You are herecontent / The War Party and its Faux-gressive Minions
The War Party and its Faux-gressive Minions
By Cindy Sheehan
For years now, I have been writing about the duplicity of the Democrats and the shocking similarity between the two parties when it comes to the use of state-sanctioned terrorism against innocent populations.
This past week, after the betrayal of every American who elected Democrats to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I am wondering if there is anyone still in this nation who thinks that there’s any significant difference between the war ideologies of Democrats and Republicans.
I know many faux-gressive entities on the “left” whose silence on this matter is so loud it’s hurting my eardrums. Where was MoveOn.org over these past few weeks when the Dems were bludgeoning their caucus to vote “Aye” to extend the war crimes in the Middle East? Where were Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) and his bloggers that day? The day the funding bill passed, I wandered over to The Daily Kos and saw that it was all a-twitter about Senator Ensign (R) having an extra-marital affair. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid may, or may not, be loyal spouses, but their calumny will kill, maim, torture or displace thousands of people over the next 4-8 years. I am not so interested in what happens in bedrooms as what happens in Democratic war zones.
Faux-gressives MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos supported me, and my work, as long as it solely focused on the Bush regime and the Republicans. However, when I had a late in life epiphany and figured out that the Democrats were abusing the energy of the anti-war movement to regain power, and I started to speak out against the entire War Party, not just one-half of it, I was kicked off blogging for The Daily Kos and ostracized by the fully co-opted MoveOn.org. Nathan Diebenow of the Lonestar Iconoclast then accused me of “alienating” my friends, to add insult to injury.
I think that I have unfortunately been vindicated by almost every single action that the Democratic Party has taken since 2006 when impeachment was taken “off the table,” but “blank-check” war funding was served up to the Military Industrial Complex on a bloody platter dripping with the flesh and blood of real human beings.
Our politicians have no integrity partly because the organizations in the movements that have the largest emailing lists have no integrity. Wars that were wrong under Bush become acceptable under Obama and the stain of torture fades into the woodwork or is hidden from sight like a demented relation because a Senator has an affair. As I understand it, MoveOn.org was founded to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the same thing Ensign did…now the gatekeepers of the War Party are going to crucify Ensign to distract their subscribers from real issues?
MoveOn.org sent this out in April 2008 in a fundraising email to its 5 million person list: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months. They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything—except the body count and the price tag.
They were not talking about the Democratic war funding this week. Apparently it’s fine to fund wars if we have a Democratic Despotism, but dangerous for our troops if we have a Republican Regime.
Hey MoveOn.org: ComeBack.org. Come back from the dark side of partisan politics. You look like Move America Forward, now:( a reich-wing organization that irrationally and blindly supports Republicans and unquestioningly supported BushCo). CODEPINK supported Barack Obama, but at least CODEPINK is over in Gaza trying to call attention to that crime, while MoveOn.org ignores the situation and most of the bloggers at The Daily Kos just like to sit behind their computer screens and snarkily criticize anyone who is actually on the streets doing the work.
What Pelosi and her Wrecking Crew did last week was disgraceful, but it’s shameful that people who opposed the exact same policies under BushCo support the same crimes of ObamaCo.
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Now entrenched in power, with huge majorities in Congress, the democrats realize they can keep winning if they keep Bush's policies and practices on the table and then pretend to be against such policies to keep winning elections. Democrats must proceed lightly and not accomplish too much, because if they correct everything too quickly American voters might then vote back the Republicans to control of Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. After two years in office the voters turned against Bill Clinton and voted in the Republicans for the next fourteen years even though Clinton's economy, based on peace and prosperity for all, was perhaps the best ever experienced in American history. When things are going really good with America the Republicans say they can do better and the voters go along so Obama cannot and will not push too hard for real change in his first 2 years because that could cost him and the democrats in 2010 and 2012. Real change may come only if American voters no longer take the democrats for granted and keep them in power with even larger majorities going forward.
