Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Marley For President!

Marley For President!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Ever since the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to “settle” the Election of 2000, the people of this nation sought by various means to correct the imbalance that blatant act of judicial activism created.

First, with possibly the last act of true humanitarian social conscience we are likely ever to see from a Republican, Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties over GOP blockage of a bill popular with his constituents. The Democrats threw away the power they were given by not using it, instead following Majority Leader Tom Daschle in meekly submitting to the will of George W Bush.

Then the people got serious in 2006 and gave control of the Congress to the Democrats, who proceeded to claim that they didn’t have enough power to do anything – a situation the voters corrected in 2008 with the White House and the Congress being placed firmly in Democratic hands. And yet again, the faithless Democrats threw the power away, claiming that the Republicans were far too strong and would overcome their majorities.

There is too much of a pattern here to believe any longer that this is purely coincidental. Under the New World Order, the Democratic Clown Posse is only intended to provide to the world a bipartisan appearance to hide the function of a one-party corporatist state. Only one party philosophy is to rule, and that philosophy is not that of the Democrats. Should We the People ever express other desires and again give power to the Democrats, that party will act only to vent away any popular pressure to make changes. They will dissemble and stall, take stances of empty posturing and orate blatant falsehoods, until the Republicans can again reclaim power from the do-nothing Democrats.

This is not a recipe for growth and prosperity for all by any means. It is instead the opening for a political system based on the amount of wealth you hold, and those without any wealth can just die silently and decrease the surplus impoverished population.


Powered by

About pessimist

  • Victor Lana

    This article is great, with Ignorance and Want hiding under its prose and giving us all a reason to have shivers down our spines.

  • Baronius

    How do you reconcile this with the fact that your opposites on the right complain that the two parties are Democrat and Democrat-lite?

  • Realist

    How, Baronius? Take a verse from the Bible and apply it: by their actions shall ye know them.

    You really should stop drinking that tea. It isn’t made in America, you know!

  • Baronius

    I didn’t say I agree with them (although I should have been clearer about that). My point is that for every liberal saying the D’s are practically R’s, there’s a conservative saying the R’s are practically D’s. They point to votes like the stimulus package, the Sotomayor nomination, and DADT and complain just as bitterly as you do over tax rates.

    What I see is a center-left party and a center-right party, neither one with a solid majority for the last 16 years, each with their own agenda.

  • Realist

    I’m with you as far as you have gone with your comment.

    I suppose I could summarize an answer to your comment along the lines of how these two “center” parties deal with risk. I don’t see any calculation from the right regarding risk. It’s all knee-jerk “do nothing” lest something change. I equate that with being frozen in fear.

    As I can’t see staying where we are, I’m in favor of taking a considered risk. In the case of the deficit, it’s so huge now our great grandchildren will be paying it off even if we don’t add another dollar to the total. But restarting the economy has to happen, or this nation is finished. Because I see things being dire, I have to accept yet more debt -judiciously applied, which to date it has not been- to prime the pump. Once the restart has been accomplished, then the right’s hesitancies need to come into play to keep the opportunists from taking advantage, something they failed miserably to do since Reagan first pulled that Laffer joke on us.

    I want to see the nation out of debt, but politics won’t allow that. I note that the UK just paid off their WWII Lend-Lease debt to us a few years back, and Germany just last October paid off the last of their WWI reparations. These are examples that the US is going to have to follow since we have been so profligate with our economy.

  • Baronius

    I can think of three possible meanings to your second paragraph (“do nothing”). First, there’s the Democrats’ name-calling that the Republicans are the Party of No. They’ve said that the past two years in the same spirit that an elementary-school kid calls a classmate a “chicken” for not doing something dumb. I’m guessing that you don’t mean that.

    Secondly, from the intellectual roots of conservatism, there’s a reluctance to upset the apple cart. That always reminds me of Thatcher’s statement that sometimes to be a conservative, you have to be a radical. There’s a difference between intellectual conservatism, an attitude of reliance on tradition, and political conservatism, which is rooted in distrust of government.

    That leads to the third possible meaning, that conservatives are afraid of governmental power. That’s true. I note that you’re willing to take a risk on larger government to fix the economy, but not on smaller government. Anyway, how much courage does it take the average Democrat (not you, but the average Democrat) to spend money? It’s their go-to move. Back when I was younger, I would have welcomed a situation I could drink my way out of. But that wasn’t because I was willing to tackle my fear; it was because I was drinking anyway.

    Now, a lot of people will read that and scoff. Overspending is every politician’s “go-to” move, they’ll say. And that’s where I have a problem with your article. The GOP, despite its many shocking failures, is a party with a different agenda and different actions from the Democrats. You as much as acknowledge that in your article. So I don’t think it’s fair to accuse both parties of being the same.

  • Realist

    Accuse both parties of being the same? Hardly! As a long-term reader of my output you know that not to be the case.

    But to address your spending point in some detail, our economy can no longer lavish the well-connected over the needs of the majority. I would love to see a point-by-point debate on the specific budget items. All of them. No secret items held back, no sacred cows proslytized, no special interests taking advantage, no political vote buying. Everything must be openly discussed, and the public allowed sufficient time to have some input in the discussion. There is much in the budget that doesn’t benefit any majority of any sector of our society, and the majority should be able to end the private subsidy to that special interest without prejudice.

    But as that isn’t likely from either party, I think that whatever can be discussed should be. There is much waste in the military, for instance, and several programs that should be ended and the savings returned to the taxpayers. There isn’t much in the way of welfare anymore, but what there is should be granted in trade for some kind of public labor. Just as individuals are expected not to live off the government’s largess, so should it be for businesses and corporations. Businesses receiving subsidies should be means tested just as Social Security recipients are now threatened with. Any business which can show a profit doesn’t need any subsidies, and yet many still get them on the taxpayer’s dime.

    Any government expenditure which meets with the approval of the majority can only do so by justifying itself to that majority. Any that cannot should be ended immediately.

  • Baronius

    “Accuse both parties of being the same? Hardly! As a long-term reader of my output you know that not to be the case.”

    Well, that’s how I read this article, and it did seem out of character. Reading over this article again, I stand by my original reading. (Well, obviously, you wrote it so you know what you meant, but it sure sounds like you’re accusing the Dems of playing along.)