|
public treasury for unjust war and tax cuts for the rich, destroyers of the Constitution, promoters of global corporate predators, anti-unionists, panderers to rightwing religious extremists, traitors who have sold our right to vote to Bushite corporations?
Most people in this country opposed Bush's war on Iraq FROM THE BEGINNING (56%, Feb. '03).
Today, a huge majority in this country opposes Bush's war on Iraq and any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war (70%-80%).
90% of the people in this country are concerned or very concerned about the budget deficit (which has been incurred by the Iraq war and tax cuts for the rich).
A large majority of the people in this country oppose torture "under any circumstances" (63%, May '04).
Most of the people in this country are working people, with fewer and fewer of them having a living wage or benefits, due to rightwing union-busting.
Most of the people in this country are tolerant and progressive, favor women's rights and equality, and favor strong environmental protections, strong regulation of industry, and strong worker protections.
A huge majority of people in this country would favor TRANSPARENT vote counting, if asked, and would oppose "trade secret," proprietary vote counting by partisan electronic voting corporations, if they only knew about it.
So, WHO are the moderates? Where is the "middle" of the political spectrum?
We really have to start defining the political spectrum OURSELVES. And, on a REAL political spectrum--one that reflects what most Americans really believe, not the delusions and rightwing impositions that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies are trying to sell--quite a number of Democrats would be far to the right and way out of the real mainstream. And when you figure that the great majority of these are, a) (s)elected by Diebold and ES&S, two rightwing Bushite electronic voting corporations, using "trade secret," proprietary programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls; and b) are also heavily influenced by the moneyed class and the corporate rulers, in a filthy, money-drenched political system--you begin to understand how they can be holding office in the teeth of mainstream American opinion.
Ned Lamont's primary win and the "leftist" blog phenomenon are NOT a "jihad" in the sense that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and the far right use that word. They are the beginning of an adjustment of the political spectrum that more realistically reflects mainstream opinion. In a real--as opposed to illusionary--political environment, and one with transparent elections, Senators like those mentioned above in most cases would not survive.
We also need to reject the terms of the very fascist-leaning, war profiteering corporate news monopolies. In Islam, for instance, the word "jihad" has a similar meaning to the Native American concept of "warrior." It means taking personal responsibility for yourself, your community and your concept of what is right and just. It means self-discipline, self-sacrifice and maturity--or, as Jung would put, individuation. A "warrior" might use violence if other paths to justice are blocked off. It is not undertaken lightly, and is as subject to wrong-headed, or egocentric, thinking as any other mode of life. A Palestinian who straps a bomb to himself and goes and blows up Israeli civilians has obviously gone off the deep end. A Native American warrior who kills women and children has gone berserk. The cause might be just in both cases, but the warrior or jihadist is stuck in a egocentric mode and cannot see the greater good of the community or the poisonous effect of further injustice.
Jihad and warrior are also comparable to the Christian idea of sainthood. And there are any number of saints who have gone off the deep end. (Saint Cyril of Alexandria comes to mind--a vile man who thought he was doing right by having his followers kill the famous Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia, by skinning her alive.)
Jihadists, warriors and saints can all go bad. But most often they do not. All three concepts merely mean strength--whether spiritual or physical. Gandhi was a warrior, a jihadist and a saint. So was Martin Luther King. So are many a self-sacrificing and visionary individual.
If we think of "leftist" bloggers as warriors or saints--putting this rightwing use of the word "jihad" aside--we would be closer to what they really are: people who are self-sacrificing and visionary; people who seek justice; people who have individuated in a political mode and are acting for the greater good of the community.
The American community is not well. Its leaders are on a Dark Path, gone way wrong in the directions of murder, torture and greed. The warriors and saints of the "leftist" blogging community are trying to put things right.
"Saint" seems faintly ridiculous in a political context. But I think that I have actually encountered a couple of personalities here at DU for whom the term is not inappropriate. Warrior is more common, though. Jihad unfortunately has come to mean religious extremist, or someone in a mad, "scorched earth" state of mind. There is none of that here, except when rightwing trolls or other fanatics invade. They are very untypical of DU or of any of the "leftist" blogs, and stick out like sore thumbs.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
