By jersey girl, July 14 at 2:44 pm #

tony:  Pardon my ignorance but what is the ideology of a “scientific socialist?”
-----------------------------------------------------
jg,
“Scientific socialism” is just an old term which strikes my fancy. I think nowadays only old Marxists are familiar with it. If you take intro to Marxism, it is opposed to “utopian socialist”. Socialism began as an ideal of a “classless society”
where everyone is equal and wealth is shared. “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” The early socialists were called utopians because, condemning all the evils of capitalist society - its exploitation of labor and oppression of the poor -they proposed to go away from it and create such a society for themselves. They were like the hippies of the 60’s who dropped out of the rat race and tried to start communes where they could live a different kind of life. These efforts to start a socialist “utopia” were mostly failures then as now. Marxism begins by accepting the socialist ideal of the utopians, but consists largely in a critique of capitalism. According to Marx, the essential contradiction of capitalism is that wealth is produced by the people but is expropriated as private property by the property owners. Scientific socialism was called “scientific” because it claimed to study and deal with society as it is and asks how we may transform it in the direction of socialism.

Maani: I think I’ve figured out the identity of cyrena.  She’s Star Jones !

Cyrena:

“Maybe the terminology, specifically the word perfidy, is different when lawyers use it. WE know very well what it means. Maybe you should check another book.”

You mean, like the OED?  Funk & Wagnall’s?  Anerican Heritage?  Cambridge?  Sorry, but they all define the word “perfidy” the same way.

“If not, by all means, let it mean whatever you want it to mean. Like I said, most folks know EXACTLY what I’m talking about, even with no knowledge of the law.”

What does “law” and “lawyers” have to do with it? Firstly, as I have stated numerous times, I am NOT a lawyer.  Second, “perfidy” is a simple word that has little or nothing to do with law: it means exactly what Webster’s (and every other dictionary) defines it as.  Or are you trying to tell me that it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is?  LOL.

Ultimately, in your desperation not to have to admit you were wrong, you simply dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Peace.

“They” couldn’t possibly have made it any easier for him.  A year and a half ago no one knew who he was.  How terrible that not everyone has joined the fan club.

Actually, anarchists run the course from Libertarian to Communist. The term means only the absence of coercive government. That is like an oxymoron. (Oxymoron: Someone who wastes oxygen by breathing.)

Government exists to coerce someone to do what he would not otherwise do, or to not do what he has a motivation to do in exercise of free will. The end is to be more freedom on balance for the many over advantage for the few. Capitalism harnesses greed to bring the maximum production with the greatest efficiency, thus benefiting the very people who would destroy the profit motive.

It is government out of control and beyond its purpose that is the problem. Try this suit on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Ideally, government would be the smallest entity that could coerce the largest non-government entity to toe the mark of fair and honest dealing. On the individual level, it is called free enterprise, no matter what it costs. In a monopoly, it is called efficiencies of scale with the cheapest prices and the highest profits.

Anarchists have their point. Democrats seek to enlarge government to deal with corporate monsters, while Republicans seek to keep government off our backs, thus off the case of big oil and big business of all kinds. So long as the people are ‘Prince’ in a democracy, Republican Anarchists are against the Monarchy of the people, while Democratic anarchists are against the dictatorship of Fascism for special interests.

Elections are supposed to strike a balance between the interests of big government and big business while letting the profit motive bring us the most for the least, controlled by enough government to keep the beast at bay, and people playing and shopping. Behind the scenes we can fight the war for human rights, justice, equality, and fairness. Does freedom include the right to commit suicide? Is government too big when it prohibits a personal decision to end a life not worth living? Does freedom include the right to kill your children if you would rather not have them? Does the right to democratic vote include the right to vote away your rights? Is it permissible to sell oneself into limited slavery by working for less than a fair pay? Does your political donation buy votes? And if you are persuaded to vote Democratic, have you sold your soul? And if you vote Republican do you cave in to special interests?

tony:  Pardon my ignorance but what is the ideology of a “scientific socialist?”

Re thebeerdoctor, July 14 at 10:01 am #

“To Tony Wicher and everyone else, no I am not a dreamer of a socialist utopia (whatever that is). I just recognize that true change change comes from social movements that are not necessarily acknowledged by established political parties. When the people in this country who became aware that slavery was wrong, what kind of reaction do you thing they received upon first hearing? The same can be said of women’s suffrage. The same can be said of labor rights. No the great social movements existed long before the political parties had to consider their demands.
----------------------------------------------------
beer,

I agree with this. What it means to me is that polticians can’t get very far in front of the people even if they want to. That includes Barack Obama and rest of the Democrats. That is why progressives should continue to organize popular movements for change to put pressure on them, as well as to support the more progressive among them against the less progressive, in this case by supporting Obama against Mc Cain and in general Democrats against Republicans. This is all common sense to me.
--------------------------------------------------
“And no Tony Wicher, Howard Zinn is not a Marxist, but rather a benevolent anarchist (he himself has said this)”.

beer,

As one who calls himself a “scientific socialist” in a very broad sense, I am inclined to say anarcho-syndicalism is utopian.

trouble:  Obama’s health care plan benefits the insurance companies not the consumer. If he were serious about helping the working class he’d have drafted a single payer plan.

And it’s obvious by his telecom vote that he was signaling the powers that be that he’s ready to play ball with them once in office.  He certainly wasn’t worried about the dissolution of the 4th amendment and what it means to the people and our civil liberties.  But then again, he voted for the re-authorization of the patriot act as well. Those two things combined speak volumes about how he intends to govern in the future.

And now he states he wants to keep a number of troops in Iraq indefinitely while redeploying the others to Afghanistan.  Why are we still there anyway? They have no intention of finding OBL. Oh that’s right.  To help harvest the opium crops for sale in the US of A.

Honestly, he sounds so bush-like I don’t see him doing a 180 when in office.

Some of you may not remember Clinton’s “lurch to the left” as the pundits called it in his first year in office.  This was before the republicans took control of the house in the 94 elections.  It was after the failure of his (and Hillary’s) health care plan and the attempt to lift the ban on gays in the military.  The msm was in a major hissy fit and something had to be done.  It was decided that former Reagan advisor David Gergan could get the country off the road to Marxism and talk Clinton out of his delusions about a government takeover of all private property, outlawing religion, sending all cpitalists to siberia, etc.  What is Obama going to be able to do?  If there is a health care plan we can be sure it will be something that will create higher profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and we know that there is never going to be a complete withdrawal from Iraq.  The permenant bases have cost billions to build and there is all that oil.

troublesum, of course it is a total fantasy. But you know what? considering the catastrophic consequences that are spoken of, I pray that I am wrong! As Homer of The Simpsons once said: “our lives hang in the balance of people no smarter than you or I.”

Tony’s hope that Obama will create another New Deal is a total fantasy.  Bill Clinton pronounced (before both houses of congress in one of his early SOTU speechs) the government dead as a solution to any social problems and received a standing ovation for it.  The market is now our God.  Who is going to be another Roosevelt?

Anarcissie: Well stated Anarcissie.  I always enjoy reading your posts. They are always thoughtful and spot on.

Beerdoc,
regarding dreams of Obama supporters: are they dreams or fantasies?  I understand their supporting him and voting for him.  I would only prefer that they do it with open eyes.  The idea that once he is elected he will become a flaming progressive is laughable. What we see is what we are going to get and cyrena, Tony, ITW, ought to know that based on their knowledge of American political history.

Tony: “I still think Obama may rise to the occasion and prove to be an exceptionally good president - comparable to Roosevelt, perhaps, if we are lucky. But don’t forget that Roosevelt was as blue-blooded a member of the ruling class as there could ever be. Roosevelt “saved capitalism” by making it more socialist and humanitarian. That to me is the only realistic path to socialism. But even if Obama does turn out to be another “centrist” like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, let me ask you, don’t either Jimmy or Bill look pretty good right now, in comparison with what we have?”

Sure, but my vote isn’t going to decide the election.  In terms of outcomes, it doesn’t matter who I vote for.  All I can do is stand in the voting booth and speak truth to power.  And I think that truth, everyone’s personal truth, is really important.  Part of my truth is that I won’t vote for anyone who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, either before or after it began, because these were and are war crimes.  I think we have to take murder seriously.  Stalin said, “If I kill one man, it’s murder.  If I kill a million men, it’s a statistic.” I think we have to emerge from that kind of thinking.  That’s what my vote will mean.  Other people will communicate something about which candidate is a Christian, or has good taste in ties, or satisfies some calculation.  Whatever—it’s your message to history.

To Tony Wicher and everyone else, no I am not a dreamer of a socialist utopia (whatever that is). I just recognize that true change change comes from social movements that are not necessarily acknowledged by established political parties. When the people in this country who became aware that slavery was wrong, what kind of reaction do you thing they received upon first hearing? The same can be said of women’s suffrage. The same can be said of labor rights.
No the great social movements existed long before the political parties had to consider their demands. And no Tony Wicher, Howard Zinn is not a Marxist, but rather a benevolent anarchist (he himself has said this).

Maani,

Maybe the terminology, specifically the word perfidy, is different when lawyers use it. WE know very well what it means. Maybe you should check another book.

If not, by all means, let it mean whatever you want it to mean. Like I said, most folks know EXACTLY what I’m talking about, even with no knowledge of the law.

So...if ‘you thinks’ something else...Go for it!

Meantime, to the non-trolls on board today, this is delightful news…

Oh this is good.

Congressman Goes Over Bush’s Head In Iraq To Advise Parliament

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/congressman-g oes-over-bus_n_112564.html

Cyrena:

“Perfidy?” Methinks you are using the wrong word. According to Webster, “perfidy” means “the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal; an act or an instance of disloyalty.”

But since I was never loyal to Obama, how can I then commit an act of disloyalty?  And if not to Obama, then to whom or what am I being disloyal?

Your command of the English language is about on par with your command of history, politics, and almost everything else.  LOL.

Peace.

Re Anarcissie, July 14 at 7:58 am #

Me: “These days, no one who has not fully and credibly signed on to the imperial project is allowed anywhere near the presidency or any other high political office where their views might count.  Obama, of course, has been found completely satisfactory in this regard.”

Cyrena: “I’m not so certain at all, that Obama has been found completely satisfactory by the ruling entity, because I’m convinced that it was never the ‘plan’ for Obama to get anywhere this close to the presidency. I think it caught the dynasties by surprise. In fact, I’m very certain of it. In short, I believe there is much more to see/understand....”

I don’t see this.  Obama seems to have come along politically through the regular channels of the Democratic Party organization.  Since he’s a charmer and probably very smart as well he’s been allowed to take very long steps, but at no time has he been an outsider.  The one big question about his viability as a national candidate was the fact that he is Black, that is, someone who would be perceived by the majority of Americans as what used to be called a “Negro” regardless of his actual ancestry and upbringing (which are actually quite different from those of most Black people).  In a way, then, he lies somewhat athwart American popular tradition, which is that the great leader must be White, male, rich, old, and a Protestant.  But I can’t think of a single instance of his being in overt opposition to the settled policies and practices of the ruling class.  Some might say “Iraq”, but there were plenty of ruling-class types who thought the invasion of Iraq was bad policy or at least highly questionable, and when Obama did get into office he voted to support the war until 2007, when the public had turned completely against it, along with many of the elites.

(One should take care, in the case of Iraq, to separate the judgement that the invasion and occupation were blunders in an otherwise good, even noble policy of world domination, and the rejection of the war as illegal and immoral instance of illegal and immoral principles.)

