NOT about NH: Three problems for any Democratic President

(Note. I wrote this without knowing the outcome in NH. The post has nothing to do with NH.)

Here is a thought experiment. Ask yourself if the American middle class, the American experiment in representative democracy, and you personally can survive four more years of The Status Quo. "The status quo" is not a buzzword; it is a harsh reality that increasingly crushes the life out of the American middle class.

Most DUers don't have to have it spelled out that getting rid of the middle class will immediately be followed by getting rid of democracy. Most DUers are also aware of the history of hyperinflation followed by depression that paved the way for fascism in Germany. It is this history that I want to explore.

Time out while everyone gets a grip.

This is not going to be about Nazis, but about the reasons for the fall of the weak democracy of Weimar Germany. No conclusions will be drawn because the two situations are different in too many ways. Instead, a series of questions will be asked, based on (gasp) actual history. History has value in itself; and its time we Democrats start talking up the value of genuine (as opposed to propagandistic) history in a democracy.

----





I do not claim to be have any more knowledge of Weimar than what I picked up from studying about WW2. However, I just finished the recent book "Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy", by Eric Weitz. All the quotes below are from that book. I hope no one finds these quotes, which come from the summary at the end of the book, controversial.

After each quote, I ask some questions whose relevance to today's situation I hope is obvious. If you can tear yourself away from gloating, whining, bashing, or handicapping the horse race, I would be interested in any answers you care to provide. Thank you.

----

1. The active hostility and open, unapologetic maneuvering against a legitimate democracy by well-funded rightwing organizations and politicians



How is your Democratic candidate going to deal with what is certain to be the outright hostility and active sabotage of the hard right, which has been enriched and emboldened by eight years of Bush?

How is your candidate going to get rid of the hundreds of moles from Regents University and other fundie madrassas that have placed into the civil service?

How is your candidate going to deal with the fundmenatlists nutcases placed into high positions in the military, and especially, the nuclear armed Air Force?

What is your candidate going to do about Blackwater and the scary mercenary-fundamentalist axis, coupled with the new executive power granted by the Patriot Act and the Military Commisions Act?

How is your candidate going to stop the outsourcing that enriches businesses and asphyxiates business's opponents, the middle class?

2. The extreme political polarization



Will your candidate try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Will your candidate talk about the immense and heavily-documented imbalance of political commentators in the corporate media?

Will your candidate reverse FCC rulings about media concentration? Pass Net Neutrality into Law?

What will your candidate do about those "faith-based initiatives" which are patently un-constitutional?

Will your candidate attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of fundamentalist preachers who insert themselves into politics (advocating assasination, crusade, war, etc) or carry out political recruitment within their churches?

Will your candidate finally bring the weight of the government to bear against creationist/ID nonsense, and the general reactionary tactic of "teaching the controversy" for the express purpose of undermining the authority of its opponents?


3. The lukewarm defense of the Constitution by rightwing operatives within the government



Will your candidate play hardball about judicial nominations at all levels?

Will your candidate fix the corruption of the voting process, whether by laws or administrative actions or both? How?

What will your candidate do to deal with out of control campaign finance, lobbyists, and media influence?

Will your candidate get the Climate Change deniers out of positions of power?

Will your candidate put teeth into the myriad investigations into corruption in the military, in the financial industry, in Homeland Security boondoggles and incompetence, etc, no matter where the chips fall?

on all of your points! These issues are the crux of the problem (the manifold ways in which our government has been corrupted and compromised to the core).

but, from this time forward, its going to be nothing but horse race. I am already sick of horse race.

Thanks for reading and responding. From the counters, you are the only reader (besides me).

But, I shouldn't be so quick to judge. Maybe some candidate supporters want to have a substantive discussion. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese. Maybe the chief rabbi of Jerusalem like pork.

arendt

...if my candidate is a Democrat. And that, it seems, is what I have to settle for right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Lou Dobbs: Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Lou Dobbs: Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

not talk down another.

