?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Democrats will not save you

« previous entry | next entry »
Feb. 23rd, 2004 | 11:25 pm

This time it's different ... not
I wish people would understand that nothing has really changed. Different things are more obvious, yes, but the facts on the ground are the same. Journalists weren't amazed so much at what the current administration has done -- they were amazed it was done _openly_. They scratched their figurative heads, saying (and sometimes even to their readers), "can he get away that?" . . .

I've been reading a little of Hunter S. Thompson's coverage of 70's political campaigns. The press pool could use a touch of gonzo right now, I think.

Vote Freak
What my freak friends are overlooking is that there's a tremendous opportunity being lost here. Against an incumbent who's run so far off the rails, there is less "need" for an "electable" candidate. You really could elect a Kucinich! or even a Nader![1] The cynics and the optimists could both come out winners here.

But instead, you're clamoring for candidates that don't and won't represent you. In this you are not just "choosing the lesser evil", you are actually creating it. There's a Machiavellian principle at work here, and we're on the short end of it. An "electable" democrat will erode your civil rights, but it will be far less obvious.

Welcome to America, here's your handbasket.

-Trip

[1] I'll be interested to see the number of Republicans who vote for Nader, as well as Republican votes for other third parties.
Tags:

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {15}

(no subject)

from: razormqw
date: Feb. 23rd, 2004 10:13 pm (UTC)
Link

I agree

Reply | Thread

Mark Russell

(no subject)

from: unatone
date: Feb. 23rd, 2004 10:25 pm (UTC)
Link

I've heard the comment made that this administration may actually be good for the country in that America won't actually wake up until they are forced to. Four more years of Bush would serve to wake people more the fuck up, but could the damage be reversed. I don't agree that Bush is easily beatable, though. People are more stupid then you think. I only have to go to work to see that. People who are more concerned that gays don't marry then people getting killed. WTF?

Reply | Thread

Waterlily Jaguar

(no subject)

from: solractwin
date: Feb. 23rd, 2004 11:43 pm (UTC)
Link

I don't believe Bush will be as easily defeated at the polls this Fall as you imply. The Republican base is strong and disciplined. He has powerful allies and a huge chest of money to spend on the campaign.

Reply | Thread

the Edward

(no subject)

from: thedward
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 07:48 am (UTC)
Link

And he has Diebold on his side.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: spumoni
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 11:15 am (UTC)
Link

Which is truly frightening.

Reply | Parent | Thread

味锤

(no subject)

from: daylightsavings
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 01:56 am (UTC)
Link

Bush is mainstream. It's a fact. Just because none of the people we hang out with have views anywhere near his, doesn't make him out of the mainstream. America lurched far to the right during the Reagan administration, due mostly to Reagan's brilliant ability to completely change the terminology and context of the right versus left debate. The Democrats still haven't come to terms with it, they haven't even begun to address it. They need a strong, charismatic leader with the vision and communication skill to redefine the political landscape. Until that happens, most Americans will have more in common philosophically with the Republican party, and the only thing that will get a Democrat into the White House will be either abandoning the left's policies, like Clinton did, or a Republican president's woefully obvious mismanagement of the office, which in this case may only lead to a slim margin of victory.

Reply | Thread

dr. pangloss

(no subject)

from: denshi
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 04:26 am (UTC)
Link

Or a redefinition of the terms of debate, which is almost fantasyland at this point.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: khandro
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 05:56 am (UTC)
Link

Bush is anything but main stream. Most polls that really dive into issues and ask pointed questions show that the majority of Americans 65-75% agree with the traditionally liberal/democratic choice. Bush is not mainstream. He has been able to package himself as mainstream.

There have been a really good couple of articles on Alternet about the differences between the right and the left based on the notion of the family. Right = patriarchical, Left=nourishing. The thing Bush has been able to do is couch his retoric in the language of the nourishing family all the while being a strict patriarch. I wish I could find it.

