Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Sat May 05th 2007, 10:46 AM
A workable economic system should be based on an evaluation of how policies operate in the real world, rather than on ideological dogma. The ideal combination of policies varies from one culture to another and from one nation to another.
In the 20th Century arguments over the relative merits of capitalism and socialism routinely went way beyond stridency – they resulted in immeasurable amounts of violence and deaths, especially during the Cold War along with the numerous hot wars that it spawned. With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1989 the proponents of capitalism claimed complete and permanent victory for their preferred economic system, claiming further that that victory was inevitable and due to the inherent superiority of capitalism over all forms of socialism.

But there were several problems with that claim. The economic system that a country practices is only one of numerous traits that characterize the nations of the world. World history is full of examples of collapsing empires that are explained by factors other than Communism or socialism. Furthermore, the Soviet Union practiced one variant of socialism, and an extreme variant at that. Even if their economic system was the sole reason for their collapse, that wouldn’t prove that other, less extreme variants of a similar economic system are inherently unsustainable.

Arguing the relative merits of capitalism vs. socialism can be a very frustrating undertaking because of the extreme emotionalism frequently associated with both sides. Frequently, if not the good majority of the time, such arguments have an all or none quality that refuses to recognize solutions that involve a combination of the two systems. That’s a shame because – in my humble opinion – the argument should not be at all about which system is better, but rather, what combination of the two, in what circumstances, makes for a better system. For the fact of the matter is (I believe) both pure capitalism and pure socialism are myths that have not and cannot work in reality.

I do not intend in this post to argue for the superiority of one system over the other. Rather, my intention is to describe a framework for discussing the issue, along with some thoughts about the relative weaknesses and strengths of each. It could be that economists on both sides of the issue will consider my ideas to be too simple minded. Perhaps they are. But still, I think that they represent an improvement over the stridency with which this issue is often discussed.


Definitions and goals

For the purpose of this discussion, capitalism is a system whereby economic transactions are handled individually, without interference by government or any other entity. Socialism (Communism being the most extreme variant of socialism) is a system where economic transactions are governed instead by the community – which generally would mean the government. (How responsive the government is to the people that it represents is another issue, which I won’t go into at this time.) Those two definitions aren’t very different, as far as I can tell, from the definitions of socialism and capitalism provided by Wikipedia, though Wikipedia goes into considerably more detail to define them.

Before arguing about the relative benefits and detriments of a system people should define what they believe the system is supposed to accomplish. For example, if a person believes that the virtues of an economic system should be defined entirely by how that system benefits him, then obviously he is going to argue for a different kind of system than he would if he had a more altruistic attitude towards the subject.

My personal opinion, boiling it down to the bare essentials, is that an economic system should be judged on two goals: 1) Fairness – that is, the extent to which people receive relative benefits from the system according to what they deserve; and 2) Total wealth creation – that is, the total benefits (or wealth) that the system creates.

There is probably at least some tension between those two qualities, such that too much of an increase in one necessarily results in a decrease in the other. People vary in the relative importance that they attach to those two qualities. In discussing this issue I encountered one person, for example, who felt that fairness (or perhaps evenness is a better word in his case) was the only quality that was important. In other words, if benefits are measured on a scale of 1 to 10, he felt it would be better that everyone gets a value of “1” out of the system than that the benefits vary from 2 to 10. My opinion is that that is an extreme and unfortunate position to take on the matter, since that would cause everyone to suffer. Rather, I believe that if we can’t have a system that is completely fair and results in maximum productivity at the same time (which is obviously the case) it is best to strike some sort of reasonable balance between the two.


A few words on capitalism and fairness

I have in numerous different DU posts quoted the 431 to 1 income ratio between the average CEO in the United States today and the average employee, as a severe criticism of our economy and our country under Republican leadership. I quote that figure as a criticism because I very much doubt that such a wide disparity in income is morally right or deserved by CEOs relative to their employees. In other words, I very much doubt that the average CEO works or produces 431 times as much as his average worker.

Republicans will tell you, in order to justify the tremendous income disparities that we see in our country today, that I am wrong about that. They will claim, in other words, that such a system works to the benefit of all, because of the increased wealth that it produces, or that it is fair because CEOs provide an invaluable service that few others could provide. Or they will claim both. Since I pride myself in having an open mind and in being able to judge things without the aid of ideology, I try to have an open mind on this subject. But that’s hard to do because the Republican position on this seems rather absurd to me.

CEOs determine their own salary to a very large extent today. Do they make that determination based on the value that they create, or do they make it based on how much money they want. Common sense tells me that the latter is the case. And when I look at people like Ken Lay or the elites of Exxon Mobile, who go to extra-ordinary lengths to prove that global warming is a myth, it is extremely difficult for me to look at the “value” that those CEOs produce a positive light.


Some problems with unfettered capitalism

The extreme proponents of capitalism claim that unfettered capitalism results in a distribution of wealth that maximizes total wealth and is almost completely fair at the same time. It seems evident to me that that claim is based much more on their ideological point of view than it is on actual evidence. Here are some facts and issues that I believe dispute their claim:

The need for government regulation
Pure capitalism presupposes the complete absence of government regulation on how people make their money. But we live in a world where industry has a great potential to impinge upon and harm the lives of other people. For example, industrial processes have the potential to degrade the quality of the water, air and soil that people need to live decent lives. Other assaults on our environment, while not affecting today’s inhabitants of our country, may have the potential to profoundly impair the quality of life for future generations. Why should an influential minority of our population have the right to do that at the expense of millions of other people?

Services that only government can (or should) provide
There are many services that people need that cannot (or should not) be provided by the private sector. It is so important that these kinds of activities be performed well, that making a profit from them should be either of no consideration at all, or at the very most it should pale in comparison to the need to do the job right. Take public health services, for example. Threats to the public health may affect whole populations. If government contracts out such services to the private sector, the corporations who get the contracts might be tempted to cut corners in order to make a larger profit. When government contracts out our elections to the private sector, those corporations may be tempted to manipulate the vote count in order to get their friends elected. Can we afford to risk our democracy in that manner? And consider our prison system. Lobbyists for the prison industry actually lobby Congress for laws that increase our prison population and provide them with a source of slave labor. All of these things border on turning our government from democracy to tyranny.

Monopolies
It has long been recognized that corporations have a tendency to form monopolies, which reduce competition and raise prices. When that happens, the “free-market” principles that purportedly work to give corporations the incentive to provide quality products or services at fair prices go out the window. Where is the fairness in that? The only entity that can prevent that from happening is government.

Situations where free markets can’t operate well because of lack of information
In the ideal “free-market” corporations are motivated to provide good quality products because people are willing to pay more for good quality. But there are many instances where the public doesn’t have the information to adequately judge crucial aspects of quality, so they must rely upon government to help them out. Examples include the Food and Drug Administration to ensure the safety of foods and drugs and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure the safety of consumer products.

Scarce resources that are essential to people
One particular scarce resource that is essential to American democracy is the public airwaves. Essential information is transmitted through the public airways, and therefore their use is intimately tied up with our First Amendment rights to a free press, which is essential for the workings of democracy. This fact was recognized as early as 1934, with the enactment of the
Federal Communications Act and the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, which required that radio and television stations must act in the public interest in return for being granted free licenses to use the public airways. Given the fact that democracy itself depends upon the free flow of information, it should be obvious that control of the airways must remain open to public use and not allowed to be taken over by powerful corporations with no public obligations. Government should have an obligation to ensure that use of the public airwaves is conducted in the public interest.

Unemployment
Unemployment is a well known, common and tragic plague of capitalistic societies. How can unemployment improve the wealth of society? Worse yet, how can it be fair for a person (especially a child) to go hungry, lack education or medical care, or be homeless when that person is willing to work if given the chance?

Democracy
Vast disparities in wealth lead to a situation where the wealthy have disproportionate political influence. Essentially, they pay money to our elected representatives, and in return those representatives enact laws that favor those who bribe them… I mean donate to their campaigns. It’s actually legal in our country to do that, as long as it isn’t too obvious. Perhaps this issue has more to do with politics than economics, since it is theoretically possible to have a system where disproportionate wealth does not translate into disproportionate political influence. But though that may be theoretically possible, it is not likely to transpire anytime soon. As it stands now in the United States, wide disparities in wealth create a vicious cycle whereby the wealthy buy political influence, which they then use to increase their wealth even further.

