Over the last few years, Lisette and her family have had to make some changes. They are both working two jobs now, just to pay the mortgage, and the utility bills, which keep going up. In fact it seems like everything is going up but their salaries. They get “raises” but they are token raises that don’t increase their take home pay more than a few dollars a month after taxes. They’ve cut out the extras they used to enjoy, like cable TV, taking the kids to the Olive Garden on Sundays, Lisette has even started buying the kids’ clothes at the Goodwill. Instead of Hamburger Helper for supper, now they usually eat canned soup. They’ve used up their savings, and for the last couple of years, even things like a new tire for the car, or their insurance co-pays, have had to go on the credit card. And now it’s a struggle to make the minimum payments. They are starting to realize that they can’t really afford the payments on their home, but they can’t afford an apartment either. They looked into bankruptcy but found out that with the new law, even that wouldn’t help them. Neither has parents they can move in with for a while.
What do the Democrats have to offer Lisette and her family?
Justin and his partner want to be married. They don’t want a civil union, they don’t want a marriage that might be recognized in one state, but not another. Justin’s job requires a lot of travel. What if something happened to him in a state that doesn’t recognize Ben as his spouse? His parents, who never accepted him or Ben for who they are, might try to get assets he wants Ben and their adopted daughter to have. He’s talked to a lawyer and done all he can, and for their family, things might be OK. But he worries about other couples who may not have money for a lawyer, and he just doesn’t like the idea of a tiered system of equal protection under the law.
What do the Democrats have to offer Justin and his family?
Keisha lives in the projects with her mother and two small children. She is lucky to have her mama to watch the kids while she works. She is lucky to have a project apartment, although she might lose it because her cousin got caught with a joint when he left the apartment the other night. They have this zero tolerance thing, and he KNEW that. Keisha doesn’t make enough money to get an apartment if they get kicked out. Her oldest baby’s daddy is dead. A policeman shot him, said he thought Calvin had a gun. It wasn’t a gun. It was her baby’s bottle. The father of her youngest is in jail. He tagged a wall, there was no money for a lawyer, public defender, it’s a story you hear a lot in Keisha’s neighborhood. Both the kids have asthma. Keisha has taken a second job to pay for their medicine, and make up the difference in Medicaid and the bills for her mama’s diabetes, but everything keeps going up every month. Some dressed up people were in the projects the other day, not the dangerous one where Keisha lives, but the new one. Her cousin lives there. They gave her a brochure about some politician. It’s a good thing too, because the baby spit up and Keisha didn’t have any Kleenex….
What do the Democrats have to offer Keisha and her family?
Earlene is retired, and her main concern is high medical costs. She is confused by the new Medicare prescription drug program, but she has figured out it isn’t going to save her any money. In fact, when she went to the drugstore, they wanted $800 for just one month’s worth of medicine. Then they said she could have two month’s worth, but time is running out, even though she cuts all the pills in half . She’s on a fixed income and doesn’t have any money to give to the insurance companies, but even if she did, none of them offer coverage on the medicines her doctor prescribes.
What do the Democrats have to offer Earlene?
Annabeth just got kicked out of her apartment. The rent kept going up, but her hourly wage didn’t. She was already working two and a half jobs. Now she lives on the street, with her two small children. The other day somebody came around with some sandwiches, talking about some program to let homeless people vote. They had literature about some politicians. Annabeth looked at it, but didn’t really see anything that had anything to do with her. She doesn’t believe that it makes any difference whether she votes or not.
What do the Democrats have to offer Annabeth and her family?
Karen is pregnant. She used protection, a gel she bought from the drug store, but evidently something went wrong. On her salary, she can’t afford to go to the doctor, and the health insurance they have only pays if you are in the hospital for more than a week. Plus it costs an arm and a leg, and she’s had to take a weekend job to be able to pay her rent. It doesn’t pay much, and since it’s part time, she can’t afford to take a day off work to go wait at the planned parenthood place. Her state doesn’t offer any financial help for abortions, and the women’s clinic wants just about what Karen takes home every month. She doesn’t want to be a mother, and couldn’t afford a child even if she wanted one. She is so desperate she even asked the guy who got her pregnant to lend her the money, but he said no, it’s too bad if she has money problems but he is seeing someone else now. He asked Karen not to call him again.
What do the Democrats have to offer Karen?
Elaine is a nurse. She is fed up with the things her country is doing, both at home and overseas. She keeps up with the news, and in her job it’s impossible to ignore the fact that just a fraction of the money being spent to invade other countries could save a lot of lives right here in the US. She’s heard a lot of speeches and promises from politicians her whole life, but things keep getting worse, not better. She’s decided to move to Norway. At 35, she’s begun to think about getting married and starting a family, but not in America. It’s no place to raise a child.
What do the Democrats have to offer Elaine?
Paul, after twenty years of supporting Democratic candidates, is fed up. It seems to him that there is not really much difference between the two parties anymore, if there ever was. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were for him, the last straw. And soon it’ll be Iran. Meanwhile, he sees the lives of his friends, his family, falling apart, mostly because of health care and housing costs. And Paul knows they’re the lucky ones, with jobs and insurance, and a roof over their heads, at least for now. Nobody he knows is living more than three checks or one serious injury or illness from the street. His parents are getting older, he worries about how they will care for them. Just the other day, his mom fell in the bathroom. He put in some handrails, but soon handrails won’t be enough. How will he care for them? How will he pay for their medicine that isn’t covered by either the new Medicare or that sorry ass insurance policy they bought? His salary is barely enough for him, and the company has been downsizing. Paul is through with the Democrats. He’s looking for a party that isn’t owned by the corporations, one that will actually do something for the people, not just make the same old tired speeches.
What do the Democrats have to offer Paul and his family?
The Republicans clearly have nothing to offer any of these people.
What do the Democrats have to offer them?
Wow. Are you practicing for an anti-state of the union address. Pointing to the unfortunate in the crowd. Very effective technique.
Kind of makes next week’s diary for blog-powered-political change seem trite.
8:14 a.m. I need a drink already. Hoping I can stay far enough in front of the tidal wave of awful so that I can continue to enjoy watching the havoc that is being wreaked from a state of inebriation.
Pointing to the unfortunate in the crowd. Very effective technique.
I don’t think he said those are the unfortunate ones. It could very well be that those are examples of families/individuals who have potentially manageable problems and are slightly more fortunate than others.
or more fortunate examples, but recognizing the popularity of centrism, I chose the middle. 🙂
And yes, all the people in these examples could have everything from a decent life, to their life saved, if they had a legitimate government who saw as its duty their well-being, as opposed to making rich men richer by killing other peoples’ children.
Ya know, the worst part is that they aren’t even the worst off and yet there seems to be a move developing to consider their advocacy to be a terrorist threat in need of prosecution.
The PTB want them invisible-ized. They would prefer to set them adrift in a silent harbor to be taken out.
I’m up way to early today and think I’ll join you in that drink..how bout the Early Morning Drinkers Club. Little Kahlua in my coffee please.
I don’t really see this as an anti-state of the union though..just cold hard sad facts and maybe just maybe if some politician started talking like this in their speechifying and telling it like it is-with some real solutions and programs that will help, then all those people might actually feel like someone was Really listening and aware of their problems and that just might make them get out and vote.
I didn’t mean my comment as critical to DTF’s statement. Just that it used that old State of the Union technique of pointing out people in the crowd. I think he’s on point as usual.