Obama could be seen as some sort of stealth candidate who, once in office, would surprise everyone with radical policies.  (Some people thought this about Jimmy Carter!) I think a president who did something like that would simply be removed by whatever means was necessary.  Enormous issues of power and wealth are at stake and the players aren’t going to allow an isolated joker to break up the game.  But, again, I don’t see any evidence of the stealth Obama.  I think he is right in the middle, like all the other major politicos.  I think his FISA vote—which was superfluous, practically speaking—was another signal to the ruling class that he is a man they can trust to serve their interests and intentions.

Of course, times are changing rapidly.  It’s quite possible that by the fall we will be in a grinding depression or a new major war, or both.  Maybe Obama will step forth like another Lincoln and save everything.  But if you believe this you’re operating on pure faith; you could as reasonably believe in salvation through the intervention of the unicorns of Ganymede.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ana,

I still think Obama may rise to the occasion and prove to be an exceptionally good president - comparable to Roosevelt, perhaps, if we are lucky. But don’t forget that Roosevelt was as blue-blooded a member of the ruling class as there could ever be. Roosevelt “saved capitalism” by making it more socialist and humanitarian. That to me is the only realistic path to socialism. But even if Obama does turn out to be another “centrist” like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, let me ask you, don’t either Jimmy or Bill look pretty good right now, in comparison with what we have?

Re thebeerdoctor,

For Jersey Girl, troublesum, jackpine savage, etc. I think we have come to some rather grim realizations about the political process, but that is no reason to badger the Obama supporters, no matter how deluded we might think they are. Hey, it is their dream, not mine, and who the hell am I to deny anyone else’s ability to dream?
---------------------------------------------------
beer,

We Obama supporters would say that we are realists and it is you who are dreaming - dreaming of a socialist utopia that will never happen and being eternally frustrated about it, whereas we, on the other hand, are doing practical work to accomplish objectives which can actually be accomplished, moving society forward by getting rid of the fascists and installing a more progressive and less oppressive administration.

Me: “These days, no one who has not fully and credibly signed on to the imperial project is allowed anywhere near the presidency or any other high political office where their views might count.  Obama, of course, has been found completely satisfactory in this regard.”

Cyrena: “I’m not so certain at all, that Obama has been found completely satisfactory by the ruling entity, because I’m convinced that it was never the ‘plan’ for Obama to get anywhere this close to the presidency. I think it caught the dynasties by surprise. In fact, I’m very certain of it. In short, I believe there is much more to see/understand....”

I don’t see this.  Obama seems to have come along politically through the regular channels of the Democratic Party organization.  Since he’s a charmer and probably very smart as well he’s been allowed to take very long steps, but at no time has he been an outsider.  The one big question about his viability as a national candidate was the fact that he is Black, that is, someone who would be perceived by the majority of Americans as what used to be called a “Negro” regardless of his actual ancestry and upbringing (which are actually quite different from those of most Black people).  In a way, then, he lies somewhat athwart American popular tradition, which is that the great leader must be White, male, rich, old, and a Protestant.  But I can’t think of a single instance of his being in overt opposition to the settled policies and practices of the ruling class.  Some might say “Iraq”, but there were plenty of ruling-class types who thought the invasion of Iraq was bad policy or at least highly questionable, and when Obama did get into office he voted to support the war until 2007, when the public had turned completely against it, along with many of the elites.

(One should take care, in the case of Iraq, to separate the judgement that the invasion and occupation were blunders in an otherwise good, even noble policy of world domination, and the rejection of the war as illegal and immoral instance of illegal and immoral principles.)

Obama could be seen as some sort of stealth candidate who, once in office, would surprise everyone with radical policies.  (Some people thought this about Jimmy Carter!) I think a president who did something like that would simply be removed by whatever means was necessary.  Enormous issues of power and wealth are at stake and the players aren’t going to allow an isolated joker to break up the game.  But, again, I don’t see any evidence of the stealth Obama.  I think he is right in the middle, like all the other major politicos.  I think his FISA vote—which was superfluous, practically speaking—was another signal to the ruling class that he is a man they can trust to serve their interests and intentions.

Of course, times are changing rapidly.  It’s quite possible that by the fall we will be in a grinding depression or a new major war, or both.  Maybe Obama will step forth like another Lincoln and save everything.  But if you believe this you’re operating on pure faith; you could as reasonably believe in salvation through the intervention of the unicorns of Ganymede.

By thebeerdoctor, July 14 at 3:42 am #

How someone familiar with “A Peoples History Of The United States” by Howard Zinn, could still support Barack Obama is incomprehensible.
-----------------------------------------------------
beerdoctor,

Zinn is a Marxist whether he calls himself one or not. The Marxist concept of class conflict is valuable, but most people who view politics through this concept are insufficiently dialectical in their thinking. There is no sharp line between “the ruling class” and “the people”. The power of the ruling class is not absolute but limited. Nor is “the ruling class” monolithic but consists of various power centers with shifting alliances. Some are more reactionary and oppressive, some are more progressive and humanitarian. As progressives we should be working together with the progressive elements of the ruling class against the reactionary ones. That, I believe, is what progressives can accomplish by supporting the Obama campaign.

Beerdoctor:  Excellent point. Cyrena’s attitude got the best of me and had me go where I shouldn’t have gone but enough is enough.

I just want to share this article from truthout. I think it represents what many of us are feeling about the democratic nominee. And, this is the last point I’ll make on the subject.

http://www.truthout.org/

Frank:  Excellent post. Thanks.

Frank Goodman Senior makes a very good point. A democratic republic is a continual work in progress. The founding of this country was just for wealthy white men landowners, then eventually, so-called “white trash” were allowed to vote, then blacks, women and aboriginals (as they saw in Australia, or first nation).
For Jersey Girl, troublesum, jackpine savage, etc. I think we have come to some rather grim realizations about the political process, but that is no reason to badger the Obama supporters, no matter how deluded we might think they are. Hey, it is their dream, not mine, and who the hell am I to deny anyone else’s ability to dream?
As I have said, ad nauseum, peace is a living action and that social movement operates outside the confines of any political party. So when it is a matter of peace advocacy, the candidates will always be hauled on the mat.
As for the rest of it, we all should think for ourselves but recognize that none of us has a monopoly on the truth.

