Home | About | Donate

That This System Would Fail Was Entirely Predictable

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/08/system-would-fail-was-entirely-predictable

1 Like

Will shortages of medical supplies, inadequate healthcare coverage, corporate bailouts or food shortages cause us to demand a better society, or will we just hope, after these entirely predictable failures, to return to normal, even though normal didn’t work for most of us?

Our leaders will deflect, blame China, etc. And if that doesn’t work, we always have the Mexicans warming up in the bullpen, or the Venezuelans, Cubans, Russians…to blame.

And hey, it will work. Because Americans have an unlimited capacity to blindly and unquestionably accept what our leaders say to them no matter how many times they have been lied to in the past. And the elites know this…we make it so easy for them. And no leader is ever held accountable for lying. Quite the opposite - Bush (Iraq) gets to enjoy the trappings of retirement and paint; while Obama (Libya) gets to wind surf with billionaire Richard Branson.

I guess that’s what people mean when they say Americans are “Exceptional.”

9 Likes

“Its almost like we all have Stockholm Syndrome” ?

The 1% keep winning bigger than they ever have…no Stockholm Syndrome there.

The 2 to 4% of voters who vote for progressive candidates are not afflicted.

The 40% of voters who regularly vote GOP that serially screws them ARE afflicted, no “almost”.

The 40% of voters who regularly vote Democrat that serially screws them ARE afflicted, no “almost”.

2 Likes

and if you want to employ a large meaning to the term “system”, it’s safe to say this was predictable around, say, 1840.

Oh, it was.

Next.

3 Likes

In theory, resource distribution networks that get bigger become vulnerable to disruption in transport as well. Regional distributors using most fuel/energy: Amazon, Costco, Walmart. GM & Ford are doing no one any favor with self-driving truck nonsense. Farmers Markets need to grow. How about some growth in the farmland sector?

3 Likes

You are seeing what happens when:

  • we have no opposition Party.
  • we have only two Parties and they are both owned by, and taking bribes from, the same Entites
  • Capitalism Fails
  • Neoliberalism Fails
  • Globalism Fails
  • the ‘Free Market’ Fails
  • when the system is rigged
  • Both Parties are Corrupt
7 Likes

What about the 40% registered voters who dont’ vote?

1 Like

What everybody wants to know about that 40% is what it would take to get them to vote:

x% won’t vote shy of some mandatory voting scheme and sufficient punishment.

y% would vote now for major or third party if it wasn’t for some form of voter disenfranchisement.

z% would vote if there was a candidate from either the major or third party or an independent that spoke to their needs and avoided any pejorative against politicians in general that they may have.

What do you think x, y, and z are?

1 Like

It would help over time if we ended the power of the duopoly by introducing preferential voting, so that in order to win the candidate would need not simply a plurality (as now), but would need to be the preferred choice of the majority of those voting.

With preferential voting, one could vote for one’s first choice among candidates (say the Green party or a new workers’ party) without being concerned that should their first choice not win, they would by that vote have lessened the chances of their second choice (say the Democratic party) winning. This would enable a new party to get off the ground and build support and power over time.

The financial elites that rule us will use their power to see that never happens, so to get it would be a hard slog, but may be worth a try.

Here’s a good explanation
Dylan Ratigan explains it to Jimmy Dore. WHy people don’t vote starts at about 39:00 but this discussion is worth listening to from the beginning. It covers several other subjects too

BONUS! Corona-Money Talk with Dylan Ratigan! Episode 2
~https://jimmydorecomedy.com/

2 Likes

If you asked Governor Tony Evers what his thinking was, on publicly financed elections ( some hybrid of ) for county, state and federal office seekers running in Wisconsin, what would you think his response would be?
If you then asked him if public financed elections would allow him as governor, to allocate pandemic emergency aid more equitably within the state’s large " agri-business " network, what would would think his response would be?
Then, if you asked Governor Evers what his decisions would be, if gerrymandering and the election of judges to Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court, were not a consideration because the state had adopted public financing of elections? What would be his inclination to allocation of pandemic emergency aid had the state of Wisconsin not purged over 400,000++ citizens from its voter rolls, since 2012? Would it be non-partisan and inclusive to all stakeholders, especially for those who worked in the ( IABC ) Industrial Agri-Business Complex?
I’d expect his answer would be, " Well duh ". In some of form of officially acceptable politi-speak, of course. Would you?

