By Kristine Mattis

And as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end
That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names …

Paul Weller (The Jam)

We all know the old Albert Einstein adage that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. What does that say about Wisconsin? June 5^th 2012 saw an exact rematch of the 2010 gubernatorial election between Republican Scott Walker and Democrat Tom Barrett – and the exact same result, the only difference being that Walker won by an even wider margin than before.

While pundits have been pontificating about the causes of such a seemingly absurd victory by Scott Walker after the enormous groundswell of citizens fighting for sixteen months against the governor and his Tea Party Republican administration, most of the discussion has been shallow and fraught with inaccuracies. Furthermore, mere speculation on the causes of the Walker win only point to the ease with which our society retreats back to often unfounded conventional wisdom. Walker outspending Barrett 7 to 1, an ignorant electorate hell bent on voting against their own interests, and poor “messaging” by the Democratic party/candidate may all have played a part in the crushing Walker win, but these observations only scratch the surface of the problems facing Wisconsin, the country, and the world and serve to fuel the media’s incessant focus on the horse race. This insistence on focusing on the superficial always serves, by design, to impede the discourse on substantive issues.

The following represent some of the points directly and indirectly connected to the Wisconsin election which I failed to hear in the media discourse on the subject:

In Wisconsin:

• Scott Walker did NOT originally campaign on taking away collective bargaining rights. Thus, when he and his cronies claimed that he just carried out his campaign promises, they lied.

• The right to collective bargaining has nothing to do with and does not preclude balancing a budget.

In America:

• The fact that private sector and non-union employees do not have living wages, full benefits and access to health care is a travesty, but their friends and neighbors in unions in the public sector are not to blame. ALL workers should have such benefits, which all humans should be entitled to. By demonizing fellow workers who have these basic human rights, we only allow the elite to sit back with their excess riches while the rest fight for scraps. The haves promulgate the falsehood of entitlement abuse through exploiting the fear and selfishness of the have-nots. It is a divide and conquer strategy through which the elite pit the working class against one another in a race to the bottom. In reality, the hoarding by the super-rich few is to blame for the lack of basic resources for the many.

• An entitlement is a right, not a “handout.”

• The decline in wages and benefits across all sectors has mirrored the decline in unions in America; when unions are strong, ALL WORKERS benefit.

• Blind support of Democratic candidates by unions over the past several decades has resulted in no gains or benefits for workers. On the contrary, in the country as a whole as in Wisconsin, Democratic candidates have erroneously blamed public employees for financial woes and have demanded concessions from public workers while remaining unwavering in their support for corporations and the wealthy.

• The budget crises facing our governments on all levels are due to the enormous expenditures on subsidizing already wealthy and large corporations, the lowering of taxes on the rich, the virtual raping of the citizenry and our federal government by Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, and the unrelenting military spending on illegal and immoral wars and on redundant and unnecessary weapons.

• Corporate subsidies only enrich corporations and their upper management, not their rank and file employees and not citizens. Increased tax breaks and monies to corporations do not trickle down to workers. Corporations do not create more jobs through such measures as lower taxes and increased subsidies; they simply create more wealth for themselves.

• While Democrat and Republican politicians stress their minor differences through their socially more liberal or conservative beliefs, these amount to little in terms of concrete societal change, as both parties adhere to the identical dominant economic, plutocratic, oligarchic paradigm which is destroying the nation and the world. It is not by chance that all of the presidents of the past twenty-four years have been Ivy League graduates, as the next president will also be. The vast majority of these people are not admitted to elite institutions based simply on their merit; they are admitted due to their family wealth, power, and/or prestige. And for those like Bill Clinton who do not come from such pedigrees, the only way they are able to sustain their status after having been accepted into the power elite is by implicitly promising to maintain and propagate the dominant paradigm and the status quo.
   
• For those who decry the lack of a clear, cohesive, and compelling message by Democrats to counter Republicans, there lies a simple answer: Democrats do not have their own message because their message is the same as that of Republicans.

In the world:

• The ritual of voting is illusory; the pretense that it represents democracy is a complete fabrication. When people do not have choice in their candidates, as when the elite of the moneyed political parties choose their “electable” politicians, voting is simply an exercise in futility.

