Is it possible for America to combine the two faces of capitalism and socialism responsibly and compassionately? The formation of a real third party might remedy the ongoing struggle and its resulting gridlock between the two opposing parties. Many believe that, not only is this possible, but that it is crucial to our survival as a nation!
Not since the great depression has the rent between the super-wealthy and the abject poor been this wide. The statistics that show the level of enjoyment for the rich simultaneously with the complete and utter loss of lifestyle for the impoverished and middle class in America are despicable, to say the least!
As ordinary Americans struggle with job loss, inadequate or no health care insurance coverage and the loss of opportunities to prosper in America due to outsourcing and staggeringly low wages, sales of luxury items appear to be down this year, but the wealthy are still accumulating vast amounts of wealth at an alarming rate. What is wrong with this picture? Plenty!
While the wealthy may feel a greater sense of guilt from this fact, their guilt does nothing to bridge the gap. The banks and Wall Street absolutely refuse to either pay back or loan money to small business and individuals, even after being bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of four trillion dollars. Any action taken by the Obama administration to correct this selfishness is invariably seen as interference in the "free market!"
If this gridlock in Washington is not broken up soon, America will be bankrupt and owned by foreign investors. Is this really what we want?
So, with growing anger while watching the news, C-SPAN, and the “Party of No” fighting all proposals on the floor of the Senate, we, the American people have had enough! The Washington Journal’s morning call-in-show usually broadcasts a broad spectrum of voices. Now, the call for a third party in this country is rising up and can be heard loudly, even from little old ladies, let alone the left! Thomas Frank, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, has suggested that the current fiscal crisis is seen by the right as a way to keep domestic spending to a minimum, and that this was started by the deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy brought by the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 and 2 administrations.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Jeannie -
I enjoyed your article...and I suspect that the BC conservatives simply won't get the point because they won't see any support of 'trickle-down economics' or 'profit motive'. They don't see anything wrong with a vast gulf between the poor and the rich - to them, a country with a higher standard of living than America has must be socialist (and therefore 'evil') because the rich aren't as obscenely rich as the billionaires are here in America.
Government of the people, for the rich, and by the rich - that's the conservative mantra...and woe betide any Republican who tries to stand up for someone in poverty against Big Business! They'll be called 'RINO' and relegated to the lower depths.
2 - roger nowosielski
Yes, it was a good article. I do have one reservation, however. If the teapartiers are so readily dismissed as the basis for forming a viable third party movement, where are the others going to come from?
They're the ones who, thus far, express the greatest discontent. The rest appear to be happy with the things that are - both those from the left or the right.
3 - Cindy
Far left protest gets almost no coverage whatsoever. It is marginalized but quite large and worldwide. It simply doesn't fit into the Republican Democrat two-party model. The far left is calling for other measures.
4 - jeannie danna
Glenn,
Thank-you for your comment and compliment.
There are soo many problems in this country right now,, that it was difficult to pin-point what they really are.
Although there are many, I came up with three that deserve some thought:
1. The failed Reaganomics that have devastated this economy for most. Trickle
down was just a theory, and we sadly, have been experimenting with our future prosperity for the last thirty years. Please read, Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch, if you haven't already, this book is a real eye-opener; It shows who, used Reagan's presidency to further their agenda, and that, combined with Thomas Frank's assertion that we are being placed in crisis, in-order to avoid social progress, is a real one-two-punch.
2. I dare to speak the words, "Single-Payer" again; this would relieve us immediately, but, it is a scary-thought for those in the for-profit system. So, I wount yell.
3. We need three parties in our political dialog, and, what is trying to pass itself off right-now at C-PAC for that third voice is not going to be heard by all of us. What we need now is inclusive voicesthat represent all of us. This right-wing apparition is just that,a ghost.
:] Thanks!
5 - Baritone
I must agree with Roger regarding the establishment of any viable 3rd party. Cindy is correct that there is certainly as much discontent on the left as there obviously is on the right, but the tea baggers have pretty much usurped the lime light. It is the far right conservatives who are more apt to form a 3rd party at this juncture. They are, as a group getting themselves candidates on ballots in some states as we live and breathe.
If the left coalesced into something resembling a party I would be very surprised. Neither the far right nor far left speak with one voice. There are any number of agendas being touted amongst both the left and right.
I just can't imagine, at this juncture, a 3rd party entity that would serve to break the deadlock in Washington. Such a party would have to come from the political center, a place currently held in contempt by many.
Single payer? Yes.
