Log in

View Full Version : The Binary Fallacy and the End of Both Parties



Michael Collins
06-06-2009, 02:57 AM
06/06/09

thepeoplesvoice.org
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/06/06/the-binary-fallacy-and-the-end-of-both-p

The Binary Fallacy and The End of Both Parties

Michael Collins

(Wash., DC) The results of eight years of Bush-Cheney at the helm make the demise of the Republican Party an easy call. Our financial system is on life support. The major banks are insolvent, according to banking and legal authority William K. Black. If they're not, they're in intensive care. No matter how many trillions of dollars worth of infusions they receive, they're not making loans. The economy is in a free fall with growth down 6% a quarter and job losses running at nearly 600,000 a month. We're stuck in two catastrophic wars. Despite President Obama's election, we're viewed with suspicion and disregard throughout the world.

The public knows which party bears the primary blame for all of this and they're not about to forget any time soon. The Republican Party is headed for the political graveyard.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/glfinal.png

They're not going to rely on past achievements though. Through their self-proclaimed national leader, the odious Rush Limbaugh, they've chosen to attack the first Latino nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, for being a "racist." Former Oxycontin addict Limbaugh said, "She brings a form of bigotry and racism to the court." He went on to say that nominating her was like nominating Klansman and Aryan Nation advocate David Duke for the highest court.

These charges are quite literally bizarre, particularly with Limbaugh calling anyone else a racist. Newt Gingrich has joined Limbaugh in a duet of stupidity. This is appropriate since Gingrich is the architect of the power and policies used by Republicans to drive the nation into its current crisis.

The political impact for Republicans will be devastating. Sotomayor is the first Latino nominated to the Supreme Court. Latinos represent the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. They went for Obama 67% to McCain’s 33%, and comprised 9% of the electorate in 2008. Among Latino youth, the fastest growing segment of the Latino population, the choice was 76% Obama compared to 19% McCain.

Sotomayor is also a woman nominee. Women comprised 53% of the electorate in 2008 and they went for Obama 56% to 43% for McCain. Many of those women are working and struggle with fools like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich on a regular basis.

The Republicans are like an early adolescent frenetically trying on new identities, each seemingly stranger than the last. Led by the Southern wing, the party began by opposing the bailout for the big three U.S. automakers. Acting as though the nation doesn't need any heavy industry or a few million people don't need a job, their mask of fiscal rigor hid the fact that key southern states have the manufacturing base for major foreign automakers.

They then turned to Rush and, at the same time, held a national protest in April. Sparsely attended, this nationwide event acquired the unfortunate name of "Tea bagging." It failed to produce anything more than some Jerry Springer quality footage for a brief spot on local news. Recently, the national Republican Party, backed by early presidential aspirant Gingrich, tried to rename the Democrats as the "Democratic Socialist Party." There is no end in sight to this parade of irrelevant, out of touch efforts.

We're now seeing the final phases of the Republican dance macabre. The Limbaugh-Gingrich anti-Latino campaign is so dangerous that some Republican senators, including right wing Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), are moving away from the slanders against Sotomayor. John McCain (R-AZ) also sees the implications for his party. He's signed up to attend the National Council of La Raza conference this summer to counter the anti Latino rhetoric spread by other Republican leaders.

Democratic loyalists are acting as though the Republican demise is an accomplishment on their part. It is as though their understated -- but very complicit -- support of the Republican policies of empire and wealth transfer to the ultra wealthy will go unnoticed.

Congressional Democrats voted in the majority to authorize the Iraq invasion. They voted in the majority to fund the Iraq adventure long after the lies leading to war were well known. A majority of Senate Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. A Democratic controlled Senate allowed further government spying on personal communication (FISA Amendments) in 2008 and a third of Senate Democrats supported the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which gutted habeas corpus.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/GO.png

Democrats voted for the initial Wall Street welfare bill; also know as the bailout. Right now, the Obama administration is responsible for doubling the Bush administrations cash transfer form the U.S. Treasury to Wall Street and the banks. Democrats failed to pass the only major bill to ease rampant foreclosures. This left 1.7 million families likely to lose their homes. Democrats did pass a credit card reform bill but forgot to cap those 29% interest limits that the banks arbitrarily assign.