Re: cyrena, July 14 at 3:14 am #

Jersey Girl may want to venture a Native America amalgam of the United Tribes of America had the white Europeans not brought their more advanced ideas of superiority to these shores. Had the red men done that, maybe they would not have granted White Europeans and Black Africans and Yellow Asians, citizenship. They may have put us on reservations where we could fight each other to the death.

The miracle of America is not in our White, Christian, European civilization, but in our trend toward equality, justice, and unity. Politics prevented the realization of the dream of the Declaration of Independence, but we have evolved in a way that is a wonder of politics world wide.

Cerena, you may want to examine your premises more carefully. Western Civilization as an evolution of the will of the people over the power of the tyrants, has moved the Native American to legal citizenship by 1924. Note that now the trend of civil rights in the World states is toward full citizenship rights for women, aborigines, immigrants, and marginal people everywhere. There is a long way to go, even in America, but we are on the way. Nobody would have dreamed 50 years ago that ‘gay’ rights would be in the forefront of civic sense in America. Not only have gays come out of the closet—blacks, Native Americans, and many poor people now have closets of their own to go into if they want to hide from prying neighbors and police state thugs.

At any time one can see signs of regression, but if you cannot see signs of progress, maybe you should see your political optometrist. I am the first in my family line to embrace equality and civil rights for all people everywhere. I like to include myself in the civil rights movement, though I have resisted certain trends in ‘rights’, when it seemed that more harm would be done than rights recognized. The letter of the law can be smudged, purposely, for devious mischief. But, overall we have made progress. I challenge anyone to look critically at civil rights CA 1776 and compare with civil rights 2008. The trend continues to move other nations slowly toward the goal of equality, freedom, and justice.

We can moan over the dead bodies denied, or cringe at the tyrants on the move, but we cannot give up the fight for justice even if we have to swallow hard on the quid we have to chew. Washingtons, Lincolns, and Roosevelts are rare. Democrats should not keep Andrew Jackson (See Trail of Tears) on our roles of heroes. Right now my money is on Barack Obama, though I see his flaws more clearly than I see my own.

How someone familiar with “A Peoples History Of The United States” by Howard Zinn, could still support Barack Obama is incomprehensible.

