First I sincerely apologize for how long this is. I'm sleep deprived, and for the life of me I can't think of how to say all that I want to say in less space. I have been reflecting on all of this for months, and it just all came out in this massive tome. I post it with the hope that maybe, it *might* help you see where I'm coming from and recognize that I'm not your enemy. I'm just a journeying thinker.

The Evolution of (my) Thinking

I am thirty two years old. The last decade has been some of the most dramatically formative years for my political awareness. This is true not only because of my age, but also because of the extraordinary circumstances Americans and citizens of the world have experienced during these recent years.

Principles

A decade ago I described myself simply as a Democrat, who believed in the principles of the Democratic Party. That is actually where the trouble started. If you ask me to name those principles, I would have said that they included a strong commitment to labor rights and to working class American individuals and families. I would have said that they included dedication to economic policy that seeks to narrow the growing disparity between the wealthiest and poorest Americans and treats poverty as a moral concern.

I would have said that these principles included a foreign policy that priorities peace, diplomacy and the non-exploitation of other peoples or their resources for selfish gain above the interests of profit seekers or the military industrial complex. I would have said they included a deep abiding belief in the State’s responsibility to promote social welfare, which would include fully supporting the best public education system in the world, health and welfare services guaranteed to the poor and elderly who need them, active commitment to civil rights, which not only includes privacy rights and protections from the unjustified intrusions of the State, but also the workers right to an active stake in the direction and conditions of his or her own workplace.

And I would have said that these principles included the active effort to both establish and maintain a fervent commitment to equal treatment under the law for every citizen, be that citizen a women, a person of color, a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person, a person of faith or absence of faith, or a disabled individual.

Those are some of the things I am certain I would have described if asked to name the principles of the Democratic Party. A decade ago, I was twenty-two and finding myself after an awakening break from the cultish religious conservative abuse of my youth. Because of the way American politics is set up, it is easy to assume that the opposite of a conservative-ideology driven party would be a liberal-ideology driven party. So after rejecting the absurdity and injustice inherent in Republican conservatism, it was only natural that I would project some assumptions about the Democrats onto the Democratic Party – namely that they were “opposite” of the Republican Party.

Thankfully, that didn’t last long. My own idealism was too radical, and I gravitated towards thinkers such as Chomsky and Zinn, read Karl Marx, and recognized that I believed in their core criticisms and in their enunciation of what the right principles for politico-economic life ought to be. And for the next many years I focused on how to reform or reshape the political system so that it was more in line with the ideas of social and economic justice espoused by leftists.

The Wrong Assumption

All of this thought about reform and working within the system rested on a fundamental assumption that I held until within the last twelve months. I recognized that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in Washington were in many ways too beholden to powerful financial interests and that other groups than the American People or politicians themselves were setting the scope and parameters of acceptable debate on policy. But I assumed that deep down inside, what separated Democrats from Republicans was a difference of values. In other words, I assumed that while Democrats may regularly be cowardly and not stand up and fight for bold left policy, that fundamentally it was still their ideal. I assumed that if you asked the majority of Democrats what their ideal society would look like apart from the politics of feasibility, they would describe a society that adhered to the basic principles I have previously described.

Consequently, in 2004 when Democrats were wringing their hands in response to outrage by concerned leftists at their complete capitulation to the Bush Crime Families agenda, I was in some way sympathetic to their response that their “hands were tied” and that they were in a “tiny minority” and that there was nothing they could do, even though they “really wanted” to. Then in 2006 when the Democrats took both Houses of Congress and then did nothing but once again capitulate to everything Bush was doing (SCHIP, FISA, war escalation,) Democrats again responded by complaining that they “couldn’t break a filibuster” and “needed 60 votes in the Senate” and “must focus on capturing the White House in 2008.”

What I assumed was that Democrats were cowards, but they were cowards who if able to overcome their political cowardice, would actually desire to implement policy that represented my own beliefs and values. If cowardice is the only problem, then “reform” or working “within” the Party becomes a viable option. Put enough pressure on cowards so that they are more afraid of you than they are of whatever interests they are beholden to. Vote out one set of Democrats and vote in another set with more courage. And so on.

Then we come to 2008. Democrats secured a huge majority in the House. They secured a huge majority (soon to be the “magic” sixty seat majority) in the Senate. They won the White House in dramatic fashion, winning traditionally red states and wining with a popular vote margin that established a political mandate (or should have.) Moreover, for the first time in my lifetime, the financial sector – the real power and dictatorial authority behind all American politics was vulnerable like never before. Public outcry was historic, and there was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reconstruct the core of our economic system in ways that protected American workers and ended the reign of corporate cronyism.

And there is still more. The Republican Party was, and continues to be in total disarray. According to a Washington Post poll from last month, only 21% of all Americans even identify themselves with the GOP. It is quite literally impossible to imagine a better opportunity for the advancement of truly left policy. There was simply nothing to lose, and next to no obstacles standing in the way of bold social transformation.

None of which occurred. In fact, at this point it has been made abundantly clear that no such radical social transformation will occur, and is it not on the agenda of the Democratic Party in Washington. This caused me to realize something important: the Democratic Party is not comprised of cowards. If it were cowardice, then when every excuse is removed there would then be action. Instead, the reality is that the Democratic Party fundamentally does not want what I want.

Politics against the People

Democrats in Washington, with only a single digit number of exceptions, have proven that they have no interest in transforming a corrupt, exploitative, unsustainable system. They h

ave interest primarily in keeping or advancing their positions of power and privilege which they so enjoy. They don’t long for a day when corporations do not own politics and buy policy that benefits a tiny few at the great and tragic expense of the many. They are part of that tiny few that benefits from the full funding of the wealthy elite, which supports their lavish lifestyles and feelings of power and influence.

Democrats like Republicans have gotten the message from our actual political rulers as to what is and is not within the acceptable parameters of debate in American politics and that have agreed – either explicitly or implicitly – to play by those rules without deviation. So Democrats are allowed to differ from Republicans about the details out how our hegemonic profit driven foreign policy if international interference and violence is managed, but not allowed to question the very existence of that hegemonic policy in the first place.

Democrats are allowed to differ from Republicans in how government spends some of its money, so long as it falls within the parameters that are acceptable to Wall Street. Democrats are allowed to differ on health care so long as neither party seriously considers joining the rest of the industrialized world in providing a single payer or government managed health care system for all. Democrats are allowed to appeal to different constituencies (Republicans and the NRA, Democrats and Unions) as long as neither party suggests any policy that might in any way adversely impact the wealthy elite that dictate terms to our government.

Democrats aren’t cowards. They are sellouts who have betrayed their constitutional duty to represent the people in exchange for money and status. This is the new understanding that I have come to. Democrats by and large simply do not want what I want, not even if there would be little to no political resistance to the policy. They do not want what I want, because I don’t want to simply play games within the parameters established by financial elite. I want to destroy the stranglehold the privileged class has on our politics and our society and establish a system that places social and economic justice for the masses first. Neither political party wants that.

Which leads me to Barack Obama…

Barack Obama

I knew that I would be voting for Barack Obama from the moment John McCain was selected as the Republican nominee for President. If I had it to do all over again I’d still vote for Obama. What I would do differently is not allow myself to get any hopes up. My “hope” was not in Obama the man. I heard him throughout the campaign and I quickly got over the spell he puts on so many with his soaring rhetoric and obvious intellect. I was aware that he was not a leftist. Nor was he a “progressive” or even a “liberal.”

He positioned himself as the truest “moderate” you could ever encounter. His campaign platform was about playing the same game in a different way than the previous administration had played it, but still by the same rulebook handed down to politicians by the financial elite. After eight years of political disaster, I preferred a President who might do some marginal good over one who would continue the exceptionally bad.

My current disappointment, anger and frustration with the job President Obama is doing does not come out of some sense of betrayal or a feeling that he is a different President than he said he would be while campaigning. My disappointment stems from two sources:

First, as I have stated my long-standing assumption about Democrats was that they were simply too cowardly to act on their core values. But over the last year, every political obstacle has been removed. When I saw the public outrage at the financial crisis and the extreme vulnerability of the financial sector, I foolishly expected that a Democratic Barack Obama would see a political opportunity with little or no risk, and seize that opportunity to take some radical action. This was utterly foolish of me.

Much of my thinking over the years has been a constant evolution; however in this case, I had to do a complete 180 degree turn. It was ludicrous of me to think that a President that like all other Presidents in recent times was only elected with the financial support and approval of the financial elite would then turn around and act in complete disregard to their interests. The financial elite owns party leadership, lobbyists, and most everyone who works in every division of Washington. It became clear to me that even in the face of the most golden opportunity for radical change we have seen in a generation; Barack Obama was not seeking such change. “Change” for Obama means a return to the pre-Bush status quo – still comfortably within the parameters of political operation approved by the financial elite.

I thought the crisis would cause Obama to move to the left. It did not.

Second, many people who heard Obama talk about there being no “red or blue” America, and heard his rhetoric of post-partisanship tried to tell me that it was talk of triangulation and capitulation at best. But I disagreed. I have been heavily influenced by one book by George Lakoff entitled, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. In that book, Lakoff states that differences between ordinary Americans who identify as conservative or liberal are often language and cognitive differences in framing core values. He suggests that one needs to understand how a person of more conservative values thinks and the language such a person uses in order to frame your own arguments in ways that might actually mean something to that conservative and effectively persuade.

Lakoff was never suggesting that one surrender one’s own values or agenda in the name of compromise. Rather he was saying that the best way to win someone over to your point of view is first to truly understand their point of view, then find the language to describe your own perspective in a way that will help someone else see that what they really want is best served by your ideas. When I heard Barack Obama speak, I thought this is what he was talking about.

I thought that Obama had a mission to reshape the range of political discourse in America. When he talked about no red, no blue just united I thought he was setting up a Presidential agenda of reframing the issues and helping conservative Americans understand that liberal ideas are actually ideas they want, ideas that better serve their own values, ideas that better take care of their own families and meet their own needs.

Since Obama has taken office, he has clearly demonstrated that this is the last thing on earth that he meant. His post-partisan politics is nothing more than compromising on every issue, taking the triangulation politics of Bill Clinton to the next level. This is the last thing we need and it is the last thing that I want.

My disappointment in Obama is not because there is some dramatic difference between what he said on the campaign and what he has done in office. The differences really aren’t that dramatic. My disappointment is in the fact that Obama doesn’t want what I want, and he was not envisioning an opportunity to move the country to the left by reframing the language of political issues and debate. And he in no way had any interest in seizing the opportunity to make dramatic economic changes. I thought I knew what Obama would and would not do. But it turns out that he is doing even less that I expected.

What’s Next?

So where do I go and what do I do in light of the evolution in my thinking? For a very long time, long before the 2008 el

ection, I have always believed that the most significant work that can be done for social and economic justice would take place outside of political parties and outside the Washington beltway. But while I believed this, I still let myself fall into the trap of hoping that current social conditions would force a Democratic controlled government to take more radical action than it might otherwise talk. It did not. Thus the last tendon of hope I had in clinging to national politics was severed. I now see nothing about the establishment political system in Washington that will ever be the basis for any substantive progress on the issues that I care about most.

I remember a post I made on my blog during 2008, which Chlamor seized on for a “what an asshole” post. It had to do with the reasons why I would vote for Obama even though he wasn’t left enough. The reality is, I still believe much of what I wrote back then. If you put someone like Newt Gingrich against Barack Obama in 2012, I would likely vote for Obama. Or possibly not vote. But if I did vote for Obama, it would be precisely because I don’t believe national establishment politics is where real change will happen. I don’t believe my vote keeps the establishment in place. If 99% of people stopped voting, nothing would make the establishment happier. They can say it’s a democracy, without having to worry about it.

What a vote can do however is attempt to limit the damage that national politicians are doing. There are many things that a Republican would do, especially when it comes to domestic issues that are more damaging than what a Democrat would do. Casting a vote costs me nothing and it has no connection to any social justice work, organizing or advocacy that I could and should be doing. But while I am doing things that I do believe can make an impact on the ground, I’d rather have someone who is walking toward the cliff of our own demise in national office as opposed to someone who is sprinting toward it. That hasn’t changed.

The thing is, none of my opinions are set in stone. Those who see it differently might convince me to see it differently. But if they don’t, it would be nice not to have to be labeled an asshole.

I sought to complete a masters degree on social work (and did last month) rather than a degree in some other field specifically because the NASW has a code of ethics that I strongly believe in. It sees transformative social work as radical and focused on social and economic justice for marginalized and exploited populations, and has a history of class analysis. It is true that in modern times, social work has gone through a “professionalization” that has many, many flaws and has weakened its historical radicalism. But its radicalism is not dead, and there is a resurgence of macro level “radical” social work aimed at transforming institutional structures and eliminating institutional sources of oppression.

Regardless of whether or not the “profession” is one the right track, it is the track that I am on. I look to partnering myself with non-political social and economic justice organizations focused on organizing and advocacy. I care about analyzing and understanding policy both locally and nationally. But I care about it through the lens of social work. Understanding how to deconstruct and expose policy stamped with the seal of approval from the financial elite for what it is extremely important, and advocating just socially responsible policy locally is critical. That’s what I seek to do.

I have a different hope for a new social structure in America than some here I’m sure. I am extremely skeptical of a classical articulation of communism because I feel it severely misjudges human nature. But that does not mean I’m not open to new ideas, or even being persuaded. Maybe I’m wrong in my belief that it misjudges human nature. Just because I have opinions does not mean they are set in stone. I prefer functioning models of democratic socialism such as those in Sweden and the Netherlands. There are also elements of models in some other Western European countries that I believe are closer to on the right track.

I know I have differences of opinion with some when it comes to markets. I like entrepreneurial markets, I believe in the creativity and advancement that comes from enterprise. I am not convinced that what we call “capitalism” is the only way such enterprise can work. But I don’t look at anyone who owns a business and automatically think they are an asshole. I’ve used the phrase sustainable capitalism in the past which has created much rage among some. I’d be willing to give that term up, because it’s not the “capitalism” part that I wanted to emphasize; it was the “sustainable” part, and contrast between that and the unsustainable, destructive capitalism we have today. But I remain excited about envisioning a social structure in which both social and economic justice and entrepreneurial markets could be reconciled.

I know that many here have objections and criticism these ideas. Again, my thoughts aren’t set in stone. I’d love to discuss or even debate some of these questions. But I am not stupid. Nor am I ignorant. I resisted posting here for months and months and months because I feel like at this point in my life I’ve earned the right not to be talked down to and insulted by people I’ve never even met. But I kept coming back to the boards because there are so many ideas that I share being expressed here. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a socialist. But hopefully there is room to have some differences of opinion as to the specifics of how a social structure should be implemented, or how to eliminate this current system and what to replace it with.

If we could talk about that without it being purely insulting, that would be a great thing. For my part, I can assure you that I will start out setting aside all the defensiveness and negativity I had amassed due to being talked down to all the time. I did my own share of talking down after a while. It would be interesting to see if we had some common ground.

[i]

What a vote can do however is attempt to limit the damage that national politicians are doing.

Can I ask if you've ever voted for a third party or independent candidate? And if the answer is no, do you believe that most of your evolution was already well-predicted by the powers behind the two party system?


I have a different hope for a new social structure in America than some here I’m sure. I am extremely skeptical of a classical articulation of communism because I feel it severely misjudges human nature.

Could you say more about how communism misjudges human nature?


I prefer functioning models of democratic socialism such as those in Sweden and the Netherlands. There are also elements of models in some other Western European countries that I believe are closer to on the right track.

What do you think about the changes currently happening in South America? Do you believe the populist/leftist movements are sustainable? Do you see any of that heading to North America in the future? Would you want that?

Thanks!

The only thing I can answer now, because I'm falling asleep is that yes, I've voted 3rd party in the past, but I don't think I have in a Presidential election (I'm trying to remember 1996) - I've voted for 3rd parties at state or local level from time to time. I also signed to get Nader on the ballot here in the past... I'm not quite sure what time that was, possibly 2004.