There was an announced policy to leave Iraq. To date, all we've seen are plans to open up a new phase of the Afghan war with tens of thousands of troops simply switching job assignments from Iraq to an even more treacherous landscape. Ominously, we now have plans for super embassy in Pakistan to rival the fortress constructed in Iraq.

Democrats don't want people to see pictures of Bush-Cheney torture from the prison at Guantanamo, probably because it occurred with funding that they helped provide. They don't want to close that facility if it means housing prisoners in the United States. This forced their president into the extraordinary and troubling position of maintaining current prisoners in Cuba. As the Democratic Senators participated in the 90 to 6 vote to refuse President Obama funds to close Guantanamo, they were resolute in failing to mention that only10 of over 400 prisoners there are charged with a violent crime. To borrow an appropriate response, You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Apparently not.

Democrats won't even talk about the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians due to civil strife caused by the war that they funded. Failing to talk about it means it never happened, they hope.

Despite all of the alleged but obvious crimes of Bush-Cheney against people here and around the world, the Democrats want to "look forward" and bypass prosecutions of any sort against the Bush administration.

The Binary Fallacy

The binary fallacy is the crude dialectic that assumes that the two political parties are the only choices for voters and that what's bad for one party will always be good for the other. As evidence for this, we have Nixon's Watergate scandal followed by huge Democratic victories in congressional elections. President Carter's economically distressed four years begat the Reagan revolution and so forth.

Democrat Party operatives see the collapse of the nation and attendant pain as working against the Republicans since they were in control when the decline was assured by Republican sponsored programs. The situation is so bad, they argue, no one will take the Republicans seriously over the near and midterm. Add the highly favorable demographics among youth, women, and the emerging Latino population and you&

#039;ve got the dominant political party of the next few decades.

Republican loyalists speak of the risks that the Obama administration has inherited. When he falters, as he may given the circumstances that Republicans know all too well, his failure will assure a Republican comeback they argue.

Both parties fail to realize two flaws in their embedded fallacy.

First, the fallacy became a manufactured truth over decades due to the rigged game of U.S. politics. Funding and access to major media presume membership in one of the two major parties. Third party candidates need to poll equal or ahead in the public opinion polls, as Ross Perot did in 1992, in order to get any media attention or money. When the system is heavily rigged to exclude third parties, then, of course, there are only two choices.

The second flaw in the binary fallacy is embodied by our current troubles. The fallacy does not take into account successful performance during extreme crises. We're either in a depression or we're in the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. Times are desperate for tens of millions. The vast majority lives in fear of entering the world of the unemployed, homeless, and bereft. Iraq is the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times. Our new plans for an Afghanistan adventure have the potential to equal Iraq in terms of national loss and increased threats of blowback.

One party created the current disaster. The other has embraced the broadest parameters of the policies that created the disasters that voters want fixed -- wealth transfers to the ultra rich while the vast majority gets just about nothing plus mindless, counter productive fantasies of empire through war.

The two parties and the elitists who look down their noses on the overwhelming majority of citizens assume that the people will simply tolerate the creation of a catastrophe by one party and the perpetuation of that grave injustice to citizens by the other.

When you're broke, you know it.

When you're out of work, you know it.

When there are no jobs, you know it.

And when the country continues to fight overseas but does nothing to protect economic security at home, you know it.

The game is up. The party is over. The people have a fundamental right to survive, at the very least. If both parties continue to promote policies that leave out almost all citizens, as is now the case, there will be alternatives that look nothing like the current two political parties. The binary fallacy and the two parties that fail to address our crises will be no more. Relying solely on the failures of the opposing party while embracing their programs will soon be defunct.

END

Special thanks to Kathyn Stone for her helpful comments.

