A recurrent theme in major speeches given last month at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia held that Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton look to “we the people” instead of rich, powerful and purportedly great individuals like Donald Trump to guide the United States. Repeating a prominent refrain in Obama’s 2008 campaign, top Democrats said the operative words for Americans aren’t “I” and “me” but rather “we” and “us,” as in “si se puede” (“yes we can”)—a chant repeated during Tim Kaine’s and Obama’s speeches.
"It's a big club, and you and I aren't in it." --George Carlin
Actually it's not that big a club and "we the people" could get rid of it very quickly and without too much trouble.
If there was ever a more convincing reason to vote for Stein than this article laid out, I've yet to read it. The problem of course is that for many voters, it will never see the light of day. I'm pretty sure some of those corporations represented by the country's grand strategy makers (GSM) are connected to the five media corporations that control 90% of what USamericans read, watch, and listen to.
The two-party system works only for the corporations and their puppets; the rest of us are merely lambs to slaughter. Resistance is not futile, it's necessary while the democracy movement builds. And it must build quickly or we'll be right back in this spot in four years, only the GOP will offer up another Trump--polished and more attractive--to defeat Clinton.
Until a majority of voters come to understand that the policy options being offered up are only a thin slice of possible solutions, they will continue to vote out of fear instead of voting with forethought for a better future. Sanders' campaign captured some media because he ran as a Democrat, and he was able to infuse the debate with options many Americans never thought possible. (Stein will not even receive the minimal coverage Sanders received.) Political revolutionaries must become the mic for radical change, as the Corporate-Owned News (CON) panders to the corporate world order and reinforces it at every turn.
We are the ones we've been waiting for. The democracy movement is our only hope, as it's apparent we can't vote ourselves out of this mess, not yet anyway. And if the movement doesn't come to fruition, we may all be treated to an article entitled: It Took the Ruling Class 250 Years to Destroy the American Village.
Very thorough explanation of our country, sad as it is. Reading this is like watching a horror movie. These people must have shed any semblance of a heart or ethics in the lust for power. They are always anxious to show us who our enemies are but the true enemies are them. Lizard brains. It reminds me of a new series out called Brain Dead. Very humorous but also very current on issues and personality types.
My son keeps reassuring me there are more of us than there are of them but it's little comfort when the country is about to elect one of the two most hated candidates we have ever seen. They destroyed Bernie Sanders, I fear what they might do to Jill Stein.
She is a continuing disaster. Entrenched oligarchy status quo and death by a thousand cuts. I can't vote for her, even strategically. Bernie must have had an offer he could not refuse. At least with Trump a revolution is possible.
I maintain that under the system preceding the American Revolution power was divided between Church, The Nobility and the wealthy or "banker" class.
All the US revolution did was absorb the power of the Church and Nobility and invest it all in the Monied or wealthy class.
The people or "commons" were never part of the equation of power which is why the wealthy owner class has been warring on the Commons for the past hundreds of years. The modern USA is closer to what the "Founding Fathers" envisioned than most people realize.
Of the 55 people that were "The Founding Fathers" , 13 were wealthy merchants , 7 were land speculators and 11 speculated in Securities. Some 14 owned Slaves and had Plantations.
That's an interesting insight.
The French Revolution (1789) followed the American Revolution, and both were wars of liberation.
From the power of the monarch and the clergy.
The rich, bourgeoisie, wanted the liberty to defend private property rights and pursue free enterprise.
They wanted the liberty to make money and employ the serfs at low wages free of the monarch's control.
What the 99% got out of the deal was indentured servitude.
Just as a for instance and this not a defense of the Church.
In England there was something called a Church tax , the proceeds of which were used in part to provide for widows, children and the infirm.
The Calvinist types that settled the Colonies , those with power and wealth, were strongly opposed to this and claimed it lead to people becoming shirkers.
They preferred a debtors prison model where any peoples receiving such help would be deemed debtors and their services could be purchased by the wealthy so as to work off that debt.
Benjamin Franklin was a great fan and this system was used by the wealthy to get cheap labor.
The one percent of 1776 were no more enlightened than are the one percent of today. They felt they were entitled to their wealth and privilege and the purpose of the common peoples was to maintain that wealth and privilege. A tax such as that Church tax was seems as an unwarranted theft of their property.
As a passing note, "Si se puede" does not translate as "Yes we can," though someone can well mean that in some given situation. The difference is particularly notable here because what it does not specify is the first person plural pronoun that the author ascribes it here. Literally, it is closer to "Yes, it can be done" and may feel like "Sure it's doable."
"Yes we can" can be a reasonable translation if you have a big group of people standing together insisting that they can do something, but the I-we-she-he is not specified.
What about that whole reign of terror thing?
Also, the American Revolution had the support of the local bourgeoise and particularly the petite bourgeoise
As long as Jill Stein stays as low as she is in the polls... they will probably just ignore her. But if she becomes a threat they will do whatever they "wish" to destroy her ... I was going to say whatever they "can get away with"... but there doesn't seem to be any limits to that. Rules are obviously different for 1%ers...
It's good to see Paul Street essentially point out what I have been emphasizing for some time--nor is he the only one in print who's lately contested the way the term WE is used to assure a consensus that doesn't exist, and/or otherwise pretend that all persons are equally committed to the same goals, ideals, and positions. Or that all citizens have common "agency" in the matter of making policy.