B
6 - Baronius
On the "Ideal Democracy" thread, I laid out a game theory argument why I can't see a third party developing. No one pointed out a flaw in my argument (or said anything else about it, for that matter).
7 - jeannie danna
B,
The media, appears to be really helping this movement.
And, You are correct, there is a total disconnect among all groups , except for the right.
My question to both of these points is, why?
I still can't believe that it will gain enough credence in the main-stream. Most people when asked, believe it is being driven by special-interests and the extreme-right-white-wing. and that, is what should stop it from forming.
: Single-payer is not dead.
8 - STM
When will America realise that a bit of social engineering - wasn't that what the founding fathers did?? - isn't socialism.
Universal health care isn't socialism, for God's sake.
It's a return for the bloody taxes you pay.
And God knows, all Americans must want something a bit more helpful and tangible than a multi-trillion dollar defence budget.
It's your right to demand such things of a government (and your right to keep private health insurance too if that's what you want ... you don't have to go the whole hog here)! But why remain stuck in the late 1700s? It's the 21st century and America is being left behind. There are now a dozen or more countries ahead of the US on the world standard of living indexes.
And stop confusing communism and socialism with the loose idea of community as it applies to the free-market capitalist system. Dozens of other places have done it and it's only improved their standard of living, not reduced it.
The two are completely different things.
Looking after your own isn't a socialist thing or a left-wing concept.
If America wants to be regarded around the world as the compassionate bringer of democracy, it's best to start at home: Do as I do (because it's good), not do as I say because I say that's the way it should be and no one else's view counts.
9 - STM
As for the US Constitution, and the way it gets twisted around to suit whatever view happens to be the one you agree with, it was written by a bunch of old farts in the 18th century.
It's a document put together by ordinary men, clever old farts who admitted they couldn't have got everything right.
It's not a message from God or the Holy Grail.
At the time, the concepts contained in it weren't even new. Most of it already applied to the colonies through common law, both native and inherited, BEFORE the revolution.
10 - STM
It's a good piece of paper, but a piece of paper nevertheless. And it doesn't claim to be anything else than a set of laws.
11 - jeannie danna
STM,
Your singing to the choir here!
Look at the words they try to skew and control people with. Socialism...oooo so scared of it, that we die from the lack of the most basic rights. We should all have a little of what we have given in.
It is just a word, and social progress will not make us communists.
:] You are so right, and, I wish we could wake every body up!
12 - STM
Not aiming my flamer at you or your mates, Jeannie, but all the others who can't work out that the world has changed, and if they want to be a part of it, things have to change accordingly in America too.
Not just in Mr Obama's Hope and Change rhetoric kind of way, either, but in genuine practical ways ... like real universal health care and some sensible firearms control measures (not bans).
Gee, that last one will make me even more popular.
13 - jeannie danna
STM,
I understood your comment. I get you, and, I wish everyone else did too, because,
look at this pitiful excuse for a solution to our tax problems.
:O You know what I say about taxes? pay em!
14 - jeannie danna
Well this old lady is going to sleep...don't all cheer at once now!
:] G-Day Stan!
15 - Doug Hunter
#12
Really? Anyone that doesn't agree with you 'can't be part of the world'. That's a bit over the top.
It's a spectrum, you exist further towards one side than the average American. Like most everyone you think you've got a handle on what best for everyone else. You think we're idiots, someone farther to your side looks back at you and thinks your a fucking moron, I'm far out whacky right but not near enough in some circles, and their are extremists on both ends who'd love to slit our throats or blow our brains out because we won't submit to their 'rightness' and 'truth'.
I say live and let live (the basis of freedom) and you can be part of the world regardless of your beliefs, just don't try and force them on me.
16 - Baritone
"I say live and let live (the basis of freedom) and you can be part of the world regardless of your beliefs, just don't try and force them on me."
Well, that's all well and good, but "beliefs" have a way of manifesting themselves into action. Some good. Some not.
We wouldn't get much accomplished in this world if we didn't share our beliefs and attempt by one means or another to apply them to our day to day lives.
Actually, all things considered, we do actually manage to get along pretty well. We live together at some level or other. We work and play together. We learn together. We manage to drive a 3000 pound hunk of metal and plastic at 70 miles per hour sharing a roadway with literally thousands of other 3000 pound hunks moving as fast or faster than we are, most of the time without killing ourselves or each other. That's fucking amazing!
Through all of that we, as individuals, harbour certain beliefs about how we should all live. Some of that becomes our moral and ethical code. Some becomes law. Some of it gets us thrown in jail. Sharing and, yes, even "forcing" is sometimes necessary. It ain't always pretty. Democracy isn't always polite. Sometimes we get our noses bent, sometimes we do the bending. It's all part and parcel to human life and interaction.
