An unpopular post

[alvarezadams]

Before I enter into the subject let me say that I abhor violence of al types and feel for innocent victims on any side of the perennial bomb line. I wouldn't want ANY 9/11 to happen to anyone, ever.

It's been 5 years since a handful of fanatics hijacked some planes and used them as missiles, killing nearly 3000 people. It was horrible. It was unjustified - just as no violence is ever justified unless in self-defense. And the horrible event has been used ad nauseum to justify, well, the unjustifiable.

We're at war against a tactic. And I'm afraid we deserve it - because of our national calousness, ignorance and willingness to be hoodwinked at the drop of a hat.

Calousness? Nobody seems to remember that our country was found guilty (by the World Court and based on arguments and precedents originally used by the US) as a sponsor of state terrorism. Everybody seems to overlook our School of the Americas... and even a previous 9/11 that we sponsored and that cost the lives of even more people than "our" 9/11. We harp about democracy and human rights - yet have inevitably prefered tyrannical regimes over democratic ones, if the latter weren't open to our economic exploitation.

Ignorance? How many of us remember that Reagan considered another herd of terrorists as the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers". These were, of course, the Contras and the mujahideen. How many of us remember a couple of direct and indirect little interventions of our very own that killed over a million a piece - in Indonesia and SE Asia? I won't get into Hiroshima and Dresden, our support of genocide on 3 continents or ... and... and...

Willingness to be hoodwinked? When Dubya asked "why do they hate us" (and then unilaterally invaded a former ally), does anyone think that it is was rhetorical question? When Dubya said that "the world changed", what actually changed considering the fact that even the WTC had been attacked before by the very same group?

What is truly remarkable is that our 9/11 didn't happen long ago. The forebearance of so much of the world is so much greater than ours - patiently accepting death, destruction, oppression, humilliation - without hitting back. Perhaps our victims have a healthy fear of our might and reach, perhaps they have learned empathy, perhaps they realize that violence begets violence. Or any combination of the above. What can no longer be said is that the world distinguishes between the egregious policies of our government and our citizens. The re-election of Dubya took care of that one for the foreseeable future.

Since 1898 our foreign policy has been imperialist, grasping, short-sighted - and largely ignored by the electorate. We have been made comfortable in our ignorance by the soothing truisms and self- righteous rhetoric of BOTH our political parties. As a people we have listened to lies, wholly uncritical and, as if this needs reiteration, with the complicity of our press. I find it difficult to calculate which of our two parties has a bigger butcher's bill, just as I find it difficult to figure out which party's lies and manipulations are more egregious.

As a people we need to tell our politicians that enough is enough. As supporters of the DNC we need to eliminate the corporate cancer that is infecting our party almost as much as the "other" one. We must demand that the press should speak the truth. It is imperative that we learn EMPATHY, because the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are no longer a shield against aggression nor an excuse for ignorance.

But first let us take back our party.

[Benhurst]

1. In less than ten minutes, you just got the third recommendation

for your "unpopular" post. Recommended.

[eccles12]

48. This is good enough for Keith to read on the air. Send it to him. nt

[dogman]

83. Kidding, right?

He might read the Mencken quote in the sig line. I believe Keith has more respect for America and Americans. Sure there is room for improvement but to put us on the moral equivalent of the GOPers is what the corporate media does. This call for taking back the party on these terms would have to lead to a third party. That or else the Democratic Party would shrink to at least a half of the GOP.

[acmavm]

2. Here' #4

[elehhhhna]

3. Proud to be #5

[phillinweird247]

4. Beautiful!! NT

[FrenchieCat]

5. You've identified the problem....and what you wrote is largely true....

but no "recommends" from me, cause there's nothing here written that is new, and no realistic solution offered that hasn't already been suggested.

So now for the hard part; how do we "retake" our party.....and how do we go about realistically assisting Americans understand what is required of them to change those things you point to as being the sad facts since 1898? Pragmatically speaking.

Many of us here can identify the problems and take stock of who we really are......But I don't think that this is enough. You might call yours an "unpopular" post......but have you asked yourself why that would be?