Images: Gingrich Geithner-Obama

Permission granted to reproduce in part or whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/06/06/the-binary-fallacy-and-the-end-of-both-p

blindpig
06-06-2009, 08:24 AM
Bravo. I trust this will be posted 'elsewhere'.

choppedliver
06-06-2009, 08:32 AM
Bravo. I trust this will be posted 'elsewhere'.


link when you do, please!

anaxarchos
06-06-2009, 12:59 PM
Double bravo...

This is the cleanest thing you have ever written.

Of course the Democrats will split over exactly the same issues as that which split the Republicans. And though, it is not always clear, the split will be over Imperialism.

Afghanistan and Pakistan versus Social Security.

Trade tariffs versus a race to the bottom.

Nationalization of industry versus a financial economy.

and on and on and on...

Two Americas
06-06-2009, 01:22 PM
Great work, Mike.

Kid of the Black Hole
06-06-2009, 01:34 PM
Saw Jeremy Scahill on Bill Moyers on Friday night. Wouldn't have paid much attention except that he is one of the featured speakers at the Socialism con in 2009. I'm pretty certain he writes for The Nation and assorted other publications like that

He starts his expose presentation on Iraq/Afghanistan by stating (implicitly) his position: I'm against US Imperialism. Now this is moderated by his focusing exclusively on Iraq/Afghanistan but still.

Then he goes a adrift: I'm against American Imperialism BECAUSE. What follows is a litany of reasons, one after another inerspersed with Bill Moyers playing Devil's Advocate and dutifully interjecting "reasonable" counterpositions.

To Scahill's credit: most of his reason weren't just variations on "the war was unneccesary, wasn't prosecuted correctly, wrong war/wrong time" or whatever. Nevertheless he hops from one to the next, since he can't really afford to get bogged down in squabbling over any particular item.

But at the end all hes presented is a string of positions that some (libs) will cheer and denigrate anyone who disagrees. Meanwhile the other side will will take exception to all of the above on every count. Heads or tails, call it in the air.

Add it all up and whaddya get..

In the end the opening salvo of "against US Imperialism" is drowned out by a sea of back-and-forth "debate" and it is further buried beneath the endless drone of 'democratization', 'national determination', 'humanitarianism', 'justice', 'equality' and a billion other slogans

All while never knowing what its really about

Michael Collins
06-06-2009, 02:51 PM
Bravo. I trust this will be posted 'elsewhere'.


link when you do, please!


LINKS - Partial listing .... & Google search so far. These are the key sites. If it hits BuzzFlash.Com as an independent story, then it really starts multiplying. I have not sent it to my lists yet and that generates a lot of new sites.



thepeoplesvoice.org
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/06/06/the-binary-fallacy-and-the-end-of-both-p

The Agonist
http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20090605/the_binary_fallacy_and_the_end_of_both_parties

American Politics Journal
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434&Itemid=2

SmirkingChimp.Com
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/22162

OpEdNews.Org
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/binary-fallacy-and-end-both-political-parties

afterdowningstreet.org
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43331

ePluribusMedia
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/binary-fallacy-and-end-both-political-parties

Axis of Logic
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55951.shtml

BuzzFlash.NET(if you're registered, excellent site)
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1018641

Google search: "The binary fallacy and the end" Michael + Collins"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22The+binary+fallacy+and+the+end%22+Michael+%2B+Collins&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Michael Collins
06-06-2009, 02:57 PM
Double bravo...

This is the cleanest thing you have ever written.

Of course the Democrats will split over exactly the same issues as that which split the Republicans. And though, it is not always clear, the split will be over Imperialism.

Afghanistan and Pakistan versus Social Security.

Trade tariffs versus a race to the bottom.

Nationalization of industry versus a financial economy.

and on and on and on...



Thank you very much for that comment.

Here's one more tid but. Your comment on Social Security versus Empire fits right in. Ultimately, the people will make the choice for the party. We'll be printing money forever to cover that. The only good news lately is that we can't afford empire anymore and the under 40 crowd, which I admire greatly, is not up for any of the old garbage about that:

"At the start of President Obama's administration, it was clear that this would be a cabinet that spanned those few degrees of that mythical political spectrum called "the middle." The political middle, like the Hobbits' "middle earth," is a contrivance, although much less artful. It's where you're supposed to be if you're the president. You stand for those who count; those with the vested interests in the economy. You are that special gatekeeper at the intersection between avarice and the nation's wealth.

