WHY the Democratic Party is part of the problem

[Spider Jerusalem]

(And also why Bush's wars for oil have found enthusiastic support on the Democratic side of the aisle)


Both political parties in this country are committed to “maintaining the American way of life”, with all that entails. Both the Democrats and Republicans are heavily financed by, and beholden to, major multinational corporations; both parties view it as essential that American dominance in all categories in the international sphere be maintained.

Now, maintenance of the “American way of life” involves a lot more than just making sure our massive consumer economy keeps humming. It also involves insuring continued access to valuable resources in the face of declining supply and increasing cost; specifically, insuring continued access to petroleum, which is the single most important resource of the modern world.

Petroleum’s importance comes not just from its use as an energy source and fuel, but from its myriad of other uses: petroleum gives us plastics, synthetic fibres, synthetic rubber, and the fertilizers and pesticides responsible for the staggering crop yields of modern agriculture. The only problem is that petroleum is a limited resource: the production peak is projected to arrive within the next few years at soonest, and almost certainly within the next decade. Once that happens, production will begin a slow decline to zero, with results that will be global in scale and catastrophic in impact. Want of fuel will lead to a gradual abandonment of the automobile as a mode of transportation; want of fertilizers and pesticides will reduce crop yields drastically and trigger worldwide famine.

Our government is aware of this, as are, no doubt, many or even most members of Congress. Hence the bipartisan support for Bush’s wars; hence a tacit acceptance by leadership of both sides that some version of the PNAC agenda is now a necessity for the United States to maintain its precious and inviolable “way of life”, with its orgiastic consumerism and wasteful self-indulgence. A politician never won an election by telling people things were going to get worse, and that they would have to learn to give up many things they have gotten used to; the American national character is that of a selfish, spoiled, greedy child, and both parties know it and play to it, in different ways.

In the hands of both parties, government serves the needs of corporate interests first, and those of the people only insofar as is necessary to prevent massive social unrest and revolution. After all, what's good for General Motors is good for America...right?

[RichM]

1. Yeah, I generally agree with this (except of course the line about GM!)

But actually, even if we weren't near peaking in petroleum, things would still be pretty much the same. Today is very much of a piece with the line starting in the Spanish American War, going thru WWI, all the mid-century US 3rd world interventions, Vietnam, Reagan's wars in Central America in the '80's, then Iraq in 1991. All of these things benefit the corporations, & both parties always support them.

I don't see peak petroleum as the determining thing, though of course it's going to be enormously important.

What I see as the determining factor is that capitalism allows unlimited concentration of wealth & power, and once the concentration gets beyond a certain point, the whole system becomes unstable, because the SOB's buy the whole government. There is almost nothing one can do at that point except "turn off the power."

[BurtWorm]

3. And they even make ideas property.

And water. And other common resources. And very few people in power have the courage--or incentive--to stop the ball from rolling.

[HFishbine]

37. Ideas, water

and soon, facts.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/16/HNsubbill_1.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Yeah...

the petroleum peak is hardly the determinant, it's just the raison de guerre for our latest round of imperial adventuring. In Cuba and Haiti, it was sugar; in the Phillipines, rubber; and so on through all of the past century's lesser wars. Right now, it's oil, but only because oil is now the primary resource American industry needs that America doesn't supply enough of. And as both parties have a vested interest in continued economic growth, which is directly related to the success of American corporations, then this sort of thing will continue into the foreseeable future...seems that things haven't changed much since Rutherford B. Hayes said "we no longer have government of, by, and for the people. We now have government of, by and for corporations." And that was back in the 1870's.

[ShaneGR]

2. Democrats eat kittens

Lets reelect Bush.

[Forkboy]

5. They dont know how to organize protests either

[BurtWorm]

6. They're open to criticism

and this is fair criticism.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Please. Refute what I said.

Can you deny the influence of corporate interests on the Democratic Party? Look at Clinton's presidency. NAFTA, GATT, "free trade", welfare reform, et cetera...look at the increasing economic conservatism of the Democratic Party over the past two decades. Can you deny that I'm right? I don't think you can. And your posting a juvenile comment only shows that you have some problem with the fact that I dare criticise the glorious party for anything, even something justified. Interesting lockstep mentality you have there.

[ShaneGR]

22. Why argue?

You are right. You have shown me the error of my ways. I've decided to vote for Bush in 04. Thanks for your help!