The most disheartening part, is that at best, I’m one of those people handing out flyers to be used a free Kleenex. What am I doing? What is our country doing?
I really feel what you’re sayiing, because I went through that same stage many times, of asking “What am I DOING? (*handing out leaflets, etc) It;s a hard place to be.
I didn’t read your comment as being critical just that you’re completely disheartened and really are agonizing over what to do-how to effect some change. You know no one can be gung ho and upbeat all the time and sometimes it actually is good to go with the flow and let yourself be mad/sad/frustrated and disgusted for awhile. Allow that feeling to breathe a bit instead of trying to suppress it with any happy pep talks to yourself. I’ve found that for me suppressing that anger doesn’t help and only gets in the way of any realistic change. Constructive anger can become a very good force for needed change. And in fact I think that is usually the start of all basis for change-anger.
The folks who get out and vote because they believe someone is aware of their problems and is Really Listening are the people who are receiving a benefit from corporate rule, and that benefit it that the politicians are skillful enough, and their problems not yet urgent enough, that believing someone is aware and listening is for them, a benefit.
The folks in my diary, like the millions of real life folks that they represent, are not really in need of that kind of benefit.
What they need is housing, and medicine, and medical treatment, and a Living Wage. And they don’t need it in that sweet and ephemeral bye and bye of the millionaire’s speeches. They need it yesterday, and some of them are going to die if they don’t get it within a few weeks.
Some of them have gotten out and voted in the past, and have learned that it does not give them anything that they need to live. Others were born knowing that.
When awareness and listening is accepted by landlords and doctor’s billing offices and insurance and utility companies and grocery stores, then they too will appreciate awareness and listening.
Not ONLY pointing the number of us unforunates in the crowd, but also to the ever increasing numbers of formerly-fortunates who are joining us every day. Can’t join you in the drink cuz thats how I used to get by, till it tunred on me, so I’ll just have an orange juice without the vodka and pretend it will help.
inspriations. While some cleave to the traditional notion that these people should be left to perish, after, of course, sending the Democrats money, you appear to be actually aware of the rather wide, if I may understate the case, chasm of disconnect between the reality in which increasing Americans live, and the reality of corporate rule which in its wisdom has decreed that they shall not live much longer.
You actually wrote a diary encouraging, advocating, inciting, people to get off their asses and see if they can’t figure out a way to avoid the tumbrils, an idea which would be as beneficial to those who now suck placidly at the teat of corporate rule as it would to the undesirables, the superfluous, those unlikely to produce a profit for any corporation, those unlikely even to produce much of a revenue stream for the various human warehouses and prisons with which America shows she cares.
So please do your blog-change thing. Do it for all the people who don’t know what blogs are and who have never had an internet account, or a savings account, and for those who used to have a savings account, but emptied it before there were blogs because the baby got sick.
Do it for every person in the diary, and all the millions they represent, because those millions are the greatest hope for peacefully ending corporate rule that you’ve got, at the same time that they are the greatest reason why it is not likely to end peacefully.
Excellent diary. It illustrates perfectly why I am so sickened by the Democrats. It’s really all about the people, but they don’t see that. They appear to be focussed on maintaining their beltway fraternity and hand-picking new frat brothers/sisters.
I already knew that the Republicans don’t care about anyone who isn’t white, male, straight and wealthy. I had expected better from the Democrats. The last several years have completely disabused me of that rosy fantasy.
sad state of affairs, isn’t it? For as much as we hear 9/11 invoked on Capital Hill for terror, it’s a damned shame that it’s never been invoked in the name of unity. The teachable moment could have been coming together instead of destroying one another. We squandered it for what? More destruction. The devil we know…
It seems particularly disingenuous at this point in our history to argue that on the one hand that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and on the other that a Democratic majority will make the whole world a better, brighter place. Throw in the progressive smoke screen and we’ve got a country mired in self-delusion.
A Democratic Senate majority gave us the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution. Kerry/Edwards ran on the smarter imperialist platform. We can’t even get our party to talk about what a fiasco Iraq has been on every aspect from national security to human rights and the deficit even as the Bushies plan Stage II… but somehow, the sun will come out tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar…
I don’t want to back a kinder, gentler imperialism. I don’t want to forfeit any more human life, basic human rights and civil liberties for political expediency. I am not going to pretend that come morning, pulling the lever next to “D” will make everything okay…
As an life-long independent voter I’ve never bought into the idea that I should look to political parties to determine how to vote. No political party really offers anything to anyone because they are disinterested in the individual voter.
We can only have reciprocal relationships with individual candidates. A specific candidate has specific positions which I can evaluate and use to determine what she has to offer and whether what she has to offer aligns with the values I hold. If I find such a candidate then I have something to offer in return — my time, my money, my vote. If a candidate doesn’t hold positions that I support but I vote for him anyway, then I am giving him license to ignore those values.
Is this a way of saying it’s ok to vote Republican?
We, the people, should never vote for a stupid, incompetent, or evil candidate simple because they have an R or a D after their name.
Agreed. That’s why we’re trying to get some quality control or at least a ‘none of the above’ option on the ballots.
Andif – gotcha, thanks.
Yeah, I can just picture it==people fed up w/DINOs and wingnuts…hell, there would be no congresscritters!
In the extremely unlikely event, I could find a republican candidate who supports the views I hold, I would have to give it serious consideration but my definition of “holding” a position means a commitment to vote for that position, not just mouth it. And in reality it has meant that I often vote for third-party candidates who hold positions that are very left of center.
Nice. The candidate who speaks convincingly to these problems, who has a progressive plan for these people, that’s my candidate. I don’t care which party they’re from.
to be of much use to these folks, though to the ones who are not in such bad straits yet, it might have some value.
Of course, you’re right.
I still entertain the idea that with the “right leadership” we could haul most of us out of this ever-widening abyss. I am not sure how much longer that idea will continue to be even remotely entertaining, but I suspect it may soon become riotously hilarious in that way that is not really about humor.
In November 2004 Supersoling voted for John Kerry because he fell for the dire warnings that Bush had to be removed. In the past SS voted his conscience in spite of the attacks on his integrity and idealism.
John Kerry promised to fight for SS’s vote in light of the stolen 2000 election. Kerry even solicited funds for this purpose and SS contributed in the misplaced hope that Kerry would keep his word.
When it became clear that the vote had been manipulated in Ohio among other states, the call went out for Kerry to stand and fight as he said he would. Instead he decided to yeild without a fight. Al Gore, of all people stood strong longer than Kerry did.
The Greens and the Libertarians took up Kerry’s fight. They’re still fighting that fight.
What do the Democrats have to offer Supersoling?
them more money, as opposed to giving it to Karen or Annabeth.
They offer supersoling, as long as he has any money to send, and even when he doesn’t, to hear stirring and convincing speeches, some of which may contain expressions of awareness and listening.
They offer supersoling the opportunity to accept their pragmatism and commitment to the war on terror as they come on board with the invasion of Iran, as Earlene draws her last breath, because cutting pills in half doesn’t really treat the problem.
They offer supersoling the opportunity to volunteer his services at no charge at the local phone bank and call up people who are still able to pay the mortgage and ask them to send money to politicians, as opposed to giving it to Lisette.
A very good diary that connects us to the problems real people face in this country.In more sanely ordered world, that would have been the job of the TV networks.In our degraded situation where people are thought of as burdens, and the network anchors are far removed from the daily travails of people, that is like finding snowflakes in you know where.It is only in blogs like this we can meet and exchange thoughts that matter to us.
