Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"there are NO DIFFERENCES between the two major parties"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:21 PM
Original message
"there are NO DIFFERENCES between the two major parties"
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 12:39 PM by welshTerrier2
well, that's an easy one to refute ... of course there are differences ... Democrats believe that government can be used to solve problems; republicans believe government is the problem ... that's a hugh difference ...

Democrats believe in human liberation - we are pro-choice, we believe gays should have EQUAL RIGHTS, we believe lack of money should not deprive people from obtaining an education, obtaining healthcare or obtaining a reasonable standard of living after retirement ...

Democrats believe in programs like Medicare and Social Security - clearly, republicans do not ...

But not so fast there my Democratic compadres ... omitted thus far is an analysis of foreign policy and the domestic implications it imposes ... and here, as far as i can see, there may very well be little or no difference between the parties ...

Take a look at "the war on terror" ... now they're calling it "the long war" ... remember the old Country Joe song: "and it's one, two, three What are we fighting for?"

Do Democrats have an answer? Does the Democratic Party support, or oppose, the war on terror? It's easy to accept a "retaliatory response" for the loss of innocent civilian lives on 9/11 ... It's more than understandable for the Democratic Party to support the use of force against Al Qaeda in a very directed response ... for the purposes of this thread, i'll ignore the entire sphere of 9/11 conspiracy theories neither endorsing them NOR rejecting them ...

Since 9/11, with the full support of the Democratic Party, we have witnessed a massive military mobilization ... No longer are we talking about a targeted response against "a very tall figure riding around on horseback surrounded by a hundred, or two hundred, Al Qaeda operatives" ... that would be a "directed response" ... no longer are we focused on "taking out the Taliban" because they provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda ...

The Democratic Party, against the wishes of most DU'ers i believe, wholeheartedly endorses "the war on terror" ... The Democratic Party wholeheartedly endorses the massive military mobilization ... and sadly, the Democratic Party refuses to stand up and call the "long war", i.e. the war on terror, what it really is ...

The war on terror, advertised as "protecting America from terrorists", is a blatant excuse to build military bases all over the world and project American military power to control foreign markets and foreign governments ...

But let's return, with the added focus on the war on terror, to the original question ... is there a meaningful difference between the parties?

The answer now is not nearly as clear ... The great programs Democrats created for the common man are being bankrupted by America's massive military mobilization ... We cannot possibly continue on this path ... as an aside to our budget woes, check out: www.time-bomb.org ...

Democrats, believing they need to establish their "macho credibility", refuse to challenge the defense budget ... The result? Democrats have no plan to return the country to fiscal sanity ... The objection to this statement comes quickly but erroneously: "Yeah, but Clinton left office with a budget surplus" ... Well, I commend him for that ... Are Democrats calling for the defense budget to be cut back to Clintonian levels? Or are they every bit as responsible for the massive military mobilization that is bankrupting our treasury and threatening the very institutions Democrats claim to support?

In the end, there are deep and important philosophical differences between the two major parties ... but, in the end, the differences will be irrelevant if we bankrupt our nation with insane military spending and an unnecessary "long war" ... The Democratic Party needs a new agenda less we succumb to one party rule ... we cannot have both "guns and butter"; if we refuse to choose, we're going to lose ...


source: http://www.tomhayden.com/GJ1.htm

The Democratic Party, whatever doubts it may harbor, will remain devoted to the war on terrorism, including spending for a new generation of weapons and reinvigorated intelligence programs, as long as it is popular. The framework of the war on terrorism will be accepted as the litmus test of political legitimacy, and partisan differences will be limited to social security, unemployment benefits, Enron-inspired regulatory reform, and the like. Those differences are not unimportant, but the truth is that spending alone on the war on terrorism will cause permanent underfunding of important social programs for many years to come. For the Democrats to offer themselves as simply a liberal version of the war on terrorism will not address the root causes nor protect programs for which earlier generations of liberals, unionists, and Democrats have struggled.

The same bipartisan lockstep politics dominated the Cold War era of the ’50s. Democrats stood for civil rights and progressive domestic issues, but blindly accepted the doctrine that “politics ends at the water’s edge” until the anti-Vietnam movement finally shattered the consensus. It will take the same popular discontent in the years ahead to shake the Democrats and challenge the framework of the war on terrorism. At first, that discontent will arise from a prophetic minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hooookay ........
First thing that comes up for me is the whole big issue of the 'War On Terror®'. I think, superficially, you're correct. The Dems have largely accepted the terminology and largely have argued, not so much against the bullshit, but rather, they would have done it differently. Or better. Or whatever. And to me, those framings have 'consultant' written all over them.

I will make but one citation as an example of a Dem who actually *didn't* see it that way. John Kerry said he saw it as more a law enforcement or ploice matter. He was probably right to have said that. he was also skewered for having done so. There are other examples of similar sentiment from other Dems.