I wanted to keep this positive, because there is so much negativity out there.

I hope you can agree, and post something positive by whoever you might support.

Thanks

arendt

...who hopes to attain to the office of President. But our first problem is that debates are carefuly-orchestrated media pablum, and none of your concerns are being addressed by any candidate except in glowing, "visionary" terms.

John Edwards continues to address the issue of poverty and corporate malfeasance, when he gets a chance to say *anything*, but I fear the entrenched right-wing/Fundie elements have a death grip on the country, and I fear it will take something as serious as Germany's fall to bring us back to center. Edwards talks about taking on corporate corruption, but the first piece of corporate corruption that needs addressing is the corruption of our elections, and there's a great silence on that subject from all the candidates. And I really think the Wellstone factor has to weigh heavily on the decisions of any candidate to speak out before having any real power to effect change. I heard Dennis Kucinich say, in 2004, that "fear is palpable in the halls of Congress." Even the least-compromised candidates, with the highest ideals, are faced with a machine that is bigger than their aspirations. Nothing is gained if they put themselves in front of a tank, in front of our own political "Tianenman Square," except to inspire a vision that may resonate with future generations, along with the mythology of our founding fathers and their actions to create our democracy.

Every question in your article must be addressed, if we are to survive, and yet it's impossible for any of us to say what our candidate will do because they deal in lofty metaphors to get elected, and then have to deal with the reality of a sold-out Congress -- while being sold out themselves, in many ways.

I'm sitting here making a circular argument which does nothing to contribute to the process you tried to start, other than to say how hopeless it all looks. Germany has been through its downfall and new birth into a modern and mature state. America seems to be in its rebellious adolescence, and I despair of seeing her grow to adulthood in my lifetime.

Your attempt to stir meaningful political discourse is much appreciated.

One probably has to work through the hopelessness of CONVENTIONAL politics in the current crisis before one can move on to something that might work - or at least isn't simply working hard for people who are selling you out. As someone from the black community said: we have lost our party, now all we have is our movement.

arendt

...our current system of party politics. Black people built a movement out of despair and a determination to hope, in spite of all kinds of evidence that hope was a foolish concept. I/We can take a page from their playbook.

I often wonder if human enlightenment ever comes without suffering first. There are days when my greatest hope is to see a major breakdown of systems, so that rebuilding can occur. But that's ivory-tower idealism. I like my comfortable condo, cooking my three-squares a day (because the food is available to do it), my books and my movies. I fantasize about living off the grid, and I would be someone who could adapt to a scaled-down lifestyle more than some (I'm old enough to remember my grandmother washing clothes with a wash board in the mid-40s, and using a real *icebox*), but that's a dream from a nice warm living room.

In some ways, though, I think we're going to have to "live off the grid" politically to ever get our country back on track.

We are constantly told that DU is not typical of America as a whole, that it's more politically aware and more liberal than the average random group of Americans.

If that's the case, if the average American is LESS politically aware and LESS liberal than the average DUer, then we're in even worse trouble than you suggest.

Ever since the MSM (the CON/ME as one poster has so aptly described them) began covering the upcoming election, DUers en masse have indulged in the following:

1) Shouting out pairs of candidates' names and giving only demographic reasons for doing so. "Obama/Clinton" "No, Clinton/Obama, because she has more experience," "No, Edwards/Obama,because the South won't vote for a woman and a black man." "No, Feingold/Kucinich." "No, you can't have two Midwesterners on the ticket," "How about Edwards/Warner?" etc.

2) Saying that we should vote for Hillary Clinton because "it's time we had a woman president" or for Obama because "it's time we had a black president." I agree on both counts, but that doesn't explain why the candidate should be this particular woman or this particular black man.