[Dhalgren]

28. Blind, knee-jerk attitudes like this

are why Bush has the power he has! Grow up and look in the mirror! If you can't see that the Dems are equally guilty of pandering, then to you, why would it matter who gets elected? Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

[ShaneGR]

36. Yeah, you're right....

No difference between the Dems or Republicans.

Well, except for civil rights, gun control, abortion, death penalty, taxation, education, healthcare, jobs, etc.

So since there is no difference between the Dems and the Rs, other than those mentioned above, I'll just vote for Bush. What does it really matter?

Bush/Cheney04! Go Bush!

/sarcasm

[DrGonzoLives]

29. Yep, nothing to see here

Thou shalt not criticize the Democrats! Ever!

Did it ever occur to you that you can criticize the party and still vote for and support it? Or have you lost all free will?

[Q]

32. One trick ponies also help to keep Bush* in office...

- It wouldn't hurt you to actually participate in one of these threads...instead of throwing out silly one-liners.

[Forkboy]

35. Why argue?

Oh I dunno,maybe to show that you know what you talking about,maybe to show someone they're wrong....color me revolutionary :shrug:

This response of yours justs says I can't argue because I have nothing to stand on...prove us wrong.

[Dirk39]

4. This is what happens, when democrats become corporation-whores:

I'm german and I post this from Germany, but I think it might be of some interest:

"Social Democrats Suffer Major Setbacks in Brandenburg

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democrat Party took a deep plunge in Sunday’s municipal elections in the eastern state of Brandenburg. For the first time since Germany’s reunification in 1990, the SPD fell well behind the opposition Christian Democratic Union and the former communist Party of Democratic Socialists in many Brandenburg cities. Compared to the last vote five years ago, the ruling SPD lost 15 to 16 percent for a all-time low of 21 percent while the CDU pulled ahead to about 28 percent. State Premier Matthias Platzcek (SPD) attributed his party’s slip in popularity to the federal politics of Chancellor Schröder. "It didn’t help us at all," he said referring to the package of austere social and economic reforms Schröder and the federal coalition of SPD and Greens is pushing through parliament. The setback in Brandenburg is part of a larger trend of losses for the SPD across the country. Only a month ago, it was utterly crushed by the Christian Social Union in Bavaria’s state elections, and at the start of the year it lost out to the CDU in Hesse and Lower Saxony."
more...
What the article doesn't mention is that only about 46% of the people voted at all. Deutsche Welle is a remaining radio-station from the cold war, who's mainly serving american interests in Germany.

This is just so plain to see: when the only party that somehow represents the interests of the working class is just completely sold out to the interests of corporations, the people who would vote for them stay away, the right wingers win, and a lot of those middle-class people, who are afraid to lose their position, will rather support far-right-wing-fashist-parties. They were the ones, who made Hitler possible in a situation not to different from what we're facing today.
After I saw, what Clinton did and what happened in GB after Blair was elected, I didn't vote for Schröder and the Greens here in Germany, and I'm proud of it.
Why are the europeans and the north-americans are that mad? Even the people in Latin-America, who are less educated and less informed seem to be much more enlightened about the situation we're in, than the people in Europe and the USA.

Although my impression is that the democratic party in the USA is far more democratic than any party in Germany. Someone like Kucinich wouldn't be possible within the german democratic party. I like this guy so much. Please export him to Germany if you don't need him in the US.

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Zorra]

9. Export Special K??!?? No way.

He's a national treasure!

We need him, desperately.

Hi from Mexico, Dirk. :hi:

[Dirk39]

11. Let's share him...

o.k. o.k. I surrender, I'm so moderate today.
Hi to mexico!
Dirk

[RichM]

15. You raise some interesting points here, Dirk --

- I get the impression that the SPD in Germany is similar, in some ways, to the Democrats in the US, & to Labour in Britain. In all 3 cases, these are the parties that are "supposed" to represent the interests of the working class, but they're actually terrible sellouts who in practise do pretty much the same thing that the conservative parties do.

- It isn't entirely a surprise that some Latin Americans should understand world politics much more clearly than (US) Americans, because they have directly experienced the dangerous end of it, and we have not. Up until now, it has been very easy for people living here to simply ignore the terrible things the US does abroad. We have been able to live in a nice little dream world where it was possible to pretend that the hard cold truth outside the US didn't exist.

- Unfortunately, you shouldn't be so impressed by the US Democratic Party. Kucinich is really hervorragend - you're right about that - but even the US Democrats don't appreciate him! They are so dumb that they would probably be happy to send him to Germany.

