one of my favourite authors on the Democrats

[fourier jr]

Here's Bill Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions Since WWII, and other stuff. http://www.killinghope.org

 

Democrats

It gives me no pleasure to tear into the Democrats, as I've done on several occasions in this report, because I sorely wish there was a viable alternative to Bush. Kerry is viable, but he's not an alternative, particularly on foreign policy where his views are indistinguishable from those of George W. Ralph Nader is an alternative, but he's not viable because the entire electoral process is designed to make life impossible for third-party candidates. Dennis Kucinich presented himself as an alternative, but it's no exaggeration and no cliché to say that he "sold out", abandoning his entire anti-war platform at the Democratic convention without any public fight, calling upon his supporters to rally behind Kerry, and getting nothing in return.

 

Speaking for Kerry and the party establishment, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor who served as the behind-the-scenes ringmaster of the platform process, said of his negotiations with the Kucinich team: "We didn't give up anything."

 

The Democratic platform committee dismissed all of Kucinich's proposals: that the Iraq war was a mistake from the beginning, immediate withdrawal of US troops, setting a date for the withdrawal, opposing pre-emptive war, reducing the military, calling for basic national rights for the Palestinian people, creating a "Department of Peace," a single-payer universal health care program, and getting out of NAFTA and the WTO are nowhere to be found in the Democratic Party's platform nor in the discussions on the convention floor. Why did Kucinich doggedly remain an official candidate for months if not to remain principled on these issues? Failing to win support in the platform committee was it principled to announce for Kerry?

 

It's a painfully old story. Democrats can not be trusted ideologically, not even to be consistently liberal, never mind progressive or radical, no matter how much we wish we could trust them, no matter how awful the Republicans may be. In the 1968 election, Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy of Wisconsin was the darling of the left. He ran in the Democratic primaries on an anti-war platform that excited a whole generation of protestors. Peaceniks and hippies, the story goes, were getting haircuts, dressing like decent Americans, and forsaking dope, all to be "clean for Gene" and work in his campaign. Yet, in 1980, Gene McCarthy came out in support of Ronald Reagan. Who will Kucinich support in the future?

 

Michael Moore is another case in point. His books and films are marvelous, at least as far as they go, which for American pop culture is considerable. But the man appears more and more to be a hopeless Democrat. In April he apologized to Al Gore for supporting Ralph Nader in 2000. Then, on July 28, on Jay Leno's show, after exulting over the fact that Jimmy Carter had invited him into his private box at the Democratic National Convention, Moore accused Nader of running only because the Democrats had shut him out of the debates in 2000. He said this without any hint of humor or facetiousness. Does he have any idea how insulting this is to Nader, implying that Ralph has no principled reasons for running? Like, duh!, corporate venality that rules over the Republicans and Democrats and the rest of America?

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer12.htm

 

 

Democrats, case in point, I

In the last report I raised the question: Why did Dennis Kucinich doggedly remain an official Democratic candidate for the presidency for months if not to remain principled on progressive issues? But when he failed to win support in the platform committee on those issues, he didn't raise them on the floor of the convention and then announced his support for Kerry. One of my readers, Rich Piedmonte, has suggested an answer. Rich writes that Kucinich "probably WAS an 'official candidate' in a different sense. He was the official safety valve candidate. Knowing that they weren't going to offer up anything but a 'me, too -- only smarter!' candidate this year," and frightened by the creativity and Internet technical expertise of the anti-war protestors, the Dems slipped Kucinich enough money to keep going so as to keep progressive party members busy and not agitating Kerry to move to the left.

 

I never cease to be surprised by such ideas. No matter how cynical I or others may think I am, I find at times that I'm not cynical enough.

 

Democrats, case in point, II

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., being interviewed by Diane Rehm (September 3) about his new book on saving the environment, recited a litany of corporate misbehavior that directly or indirectly harms the environment; again and again he sounded unforgiving of corporate greed; then, seemingly out of nowhere, he interjected that "there's no greater supporter of a free-market economy than myself". Why did he feel it necessary to put that on the record? So he won't be seen as some kind of leftwing radical kook? Not the proper image for a "Kennedy", is it? But the proper and standard cop-out for a liberal Democrat. Or a liberal Republican. They're both paid by the same lobbyists.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer13.htm

[LucidDreamer]

I can't say I disagree with alot of that, but regardless of its truth, we are still left with a choice between two parties. The Democrats may have sold out to corporate money, but they have not sold out as much as the Republicans. I know some people that say they trust the Republicans more because at least you know what they stand for, but that’s not quite true. Their tax cuts only benefit the rich. They have yet to reduce the size of the bloated government. They give rewards to companies that send jobs over seas. They ignore the millions that don't have adequate health care. They waste lives by starting poorly thought out wars. They weed away civil rights. Their international diplomatic policies are too heavy-handed. They try to make ridiculous laws to appear to represent the fundamentalists. They throw the most mud during mud fights. They waste away our environment. They are the greater of two evils. But hey, not by much unless you are talking about Bush.

 

You almost always have a better idea of what a Republican stands for, but I don't like what it is. Truth is that the Democrats are not much better now. Our government has become insanely corrupt and we desperately need a viable third party to force some reforms.

 

I read a short story once about a small town in Mexico off of the gulf. One of the very poor townsmen found an enormous pearl inside of an oyster. He went to sell the pearl but all five of the venders tried to rip him off. All five of these vendors worked for the same corrupt man. There is no one man that controls all of the wealth and power in the U.S. Yet, both the Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by the same strings of corruption.