In this connection, I want to say a few things about an economist, Julian Simon, who,alone among all the economists, kept insisting that large populations like those of India or China are not problems but hidden assets.His idea was that what looks like a liability when the people are uneducated, impoverished and unhealthy, would become assets when they become educated and healthy.This is exactly what has happened in China and India.Why can’t some of our Democrats speak up for the nearly 50 million poor people who can become assets to our economy?John Edwards seems to be the only one speaking up for them.I would also like Democrats to make the connection between the half a trillion dollar “defense” budget and the deliberate impoverishment of the people you have alluded to in your diary.
Thank you.
Speaking of network anchors/cable news..their obsessive reporting and hundreds of daily updates on the stock market is something that drives me friggen crazy. Why don’t they have fucken numerous daily updates about what business may close/talk to the workers..what will the people do, what were their wages, were they union(ha ha), how closing or laying off workers will effect rest of the business in town and so on. While CEO of companies that even file for chapter 11 give those same CEO’s bonuses for gods sake.
How bout a cable network devoting all day to people who work, what Wal-Mart is costing every state in over a third of their workers being on some sort of state aid, how many labor violations they have, what companies are good for the working person and why-like Costco. Just a pipedream of mine I know..after all big corps run the news networks and would never allow something like that.
Of course that’s to much like real news for all the networks with their plastic anchors to really want to talk about..don’t want to cause any more discontent among the masses right?
I meant to add also that John Edwards-as you mentioned- is the only politician-the only white politician- who has been consistently and tirelessly talking about poverty and gasp..race and regular workers and how to lift people out of poverty with social programs and action. Such as his raising the minimum wages in each state(as Congress doesn’t seem to care to)and his other actions. He’s doing more than just paying lip service during an election year to the problem of poverty and all the problems associated with that.
housing, a token raise in it would be an advantage politically, seen through the eyes of the political classes, who have not, at least yet, been empowered with the opportunity to discover just what it will purchase for their families.
To suggest a Living Wage would render John Edwards immediately “unelectable,” and establish him as a dangerous and anti-business radical.
And should he be elected, unless he is prepared to effect a revolution and the end to corporate rule via executive decree and military enforcement of same, he would not get such a thing through the ranks of his fellow corporate employees, and would be, if not tragically and accidentally assasinated, be immediately removed from office by a military that also works for the corporations.
He will enjoy a much longer life and as long a career as any of them can hope for if he confines himself to speaking about it in the terms he has been doing, and leaves revolutions to revolutionaries.
You know Duct I’ve mentioned this before that I’ve gone from a truly naive Pollyanna concerning the Democrats(a slow process over some 30 years)-thinking they were the answer to everything-to becoming more disillusioned….meaning your remarks about John Edwards either being assassinated or in someway taken out of the picture has already occurred to me..and I hate the idea that it has even occurred to me and how cynical I’ve gotten. And I don’t consider that paranoid either as you only have to look at history to see some of the politicians and leaders who have been assassinated.
As long as he maintains that balance between speeches designed to appeal to that sector of his audience who respond positively to expressions of concern for the plight of the poor, without crossing the line into openly advocating anti-business policies or anything that might be interpreted as calling for anything that might sound like “socialism,” and if corporate rule should last enough time for him to be elected, he continues to maintain that balance, he will be just fine.
That’s a great comment. I have no intention of diverting this excellent diary but DTF would understand my torment with windows.
To address several problems, what would be an opinion of a program that combined a structured system of mandatory civil service in a noncombat but military type service? It would be a basic training and then normal work environment and programs that placed people based on aptitude in jobs of public-private-govt partnership. It would be military in the sense of a National Guard based for domestic use only but as a mandatory service, it would make all equal. From there, the volunteers for further duty, only as needed for self defense and never pre-emptive, could build a stronger active duty force.
This could be a bridge between civil service and social programs that enhance people by building a better social and physical infrastructure. People want to work. Work needs done. Seems like a good combination.
I don’t want to stray from the diary intent but this was a good place to plant an apple tree.
eh, fuckit. nobody cares enough to make a difference if a difference could even be made.
my definition of “everybody” is somewhat wider than that generally employed by the American political and chattering class, and given the urgency of the situation, and the inevitability of events set in motion long ago taking their course, barring some cataclysmic upheaval, and considering the lives that could be saved, it could do no harm to find out.
Ok now, rumi, no fair dropping a delcious teaser like this via comment in someone elses diary. I want to see a diary dug just for apple tree, please? (Don’t MAKE me beg, it makes me ugly.)
I would gladly write one because the ideas are based on making our country stronger through it’s people. The problem is, any one of us that advocate change are also being set up to be accused of being a subversive threat and prosecuted with our own words. If we had people we could trust in place in the government to uphold justice and not pervert the system for their own gain, then honest disagreement or new ideas would not present a threat.
That is indeed a shame.
“The problem is, any one of us that advocate change are also being set up to be accused of being a subversive threat and prosecuted with our own words.”
Does that mean you’re not going to write one?
I am sitting on my fingers to avoid commenting on the idea right now, but I would definitely have some things to say about it 🙂
In reply to both comments, the point is obscured by governmental hidden agendas. That prevents honest discussions of productive ideas. All of that is just another way of saying that I’m getting with the program.
The program being STFU so the shadow runners can rule the world any way they see fit which means punishing people for being poor. It’s hard not to believe the appearance that those agency folks enjoy watching the suffering or they would work hard to put integrity back into those agencies. Why doesn’t it bother more people?
Ghettoization, marginalization, and sytematic and assiduous efforts to keep the affluent areas “clean” have been successful enough so that suburban soccer moms are not yet finding bodies blocking their driveways, or ragged feral children tapping on the windows of the Burger King at the strip mall asking people if they are going to finish those fries.
The affluent do not go into poor areas, neither those that truly would be dangerous for them, nor those that would not be, but would be populated by people who look and speak and live very differently.
There is very little social “integration” of economic classes, beyond a smattering of superficial and artificial workplace camraderie, “oh that’s Alicia, she cleans up our mess at night, she’s a trip, I love to kid around with her.”
It is unlikely that Alicia will be confiding to the kidder that her kid is home sick, alone, and she is unable to purchase medical treatment for him, and caught between a rock and a hard place because if she stays home to care for him as best she can, she will lose the job that makes it possible for her to buy the two of them a little food, and her second job does not pay enough to pay the rent without the first.
And it is unlikely that the kidder will ask, or think to much about what Alicia’s $5.65 an hour buys her and her little daughter, and even unlikelier that he will be taking up a collection to raise a few thousand dollars for her, just in case she needs it, or that it will ever occur to him that the money he spends on entertainment for one weekend would pay her rent for a month.
Why do people always suggest “volunteering”? How about jobs? Real jobs w/benefits, not a bullshit volunteer thing that doesn’t accomplish anything, except increase the budget (and salaries) of those who “work” for NFP’s.
and delivered it would have won quite the political prize.
But that would have been a revolution. Remember only 25% of those eligible participate in US “elections” and that has been true for almost forty years now.
There’s a reason for that, and the reason is that it doesn’t much matter whether Annabeth votes or not.
Not even John Edwards can give her housing, unless he wants to do it for her alone, maybe a few others, out of his own pocket.
And if he speaks of it too much, and sounds like he might be threatening to see that she gets it with public funds, his career in corporate politics would be over, and if he did not want a career in corporate politics, he would have chosen another path.
Your statistics are a bit confusing.
Voter participation statistics are a bit higher than 25%.
