Home | About | Donate

You Break It, You Own It (Or, What The Hell Did You Think Would Happen?)


You Break It, You Own It (Or, What The Hell Did You Think Would Happen?)

David Michael Green

Doesn’t your heart just break for the grandees of the Republican Party?

They’ve had the shit kicked out of them in presidential election after presidential election, and the forecast trends in national demographics suggest that, looking forward, these last decades will be seen as the GOP’s grand old days. So, knowing this, the big-wigs got together after the last debacle in 2012 and decided, “Hey, we’ve got to stop alienating the damn Mexicans. There’s too many of them!”


Wouldn't be so quick as Green to feel that schadenfreude. As the Republicans retreated farther and farther to the right, so did the Democrats. Now we have a choice between a candidate damn close to certifiable (whoever the Republicans put up) and another farther to the right than Nixon ever was (if Hillary or Biden get the nod). No, I'm not feeling the joy Green is.


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


Yes, the duopoly offers two lines: "I've got mine, now give me yours" and "I need yours, now give me yours."


DMG seems to ignore the reality that there are many regimes in existence that are socially, ethnically, politically, or religiously of the minority, yet they still rule. Such was Sadam Hussein, which is one reason it took so little tinder to light that conflagration. That same reality seems to have played a part, as suggested by Jared Diamond, in the Rwandan slaughter.

Nothing is inevitable, but I am preparing for the black, bleak depression of the campaign between BUSH!!! and Clinton??? Not to be over-redundant, but in a contest between two Republicans, the Republican always wins.


It's great to see DMG's comments again.

Good comment by alligatorhardt! I may have to vote Green in 2016. Hillary's way too close to the warhawks and Wall Street.

Jim Shea


All of those buffoons that the Republican party is backing, is part of a grand strategy to get people to vote for the new Republican Party, the Democrats. While the Democrats may whistle a different tune, ultimately they also serve the "financial master's of the universe". The most important thing for corporate America when it comes to elections, is to keep all of the voters voting for one of the two corporate parties. Most Americans, just like Uncle Buford, vote for either one of the two parties and then also find that they continuously lose ground. Rather than the media (including this author) focusing on the fact that BOTH parties represent the 1%, by attacking only one party, you give the voter the impression that a vote for the Democrats will save us. In the end corporate America doesn't care if you vote for a slick talking, well dressed "person of color" or the poorest man on the planet (Donald Trump apparently has negative equity in the billions!) with a bad haircut and racist solutions to our national ailments, as long as all of our debates are limited to the framework of 'Republican versus Democrat'. To date this has been corporate America's method of keeping the public interest out of government with unfortunately spectacular success.


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


What was that definition of insanity attributed to Einstein? Keep doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result? The American voter in action. Sigh.

People won't be voting for Trump... they'll be voting for John Wayne! They'll be voting for the feeling they get watching him not the issues themselves. Trump is personifying the 'what if' delusions that are based on a lack of understanding of the issues. The rightwingnut voter who is mostly uninterested in general who says 'Well I don't really know much about those issues but I know what I want and ____ is just the guy to give us that!" If you ask that conservative voter the question as to what he wants you get this >>> "Well for things to go back to normal like they used to be ... like they are supposed to be.".

The 'I dunno but I know what I want' voter doesn't need a good grasp of the issues. What they want is someone who sounds like they have the answers. Details and facts give them a headache when they try to figure them out and they know what they want anyway. They don't even really want someone who does have answers. Not even those who agree with them. What they want is someone who looks like he has the answers...they want their John Wayne not the real thing.

Do they ask whether a person like Trump would be autocratic if not imperious in their style of governing? Nope...but they should.

I think far too many of them, if pressed, would admit that they would support an autocrat if he was their autocrat. Don't forget as Bush infamously said >>> 'the constitution is just a piece of paper.'


Yeah, those saintly Democrats never had anything but open arms to minorities. I know, because the Democratic Party and people like this author tell me so,


" The only party to serve all the voters".

As a previous supporter of Dr. Jill Stein I agree with your post, but of course, the way Dr. Stein was treated in the last election was unconscionable. Lets hope it is better in 2016.


It sure would be good to get a politician like that who actually cared about people and with the state of our environment it might be essential with this election. I'm hoping that Bernie will give us all a shot a better way.

I'm hoping that if Bernie gets in then we will all see a better way. Then, after Bernie's presidency, other progressives will be seen as being more acceptable and continue to get elected and improve things and America will become a great country again instead of just a military giant.