[Dirk39]

40. Hello RichM!

My comment about the democratic party in the USA being more democratic than comparable parties in Europe, esp. in Germany was more directed towards "inner-democracy". In Germany, the leaders of the party simply decide for a candidate, promote him months before an election and from this moment on, it's just: No discussion anymore, it will just do damage to our party. Seems to be the same in GB, Blair has changed Labour into some kind of "enterprise" and has nearly completely destroyed the inner-democrazy of the Labour Party. And as sad as it is, to admit it: many many germans are still not godd democrats in the classic sense of a civil society. It's true for our journalists as it is for our politicians and many citizens.
Greetings,
Dirk

[Zorra]

8. Uh-huh. Nice post. Here's a similar idea:

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict ates of the financial centers.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[Dirk39]

10. I think, if the democrats in the USA will win...

it will happen, because the corporations see, that PNAC will do damage to them. The multinational corporations are more open to other nations and globalization than those stupid PNACs and Bushies. If it only wouldn't be their stupid globalization, instead of ours.
I want this hijacked world back, I want my life back, I want my government back, I want my air back, I want my sun back. I'm very modest.
Dirk

[Dirk39]

41. That's exactly the problem of every single party or citizen...

in this world. And it doesn't make sense in any way, to support parties compromising with that situation. It makes it even more dangerous, 'cause the people, dissapointed with what's happening - at least in the wealthy western countries - will rather support some Nazis or Racists or Fashists in the desperation they feel, than to become some kind of hmmm.... DUers.
Dirk

[maggrwaggr]

13. I think you'll find a lot of people on DU are here because

the party has let them down.

I, for one, certainly feel that way.

The Democratic party has no leadership. None. It's completely useless and adrift. Nobody seems to give a shit. The so called "leaders" don't make any sense to me whatsoever. Daschle? Pelosi? Gephardt? C'mon. These people are jokes as leaders.

We've been getting our asses kicked for twenty years, by people who display absolutely no respect for the rules, no respect for decency, and nobody even fights back.

It's just ridiculous. Why do you think Howard Dean strikes such a nerve?

Perhaps Alan Colmes IS the perfect representative of the Democratic Party.

[Paschall]

14. That's inaccurate on several counts

Can you please quote a Dem Party platform saying American "dominance in all categories in the international sphere" must be maintained? (First you might want to see if America actually dominates "all categories in the international sphere," huh?)

Bipartisan support of Bush wars? Most Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST Shrub's war resolution--21 Dem Senators and the vast majority of Dem Reps.

Tacit bipartisan acceptance of the PNAC agenda? Can you please give us some proof of this absurd assertion?

And as for corporate interests and corporate meddling in the political process, who was it that scrapped campaign finance reform?

By the way, how's life on the outside, Ralph?

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Response

1. military supremacy, thus ensuring the continued ability to impose the American national will on other nations through threat and intimidation. Not to mention in the realm of international finance, and maintenance of the US dollar as the world standard currency. Just because it's not in the party platform doesn't mean Democratic politicians don't support it; you'd have to be some sort of naive fool to believe that serious players in the Machiavellian power game that is politics are going to lay all their cards on the table, especially when most voters don't even know what the game is.

2. Afghanistan, anyone? Remember what the vote was on that one? And now that we're in Iraq, how many Democrats are saying "we have a commitment to finish what we started"? Most of them...

3. See #2.

4. If the Democratic Party is so interested in campaign finance reform, why don't more Democratic politicians make a principled stand on the issue? Terry McAuliffe is still whoring for corporate money, no? Actions speak louder than words.

And 5., I'm not a Green. Oughtn't to jump to conclusions.

[Paschall]

17. Disingenuous

1) You said "all categories in the international sphere." Military dominance and the dollar standard are hardly all categories. And maintaining military supremacy does not necessarily mean "imposing" America's will on the world. Maintaining the dollar standard only makes sense since the US is so heavily indebted to the world. But when did the Democratic Party endorse waging war on the world to maintain the dollar standard? Must have happened while I stepped out for a coffee.

2) Does "finishing what we started" exclude ceding authority to the UN while providing most of the funding and necessary troops? Does "finishing what we started" exclude holding elections in Iraq as soon as possible to return sovereignty to the Iraqis? You're reading a lot into a little.