3) Cult-like behavior by supporters, with the supporters projecting their own vague desires for change onto a candidate who is unlikely to bring that about. For example, last time a lot of left-leaning DUers supported Howard Dean and practically had cyber-hysterics if anyone suggested that Dean wasn't primed to lead The Revolution. If you looked at his actual positions on the issues, he wasn't particularly left at all, and it was clear that the supporters were responding to his style rather than his substance. (I'm not saying that he would have been a bad candidate, only that his supporters projected onto him traits that he didn't actually have.) I see the same thing happening with Obama supporters this time around.

Another recent example of cult-like behavior occurred in Japan a few years ago, when Jun'ichiro Koizumi became prime minister. Most Japanese politicians look as if they were cloned from the same source, with jowly faces, black-rimmed glasses, and hair combed straight back. Koizumi had crazy hair and a passion for rock music, and initially he was considered a breath of fresh air and a harbinger of change, especially among younger people. Oops, he turned out to be into privatization and militarism, i.e. the bad kind of change.

So I say, support Obama or any other candidate if you like, if you've really looked at their positions and think that they are the best person to meet the challenges we will face. Otherwise, don't support a candidate just because you've gotten caught up in the crowd.

4) Over-attention to polls. For too many DUers, doing well in the polls is a sign of virtue. Never mind that all the top three have been said to be rising/falling/on top, depending on who does the polling. Polls mean nothing, because rigging an opinion poll is elementary for a skilled pollster.

5) Being mean to supporters of other candidates, meeting objections to their pet candidates with snarky insults, telling other posters that their candidate should just give up, and accusing posters with legitimate objections to a given candidate of using "Republican talking points," even if they are in fact using left-wing talking points.

6) Ignorance of history, even recent history. That's why we get inapt comparisons to the Kennedys on the part of Obama or Edwards supporters or declarations that Obama was the first black person to win a state primary.

When it comes your turn to cast your primary ballot, please take time to read up on the candidates' positions and backgrounds. Take an honest look at the state of this nation and your community and family. What needs to be done? Is anyone even talking about these things? Is anyone challenging the conventional wisdom that has gotten us into this mess?

I am very discouraged this year. Too many people who are supposed to be politically sophisticated are falling for the same old tricks. I don't know what it will take for the American people to wise up.

By the way, the lack of discussion of Arendt's post is a symptom of the ignorance and laziness that pervades American society--and Democratic Underground, despite everyone's assertions to the contrary. "Don't wanna read big words. Must go yell my candidate's name at supporters of other candidates."

Oh man, that was me in '92 with Clinton! :D I saw him speak at San Jose State University and, I will say, I came away from there totally inspired by him and hopeful for the future if he were to be President. It was about about the environment and opportunity and GLBT rights and vision and all the great things we as Americans can and will do!

Silly, me, the Devil is always in the details.... It was one disappointment after another, with him.

Take "universal health care" for instance. Our top three like to talk a lot about "universal health care". Sounds great, doesn't it? I sure as heck want "universal health care"! I think of "universal health care" as a single-payer, not-for-profit system. But what exactly do they mean by "universal health care"?? Look a bit more closely and it sure as heck isn't what I'm thinking about. The Devil is in the details...

It is easy to get carried away by inspirational speech, charisma, and a desire to have hope about the future --- but as voters we must get beyond the packaging and educate ourselves on all those "boring" details.

I got a bad vibe - he was introduced by Kathleen Turner, the actress, who seemed to have had one too many drinks. My original choice was Tsongas, because I felt he was, at least, honest. IIRC, he was the one who had been out there way early against Poppy Bush; but once everyone saw how vulnerable Poppy was, he got shouldered aside. Then, it was the media push that got him through the primaries.

In retrospect, I gave Clinton to much sympathy for his self-inflicted traumas. I should have said to hell with him after NAFTA, the End of Welfare, and Telecom "reform". But, the soap opera had kicked in. I will never fall for some tangential soap opera again!