B
17 - STM
Doug: "Really? Anyone that doesn't agree with you 'can't be part of the world'. That's a bit over the top."
C'mon Doug ... that's not what I said at all and certainly not what I meant.
IMO, America's getting passed by ... it's already quite a ways down on the various standard of living indexes (at least a dozen countries are now ahead of it), because while it's very, very good for some, it's very bad for a lot of others. That was probably OK while things were rosy, but the recent/current financial unpleasantness highlights a lot of those kinds of issues in the US.
We have had stories in the mags and on TV here about slum camps of lean-to's on the edges of American cities. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression. There has to be a safety net of some kind.
It's not just about stuff like health care either. The federally mandated minimum wage in the US is about eight bucks an hour, for God's sake, or a bit less, I think, with no protection provisions built in for penalty rates for working nights, weekends and public holidays or abitrary sackings on the whim of an employer.
All I'm suggesting is that workers, the people who make the profits for business, get a slightly better share either through tax dollars or legislation that protects them - up to a point.
In exchange, they can offer a trade-off for higher production.
A loyal and happy workforce is a good workforce.
There's a nice balance somewhere between America's pitiful eight bucks an hour and the kind of lunacy that had lazy people in lifetime jobs and doing bugger all eight hours a day in the old Soviet Union.
18 - jeannie danna
Doug Hunter,
You wrote these words in your RE. #12
I say live and let live (the basis of freedom) and you can be part of the world regardless of your beliefs, just don't try and force them on me.
The phrase,"Live and let live" would lend itself to intelligently and compassionately trying to figure a way to do this, for everyone.
What we have in America today, more-closely resembles the saying, "Live and let Die."
I don't think that you believe I see everyone in the Tea Party as white-supremacists. You should in turn, be able to see that everyone on the left side of you is not holding their hand out for a free ride.
Let's talk about that free-ride that anyone who might need help is accused of jumping on.
Place yourself in the shoes of someone, anyone who has far less resources and opportunity than you. How would it feel? if you had, limited education, not enough to eat, unless the school or shelter where you were sleeping fed you.and when you tried to break out of this vicious cycle,you where told over and over that it was all your fault,because you were just lazy, "Go get a job!" and when you did, that job barely paid you, taxed you before handing you that pay-check, and provided no benefits or growth opportunity what-so-ever. So, you continued to worked and got no-where. Until you, gave up, got a different job which is like winning the lotto these days, were able to get an education, or died.
Now, if you feel empathy towards your fellow-Americans, and I'm sure that you do, then you would see that social- justice is not wanting to interfere with your prosperity, or your personal life.
Social justice would allow others in this nation to also-pursue, "The American Dream."
:] They, didn't call it the "Dream" for nothing, as it still has not come-true.
19 - jeannie danna
Baritone,
I loved your description of hunks I of junk, driving down the road. :]
But, this really jumped out at me:
Through all of that we, as individuals, harbour certain beliefs about how we should all live. Some of that becomes our moral and ethical code. Some becomes law. Some of it gets us thrown in jail. Sharing and, yes, even "forcing" is sometimes necessary. It ain't always pretty. Democracy isn't always polite. Sometimes we get our noses bent, sometimes we do the bending. It's all part and parcel to human life and interaction.
To second your thought,
This concept of "sharing the resources of our huge-countries-system." does not make us socialists! or Communists!
Now, I totally-agree with you here. We are, on the same page.
:] That was like a re-tweet. Something that, I still can't do!
20 - jeannie danna
STM,
I lost a friend in one of these, Robin, died in the middle of the night-apparently from exposure, and she had a job.
We have had stories in the mags and on TV here about slum camps of lean-to's on the edges of American cities. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression. There has to be a safety net of some kind.
:[ I try to write for those that can't, even though, I-myself can't write.
21 - jeannie danna
Roger,
Thank you for your comment and compliment on my article, I know that you read it, but did you also watch or look-up Thomas Frank?
He really-inspired me here.
When you asked this question, you must have realized the answer already, or at least part of it.
They're the ones who, thus far, express the greatest discontent. The rest appear to be happy with the things that are - both those from the left or the right.
This movement is largely funded and driven by very-wealthy and powerful people and interest-groups.
If you are watching, "The C-PAC Show" then you also can see all the major actors that they are using in-order to manipulate and sway public opinion.