From the article:
"That was all very stirring, but who actually comprises the “we” that makes executive branch policy in the name of the common good when either Democrats or Republicans hold the White House? Not the nation’s working- and middle-class majority, that’s for sure."
Just pointing this out since my critics seem to think I am out on a limb by deconstructing the WE-meme....
Of course those who tend to critique this stance happen to be poseurs who want to reinforce a number of lies including the idea that voters are responsible for what politicians do, or that voters "choose" the candidates.
I've argued these points and positions at least 100 times. For the moment, I am mostly using Mr. Street's challenge to the WE-frame to show that others are beginning to recognize it for the Crowd Control call to conformity that it is.
Beautifully put, Mr. Street:
"But it’s not just about Hillary Clinton. It takes a ruling-class village to make policy for the few in the name of the many. Clinton’s vice presidential pick, Tim Kaine, is a financial-sector darling who backed fast-tracking the arch-global corporatist, Wall Street-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."
During her lectures and in her book, "The Shadow Elite," author-researcher Janine Wedel has exposed this same phenomenon. She has shown how the top people on one list or at the top of one major corporate or think tank entity also show up on the boards of others. It is indeed a tightly knit group:
"Also unduly neglected is the role that elite neoliberal and corporate-financial-networked policy planning bodies play in staffing, socializing, solidifying and doctrinally schooling top U.S. executive branch personnel. The key institutions here are the CFR, The Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Rand Corp., The Aspen Institute, the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Hoover Institution, the Carnegie Corporation of New York/Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Foreign Policy Association, the Committee for Economic Development and The Bretton Woods Committee."
There ought to be a Political "Lemon Law."
After all, if a crime family can steal vehicles, paint them another color and pass them off as OTHER than what they are... and if caught, be held accountable; then why not the political counterfeits who have stolen the Democratic party and like that stolen car, merely painted over it... and delivered it to the corporate crime class that RUNS this nation!
"According to William K. Black, who has held top federal regulatory positions, what we are seeing in this group “is complete domination by what used to be the Democratic Leadership Council. … Very, very right-wing foreign policy. What they call a muscular foreign policy … a euphemism for invading places. Very, very tough on crime … [and pro-] mass incarceration. And the economic side, all in favour of austerity. All in favour of privatization. Tried to do a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security. And of course, were all in favour of things like NAFTA.”
This goes out to "Times," "Were flea," "Old Goat," "Andrew boston," and anyone else who pushes the WE meme and/or turns EVERY phucked up policy around as a bludgeon to use against citizens/voters:
"And there’s a translation for what Black calls “our policy priorities.” The real meaning is their policy priorities, with “they” referring to the 0.1 percent."
Anyone paying attention knows that I am right in pointing out this discrepancy (the WE-item) used to gloss over what's really going on.
That's why the hierarchical structure of society has been around for 2000+ years. It's just so easy to get rid of.
He's 33% Mina bird repeating pieces of old narratives, 33% fool, and 34% agent provocateur wannabe suggesting that violence is "all" that's needed.
Anyone else notice the scarcity of "the usual posters" only so that this new one could show up to dominate thread after thread with mediocre (at best) commentary?
How would a majority "come to understand" if the mass media--which they rely on for current events and news--is part of a great series of massive deceptions?
And what makes you think in a time of such uber-controls over citizens that EVEN IF by some miracle Jill Stein had a majority of votes that FACT would even be made known?
It's amazing how far posters will go in reinforcing half-truths, fantasies, and strategies that have ZERO chance of being implemented given the current nature of our coup-government.
BTW: Glenn Greenwald was amazing on today's Democracy Now.
What's happening to Dilma Rousseff--in the form of being taken out by a body of officials who ALL have major dirt on their own records--is symptomatic of the style of corruption, dirty and double dealing that elites are utilizing in a variety of nations to suppress their citizens while stealing from them, spreading war and misery, and ruining the natural world so many depend upon for their livelihoods and very lives!
As usual, your comments are a cut above the rest.
Where "lobo4justice" speaks of it "taking 250 years to destroy the village," where is his understanding of the evolving struggles for women's rights, black rights, Latino rights, Indigenous American treaty rights, etc.
There has never been some glowing village or city on a hill. Reagan style nostalgia, that!
It's been a long struggle that like the ocean's own motion sometimes involves the waves of progress rolling under themselves in apparent retrograde direction. Then rights are rescinded. The Japanese internment camps and period when Mexicans were thrown out of California, not to mention the rabid Southern backlash against Blacks' voting rights (during the Civil Rights era) are but 3 that come to mind.
Those who think that history is a line moving uninterruptedly from the past to the future have a LOT to learn about cycles and the nuances that color each era often recapitulating the same themes and same stubborn struggles.
I'd say about 4000... and what you call the Dawn of Civilization ONLY begins with the Bible's patriarchs and the onset of the Dominator Society Model.
Few in this forum have any interest in genuine enlightenment. They are far more comfortable debating on the basis of ideas that are themselves staples of patriarchy. Essentially, a paradigm cannot be truly examined by those stuck inside of it.
A very good starting place is Riane Eisler. Then Merlin Stone. There are others.
The male top baboon/willing to use violence to make HIS will the will of the land (and then find people in elaborate costumes to affirm HIS right to do this under the guise that he has the male god's permission) represents a fraction of humanity's time-line.
Truths that run counter to the Necessary Narratives are kept secret, pilloried, or even used to threaten their bearers.
There are so many instances where that behavior is now clearly in view.
Another day I'll lay it out. Not now.