Why should we care about what strategy will keep the Democrats in power? Will that end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will that bring back the Constitution? End illegal spying? Return the money given away to the Wall Street bankers? Clearly no.
and I for one am very happy to see someone else come along who is not afraid to share the REAL WORLD facts with others.
It doesn't matter which party is in control, it doesn't matter who is the Supreme leader, as long as there is profit to be made, the wars will continue.
The only surprise is that some people continue to be shocked.
Good grief, folks. It's really quite uncomplicated. In fact, nothing could be more obvious or straightforward.
Under the U.S. political system, the electability of any party or individual is very largely determined by the financial support of corporate economic interests -- a "right" that is guaranteed to corporations by their judicially awarded legal personhood.
Thus, as with virtually all other aspects of life today, paid sponsorship, rather than the will of "the people", calls the tune for the entire U.S. political system and will continue to do so as long as the current status of corporate involvement remains in place.
That's it. It really is that simple. Everything else is mere corollary, including all of the consequential public indoctrination and propaganda to persuade people that this paid representation system contitutes "the greatest democracy on earth" and that it is worthy, not only of defence at home, but of global export to inferior nations (i.e., all others) by force of arms if necessary.
Arguments about which particular corporate interests have the greatest sponsorship influence with which of the parties are both futile and irrelevant to the main issue. In fact, the most important corollary is that switching from one sponsored politician to another, regardless of the party facades, alters nothing of importance in that broader context.
Only a radical change to the system itself can give meaningful democratic substance to the role of the human electorate as opposed to corporate sponsorship. Whether any such change to dollar dominance of the U.S. political process is actually possible and, if so, how to achieve it is for the U.S. citizenry to decide.
N.B.: In conclusion, please note carefully a very important distintion between capitalism in the marketplace and corporate financial dominance of a nation's political system. This comment is NOT an argument about the former, neither for nor against. It does, on the other hand, invite consideration of whether the latter is consistent with truely democratic governance ("of, by and for the people") anywhere.
To me, the answer would seem self-evident. In any case, no one should be shocked by the results.
You're spot on with your observation that the only surprising thing is that there are still people who are shocked to see Obama pursuing the same war party policies as Bush. I think Jeremy Scahill said it best, "What we see with Obama's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader Arab and Muslim world, as well as his global economic policies, are a continuation of the most devastating and violent policies of the Bush administration--while placing a face on it that makes it easier to expand the iron fist of U.S. militarism and the hidden hand of the free market in a way that Republicans, I think, would have been unable to do at this point in history." - Jeremy Scahill, "Rebranding War and Occupations, Socialist Worker, June 17, 2009.
It's a classic two-punch setup. Bush sets the stage by shredding the Constitution and enhancing the groundwork of the national security state, then Obama adds the popularity and intelligence needed to make the policy truly successful. This is not a conspiracy theory - this is the way the system works. Obama is the master of misdirection - that's why he was chosen to lead this phase of the empire's renewal.
If you carefully follow Obama's statements, you'll notice that they are always weighted toward answering right-wing criticisms. They hardly even acknowledge left-wing criticisms.
Once again, Jeremy Scahill, "[Obama will] say a few things in his speech that sound like they're new, like a totally different U.S. approach, but then he'll also at the same time roll out a policy that is further than even Bush took things." That's not the result of confusion, it's carefully designed strategy, and it works.
"The lesson here is a very clear one: Any time you look to electoral politics as the solution to systemic problems in our society or around the world, you're going down a dead-end street." I'm afraid the same applies to lobbying Congresspersons. It doesn't work because they are beholden to other interests than voters. Representational democracy in America has failed.
At the "core" of the real problem with our system. We are not a democracy -- of the people, by the people, for the people! If we were, our screams over the past eight years, though heard, would not have been ignored and we continue to be ignored.
