Corporatism, imperialism and the Democrats ...

[welshTerrier2]

there's been some good news coming from some of our leading Democrats lately ... the most recent energy bill was little more than a parade of the gluttons and Democrats called them on it ...

more and more, especially related to no bid contracts for rebuilding storm-damaged areas and skyrocketing gasoline prices, Democrats are calling for investigations of bush's giveaways to corporate America ...

for those who continually criticize those who are critical of Democrats for never having anything nice to say, listen to this ... Democrats are finally starting to speak out against corporate abuses of our government ... Here's a brief excerpt from a speech given by John Kerry on July 29 about the energy bill:

"The bottom line is the Administration's energy policy works for Saudi Arabia, it works for big oil and gas companies, but it doesn't work for the American people." <skip>

"Instead, billions of American tax dollars go to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries, including a last minute, deal that gives another $1.5 billion to one of the most profitable companies in the world - Halliburton. Our children get weaker environmental protections and dirtier air and water. Americans get no relief at the pump, and we're left just as dependent and probably more dependent on foreign oil." <skip>

"The era when the United States, Japan and Europe comprise the bulk of the world's demand for oil is over. Oil consumption from developing Asian nations will more than double in the next 25 years, from 15 million to 32 million barrels a day. Chinese consumption will grow from 5 million nearly 13 million barrels per day. India's will rise from 2 to more than 5 million barrels per day. This global race for oil is potentially a devastating destabilizing force.

"Increased American energy dependence further entangles our nation in unstable regions of the world and forces us to compromise our values. In exchange for oil, we transfer wealth to people who would do us and others great harm. This is as bad for our troops as it is for gas prices. We risk being drawn into dangerous conflicts, and an already overburdened military is increasingly stretched too thin."

BUT, Democrats have not taken this theme far enough ...

Democrats need to start talking to Americans about what our real foreign policy has become ... they need to spell out for Americans what the actions of their government have been and whom it has benefitted ... the Democrats' message needs to go beyond a discussion of corporate price gouging at the gas pump ... and it needs to go beyond the very important concerns about risks raised by failing to build energy independence ... these are critically important topics for Americans to understand but neither of these issues teaches Americans that our foreign policy has been co-opted for the sole benefit of mega-corporations ...

Democrats need to take the next step ... how many of you believe we are in Iraq to bring peace, stability or democracy? what we really are doing there is building a climate that will benefit big oil ... if stability is a bi-product of that, so be it ... but exploitation, American imperialism and raw greed are the real objectives ...

We often see posts on DU talking about how many "leading" Democrats are subservient to the corporate-masters ... i won't address that here ... but clearly, some Democrats have been willing, at least recently, to highlight the most current corporate abuses ... I suggest we demand from all those seeking our support that they go beyond the few statements they've recently made ... whether we are supporters or critics of the current crop of candidates, we should unite behind the idea that we do not approve of using the US military to advance greedy corporate goals ...

Eisenhower warned us about a liason between the American military and American industry ... it is time for modern day warriors to renew that call ... it is time for Democrats to tell Americans the truth about the corruption in our government that now serves the interests of a greedy few instead of fighting for the best interests of the American people ... and Democrats need to extend that theme beyond just domestic abuses to include foreign policy too ... perhaps the warring factions in our party can agree on that simple point ... perhaps that would be one of many paths to the unity the Party desperately needs ...

[pberq]

1. I agree, but they've had years

"... it is time for Democrats to tell Americans the truth about the corruption in our government that now serves the interests of a greedy few instead of fighting for the best interests of the American people ... and Democrats need to extend that theme beyond just domestic abuses to include foreign policy too ... perhaps the warring factions in our party can agree on that simple point ... perhaps that would be one of many paths to the unity the Party desperately needs ..."


Yes, you are correct, but based on what we've seen in the past, I'm not holding my breath.

[welshTerrier2]

2. don't hold your breath ...

let your voice be heard ...

there is no reason for Democrats, left, right or center, not to ask this of their candidates ...

change is not guaranteed but the lack of change is if we give up the fight for it ...

[ClassWarrior]

4. Agreed. The only sure loser is the one who doesn't play the game.

We need to tell our Dems we appreciate what they do when they do good - but we can't forget to tell them we also expect better.

Hell - that was my message for Feingold when I was in DC recently. Friggin' Feingold!! I mean, he's no slouch when it comes to living by Progressive values. But a person can always do more - and we need to make sure our Dems know that we expect it of them.