• The poor have always been and continue to be marginalized by all major political parties. Vast majorities of people around the world – including the poor themselves –  have bought into the false propaganda revering wealth and equating it with quality of character, while demonizing poverty and equating it with depravity. As psychological studies have shown, the exact opposite is true. The growing number of poor in the shadow of the more highly concentrated rich is a local and global concern addressed by virtually no one in politics.

• Wealth inequality is an immoral blight in our society. The obscene concentration of wealth in America and around the globe is emblematic of the lack of democracy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as, “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.” We absolutely do not live in a democracy, not in the U.S. nor in the world community.

• Until ecology is prioritized ahead of economy, all other points are moot. Our already occurring global ecological decline will soon eclipse any of our current economic crises. We cannot live without ecological resources and we will poison ourselves to death in our quest to further create synthetic resources that do not fit within our natural ecological systems and our biosphere. NO ONE will dare address this reality in political circles.

While Scott Walker’s administration represents one of the most morally bankrupt, scientifically inept, and socially despicable governorship seen in recent decades, real change was not to be found among any of the Democratic candidates who opposed him, just as it is not found among the Democratic governors of other states in this nation.

By utilizing electoral politics as our source of change, our choice becomes thus:

We can be shoved off the cliff by the Republicans while being told that free-fall is freedom, or we can be coaxed along the path toward the cliff, while being distracted by trivialities and assured that the cliff does not exist (and when the cliff is in sight, being told that those who led us there really tried their best not to do so) by the Democrats.

Change can be very difficult, which is why people tend to cling to their jobs, their towns, their bad marriages even as they move toward dysfunction. We humans, particularly we industrialized, “civilized,” American humans, are creatures of habit, and we fear an alteration of our rituals. So we try our best to remain in our comfort zones, even as they become increasingly more and more uncomfortable – sometimes even untenable. That is why last year’s uprising in Wisconsin, like the entire Occupy movement across the country, was so remarkable. People changed their routines, relinquished their security, and finally stood up after enduring decade after decade of servitude, abuse, and disrespect. They said to their corporate overlords – at the state capitol of Wisconsin, on Wall Street, and in Washington – that they were not willing to complacently stand by and take it anymore.

 But apparently people are not mad enough to realize that the real change they may be seeking will never come through the voting process. It will never come through returning to “normalcy.” It will never come through adhering to and worshiping the inverted power structures that have been erected to maintain our complacency and servitude. These structures created the economy, the educational system, the workplace, the industrial infrastructure, the electoral process, and the law. Only when enough people – including all of us who intellectually, ideologically, and physically remain complicit – understand that our entire system is the problem will we have enough people power to work toward the genuine solution: changing our society.

 True change is extraordinarily difficult. It generates tremendous amounts of uncertainty, distress, and fear of the unknown. But it has the potential also to produce the most profound joy, creativity, and opportunity. And at this point, it may be our only chance at survival.

 So, what next?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ACHTUNG! ACHTUNG! (Hmm…that got your attention, uh?) Did you like this article? Then buy us a beer. How many times do we have to beg you? The wingnuts and fascists are falling over each other to make donations…to their filthy causes. We, on the other hand, take our left blogs for granted.
Just think how much money you spend on beer, cigs, trinkets and other useless stuff that can also kill you.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

 

 

 

 

 

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By Krell, RoundTree7

July 7, 2011 | with select original comments 

Republicans and Democrats… to even suggest that they may be the same thing seems absurd to some, invoking strong debate or personal attacks by others. It’s “Us versus Them” for the political landscape and future of the country, right?

But if you look at the actions of both parties, the actual policies and voting records, the wide dividing line between the parties becomes narrow and blurred.

There is a saying that goes…  “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…”

Let’s look at the facts and try to separate the Ducks from the Mallards. Review some of the talking points that Democrats use to distinguish themselves from their “lessor” counterparts.

Labor

Of course, everyone knows that the Democrats are for Labor and Republicans are pro-business. It’s been that way for many years, right? But wasn’t Clinton the one who was responsible for NAFTA? Why should the manufacturing base stay in the United States when they can get the labor for 2 dollars per hour and ignore any benefits or environmental laws.