Imagine what would have happened if Kerry had actually been a charismatic candidate with the ability and guts to articulate a substantively different agenda from Bush’s!
Of course these voter turnout stats in the US are nothing to cheer about.
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
And thank you for correcting me. I did not address that at all in my diary, that is not really its subject, but it is a fact that no one can really say, thanks to these fine technological innovations, what percentage of the American public, living or dead votes, or how many times in any given “election.”
Actually, the voter registration records are very accurate.
The counting of the votes (for example, in Ohio) is in doubt, but the actualy percentage of the population actually voting is not in question.
Claiming that only 25% of the eligible population participate in elections when, in the most recent federal election the participation rate is claimed to be over 60%, is a pretty big stretch.
I think statistics do matter. I take it from your remark that you don’t think there’s any “proof” how many people participated in the last election. I find that an astounding claim and would hope you have some sort of proof other than the vague statement that “thanks to these fine technological innovations, what percentage of the American public, living or dead votes, or how many times in any given “election.””
You cited a statistic of 25% of the eligible population participating in elections–so actually, you HAVE determined the number of people who participated in elections. It’s simply that your 25% figure seems to have been pulled out of thin air, and very much misrepresents the actual number of people who DID participate in the 2004 election.
Or are you saying that actually only 25% participated, and because of electronic voting machines (which aren’t used in the majority of voting precincts in the US, by the way), the figure was inflated to 60%? If so, that is THE largest conspiracy in the history of the planet.
Now I’m more confused than ever. I do know this: one ought to check one’s facts and figures when making an argument. Ballpark estimates are ok by me, but 25% isn’t even in the same neighborhood as the stadium.
It was some institute or organization or other. A US one, I know that is always important.
I don’t want to get into peoples’ faith traditions, though. Your statistics are fine with me, and my statistics can be not fine with you, and that is no problem.
I acknowledge that many people believe very strongly in the theory of a causal relationship between which candidate gets the most votes and who takes office, and the purpose of my diary is not to bash anybody’s beliefs, or argue about who “won” the right to stand in front of the cameras and present US policies to the viewing public.
The point of my diary is it doesn’t matter a Cheneyfart.
Just to make sure I understand the numbers being thown around here. . .am I correct that you are saying 60% of REGISTERED voters voted?
If that is what you are saying, that is a far different statistic than voting age eligible people who voted.
It seems pretty clear to me, but I’m old and probably not too competent, that the number of REGISTERED voters does not begin to reflect the number of voters actually available to be registered and voting, but not registering or voting.
I am sure someone will set me straight on this, but I hear every election cycle that somewhat less than 50% of those who could vote if they registered and actually got out there and voted, do vote.
It seems to me, that you are talking about two different pools of potential voters.
I don’t have 2004 numbers but in 2000 51.2% of voting eligible population turned out and 65.6% of registered voters turned out.
The turnout of registered voters has decreased steadily since 1960 when 88.1% of registered voters turned out.
Another fact (based on 2000 statistics )is that, as stated above, only Switzerland had a lower turnout of voting eligible population (34.9%), Canada’s and the UK had only slightly higher turnout (53.4% and 55.4% respectively).
The highest turnouts for parliamentary/presidential elections during that general time period was Indonesia which had a 92.8% turnout for its 1997 parliamentary election.
Thanks Mary!
Sorry I’m so lazy. . .I really should be taking my own advice and staying out of these “hot button” diaries. . .that happens when you’re long in the tooth and just tired out from a life time of being outraged and trying your damndest to make a difference somehow.
But then you have someone like Ductape who so perfectly and beautifully writes to the understandings that I hold as part of my life experiences. . .and what ya gonna do. And dang it! If he and you and many others here weren’t such wonderful writers, with beautiful hearts and equally beautiful minds, I could be off cleaning my house like I should be doing.
So I blame you all! And thank you all equally from the bottom of my heart.
I did not confuse the category of “registered voters” with “voter eligible population”.
All of my statistics apply to voter-eligible people (US citizens aged 18 and older).
In 2004, over 60% of all people in the United States who were eligible to vote, did vote. That’s TOTAL population eligible to vote, not just registered voters.
Even a 60%+ participation is nothing to brag about, although it is up from the paltry 51% of the prior presidential election. I think it ought to be 95%, but maybe the reason it isn’t is because so many people are alienated by the political process, apathetic, or both.
I also noted that voter participation in the United States is lower than any democracy except Switzerland, and that voter participation declined from the early 1960s until 2004, when it spiked back up.
My concern is that DTF threw out this “25% of eligible voters participate” figure without any sources to back it up and then pretended as if the actual statistics were unknowable or worse, irrelevant.
Statistics DO matter and they ought not be treated as if their accuracy was unknowable or unimportant.
Phew, hope THAT clears everything up!!!!!!
“In 2004, over 60% of all people in the United States who were eligible to vote, did vote.”…..
Still, help me out here, I don’t exactly have a mathematical mind….but if 60% of eligible voters vote and the “winner” gets 50% of that, doesn’t that mean that the “winner” was voted in by about 30% of eligible voters (just 3% less than Hitler and the Nazi Party won in 1932)?
And that, of course, is called a mandate.
or a reactionary, extremist fringe group (PNAC) running the country and everyone just letting them get away with it (mostly because they’re afraid of losing their jobs, or losing what little benefit the current gov still provides; in the case of Dems in office, because they’re afraid of losing elections, or of being called names).
Lewis Lapham, in March issue of Harpers, reports on a conversation he had with Conyers about why he submitted the impeachment resolution even though it had absolutely no chance of success:
John Conyers, a mighty, mighty man.
What I wouldn’t give for an army of John Conyers’ or even a slim 51-49 majority of like minded souls in the Senate. But that’s a fantasy that I have to keep in check.
Conyers is also providing ample evidence of just what the Dems could be doing as a functioning opposition party.
If they were all just bombarding the Repugs w/ resolutions, inquiries, etc.–at every single opportunity….from house and senate, going after them on every point like junkyard dogs…
Conyers just proves how much more all of them could be doing.
(Lapham btw, in terms of “mightiness” isn’t doing a bad job either–been subscribing to Harpers for a little over a year now–Lapham is seriously spot on, seriously relentless….recommended reading….go to Harpers.org)
It’s the ideology, stupid.
The “ideology” is not communism nor socialism nor any of those other nasty “isms” that Americans hate so much.
It’s a simple ideology:
The government acts as a check against the big corporations and their constant exploitation and degradation of workers and the environment.
The government helps people help themselves by helping the very young, the very poor, the very sick, and the very old with health care, housing, food, and education.
in particular, I have said at least once a week for years.
I think, however at this point especially, that it goes beyond even ideology.
What you are describing is another one of my favorite “golf clubs,” as BooMan calls them.
The dichotomy is one of basic philosophy of the purpose of government: Is the purpose of government to ensure the well-being of the people?
Or is the purpose of the people to serve the government, and aid it in serving the corporations?
I too have been saying this for a long time in the hopes of stimulating dormant cognition in many of my fellow citizens.
The only legitimate reason for government to exist is to serve and empower the governed. All else is either tyranny or swindle.
Geraldine Ferraro had a great saying during the 1984 elections: “We want the government off your back and on your side.”
It was a hell of a slogan–must be, because I remember it with perfect clarity 22 years later.
Unfortunately, Walter Mondale wasn’t exactly the right person to “sell” that slogan. John Edwards, now…hmmmm.