I'll return to the other questions when I wake up, but it will hopefully be something like 8 hours from now.

Okay what can I say, you sucked me now I have to answer before I go to bed :)


no, do you believe that most of your evolution was already well-predicted by the powers behind the two party system?


Even though I answered that yes, I've voted for third party candidates before, I still feel like I should answer this question too.

I don't think the evolution of my thinking is well-predicted in the sense of where I am now. But I think the journey was most certainly a product of institutional indoctrination. That I had to un-learn what a recently posted article called the "binary fallacy" of politics attests to the fact that I was certain influenced by the propaganda fed to us and the parameters established on "mainstream" politics throughout our lives.

I was already "there" to a small extent for a while. But I was still anticipating that any "marginal goods" that could be gleaned from a Democratic president vs. a Republican one would be meaningful enough to matter. Instead, I've been shocked by the magnitude of the terrible policy and actions of this administration. It dwarfs the marginal goods to the point where I'm not sure they are worth it.

Yes, I'm glad that social welfare agencies in my valley are receiving additional funds for their services through the stimulus bill for example, and yes that has translated into tangible differences for people in my community. But that's not nearly as satisfying as I had hoped it would be when I cast my "he'll do at least some good" vote. When Bush was president, all I could think of was ending that agenda and not letting a Bush II candidate continue the same direction. But now that I'm living in a real post-Bush America, I'm stuck with the start reality of how little difference there really is between the parties in critical areas of extreme importance.

Having said that, I have little hope for reforming the national system. I don't find much hope in the idea of a 3rd Party entering into this system and then changing it. I think this system will have to collapse under its own weight or be overthrown, and from the ashes new political trajectories could emerge. Which is why I place my hope in organizing and activism closer to home, where people are tangible and issues can be taken to the streets. In the meantime, because I have so little faith in the ability to do anything to "reform" the national political structure, I'm not denying that I may again prefer a "not as bad as the other guy" person for national office, whether I actually vote or not, simply because until we have reached a critical mass where we can replace the system, or until the system collapses on its own, I think its the system we're stuck with - and I'd rather minimize the damage where possible.



Could you say more about how communism misjudges human nature?


This should actually be better thought out, and written I've had more sleep. But I've returned to marxist theory again for the last year or so as part of my graduate study, and also as part of my personal interest. Critical theory and its roots in marxist conflict theory was theoretical framework of choice for my work in the social work program. My problem with the idea of a truly egalitarian communism as described by Marx is that I don't believe you can get a large number of human beings to agree on wanting that. It is not the case that human beings necessarily desire to be equal.

Ultimately, in order to maintain an egalitarian communistic society, you'd have to do so by some sort of force - either persuasive or coercive. When persuasion fails, the only alternative is coercion. That "force" sets up in and of itself an unequal class with more power, and it necessarily creates opposition to that power and force, thus conflict - essentially class conflict between those with power to enforce their ideas and those without power who resist coercion.

That's the best I can do in my current state. :)




What do you think about the changes currently happening in South America? Do you believe the populist/leftist movements are sustainable? Do you see any of that heading to North America in the future? Would you want that?


Sadly I am not familiar enough with current events in South America to comment. Anything I say would be uninformed and foolish. But I'd certainly be open to learning more.

Very perceptive, many good insights PH.

A couple of suggestions, if I may -

- Why don't we set aside the whole issue of voting, lesser of two evils, third party, etc.? I have been hearing the exact same debate on this since 1964, without any resolution. I think it is safe to say that we are drilling in a dry hole there.

- Why don't we stop worrying about what the "perfect" system might be, and the idea that we are obligated to select a personal philosophy from some buffet table of choices?

- Why don't we operate on the assumption that we have all been raised in a society that turns us into babbling narcissistic idiots, that we are child-like in our understanding of politics, confused and without any solid footing, that we have a long way to go and have not yet even started on the journey, and that we all have a lot to learn?

Very perceptive, many good insights PH.

A couple of suggestions, if I may -

- Why don't we set aside the whole issue of voting, lesser of two evils, third party, etc.? I have been hearing the exact same debate on this since 1964, without any resolution. I think it is safe to say that we are drilling in a dry hole there.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Emma Goldman


- Why don't we stop worrying about what the "perfect" system might be, and the idea that we are obligated to select a personal philosophy from some buffet table of choices?

- Why don't we operate on the assumption that we have all been raised in a society that turns us into babbling narcissistic idiots, that we are child-like in our understanding of politics, confused and without any solid footing, that we have a long way to go and have not yet even started on the journey, and that we all have a lot to learn?




You took the words out of my mouth and made them legible, Mike, thanks.

On the betrayal by Obama and the Dems thing...

We are so self-absorbed. "Was I or was I not betrayed?"

The people were betrayed.

Hanging around the little towns and farms here and talking to people, in the packing plants, on the loading dock, in the general store, the Grange hall, in the fields and orchards, starting about 2 months before the election I started hearing "what we need is another New Deal." I hadn't heard anything like that in decades, and I kept hearing it again and again.

Another thing I noticed - people always joke around about politics, toss off one liners, don't take it seriously, but not when they started saying "we need another New Deal." There was a seriousness and determination there I haven't seen in a long time.

The people were betrayed, and they aren't clowning around about things anymore. The public mood has undergone a dramatic shift.

What do you think about the changes currently happening in South America? Do you believe the populist/leftist movements are sustainable? Do you see any of that heading to North America in the future? Would you want that?


Sadly I am not familiar enough with current events in South America to comment. Anything I say would be uninformed and foolish. But I'd certainly be open to learning more.



Most recently "Winning the presidential election ? and thereby extending the substantial
left political trend in Latin America ? was Mauricio Funes of the Farabundo
Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), a former guerrilla organization that
transformed into a democratic electoral party some years ago. His victory
ended not only the 20-year rule of the right wing ARENA party but 130 years
of oligarchy and military rule over this Central American nation of 7
million people."

On the betrayal by Obama and the Dems thing...

We are so self-absorbed. "Was I or was I not betrayed?"

The people were betrayed.

Hanging around the little towns and farms here and talking to people, in the packing plants, on the loading dock, in the general store, the Grange hall, in the fields and orchards, starting about 2 months before the election I started hearing "what we need is another New Deal." I hadn't heard anything like that in decades, and I kept hearing it again and again.

Another thing I noticed - people always joke around about politics, toss off one liners, don't take it seriously, but not when they started saying "we need another New Deal." There was a seriousness and determination there I haven't seen in a long time.

The people were betrayed, and they aren't clowning around about things anymore. The public mood has undergone a dramatic shift.


I forget you've been in my neck of the woods. You're absolutely right.

That's why the clowning around at places like DU is so important. When I posted there I spent most of my time in the lounge, throwing out the oneliners. It wasn't that I wasn't serious. I was deadly serious. But (as they hope) I feared the tombstone. Why? Because my mountain west, practical, distant, populist little Protestant-raised, party of one heart was desperate for community. Desperate.

They use the granite over there to keep that seriousness at bay. There's a reason they give out a weekly 'award' for the biggest clowns - but never any recognition for the posts that reflect the sentiments of the discontented masses.

- Why don't we stop worrying about what the "perfect" system might be, and the idea that we are obligated to select a personal philosophy from some buffet table of choices?

Oh man this is the lamest of the lame if not the worst of the worst. Insisting on designing the"perfect system" or endless debate on perfecting it before anyone can go about fighting the current system (where "imperfect" is a criminal understatement) is the MO of the bloodless sycophant (knowing or -un, with prejudice either way)

Example of this genus: HannahBell on DU

Hey PH

Here's the deal: I could give a shit about your personal journey. Hear me out on this, because I am being diplomatic..seriously ;)

If you think about it, in the grander scheme of the demands and agenda of the working class, you and I as individuals are just faces in the crowd -- far less than that even, more like ants as viewed from outer space.

Lets say that before you were all dressed up with nowhere to go. Now you know where to go.

