One is to address consumer debt. That's a good issue and a serious structural issue that's been building for decades. But, behind it is a more serious structural issue.
That's that our two-party system, especially at the national congressional level with political campaign cash corrupction, and even more at the executive level, with its campaign-cash-corrupted executive presidency at home and imperial presidency abroad, is broken.
And, no, appeals to the "real Barack Obama" won't work because what you have now IS the real Barack Obama.
Therefore, beyond the structural change of consumer debt is the structural change of third-party voting support.
 |
| Are you going to follow the real solution? |
If you think Obama worrying more about medical marijuana than financial plundering is the answer, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If you think Obama lying about Keystone XL as the latest in environmentalist "caves" rather than confronting the Wall Street that funded his election is the answer, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If you think the Obama already undercutting financial regulations himself just six months into office really wants to fix the problem, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you think the Obama to whom the financial system that gave more 2008 campaign money than John McCain in his NON small donor campaign, the financial system whose Goldman Sachs was his No. 2 donor, with JPMorgan Chase No. 6, Citigroup No. 7, UBS No. 15 and Morgan Stanley No. 19, actually wants to lift a finger to address the structural issues, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
After all, this is the man whom Democratic national procurer Vernon Jordan walked before a dog-and-pony vetting show of Wall Streeters back in 2003, before he even had won a Senate primary.
Ken Silverstein besides providing the dog-and-pony show details mentioned above, adds to that with his message of how Obama had already become a trimmer by 2006.
If you're still listening to MSNBC or other slightly-left news channels, programs and broadcasts that never mention, let alone tout, the idea of looking outside of the two-party box, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you aren't ready to at least go to the Green Party website and find out more, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Because, part of the "revolution" MUST BE a revolution at the ballot box. Read on below the fold.
After that, if you're not ready to consider voting Green, at least, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. (I know, skeptics, Greens have some alt-med/New Age issues; let's worry about Wall Street and systemic political corruption first.)
After that, if you're not ready to consider telling your friends about the idea of voting Green, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Fact? While Republicans are responsible, roughly, for 2/3 the current financial deregulation mess, Democrats are responsible for 1/3.
Fact? Obama got more Wall Street money than McCain.
Fact? During the 110th Congress, House Democrats did consider one Congressional campaign finance bill, but it was stacked toward the bipartisan duopoly only.
Fact? If you're not willing to look in the mirror and consider voting Green; if you're not ready to ignore the coming wave of Democratic fear mongering; if you're not willing to address the real structural issue; ...
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Besides, with Obama so unpopular and the GOP field so weak, now is the time for third-party progressivism!
Maybe the Democratic Party will become truly progressive again some day. But it won't as long as it can co-opt voters who won't think outside the two-party box, who will believe Democratic fear-mongering about Republicans and so on. No, the Green Party is not perfect, but it's definitely the best progressive option, and has a growing national structure.
3rd party progressivism? How is that better than 2-party? Couldn't we then just have 3-parties being equally bad? Don't get me wrong, more choice and less consolidated voting power are things I like, but I don't think that we need stop at 3-parties, and I can't see any logic that agrees with 3 that doesn't agree with 2, at the exclusion of more than 3
ReplyDeleteWe don't have a progressive 2nd party right now, Anon. That's the whole issue. In the duopoly, we have a conservative party and a centrist party. That includes the current president of the US.
ReplyDeleteOh, theoretically, if the Greens ever got a serious whiff of mainstream power, they could start being corrupted by it too. Not too likely, and anyway, I'll cross that bridge if/when we get to it.