Saying "America Bad" since 1898 (and in fact as a Black person, I'd place the date back to the founding of this nation) certainly can be said, but is that really going to win elections which, short of a revolution (which I don't see happening based on all that you have said), appears to be the only way to affect change at this point based on the type of government and society that we live in....and so, what's your plan on this? Cause that's what I'm interested in.

[alvarezadams]

11. I guess that I'm from an optimistic stock

My grandad was a Baptist minister from Mississippi who died in 1939. His church was unsegregated - something almost unique in those days - and he ran for state legislature. He died during the campaign - but won anyways!

Plan? I have ideas - some of them highfalutin, some down to earth. I'll write some of them up and pop them in my journal over the next few days.

Why would I consider my post unpopular? Because previous posts in a similar vein, posted on public (Yahoo) boards, earned me every epithet in the book. And yes, I know why - and cognitive dissonance only has a little bit to do with it.

As for 1898, I'm sorry that I concentrated on the foreign relations aspects of our polity. Of course we have also been ghastly to one another within the country as well... and some of the causes for both cases of ghastliness are the same.

[alvarezadams]

13. One thing needs to be changed ASAP

Our biggest failure starts at school. We can't have our kids be taught the same way as kids in fascist societies are taught; on the basis of unquestioning and uncritical jingoism.

I know - 'cos I went through a few years of primary school under Franco, a few in the US and a few in the English system. The 1st two were almost identical, although under Franco we sang a song as opposed to making a pledge we didn't understand.

Why are the Germans, French, Spanish and Italians far more peaceful now? Why were their populations so against invading Iraq? The memory of war has a lot to do with it - and so does education. The Germans are taught about the excesses of their countrymen (and of others), the French are taught about Algeria and Vietnam, the Spanish and the Italians remember fascism too.

We, on the other hand, can remember wars that touched home via telegrams - men fought wars and sacrificed their lives, not mothers and children. Until 9/11, no generation of Americans since 1812 had seen their country damaged by foreign foes (unless one counts Hawaii, which was a pretty egregious conquest to begin with). I can remember seeing war ruins as a kid in Frankfurt and still see scars in Madrid from the Spanish Civil War. 9/11 was a pretty pipsqueak compared to any given bomb MISSION of the 20th century, much less a full-fledged campaign.

In the 1960's we BEGAN to have a national consience. The civil rights movement opened many eyes about the plight of blacks (yes, it's true - my mother from Mississippi never realized that there was a problem until she left) and we finally began to recognize just what we did to take the land away from the indians. But then we stopped in mid-career and most Americans are completely ignorant of what their country has done.

In fact, despite trailing most 1st world countries in per capita and per GNP foreign aid, most Americans think that they're payrolling half of the 3rd world in some sort of altruistic enterprise. Little do they know that our "aid" is a very profitable exercise, with no altruism involved outside rhetoric.

Democracy cannot exist, much less thrive, when it is based on ignorance and manipulation.

"I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours."
Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.

[wiley]

24. Beat me to that post.

Now ask yourself what type of a religious or national conscience is created by inculcating yound minds (male) in madrasas? One would assume the same type of people who currently have the power to continue the legacy you mention.

And the USA did, BTW, steal a huge amount of land principally called Texas from Mexico, while killing untold numbers of those who lived there.

Any country or group of people can create a nasty little, murderous fascist regime even without the help of American interference.

You might want to brush up on the current status of anti-immigrant movements, some exceedingly violent, in those countries you mentioned as well.

We're not going to resolve any of these issues until we get leadership in that will act and have the country come to see the validity of what is being done in their name after a discussion period that includes the perspectives and insights of a great range of people, especially non-corrupt historians. Absolute Republican power has been the test run, I guess, and we have identified every fatal flaw. The results of that study may be wildly skewed by self-selection bias caused by the overwhelming majority of Republicans having specific, as of yet unidentified but dysfunctional genetic encoding.

I actually think that kids learn more crap from their parents, regardless of what anyone in school or in the media tells them.