So what say we shitcan the recriminations and all of the inevitably attendant melodrama that accompanies it, and get our asses in gear.

PS I didn't actually read your OP because it appears to be a repost from before. So pardon me if your on some new major thrust or something. If its the same zany shit as before, well, see above..

Okay what can I say, you sucked me now I have to answer before I go to bed :)


no, do you believe that most of your evolution was already well-predicted by the powers behind the two party system?


Even though I answered that yes, I've voted for third party candidates before, I still feel like I should answer this question too.

I don't think the evolution of my thinking is well-predicted in the sense of where I am now. But I think the journey was most certainly a product of institutional indoctrination. That I had to un-learn what a recently posted article called the "binary fallacy" of politics attests to the fact that I was certain influenced by the propaganda fed to us and the parameters established on "mainstream" politics throughout our lives.

I was already "there" to a small extent for a while. But I was still anticipating that any "marginal goods" that could be gleaned from a Democratic president vs. a Republican one would be meaningful enough to matter. Instead, I've been shocked by the magnitude of the terrible policy and actions of this administration. It dwarfs the marginal goods to the point where I'm not sure they are worth it.

Yes, I'm glad that social welfare agencies in my valley are receiving additional funds for their services through the stimulus bill for example, and yes that has translated into tangible differences for people in my community. But that's not nearly as satisfying as I had hoped it would be when I cast my "he'll do at least some good" vote. When Bush was president, all I could think of was ending that agenda and not letting a Bush II candidate continue the same direction. But now that I'm living in a real post-Bush America, I'm stuck with the start reality of how little difference there really is between the parties in critical areas of extreme importance.

Having said that, I have little hope for reforming the national system. I don't find much hope in the idea of a 3rd Party entering into this system and then changing it. I think this system will have to collapse under its own weight or be overthrown, and from the ashes new political trajectories could emerge. Which is why I place my hope in organizing and activism closer to home, where people are tangible and issues can be taken to the streets. In the meantime, because I have so little faith in the ability to do anything to "reform" the national political structure, I'm not denying that I may again prefer a "not as bad as the other guy" person for national office, whether I actually vote or not, simply because until we have reached a critical mass where we can replace the system, or until the system collapses on its own, I think its the system we're stuck with - and I'd rather minimize the damage where possible.



Could you say more about how communism misjudges human nature?


This should actually be better thought out, and written I've had more sleep. But I've returned to marxist theory again for the last year or so as part of my graduate study, and also as part of my personal interest. Critical theory and its roots in marxist conflict theory was theoretical framework of choice for my work in the social work program. My problem with the idea of a truly egalitarian communism as described by Marx is that I don't believe you can get a large number of human beings to agree on wanting that. It is not the case that human beings necessarily desire to be equal.

Ultimately, in order to maintain an egalitarian communistic society, you'd have to do so by some sort of force - either persuasive or coercive. When persuasion fails, the only alternative is coercion. That "force" sets up in and of itself an unequal class with more power, and it necessarily creates opposition to that power and force, thus conflict - essentially class conflict between those with power to enforce their ideas and those without power who resist coercion.

That's the best I can do in my current state. :)




What do you think about the changes currently happening in South America? Do you believe the populist/leftist movements are sustainable? Do you see any of that heading to North America in the future? Would you want that?


Sadly I am not familiar enough with current events in South America to comment. Anything I say would be uninformed and foolish. But I'd certainly be open to learning more.



Thanks for taking the time to expand your thoughts. I don't really have any responses, it's just very interesting.

It's always been frustrating for me in online forums to see so much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the political parties. Probably because of the area where I was raised (OR, WA, ID) and the strong disconnect from anything political.

Out here we tended to 'vote the personality' or 'vote the bastard out' or just not vote. Which is probably why just as many people punched a card for Reagan as they did for Perot. Who knows. Who cares.

As for South America, it's of great interest as I believe that's the only place anything is happening right now that will have any impact on the condition of the global working class.

Which is probably why just as many people punched a card for Reagan as they did for Perot. Who knows.

Ha, now that is "meta"commentary

As for South America, it's of great interest as I believe that's the only place anything is happening right now that will have any impact on the condition of the global working class.

The world is in flames Runs, more than we can know viewing from the inside out. Eastern Europe? Hell, all of Europe. Asia. More or less every corner of the globe is burning. Lets see the Stupid Fucking Hero talk the world into recovery..

Very perceptive, many good insights PH.

A couple of suggestions, if I may -

- Why don't we set aside the whole issue of voting, lesser of two evils, third party, etc.? I have been hearing the exact same debate on this since 1964, without any resolution. I think it is safe to say that we are drilling in a dry hole there.

- Why don't we stop worrying about what the "perfect" system might be, and the idea that we are obligated to select a personal philosophy from some buffet table of choices?

- Why don't we operate on the assumption that we have all been raised in a society that turns us into babbling narcissistic idiots, that we are child-like in our understanding of politics, confused and without any solid footing, that we have a long way to go and have not yet even started on the journey, and that we all have a lot to learn?




Sounds great.

On the betrayal by Obama and the Dems thing...

We are so self-absorbed. "Was I or was I not betrayed?"

The people were betrayed.

Hanging around the little towns and farms here and talking to people, in the packing plants, on the loading dock, in the general store, the Grange hall, in the fields and orchards, starting about 2 months before the election I started hearing "what we need is another New Deal." I hadn't heard anything like that in decades, and I kept hearing it again and again.

Another thing I noticed - people always joke around about politics, toss off one liners, don't take it seriously, but not when they started saying "we need another New Deal." There was a seriousness and determination there I haven't seen in a long time.

The people were betrayed, and they aren't clowning around about things anymore. The public mood has undergone a dramatic shift.


That is exactly what my father said. My father, the former conservative who over the years discovered the lies. My Dad was so proud when he came up with his slogan, "I don't want New Democrats I want a New Deal!"

Instead, he got this. :(

Hey PH

Here's the deal: I could give a shit about your personal journey. Hear me out on this, because I am being diplomatic..seriously ;)

If you think about it, in the grander scheme of the demands and agenda of the working class, you and I as individuals are just faces in the crowd -- far less than that even, more like ants as viewed from outer space.

Lets say that before you were all dressed up with nowhere to go. Now you know where to go.

So what say we shitcan the recriminations and all of the inevitably attendant melodrama that accompanies it, and get our asses in gear.

PS I didn't actually read your OP because it appears to be a repost from before. So pardon me if your on some new major thrust or something. If its the same zany shit as before, well, see above..


I'm not offended. I wanted to work out my own thoughts. I do that through writing, than I share that writing with others for comment and feedback, which then further shapes my thinking.

It's not a repost, but its not necessary that you read it either. Just because I write something huge does not mean I think that I'm important. :) It just means it takes me longer than some to sort my own shit out. :)

Man, this is all too much for one day.

Well and good, PH, but what to do? The Democratic Party will be as fubar as the Republicans by 2012, yet those two parties will still dominate electoral politics.

Seems to me that politics by other means is necessary.

Man, this is all too much for one day.

Well and good, PH, but what to do? The Democratic Party will be as fubar as the Republicans by 2012, yet those two parties will still dominate electoral politics.

Seems to me that politics by other means is necessary.


I think you're probably right.

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?

Yeah well... I saw old PH screw himself up and take a position of principle on old DU... to his detriment, mild as that may have been. And to be truthful, that is so alien to the old DU culture, to American philistinism in general, and to the old dead-rotting-body-politic that all the talk in the world doesn't cancel it out. You can build an entire persona on acts like that in the 21st century - on humility and modesty and selflessness and a form (strange as it may be) of proletarian honor. Sappy, I know, but real to moi.

So PH, whenever the Greeks (at least the Epicureans) wrote a piece like the one you have written, they continued with the exercise by going through it to determine if they could actually define the terms from which they had constructed their argument. The question that was at hand was whether open-ended terms were defined in terms of other, equally open-ended, terms. The issue was one of logic. When questions were asked, were they really questions? Or, were they a restatement of an earlier catechism, put into the form of inquiry as mere rhetorical device? Intent was not in question because the exercise was applied to one's own logic as well as to that of others.