But here's the thing. While that is a valid perspective - and quite likely the best and most correct one - after Kerry got his ass (Right-) handed to him. everyone else backed off, preferring instead to go with the vernacular shorthand (War on Terror®) because people understood that ..... sorta. Much as we all know the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, they have very successfully been sufficiently conflated and muddied, that it is nearly impolssible to heard when making a distinction.

Then there's the issue of the reality then and the reality now. To have gone into Iraq was wrong. Period. What to do *now*, with today's reality, is a bit more debatable. B ut to even discuss that gets back to the whole common understanding of the War on Terror® to include Iraq.

So I'm not so sure we have a difference of opinion with the people you're citing so much as we have a difficulty in getting said *clearly* what you (and I) want to hear. This is, in my view, as much an issue of stolen vocabulary as anything else.

Now, when we look at votes, sort of the same fucked up logic is at work. As the War on Terror® has been conflated with Iraq, so has Support the Troops® been conflated with continual funding of the adventitious bullshit that is, in actuality the Iraq War®. No one wants to be seen as *unsupportive* of The Troops®. And so they vote. Most of them for continued funding.

I know, I know ..... none of these are suffiently good reasons. And I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying it is what's going on.

Maybe the difference between their elected folks and our elected folks is a matter of spine. Or at least a willingness to fight hard, fight dirty, and win at all costs, just for the sake of winning.

Maybe ......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You hit on alot of it right there - Kerry SHOULD have won on alot of his
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 03:35 PM by blm
arguments but most other Democrats were not speaking up and giving him any backup on the TRUTH he was speaking. Bush had McCain, Giuliani, Dole and any GOP he wanted to speak up on all the shows for him, and they made themselves more comfortable LYING for Bush than any Dem could show some spine and speak the truth WITH Kerry.

Where were all the great "fighting" Dems we hear about here on DU all the time? Where were they when crucial truths needed PUBLIC BACKUP during the 2004 election?

Clark was an unknown and he repped Kerry on alot of the issues, but he couldn't do it all every day and every night. Where were the officeholder Dems and the big name Dems? Hell, Clinton spent half his TV time SUPPORTING Bush's handling of the WOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yup, when it **really** could have made a difference, not too many .....
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 03:30 PM by Husb2Sparkly
..... were out there backing Kerry up.

This thread is about a larger issue, but in many ways, this sort of (lack of) behavior is a big part of our problem and a big reason for the OP to even see the need to ask such a question. I *always* thought that too many of our action figures were way too silent when some support would have had a chance to make a difference.

And if you hold that to be true, then the question that follows has to be 'why'.

Sympathy or support for what Il Dunce is trying to do? Generally, I don't think so.

Personal aspiration? I think this is a huge reason for it. Maybe the whole reason. Again, just as but one example, Sen. Clinton was pretty quiet back then. True enough, her husband had just undergone open heart surgery, but even when he went out on the stump toward the end, where was she? Where were our usual big mouths? Biden? Feisnstein? Daschle? Gephart? Etc. etc. etc. Seems to me Kerry's only reliable point men/surrogates were Cleland and Clark. That just isn't right.

And look around today. Same thing. The titular leaders like Pelosi and Reid come out for the party (as opposed to the person) from time to time, but the rest? They may say something here or there, but their words *in support of the party* never seem to get to *my* ears. What I *do* hear are speeches associated clearly with their 08 aspirations.

edit to fix a typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Exactly my point. Big name "fighting" dems left mostly unknown Dems
do the most lifting for the Dem ticket, and one was in a wheelchair. And it happens on almost every issue. Kerry was left with only a few Dems supporting Downing Street Memo investigation, and giving muscle on Alito, Kerry and Murtha had few joining them on withdrawal from Iraq, while Feingold has only a few supporting him on censure. There are only a few reliable fighters in the group - and I mean ones prepared to give VOCAL, muscled back up to other Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Republicans believe in government also
All my life the only thigs Republicans have offered are more programs. Republicans and conservatives talking small government is just rhetorhic.

The only differences I see are in the base of each party. The heads have all gone rotten. There is much that I respect as far as the Dem base goes (though the fake liberals in the party are another story). There are few Dems at the top that I really respect and much of that is marjinal respect.

The last two years have shown me nothing as far as this current crop of Dems are concerned. I'm talking about issues relating to NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, Welfare Reform, Bankruptsy reform and the war in Iraq. Much of this stuff goes back to economic issues which I feel this country as a whole has taken a sharp right turn.

It's not so much the social issues but the economic issues that have me concerned right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. But another factor that's easy to overlook...
OK, maybe the politicians with their lobbyists and corporate backers smell alike. But I THINK the key difference is in the grassroots.