“.. Your defeatists if you say it’s impossible. If our founding fathers thought the way most democratic supporters think today, there would be no united states of america.  Those men were brave enough to break from the status quo and do something DIFFERENT...”

~~~

No Jersey Girl...WRONG AGAIN! The so-called ‘founding fathers were the original globalists, imperialists, and the STATUS QUO. And, that’s the bottom line. This so-called US of America was arranged based on the genocide/massacre of well over a million Native Americans who’d lived here long before.

And, it has CONTINUED SINCE THAT TIME. The USA has been the ‘ultimate agressor’ for Centuries now, so drop the bullshit talking points, because you’re not talking to dummies here.

It’s just more of your ‘creative writing’ and revisionist history, probably because you never learned the real truth to begin with.

What you’re peddling here is the STATUS QUO of the imperialists. Try actually reading some REAL information.

Start with Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History.” It might be challenging, but it’ll still help. Just stick with it, even if it hurts your brain.

Right now, you’re coming across loud and clear as a novice troll who’s been sucked up by the oh so sly wolf. The perfidy of Maani knows no bounds.

trouble: Thanks for the link.  Very revealing piece. Obama is to rezko what bush is to abramoff. It’s never good to lie about your connections to criminals.  The truth always comes out in the end.

So, now it’s in black and white, he is a man who is willing to do anything to get elected.  Another slick politician.  Who woulda thunk it?

troublesum:

Thanks for the NYer link.  Fascinating.  It should be required reading for Cyrena...LOL.

A few things about it that stick.  The Alice Palmer story.  (Forcing everyone but himself off the ticket so he could run unopposed.) The Rezko truths, including that Rezko was an early sponsor, that they spent lots of time together, even spending time at Rezko’s summer retreat.  (This is the same person whom Obama referred to as “that man” during the SC debate, claiming that his “only connection” to “that man” was “5 hours” spent as a “junion attorney” on “one case.” So much for Obama’s honesty.) The fact that Obama had his district re-districted to specifically include Rezko’s ongoing projects.

And this little ditty:

“He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.”

But then, those of us who did not see him through Barack-tinted spectacles knew much of this already.

Peace.

By jersey girl, July 13 at 2:59 pm #

Those of us not caught up in Obama’s sparkling smile like deer in the headlights have already figured this out.
-----------------------------------------------------
jg,

You should be an op-ed writer for them. Sounds like you’re on the same wavelength.

Thank you troublesum for linking to the New Yorker article on Senator Obama. I must say I was not all that surprised, for whatever he is not, one thing he is, a brilliant politician. The late artists Robert Rauschenberg said: “politics is people”, and the kind of heavy duty networking that Barack Obama has performed reveals an ambitious buppie of the first order, ready to take command by any means necessary!
Of course as you are well aware, as a frequent participant on this site, it is difficult for his cadre of true believers to grasp that much of their faith in him is simply their projections.
Which is not to say he could surprise everyone, but that too is a rather silly projection. The people who give him the most money decide his agenda.
Perhaps that is why Senator Clinton lost the primary elections. Too many years in Washington. Too many years in Arkansas. She should have remembered her Chicago roots, where the practice of politics is the meanest game in town. Thank you again.

Sorry,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa _fact_lizza

“Slick Willie” in Chicago: how Obama learned to play the old politics, evolved into a clone of Clinton and beat the Clintons at their own game. http://www.thenewyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/08072 1fa_fact_lizza I don’t know what Obama means by “new politics.” He looks pretty transparent in this article; nothing hidden.  People across the country know nothing about him and are simply projecting on him their own hopes and wishes.  The stores where I usually buy the New Yorker were sold out on this issue as soon as it came in.  People are desperate to find out who the hell he is.

Calibpatriot:  Apparently he has closed the deal for the wall street journal:

“No one has followed Obama’s rightward drift with greater interest and bemusement than the editors of the Wall Street Journal. They have faithfully chronicled all the vacillating, obfuscating and backpedaling and they’ve made up their minds; Obama is marching straight towards the welcoming arms of the Republican Party. That’s right; he’s gradually embracing the conservative platform and abandoning any pretense of liberalism. Two weeks ago the WSJ ran an editorial that summarized Obama’s metamorphosis in an article titled “Bush’s Third Term”

Those of us not caught up in Obama’s sparkling smile like deer in the headlights have already figured this out.

By Anarcissie

• “…you will find that the U.S. ruling class decided on a policy of interventionism, imperialism and world domination back in the 1940s, with as much war, terror and repression as necessary to ensure success…”

Anarcissie,

Thanks so much for the excellent response post. I very much appreciate it. On this portion of it, I certainly agree, and while I’ve not read the book that you recommend, the truth of what you put forth here is certainly contained in numerous others that I have studied. There was a time at an earlier point in my education, when I believed that the last ‘legitimate’ war that the US was involved in was WWII. Now I’m inclined to see it as a policy of interventionism, and probably the beginnings at least, of imperialism and world domination.

Then again, it’s no secret that I believe the West to have been involved in such policies long before that. In short, what is called the “US” was formed on a policy of interventionism, imperialism, and world domination, from the moment the first settler, set foot on our North American Continent. The wars and imperialism haven’t stopped since, and those so-called ‘founders’ of the US have been the instigators of them all.

That said, I agree with your assessment that the Bushes are not unique, nor are the Clintons. And yes, I DO recall Madeline Albright’s despicable claim, as well as Clinton’s war mongering and unilateral interventionism in the former Yugoslavia. That was prompted by as much treachery and deceit as the current and previous adventures of the bush regimes in the Middle East.  The only difference in the Clintons, (or at least William) is that his dynasty roots aren’t quite as deep. Clinton did not have the fortunes amassed in the manner that the Bushes have, going back as far as their European connections to the Hitler regime and the capital that supported it. That is less true for his wife.

But, back to the 1940’s when it kicked in full swing. I’d recommend the work of Hannah Arendt, specifically her “Origins of Totalitarianism”. The ideology of world domination as a goal is well covered there, though she does make a very careful caution about distinguishing Totalitarianism from other forms of Authoritarianism, such as Fascism and various forms of dictatorship. It’s an important distinction, because even Bush I and Clinton were *not* the Authoritarians that the Bush/Cheney regime has become. I didn’t like Bush I at all, but he certainly did not initiate what has become so very close, (closer than we’ve ever been and getting closer) to the fascism that we’ve come to experience under this regime.

My own opinion is that it’s simply too soon to put Obama in any of these categories, and/or to make the same connections. That is of course my own opinion, and clearly at odds with most folks who already have.

For instance, on this:

• “These days, no one who has not fully and credibly signed on to the imperial project is allowed anywhere near the presidency or any other high political office where their views might count.  Obama, of course, has been found completely satisfactory in this regard.”

I’m not so certain at all, that Obama has been found completely satisfactory by the ruling entity, because I’m convinced that it was never the ‘plan’ for Obama to get anywhere this close to the presidency. I think it caught the dynasties by surprise. In fact, I’m very certain of it. In short, I believe there is much more to see/understand about who Barack Obama is and what he is about, but most don’t. It may be too obvious, and therefore easily missed by anyone examining the trees too intently to see the forest. I could make some parallels/analogies to similar circumstances, but they would most certainly be taken out of context, so I’m gonna pass for the moment on that.

Tony:

You said, “And how does the fact that large numbers of young people have registered and have become politically active because they believe in Obama square with this statement?”

You’re smarter than that.  It is those (in both parties) who are NOT newly registered voters who are moving away from their parties.  So depending on how many that is, it could offset (possibly to a large degree) the number of newly registered voters.  As well, even many of the newly registered voters may, despite having become politically active because they believe in Obama (or Clinton or McCain, for that matter), eventually “defect” because they don’t like where their candidate is going.

Jersey Girl’s point is thus well taken here.  And although it is obviously highly unlikely that Nader or McKinney (or Barr or any other third party candidate) has any “chance” of winning, as JG, myself and others have said, it is not about “chances,” it is about voting one’s conscience no matter what the consequences may be.  Because, as has also been said, if Obama loses, he will have no one but himself to blame.

Peace.

RE: jersey girl, July 13 at 7:18 am #

Thanks!

http://home.comcast.net/~fdgsr/Beginning.htm

Frank:  That’s beautiful.  Thank you for the lovely and quite meaningful poetry

Re: cyrena, July 12 at 9:18 pm

“Negotiation with the wind”?

FREE WILL

The racing water rushes to the sea--a restless power yearning to be free.  But a roaring river committed to the fall really hasn’t any choice at all.