Waddya say?

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)

Yeah well... I saw old PH screw himself up and take a position of principle on old DU... to his detriment, mild as that may have been. And to be truthful, that is so alien to the old DU culture, to American philistinism in general, and to the old dead-rotting-body-politic that all the talk in the world doesn't cancel it out. You can build an entire persona on acts like that in the 21st century - on humility and modesty and selflessness and a form (strange as it may be) of proletarian honor. Sappy, I know, but real to moi.

So PH, whenever the Greeks (at least the Epicureans) wrote a piece like the one you have written, they continued with the exercise by going through it to determine if they could actually define the terms from which they had constructed their argument. The question that was at hand was whether open-ended terms were defined in terms of other, equally open-ended, terms. The issue was one of logic. When questions were asked, were they really questions? Or, were they a restatement of an earlier catechism, put into the form of inquiry as mere rhetorical device? Intent was not in question because the exercise was applied to one's own logic as well as to that of others.

Waddya say?




I'm interested.

Hey PH

Here's the deal: I could give a shit about your personal journey.

http://www.pc-pals.com/smf/Smileys/Smileys/rofl.gif





Thanks for taking the time to expand your thoughts. I don't really have any responses, it's just very interesting.

It's always been frustrating for me in online forums to see so much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the political parties. Probably because of the area where I was raised (OR, WA, ID) and the strong disconnect from anything political.

Out here we tended to 'vote the personality' or 'vote the bastard out' or just not vote. Which is probably why just as many people punched a card for Reagan as they did for Perot. Who knows. Who cares.

As for South America, it's of great interest as I believe that's the only place anything is happening right now that will have any impact on the condition of the global working class.


Hell,I'll go you one further.Venezuela,Bolivia,etc. is the probably the only model we have of a society that provides ANY hope for the betterment of humanity. Workers,children,the old,the poor,the disabled,anybody.But try telling that to the average "Nation" reader,or DU poster,who thinks Ed Schultz is "progressive".

The truth is,the US is doomed to stagnate,for the next fifty years or so.Even moreso with a worsening economy,and endless war.Maybe the 2060s will bring some change,but I wouldn't expect anything sooner.In the mean time,you gotta pick your battles,and do what you can where you can.I had my cause thrust into my lap last year,when I finally got the diagnoses I had been trying to get all of my life.When I go back to Cleveland,I am going to see if I can do something about starting up a national campaign,to find as many other adults as possible who,like me,had been diagnosed with autism,but had undiagnosed mitochondrial disease.if nothing else,to shut up the whack jobs (http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/06/autism-one-lit-a-fire.html),who claim mtochondrial autism is all because of vaccines introduced in the early 90s (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/thimerosal).

And if I make as many neurodiversity types just as mad at me,then all the better.

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)


I'm kinda giving you the benefit of the doubt here PH, but there does need to be a heavy and I don't think sarcasm is your most best response.

You can corner the market on "wacky" (ie dumbass) but you're gonna have to step up with more than that eventually.

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

And, besides, I can only confirm one of the two doesn't cause blindness..crapshoot on the other (your guess which is which ;)).

Hell,I'll go you one further.Venezuela,Bolivia,etc. is the probably the only model we have of a society that provides ANY hope for the betterment of humanity.

See Anax post above. What constitutes a "model of a society" and what constitutes "betterment of humanity"? The terms are as squishy as the thinking behind them or vice a versa if you prefer.

Tell me all about the "Bolivarian Model" Eats..

Why not focus on Ahmadinejad instead of Chavez and Morales and Correa and whoever else is on your list? Its a largely rhetorical question but Ahmadinejad has certainly carried the anti-imperialism banner as well as those others..leaving you in the awkward position of waxing about Iran as a "model of a better society" too, eh?

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)


I'm kinda giving you the benefit of the doubt here PH, but there does need to be a heavy and I don't think sarcasm is your most best response.

You can corner the market on "wacky" (ie dumbass) but you're gonna have to step up with more than that eventually.

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

And, besides, I can only confirm one of the two doesn't cause blindness..crapshoot on the other (your guess which is which ;)).


It's not sarcasm. I just elect not to have much to say to someone who demonstrates zero interest in dialog.

You see it as a fixation in voting. I would suggest that it is precisely my lack of fixation on voting which leaves me in a position where I may or may not cast a vote. I didn't cast a vote in 2008 because I thought it would fix the world. I did so because I don't believe, and no one has sufficiently made the case, that it does any harm. So who cares?

You can't out of one side of your mouth say that voting is trivial and unimportant and then at the same time act as though someone is doing a disservice to the working class by casting a vote. So the real question is why are you so concerned about it given that:

1) not voting doesn't do anything to change or bring down the system
2) voting doesn't impede me from any action
3) I don't spend nearly as much time obsessed about the act as some of you do

Finally, I'm not even saying that I'll vote. I'm saying if I did vote, it wouldn't make any difference to what I believe, or the work I would want to be doing to bring this society to where it ought to be. So why do you care so much?

There is so much other that could be talked about

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)


I'm kinda giving you the benefit of the doubt here PH, but there does need to be a heavy and I don't think sarcasm is your most best response.

You can corner the market on "wacky" (ie dumbass) but you're gonna have to step up with more than that eventually.

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

And, besides, I can only confirm one of the two doesn't cause blindness..crapshoot on the other (your guess which is which ;)).


It's not sarcasm. I just elect not to have much to say to someone who demonstrates zero interest in dialog.

You see it as a fixation in voting. I would suggest that it is precisely my lack of fixation on voting which leaves me in a position where I may or may not cast a vote. I didn't cast a vote in 2008 because I thought it would fix the world. I did so because I don't believe, and no one has sufficiently made the case, that it does any harm. So who cares?

You can't out of one side of your mouth say that voting is trivial and unimportant and then at the same time act as though someone is doing a disservice to the working class by casting a vote. So the real question is why are you so concerned about it given that:

1) not voting doesn't do anything to change or bring down the system
2) voting doesn't impede me from any action
3) I don't spend nearly as much time obsessed about the act as some of you do

Finally, I'm not even saying that I'll vote. I'm saying if I did vote, it wouldn't make any difference to what I believe, or the work I would want to be doing to bring this society to where it ought to be. So why do you care so much?

There is so much other that could be talked about


So lets do that. Lets talk about other more important things.

In my opinion Chlamor was very much opening a dialog with you

"So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?"
I don't think he's talking about the vote here.
For myself, I have to say I am disappointed, angry etcetera, that you aren't disappointed, angry, etcetera...we all should be screaming bloody murder because that's what's going on, please tell me you aren't a little concerned at least? I think (please forgive me Chlamor if I misread you here) Chlamor is trying to get you past the voting discussion not continue it?

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)


I'm kinda giving you the benefit of the doubt here PH, but there does need to be a heavy and I don't think sarcasm is your most best response.

You can corner the market on "wacky" (ie dumbass) but you're gonna have to step up with more than that eventually.

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

And, besides, I can only confirm one of the two doesn't cause blindness..crapshoot on the other (your guess which is which ;)).


It's not sarcasm. I just elect not to have much to say to someone who demonstrates zero interest in dialog.

You see it as a fixation in voting. I would suggest that it is precisely my lack of fixation on voting which leaves me in a position where I may or may not cast a vote. I didn't cast a vote in 2008 because I thought it would fix the world. I did so because I don't believe, and no one has sufficiently made the case, that it does any harm. So who cares?

You can't out of one side of your mouth say that voting is trivial and unimportant and then at the same time act as though someone is doing a disservice to the working class by casting a vote. So the real question is why are you so concerned about it given that:

1) not voting doesn't do anything to change or bring down the system
2) voting doesn't impede me from any action
3) I don't spend nearly as much time obsessed about the act as some of you do

Finally, I'm not even saying that I'll vote. I'm saying if I did vote, it wouldn't make any difference to what I believe, or the work I would want to be doing to bring this society to where it ought to be. So why do you care so much?