If anyone can look at the volunteers/local delegates/activists of the Democrats and Republicans and a) write them off as irrelevant and b) conclude they're all the same, they need a serious head check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Irrelevant is probably not fair. But while the grass roots are
demonstrating and having get out the vote parties, the wealthy are buying Congressmen and Senators and media, and voting machines, and gerrymandering. I am a volunteer and local activist but don't delude myself in believing that big money won't win. They will silence the internet next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skeeters2525 Donating Member (159 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. Did Gore Invade Iraq
Didn't think so. So let the air out of your Ralph Nader blow-up doll and get a life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Nice
That raises the discussion to a higher plane.

Okay ... you disagree with the OP. we get that.

You got a reason or are you happy simply to throw out a few stupid words strung together to appear like a thought and then move on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. in the words of YOUR "blow-up doll" - next time, check your facts
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 05:03 PM by welshTerrier2
i assume you've heard more than enough from me ... so, allow me to offer the counsel provided to the nation by YOUR hero in his very own words from his speech to the CFR on 2/12/02:


source: http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343

The Axis of Evil

I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal with root causes of this threat?

Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an “Axis of Evil.” As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name. <skip>

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.
<skip>
</div>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I propose this to deflate the balloon
Its a good article on class and the 2000 election.

A CAMPAIGN WITHOUT CLASS

By Howard Zinn

There came a rare amusing moment in this election campaign when George Bush (who has $220 million dollars for his campaign) accused Al Gore (who has only $170 million dollars) of appealing to 'class warfare'. It recalled the 1988 election campaign when Bush's father (is this a genetic disorder?) accused candidate Michael Dukakis of instigating class antagonism.

I noticed that neither of the accused responded with a defiant "Yes, we have classes in this country." Only Ralph Nader has dared to suggest that this country is divided among the rich, the poor, and the nervous in between. This kind of talk is unpardonably rude, and would be enough to bar him from the televised debates.

We have learned that we mustn't talk of class divisions in this country. It upsets our political leaders. We must believe that we are one family - me and Exxon, you and Microsoft, the children of the CEOs and the children of the janitors. Our interests are the same - that's why we speak of going to war "for the national interest" as if it was in all our interest; why we maintain an enormous military budget for "national security," as if our nuclear weapons strengthen the security of all and not the securities of some.

That's why our culture is soaked in the idea of patriotism, which is piped into our consciousness from the first grade, where we begin every day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance "…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". I remember stumbling over that big word "indivisible" -- with good reason, although I didn't know the reason, being quite politically backward at the age of six. Only later did I begin to understand that our nation, from the start, has been divided by class, race, national origin, has been beset by fierce conflicts, yes, class conflicts, all through our history.

The culture labors strenuously to keep that out of the history books, to maintain the idea of a monolithic, noble "us" against a shadowy but unmistakably evil "them." It starts with the story of the American Revolution, and, as the recent movie THE PATRIOT tells us once more, (kindergarten history, put on screen for millions of viewers), we were united in glorious struggle against British rule. The mythology surrounding the Founding Fathers is based on the idea that we Americans were indeed one family, and that our founding document, the Constitution, represented all our interests, as declared proudly by the opening words of its preamble - "We, the people of the United States…."

It may therefore seem surly for us to report that the American Revolution was not a war waged by a united population. The hundred and fifty years leading up to the Revolution were filled with conflict, yes, class conflict -- servants and slaves against their masters, tenants against landlords, poor people in the cities rioting for food and flour against profiteering merchants, mutinies of sailors against their captains. Thus, when the Revolutionary War began, some colonists saw the war as one of liberation, but many others saw it as the substitution of one set of rulers for another. As for black slaves and Indians, there was little to choose between the British and the Americans.

This class conflict inside the Revolution came dramatically alive with mutinies in George Washington's army. In 1781, after enduring five years of war (casualties in the Revolution exceeded, in proportion to population, American casualties in World War II), over a thousand soldiers in the Pennsylvania line at Morristown, New Jersey, mostly foreign-born, from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, mutinied. They had seen their officers paid handsomely, fed and clothed well, while the privates and sergeants were fed slop, marched in rags without shoes, paid in virtually worthless Continental currency or not paid at all for months. They were abused, beaten, whipped by their officers for the smallest breach of discipline.

Their deepest grievance was that they wanted out of the war, claiming their terms of enlistment had expired, and they were kept in the army by force. They were aware that in the spring of 1780 eleven deserters of the Connecticut line in Morristown were sentenced to death but at the last minute the received a reprieve, except for one of them, who had forged discharges for a hundred men. He was hanged.

General Washington, facing by this time, 1700 mutineers - a substantial part of his army -- assembled at Princeton, New Jersey, decided to make concessions. Many of the rebels were allowed to leave the army, and Washington asked the governors of the various states for money to deal with the grievances of the soldiers. The Pennsylvania line quieted down.

Continued;

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-09/30zinn.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC