Progressives should distance themselves from Democrats

16 posts / 0 new

Face it, if I got to the polls, I will be holding my nose. Democrats, Republicans, Tea-Partiers,...non of the candidates represent what I consider a legitimate solution to the countries problem main problem - cash in politics.

telliottmbamsc's picture
telliottmbamsc
Joined:
May. 20, 2010 4:06 am

Comments

So how does one get rid of cash in politics? My suggestion would be to reduce the tax code down to one page and leave it there. If the politicians had nothing to sell, there would be nothing for the lobbyist to buy.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:

So how does one get rid of cash in politics? My suggestion would be to reduce the tax code down to one page and leave it there. If the politicians had nothing to sell, there would be nothing for the lobbyist to buy.

Except for the medical care system, use of the military, de-regulation, non-bid contracts, outsourcing as national policy, highways, etc.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:
Quote Paleo-con:

So how does one get rid of cash in politics? My suggestion would be to reduce the tax code down to one page and leave it there. If the politicians had nothing to sell, there would be nothing for the lobbyist to buy.

Except for the medical care system, use of the military, de-regulation, non-bid contracts, outsourcing as national policy, highways, etc.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Blinded by the ideological disease of free markets, the cons just don't get corporatocracy as inverted totalitarianism.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote polycarp2:

Except for the medical care system, use of the military, de-regulation, non-bid contracts, outsourcing as national policy, highways, etc.

At the risk of staying on topic, and away from the unrelated talking points...

How does a lobbyist buy outsourcing, a highway, use of the military, etc? I can buy into the deregulation and non-bid contracts, so I will modify my opinion to say "there would be little for the lobbyist to buy." Therefore, a combination of a clean simple tax code and some applied ethics rules would surely put a big dent in the politicians for cash situation we find ourselves in.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote telliottmbamsc:

Face it, if I got to the polls, I will be holding my nose. Democrats, Republicans, Tea-Partiers,...non of the candidates represent what I consider a legitimate solution to the countries problem main problem - cash in politics.

Where do you draw a line that defines "cash in politics"? Pretty vague and generic phrase.

Influence peddling through the medium of money moves subtly and not so subtly into many areas that have some relationshipt to the generic term "politics," including the media, which is now pretty much a propaganda arm of mostly neoliberal oriented politics. The lovingly called "main stream media" is mostly corporate owned, and there are many ways the paycheck and the keeping of a job can be used to influence what journalists say in a private tyranny. Does that qualify as "money in politics"? And why or why not?

Another question. Who are you thinking of when you use the term: progressive?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I abandoned the Dem Party after it abandoned me in its 1988 National Convention. Their abandoning of the majority of the people became overt with the actions of Pres. Clinton. By then, it had become firmly and openly wed to the Corporate State.

It's former interests that most people still credit it with have disappeared in all but rhetoric.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We need not get very abstract to answer the basic question of how to get cash out of politics. Americans come to our senses and observe how others do it. We stop pretending that our electoral highs are good for us or produce really brilliant results. In other words, we get off our narcotic about economic determinism and money and speech.

I have yet to see the basic issue of the commercial revenue stream isolated from the Corporations as People meme. Debating corporate personhood is too abstract and narrative bound to make a good debating ground. The metaphysics of the law and legal theories are way too in the woods for clarity; and it is how the Federalist/Libertarian authoritarians get the conversation into an ugly polemic. When you have no ideas, get emotional.

There is no money anywhere that can match a commercial revenue stream directed into political spending. When businesses have a direct interest in public policy, they do not 'contribute' as do citizens, they "invest" to serve their investors. I think allowing the filthy rich to throw their personal wealth around is a curious image of "democracy." Even as individual citizens, the coalition of the very wealthy has power over the small donations of working people. They may not be able to fool enough of the people enough of the time to maintain their managed consent; or they may kill their golden goose and wind up broke with everyone else.

I think Americans have been living in denial for a long time. Waking up to the real depth of our crisis is shocking, not an immediate relief. There was a lot of support for Obama that came from a naive hope that electing a President would cause the Empire to repent and change. There was a desire to see some butt-kicking, but not enough mobilizing to provide the political basis for it. Then there is the paradigm shift stuff that Obama cannot get near from where he works.

Americans decided to give up Bush Crack for Obamacare--the Hope and Change--not the congressional sausage on health insurance reform. We thought we could give up Crack without having to face any ugly truths about ourselves or our country. We wanted reform because we thought the system could be fixed without being "changed." When the system showed its flaws, and when those conforming to it acted pathologically, many were shocked and sickened by the corruption and disease.

The pushers are doing what they can to entice us back to illusion. Rehab has been dissed, and even called brainwashing. Sobriety is not all it has been "cracked up" to be. Our teeth are not rotting now, but we felt so powerful as the World Cop called by history to duty. The humility of being the last "great power" also fit our National piety. Having to deal with the ugly reality of our Evil Empire and the not at all "benign neglect" of the Reagan Revolution is not easy even if one is a liberal and did not inhale. There was enough second-hand intoxicant around if you wanted to believe everything was going to be OK. It got the DLC to get the duopoly on the pipe and to exile Progressives from the drug party.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote .ren:

Blinded by the ideological disease of free markets, the cons just don't get corporatocracy as inverted totalitarianism.

Maybe this is another thread, but what's the cure for that disease?

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote PeeWee Returns:
Quote .ren:

Blinded by the ideological disease of free markets, the cons just don't get corporatocracy as inverted totalitarianism.

Maybe this is another thread, but what's the cure for that disease?

It's on other threads already. But you have shown in the past that you aren't really that interested. I think you called us a bunch of grad students once when you accidentally wandered onto one of those threads as "West Michigan Cynic."

The cure is learning to use the whole mind, not just the minimal power of reason that makes up these toxic ideologies.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

That was about as abstract as it gets, DRC. :-)

I still don't know how people are using the term "progressive," including you. Its context is all over the place, so that doesn't help. "Progressive" is an abstract label.

You have yet to see where, this "basic issue of the commercial revenue stream isolated from the Corporations as People meme?" Like: Where are you looking? I alluded to it when I brought together the ownership of the media and corporations. It's easy enough to flesh out. It's very practical and down to earth, abstract only when put into words and people have difficulty with context and meaning. The Supreme court recently ruled that these state created, on paper entities, that never die as humans (maybe they disband if they go broke or something), can use the power of the purse to bring all their marketing expertise developed and institutionalized in the Century of the Self to politics.

Nobody puts their foot down and says corporations can't use their corporate owned MSM outlets to help themselves out in this endeavor. Like Fox is doing while "proving" it's "democratic" value to the populace by appealing to a greater market share with its toxic trademark methods. Market share in a "capitalist" democracy is the hallmark for popular concensus. It's democracy in a consumer society, where democracy is taking place under the vertically integrated corporate system, which themselves are managed in private, virtually screened from public view. Marketing in the corporate owned MSM represented by Fox is marketing through a corporation designed and owned by Murdoch and to benefit the likes of the Koch Bros, who have invested heavily in influencing the Tea Party, which gets plenty of air time on Fox, and then the other MSM outlets, corporate owned, designed for profit, follow suit because it makes money and they need to be competitive.

The problem emerges, then, how can a democracy be organized to actually stop this psychotic, anti democratic behavior? How does it prevent the filthy rich from investing and influencing in the people's representatives and what those representatives do? One of the ways that has been done by the liberal class, as Chris Hedges points out, was to develop policies that counteract the sociopathic tendencies that come from the urge for profit and infinite growth in the economic sector. That is, to push back against these forces for the rights of the individual living human beings who are part of a giant, vertically integrated private system of wealth extraction and accumulation. One of the methods for pushing back is policy making.

Of course, one way to destroy these equalizing policies is to simply remove that sector of government. That's what the knee jerk cry of being against the government means. Corporate operatives are well aware that there has to be some form of government in order to organize the world in such a way that the wealthy can operate without having to deal with pirates and gangsters. The original Tea Party was about the actions of a corporation that worked with the British Crown and its government. That tea party was against corporate collusion with government. And so, these wealthy elites realize, governments with armies are needed for them to do their business, and in that instance we got a war and the United States out of the first Tea Party. So we aren't talking about killing off that commerce protection part of government, oh no, only the part that provides some minimal level of equalization against the mafia bosses who run the multinational corporations and hire the managed and subjected and dependent people, and provide them with their consumed goods, which no one can imagine living without.

In the last thirty years or so, the liberal class has rolled over and stuck it's leg in the air, like a passive dog to a dominant one. So how do you organize a political system to make sure that doesn't happen?

Quote Chris Hedges:The liberal class, which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible, functioned traditionally as a safety valve. During the Great Depression, with the collapse of capitalism, it made possible the New Deal. During the turmoil of the 1960s, it provided legitimate channels within the system to express the discontent of African-Americans and the anti-war movement. But the liberal class, in our age of neo-feudalism, is now powerless. It offers nothing but empty rhetoric. It refuses to concede that power has been wrested so efficiently from the hands of citizens by corporations that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty are irrelevant. It does not act to mitigate the suffering of tens of millions of Americans who now make up a growing and desperate permanent underclass. And the disparity between the rhetoric of liberal values and the rapacious system of inverted totalitarianism the liberal class serves makes liberal elites, including Barack Obama, a legitimate source of public ridicule. The liberal class, whether in universities, the press or the Democratic Party, insists on clinging to its privileges and comforts even if this forces it to serve as an apologist for the expanding cruelty and exploitation carried out by the corporate state.

(from: The World Liberal Opportunists Made)

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:

It's on other threads already. But you have shown in the past that you aren't really that interested. I think you called us a bunch of grad students once when you accidentally wandered onto one of those threads as "West Michigan Cynic."

I have a very high interest in the topic. However, I don't have the same reverence for your thinking as you do.

The cure is learning to use the whole mind, not just the minimal power of reason that makes up these toxic ideologies.

See what I mean?

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote PeeWee:See what I mean?

I always see what you mean.

I have a very high interest in the topic. However, I don't have the same reverence for your thinking as you do.

You don't need to have reverence for anyone's thinking if you can use your own mind.

Took you nearly two days to come up with a response to a simple answer to an elementary question. Though you show no understanding of what was said, that's not bad.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote .ren:

I always see what you mean.

Of course you do. Do you know what I'm thinking right now? :)

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote PeeWee Returns:
Quote .ren:

I always see what you mean.

Of course you do. Do you know what I'm thinking right now? :)

I didn't say I know what you are thinking. I'm a visual person, when you write your thoughts I see what you mean, it comes to me in visual form.

Why don't you learn to discuss isssues and ideas instead of focusing on personalities?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I would serously look at what the Constitution Party stands for and compare it to what you stand for as a progressive.

Constitution Party National Platform

http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php

Subscribe to the Constitution Party E-mail List!

https://secure.giftwrapplus.org/cpnc/eu/subscribe/

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

  1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
  2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
  3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
  4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
  5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
  6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
  7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.


Visit us on these Social Networks:

Volitzer's picture
Volitzer
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Real Carbon “Monster” Revealed

Another day, another stupid assault on the truth by the fossil fuel industry and its paid lackeys. In a recent op-ed for the New York Post, Tom Harris, the executive director of the so-called International Climate Science Coalition -- an organization that’s funded, in part, by the fossil fuel industry -- blasted Leonardo DiCaprio for his work on “Carbon,” a new documentary on climate change that I helped write and present.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system