3) The PNAC "agenda" first and foremost means the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war to "project" military might around the world to create regimes amenable to the US. How many Dems have specifically endorsed this notion? "Most of them..." Really? Can you name them?

4) Until campaign finance rules are changed it is unreasonable and absurd to expect the Dems--who are never as successful at raising funds as the GOP, and by a long shot--to fall on their sword. Again, I ask, who scrapped campaign finance reform?

5) If I jumped it's merely because you're parroting Ralphie's notion that "things have to get worse before they get better." The quality of life in the EU is much higher than it is in the US and the Union has never had to go through a "purge." And, needless to say, we consume far less resources and produce much fewer of the worst climate-altering pollutants. So I was wrong: You're not a Green. My apologies. But you're also not a Dem, right?

I remain unconvinced.

[Terwilliger]

25. So Lieberman and Graham are the only two people in the Dem party...

who support PNAC....YA RIGHT!

And Dems opposed the resolution that would have given Bush the authority he wanted to attack Iraq...that doesn't mean Dems wouldn't have been for attacking Iraq to remove Saddam (or whatever they used to justify it) I mean, shit, look at those who DID vote to give Bush the power.

[FDRrocks]

18. I agree.

We got violent corporate interests, or subtle corporate interests. I thank you for raising the point.

[Lexingtonian]

19. that's wayyyy too easy

Both political parties in this country are committed to “maintaining the American way of life”, with all that entails.

What do you suppose the practical, and politically viable, alternative is?

Both the Democrats and Republicans are heavily financed by, and beholden to, major multinational corporations;

Which has to do with middle class and blue collar workers being unwilling/unable to maintain an organized, serious, political base due to internal schisms and More Important Things like going jetskiing.

both parties view it as essential that American dominance in all categories in the international sphere be maintained.

American dominance is limited to a few 'categories' of the sort, you overestimate it. The problem is that there used to be something called the Soviet Union, which was a real empire, and that was very painful to experience. The wish to block out getting dominated by that sort of a power is politically very popular.

As for the rest of your claims, IMHO you're being ahistorical. Sure, there is dark scheming and whatnot, but it's as overrated as crytpography is. Oil is mostly just a commodity not that different from toilet paper- the absence is unbearable, a glut foolishness, the quantities of money involved are always a temptation to the thievish among the powerful, and no one has real plans to live without it.

The basic fact is that white Americans have a colonial past out of which they try to construct the present and the future. Their ancestors got suckered into the same kind of real estate and business scams (America's streets are paved with gold!) and gold-digging and speculating and gambling and exploiteering that the descendents are getting suckered into now on a somewhat larger scale. The plantations and sweatshops are now just called "multinational corporations", and the selfaggrandizements of the profiteering class is called "freedom" (on their side).

If you look at it closely, the position of accrued privileges for the corporations in the U.S. has to do with three things. Race and religion splitting the working people during the '60s, and the ongoing technological change throughout the economy which suggests that we had better keep companies/management in too much capital rather than too little during the 70s/80s/90s.

You can claim that now is the time to change "the American way of life". But what works well enough for you doesn't for other people, especially the elderly. The average voter is in his/her mid/late fifties, middle class, and is white to a proportion of ~80%. Look into the assumptions about life of this group of people and what they are willing to bear, and capable of bearing, in the way of adapting to another way of life.

There just isn't a way for the Democratic Party to escape the demographic facts of the voter population and their most deeply held beliefs/assumptions. Some things simply have to wait until most of an older generation that cannot bear much of them is halfway to dying out.

[The Magistrate]

30. Well Said, Mr. Lexingtonian

Allow me to add the most important flaw of the analysis at the head of this discussion is simply that whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant: it cannot possibly serve as a basis for any mass political action that has any conceivable hope for success. Thus, any effort directed along lines arising from it is certain to fail, and thus such efforts will only redound to the benefit of the most reactionary elements of our polity, by operating to ensure their continued electoral power.

It is the duty of left and progressive persons to support the least reactionary viable alternative in any political contest. Only thus can the most reactionary elements be prevented from exercising unchecked power. Even if the degree of difference is small, it must be recognized and upheld. No other course offers the least prospect of checking reactionary power, and expanding the field of operation available to progressive and left views and programs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Re: duty

This is why I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since I became eligible. It becomes necessary to apply a sort of pragmatic calculus to the relative qualities of candidates and what they represent; by this standard, while neither party is perfect, the Democratic candidate is always going to be closer to my personal political outlook than his Republican counterpart.