[welshTerrier2]

6. "our foreign policy has been imperialist"

which Democrat can we appeal to to speak these words?

yes, we need to take back our party ... the current '08 crop of candidates will never acknowledge this country's imperialistic policies ... they'll question the competence and judgment of the neocons and the republicans but never their motives ... therein lies the great tragedy ...

[Greyhound]

19. Kucinich? Feingold (kind of). Gore (not active, but certainly has a

big voice in the party). Several other low-ranking Representatives, but that's all I can think of right now.

[Catrina]

28. Ron Paul is the only politician who has come close to

speaking those words. He gave a speech called 'What If We Were Wrong' questioning the last 60 years of supporting dictators etc. in the name of national security. I don't have a link right now, but I was impressed to see that at least one Representative was at least asking the question.

As for which Democrat who might speak those words? Possibly Dennis Kucinich, and I think, had he lived, Paul Wellstone. I can't think of anyone else, and even if they did, they would either be called traitors, or ignored. It will take a sea-change of national thinking and education, before such ideas are acceptable, and of course, a media that educates rather than spews forth propaganda.

[ProSense]

32. The Democratic Party will never be the party of Ron Paul. Change

thinking to mirror Ron Paul's will create the Republican Libertarian Party, which I believe already exist.

[formernaderite]

35. Paul usually makes a lot of sense in regards to foreign policy

his social policy of non-intervention, particularly for the neediest is where we part ways. But I would LOVE a democrat to echo his foreign policy debates.

[alvarezadams]

43. Libertarians of all stripes

tend to have similar ideas regarding foreign policy, no matter how much they might disagree with regards to social and economic policies.

Cato, the ubber-libertarian thinktank, has a wonderful take on foreign policy.

SOCIAL libertarians, of course, cannot stomach Cato's adhesion to neoliberal economics.

[blm]

31. I heard MANY speeches from 2002-2004 calling out the IMPERIALISM of some

of Bush's policies. Remember Kerry's "We are not Romans - we are not an empire" speech?

[salib]

39. One who is speaking out is running in against Tom Delay's Pal

John Courage. He is working hard and has turned a race that seems locked for the Repugs (Lamar Smith who covered for Delay on the Ethic Charges) into one that he can truly win. It has been a long time since we here in North San Antonio have had a chance to vote for a true progressive. He endorses completely the progressive promise from the Congressional Progressive Caucus: http://www.congressionalprogressivecaucus.org/pdfs/ProgPromise_Oct05.pdf#search=%22the%20progressive%20promise%22.

http://www.courageforcongress.org/home/

[Totally Committed]

7. With great sadness, I agree with what you wrote....

Today, I am meditating on peace... everywhere; justice and equality... for everyone; and a healing that can only come when we learn from the painful history of this day, and go on never to make those mistakes which led us here again.

Thanks, alvarez!

TC

[nashville_brook]

8. empathy.

it's really that easy.

and, it might even do us good in areas of life not related to foreign policy.

the politics of empathy. i love it.


thank you for this much-needed post!

[AtomicKitten]

9. you may have better luck starting a viable third party

Having read many of the complaints on DU by those setting themselves aside from most (including liberals) of the Democratic Party, I doubt very seriously the reforms demanded on this forum will ever be deemed satisfactory by those giving you a high-five here on your OP (on which I give you snaps for idealism but suggest it is vague on specifics).

On edit: Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sarandon_calls_urge_Democrats_to_vote_0911.html

[alvarezadams]

14. Maybe you have it the wrong way around?

Considering the recent history of the DNC (outside Dixiecrats), could it be that it's the "moderates" (aka center-rightists) that are setting themselves aside from most of the Democratic Party?

The reforms I demand are nothing new. They were mostly part of BOTH parties' platforms 100 years ago. The only difference between my demands and those of 100 years ago is that I don't want to be spun anymore.

By the way, what does Sarandon have to do with anything? For that matter, what does Hillary Clinton have to do with the traditions of the Democratic Party?

[AtomicKitten]

18. just posting someone supporting your POV

I realize you will most certainly disagree, but I believe those labeling themselves "progressives" and willing to take radical measures for reform (i.e., voting third party in the general election) constitute a minority of the Democratic Party in toto.

While I certainly agree with many of the reforms called for here at DU, people seem to part company on strategy; you know, the age-old pragmatism vs. idealism schism.

[alvarezadams]

20. I see

You're right as far as that is concerned. So many people "vote the shirt" that the idea of voting 3rd party is impossible.

As for idealism vs. pragmatism, the key is to marry both. With that you have a win-win.

[AtomicKitten]

23. when "voting the shirt" means control of Congress

count me guilty as charged when viewed in the context of the world today, and on this point I realize we disagree.

I would gladly celebrate the marriage of pragmatism and idealism.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. Get over it, 9/11 was MIHOP or LIHOP in order to expand US imperialism.

And make no mistake, the imperialism of the ruling elite is not only happening outside our borders....

[alvarezadams]

12. Wow

I could never have imagined so much support. Thanx for the recs - and the dose of optimism!

[bvar22]

15. Enthusiastic K&R from me.

You can find Democrats who agree with you here:

http://www.pdamerica.org/


And here are some specific issues that are Slam Dunks for the reform of the Democratic Party.

"In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

8. Over 60% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[alvarezadams]

16. Did you catch

the news blurb on the fundamentalist Xtians becoming environmentalists?

The indoctrination is wearing thin. If we could show the fundies that it is far more "unchristian" to support a bible-thumping devil than to support a bible-ignoring saint, we'd have it made.

[Nikki Stone 1]

17. While you've already made greatest page 4 times over, I will add

a :kick: and R

[alvarezadams]

21. Thanx a mil!

[Iowa]

22. One more K&R... Well stated.

[lisainmilo]

25. You speak for me!

Thank you for your eloquence, you have spoken for me and obviously many others. :)

[eridani]

26. For the last anti-imperial Dems, you have to go back to the year 1900

http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties.

[alvarezadams]

29. Yea, those were the days

The DNC was running against the GOP that had gotten us into our first quagmire (Philippines). But only a few years later we got Woodrow, who not only lead us into WWI but invaded Russia and a Caribbean state or two.

As a party our rhetoric is usually better when in opposition. When in power we smell of hypocrisy - doing precisely what the GOP does.

[1932]

34. As a Senator, JFK spoke out against French Imperialism in Africa.

Adlai Stevenson got mad at him because, at that point, Adlai was a lawyer at a big NYC law firm making money off his corporate clients' exploitation of Africa which was so profitable because of imperialism.

Truman was a fan of Mossedegh. He respected Mossedegh's FDR-like qualities. He liked him so much that Dulles had to wait for Eisenhower to become president before he could undermine Mossedegh.

FDR was definitely not an imperialist.

You don't have to look too far back to find Democrats who understood that America shouldn't strive to be an empire.

[alvarezadams]

41. It's probably not a good idea to cite

JFK and Truman with regards to "imperialism". Both were particularly active in this area and particularly hypocritical. Truman, in fact, is the posterboy of neocons.

FDR might not have been imperialist - if one listens to his rhetoric. If one looks at his actions though (and I happen to like FDR despite his foreign policy shortcomings), he was one of the worst.

I disagree with your assertion that "You don't have to look too far back to find Democrats who understood that America shouldn't strive to be an empire." If one distinguishes between rhetoric and actions, the opposite is the case.

[1932]

60. Nonetheless, JFK did crticize imperialism when he was a Senator

There is a line of thought in the Democratic party that you can draw right up to JFK that was critical of imperialism. There were other forces withint and without the party that corrupted that impulse, but it still existed. In letters between Kennedy and J.K. Galbraith, IIRC, Kennedy was critical of the Dulles brothers. (This is all in Richard Parker's biography of J.K. Galbraith.)

I only say this to point out how building an anti-imperialist impulse within the Democratic Party doesn't require re-invention of the wheel. There are ideas in the last century from prominent Democrats that can be resuscitated even if no Democrat was 100% against imperialism for every second of his or her life.

[alvarezadams]

67. Rhetoric

Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid.

As for "re-inventing the wheel", the US was FOUNDED on the basis of revolution and liberation from an Empire. This sentiment has prevailed... until it is countered with jingoism. Once someone cries "by jingo" all the nice sentiments go out the window. Or when someone says "boo!"

The problem is, of course, that rhetoric wins votes. Once elected politicos take the road of expediency and are quick to forget the sentiments reflected in their rhetoric.

[1932]

69. Have you read Parker's book on Galbraith?

It's really interesting.

[alvarezadams]

73. No

but I liked Gailbraith. He will be sorely missed.

[1932]

dup

[1932]

75. By the way, if JFK's senate speech were just rhetoric,

I don't think corporate lawyer Adlai Stevenson would have been so upset about it. There is power in words and ideas, and all policy starts as words and ideas.

[alvarezadams]

76. Sure

But his jobs in Cuber, Vietnam and elsewhere kinda belied his nice words.

[eridani]

63. Didn't FDR famously say about Somoza--

--he may be a sonofabitch, but he's OUR sonofabitch? That counts as imperialism in my book.

[1932]

70. One quote, no context, and no reflection on WW2 being a battle

AGAINST fascist imperialism, or on FDR's vision of the UN, and you're convinced FDR was an imperialist?

[eridani]

72. He never objected to the American imperial role--

--in Latin America. Granted, he had to be far more focused on our own domestic problems.

[DeSwiss]

27. No truer words have been spoken! n/t

[cali]

30. facile, sophmoric

and about as likely to be unpopular here on DU as a bottle of water on a desert Island.

[1932]

36. If the OP's facile, then what's post 30?

You don't even pretend to make an argument. It's two adjectives and a quip.

[alvarezadams]

40. I'll accept criticism

and would address it... if you actually said anything.

Facile? Sophomoric? If you like I can get into extreme detail on the dissonance between rhetoric and actions, based on platforms/political speeches vs. historical events. I can even tie the later to specific corporate interests if you like.

Of course, to you and me this is probably "facile" inasmuch as we "both know the details". Or maybe not? If you think that my CONCLUSIONS are facile, it should be easy as pie to disabuse me and those that agree with the post of our illusions.

I can take this post to the greatest detail you can imagine. I am an historian - this is my bread and butter.

So to quote a facile and sophomoric leader that appeals to conservatives, "bring it on".

[Vidar]

33. Quite eloquent. K&R.

[doctor_garth]

37. great post

indeed, 911 was nothing compared to what America has inflicted the world since 1898 and it's still inflicting. A terrorist state that makes Israel look good.

In fact, the more one reads about 911 and those two towers falling so neatly one after the other, one realizes that the event was a staged inside job, (not so) carefully planned by the government.

And each people has the government it deserves, or at best, the government of a nation is a reflection of its people.

[Harry Monroe]

38. We are at war with a "tactic", that much is true...

...but we are also at war with an "idea". We can't hope to defeat the "idea" or "idealogy" of terrorism, if you will, with a conventional war. It's impossible to win it, unless we address the root causes of the conditions that give rise to terrorism, those being hopelessness, poverty, despair and a group of people having no voice whatsoever. Unless we wage "war" on these conditions and others that are at the root of terrorism, we have absolutely no hope of winning this "war on terrorism". Attack the roots and the plant of terrorism will wither and die.

[civildisoBDence]

42. Silence of the lambs

Bush says BOO! The American people bleat, BAAAA.

It's sad that not one major figure in America is willing to ask a simple question: to what degree did our foreign policy cause 9/11?

Instead we've rushed off to war with tragic results.

Newsprism

[indepat]

44. Maybe coming to grips with so many truths about ourselves will set us

free some day.

[omega minimo]

45. I dont' get it

Preaching to the converted? What is the point here? Kind of leaves us hanging....................................