The tranquil pond that ripples in the breeze is often subject to a freeze.  And water held behind a wall really hasn’t any choice at all.

The cloudy mist above the earth wafted by the wind in mindless mirth, or battered by a sudden squall, really hasn’t any choice at all.

So, don’t be like the water in the fall; don’t let yourself be dammed behind a wall.  You may have to fight against the wind, or risk your life, your freedom to defend.

Don’t, for the substance of your life, depend on what some other people send.  You could take a better path today, or go astray-- you have a choice--so choose the way!

Frank Goodman The Senior
Copyright © 1988-2008

I have never been opposed to change. What some call change is not change at all. In fact they just want a new boss they can worship. True change is a change of consciousness. A consciousness that will enable you to see your fellow human beings as just that, and the thought of denying their liberty which is living, in the name of some abstract process you call good government, will be seen for what it is. A change of consciousness that will disavow the glib relativism of violence, whether it is John McCain’s boom bomb Iran, or Barack Obama’s wish to “provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power”.
You who participate in this election should rejoice. You can help decide who gets to be in charge of the next round of killings. Peace is a living action, and social movement that will never be dependent on these ridiculous political parties.

cyrena: “I have a difficult time overlooking any of it, since the corruption, unfair taxes, payoffs to big capitalists, and all of the rest is exactly what has led to the worst. The slaughtering of harmless people for the economic gain of a few.

What I’m wondering then, is how you seemingly wait so long to draw your line, (since this stuff has been going on for decades if not centuries) and how you connect Obama to these policies? “

I drew my line a long time ago.  I was about as active against Clinton’s warmongering as both of the Bushes’.  As you may recall, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked about the assertion that Clinton’s various operations against Iraq had led to the deaths of 500,000 children.  Albright’s response?  “We think it is worth it.” That admission was as worthy of prosecution under the charter of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal as anything George W. Bush has done.  But of course nothing will ever be done about it, any more than the people in the Bush administration who are guilty of war crimes will be arraigned and tried.

But the Bushes and Clinton are hardly unique.  If you read some history—I recommend Dean Atcheson’s _Present_At_The_Creation_ for a start—you will find that the U.S. ruling class decided on a policy of interventionism, imperialism and world domination back in the 1940s, with as much war, terror and repression as necessary to ensure success.  Their attitude was “Someone’s got to do it, and we’re the nicest guys around, so it’s got to be us.” There were still a few Republican holdouts against this view in the 1950s, but that was the end of the non-marginal resistance.  Even Barry Goldwater wanted to “lob one into the men’s room of the Kremlin.” These days, no one who has not fully and credibly signed on to the imperial project is allowed anywhere near the presidency or any other high political office where their views might count.  Obama, of course, has been found completely satisfactory in this regard.  It was pretty odd to see him presented as an anti-war candidate, although I guess it was no odder than it was with Kerry four years ago.

I am not sure (or at least, I’m not as sure as Lenin was) about the connection of capitalism, corrupt or not, to imperialism.  Capitalism has always required a strong state to thrive, and the logic of the state leads directly to imperialism, so I suppose there is some theoretical justification for that view.  There are arguments on the other side as well.  I tend to think we could have capitalism without imperialism, but it would require a different public sensibility—one in which murder, terror and torture were deemed definitely not all right even when practiced on swarthy foreigners.  If I could convince people of that, I think it would lead to revolutionary change.  But so far it’s been mostly spitting into the wind.

maani: Thanks for the kind words. Let’s make it happen shall we? (the revolution, not the marriage..I don’t think my b/f would approve..lol)

Tony:
“And how does the fact that large numbers of young people have registered and have become politically active because they believe in Obama square with this statement?”

For starters Tony, you’re right in saying that many young people “believe” in Obama.  They are following him strictly because of his charismatic personality.  They certainly have nothing concrete to support him on.  Especially with his latest statements that prove him to be nothing about change and all about keeping the status quo. Bush’s status quo.  But then, one can’t be too hard on them, there are young people who believe in santa and the easter bunny too. Seriously though, I think many of those younger voters who are really paying attention to what he’s saying and not all caught up in the “cult of obama” are getting quite disillusioned.  You just have to check out various blogs and comments left on youtube to know that.  I wonder what kind of young cult following McCain has? Where are all the republican kids going that are fed up with bush? Oh right, Ron Paul.  So there’s that group of very enthusiastic voters too.  In fact, many dems & independents favor him as well. (I personally could never support him but he does have a huge following.)

And lets talk about Obama and his support.  How much money has he received from investment bankers, and the health care, telecom and nuclear power industry? Who stands behind him? The guy has spent millions on his campaign and we’re only into mid july.  His face is all over our tv screens and magazines and the talking heads are always discussing him.  He does indeed have a cult like following because he has been projected forward and built up by the main sream media.  Tv is the only way you get many voters to pay attention, isnt it?  So, Obama has had all the benefits any candidate can possibly be awarded. No wonder he’s got a large following, especially compared to mr. walking death mccain.

Yet, with Obama having every possible perk of a campaign allotted to him, Ralph Nader has still garnered, having spent very little money and with very little airtime, 6% of the vote already.  If he gets that magical number of 10%, he will be able to debate Osame and McInsane in the google debates. You can laugh, saying that’s a small number but not when you consider the constant face time and money spent of the other candidates.  If Nader gets a chance to debate then you will see who the serious candidate for the people is.  Nader also has a huge number of young followers, mostly garnered from the internet as does Cynthia McKinney of the green party.

Obama is showing his true self to the voters, young and old and in between.  He pretends to be all things to all people.  His tune changes with each group he is speaking in front of.  If that’s what you and the young people of america want for a leader well, go for it.  As for me, no way.  I want REAL change. And I want a REAL leader. I’m working to make that happen on my end.  This can happen nothing short of a revolution and that can start with showing the dirty dems and republicans at the voting booth that there are large numbers of us who are tired of the political shell game and phony candidates.

So to sum it up, I think many people will be voting outside their former political parties this time around in larger numbers than our country has ever seen before.  Whether it’s for Nader, McKinney, Ron Paul or the other 3rd party candidates.  I’m working hard to make that happen. 

The rest of you can join the “revolution” or you can continue to make excuses for and vote for a man who has given away your right to privacy with his vote that gave Herr Bush exactly what he wanted.

Well Beerdoc,

Nice summary of the US history of war, since space is limited, and therefore could not include ALL of it.

It’s certainly not NEW information, but can obviously provide a look at previous and current trends.

I reject your particular ‘absolute’ predictions though. Such predictions speak to an arrogance, even though it is of a defeatist flavor. It goes with your determination to prevent change. As long as you can say that it is impossible, (even in your own mind) you’ve ‘concluded’ that it can’t happen.

That’s an unalterable contradiction, because the fact is that change DOES happen, whether you want it to or not. Directing the nature of it, or navigating the elements of it takes some guts, and for many people, it’s easier to just say that ‘they’ won’t let us.

For them, there will always be one reason or another, why change cannot take place, even as it does.

Go figure.

Re: Iraq Withdrawal
It is not just supporters of Senate Obama, it is the entire American political system. American commitment to dubious projects remains steadfast, despite disastrous consequences. President Truman used the greatest terrorist weapon the world had ever seen because having to answer for spending all that money on The Manhattan Project and not using it, would have been political suicide. The same can be said of the so-called war in Vietnam, from Lyndon Johnson’s desire to not be the first U.S. President to lose a war, to Richard Nixon’s peace with honor. One thing is certain, whoever becomes the next president: there will be no withdrawal from Iraq. The re-corporatization of that country’s resource is already in progress. Congressional language such as H.J. Res. 362, which is essentially a neo-declaration of war with Iran, assures that there will be many boots on the ground, planes in the air, to protect the giant emerald city embassy and our strategic partners in the petroleum industry.

By Anarcissie

I could overlook corruption, unfair taxes, payoffs to big capitalists, and the usual surfeit of lies, sententiousness and sanctimony we get from politicos, but I can’t overlook slaughtering harmless people for the sake of transitory political expediency and economic gain.  Everyone has to draw the line somewhere and that’s where I draw mine.