There is so much other that could be talked about


Agreed.

It doesn't matter if you vote or don't vote. The problem has been in defining politics as electoral politics... and this almost exclusively. Even the anti-War movement has become an adjunct of electoral politics. Gotta get outta that voting booth and back into the real world. Gotta start demanding... regardless of who wins in their phoney-baloney elections.

Historically, elections have been a way for the Left to test its own strength. No such gauge is needed at the moment... ain't no strength to be had (at least no organized strength).

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)


I'm kinda giving you the benefit of the doubt here PH, but there does need to be a heavy and I don't think sarcasm is your most best response.

You can corner the market on "wacky" (ie dumbass) but you're gonna have to step up with more than that eventually.

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

And, besides, I can only confirm one of the two doesn't cause blindness..crapshoot on the other (your guess which is which ;)).


It's not sarcasm. I just elect not to have much to say to someone who demonstrates zero interest in dialog.

You see it as a fixation in voting. I would suggest that it is precisely my lack of fixation on voting which leaves me in a position where I may or may not cast a vote. I didn't cast a vote in 2008 because I thought it would fix the world. I did so because I don't believe, and no one has sufficiently made the case, that it does any harm. So who cares?

You can't out of one side of your mouth say that voting is trivial and unimportant and then at the same time act as though someone is doing a disservice to the working class by casting a vote. So the real question is why are you so concerned about it given that:

1) not voting doesn't do anything to change or bring down the system
2) voting doesn't impede me from any action
3) I don't spend nearly as much time obsessed about the act as some of you do

Finally, I'm not even saying that I'll vote. I'm saying if I did vote, it wouldn't make any difference to what I believe, or the work I would want to be doing to bring this society to where it ought to be. So why do you care so much?

There is so much other that could be talked about


So lets do that. Lets talk about other more important things.

In my opinion Chlamor was very much opening a dialog with you

"So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?"
I don't think he's talking about the vote here.
For myself, I have to say I am disappointed, angry etcetera, that you aren't disappointed, angry, etcetera...we all should be screaming bloody murder because that's what's going on, please tell me you aren't a little concerned at least? I think (please forgive me Chlamor if I misread you here) Chlamor is trying to get you past the voting discussion not continue it?


In a huge post, barely a fraction of it mentioned voting. I only mentioned it as an aside, but then that became the point of issue in subsequent comments.

Let me be right up front in saying that I'm not sure about everything that can be done about what we are seeing transpire. I want to start at least by looking for opportunities to use whatever resources or abilities I might have in work of a mission to address specific issues of social injustice.

Honestly I hesitate to write a big post about my personal thoughts about what I want to do, because usually I find myself in a catch-22. If I don't write like that, then I get the "what are you going to do about it" posts. When I respond to those, I frequently get the "its not all about you" / American narcissism posts.

Let me help with your, uh, trajectory, personal journey or whatever you want to label it. Others will be kinder towards you I have no patience for it. There is also no time left hence the lack of coddling.

First thing of import is to put the Lakoff crap in the garbage and light it up so as not to be tempted to pull it out.

Next acknowledge that your ideas about voting are complete crap. Not simply a little misguided but so far removed from reality so as to dispute your entire thesis which kinda goes like- "I've learned my lessons but I'm still reserved enough to repeat the same mistakes."

Next acknowledge that you deserved the moniker given you in the thread and the fact that you state you thought Obama would've somehow moved leftwards based on "conditions" is certifiably insane and flies in the face of the copious documentation that was presented to you and was available to you. That is putting it mildly. Your resistance to that was more than simple balancing of some imagined "lesser of evils" you were in fact quite a cheerleader and in light of your subsequent posts at DU- some of which were nearly sensible- it's really amazing that you are still hemmin' and hawin' as you are which brings us back to the previous points.

If you still think there is even a hint of a chance you would vote for Obama in any universe I'd say you've a long way to go on that journey.

So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?


Nah, I'm fine. :)


I'm kinda giving you the benefit of the doubt here PH, but there does need to be a heavy and I don't think sarcasm is your most best response.

You can corner the market on "wacky" (ie dumbass) but you're gonna have to step up with more than that eventually.

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

And, besides, I can only confirm one of the two doesn't cause blindness..crapshoot on the other (your guess which is which ;)).


It's not sarcasm. I just elect not to have much to say to someone who demonstrates zero interest in dialog.

You see it as a fixation in voting. I would suggest that it is precisely my lack of fixation on voting which leaves me in a position where I may or may not cast a vote. I didn't cast a vote in 2008 because I thought it would fix the world. I did so because I don't believe, and no one has sufficiently made the case, that it does any harm. So who cares?

You can't out of one side of your mouth say that voting is trivial and unimportant and then at the same time act as though someone is doing a disservice to the working class by casting a vote. So the real question is why are you so concerned about it given that:

1) not voting doesn't do anything to change or bring down the system
2) voting doesn't impede me from any action
3) I don't spend nearly as much time obsessed about the act as some of you do

Finally, I'm not even saying that I'll vote. I'm saying if I did vote, it wouldn't make any difference to what I believe, or the work I would want to be doing to bring this society to where it ought to be. So why do you care so much?

There is so much other that could be talked about


So lets do that. Lets talk about other more important things.

In my opinion Chlamor was very much opening a dialog with you

"So you are disappointed, angry etcetera. What are you going to do about it?"
I don't think he's talking about the vote here.
For myself, I have to say I am disappointed, angry etcetera, that you aren't disappointed, angry, etcetera...we all should be screaming bloody murder because that's what's going on, please tell me you aren't a little concerned at least? I think (please forgive me Chlamor if I misread you here) Chlamor is trying to get you past the voting discussion not continue it?


In a huge post, barely a fraction of it mentioned voting. I only mentioned it as an aside, but then that became the point of issue in subsequent comments.

Let me be right up front in saying that I'm not sure about everything that can be done about what we are seeing transpire. I want to start at least by looking for opportunities to use whatever resources or abilities I might have in work of a mission to address specific issues of social injustice.

Honestly I hesitate to write a big post about my personal thoughts about what I want to do, because usually I find myself in a catch-22. If I don't write like that, then I get the "what are you going to do about it" posts. When I respond to those, I frequently get the "its not all about you" / American narcissism posts.


Damned if you do...gotcha, I too was trying to get away from the vote discussion myself and obviously didn't come across very clearly or comradely. "Let me be right up front in saying that I'm not sure about everything that can be done about what we are seeing transpire." talk about that...

What the hell is your fixation with voting anyway? It takes less time to vote than to masturbate (or, well..) so it can't enjoy that large of a pedestal in your life.

Now we're getting somewhere! ;D

This vote/not vote issue isn't the issue. It's the whole Vote Porn of the process. We're foreplayed throughout the election 'season' with soundbites, populist promises and well-groomed contestants. We're frenzied into a 'choice.' Pulling the lever or punching the card becomes the climax. Then everyone goes home as if it's over.


See Anax post above. What constitutes a "model of a society" and what constitutes "betterment of humanity"? The terms are as squishy as the thinking behind them or vice a versa if you prefer.

Tell me all about the "Bolivarian Model" Eats..

Why not focus on Ahmadinejad instead of Chavez and Morales and Correa and whoever else is on your list? Its a largely rhetorical question but Ahmadinejad has certainly carried the anti-imperialism banner as well as those others..leaving you in the awkward position of waxing about Iran as a "model of a better society" too, eh?


Kid, I hadn't thought of it that way. ???

It'd be nice if carrying the anti-imperialism banner was synonymous with the betterment of humanity.

I need to go think some more...

It doesn't matter if you vote or don't vote. The problem has been in defining politics as electoral politics... and this almost exclusively. Even the anti-War movement has become an adjunct of electoral politics. Gotta get outta that voting booth and back into the real world. Gotta start demanding... regardless of who wins in their phoney-baloney elections.

That is it yes. What people are saying is that we are to see elections as the end-all and be-all of politics, and that the only alternative to that would be "violent revolution." Since violent revolution sounds pretty scary (as though you could merely select that "choice" from some imaginary buffet table of political options) that means we are back to endlessly obsessing over our electoral choices again.

Some sort of insanity there - "this is the system. Don't get me wrong, I oppose it, but this is the system. And until we change the system, we have to work with the system we have. But don't talk about overthrowing the system, because that would be a bad idea, because if we tried to change things nothing would change, and we would have to advocate violent revolution and those never work. So we hope to change things by voting. Now please shut up and go away, because you are making my head hurt."


Historically, elections have been a way for the Left to test its own strength. No such gauge is needed at the moment... ain't no strength to be had (at least no organized strength).

Exactly. There is nothing to test. There never will be anything to test if all we do is worry about the test - like a person who never registers for classes, never takes the exams, but once a semester goes and looks at the bulletin board where the grades are posted, and is always perplexed and confused when they don't see the outcome they were hoping for.

Now we're getting somewhere! ;D

This vote/not vote issue isn't the issue. It's the whole Vote Porn of the process. We're foreplayed throughout the election 'season' with soundbites, populist promises and well-groomed contestants. We're frenzied into a 'choice.' Pulling the lever or punching the card becomes the climax. Then everyone goes home as if it's over.


All right, that did it for me. I am never going to vote again.

I'll vote local, its about the only thing that has some modicum of validity, school board, town board, where you can go to the meetings and call out the members, by first name....

I'll vote local, its about the only thing that has some modicum of validity, school board, town board, where you can go to the meetings and call out the members, by first name....


Yes. We would need to crash and stir up trouble in the local offices. That will be met with resistance. There will be a struggle. That is inevitable.

What people are really saying with their various ideas - "I know, we will kick the yellow dogs (or whatever color the dogs are these days) out of office!" "We will run progressive candidates for local offices!" "We will hold their feet to the fire!" "We will vote Green!" "We will register as independents!" "We will boycott Monsanto!" - is this: "where can we go and what can we do that will not be met with resistance and will not involve any struggle, that will not place us at any risk, but that will let us feel that we are part of the struggle and that we are doing something to change things?"

The reason that people are unable to come up with "concrete plans" is because their goal if to avoid encountering any resistance and to deny that it will take a struggle. They look for a way to escape that reality, but don't want to just admit "you know what, the truth is that I don't really care enough about any of this to actually make any sacrifice."

There are no plans or ideas for effecting social change that will avoid resistance and struggle.

I'm interested.


OK... great. Gimme a few days, though, because you wrote your tract at the same time that the thing with PI, described elsewhere on this site, came up. Let me say a few words over there to support Tinoire's act of unity (and thereby prove myself to be a Hun or a Visigoth at core) and I promise to return to this with all seriousness.

With your permission...

http://benturner.com/mongol.jpg

Here we go again. He is rallying the Mongol hordes.

Here we go again. He is rallying the Mongol hordes.


No hordes... just talkin'.

But for the life of me, I am one stupid fuck. I had no idea about the Kennedy Death Cult. It's been nearly 50 years. It never even occurred to me that a big slice of this conspiracy shit, and a slice of the "radical rejectionists" is essentially the "left" version of the "shining city on a hill" types, who feel cheated out of the old U.S.A. - Segregation on one side and I don't know what on the other... maybe hope, the Democratic Party and a life where the beaver presented a morality play every tuesday night.

I had no fucking idea... and now I suddenly see it everywhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5837959&mesg_id=5837959

I don't know what to say... feels like being dropped into a John Carpenter movie (maybe, They Live).

Here we go again. He is rallying the Mongol hordes.


No hordes... just talkin'.

But for the life of me, I am one stupid fuck. I had no idea about the Kennedy Death Cult. It's been nearly 50 years. It never even occurred to me that a big slice of this conspiracy shit, and a slice of the "radical rejectionists" is essentially the "left" version of the "shining city on a hill" types, who feel cheated out of the old U.S.A. - Segregation on one side and I don't know what on the other... maybe hope, the Democratic Party and a life where the beaver presented a morality play every tuesday night.

I had no fucking idea... and now I suddenly see it everywhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5837959&mesg_id=5837959

I don't know what to say... feels like being dropped into a John Carpenter movie (maybe, They Live).




What's really strange is that forums like DU used to instantly move JFK stuff to their dungeon. But not lately. Weird.


http://www.justseeds.org/blog/theylive.jpg

Here we go again. He is rallying the Mongol hordes.


No hordes... just talkin'.

But for the life of me, I am one stupid fuck. I had no idea about the Kennedy Death Cult. It's been nearly 50 years. It never even occurred to me that a big slice of this conspiracy shit, and a slice of the "radical rejectionists" is essentially the "left" version of the "shining city on a hill" types, who feel cheated out of the old U.S.A. - Segregation on one side and I don't know what on the other... maybe hope, the Democratic Party and a life where the beaver presented a morality play every tuesday night.

I had no fucking idea... and now I suddenly see it everywhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5837959&mesg_id=5837959

I don't know what to say... feels like being dropped into a John Carpenter movie (maybe, They Live).




I think the Beav IS the other side of the equation (ie Suburbia) although that was kind of synonymous with segregation in the most important ways

Here we go again. He is rallying the Mongol hordes.


No hordes... just talkin'.

But for the life of me, I am one stupid fuck. I had no idea about the Kennedy Death Cult. It's been nearly 50 years. It never even occurred to me that a big slice of this conspiracy shit, and a slice of the "radical rejectionists" is essentially the "left" version of the "shining city on a hill" types, who feel cheated out of the old U.S.A. - Segregation on one side and I don't know what on the other... maybe hope, the Democratic Party and a life where the beaver presented a morality play every tuesday night.

I had no fucking idea... and now I suddenly see it everywhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5837959&mesg_id=5837959

I don't know what to say... feels like being dropped into a John Carpenter movie (maybe, They Live).




What's really strange is that forums like DU used to instantly move JFK stuff to their dungeon. But not lately. Weird.


http://www.justseeds.org/blog/theylive.jpg


There is a double irony in your post that I missed. I was't thinkin' that "They Live" was about Lizard People living amongst us. It is an irony that I'm sayin' I see Lizard people (the conspiracists) everywhere, and they are sayin' that they see Lizard People (conspirators ala Alex Jones) as well...

Nobody admits to being "Lizards"...

...except people from LIvorno, Italy who call themselves that. They have few beaches so, in order to sunbathe, they have to conform to the shape of the rocks... like "leezards".

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/1021049125_04a5545efb.jpg?v=0

oh man, that one almost physically hurts

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Reptiles/Usa/California/CoachellaValley/BandedRockLizardProfile.jpg

Forgive my rudeness in not getting back to this sooner. I hope you are still around.

Your essay seems to fall into three parts:

1) Your political assumptions
2) Your criticism of those initial assumptions
3) Your new starting point based on that criticism

Let's see if we can take these one at a time...

I ran a word counting program against your essay and by far the largest number of proper nouns were associated with the Democratic Party (the number of Obama references trailing just behind). Let's start there.

The core of the first part of your analysis seems to be what you thought the Democratic Party stood for. The heart of the matter is contained in this quote:


I would have said that they included a strong commitment to labor rights and to working class American individuals and families. I would have said that they included dedication to economic policy that seeks to narrow the growing disparity between the wealthiest and poorest Americans and treats poverty as a moral concern.

I would have said that these principles included a foreign policy that priorities peace, diplomacy and the non-exploitation of other peoples or their resources for selfish gain above the interests of profit seekers or the military industrial complex. I would have said they included a deep abiding belief in the State’s responsibility to promote social welfare, which would include fully supporting the best public education system in the world, health and welfare services guaranteed to the poor and elderly who need them, active commitment to civil rights, which not only includes privacy rights and protections from the unjustified intrusions of the State, but also the workers right to an active stake in the direction and conditions of his or her own workplace.

And I would have said that these principles included the active effort to both establish and maintain a fervent commitment to equal treatment under the law for every citizen, be that citizen a women, a person of color, a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person, a person of faith or absence of faith, or a disabled individual.

Those are some of the things I am certain I would have described if asked to name the principles of the Democratic Party.