[The Magistrate]

34. Well Said, Sir

Pragmatism serves me for moral principle, and we seem to share a practical view here, whatever theoretical concerns may move us.

It does seem to me, though, that agitation claiming an essential identity between the parties tends rather to play into the hands of the enemy, by acting to depress voting frompersons of more progressive and less views, as well as providing a disincentive for persons who genrally "tune out" on the process to engage with it.

The proper line would aim to heightened the perception of differences, even where these are, in fact, small. That would engage more people and, more importantly, engage them more passionately.

[LibertyorDeath]

20. Bravo Spider Jerusalem !!

The truth will hit the fan sooner than most in the US realize

Love your sig

[Flying_Pig]

21. Partly true. But why do threads like this seems to always leave out

one huge factor?;
Pressure from Israel, and their U.S. based friends and supporters.

Corporations aren't pushing for such things as Syrian sanctions, and/or invasion, but Israel is, and so are their friends in PNAC and AIPAC. The Dems walk with Tom DeLay on this issue, and many others, mostly because of Israeli pressure, given vis-a-vis their lobbyists, and conservative Jewish voting groups.

Things are rarely ever as cut and dried as we would like them to be...

[el_gato]

23. Your right but

the old foreign policy elite in the CFR are supportive of projecting u.s. might into the heart of eurasia so it dovetails with the neocon agenda quite well

[Terwilliger]

27. not only that, I think it's the American agenda

Dems and Reps have been working toward the same goals since, at least, post WWII, and possibly, since the industrial revolution.

[Terwilliger]

26. watch out!

Disagreeing in ANY WAY with the Israel will get you the "anti-Semite" label!

[spindoctor]

33. People applying the anti-semite label

...are usually blessfully ignorant of the fact that Arabs and Jews are both considered to be Semites.

It would also be nice if we can distinguish between being anti-Jewish and anti-Israelian.

Last but not least, it is possible (try to grasp this concept) to disapprove of Israelian politics without being 'anti-Israelian'.

Of course this way of thinking is considered highly anti-American these days.

There is no cure for dualism. It requires lots of grey matter to create grey areas.

[The Magistrate]

38. The Problem There, Sir

Is that the word is a coinage of the 19th century, meant specifically to indicate opposition to Jews: its originators, by the way, were persons who thought this was a good idea, and a proper and necessary thing.

It is much more common, in debate over this matter, for persons criticizing some element of Israeli policy or action, to pre-emptively declare that they expect to be called Anti-Semites, and do not care if they are so slurred, as a low debator's ploy, to cast a prejudicial air over any disgreement with their criticism, however ill-founded it may be, by suggesting it will boil down to calling them Anti-Semites. We have some masters of that line in regular operation.

If you are seriously interested in debating this matter, by all means drop down to our "cage match" in the dungeon, the Israel v. Palestine sub-forum of the Foreign Affairs forum. That is where it is conducted, day in and weary day out....

[spindoctor]

39. Thans for the invite

I'll drop by some day when I feel particularly energetic ;)

[spindoctor]

24. Every four years, the US is for sale

That is the bottom line. Government is largely dictated by special interest groups, and yes, both parties thrive on this.
The US is nothing but a very big corrupt banana republic. We just don't like to admit it.

That is why the number one priority, in my opinion, needs to be the reformation of our so-called democracy. It is absolutely ridiculous that our politicians are funded by donations from SIG's. In most countries this is called corruption.

So yes, politicians will look after the interests of their SIG's before looking after the interests of "the people". Unless you believe in trickle-down economics, this is clearly bad prioritization.
The sincerity of this situation will largely depend on the level of integrity of the politician(s) involved.

There are of course some self-regulating factors in the system that help to keep things within certain boundaries, but it is questionable if these boundaries aren't gradually expanding.

That is the core-issue that you describe. The oil-industry and PNAC are not directly related to that issue other than in the form that I already mentioned.

Typically, governments (all over the globe) are not visionairs. They do not look ahead to the far future or base their opinions on what is right for the long term. They aren't in it for the long haul, they want results now.
You can speculate all you want about the influence of PNAC on this Administration. History might one day reveal it, until then we can only guess. But more influential than PNAC, mightier than the UCLA, more captivating than Al Sharpton, the number one player in Washington is every politician's friend, Soft Money.

Yes, the DNC is part of the problem, but that is because the problem is our perception of Democracy.