Sure Reagan fired the Air Traffic controllers with their labor strike but when has any Democratic president stuck up for labor in a dispute? Just where were those walking shoes that we heard about in the Obama campaign when Wisconsin was having its teachers and firemen being trampled on?

Social Issues (Poverty, Health Care, etc)

Again we can return to Bill Clinton for the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act” which dropped the bomb on about half of those on the assistance rolls.

Do I need to even mention what Social Security and Medicare is going through today? These hard-fought improvements to society are being put on the bargaining table mainly because of the three card Monte game that was played by Wall Street and the Investment Bankers.

Here’s an idea… why not make the ones that gained the most from the economic shell game pay the most to restore the nation and the middle class? Instead of the obvious, both parties are thinking of new ways to inform the nation of austerity.

Environment

The BP environmental disaster and the complete lack of updates for offshore drilling regulations and economic responsibility for those “green CO2 free nuclear reactors”  that Obama was so beholden to from his home state.  Of course,  Obama did sign a bill protecting more than 2 million acres of wilderness and miles of scenic rivers. But it was a bill that was started by the Bush administration and all Obama had to do was sign it.

Speaking of signing, who signed the “Clean Air Act” in 1970? Richard Nixon.  And here is a list of 17 Democrats that recently voted against enforcement of the Clean Air Act’s climate rules:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Begich (D-AK), Hagan (D-NC), Levin (D-MI), Brown (D-OH), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Pryor (D-AR), Stabenow (D-MI), Landrieu (D-LA), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-NE), Rockefeller (D-WV), Webb (D-VA)

Confusing, huh?

How about stripping protection for wolves in five Western states and actually undoing an initiative to protect public land that was put in the budget bill from his own Secretary of the Interior?

War

The clear distinction of who is most likely to use war as foreign policy is blurred beyond any noticeable difference with the Obama administration. With a political window of ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan after his election, he chose to proceed not only with both war fronts, but went on to create a few more.

When questioned about the constitutionality of his policies, this Democratic administration responded by trying to “redefine” what constitutes war, insisting that because remote-controlled drone missile strikes do not put US soldiers in harms way, technically it is not a war.

I wonder if China decided to do a drone strike on a Chinese dissenter in Chicago, killing several women and children in the process, if that definition would still be applied?

Foreign Policy

I could bring up countless documents from WikiLeaks that support the idea the that one of the State Department primary functions is to protect “National Interests”- like keeping wages low in Haiti for Levi Strauss Jeans, or suppressing reports of the use of child labor for making shoes.

A question I ask… If the government is not supposed to be in business, an idea that is screamed about by the Teabaggers, then what exactly does protecting ‘National Interests” mean? Interests is another word for resources and who gets those resources to market but corporations? Both parties use the nation’s diplomatic pressure and military might as the corporate policeman… or a more apt definition, the “corporate strong-arm.”

The New Corporate Constituency

With the recent Supreme Court developments such as “Citizens United” and the class action lawsuit being thrown out against Wal-Mart and the tremendous amounts of wealth being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the US population, a new powerful political dynamic of society has formed.

It requires enormous amount of money to even begin a political race. The amounts of money required to get elected has produced a situation where it is no longer a choice of taking corporate money, it’s an essential fact. The only choice to be made is what corporation to be beholden to. To whom does the political candidate sell his soul ?

So why do corporations give money? Is there anyone left in this country so naive as to believe that corporations and super political action committees don’t buy political process for their money? That the end “product” purchased is political favors and bias? Of course it is, why else would they do it?

So the vicious political cycle is formed. More and more money is required each election to get elected, which requires more and more funding from corporate interests. The reality of politics is that you have to play by these rules or you are not even in the game. A spiral that grows greater and greater in depth with each new election cycle.

The Republicans sell the corporatism as “freedom from government” to which false patriotism can play a part. While the Democrats sell the corporatism as denial, dangling the chance of those “crazies” getting elected as their only defense. Of course there will be some “issues” that will tie up the political election process. Some meat for the grinders and main stream media to setup the “big game” of election time. Meanwhile the actual results caused by the political circus keeps getting closer and closer to the same thing, year after year.