Fairness
I’ve already touched on this issue. It is well known that children who come from poor families have bleaker futures, on average, than those whose parents are middle class or wealthy. Add that to the vicious cycle between wealth and political influence, and it’s difficult to see how wide disparities in income can routinely be justified as being fair.


The purported connection between capitalism and liberty

Another argument frequently used by proponents of capitalism is that capitalism is virtually synonymous with liberty. This philosophy suggests that intrusions by government into the economic affairs of its citizens constitute egregious violations of their basic freedoms.

That argument ignores some basic facts concerning the way that capitalism operates in our society. The U.S. government establishes, through its monetary system, infrastructure, laws and institutions (not to mention subsidies), a system that safeguards private property, facilitates business transactions, and enables corporations to make their profits. In the absence of those laws, infrastructure and institutions, chaos would reign and the conducting of business would be next to impossible. Under such circumstances, the contempt shown by the wealthy and powerful towards any attempt of government to help out its less fortunate citizens should be seen as highly hypocritical. And as noted above, the absence of corporate regulation often means that corporations are thereby granted license to destroy the environment or the quality of life of less influential Americans in their quest for profit.

In any event, in a democracy, ideally the people create a government to provide for their needs and wants. Typically that involves empowering government to intervene, at least to some extent, in the economic life of the nation for the benefit of its citizens. Why shouldn’t people have the right to create such a government? Why should a wealthy and powerful minority claim the right to do whatever they want, regardless of the effects on other people, in the name of what they claim to be “liberty”?


Some problems with excessive socialism or Communism

Despite all the problems that I’ve attributed to capitalism, it does have some major virtues. Most important, if properly modulated it can provide major incentives for people to produce goods and services that benefit society at the same time that they add to their own wealth. Excessive socialism can destroy those incentives, thereby inhibiting the production of needed products and services, to the detriment of all society.

We also know that some Communistic societies, the Soviet Union being the major example in the 20th Century, have been associated with very repressive and dictatorial governments. What the causal relationship is between Communism or excessive socialism and repressive government is not a question that I’m prepared to answer. There are plenty of examples of non-Communist dictatorships as well, most notably Germany under the Nazis. It could be that extreme economic systems of either the right or the left tend to lead to repressive dictatorships.

Well, I guess I had a lot more to say about the defects of capitalism than I had to say about the defects of socialism. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I believe socialism to be superior to capitalism – rather it simply means that I see the defects of capitalism as more complex and thereby requiring more words to describe adequately. Or, maybe it’s simply because I’ve lived in a capitalistic society all my life and therefore am better able to describe its defects.


The ideal economic system

The ideal economic system would provide economic rewards (incentives) sufficient to motivate people to produce the products and services that society needs and wants. But at the same time it would have safeguards to ensure that the wealthy and powerful couldn’t walk all over ordinary citizens in their quest for profits. It would ensure that corporations are prohibited from destroying our environment; it would provide government protection to consumers against the risks of dangerous products; it would ensure that all citizens had the opportunity to create a decent and healthy life for themselves; it would actively protect vulnerable population groups against discrimination; it would actively guard against disparities in wealth that are so great that they endanger democracy; and it would ensure that government provided the goods and services that its citizens need and could obtain in no other way.

I’ve spoken in generalities here, without delving into the specific policies needed to accomplish these things. I will just briefly note here that a recent article in The American Prospect, by Mark Greenberg, called “Making Poverty History”, talks about this in more specific terms. It mentions things such as federal minimum wage laws, progressive tax laws, health care, education, child care assistance, promotion of full employment, and labor laws that put workers on a more equal footing with their more wealthy and powerful employers. Greenberg’s article is part of a much larger series of articles in this month’s issue of The American Prospect, titled “Ending Poverty in America”.

What is the precise combination of capitalistic and socialistic policies that is required for the best economic system is a question that has not been answered yet, and over which tremendous controversy remains today. I do however have three things to say about that question: 1) It would certainly make use of a combination of capitalistic and socialistic principles, rather than either one in pure form; 2) It should be based on an evaluation of how these policies operate in the real world, rather than on ideological dogma; and 3) The ideal combination of policies varies from one culture to another and from one nation to another. What works in one society may be unworkable in another.

And lastly I want to note that, among the Democratic candidates for President, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have discussed in detail plans for dealing with some of these issues, as I extensively discuss in this post.
Discuss (20 comments) | Recommend (7 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8229 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.