You note that you are 32 years old. That would mean that you probably arrived at the understanding above perhaps 14 to 16 years ago (1994?). That would date your views to the beginning of the Clinton Presidency. That was a fairly conservative Democratic regime, both ideologically and practically. In fact, perhaps half of the Clinton ideas were at odds with your political assumptions.

Where did your ideas about the Democratic Party come from? Did you evolve these later and project them backwords retrospectively, were you informed that these had once been the public program of the party (I assume that these were not passed on to you as you say you did not come from a Democratic family), or did you simply assume that the principles of the Democratic Party were the opposite of those that were being forwarded by the Republicans with ever greater stridency? What did you make of Clinton's less than reliable dedication to many of these "principles"... or wasn't that clear to you at the time?

I seem to have taken too long in getting back to this and you've moved on. Too bad, cause I thought this discussion could be useful.

Good luck in your pursuits. Learnin' the art of standing up is not a bad place to start. Cheers.

Forgive my rudeness in not getting back to this sooner. I hope you are still around.

Your essay seems to fall into three parts:

1) Your political assumptions
2) Your criticism of those initial assumptions
3) Your new starting point based on that criticism

Let's see if we can take these one at a time...

I ran a word counting program against your essay and by far the largest number of proper nouns were associated with the Democratic Party (the number of Obama references trailing just behind). Let's start there.

The core of the first part of your analysis seems to be what you thought the Democratic Party stood for. The heart of the matter is contained in this quote:


I would have said that they included a strong commitment to labor rights and to working class American individuals and families. I would have said that they included dedication to economic policy that seeks to narrow the growing disparity between the wealthiest and poorest Americans and treats poverty as a moral concern.

I would have said that these principles included a foreign policy that priorities peace, diplomacy and the non-exploitation of other peoples or their resources for selfish gain above the interests of profit seekers or the military industrial complex. I would have said they included a deep abiding belief in the State’s responsibility to promote social welfare, which would include fully supporting the best public education system in the world, health and welfare services guaranteed to the poor and elderly who need them, active commitment to civil rights, which not only includes privacy rights and protections from the unjustified intrusions of the State, but also the workers right to an active stake in the direction and conditions of his or her own workplace.

And I would have said that these principles included the active effort to both establish and maintain a fervent commitment to equal treatment under the law for every citizen, be that citizen a women, a person of color, a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person, a person of faith or absence of faith, or a disabled individual.

Those are some of the things I am certain I would have described if asked to name the principles of the Democratic Party.

You note that you are 32 years old. That would mean that you probably arrived at the understanding above perhaps 14 to 16 years ago (1994?). That would date your views to the beginning of the Clinton Presidency. That was a fairly conservative Democratic regime, both ideologically and practically. In fact, perhaps half of the Clinton ideas were at odds with your political assumptions.

Where did your ideas about the Democratic Party come from? Did you evolve these later and project them backwords retrospectively, were you informed that these had once been the public program of the party (I assume that these were not passed on to you as you say you did not come from a Democratic family), or did you simply assume that the principles of the Democratic Party were the opposite of those that were being forwarded by the Republicans with ever greater stridency? What did you make of Clinton's less than reliable dedication to many of these "principles"... or wasn't that clear to you at the time?




Coming out of a conservative-religious cult as a kid, I assumed that Democrats were opposite of Republican. It wasn't clear to me at the time of Clinton, and it was only in retrospect by listening to left voices who were harsh critics of Clinton that I was challenged to question those assumptions.

I seem to have taken too long in getting back to this and you've moved on. Too bad, cause I thought this discussion could be useful.

Good luck in your pursuits. Learnin' the art of standing up is not a bad place to start. Cheers.




No I'm sorry - I've been under a lot of personal stress being unemployed and looking for work. Not the first time I've been in this spot, but it never gets easier. Well... I guess I've never been unemployed and rich, I suppose that would be real easy :D

Anyway.... sorry I took so long to get back to you.

Glad you're not gone... Unemployment is the most serious of drags ...like getting sick.

I'll try to restart our conversation.

In the meantime, for your amusement, here is a section of Democratic Underground coming out against Democracy. Amazing who people identify with even in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930s. Also amazing, the lack of an irony organ.

They're makin' your case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5890735

Glad you're not gone... Unemployment is the most serious of drags ...like getting sick.

I'll try to restart our conversation.

In the meantime, for your amusement, here is a section of Democratic Underground coming out against Democracy. Amazing who people identify with even in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930s. Also amazing, the lack of an irony organ.

They're makin' your case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5890735



Hard to tell from one or two posts but is the poster "Juche" the type of looney toon I'm thinking he is?

Glad you're not gone... Unemployment is the most serious of drags ...like getting sick.

I'll try to restart our conversation.

In the meantime, for your amusement, here is a section of Democratic Underground coming out against Democracy. Amazing who people identify with even in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930s. Also amazing, the lack of an irony organ.

They're makin' your case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5890735



Hard to tell from one or two posts but is the poster "Juche" the type of looney toon I'm thinking he is?


I don't know, but the thing is that there are many posters coming out against basic democracy: some because "it was never a democracy, its a republic", yadda yadda civics shit without ever stopping to say, "Hey...Wait a minute", some because they don't trust the people ("sheeple"?) and some because they identify with those who run the non-democracy, either directly or indirectly as those who are "best equipped" to reconcile competing interests.

Glad you're not gone... Unemployment is the most serious of drags ...like getting sick.

I'll try to restart our conversation.

In the meantime, for your amusement, here is a section of Democratic Underground coming out against Democracy. Amazing who people identify with even in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930s. Also amazing, the lack of an irony organ.

They're makin' your case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5890735



Hard to tell from one or two posts but is the poster "Juche" the type of looney toon I'm thinking he is?


I don't know, but the thing is that there are many posters coming out against basic democracy: some because "it was never a democracy, its a republic", yadda yadda civics shit without ever stopping to say, "Hey...Wait a minute", some because they don't trust the people ("sheeple"?) and some because they identify with those who run the non-democracy, either directly or indirectly as those who are "best equipped" to reconcile competing interests.


Knowing DU, I'm sure they'll agree to let the Framers decide since thats the "logical" thing to do. JackTheRiddler in particular has to be a real contortionist to manage to hold all of those conflicitng "ideas'" of his together as one uh, "gestalt"

EDIT: really, Jack. One minute its "who cares what some long dead white fucks said?" followed by "but that wasn't how the Framers intended the electoral college to work!!" and there are only two dozen more such examples..

Double-posting, but for PH:

I lost my job too due to a serious auto-accident so I feel for you (I was sort of a bum before though so it is not affecting me quite as harshly I guess). It sucks because I still have lingering issues that make some everyday activities very much a chore.

That said, I am still going to grill you, but I give you points for coming back to the table. Most don't.

Hey PH, quite a donnybrook ya got going.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5896306

Hey PH, quite a donnybrook ya got going.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5896306




Yeah even with the embarrassing typo in the title.

Nah the typo adds flavor.. a good typo is great for effect

It is a very good OP, PH, and you got a lot of recs, way to go, not a small accomplishment on that site. I didn't even notice the typo (and I certainly would've corrected you - heh).

It is a very good OP, PH, and you got a lot of recs, way to go, not a small accomplishment on that site. I didn't even notice the typo (and I certainly would've corrected you - heh).


Ditto, PH, your "evolution" is going very well it seems!! :)

So, hey, PH, whats up buddy? Hows the outlook on the job hunt?

So, hey, PH, whats up buddy? Hows the outlook on the job hunt?


Hey!

I'm moving to Eugene Oregon - well, moving means I'm packing what I can fit into my busted up car and moving in with some family there. I've decided to try my luck with jobs in Oregon so I can finally get out of Idaho.

We'll see how it goes.

Sometimes a change of scenery can work wonders, PH. My brother did the same when he lost his mortgage banking job in LA a couple of years ago. My kids got to know their uncle, he found a new job within just a couple months, and he seems to really like Houston. I'll be hoping for the same for you. Check in when you can.

Yep, good luck, PH! :)