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

47. There's a braindead joke in there somewhere but too ghastly..........

:hi:

[ProSense]

50. Except what you've posted is simply more rhetoric

You have no examples of any living politicians who espouse your ideals and while the generalizations can be applied to the Democratic Party, simply saying that all Democratic Party leaders offer is rhetoric is a fantasy.

You speak of 1980s terrorism, and I can offer Senator Kerry's investigation. You speak of corporate money, and I can offer Senator Kerry as an example of one who refuses corporate money.

I want a stronger Democratic Party. You fantasize about idealism with no solution as to how to achieve it beside complaining!

[alvarezadams]

52. So you want me to prove...

...that all Dem politicians do not rely on rhetoric? Gee.

Wouldn't is be easier to gove me an example that discounts my "hypothesis"?

As for "any living politician" - I'm afraid that I have to agree with you. But that's THEIR problem.

1980's terrorism? Kerry? Kerry refuses corporate money? http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00000245... 34% comes from business. His 2nd biggest contributor is Time Warner.

You want a stronger Dem party. So do I. You fantasize about power, even if it means a Dem party that is the same as the GOP. I indeed fantasize about idealism. Which is more pathetic?

[ProSense]

53. Misreading the information

These are monies from people who work for these organizations, it's listed by donor/employee occupation, these are individual donors.

[alvarezadams]

56. Suuure

Kerry eschews corporate money. My cow's teats each produce different flavoured milk. We're in Iraq because of the white man's burden.

[ProSense]

59. Cynicism doesn't change the facts! n/t

[alvarezadams]

68. Cynicism certainly changes them in your world.

Is there ever any content to your spin?

[1932]

61. Kerry can't stop everyone who works for a corporation from giving to him.

It was impressive that he didn't take PAC money for the Presidential election. (However, his votes on free trade bills as a Senator, PAC donations or note, were corporate-friendly...so much for not taking PAC money.)

[karynnj]

65. Kerry is not particularly corporate friendly

He, more than anyone in the Senate, wrote legislation (usually with Snowe) to insure that Small business, including minority businesses and women owned businesses get at least a specific % of business from government funded contracts. He has also been the one to actually investigate if this was done honestly by Bush departments - which it wasn't.

As to the trade bills, Kerry wrote an AFL-CIO endorsed amendment that he tried to get into CAFTA to make it more labor and environmentally friendly - it failed to get out of committee on a 10-10 vote. Kerry voted against CAFTA. The reasons he cited had to do with the fact that it was worse than the existing agreement and because it contained similarities to things that did not work in NAFTA.

Kerry voted for NAFTA because of his view that globalization and its effects were happening anyway and trade agreements offered the chance to put some controls on labor and environmental laws. These were promised by Clinton on NAFTA - but he was unable to get the Republicans to agree. Kerry has said for years that that agreement has to be fixed.

[karynnj]

64. Your contributions are aggregated

to the company you list on the form as your employer.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Thanks for bringing "clarkies" into this......

How wonderful! :applause:

As I stated earlier in the thread....What I see in you is what I see in many.....a lot of criticism of the way things have always been since really the beginning of time (your expertise as an historian) yet subtly camouflaged in the disguise of astute idealism.

Your vision is grand and perhaps a good one. You demand "radical" changes, talk of a guilty past......and anyone who prefers to work realistically within the system is "coupable"....therefore, you are set up to fail, because you are not willing to even consider some movement of change in the meantime as victories....

IMO, you are fighting a lost cause...concentrated on "teaching us" about the known past which is behind us instead of helping us win incremental battles that lay before us (e.g., you knock the school system we have had, saying that it doesn't work (which may be true)....yet fail to provide what steps you would take to actually change the school system based on the realm of actual workable possibilities...like running to be on a school board, to begin with, etc....)

The tragic news is most of us can't afford the luxury of an historians who may want to blame the past on the present as though doing so solves the current issues. It doesn't. And unlike you, there has to be some of us who's work lies in the form of the next election, and I say thank God for us!

But I will be one of those who says that we need those like you...so it ain't all bad.

