|
Edited on Sun Feb-18-07 11:51 AM by welshTerrier2
first, thanks for your lengthy and detailed response.
i have all sorts of responses. the most important issue for me, bar none, is to restore power to the American people. my entire (Subjective) view of everything is colored by the belief that we no longer have a government of, for or by the people. I call such a view "left" mostly for convenience. While I sometimes see this theme espoused by those I might consider proponents of the "center", I see it in very marginal terms. They talk about republican Congressmen taking bribes. They talk about ethics reforms and even lobbying reforms. I'm 100% supportive of these views. But they fail to go far enough. I never hear "the center" talking about the absolute corruption of our foreign policy and even domestic spending priorities by powerful corporate interests. Why is that? Am I just not listening? Am I not fairly assessing the corruption of the military-industrial complex? Am I naive to believe that Iraq and most if not all of US foreign policy is being pushed, not in the national interest, but rather for the greedy pursuits of narrow commercial interests? Do you agree with the general vision I'm describing here or is that a core difference in our systems of belief?
if you agree, be clear that i have no concern then for labels. if we can agree about the utter corruption of our democracy by greedy special interests and you don't like the "left" label, that's fine. call it anything you want to and sign me right up for it.
you said this: "I'm all for it, but until such a time comes, I'm all for our candidates getting every dime they can to beat Republicans." I would never argue that Democrats should have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs while republicans can use both hands. So, no disagreement there. But something is very wrong here and I don't see the Democrats hammering this theme with the American people. I think you made a major mischaracterizaion of "the left" in your post. At least, I think it's totally wrong as I apply your statement to myself. Specifically, you said: "With a few exceptions, the left and right are opposite sides of the same coin - wanting their agenda in play now, this very minute, with no debate and no dissention." Yes, OK, I WANT my agenda NOW. But the implication is that those who define themselves outside the center lack a willingness to understand and tolerate the pragmatic considerations as to whether their agenda is obtainable. I strongly disagree with that. At least I disagree for myself.
if party unity is an objective you have, here's the only way it can ever be achieved. we need to get Democrats to speak to the hopes and dreams and vision of Democrats on the "left". right now, they do NOT. it's a huge problem. notice that I used the term "speak to". this does not say they should immediately acquiesce to every issue "the left" is seeking. that is NOT at all my point. the party has a very real problem because, as a "big tent", it needs to represent a widely divergent group of people with widely divergent views and values. my simple statement to you is that they are failing to represent people who self-identify with the left wing of the party. that wing might jump up and down and make lots of noise and demand whatever issues they care about. would i like the party to move in their direction? absolutely! but that is NOT what is necessary to build harmony. what is necessary is a dialog. what is necessary is to balance clear statements of values with the practicalities of implementing policies that align with them. one of a million examples might be: "we believe the presence of the US military in Iraq is aggravating the civil war. we believe American soldiers are being asked to do what is no longer possible. we also recognize that we need 60 votes to stop the war and we do not have those votes." doing that would go a very long way towards healing the rift in the party.
that's the problem i see with your statement about campaign funding or, frankly, any issue. i don't see the immediacy coming from the left that you ascribed to them. what i see is a party that refuses to address the concerns of a significant block of their own constituents. when you argue for pragmatism, you'll get no argument from me. the debate is not at its core over timing and tactics; the debate is over ultimate values and vision. if Democrats are making a big deal of the abuses of big money in campaigns and are pointing out that we can't unilaterally disarm, i'm in. but when the message is muffled, and it seems muffled to me, suspicions are raised. for example, has Hillary being campaigning on the devastating effects of big money on our democracy? I hope she has been. Her message hasn't reached me.
i made reference to a "corporate stranglehold" on Congress to which you stated: "Thus far, no evidence suggests it". If that's your view, we are indeed miles apart. Do you see terms like the "military industrial complex" as little more than lefty rhetoric? do you think the US really needs to have a weapons appropriations budget larger than the entire rest of the world combined? is that good policy? is that why both republicans and Democrats keep voting for these staggering appropriations? do you think the real reason bush invaded Iraq was because he genuinely believed Saddam was likely to attack the US with WMD? do you see it as little more than lefty rhetoric to argue, as I argue, that this war was all about profits for big old American corporations? is it just "right place at the right time" logic to point out the record profits made by Big Oil since the invasion of Iraq began? Is it just lefty rhetoric to point to the new OIL LAW that the US and the World Bank crammed down Iraq's throat. This OIL LAW will "export" as much as 85% or Iraq's oil revenues to private commercial non-Iraqi oil companies for the next thirty years.
You said the last election was not about the war. "It wasn't even the nation's #1 concern in the last election." I'm not sure where you're getting that information. It seems to me that almost every Democrat I've seen on TV or read in the press has said that was exactly what the last election was all about. You also used the word "crutch". I'll just ignore that one. But, when you argue that war is a "single issue", I strongly disagree. War is many issues. Choose to go to war, and there is less "butter". You can't disconnect the two. Choose to go to war for profits and greed and you have a corrupt process that deceives citizens with lies and propaganda. Choose to go to war when the US was not attacked and was not likely to be attacked and you are in violation of the UN Charter you're a signatory to. War is not a single issue. The war in Iraq has severely weakened our military. It has strained our alliances all over the world. It has lessened US prestige and given us much less influence in global affairs. War is just not a single issue.
Having gone back to reread your post to make sure i didn't miss anything, i wanted to respond to the following:
"Changing that isn't a left or right issue. As for profit motive, it is naive to believe that could ever change. The American government will never nationalize the defense of our country. We will always turn to private companies to build weapons."
While i completely agree with what you said, I also see it as completely missing the point I was trying to make. I am not calling, at least not here, for the "American government to nationalize the defense of our country". That's not the criticism I raise about the abuses of the military-industrial complex and BIG OIL. The focus I have here is that these profit-seekers carry huge influence in deciding what our foreign policy will be. instead of concerning themselves with being Americans first, they concern themselves with delivering the bucks to their shareholders. with a proper system of checks and balances, their TREASONOUS OBJECTIVES could be suppressed by the Congress. absent those checks and balances, and I believe they are absent, greed determines policy. and those policies are rarely in the national interest. again, the point is NOT about nationalizing these companies but rather about ensuring that the will of the American people sets the policies and not the will of shareholders. the argument is not "anti-business" and it is not "anti-profits"; the argument is plain and simply "power to the people".
btw, i greatly appreciate the quality of this discourse. it deeply saddens me that so much of what goes on here is just noise. here we are, supposedly a bunch of concerned citizens, and we just scream at each other. DU does some things very well but it could be so much more than it is.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