Your stories make the point in a way that many other words have not. It makes me think that 60 years ago, there was a Democrat that spoke to the people in these stories. We don’t always need to reinvent the wheel – here’s a progressive agenda:
“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
The right of every family to a decent home.
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
The right to a good education.”
“The test of our progress,” said Roosevelt, “is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
Roosevelt, State of the Union, Jan. 11, 1944
There it is, all done for us. Thank you.
Now to find politicians with access to enough money to get elected without selling their souls, who we can trust to walk the walk, not just talk this talk.
Anyone know any?
George Bush is the only one who comes to mind unfortunately.
I am not one of those who deifies FDR, but I think that some of his actions speak very directly to the current situation.
Seeing that the US was, at that time, vulnerable to revolution, he sought to head it off at the pass. Some of his actions were at the time, not at all praised by business interests, but because corporate rule was not then as deeply and comprehensively entrenched then as now, he was able to do it, and there were even some business interests who saw the wisdom of not ripping the belly of the golden egg laying goose.
However, he did not do enough, and like a wound poorly sutured, it came open, and left untreated, widened and festered, so that today no token measures, no half a loaf, will stanch the bleeding, or the infection.
Those statements from FDR’s address would today have to become more than meaningful or sensitive or indications or awareness and listening.
They would have to become immediate reality, fact on the ground, here is your house.
Maybe I don’t dream big enough – but it just brings tears to my eyes to imagine a President of the US saying this in a SOTU address today.
And it also brings tears to my eyes to think about how far into the muck we have sunk that I can’t even imagine that happening.
StP: Thanks for bringing this in. I discovered this Second Bill of Rights only a few years ago. To me they are the stars that should guide our party. Political rights are nothing without economic rights. FDR’s proposed 2nd Bill of Rights was intended to put a broad economic foundation under the towering heights of the first Bill of Rights.
We of FDR’s own party have forgotten his words and betrayed his promises – and we wonder why our political rights are fading. We abide the kind of disparity in economic opportunity that in another time and country we would be called aristocracy. We grumble and mumble and accede to a perverted fundamentalism that replaces God with the Invisible Hand of the Free Market, something that (unlike God) has been proven not to exist.
What do Democrats have to offer these people? Hope.
Who are these Democrats? Mostly not those sitting in the halls of Congress, but some few even there.
Who are these Democrats that offer this hope? They are the ones that are just as fed up as anyone here that are ever so slowly taking back lost ground and remaking their party into something recognizable by FDR.
Part of our problem is that we define Democrats as elected officials and we define acceptable levels of activism as voting. Neither is correct. Neither is enough. These perceptions are part of what keep us from making real change. Change will not come until those perceptions change. But when they do, you may yet hear these words spoken by a sitting president of the US.
Powerful and important words, DTF. Thank you.
To make your words work fully to express my own view, I would only broaden the question asked to..
“What does this form of democracy, with this kind of political system and structure, have to offer any American who isn’t already rich and powerful, or well on thier way to becoming so?”
not a form of democracy, I take my hat off to you for saying what I said in so fewer words. I will never be able to claim the gift of brevity, or the ability to carry a tune, but perhaps for that very reason, these are among the talents that I admire most in others, and your comment is like hearing Miss Jessye Norman sing the Ave Maria!
Thank you!
I am not the only adoring Jesseye Norman fan here! OMG!!
Now you’ve just gone and endeared yourself even more to me. . .you’ve got a lot of moxy, ductape.
LOL
right now, and while the lyrics probably have something of a different significance to me than to mainstream Americans, we can all agree I think, that she sings the hell out of it!
I have had the privilege to hear her live on occasion, and count those as among the few times I have felt myself in the presence of true art, goose bumps and all!
And I would give you a 4, simply for liking Miss Jessye, but the thread has gotten big and the rate all button has been gone away since lunch time.
Love the New Jerusalem! I have several video tapes of her performances, never lucky enough to see a live performance, but even the cd’s and videos set the goose bumps up on me, and tears of appreciation for such a magnificent voice and being. She is truly a gift to this world in many more ways than just her magnificent voice.
Words are nice, and you are very good with them. I admire a lot of what you write. However, I just do not understand why you so totally blame the Democrats for everything that has happened to our country.
You have made it clear you are not a Democrat. You do not hold the Democrats in any respect at all.
So since you are not a Democrat apparently (I say apparently, but I have seen many posts of yours and gather you are not)….why do you feel you must lead so many to share your feelings of disgust with them.
There is a moderate view in this matter, and it is not a popular thing here anymore. I am so upset to see that people like me who see the wrong things Democrats have done, and want to change things…..are considered the enemy here now.
And yes, since I have basically said I am not willing to keep blasting the party needlessly, will not work for its destruction, and will work within it…then I and others like me who are pointing out another way are the bad guys.
That is a scary feeling for me to be the enemy of anyone.
I do not see you as an enemy or a bad person. I see you as someone who a) truly believes the best way to proceed is to continue to work towards changing the Democratic Party from the inside and b) would like very much for others to join you in these efforts, or, failing that, c) at least stop criticizing your Party so harshly. It’s not for me to judge your position as a “bad or good” thing. It’s your stance and you have every right to it, and to express it.
But as for how realistic it is to expect folks who don’t agree with your choices, to NOT express their strong feelings of betrayal by a Party that they feel has abandoned them, and to express this in criticism well, I just don’t think thats a very realistic expectation. Nor is it realistic to believe that any of us can force anyone else to change their own positions to match our own. We can state our position, give our reasons, express our desire to have other join in in it, and that’s about it.
When those who feel strongly about their own position judge and condemn those that don’t share it, how can it raise anything BUT a defensive reaaction no matter which way the judtement and condemnation is flowing?
What do you have to offer the poor and the needy? If you don’t have a way to help them, a way with a lot of power and money…then the Republicans get their way in doing away with all safety nets.
No, I am no bad person. I don’t need to be defended for being a Democrat. I just saw something interesting at another forum. A person who has been advocating 3rd party changed and said he was not seeing how it would work.
Now he is a bad guy as well. He is talked down to just as some of us here are, accused of not caring.
“What do you have to offer the poor and the needy?”
Well, let’s see. I started helping them out 60 years ago, growing up among taking care of the frail lderly in the nursing home my great grandmother ran. Then I spend about 45 years in various position as an RN in places where all of my patients were poor and needy, plus volunuteering for many kinds of support group faciitation gigs for thosoe who couldn’t afford fancy therapy,in including Parents Anynomous, which helps(mostly poor) parents at risk of abusing thier kids. Now I help my poor and elderly neighbors with things like understanding their medications, Medicare stuff, finding help they need, etc, and am about to start some volunteer work with an agency that serves troubled kids from troubled families. Along with of course, years of political involvement, the results of which, in terms of social safety nets created, and rights gained for women and minorites, I see unraveling before my very eyes as we speak. I’m not a bad person either, and I sure don’t neeed you to tell me how to help the poor and needy.
In their quest for taking away the social safety nets?
I appreciate all you do, my husband and I are active in some of those areas as well. Our area has groups which the elderly to medical appointments, check on them, etc. We do a lot of that.
But I have a congressman and a senator whose main goal is to enable the destruction of the programs put in place by FDR. They don’t care about anything else. One of them is chair of the congressional policy committee, and he is a loyalist to Bush’s agenda.
So I guess they are going to be in control come November, still. It is sounding like that to me at almost all liberal and Democratic forums. It sounds like that is the will of the people.
Peace.
I just do not understand why you so totally blame the Democrats for everything that has happened to our country.