Phred_… When enough people are mistreated and disregarded and they see no hope for the future there always comes REVOLUTION! I learned this in officer’s training school while in the USAF. We are long overdue.

1 Like

Phred_…See my earlier comment to you.

Remember this is a country of, by and for the people; and, we gave you a democracy, if you can keep it. Well, no, we are taught that we were given a democracy, make that a republic. But, we have proven ourselves to not be worthy of a democracy. We have allowed ourselves to be ruled by a bunch of plutocrats hiding in plain sight behind a government consisting of their hired puppets. Until we once again break the chains, we are destined to be forever their slaves.

Agree, but we haven’t hit the saturation point as yet.
But I think there will be riots this summer - like in the 60’s and 70’s

Pose a question to you all: Why is it that (Black majority-) districts, represented by (Black-) Civil Rights heroes (, all Democrats,) have the lowest voter turnout rates in the nation? [Of course, the vote is almost 100% Democrat…] Having demanded the vote so loudly, you would think they would exercise it, right?

Republicans pretty much never put up a candidate to impose the (-D) incumbent, and the incumbent is often rather corrupt.
- Isn’t this a failure of democracy?

Seems to me that the worst is in solid Democrat districts. Let’s start by asking how many of you are registered Democrat and vote in the Democrat primary?

First of all, why don’t you cite some actual statistics so we know whether you are even using statistics that are significant. As far as back turnout overall (so including black Republicans and third party), it exceeded white turnout in 2012 and it is well known that Clinton didn’t bring out the vote all that well in 2016 (I take it I don’t have to explain why). Blacks have a higher turnout than Asians or Hispanic (see ~https://patch.com/us/white-house/black-voter-turnout-fell-2016).

What point are you trying to make anyway?

1 Like

I was pointing to specific districts.
As one example, TX-30, a district with about 792K people in it, represented by Eddie Bernice Johnson (D Black), in 2018 she got 166,784 votes, 91%. Her only opponent was a Libertarian who got 16,390 votes. Total votes cast = 183,174.

For comparison, MN-01, a district with about 666K people in it, represented by Jim Hagedorn ®, in 2018 he got 146,200 votes, his Democrat challenger got 144,885 votes, and 576 write-in ballots, for a total of 291,661. 59% more turnout than TX-30 even though fewer people live in MN-01.

After the 2002 election a DFW newspaper columnist wrote that if there had been a higher voter turnout in districts like TX-30, then the statewide D ticket would have won. Since the Democrats control everything in districts like TX-30, why can’t they get their voters to the polls?
[BTW, we should want honest “get voters to the polls”, not rousting the dead or ward-heelers filling out ballots for voters while the voters finish a bottle of booze.]

It is well known that Republicans turn out at a higher rate than Democrats overall. As far as comparing TX-30 to MN-01, there could be lot of factors. Are they the same income level? Often it is harder for people of lower economic level to vote (another reason I want universal mail in voting).

People like a contest too - the fact that the MN race was competitive might have brought out more people. So you are saying O’Rouke would have won with more turnout? Sure. In general progressives claim that if politicians where honest, straightforward, and progressive, some voters would come out and vote that don’t normally. I’d be interesting in understanding just what that potential is, but I haven’t seen any data.

It is the Democrats who make a big deal about voter turnout.
(In contrast, about 16 years ago DFW radio host Mark Davis advocated that if you don’t know what your voting about, please stay home. Be signal, not noise.)
So it is Democrats’ responsibility to get the voters to vote. And not by compulsion or by fraud.

BTW, after 2002 and that column I wrote to Eddie Bernice Johnson suggesting that if she wants more turnout in her district she should be urging some staffer of hers to at least be “fake” opposition to her in the election year. I did not hear back.