Unfortunately that would make you not even a a Democrat...as you detest them just a little bit less (but not by much) than the Republicans.

So alas, you will always be disatisfied, as the past is what it is, and although we'd all like to have control, we don't have very much over the future...which is what counts in the end of it all.

Preaching to the choir (we all want changes) is actually cheap and easy to do. It is always, always easier to give a speech about has been and what should be, than to give a speech on "how" do we realistically get to this place you would want to have us see.


PS. It is certainly wise never to forget the past....and certainly to know it is totally useful...however, the future doesn't always repeat the past, and if it sometime does, than the question should still be, how do we "control" it pragmatically and realistically.

[alvarezadams]

71. What has changed

is that we now live in a democracy. "Things that have always been" should have been changed by democratic input - sometimes they are.

The changes I would see are far from radical. In many senses they are a return to a relatively recent past. It is those that are restrained by the "doable" - in an atmosphere of severe manipualtion - who are enabling the negative forces.

You speak of "incremental values" when at best the DLC is propounding an acceleration of the decline, when the status quo is going the wrong direction.

It is not my role to "go to the schoolboard" - first off because my schoolboard is outside the US. I find it remarkable that you are so quick to absolve politicians of their responsibility while demanding the citizen to do the job of a politician.

The tragic news is that an historian detects trends, learns the lessons of the past. I indeed blame the present for ignoring such lessons.

[FrenchieCat]

74. Blame is great.....but doesn't solve problems......

and as I mentioned before...in the end, that's what counts.

Again, we need folks like you. However, the function that you serve is not the end-all.

[alvarezadams]

77. Of course

And I don't sell myself as a purveyor of solutions - or as a politician.

I WOULD like to see - and participate in - a debate on ideology. Labelling and spin have turned common values into bogeymen and there is a terrible need for "repackaging" in the face of the billion/year rw corporate spin machine.

Supporting elements of said machine won't do the trick.

[FrenchieCat]

80. And you see, that's the problem......

you don't sell yourself as a purveyor of solutions......

Debate does include solutions, ya know....or why else bother?

[alvarezadams]

85. To know where you want to go

you have to first figure out where you are.

[FrenchieCat]

93. Isn't it somewhat presumptious of you to think that most don't

know where they are already?

According to you, this country has been following the wrong path since 1898.

According to me, this country started out on a particular footing (foreign policy and all) since its inception that is not what I would have chosen if I had a choice...which I didn't.

But I do believe that it has pretty much gone where its majority intended it to go until fairly recently.

But I know that you know that this is America, the good with the bad. It has never been perfect...or even close, but I'm willing to work with what we have....cause I understand that I will not be given the opportunity to start it all over again...

But what is your solution? Are you advocating a revolution?
Cause I heard that if there is one, it won't be televised anyways.

[karynnj]

66. You mean we don't buy your cynical views on Kerry and Clark

and state what they actually have done or said? I certainly see absolutely no reason to accept your baseless view of these two two men.

[alvarezadams]

78. I could spell it out for you

but in the face of "faith" it would be useless. I suggest taking a critical look at either, comparing their rhetoric with their actions.

As for Clark - he's particularly easy. Association with CSIS and votes for Nixon and Reagan should tell you quite a bit.

[AtomicKitten]

81. Clark has evolved as has Al Gore

It's the element you leave out of your argument. It's something others take into consideration and matters.

I would prefer a politician that grows in his POV and understanding than one who simply chooses buzz-phrases to win elections (voting the shirt? :)).

Still I doubt either of these fellas would pass muster with some regardless. My opinion for whatever it's worth.

[FrenchieCat]

82. and so it would be for you in reference to most if not all Dem politicians

you have a black and white agenda....that is clear....because based on your lithmus test most if not all Democratic politicians are to be reasonably suspected of collaboration as enemies of the America that you are looking for (but doesn't nor has ever existed)....as they attend bildenberg meetings, speak at APAIC, have been or are members of the DLC, voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act or possibly NAFTA....and most should be considered NeoLibs (new boogeyman) if they served in the last Democratic administration (Clinton's) or if they insist that they don't hate America based on its past (which most had something to do with), .....and since most have not told you who they voted for in the past, you might as well not presume as to what they did do...since you don't know.