And, that is why I have this list of questions.

arendt

I did a thread a while back titled "DUers don't do nuance", in which I cited what you just said.

All I got was branded "an elitist", "an egomaniac", "someone trying to enforce his standards".

DU has got a serious case of "tall poppy" syndrome. There is a difference between egalitarianism and anti-intellectualism. This country's Constitution was written by well-educated people who engaged in substantive debate based on strong historical data. It was not written by a bunch of posing juvenilles shouting down their opposition with childish taunts. (I hope this mini-rant is far enough downthread that I don't restart that debate. Its a worthless distraction.)

My 2008 vote comes from that place.

Prior to the 2000 election, I'd been very clear on the nature of GOP and utterly confident of the vast superiority of the Democrats. Mind you, I never stopped to actually analyze the individual Democrats or their positions, I just saw the "D" after their name and it was Pavlov's Dog all over again.

The first several years of BushCo demanded I become better informed and more capable of seeing through the media/political bullshit. It was also during that time that I was saddened to discover I, all this time, should have been using those same skills on those with the "D" after their names. :( It was a real, political awakening. I look back and realize just how much I excused, condoned, and ignored behavior/positions/attitudes in a "D" that I would have filleted a GOPer for. No more, thank you very much.

So I come to the '08 election with a fresh set of "eyes" -- and I will scrutinize every Democratic candidate with the depth and intensity a Presidential candidate deserves.

The point is to ask these questions of each candidate's supporters, to collect the "yes, will do, here's how" answers (if there are any) and play them back to the other candidates' supporters. And, of course, to parse them for yourself.

It is discouraging to realize that the Dems have become, institutionally, as suspect as the GOP. You can't trust the party label anymore, you have to pay attention to the candidate, his/her alliances, his/her funders. The purpose of this thread is to re-brand candidates with these questions, to generate a new "gold standard" for voting Democratic.

It is even more discouraging to ask these questions and get nothing back - except other people as fed up and discouraged as I am with the terminally clueless approach to issues at DU. Thanks for letting me know I have company, alone out here in the middle of the ocean; but can someone from the passing party boats please throw us a line?

In closing this post, while I appreciate your participation in this thread, I have to say that my original purpose is still unfulfilled. Therefore, I will continue to kick this thread until the greatest clock runs out.

arendt

Actually, in reading many of your original questions, I can say I don't know the answer to many of them because so many of them have not been talked about at all or in depth by any of the candidates, including mine. I believe I understand where the Kuch (my guy) stands on many of those issues, but I have not heard him address all of them. As for how, teh same thing.

I will make an effort tomorrow (no Net tonight) to really get that information and post it here.

has a chance of winning addressing these issues. Kucinich at least mentions important issues.

But this has been typical of corporate candidates for years. I'll never forget when one of the perennial DLC advocates on DU posted a list of proposed Democratic platform issues. One of them, and I am not making this up, was warning labels on violent video games. There was nothing about single-payer health care, nothing about affordable housing, nothing about reducing dependence on foreign oil by reducing dependence on automobiles and airplanes, nothing about election fraud, nothing about outsourcing, nothing about the industries that have been destroyed by "free trade," nothing about anything of substance.

Note that when a candidate gives even the slightest hint of mentioning corporate control of our government, he becomes an "unperson." Kucinich has been an unperson for two election cycles, and Edwards became persona non grata when he began his mild criticism of the corporations.

(In discussing the results of the New Hampshire primary, NPR told about how all the Republican candidates had done, but during the half hour that I listened, it harped on the close race between Hillary and Obama and didn't even mention Edwards, much less Richardson and Kucinich.)

The message is clear: Don't talk about corporate domination of American life, or we will ignore you.

Sometimes I just want to bang my head on the wall in frustration.

First - being ignored by the Corporate Media (or the CON/ME) is no longer a complete death sentence. The internet is a place you can raise money and make your points - at least until the corporatocracy stomps on net neutrality. That's how we met on this forum. Guestimates are that 25-40% of America thinks the Corporate News is crap; they use the Internet.

Second - Americans are sick of corporations. We need to draw their attention to the difference between a small business and a multi-national corporation that's in bed with the government. We need to be on the side of local (i.e., small) business.

Third - the lemonade I can make from the lemons of outsourcing is that about all America makes anymore is military crap. The corporate party is the War Party, the Police State Party, the Torture Party, the Repeal Habeus Corpus Party. The GOP is 100% War Party; the Dems are about 50% (DLC) War Party. What if we started pointing out that all America is, as a country, anymore is an armed gang of thugs, like the Soviet Union?

You would probably say this would alienate the vote of the military families. But, I think it would go the other way. The military families are sick of being used. They have seen their soldiers constantly sent back to the meat-grinder of Iraq/Afghanistan. They have seen Blackwater getting the better equipment. They have seen all kinds of non-citizens fighting these dirty wars.

Not only is it war on other countries. It is war on the environment. We continue to use Depleted Uranium munitions. We twist the Chinese to lower their pollution standards. We gut our own environmental laws. Even the evangelicals are starting to get this one. (The fundies are insane.)

And, of course, it is War on the Middle Class. They may not be using guns, but they are robbing the middle class of everything - their retirement, their health care, their kids education, their jobs. How can anyone vote for more of this? Only by turning politics into cheap television, into a bloody soap opera.

Maybe America is the new Rome. Maybe all the average American wants to do is sit in his HDTV Coliseum and watch American Gladiator until the international bankers cancel their credit cards and the environment seizes up.

But I do know that 25% of America, and 50% of the Democratic Party has an understanding of the stakes. The Chamber of Commerce has openly threatened the workers of America. Which Democrat will build his campaign on smashing these CoC bums?

-----

Well, it was nice dreaming. Looks like no one is reading this thread. Present company excepted.

arendt

Well, it was nice dreaming. Looks like no one is reading this thread. Present company excepted.

And note that the thread about the woman who sold her son's car has hundreds of replies. :eyes:

you ask the right questions. Make yourself heard. - Good luck!

.....and require some time to digest.

As I was reading them, my first thought was: does the Executive Branch have the authority to make these changes? I am amazed by how many campaign promises are "feel good" notions, but when push comes to shove, the authority to make the "promised" changes does NOT lie with the office being sought by the candidate. It appears that many of your questions DO lie within the authority of the Executive Branch, but others of them.....I'm simply not sure about.....lack of expertise on my part.

A second thought I had was: given that corporations have standing as persons (I was gobsmacked when I learned about the 19th century Supreme Court ruling about this), then it seems to me that the "we the people" as conceived by The Founders has been lost. "We the (little) people" will always be out-spent and out-maneuvered by the Behemoth Corporations. We are no longer even a "representative democracy" as envisioned by The Founders, because the 800 pound gorilla in the room--although not (at-the-present) allowed to cast a ballot--most assuredly is allowed to spend gazillions of dollars to achieve the political outcome it desires. Why else would polls indicate 70% of Americans (I think that's about the number) want to end the war in Iraq, but all the candidates for the presidency talk about phased withdrawal, the invidiousness of timetables, we need to be there for 10 more years, etc. "End the war" means "end the war...stop mortgaging my grandchildren's future to pay for the war...stop re-deploying our loved ones to the meat grinder of a lost cause where the people being 'saved' cannot muster the will to 'save themselves'"--probably because democracy is so foreign a concept to them, and because of the genocide that has occurred/is occurring/will occur--which is in turn caused by the Sykes-Picot Treaty which divided up the Middle East using a yardstick instead of a cultural anthropologist. SO.....it seems to me that ELECTION REFORM must be at the top of the list of actions to be taken in the US, before any of the other questions you have posed can be effectively addressed.

Thanks for giving our minds something to chew on...we can all only benefit from it.