Will anything truly change?"

"Ship of State or Ship of Fools"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0905/S00278.htm

So what's next in your opinion? You know that you have a perfect tract record with me on that sort of thing.

Michael Collins
06-06-2009, 03:00 PM
Great work, Mike.


Hey, thanks. Since our exchange of some time ago, I'm always clear on one thing -- it is truly US versus THEM. No reason to embrace their crap or the elitist derision of us as some having caused this.

anaxarchos
06-06-2009, 04:50 PM
So what's next in your opinion? You know that you have a perfect tract record with me on that sort of thing.


Now, somethin' happens... Something arbitrary catches on. Is inevitable. Crazy downward drift for a quarter - dizzying nose-dive for half... no political outlet... "crisis" of "rising expectations"... somethin' gives.

Ron Paul isolationism plus the Buy American Tariff Party plus some screwy lefties combine into the Hang Fienstein movement and declare that bagging is better than voting...

Can't tell what's gonna happen at the moment. I can tell you what won't happen. Obama won't change (heh...), Democratic support will trickle away, and the Republicans won't come back in their previous form. Other than that, it's wide open.

Two Americas
06-06-2009, 05:51 PM
Saw Jeremy Scahill on Bill Moyers on Friday night. Wouldn't have paid much attention except that he is one of the featured speakers at the Socialism con in 2009. I'm pretty certain he writes for The Nation and assorted other publications like that

He starts his expose presentation on Iraq/Afghanistan by stating (implicitly) his position: I'm against US Imperialism. Now this is moderated by his focusing exclusively on Iraq/Afghanistan but still.

Then he goes a adrift: I'm against American Imperialism BECAUSE. What follows is a litany of reasons, one after another inerspersed with Bill Moyers playing Devil's Advocate and dutifully interjecting "reasonable" counterpositions.

To Scahill's credit: most of his reason weren't just variations on "the war was unneccesary, wasn't prosecuted correctly, wrong war/wrong time" or whatever. Nevertheless he hops from one to the next, since he can't really afford to get bogged down in squabbling over any particular item.

But at the end all hes presented is a string of positions that some (libs) will cheer and denigrate anyone who disagrees. Meanwhile the other side will will take exception to all of the above on every count. Heads or tails, call it in the air.

Add it all up and whaddya get..

In the end the opening salvo of "against US Imperialism" is drowned out by a sea of back-and-forth "debate" and it is further buried beneath the endless drone of 'democratization', 'national determination', 'humanitarianism', 'justice', 'equality' and a billion other slogans

All while never knowing what its really about



Empire is a reality, but is it something to be "against?"

Two Americas
06-06-2009, 05:54 PM
somethin' gives...


That is certain.

Kid of the Black Hole
06-06-2009, 06:30 PM
Saw Jeremy Scahill on Bill Moyers on Friday night. Wouldn't have paid much attention except that he is one of the featured speakers at the Socialism con in 2009. I'm pretty certain he writes for The Nation and assorted other publications like that

He starts his expose presentation on Iraq/Afghanistan by stating (implicitly) his position: I'm against US Imperialism. Now this is moderated by his focusing exclusively on Iraq/Afghanistan but still.

Then he goes a adrift: I'm against American Imperialism BECAUSE. What follows is a litany of reasons, one after another inerspersed with Bill Moyers playing Devil's Advocate and dutifully interjecting "reasonable" counterpositions.

To Scahill's credit: most of his reason weren't just variations on "the war was unneccesary, wasn't prosecuted correctly, wrong war/wrong time" or whatever. Nevertheless he hops from one to the next, since he can't really afford to get bogged down in squabbling over any particular item.

But at the end all hes presented is a string of positions that some (libs) will cheer and denigrate anyone who disagrees. Meanwhile the other side will will take exception to all of the above on every count. Heads or tails, call it in the air.

Add it all up and whaddya get..

In the end the opening salvo of "against US Imperialism" is drowned out by a sea of back-and-forth "debate" and it is further buried beneath the endless drone of 'democratization', 'national determination', 'humanitarianism', 'justice', 'equality' and a billion other slogans

All while never knowing what its really about



Empire is a reality, but is it something to be "against?"


Well I didn't use the word "Empire" intentionally. In some ways its a morass because in practice we would never chide anyone for being "anti-Empire" but your point is nevertheless valid

Not what I was trying to say though

Two Americas
06-06-2009, 06:51 PM
Not what I was trying to say though


Yeah, I was just musing out loud.

Michael Collins
06-07-2009, 12:34 AM
So what's next in your opinion? You know that you have a perfect tract record with me on that sort of thing.


Now, somethin' happens... Something arbitrary catches on. Is inevitable. Crazy downward drift for a quarter - dizzying nose-dive for half... no political outlet... "crisis" of "rising expectations"... somethin' gives.

Ron Paul isolationism plus the Buy American Tariff Party plus some screwy lefties combine into the Hang Fienstein movement and declare that bagging is better than voting...

Can't tell what's gonna happen at the moment. I can tell you what won't happen. Obama won't change (heh...), Democratic support will trickle away, and the Republicans won't come back in their previous form. Other than that, it's wide open.



Synchronicity -- I got this response on The Agonist from Numerian, one of the best posters around on the economy. Seems to have your take, more detail but the essence is there.

Here's the post:
http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20090605/the_binary_fallacy_and_the_end_of_both_parties#comment-189057


People are beginning to realize that the Republican Party is slowly shuffling off to oblivion. It has become a parody of a responsible political party, and its ingrained habits of hypocrisy now dictate its behavior to such an extent that party officials say things that have no connection to reality whatsoever (Sotomayor is a racist, e.g.). Perhaps the average voter understands now that Republicans live in a fantasy world and should never be allowed anywhere near access to real power.

But it seems dangerous to accept the premise that the Democrats are the beneficiaries of all this and will reign for 20 or more years until a new opposition party gains credibility. Since the Democrats are tied as deeply to the military/industrial complex that runs this country, they believe they can get away with Republican lite policies because there are no other choices for the voters. They believe all power runs through the ballot box and they can safely mimic Bush without consequences.

The voters have another option - they can go on strike. While on the surface this appears to merely buttress the Democratic Party because its hardcore voters will still be enough to keep them in power, a voters strike makes the country much more difficult to govern. How will this manifest itself:

1) If people are fed up enough with the status quo, they will take their protests to the streets. These won't be the ludicrous tea-bagging parties, but serious complaints about lack of services or opportunities, and the complaints will be directed at local government.

2) The heavy cost of government taxation will be another source of protest. The tendency of all governments to gouge the taxpayers with petty fees, or usurious fees (parking fines which double if not paid in 14 days), may lead not just to public protests, but disengagement from the responsibilities of citizenship. People will simply not pay. Voluntary payment of income taxes will decline. Bartering of services is already on the rise and will grow even more, depriving the government of sales tax. Properties are already being abandoned, causing the property tax take to fall. Local and state governments are already under stress trying to find revenues to fund basic services, but a voter and taxpayer revolt will make these problems much worse. Even the federal government will feel the strain, as the bond market begins to extract a heavy price for any new borrowing.

3) Obama's coalition of enthusiastic supporters will evaporate in disillusionment. He will increasingly have to rely on corporate donations to fund his campaigns, because voters won't have the means to make campaign contributions and nothing he has done will justify people making financial sacrifices for him.

4) Alternatives to the dominant media are arising to challenge the way this country is run. There are a lot of disgusted journalists who have lost their jobs and have been rethinking what has gone wrong with the US. They are slowly finding their voice on the internet or through books that don't have to be marketed through a corporate publisher. An angry public will no longer trust the traditional media and will find ways of reading and listening to alternative views.

5) The secession movement will pick up pace. Calls for secession will be another form of localized protest against enormous government taxation burdens and lousy services.

6) People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will gain more respect and a wider audience. People will really begin paying attention to what they have been saying, which will be seen as more credible than what is coming from either party.

7) "Extremist" candidates will win some elections on both the Republican and Democratic sides. These will be politicians who have found a way to run low-cost campaigns based on wild ideas like socialism or secession. They will shake up the status quo from within.

-----------

Will all this be enough to bring about radical reform? A lot depends on how elected politicians respond, but they usually respond to fear. In this case, there will be real concern that the social compact between government and the citizens has broken down, and something very different is needed to restore it.

Kid of the Black Hole
06-07-2009, 07:31 AM
Hey Auto, in particular the close of your article kicks ass, wanted to mention that

I think The Agonist is just serving up some loopy, warmed over Ron Paul-esque crap however

anaxarchos
06-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Hey Auto, in particular the close of your article kicks ass, wanted to mention that

I think The Agonist is just serving up some loopy, warmed over Ron Paul-esque crap however


I tend to agree, Mr. Autojuniuscollins. Your first cut tends to be better than the people you are respectin' at the moment... Let out that inner Marat.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/images/marat7.jpg

Michael Collins
06-07-2009, 05:30 PM
Bravo. I trust this will be posted 'elsewhere'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/001/usaintel.png

So, how does that flip over?

I think Numerian is right (a response to anaxarchos)

choppedliver
06-07-2009, 05:31 PM
Bravo. I trust this will be posted 'elsewhere'.


link when you do, please!


LINKS - Partial listing .... & Google search so far. These are the key sites. If it hits BuzzFlash.Com as an independent story, then it really starts multiplying. I have not sent it to my lists yet and that generates a lot of new sites.



thepeoplesvoice.org
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/06/06/the-binary-fallacy-and-the-end-of-both-p

The Agonist
http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20090605/the_binary_fallacy_and_the_end_of_both_parties

American Politics Journal
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434&Itemid=2

SmirkingChimp.Com
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/22162

OpEdNews.Org
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/binary-fallacy-and-end-both-political-parties

afterdowningstreet.org
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43331

ePluribusMedia
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/binary-fallacy-and-end-both-political-parties

Axis of Logic
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55951.shtml

BuzzFlash.NET(if you're registered, excellent site)
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1018641

Google search: "The binary fallacy and the end" Michael + Collins"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22The+binary+fallacy+and+the+end%22+Michael+%2B+Collins&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=





Thanks, have to remember my passwords and register for most, apparently mine at Oped news didn't survive the "move", re-registered, buzzed it anyway...

Kid of the Black Hole
06-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Bravo. I trust this will be posted 'elsewhere'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/001/usaintel.png

So, how does that flip over?

I think Numerian is right (a response to anaxarchos)


Numerian calls tea-bagging parties "ludicrous" but then repeats a litany of "thoughts" that double as some kind of libertarian wet dream

Not saying discontent won't manifest in some screwball and distorted ways but..what does it mean Auto?

choppedliver
06-07-2009, 05:53 PM
Here's another link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5800294&mesg_id=5800294

choppedliver
06-10-2009, 06:19 AM
Bit too "clever" for my taste, but some points for comparison maybe here...

Subject: [Marxism] Mark Steel on the British left: Turn left (then left
again)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:38:26 +1000

http://www.marksteelinfo.com/writing/default.asp?id=117

Turn left (and then left again)

*It's as if the left has a self-destruct button, and can't stand being
popular*
First published in The Independent on 3rd June 2009
------------------------------

Poor Gordon Brown has arrived at that point where his life is one long
sequence of disasters. The moment Jacqui Smith left his office he probably
went "Hang on, I can smell something burning. Oh no, it's the Spanish
Minister of Trade, I must have pushed him onto the barbecue as I dropped a
pickled onion down Jacqui's cleavage. And now a parrot's shat on my speech
to the CBI."

And yet there's little sense of enthusiasm for the Tories, the way there was
for Thatcher or Blair before they were elected. Instead it reminds me of
kids picking teams at the start of a PE lesson, with Brown and Cameron as
the last two left that no one wants, and the country muttering "Oh we'll
have Cameron I suppose".