It has become a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Obama had a ton of corporate backing in his campaign and there's a price to pay. But without it, you have a Kucinich, who never would have made it, or anyone running without that corporate backing. But it goes beyond that, corporatists "grease" the palms of most of our politicians, while in office, and the politicians willingly accept the "grease" and "abide" thereby. If one of our Congresspersons, such as Kucinich or Wexler, for example, do speak out against what is happening with the wars, torture, etc., then the corporatists with all their power and wealth do everything to try and get that person ousted from office, as experienced by Kucinich and Wexler.
So, all in all, the people are not a part of considerations as to what decisions are made in our government. And, now, with the "marginalization" of the so-called "middle-class," the people's voices will be even weaker, as our funds are further limited and we just can't compete period!
Of course, ideally, although you can never remove the need for campaign funds, etc., the only way to deal with all these inequities would be to have a "cap" on campaign funds to be collected by each and every candidate in the instance of a presidential campaign, with equal (free) air-time for each candidate, with run-off voting in the event of votes not more than 50%.
The same sort of "cap" set up for the election of Congressmen.
Lobbyists, every single one of them, should also have a "cap" on how much they can contribute, how much time they use! And, frankly, no politician should be offered or accept the "gifts" from corporatists for "favors," as a matter of law. This behavior represents, IMHO, a conflict of interest.
At any rate, until such time as we find a way to "crack" the system as it is, I agree, it's not going to ever be any different. Analogy, the goals of the defense companies will become the goals of the politicians kind of thing, etc.
If we cannot "crack" the system, then this country will become a country, much like 3rd world countries, the rich running the "serfs" (and we're not all that far from that as it is); we will find a way to change; or, ultimately, there will be a revolution.
And, lastly, if we cannot be bothered to prosecute those who break the laws, or, worse, those who have committed the highest level of crimes that could be committed, i.e., war crimes, then how in the hell can we have anything but a corrupt and dispassionate government body? That, to me, is the epitome of a country gone amok. If the laws are meaningless, then on what premise does this country stand?
During the campaign of Bush and Kerry, I listened to Roy Arunhati, an Indian author and speaker, and in her speech, she said "It doesn't matter if you have an "oxy-heavy" or an "oxy-gentle" for your president, the United States needs to change its policies!"
Cindy,
I think your comments are right on target, but the strategic question is, "Once we've confirmed that the Republicans and Democrats and faux-gressive groups such as MoveOn.org have exactly the same agenda when it comes to war, but only differ in style, what should be the response of the real antiwar movement?" By "real" anti-war movement, I mean those who actually want to stop U.S. aggression in the Middle East. Those who want to accomplish this goal, as opposed to the goal of keeping the Democrats in power, need to carefully think through what will be effective.
I think we need to step back and broaden our understanding of power relations in America. Once we have done this, then perhaps effective strategies can be identified. The corporations control Congress because they provide the money that funds the members' campaigns. They don't fear a few activists because they know that anything the activists do will either be ignored or spun by the MSM to the detriment of the activists. They don't need to listen to phone calls or emails from such activists because they know that this will not affect their electability one way or the other. The only thing that affects their electability is the availability of corporate funding. The voters in their districts are only influenced by what they see in the MSM and that is controlled by the message that the corporate interests wish to convey. Of course, there are exceptions to this: the Ned Lamont campaign, the millions of individual donors to Obama, and many other examples. However, these are exceptions and cannot be used to guide overall strategy.
My conclusion is that the political system in the U.S. has ceased to be democratic and that the mechanisms we have for influencing policy: voting, writing and calling Congresspeople, protesting, etc. are not effective because the corporate power structure has developed immunity to them, primarily because the MSM has become very effective at controlling the frameworks of discourse.
I propose that progressives begin to unify behind massive alternative media outlets and turn the funding that would have gone into supporting candidates for the failed American political system into large-scale alternative media such as the Real News. In other words, that we begin building alternative institutions, starting with the media. In other words, seize control of the framework of discourse. With that foundation, we can start to build other institutions, apart from the imperial state. Once we are strong enough, we can then bargain for concessions from it.
The current political system offers no outlets for genuine progressive action, but is designed to absorb and divert progressive energies into wasteful and debilitating avenues. I think it's time to create real alternatives.