Home | About | Donate

The GOP Debate is What Oligarchy Looks Like


#1

The GOP Debate is What Oligarchy Looks Like

Richard Eskow

In the run-up to the first Republican presidential debate, a flurry of news stories about the candidates offered glimpses of oligarchy in action. Consider:


#5

What the "don't bother to vote" or "vote third party" advocates are really saying is "vote for oligarchy".


#6

I think therefore I am (not a partisan).


#8

I was particularly struck by the pervasive mood of contempt among all ten participants, i.e.,the feeling that some human beings are beneath any consideration or sympathy, deserving only scorn. Trump applies this universally, to immigrants of course, but also to women, and inevitably to anyone who even slightly disagrees with his genius. His face is a mask of scorn. But the mood goes well beyond him. Walker has nothing but contempt for pregnant women, and has no problem with them dying rather than approving even a therapeutic abortion. Cruz has nothing but contempt for the millions of impoverished who are readily seduced by ISIS, and wants to see them all dead. Christie wants to slap teachers in the face. All ten of them are reflecting the contempt that the billionaires feel for all the little people they grind under their feet, and they would not be paid by the billionaires if this despicable quality were not the dominant feature of their characters.

As Camus said, any form of contempt, if it enters into politics, prepares or introduces fascism.


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

By far the best comment in this thread. It's always refreshing to read a post that is not a product of the "herd mind" and/or a paid messenger squad reciting clone-like talking points.


#12

Good article, Richard! As always.


#13

The wars and all their related costs on and off budget and hidden need to be debated. The economic issue is the wars stupid.


#14

All in the name of Jesus.


#15

no, they're not natureboy. you might not agree with those positions, but they are rational and it's grossly unfair to libel them in this way. here's my position regarding elections: you want me to vote for a Democrat? Fine, earn that vote, stop acting like it's your birthright. The arrogance of that position far outstrips any negative aspersion you're casting on two legitimate positions other than lesser evilism. debate straight up. don't lie.


#16

You bet, JJ. We saw as much fake anti-corporate innuendo in this Rep pose-fest as you'll ever see outta Hillary.


#17

Not voting, or voting third party can lead to a Republican win and nuclear war, social, economic and ecologic disasters. That is grossly unfair, but rational.


#18

Mostly what this shows is that in a century's time the United States has not evolved. If this were 1915 throwing all this money around oblivious to the costs of everything would have been somewhat understandable. Today it is completely unacceptable and is totally malevolent. These people will literally "pay" on a deep level I believe. This is not a new industrial society, this is a society where information is everywhere and those participating in this at the expense of the majority are going to wake up soon with ruined lives and reputations. Not a violent revolution, something different. Possibly closer to a society which ceases to function. More Fergusons. More jails, Less protection for these people, Finally, social rejection, something many of them have not experienced.
They will remain moneyed for sure. But other things will happen to them, which will not be nice.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#20

Those saying vote for the lesser of two evils are saying vote for the lesser oligarch. How one can be a lesser oligarch, I don't understand. It is like saying you're kind of pregnant.


#21

Like we've had a huge reduction in war under our latest Democratic president. Yea, right.


#23

"Not voting, or voting third party can lead to a Democratic or Republican win and nuclear war, social, economic and ecologic disasters. That is grossly unfair, but rational."

FTFY.

Perhaps you were asleep during the Clinton and Obama presidencies?


#24

True, very true. And like I have said before, American Presidents are selected...not elected.


#25

yes, it can, but that's not the same as "voting for it". Folks who take 'anti-election' positions are simply advancing strategies to try and break this constant cycle of voting for evil every single time; lesser or greater. They are not your enemies. Your enemies are the approved people running for office.

Now if you truly believe that only the GOP is starting wars, or beating up the poor, or keeping wages down and business interests ahead of everything else, then we are at an impasse because we're operating with a completely different set of "facts". But in my world, Democrats are arguably mor dangerous than even a crazed GOP, precisely because they are generally more competent.


#26

Will the Green Party win before Republicans make Global Warming irreversible, widen the wealth gap, start a nuclear war, force women into back alley abortions, throw more blacks, hispanics, liberals and progressives in their private prisons, export all our jobs overseas, extinguish more species, pollute what's left of the world, lower your pay, build more walls, invade more countries, put more theocrats, conservatives and oligarchs in charge and so on ad nauseaum?

With a candidate like Bernie that has a long track record of progressive votes, why are you asking us to vote for a party that wins 1% of the vote?