Chants of “No More War” from delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention gave voice to sentiments that still resonate through the base of the party and the broad U.S. public, notably in communities with higher rates of military sacrifice.
US Militarism and the National Security State has all but absolute control over the Government in the United States of America. It might as well be a military dictatorship.
No less then 30 of the new crop of candidates for the House of Representatives running for the Democrats have backgrounds in the CIA or US Military. This group advocates increased Military spending , more wars abroad and outnumbers those so called “progessive democrats”.
Persons who declare themselves as Anti-war should be embarrassed casting their ballot for a Democrat. One Nancy Kaptur has been railing on as to how Russia “meddled in US elections” calling for an increase in sanctions against Russia. A few days later she is signing a letter bemoaning the fact that the US is cutting funding to opposition groups in Hungary and that the US should be doing more to ensure a proper Government elected in Hungary.
It fucking pathetic.
What more proof does one need? Amerika is not a democracy; it has been and is a military dictatorship that is backed by both Con…gressional war criminal… parties!
Seriously, how many voters care about foreign policy when it comes to voting unless the US is engaged in wars like those in Vietnam or Iraq. From what I have seen so far the Democrats are most focused on expanding healthcare coverage. That seems to be the number one issue for Democrats in this election. Of course in blue states or blue districts opposition to Trump is a major part of campaigns. So I think Democrats believe most voter who are likely to vote Democrat are concerned particularly about their person economic situation, especially with regard to healthcare, and having a fascist for a president. .
Yowza, that’s disgusting! Are you really saying opposing war doesn’t matter as long as Democrats win? I guess that’s like saying rape doesn’t matter as long as Barty-boy gets confirmed.
Few Democrats offer alternatives, period. Alternatives on economics, foreign policy, healthcare, the environment, or anything else. The lack of actual alternatives is why, when they get power, they don’t change anything and things continue to get worse. We need structural changes, they have no interest in any structural changes, have no vision.
Ever hear of Pete Peterson? Billionaire, recently passed away. Spent the last few decades of his life trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare, tried to get young people to believe that the programs wouldn’t be there for him when they were older. Pelosi went on the House floor, few months ago, and did a tribute to him. She didn’t have to, but she did, lauded him as a patriot and said that he was important as far as pushing the importance of “fiscal responsibility”. That is code word for economically illiterate people that support austerity. Pelosi has showed how fucking ignorant she is on stuff like deficits and has said that her rotten party will commit to “pay go” if she gets power. She also proudly supported spending billions more on the military. Now, given the composition of those in government, what does that mean on actual policy? Obviously, austerity, cuts to vital programs. Positive Money did a poll of British politicians on things like money creation and monetary policy. The poll found that well over 80% of those polled had no idea how that stuff worked. And those idiots are the ones creating policy. The same is undoubtedly true here in the US among politicians. Forget the fact that our government has supported dozens of coups, dictatorships, murderous dictators, which has cost millions their lives. There is an economic cost, and horrible, empty, soulless people like Pelosi are aware of the fact that when she supports pay go, and increases the military budget, that it at the same time results in cuts to vital programs. People are aware of these things. What this system doesn’t offer is a choice, an alternative, a way out.
Go read “The People’s Pension” by Eric Laursen, read the stuff about Peterson. And realize that the leader of the Democrats in the House is right there with him. I wish that your party, its “think tanks”, it mediocre media personalities, its donor network, would dissolve away and something worthwhile would take its place.
Here’s how to convince people to vote third party:
Don’t change any of your arguments. Just keep writing comments like always. Thanks.
It won’t dissolve away as long as people keep keep enabling it.
Yeah, that is why I said I wish. Cause I don’t see any major push on the left to create an actual third party infrastructure right now. Everything is always about the next election, and playing defense. Since the left is supposed to work within a broken, corrupt and undemocratic party, the next election at best will result in a group of boring, corrupt Democrats getting elected, nothing changing and things getting worse. There is no alternative, so there is nothing to go on the offensive with.
Your comment forms a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The first step in replacing the d-party is to destroy it.
Not really, just observing what seems to be the case. The d party is destroying itself though. It’s horrible enough at this point that it gets its ass kicked by a party which has support of only a quarter of the country and backs deeply unpopular policies. If we want the d party to destroy itself, keep people like Pelosi control of that party. I don’t cheer on it failing though, because whatever I think of it, its failures have major negative repercussions for people. I have major health issues now, and the Democrats being what they are could cost me my life.
They’ve already cost countless lives.
Take, for instance, the subject of this article.
Okay, I don’t feel like doing this back and forth any longer. Have a good one.
You’d have to pry politician’s bribes from their cold, dead hands. Alternatives are up to us.
What would you suggest we do?
Who should we vote for then?
Do you suggest we vote for Republicans instead?
Since the latter 1960s, Jeff Cohen has ridden the contradictions of being a progressive and sometimes radical voice and being, mostly for tactical considerations, a supporter of Democrats. It is good to get his voice here because he bothers to distinguish between one Democrat and another.
Those of us on the left who do go to polls have to make and embrace such distinctions. We argue about whether change is to come inside or outside the Democratic Party, but such discussion remains largely hypothetical. Any change that comes must happen because of or despite elements both inside and outside the party, because that is where we are.
Removing the elected officials that have locked the Democrats into the warlike corporatist and globalist right requires voting the out of office in general election, but it also requires voting in progressives who manage to pass through the corporatist filters to the point where they can compete. That will at some point mean voting for candidates who do constitute some authentic compromise.
This is hard to do partly because Democratic rightists regularly present themselves as left-oriented, humane, or moderate candidates, as “progressives who can get things done” rather than as militarist thugs and mafiosi. That’s natural enough that it will continue as long as they feel that it works for them.
Having neoconservative Democrats in office is particularly dangerous because so many rank-and-file Democrats who otherwise show empathy for progressive causes utterly to hold Democratic office-holders to any corresponding standard. We need to distinguish sharply between politicians who do support significant parts of a humane programme and those simply engaged in the usurpation of political processes for individual and corporate ends.
I am going to look for the roots.action study full from which Nation excerpted this. But disinformation around these things has become thick and varied, so much so that even usually trustworthy sources have been lured into dismal and extended falsehood.
We could use more analysis of this sort from people in various camps and dealing with various sources–should such become available. This might enable us to pick out a sheep in sheep’s clothing from somewhere between all these woolly wolves.