I am so sorry that this is what you saw in this diary. I did not see it at all. What I saw was an attempt to remind us of the very people the Democrats ought to be representing, but don’t seem to be reaching at all. I see no blame there – only an attempt to remind us that people in these situations deserve representation too. And, according to the quote from Roosavelt above, they should be our primary interest. What I don’t understand is why the Democrats seem to be afraid of speaking for people like this. It is that fear that damages my trust.
I did not see the word Republican anywhere in the diary though, and I don’t see any solutions offered for the ones he mentioned.
It’s ok, I understand my view is not popular. Working to change the party by moving in and taking it over from the ground up….really radical, huh?
But that is what I will work on, we are already working on it.
My question is sincere.
I am neither a political party nor a politician. I am not standing before them in a designer suit and designed hair making speeches to them about how they should send me money, send other politicians money, work for free, vote for me or anybody else, simply because I have graced them with my presence and my stirring oratory before getting back into my limousine and returning to my fancy hotel room, knowing full well that even if they send me their rent money and do all that I ask, that they are still not going to have housing, they are still not going to be able to purchase medical treatment, and that at my next stop, I am going to be talking to a different audience, and instead of having to appear to be aware and listening, I will be expressing my support for the war on terror and doing everything I can to convince that audience that I will be tougher on terror than the Republicans.
And then I will not be moving on to speak to your group, to lull you into forgetting that any of those poor people exist, and at the same time convince you that if you vote for me, you will have a better chance of not sharing their plight.
And thank you for the compliment, but I do not have the kind of skill with words that could persuade an intelligent person like you that corporate rule is providing a benefit to you, even as the peasants scramble around for matches to light their torches, even as I pledge to spend your tax dollars on more slaughter, more kidnapping and torture, and have you believe that I am making you safer.
I will try to do a better job of that.
As I said, I am neither a party, nor a politician. I am not Hugo Chavez. I am just an old man posting on a blog, I have no bully pulpit, no bulging war-chest.
I can tell you what I would offer them, if I had the opportunity, and the resources.
I would offer them the knowledge of their power. I would whisper in the ear of every human being working in the US without papers purchased from Washington the interesting truth that if they all stayed home from work for just one day, they could very nearly bring the US economy to its knees.
I would offer them the fact that put all together and combined, they constitute a force greater in numbers as well as greater in need, than all the 25% top income tier and the politicians they admire.
If I could, I would offer them buses to take them to Washington, in the tens of millions that they are, and those who are too limited in physical capacity to march, I would offer them wheelchairs and gurneys, and strong young men and women to push, that they might be like that sea of VietNam Veterans against the war, that came over the horizon and parted another sea of people, on a day so long ago, except this sea would be multiplied tenfold. This sea would paralyze the area for a 200 mile radius, and there would be no way for US gunmen to “disperse” them without bombing the White House and the Pentagon and all those other elegant and historic buildings, and all their occupants.
And if that failed, I would offer them matches, and bic lighters, and the best torches I could find, and if there were no one else to stand up, I would lead them myself to the palace gates, though if it were a long way, I might need one of those chairs or gurneys and a few strong youngsters to push.
Mr. Ductape,
we may not measure in the millions but if you’ll trust me, I’ll gladly help carry your gurney.
If you’re a big fella I might have some trouble hauling you over the gate but I’ll get you over just the same.
The personal is political.
It always is in the end. Not as many people take the macro view vs. the micro view… ie. how does it affect my life, right now.
Republicans don’t want to answer the question either, so they appeal to base emotions and reactions, even when their actual policies are exactly counter to their rhetoric… the lizard brain… immigrants are stealing your jobs, you pay too much in taxes, al qaeda is going to blow you up at wal-mart because they hate your freedoms, the coloured guy is going to rape your daughter and steal your car, you know the drill.
Democrats used to try and answer those questions, well, at least a little. Now they refuse to even entertain the question. Keep their mouth shut or say “The President is right..”
Who wins the heart and mind of Joe or Jill American in that case?
Well, yes and no:
Lisette and her family believe without question that abortion is morally wrong. They know economically there are good years and bad, so things are a little tight right now. But they cannot compromise on their principles: abortions are wrong, so they vote for Republicans.
Justin and Ben’s daughter will soon be going into the middle school. The integrated neighborhood elementary school was okay. But now it is time to get serious about her education. And the public school, at least after elementary school, has just too many problems. Private school is expensive, so they are considering the value of school vouchers. There is a Republican talking them up.
Keisha’s oldest is now in first grade. The teacher has been telling Keisha her son isn’t learning to read. Keisha believes doing well in school is real important, but accepts that her son must be just like her, a slow-learner.
She’s heard about a church school that opened up. It costs, but maybe she can get her mom to cut back on her smoking and they can use the cigarette money to send him. And there was some talk about getting tax money to be able to send your kids to private school that would help too.
Earlene is struggling to pay for medicine, but she listens regularly to the preacher on the radio. And she sends as much as she can to him so he can spread the word to all those heathens in the world. And she will be kept in his prayers.
She also votes for Republicans cause she knows that proper marriage is between a man and a woman. Hate the sin, love the sinner – why to make marriage between two men or two women legal – that is supporting the devil.
Paul’s daughter is studying to be an engineer. She’s doing some job research and it looks like the places hiring design missile systems. They pay really well, once you get established. She doesn’t particularly want to design missiles, but she so wants to do engineering. And there are those school loans to pay. She’s not sure who she’ll vote for when the time comes. She’s beginning to believe a strong military is important.
Sigh.
It is a very valid point. There are millions of Americans who will complain that they cannot afford to purchase medical treatment in the same breath with which they decry the evils of “socialized medicine.”
There are women who remain in abusive relationships because they have few realistic and sustainable options economically for even obtaining a little food for their children, also victims of the abuser.
And there is a correlation between those two examples, as well as the others you mention.
People who act against their own interests either through internalized oppression, through ignorance, or both.
And for every marginalized and disenfranchised person who sneers at the idea of voting, quite correctly realizing that no politician is going to raise their salary enough to enable them to purchase the basics, nor provide them housing, nor medical treatment, there is a proverbial NASCAR dad or other iconic figure who, like his affluent Democratic counterpart, is receiving a psychological benefit, and truly believes that he must have Resolve to make sacrifices to win the war on terror and God speaks through Bush, or that if everyone will just vote for Democrats, as someone said, the sun will come out tomorrow, and maybe someday these poor people won’t have to be so poor, and it is the Republican’s fault that there are so many of them anyway, and the gays you know should just be patient and wait till the time is right, like the minorities have been doing, like the grandfathers of both did.
The US not only needs a revolution, it needs counselling 🙂
Well, I’ve seen enough, again. Back to the world of the uninvolved. Nothing can be done until there is some measure of trust established between the voters/people and the system. I am unable to effect change for the better but I can live with that, in peace.
First of all, thank you DtF, for an important diary! These are some of the fundamental questions to be asked if people are going to exercise their right to vote and vote for the democrats.
Politically, soscio-economic issues have a greater priority amongst democrats than amongst republicans, but these issues are now drowned in the midst of the “War on Terror” campaign.
The fact that some of the Democrat representatives seems to be more in line with the Republican political platform and the work of “special-interest” groups in lobbying these representatives are also important obstacles to forming a unified and credible alternative to the Republican party both before and after elections.