Unfortunately I'll be dead by then but I'm hoping to see Bernie's first term if nothing else. I truly believe that Bernie if elected, would signal a shift for the better for America and pull back from the precipice of oligarchy.

I'd figure my decendants (the brats never call) will have a much better life in the troubles to come (overpopulation and environmental catastrophe)!

Go Bernie... for all of us.


I don't get that at all about Professor Green. I have always found his articles a clear eyed analysis of culture and society. He is sometimes too sixtyish but he is talking to a culture from a cultural perspective and at least he isn't dull.

I look forward to his work and appreciate his intelligence.

Peace baby!


Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. :O)


Does David Green really believe GHWB won the 1992 election? His memory seems to be more than a little scrambled.

Somebody should remind him the republican who won the presidency that year was Bill Clinton.

He also confuses the solidly anti-black-voting Southern Democratic Party with the solidly anti-black-voting Southern Republican Party by supposing they somehow were different parties. They were different, in name and time period only. They were and still are the same party.

All Clinton did was make more whites homeless so he could brag about decimating the social safety nets. All Obama has done is make more people around the world and across the US homeless so he can brag about decimating more social safety nets, decimating more stable societies abroad, and dropping more bombs on the world than the most recent previous six presidents combined.

It is the same anti-black/poor/dispossessed party. It is the party Hillary & Biden & O'Malley want to lead.

David Green lives in a vapid idea bubble.


This is an article about the Republican Party. Students of U. S. History know that the Abraham Lincoln led Republican Party came to be the party of abolition and emancipation, as a result of this and the Civil War, the Democratic Party became, for all practical purposes, the only meaningful political party in the South. This situation continued through the Roosevelt New Deal coalition years, with the first break in this coalition coming with Truman's desegregation of the armed forces, and the Dixiecrat walkout of the 1948 Democratic Convention.

When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he said the Democrats would lose the South for generations, he was correct, the rest is history. NIxon was the first Republican to play the race card and use this Southern strategy, it has been successful ever since. Some posters write as though Democratic racism, especially in the South is a revelation, a shock. The Democratic Party in the South is not the Democratic Party.

It was Democratic Attorney General Nicholas di Katzenbach who faced Democrat George Wallace at the schoolhouse door, the school was desegregated, the rest is history.

I wrote this for the record. The Democratic Party has been a disaster since Carter, but mainly Clinton, it is for all practical purposes, social issues excepted, a clone of the Republican Party. Bernie is running, for practical purposes, and to get his message out, under its label, Go Bernie.

I must add an addendum: President Dwight David Eisenhower (The last of the non southern strategy GOP presidents) nationalized the Arkansas National Guard to force integration of Little Rock's Central High School in 1957, an important step in the Civil Rights Movement:


Correction: Katzenbach was Deputy Attorney General, not Attorney General.


I agree with the sentiments of this post. (Well, maybe all but the "America will become a great country again" part; I still think when you take into account genocide, mass displacements, slavery, and one or two other misbehaviors, this has never been a great country. But I digress.)

I share your hope that maybe Bernie might have enough integrity and heart to begin to turn this thing in a more humane direction. (Digression nr. 2: I can't say something like that without fearing that I'm being Charlie Brown and Lucy is promising that she will hold that football steady this time...)

The thing is, my 20 year old daughter is really excited about Bernie, and she is adamant that much of her generation is. Of course I'm more than a little chary of her sources, but her excitement is infectious, and it's about to be her world. Anybody who seems credible about messing it up a bit less has a lot of appeal at this point


The problem isn't their platforms--which I support. It's about visibility. In a nexus that rests upon a captured media and controlled election system, Sanders has an advantage in that he's halfway through the door. You saw what happened to Nader and Perot had the big bucks to finance his own "ride." Word is, he was threatened at one point and bowed out.

So pitting the Greens against Sanders is a self-defeating strategy. Better to get both to align or perhaps for the Greens to put pressure on Mr. Sanders in return for their backing.


Throughout European and American history--and working its counterpart throughout Latin America--the whiter skinned males of ($) means have run it and continue to want to run it.

You are making a specious argument in an attempt to take the air out of the obvious racism and sexism fueling the angry white males who make up most of the Republican demographic.

This is quite true, as taken from the article:

"But it’s all gone now. I mean, Christ, there’s a black guy in the White House! And probably a woman next! How can these disaffected voters feel good about themselves if blacks and Hispanics and women and gays and Muslims and all the rest have the same rights and privileges and status that they do?"


Coincidentally, BOTH of you make Sanders invisible. Hmm...