Nothing the major parties do seems to make them popular, because they both
worship the ideals of the super-wealthy that have become hugely unpopular.
This ought to make it an ideal time for socialists to win support for
radically transforming society, in favour of the majority at the expense of
the duck-island owning class. Certainly Tony Benn has become extraordinarily
popular, packing huge theatres, and he'd have probably won Britain's Got
Talent if he could have made a speech about the Suffragettes while playing
the spoons.

But while individual socialists attract an audience, no socialist group or
party could win more than a tiny vote. Whereas in Europe, new socialist
groups have become credible enough to become a pole of attraction for a wide
layer of people, and in Germany a group called "The Left" has quickly risen
to 10 per cent in the polls.

The difference here must be partly that the left in the Labour Party are
unmovable in their belief they should remain members, no matter how
humiliated they become. If the next Labour leader was The Joker from Gotham
City, and he sprayed the world with deadly laughing gas, the last choking
gasp of the Labour left would be "Nonetheless Labour is the traditional
party of socialism and I will remain loyal although I urge any survivors to
raise this matter at the next constituency meeting".

But also the attempts to start new socialist groups have gone spectacularly
haywire. George Galloway's Respect tore itself apart in a feud about nothing
that anyone can work out, and it would have made more sense if one faction
had issued a statement that they were leaving because the other lot snored.
The Scottish Socialist Party achieved seven per cent of the total vote
across Scotland, then went to war with itself over the issue of how to
respond to the News of the World, when it accused their leader of going to a
swingers' club.

It's as if the left has a self-destruct button, and can't stand being
popular. The next time a socialist group appears to be doing well, they'll
end their party political broadcast by saying "That's why we think you
should vote for us. Now to finish, let's see what happens when I put a
kitten in a microwave".

But the cheery note is that the Green Party has attained credibilty while
retaining its principles, and seems to be the home for many people who
opposed the Iraq war, oppose the rule of bankers and private finance, and
feel it might be worth looking at doing something about the fact the
planet's about to melt. So I'm voting for them tomorrow, and if they implode
in a petty row about nothing I'm obviously a jinx and I'm joining the bloody
Tories.

Michael Collins
06-11-2009, 03:55 AM
I tend to agree, Mr. Autojuniuscollins. Your first cut tends to be better than the people you are respectin' at the moment... Let out that inner Marat.

Marat is on board. All that's necessary for me, at least, is to pay attention to the political events of any 48 hour period. It's truly a horror show acted out by zombies with a voice over. Somebody told me that my writing was angry. Not so, I replied. Anger is a problem you get over. Outrage is a reaction that endures, in varying degrees, until events change.

In the midst of writing this I stumbled on a fragment in google news - "Leahy says Vermont guard units are needed in Afghanistan" and had a moment of Zen. Hey Pat, you fuck, your state has lost more soldiers per capita than just about any other in Iraq, way more. But keep President O happy, by all means, even if it means a few less constituents.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that there isn't more outrage.

(When I posted Numerian's stages of decline, I meant to say that it looked similar to your response to my question about whats coming down the pike. It's all bleak.)

eattherich
06-13-2009, 12:51 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/images.nachofoto.com/b-nancy-pelosi-botox-47f1b4f74976.jpeg


New Rasmussen Reports polling shows that 34% of U.S. voters still have a favorable view of Pelosi, including 10% who say that opinion is very favorable. Fifty-six percent (56%) regard the California Democrat unfavorably, with 40% very unfavorable. Just 10% have no opinion of her.

These numbers have been roughly the same going back to February. Pelosi also continues to be by far the best-known of the congressional leaders in either political party.

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say that it’s at least somewhat likely the Central Intelligence Agency misled Pelosi about the use of waterboarding when interrogating suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo prison camp, but 41% say it’s not likely the spy agency did so.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_favorablility_ratings/congressional_favorability_ratings

http://infidelsparadise.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nancy_pelosi_et.jpg

;D ;D ;D