If they are not with you...they are aginst you.... - Which is a Bush stance.

sounds like not a men or women currently serving in our government with a "D" behind their name can clear the bar that you have set....except maybe one....maybe. :eyes:

Great to hear your stance against Democrats in general, since we are so close to election 2006! Cause your debate is really gonna win us seats! :sarcasm:

[SaveElmer]

84. Nice response...and

You will find Alvarez cares little about whether Democrats are actually elected, unless they are free of the supposed taint of those groups you have mentioned. He once said he would no longer vote the shirt but look at the person. In actuality he has switched and now simply votes against the shirt.

[alvarezadams]

87. Of course you will find Elmer

caring little about policy or values as long as the person elected has a "D" after his name.

It is remarkable how debate and discussion ends when you folk decide to wade in.

[SaveElmer]

88. Interesting...

How you can couch the most vicious of insults into such benign language.

Also interesting how folks such as you regard it as the end of debate and discussion when someone disagrees with you.

[alvarezadams]

89. Interesting

that you should suddenly appear on a thread and begin with ad hominems.

We can discuss or we can flame. I'm game either way - but don't begin your participation in a thread with personal aspersions against the original poster. Try to address the thread - at least as a begining. To do otherwise shows your less-enlightened side.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Interesting how ad hominems against the good Dems fighting the fight

on the front lines, spouted by you.....while you talk a good game are seen as "part of the debate"....

While those who choose to differ from your views are seen "part of the problem".

[wiley]

94. Busted!

It's a pattern of his. Completely unwilling to accept that Wes Clark could have actually been responsible for changing what the SOTA was doing. Ask him if a South American dictator can ever be held responsible for killing his own people if they get in the way of glorifying Bolivar, for example. Better yet, just ignore him, as he does me when he can't reconcile his pedanticism with the facts. I bet a few other people sniffed their way over here thinking it would be a Clark-bashing fest.

[SaveElmer]

92. I said nothing...

Misleading or incorrect. This is what you said to me after I asked you whether you voted for Gore or Kerry in a previous thread. You responded you did, but would no longer vote for anyone associated with the DLC.

The original post is no different in substance from your stands on the many threads in which we have talked, so saw no real reason to resume here. I was responding to a different poster who made substantially the same criticisms of your position that I have previously, simply reaffirming what your previously stated position on voting for certain Democrats is.

[alvarezadams]

86. Hysteria

is unbecoming

[FrenchieCat]

90. Which is what I was saying all along.......about your various posts....

and I am sure that FDR, JFK, Truman, Clinton and others would agree that simply pointing one's finger doesn't make one right or a part of the solution.
But it can appear to make one self righteous and possibly arrogant.

[0007]

49. Would love to see this post put in comic book style so the morans

could get a clearer picture of the past and the present. Who knows perhaps even junior could understand?

Nominated and punched to the top.

[Red Right and BLUE]

51. Well said, K&R eom

[0007]

54. bttft

[Javaman]

55. Since 1898? Way before that. Manifest Destiny anyone? nt

[alvarezadams]

57. Frankly

most of the time that the Manifest Destiny has been applied - we relied on the British navy to enforce it.

We DID have a brief imperialistic phase around the time of the Mexican-American War. We also looked the other way as the filibusteros had their way in C. America and Baja. But it was short lived (outside the Western Marches).

Most of our imperial phases were at least largely recognized as such until WWI. There was a debate about the pros and cons of imperialism. Now the hypocritical rhetoric hides it from most.

[KoKo]

58. I would recommend this but the time has elapsed. An excellent post.

And, taking back our party would only be a small first step to our having to wrangle the whole thing back which will take many years. But, we've got to hope we can make that first step.

[ChipsAhoy]

79. What KoKo said!

Excellent!

[The Magistrate]

95. Locking

The O.P. is no longer among us.