What’s needed is, in my opinion, both a stricter policy from the Democratic Party on how their representatives are to behave when approached by lobbyist and the introduction of sanctions against representatives that are persistently voting against the party program and the core values of the Democratic Party. The lack of opposition shown
The logic of being a Party and having a political program is, after all, that their representatives adhere to and share certain core values which they want to promote, if not, then each and every candidate could as well run on an independent ticket or on the ticket of some ad-hoc movement.
A very provocative and significant diary, organized around the simplest of questions; What can the Democrats do for me?
I read through pretty much all the comments so far and it struck me that no one has really even attempted to answer this question? (Please forgive me if I missed someone’s efforts to do so.)
This in itself saddens me greatly, adding to the sense I’ve been experiencing more and more of over the futility of the prospects of a partisan electoral solution to the dilemna we face.
or are they hypothetical examples? Do they take place in urban areas or in outlying rural areas?
In general, Democrats and (some Republicans) saved Social Security from Bush’s destructive plans to demolish the New Deal. That’s something. Right now, many states are subsidizing seniors’ prescriptions because of Bush’s failed drug-plan. Stopping Bush really is something that Democrats have to offer.
States have defied Bush’s bills against medical marijuana for the sick and the dying. Judges have defied Bush’s environmental destruction, his deregulation of environmental protection, the list goes on, a six-year grinding fight. Democrats have a lot to offer.
But it is not a link one can paste, not a link that can be found on the internets.
There are links to every example in every community, including yours.
I think you highlight a very good point, though. Many mainstream Americans are not aware of the examples in their community. Some because the people are “invisible,” some because people like Elaine and Paul, even Lisette, are not likely to discuss their situations, their views, with co-workers or casual acquaintances. Lisette will probably be motivated by “pride” or”shame,” and feel on some level as if she and her husband have failed, that they are losers, that they do not want to be perceived as whiners or complainers, maybe even thought to be asking for a “handout,” she may fear the dreaded, um, well shit that’s really rough, look, I could lend you a few bucks if that would help…
Elaine and Paul will quite prudently, be reluctant to confide their views, in the current situation, aside from the obvious and almost certain risks of being labelled as “radical” or “defeatist,” “rejectionist,” “obstructionist,” “emotionally/mentally disturbed,” “selfish,” or to STFU, there is also the danger of being pegged as a terrorist sympathizer who does not support the war on terror, the troops, the President, God’s will, manifest destiny, an anti-American, possibly a socialist, whose reading material should probably be gone over by professionals from one of the security agencies, for the safety of everyone.
Personally, I think it would be terrific if mortgage companies, drugstores, hospitals, doctors, landlords utility companies and supermarkets would accept the litany of Democratic accomplishments you describe in lieu of cash.
In the meantime, nothing is stopping Annabeth from finding a pencil stub and scrap of paper and writing a letter to her congressman asking him to do more for her state’s environmental protection. Oh, wait, the stamp. Maybe a dumpster nearer an office building or something, when the security guard isn’t looking.
And Earlene did receive her two months of medication, without which she would have died two months ago, so it is quite possible that she has her local Democrats to thank for two months of life that the Republicans would have denied her.
In just a few years, Keisha’s mom will be eligible for Social Security. She will receive over $500 a month! It won’t be enough, even with Keisha’s two jobs, to pay for either rent or medicine for mom and the babies, but that’s not really relevant…
had four major Federal candidates, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP. Conservative candidate won, NDP (left wing/labour) came a close second.
The rest of your bitterly sarcastic response doesn’t give much information. I do know that in the US right now, the Democratic Party is the only viable opposition to the Republicans. I know that party is more concerned with the poor, the working poor, the disabled, child-poverty than the Republicans. In fact there is little evidence that the Republicans care at all for the poor.
What’s your alternative to the Democratic Party, revolution? anarchy?
I don’t think that revolution is his alternative. I believe it’s just a matter of time. The democrats as they stand today are not going to turn things around. They continue to alienate those who are begging them to let us help. There’s just this little matter of us having too many principles for them. They are complicit in the slide toward whatever solution will come.
Should have said that they’re alienating those of us who are begging them to let us help them help us.
All of us.
You know, just to confirm that I’m on board, like they did in Venezuela. Oh wait.
And I was mad because none of the ice dancers called me about their costumes, and don’t try to tell me I’m not being blamed all over the internets for that yellow spotchy one.
You know…I understand the fear of those who still support the democrats if only because they honestly see them as the only viable way out. I know too that voices like yours are not exactly pleasant to listen to. Trust me ;o)
But it seems to me that their frustration and critiscism is misdirected. Simple mathematics says the democrats need us as much as we need them. Why more people don’t hold them responsible instead of those who’ve reached the end of their patience, or their welfare check, is beyond me.
I wholeheartedly agree that voices like mine are not exactly pleasant to listen to. ‘Twas ever thus.
And I agree that it is extremely easy to convince people that they have no way, or only one way out. Anyone who has ever worked with, or even had a friend who was in an abusive relationship can confirm this.
However I disagree that the Democrats need people who oppose corporate rule.
Opposing views and dissent are not things that are helpful to a corporate oligarchy, or a military dictatorship. This is why they are not permitted, or if permitted at all, only in small limited “free speech zones,” physical or sociological.
In some places, dissent is controlled simply by immediately exterminating or imprisoning the dissenter. And US does its share of that, both via client states and to a lesser extent, domestically.
Domestically, there is not really a need to station gunmen with SuperEars on every street corner, or plant an operative in every office, because the dissenter’s own will take care of him, either calling him a nut, or a freak, or an extremist radical fringe, and if none of that does the trick, simply by suggesting he does not support the “war on terror,” can shut him up as effectively as a 10 mm weapon with a silencer. Because he knows that it is quite possible that he and/or his family CAN be disappeared if he is suspected of having “terrorist sympathies.”
In short, dissent has been made to be so socially unacceptable that among the mainstream population, anyway, surprisingly little wetwork is even necessary.
Naturally, the rules are slightly different for individuals whose ethnicity may put them at a higher risk.
After reading this, I think I’ll move to Canada for a few years before the radical right and a Democratic Party that is afraid to be left fucks that country up too.
I’d like to hear what your party has to offer these hypothetical people, Ductape. And I’d like to know what your purpose is in posting these stories.
They are a set of emotional appeals, and of the type that makes people feel helpless, that their personal efforts don’t make a difference. In short, they can breed burnout in some, avoidance in others, and further disaffection with the Democrats. Are you blaming the Democrats for these situations? Are you trying to lead readers away from any further work with the Democratic party (seeing that some here are already on that path)?
What will a third party do – like the one whose platform you posted recently? Does it have a more realistic possibility for helping with these kinds of people than the Democrats do? If you think it does, how to you propose to get there?
Or are you saying that nothing will help, that we are just waiting for an inevitable violent uprising?
Do you think that it is inappropriate to speak of people in these situations? Is it in bad taste?
Is this why law enforcement performs “sweeps” of affluent business areas to cleanse them of the poor? To keep people from feeling helpless or burned out, disaffected with the Democrats and possibly causing them to give money to these people instead of sending it to politicians?
Would it be better, and more comfortable to pretend that these conditions do not exist? at least not for you, yet.
I do not have the power to “lead people away from work for the Democratic party.” I don’t think that the Democratic party needs my or anyone’s help in that regard, nor do I think that the Democratic party needs any of the people in the examples. While I am asking what the Democratic party has to offer them, I am confident that none of them has anything to offer the Democratic party. Only two of them have any money, and since neither of those two agree with the Democratic party on issues that are vital and fundamental to their well-being, and both have the potential of being more of a liability than an asset to the party’s public presentation.