~~~
I have a difficult time overlooking any of it, since the corruption, unfair taxes, payoffs to big capitalists, and all of the rest is exactly what has led to the worst. The slaughtering of harmless people for the economic gain of a few.

What I’m wondering then, is how you seemingly wait so long to draw your line, (since this stuff has been going on for decades if not centuries) and how you connect Obama to these policies?

Thanks for the link to Menard’s piece I’d read it long ago, but it is certainly worth a repeat. It is yet another theoretical analysis, and certainly worth considering and contemplating.

As an aside, (and yes, another repeat, at least for me in reference to these forums)…there is no agreed upon definition of right/left/conservative/liberal. Nor are there political parties that attach themselves or can otherwise be defined by these terms. Not now, and it’s been that way for a very long time.

Rather, what our body politic has represented over the past decades is center to radical. There are varying degrees between the center and the radical, and our current administration is the most radical/extreme as we’ve seen in several lifetimes/decades. Practically and realistically speaking, the center is always the most effective place from which to conduct any effective operation. That’s what the nucleus of science is. Societies generally form themselves around a center. It’s a concept as old as dirt. It has its negative effects when things go wrong, and the balance is disrupted, or the periphery is cut off and then lost.

Now one could argue that it is NOT the ‘center’ but rather the ‘foundation’ that keeps the whole alive, such as Tony mentioned in the pyramid analogy of the ancient Egyptians, where we can equate the larger society at the bottom, (as the foundation) but still wind up with a ruling class at the tiny top. In that analogy, it is difficult to understand how that tiny portion at the top, can manage to hold power over the stronger foundation. Theoretically, it would seem that the tiny point at the top of the pyramid would be far more exposed to destruction than the foundation.  But that hasn’t happened, if we use that as the analogy for how we are politically structured now, in what is and has basically always been, a top down control.

Just some things to ponder, but the most important thing is that mixing these analogies isn’t an easy thing, nor is it for armatures. It’s for thinkers, and as you, Menard, and several others have indicated, most Americans don’t.

Re: Frank Goodman Sr.

Your post # 168769 says it all and the this sums it up quite eloquently

• “To correct course is not waffling, but flat out honesty. The captain has to ride out a calm and steer into the wind, while using the sails to move forward. The rare sailor can move forward against the wind. “

I would add a deftness and flexibility to the absolute requirements for any captain of any ship. One must use the sails to negotiate with the winds. Unless there is that constant adjustment is at work, at best the entire ship flounders without any motion whatsoever, eventually begins to take on water and inevitably sinks, hopefully after everyone has had time to make it to safety. At worst, the whole thing crashes, king everyone with it.