But make no mistake, the quacking noises made by both sides are producing the same results, while the pond is being drained right under our noses.

Three party system in America? Hell, I would settle for a 2 party system.

By the way, the inductive reasoning implied by the phrase “But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.” was used by a Democrat during the McCarthyism era to label his opponent a communist.

SELECT ORIGINAL COMMENT THREAD 

Like

Gwendolyn Holden Barry, Mike Stimpson and 75 others like this.

Filed Under: Commentary, corporate greed, Featured, History, Politics, progressives Tagged With: Claire McCaskill, Clean Air Act, Democratic, McCarthyism, Republican, Richard Nixon, United States, Wikileaks

Comments

1. The Badger says:
   July 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm
   I get your point. The whole thing sucks. Career politicians whose only true interest is re-election. I happen to think that right now more than any other time we’re ripe for a third party. Actually depending on what Obama caves on with the “entitlements”. Look for Bloomberg to react to what Obama’s numbers are. Good luck America.
   
   REPLY 
• Krell says:
  July 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm
  One of the points that I was trying to make is the inevitable convergence of both parties because of the amount of money that is required to even play the political game. With corporations gaining more power and the merging of companies into conglomerates, even the selling of ones political soul will become uniform because of the intertwining of corporate interests.
  Unfortunately, the least organized and financially able to contribute will be the disenfranchised majority that needs to have the “wool pulled over their eyes” to continue to get the vote majority. The extent that this can be done with each political cycle is going to become the “game plan” of the elections. More and more of the diversion with less and less of the solution.
  Personal lives of the politicians, sex habits, labeling, swift-boating, and sound bites of the stars is what we have to look forward to. Tactics that should never be under-estimated.
  
  REPLY 
2. Keith Barger says:
   July 7, 2011 at 6:07 pm
   Public financing of all candidates and absolutely no private spending permitted is the only way to clear the air. Bulworth (movie) nailed this. The money makes it all go to shit. Because candidates need a massive amount of money to be “viable” (i.e. in the corporations back pocket) they have to spend all their time raising money. They then pay this corporate money back to other corporations who own the media to share their message. The airwaves should belong to “we the people.”
   To you reading this … if you are registered a Democrat so that you can choose the most liberal candidate in the primary, stop deluding yourself. The most liberal candidate will become just another corporate pawn. What we need is for everyone who knows this column to be true to register for a real party that is actually different. I’m a Green, a Pacific Green from Oregon. Our candidates are not for sale.
   
   REPLY 
• Once a liberal says:
  July 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm
  You are right about the masses (especially people who think there is actually a difference in the parties) deluding themselves. To become viable they (politicians) must sell their soul to the corporate devils, and stay beholden to them unless they wish to lose office. Campaign Finance Reform will never be enacted because no one (but the people most powerless to change it) want the status quo to change. With the income disparity worsening every year, real reform may only be achievable through open revolt.
  
  REPLY 
• Krell says:
  July 8, 2011 at 8:57 pm
  Keith, I am currently spending the weekend doing my investigation of the Green Party in my state. Although I live in a southern RED state, I am done with the politics of the Democrats or Republicans. I can no longer vote with a clear conscience to the present situation and “2 party system” and corrupt business as usual. Will I be voting for the winner in the near future? Certainly not in the near future and perhaps never. But I will be able to sleep at night knowing I did the right thing.
  Thank you for stopping by and giving your thoughts.
  
  REPLY 
3. Mudge says:
   July 8, 2011 at 7:10 pm
   No news to me. I’ve been a Green for 14 years. The Dems & Reps are just playing good cop/bad cop with us.
   
   REPLY 
• Krell says:
  July 8, 2011 at 8:59 pm
  Good cop / Bad cop or perhaps all bad pirates dividing up the loot. I’m beginning to feel that 14 years of being a Green is a 14 year head start on me. Thanks for your thoughts, Mudge.
  