I worried the minute that I watched the likes of George Will as he took that stage and proceeded to play to an over-willing crowded room, full of people who wanted to hear exactly what he had to say. That was really easy for you, Mr. Will.
Try speaking to people who would rather that you, shut-up, change your tune, or
go away! :] This, describes almost every comment and article that I have written in this section.
When you ask where is the left and imply that we are all happy with things as they are. Whom do you refer to?
If you still watch Amy Goodman's Democracy Now-the War and Peace report, then, you can see and hear many of them. Of course if you watch this C-span video with Thomas Frank,then towards the end you will hear all of the callers.
There is not one section of this populace right-now, that is happy with the status quo. At least, not anyone under the top
10%.
And also, we do not have this huge-funded- machine driving us towards the left or even the middle.
:] again, Thanks Roger.
22 - jeannie danna
Cindy,
What are they calling for? This one-sided, for the most part, media appears to be backing the party all the way.
I saw some sites when I was link-searching for this article, that showed the media block-out of single-payer. I think, that there is huge grain of truth here, because, every-time I try to bring a single-payer-link over it gets rejected by Askmit.
:0 I thought that I was banned last week-end, and, I must have tried at least twenty-times to post that damn thing!
:) Thanks for your comment!
23 - STM
Jeannie: "I lost a friend in one of these, Robin, died in the middle of the night-apparently from exposure, and she had a job."
That is sad Jeannie. We have homeless people here too of course, but there are some reasonable safety nets. It just worries me that in the US these days, too many people are ending up homeless because of the economic situation.
I understand all the arguments - that people put themselves in difficult circumstances, don't exercisrresponsibility in their own lives, etc etc - but there are all kinds of reasons people end up in these situations, often because of circumstances out of their control, and I can't help feeling that in America, the place I was told as I was growing up was inherently good and for that reason was a friend of this country, it's just not right.
Keep writing Jeannie.
I know that a little bit of social engineering, decent health care for everyone, a government legislating for wages and work conditions that actually allow people to live, and safety nets that really look after the vulnerable can co-exist happily with free-market capitalism and people making a decent buck for their enterprise.
It's just a nonsense to believe it can't.
If it can't, why does it work here, and in Europe??
I don't see any erosion of my rights, either. Actually, I think they've added a few: the right to a living wage; the right not to have to go bankrupt trying to pay for health care.
And when it comes to reasonable controls on the easy availability of guns, what about the rights of people who don't have them? Like the right not to have lunatics taking pot shots at you with automatic weapons?
I dunno, but sometimes I think that the kind of Americans who will bang on endlessly about rights to support a certain point of view have got everything arse about a lot of the time.
I realise that's a controversial view in the US that will likely see me branded a "liberal", but here it won't - because I'm not.
I just believe in a fair and just society.
That doesn't mean I'm all namby pamby on crime, terrorism, or that I'm a soft-touch bleeding heart.
None of the above. The chardonnay socialist/liberal label doesn't sit comfortably with me and especially I don't much like people I think might fall into that category because they think it's trendy.
As I've said before, most of the views I have that some Americans might think are "left" and which I think are just "normal" have come from a lifetime of getting my hands dirty, paying my taxes, having a mortgage, putting my kids through school, working six days a week to support a family ... paying my way.
But I don't see how that and having some compassion for those not as well off can be seen as mutually exclusive.
Which is why I really resent certain people on this site who love the socialist, communist, liberal, left-wing labels. It's just rhetoric, with no thought behind it. It seems really selfish, too.
Believing in community and the right of people to live a decent life in my view are just normal things.
And I suppose when it comes to healthcare, I don't mind paying an extra $1000 in tax a year so that others who aren't so lucky can have the same kind of care as me. I assume the bulk of my countrymen feel the same because no one's jumping up and down about it.
If that's being a bleeding heart, then let it keep bleeding, I say.
But I know what I am, and what I am not :)
24 - roger nowosielski
Good comment, Jeannie. Of course the extreme Left is dissatisfied - and this includes me (and I think Cindy, too) for this administration not going far enough. But most dissatisfaction that's not ideologically driven still has to do with dismal unemployment figures. Whatever has been done did not produce the needed results.
You can look up the link I posted on the "Unemployment" article from Huffington Post. I kind of tells the whole story and how I feel about the subject.
25 - Mark
I'd say that the Administration's policies have produced exactly the results needed by 'the system' so far -- a large surplus labor force that effectively puts pressure on the workforce to increase productivity at no added expense, for example. This is called 'improving the business environment'. Kudos to Obama and his crew.