs to the masses while handing more wealth to the rich.

2. My goal is simple. It is to work to elect more progressive Democrats to office. I've stated that many time, in many places, and work toward that goal. Yes, I have a negative opinion of those who do things that make that goal more difficult to achieve.

*******your goal has been tried for fifty years and hasn't worked. many have tried, the party moves ever rightward. the left goes under the bus every time (that is, relative to the party's looking out for the rich). if you have some radical new idea on how you intend to change the party form within...well, as lennon said, "we'd all love to see the plan."

3. My post is exactly what it says. It is a question about whether there is an organized effort to keep Democrats from voting. The question is simple. I do not know the answer to the question, which is why I posed it.

*******obama sure seems to be trying to keep the left from voting...at least for democrats.

4. Henny Penny? Pollyana? Content-free point.

********you must have forgotten your agreement with an upthread poster about the henny penny's (the sky is falling crowd). the polyanna's keep thinking the party is not broken.

5. I dealt with your example of "baseless assertion" in point 1. We have a functioning government and are holding elections in November. Therefore, we have a viable government. It is governing rather poorly at the moment, but it is viable. November will decide its direction, to some degree. My OP is about that election.

********maybe you think you dealt with it. i dealt with your "viable govt" theory.

6. Of course we must fix things. I propose we do that by working to elect more progressive Democrats at all levels.

********oh, so you admit something, at least, is broken. could i get you to consider that one of those broken things is the promise of the democratic party to the people it is supposed to represent?

7. If you have not noted statements to the effect that it is "too late" or "hopeless," then I cannot help you with this point.

*********i've seen lots of such comments about lots of things. it is clearly too late and hopeless for trust in the democratic party.

8. I do not believe that "Obama's rightism" exists. He may not be as far to the left as we would like, but there are plenty of examples of rightism on the right to make your slur of President Obama meaningless.

********are there people farther to the right than obama? frankly, i think that's a moot point. he's far enough to the right to cause plenty of trouble and is in a position to do it. oh wait, he is doing it.

[inna]

110. +1. well done.

[nightrain]

115. well-said.

Empires grow, live, decline, and die. We are seemingly in the death throes of the American Empire. Painful as it is to experience it dying, it needs to happen so that something better can take its place (if we survive, or maybe we humans won't...).

I believe there's a fatal lesson embedded in this wrenching usurious place--"going this route is unsustainable". Can we welcome death?

[Hekate]

122. Kick. Worth discussing. nt

[Number23]

124. I don't know, Hekate. Seems like all this thread has proved is that there are too many people on DU

who will argue about any and EVERY thing.

[Hekate]

125. heehee. Well, there is that. You definitely have a point.

:P

[JuniperLea]

126. Yep...

To be contrary for the sake of being contrary... I divorced a man for that once! And I'd do it again if needed! Absolutely ridiculous way to be.

[Unvanguard]

133. That's exactly right. Cynicism about government is cynically manipulated.

"Don't trust the politicians and bureaucrats"... but that means that you do trust the CEOs.