Burn Down Both Houses And Rebuild From The Rubble
I’m definitely warming to the idea that the Democratic Party as we know it is dead. We have cycled through enough elections voting for the lesser of two evils to finally start considering other options. I know I’m tired of holding my nose as I vote for Democrats that get their money from the same sources Republicans do and who pledge their allegiance to the same corporate interests. The Democrats don’t even bother to placate us with populist language anymore, they have simply turned their back on us and it’s time we do the same.
What would happen if an Independent candidate stood up and refused to take a position on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the whole lot of wedge issues and instead spoke directly to the American people’s biggest concerns? The deficit, our looming energy crisis, poverty, education, healthcare, jobs and stagnant wages are the issues we care about. By exclusively focusing of what really matters, an Independent candidate could appeal to Americans, both “red” and “blue” without relying on the shortcut to support that wedge issues provide.
Believe me, I know that a woman’s right to choose is of fundamental importance and I firmly believe that all government sanctioned institutions must be universally accessible, but why not tackle the underlying problems that the wedge issues distract us from? There is value in that too. If there was universal healthcare, a birth to college educational system, equal protection under the law and if alleviating poverty was given top billing, then abortion rights, gay marriage and gun control become much less critical issues. Without fearing for our very survival, we are much less likely to hurt, steal or be driven to desperate measures much less concern ourselves with what other people are doing in their private lives. It is the fear of extinction that leads to persecution of others and religion becomes less of a lifeline to cling to when prosperity abounds.
Just as Christian conservatives hold too tightly to their side of the wedge issues, so too do we, and so far it hasn’t done a damn bit of good for the country. By falling victim to the game of “look at the shiny object so as not to see we are ripping you off”, we have allowed for the dumbing down of politics that liberals so despise. So let’s stop engaging in the game, take our bat and ball and move onto a newer and greener field. I don’t know if a third party is the answer, but I do know that the Democratic Party is not. I have always thought that upon leaving the Democrats I would move to a party further to the left, but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps we must be willing to negotiate a common position, or to at least be willing to leave our most contentious ideas at the door before we can walk into a better America. I’m not talking about the kind of compromise that makes the DLC so dangerous, moving us further to the right, but compromise within a framework that gives us a choice between good and great, not bad and worse.
We are going to see a lot of jockeying for position over the next several months by politicians trying to distance themselves from their corrupt colleagues. The rush is on to be the first to institute new rules for dealing with lobbyists and to offer up legislation that will reign in the pay to play system that they all partake in. I say, let’s not let them get away with it. We shouldn’t trust a blue fox any more than we would a red fox to guard our henhouse. They are all serving the same master and we ain’t it. They have shit where we live this time, so let’s rub their noses in it and send them on home. Thanks for playing. Next.
posted by The (liberal)Girl Next Door @ 8:17 PM
3 Comments:
Thank you again ~ LGND ~ this piece of writing holds the energy in both hands: Funny, provocative, philosophical, thoughtful and genuinely deeply human.
Looking at how to solve the real problem ~ and, I agree with you, it is not "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
Your points on what we need as Americans and how we can actually get back into the flow, a rhythm of life expressing life rather than the "fear of extinction", is so clear.
Why the hell cannot our leaders use their brains and figure this stuff out?
I have decided it is political pollution and the poison is their egos needing to be loved by many because their self love is non-existent and so, as it is with narcissists in the first, second and third degrees, they force every American be their echo.
I must admit, however, yesterday cheered me up with two things:
First, the Supreme Court upheld the Assisted Suicide Law in the State of Oregon! And, the brief which was written by the 'SC', is fabulous. It slapped the pee pees of Ashcroft, Gonzales, and BUSH himself! Subtle, intellectual, collegial, the “pointy heads” upheld the true law. Yes, Ashcroft tried for the second time to decide a law because it is what he wanted. But the Supreme Court clearly instructed him in the brief about being told a second time the laws, he after all is an attorney and held the office of Attorney General for christsake. He should know the law, especially since he had his pee pee slapped once already for the same behavior. Ha Ha, with the highest court having Mr. hand picked Roberts himself. Bush’s scheme did not play out in his favor and this brief is just a sampling of what is to come with the spying illegalities.
Second, I absolutely love the wit that Gore displayed, the best remark to come from a politician that I have ever heard ~ “. . What parent would name a child JACK with the last name ending in OFF.” Oh my god how I love this!
Bravo! Beautifully said. If this is a movement, count me in...
Well , , , I don't know. I read today somewhere that Senator Gordon Smith (R-Or) reluctantly surrendered to the will of his constituents, loudly expressed twice, and gave his support to physician-assisted suicide. This will make it difficult for Congress to interfere, of course, but it occurred only after the Supreme Court had delivered to the Bush administration one of its soundest public thrashings.
It is traditional in legal analysis, and especially in the area of Constitutional law, to consider the national political climate in which any major decision comes down.
I think it is significant that Kennedy said, in the first paragraph:
"As the Court has observed, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 735 (1997). The dispute before us is in part a product of this political and moral debate, but its resolution requires an inquiry familiar to the courts: interpreting a federal statute to determine whether Executive action is authorized by, or otherwise consistent with, the enactment."
Was Kennedy telling G. W. Bush that despite his "signing statements" it is the province of the courts to say what the law is?
And was he reminding the psuedo-President that once the court has done so, it is the duty of the executive to "execute" the law - that is, to see to it that the law as interpreted is carried out, and not to reinterpret clear statutory language whether it is expedient to do so or not?
Given what has been happening for the last few weeks, it sort of jumps right out at you.
What life is left in the Democratic Party must see that the time has come to draw a line in the sand and fight. You see the glimmerings of it in Howard Dean's frantic effort to create an organized, grass roots base - what the Republicans have been so good at exploiting the religious right and the anti-choice zealots to accomplish.
Only in Dean's case, he is fighting to alert people to their own vital best interests being sacrificed for the benefit of a select few, and no one wants to believe him or rock the boat "too much," I guess because they think they have too big a stake in the status quo.
But that is true only if you are one of the select few.
Pity!!
Post a Comment
<< Home