I think triple has a really good point. I think right now, since Bush has done the same sorts of things that have been done in the past (ala Clinton) but is doing them so openly, that a truly radical candidate has a decent shot. The challenge to just such a person would be able to convince the majoriut of Americans that the Emperor in fact has no clothes. It is exactly like the fable. I just wonder when anyone will hear.


PS Sorry my spelling sucks.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Waterlily Jaguar

(no subject)

from: solractwin
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 01:57 pm (UTC)
Link

You're talking about percentages of Americans. The only thing that really matters here are VOTERS, and they tend to lean more to the right than the rest of the country. Get out the vote.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Damien Warman

(no subject)

from: dmw
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 05:46 am (UTC)
Link

No. Things changed hugely. It really is different. Grit your teeth, suck it up, and vote Democrat this year. Spend the following four years writing to your congresspeople and your local party groups, and try to change the dialogue in four and a half years. But vote Democrat this year.

Reply | Thread

Chef Monkey

(no subject)

from: chefmonkey
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 07:22 am (UTC)
Link

    Against an incumbent who's run so far off the rails, there is less "need" for an "electable" candidate.

With all due respect, you're off your nut. Even now, at the lowest approval rating he has ever had since taking office, Bush has the stated support of over half of Americans (+/- 3%) -- higher than Clinton's approval rating was at this point in his first term.

Stop; think about that: Clinton was worse off in the eyes of America than Bush is right now, and Clinton got re-elected.

I fear you must be making the logical fallacy that is so popular on the right: "Everyone I hang out with hates {gay rights,abortion,welfare}, so there must be only some tiny minority out there who disagree with us." Hanging out with people who share your political views is the most effective way to blind yourself to the broader political climate.

Reply | Thread

the Edward

(no subject)

from: thedward
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 07:57 am (UTC)
Link

I think Tom Tomorrow says it well: I'm not sure that I am convinced that what needs to be fixed can even be fixed by elections. My dream is revolution. Not a violent, bloody revolution, but rather a revolution where through careful planing, the government simply becomes irrelevant to those who wish it to be. We need to build the alternative infrastructures and organizations. I know. I know. I said it is a dream.

Reply | Thread

terriblelynne

(no subject)

from: terriblelynne
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 09:09 am (UTC)
Link

I like you so much right now.

Reply | Thread

freak out

from: anonymous
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 09:29 am (UTC)
Link

the sad thing to realise is this: bush is going to take texas no matter what. no matter what. you might as well vote for my fat aunt sally come november. it doesn't matter! which is probably why nader chose texas as his kick-off point for 2004. i mean, i think he understood this. the primaries are a different matter altogether, but whatever.

(i mean, dean had an honest-to-god grassroots campaign going and the press did a hatchet job on him. i went out to a dean rally in san antonio and saw it for myself. it was a multi-ethnic, multi-class affair. people were excited. but the press didn't like him and i think that has swayed a lot of people. think of all the glaring, stomache-churning shortcomings that bush has of which the press are ignorant. and then consider the drama, the fuss, made because dean is a little ornery. you know? who fucking cares? he didn't run TWO corporations into the ground. he didn't STEAL AN ELECTION. he didn't skip out on his service in the national guard. comparatively dean is smooth like butta. so the powers that be aren't interested in seeing a real citizen-oriented politician take office. instead they and the bland heart of the bland midwest chose bland kerry. whatever. i'd vote for him if i thought it would do any good. at least he's not lieberman.)

what are our options as progressive texans?

1.) move to another state.
2.) campaign in a swing state.

it's also time for us (progressives) to finally admit that we do not have our fingers on the pulse of america. we are not in tune with what the average american wants. because how else do you explain kerry's surprising win and the banal devotion to bush? mindboggling.

Reply | Thread

Re: freak out

from: anonymous
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 09:31 am (UTC)
Link

forgot to put my name on this:

http://idreamtrains.diaryland.com

Reply | Parent | Thread