  REPLY 
4. Jack Jodell says:
   July 9, 2011 at 8:56 am
   Gore Vidal once said wisely, long before any of our current mess had developed, “”There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party . . . and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently . . . and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”
   
   REPLY 
• Krell says:
  July 9, 2011 at 10:50 am
  I cannot think of Gore Vidal without picturing those epic “discussions” that occurred when he was around William F Buckley. In particular, when Gore Vidal called Buckley a “crypto Nazi”. Back then the fireworks were spontaneous and not “rehearsed” for the benefit of ratings. Although not as eloquent as Chomsky, Vidal certainly could express his opinion with the best of them.
  His saying there is no difference back then and seeing how much they have drawn together since then shows a trend that seems inevitable.
  
  REPLY 
5. Gwendolyn H. Barry says:
   July 9, 2011 at 9:06 am
   The advances of The Great Society are lost on today’s culture. The ideals of leaders like Ike, LBJ … had a safe zone of being partisan while safely inviting and embracing a few supporters from the ‘other side’…they still represented….We are absent of true ethics, values, substantial political leadership…. really, since Teddy crossed…. besides the Independent Bernie S. we seem alone. The true leaders in politics are very few, very far between. It’s a UNIPARTY vying for the largest payoff in many cases. Some play it strategically safe, like Pelosi…. putting up her true liberal values only to sell them out to remain in power, in the end. Obama sold us out even before he took office. He was “The Candidate” finally come to us for test run. And the general population are so confused and so needful to have leadership that they ‘choose the lesser of two evils’ instead of resourcing their backbone and voting for a new candidate… it’s tragic and it’s our ending. Unless we stand up to this and bite back. I don’t think it deluded to reach out to the people who are dumbfounded and confused by the UNIPARTY politics and demand their attention. I think we are tying to do that on RT7. I think most like minded folks are reaching via the internet to make a wave build.
   Yeah, all bad pirates, Krell. All bad pirates. Let’s make them walk the plank. Or better yet… as I’m for the bloody, lets keel haul ‘em. Arrgh?
   
   REPLY 
• Krell says:
  July 9, 2011 at 11:04 am
  Some would debate on the Obama selling out or Obama just being himself and his CAMPAIGN for election was the true deception. Regardless, IMHO… Obama put the nail in the coffin for a lot of new people reaching out for true change by way of the American political system as it stands today.
  The youth of today is smart, savvy, and technologically light years ahead of the previous generation. But what they don’t have is patience. If they cannot see the changes that they demand, they will seek out alternative methods and end runs to achieve it.
  I have come to realize that the lesser of two evils is just a lesser evil. Change is not going to be achieved by bumper stickers and political conventions with red, white, and blue hats. But change is going to occur! Forces such as WikiLeaks and Anonymous are just the top of a large glacier. The part that visible right now. But underneath the water is a LARGE mass of change just waiting to make it’s mark.
  Like minds bringing knowledge for the social consciousness. It’s the reason that RT7 was formed.
  

___________________________________________________________________________________________
PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE
A TOOL IS USELESS IF IT’S NOT USED. Don’t just sit there…introduce a friend or relative to The Greanville Post and help us expand the reach of remedial ideas and information. If each of you brings merely ONE additional reader to the table, we will be able to double our circulation!

_______________________________________________________________

If you liked this article, why not support The Greanville Post by buying our T-shirt, a mug, a mousepad, or any other item now in our store? That way you donate a few dollars and also get a nice gift. It’s a win-win formula!

Created By CrankyBeagle for The Greanville Post
This and many other items at our store. Stop by today!

Jim Hightower (2008)

JIM HIGHTOWER (born January 11, 1943) is an American syndicated columnist, populist activist and author. Born in Denison, Texas, Hightower came from a working class background. He worked his way through college as assistant general manager of the Denton Chamber of Commerce and later landed a spot as a management trainee for the State Department. He received a bachelor of arts in government from the University of North Texas and later did graduate work at Columbia University in New York City in international affairs.   In 1976, he returned to Texas to become the editor of the magazine The Texas Observer.

FILED UNDER: CORPORATE GREED, POLITICAL CORRUPTION, SUPREME COURT