I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe that it is likely that a second party could pry open the closed window of political solution.
However, because I know that that inevitable “uprising” you speak of would probably not be either a graceful transition to democracy, nor completely bloodless, as lords to not cede power to serfs voluntarily, I could not in good conscience oppose an attempt to pry open that window.
The platform I posted does advocate democracy, as well as the philosophy that government exists to serve the people, not the other way around, and neither exists to serve the corporations. It is not the only such platform to be found on the internets, I believe others have also been posted, in diaries on the subject of feasibility of a political attempt to end corporate rule and move the US toward democracy.
I acknowledge that many feel that it would be better to close one’s eyes to the reality of the situation, especially the plight of the undesirable populations, who are most of them slated for extermination anyway, and as you say, wait quietly for the inevitable, and I do not suggest that this view is an unpopular one. It had quite the following in Germany a while back.
It was not considered appropriate to speak in polite company of certain people in certain situations. Bad taste. As if you were suggesting that people should not be loyal to the Party.
Oh, thank you for comparing my comments to Nazi Germany. And for assuming that I prefer not to be made aware of the plight of the poor, that I prefer to keep my eyes closed.
– See, I can suggest a negative cast to your comments, also, as you have mine. It is true that you have not named me specifically as one of those people, but you say “many people feel that it would be better to close one’s eyes. . . . . . As if you were suggesting that people should not be loyal to the Party.” By saying “many people”, you can deny that you were referring to me specifically. But the impression is left, nonetheless.
This is a form of rhetoric that you use very skillfully. One of its effects is to make those who think that staying with the Democrats is the best choice at this time feel hard-pressed to speak up. Who wants to be compared to the Nazis, or to people who allowed the Nazis to take over?
You are describing Democrats to be oligarchs, implying that they consider those who are not wealthy to be serfs, or expendable. You imply that they have plans to exterminate those who are not wealthy as the Jews, disabled persons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and others planned for extermination by the Nazis. I find that comparison repulsive and insulting and harmful to this community.
If you think I personally wish to minimize or ignore problems of poverty, you have badly misjudged me. This isn’t personal. I want more attention and help for people who are struggling in this country (and elsewhere). I happen to think that the shortest distance to that help is most likely through the Democratic party, not through a splintering away into several small movements.
If people want to work through a different political group, and advocate strongly for that, fine. What I don’t find acceptable is the vilification of persons who wish to continue working on progressive goals through the Democratic party or who still openly consider themselves Democrats.
I see that happening here, and it saddens me.
Kidspeak,
I don’t see DT’s comments as comparing your comments to Nazi Germany, but rather as comparing the overall “outlook” and attitude in this country as being comparable to Nazi Germany.
Of course, no one does. No one. But–whether you agree with the comparison or not–it is one that is becoming more common by the nanosecond. And it seems the more informed people are about what actually happened in Germany, the more plausible and indeed, inevitable, the comparison becomes.
I’m sorry,but when you’ve got Nobel Prize winners in literature making this comparison, I do think it’s time to at least consider whether there is any merit to it.
When you’ve got people who actually lived through the Nazi era making the comparison, I do think it’s time to at least consider whether there is some merit to the consideration.
There are a lot of people throughout the world who are currently seeing us as having fallen prey to exactly the same kinds of things that led to Germany’s downfall.
I wasn’t there in Nazi Germany, so I can’t really tell you whether the parallel is legit, but I do know a number of people who were there, who watched the Third Reich rise and fall, and who are now saying, “It’s just like it was back then. People falling in line, following the Führer, not realizing the danger until it hits them directly….”
Why do you think so many people throughout the world (including many, many Americans) are coming to this conclusion? Are they all just nuts?
Some are pleased with corporate rule, and perceive that they receive a benefit from it, even if the benefit is only psychological. The very wealthy, of course, would be quite correct in asserting that the benefits they receive are not limited to the psychological comfort of the speeches and the hair.
How each person feels about US policies, including those to exterminate this or that population, is a question of that individuals personal values, and Germany in the 1930s is certainly not the only time in human history that individuals have found themselves cosidering these questions.
It is true that anyone who opposes the status quo, the policies of an oligarchic state, does so at his or her own peril. Neither is this unique to either Germany then nor the US today.
If it displeases you that there are those who disagree with the policies strongly enough to take such risks, take comfort in the knowledge that their number is small, and any of the politicians can confidently intone proudly that America speaks with one voice, and be guilty of omitting only an insignifiant extremist fringe.
Such people are not on message, and their views do not reflect those of the Democratic party, which is better off without them.
The short answer: “not much.” Or maybe “too little too late.”
So it goes. But hey, some of my best friends are Democrats.
The Democrats offer a safety net, health care if you cannot afford it, housing that you can afford, opportunity to get more training to get a better job, help with their utility bills if it means their heat will get shut off in the winter for nonpayment, and wages that ensure that anyone working full time has enough to put food on the table, a roof over their head, provide education for their kids, a decent retirement and some enjoyment along the way.
Do we have this yet? No. Because the Republicans don’t offer these things, they oppose them.
An equal place at the table, an equal right and obligation to join in marriage that both protects and binds a couple and gives them an equal chance to contribute to our schools our churches and our society and to raise and protect their children.
Do we have this yet? No. Because the Republicans don’t offer these things, they oppose them.
Free or subsidized day care, health care for her and her children, food for the family if they can’t afford it, good public education for her kids that will help them achieve as much as they possibly can. A job and help for her son, if he is willing to work hard.
Do we have this yet? No. Because the Republicans don’t offer these things, they oppose them.
Social Security, Medicare, cheaper and better drug coverage because Medicare is not only allowed but required to negotiate for cheaper drugs with Big Pharma because as a major purchaser Medicare has market power to negotiate discounts. Democrats also offer increasing benefits under social security that keep pace with the costs of living paid for by increased taxes on the top 1/10th of 1% of income and estate taxes on estates over 10 million (indexed) with a tax premium on any amounts that have previously not been taxed.
Do we have all this yet? No. Because the Republicans don’t offer these things, they oppose them.
Etc, Etc, Etc.
The Republicans not only have nothing to offer any of these people, they have aggressively, intentionally sought to take things away from them that over many years of long and difficult struggle, the Democrats have won for them.
Is it worse now than it was 6 years ago? Yes. Would it have been as bad if the Democrats had been in control for all of those 6 years? It is possible, but not because they tried to make it worse, and that matters.
As a minority, what do the Democrats have to offer these people? Frankly not much. They have a vision to offer, except that each elected official has their own competing vision. The Democrats have their input on legislation, except that they have been pretty much excluded from even the barest deliberation on conference committees. Without a majority or presidency to focus and consolidate both ideology and power, a unified vision is tough to create from the top down – because there is no top.
The Democrats at least have their voices of dissent? But if a Democrat speaks in the forest and no media covers it, is it really worth walking all that way into the woods?
There are all kinds of problems with the DNC and the elected Democrats, but what does the Democratic Party (the rank and file) have to offer all of these people. First: a hell of alot more than the Republicans. Second: a legitimate voice speaking for the common good. If the Democratic Party has fallen short of what it should be, provided less than it could have there is fault enough to share, but endless possibilities to make something new and better.
In the end, that’s what the Democratic Party has to offer all of these people – a chance to work within a party to make a difference, to work for something bigger than themselves and to make something new and better. The Democratic party has done this before. It can do it again.