Flat out honesty, (which I frequently reference as reality or realism) is ALWAYS the more difficult but only effective choice.

~~~

Beer doctor..

This is the truth that no Obama supporter can answer. How is the United States going to withdraw from Iraq when it has already spent over $1 billion on building the infamous Baghdad embassy, known as “the city within the city”. Combine this with the air bases being constructed across Iraq, what would a President Obama do, just abandon them? Of course not.

I disagree that no Obama supporter can answer this question, though I agree with the reality of it. How are we to withdraw after all of this stuff that only some of you seem to be noticing now, as opposed to when it was being accomplished. How indeed?

Well, I’ve answered this question many times. We just DO it. It’s been my own suggestion since long before it became a reality. Just LEAVE Iraq. But that Embassy and all of those bases continued to be constructed anyway. Guess nobody much cared at the time, besides that handful of us shouting into the wind. Those bases aren’t ‘being constructed’…THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED.

The torture, the violation of the Geneva Conventions has been on-going for nearly 8 years. Can an “Obama supporter” suggest (as I have for 8 years, which is long before Obama became a candidate in need of constituent support) that the US should stop violating the laws and committing crimes against humanity? Of course I can. Am I consoled by the fact that Obama has long ago addressed said the same thing, at the very beginning of his candidacy? Such as when he made it clear that “Torture is NEVER acceptable” or that the US would NOT have permanent military bases in Iraq in his presidency? Yes. I am. I believe him when he says those things.

And how are we to leave Iraq, and all of that blood and money spent there? We just do. How and how soon an Obama administration would accomplish that is the part that Obama supporters cannot answer, in part because even he cannot answer that, until he has a full compliment of information, and can continue to measure facts on the ground, as well as the will and wishes of the Iraqis. No, we cannot provide the logistical answers to how this should be accomplished. At least I can’t. Maybe you could do better.

Re jersey girl, July 12 at 7:56 am #

Well, at least we can take comfort in the fact that the numbers of people disenchanted with the mainstream political parties is growing.
-----------------------------------------------------
jg,

And how does the fact that large numbers of young people have registered and have become politically active because they believe in Obama square with this statement?

In regard to ideology and voting, there is an article worth reading in the on-line New Yorker: Louis Menand’s “The Unpolitical Animal”, which appeared during the 2004 election.  URL: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/08/30/040830crat _atlarge

One of the things Menand points out is that only a small portion of the electorate vote according to ideology, principle, policy, or the records and characters of the candidates.  Many hypotheses and conclusions can be drawn from the scientific evidence; one is that most people don’t think coherently about such matters.

That being the case, there does not seem to be any way of positively identifying Americans as rightists, or on the other hand of talking about potential, presumably leftish, revolution.  When questioned, most people display a hodgepodge of beliefs, often conflicting with one another.  In fact, as Menand notes, they often entertain directly contradictory beliefs about the same subject.  And, as the Obama phenomenon shows, they are certainly willing to hope and believe where there is little or no evidence.

Under these circumstances, it does not look to me as if large elections are going to accomplish anything positive.  They might sometimes give us a lesser evil, or inhibit a greater one.  Beyond that, I think one must, as Gandhi or one of them said, “Become the change you want to see in the world” and work with individuals and small groups to plant and cultivate relationships and institutions which are non-violent, non-dominating alternatives to the ones we are now subjected to.

troublesum,

This much seems to me common sense: Now is not the time to attack Obama. Now is the time to crush the Repiglicans. After the election we can attack him and push our agendas all we want. At this time his election should be our common objective.
The way I see it there is a struggle among the powers that be and we want to back the more progressive ones against the more reactionary ones. Dennis Kucinich was unable to get enough power back of him to succeed in his run for president - both not enough support from the ruling class, and not enough popular support either. His gallant effort was somewhat ahead of his time. Nevertheless I hope he will gain influence in an Obama administration as Democrats in general start to feel that the people are strongly behind them and lose their fear of political retaliation, and that he might even succeed in prosecuting members of the Bush adminstration for war crimes. If that happens, Dennis belongs on Mt. Rushmore as far as I’m concerned.

Jersey Girl:

Your July 12, 5:37 am post should be required reading not just for the seemingly brainwashed Obamabots, but for everyone, particular students of American history.  It is among the most succinct and perfect assessments of the situation that I have read thus far on any thread on TD - or, for that matter, almost anywhere.

Two comments bear repeating:

“What they [staunch Obama supporters] fail to realize is that we could start a HUGE but bloodless revolution at the voting box in november by voting OUTSIDE THE PARTY. Republicans are disgusted with their party as well.  Imagine if they voted for the libertarian or the constitutionalist instead of McInsane?”

“Your defeatists if you say it’s impossible. If our founding fathers thought the way most democratic supporters think today, there would be no united states of america...How about you dig out that programming chip and think outside the box and work to defeat the one party system that has not served you well at all.”

Brava!  I think I want to marry you...LOL.

Peace.

We’re allowed choices at the mall, not in the voting booth.

In a nation of 325 million people there should be ten major candidates running for president.  In this particular race Obama and McCain would be identified as unabashed corportate candidates.  There would also be liberals, traditional conservatives, libertarians, socialists, marxists, environmentalist - green cadidates.  But that would be democracy and we can’t have that.  These other parties now have token candidates because they have been written off by the powers that be.

Much is written on the tendency for American politics to drift toward the middle. After each political party deals with it, the issue is again attacked in a general election where it is attacked again with only two representatives of the great middle and a few marginal misfits to define the extremes. Ideally the average voter does not know anything and votes like a toss of the coin with a zero sum. Enough knowing voters are supposed to make the right choice. It does not always work that way, but it is the best process we can come up with to elect a leader of 300,000,000 people in our camp.

Not only is each major party candidate motivated to influence his constituencies, but each candidate is influenced by his constituencies. An ear to the wind and another to the ground is good politics, even if not good sense. I do not know of any politician who got elected because of any sense other than the ability to tune his campaign to the windy issues and the earthy issues.

I have never voted in my life for any candidate who represented perfectly to a letter my own political preferences. I never found one and have never read of one. I find value in a candidate who is deft enough to recognize, when he is going against the majority without enough power in his delivery to bring them to his side, to modify his own delivery on the issues. To correct course is not waffling, but flat out honesty. The captain has to ride out a calm and steer into the wind, while using the sails to move forward. The rare sailor can move forward against the wind.

In fact, it is my fervent hope that Obama is enough of a statesman to abandon enough pure political nonsense to change his position on some real issues after the election. If not, there will be another election and other candidates. Obama cannot lead without seeming to follow his electorate. Only a certain amount of personal loyalty is tolerable. Ask Rev. Wright.

So, yes, we have always had a ruling class, but that does not mean we cannot also have effective democratic safeguards to prevent or ameliorate abuses of power. The U.S. Constitution, which though it starts “we the people”, was in fact written by members of the post-revolutionary U.S. ruling class in the name of “the people”, that is by property owners, including slave owners, and by men whose social position afforded the opportunity for leisure and intellectual development, is still a historic accomplishment. Class conflict is also a matter of degree. An absolutely classless society is the same thing as an absolutely just society, and this is an abstraction, or if you like a Platonic ideal or form which does not exist in the real world, yet it is indeed that absolute measure by which we judge the worth of every society on this planet, and on which we ultimately must base all our political actions.

Re Outraged, July 11 at 11:28 pm #
Re: Tony Wicher

Your quote: “My understanding is that the “ruling class” is not monolithic but consists of competing interests. I would say that the most sinister elements of the rulin