NGU.

[verse18]

3. Amen

I think it's important for the American people to actively support candiates who believe in working towards the best interest of the Nation.


Off topic: I say a commercial for this international agency that is devotated to combating corruption. Check out the link Corruption in Politics. Very interesting.

http://www.transparency.org/

[welshTerrier2]

5. "transparency international "

welcome to DU, verse18 !!!

that's a great website you highlighted ... nice to see DU "newbies" making such a strong contribution !!! ... you could have done "verse" ... i'm bookmarking the link ... keep up the good work ...

i often like to write a few paragraphs on something i find on the web and then provide a link and a few paragraphs from the article ... perhaps you will find that approach helpful ...

for example (i wrote the first part and then the part with blue background came from a link on Transparency International):

Subject: Iraq reconstruction funds - corruption, corruption and more corruption

We've already heard about the missing $9 Billion dollars the Congress had appropriated to help rebuild Iraq ... or should i say "misappropriated" ... $9 Billion dollars !!! and that's just the tip of the iceberg ...

How can we continue to pump money into Iraq when it's clear bush, the WH and the republicans in Congress refuse to allow any oversight whatsoever ???

Henry Waxman tried to investigate the original $9 Billion that "went missing" and has encountered nothing short of colossal stonewalling ... even republicans should not be tolerant of the rampant corruption we've seen with the abuse of US-provided funds ... but politics comes first with republicans and they've blocked every effort to get at the truth ...

Here's a recent example of the type of nonsense going on in Iraq as the US just keeps pouring more and more money into a corrupt, bottomless pit:

source: http://admin.corisweb.org/index.php?fuseaction=news.view&id=118923&src=dcn

Iraqi public works minister responds to allegations of corruption
BBC Monitoring Service, 07 October 2005

Text of report by Dargham Muhammad Ali headlined "Nisrin Barwari to Al-Mashriq: Those who accuse me and my ministry of corruption seek to slander me", published by Iraqi newspaper Al-Mashriq on 4 October
In a statement to Al-Mashriq, Nisrin Barwari has said that there some people are intentionally raising unfounded allegations against her without producing legal evidence so as to defame her both personally and politically. She refused to disclose anyone's identity, but sufficed to say that she would not degrade herself by exchanging accusations with them.

She pointed out that the timing for raising such a crisis was intentional and emphasized that her relationship with the Commission on Public Integrity has been solid and fruitful, but that the inspector-general at the ministry is uncooperative and that he does not accept the truth of the explanations and statements presented to him by the ministry, a fact which has forced the ministry to open a direct channel of communication with the Commission on Public Integrity.

[verse18]

7. thanks for the advice!!

[welshTerrier2]

9. "vote early and often"

you'll do great !!

[jody]

6. Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism

because it is a merger of State and corporate power." See Corporatism

One half of one percent of Americans own over forty percent of our financial wealth and control all our major multinational corporations -- they are the Corporatists. They know from experience that one doesn’t need to own 100 percent of a company’s stock to control it, 50 percent is enough.

Corporatists finance candidates from both major parties for our Senate and House of Representatives and pass bipartisan laws that reduce their taxes on estates, personal income, corporations, and dividends. The cumulative effect of those new tax laws moves them slowly and covertly toward a point where they will own over fifty percent of our financial wealth and control our government, i.e. a plutocracy.

The best way to guarantee that new laws favorable to Corporatists are not ruled unconstitutional is to stack the Supreme Court with justices who support the Corporatists’ agenda. Miers’ has extensive experience acting for corporations and she along with Chief Justice Roberts create a very favorable climate for Corporatists who appeal cases to their Supreme Court.

[welshTerrier2]

8. "candidates from both major parties"

and this cannot change until we "out" these candidates ...

the American people, especially Democrats, need to demand their country back ... my approach is to make each and every Democrat take a stand on this issue and back it up with action ...

those who land on the wrong side of the ledger truly will have earned a "republican lite" label and are not worthy of our support ... perhaps those who are with us will be emboldened by our demand for change ...

if we don't call for change, it would be foolish to expect any ...

[jody]

10. As a start, amend our Constitution to say that corporations have none of

the rights of a person. That was the case before SCOTUS ruled in SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886). That case is cited as a precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights.

Today, corporations pay little taxes, don't serve time in prison when they kill someone, and aren't drafted for wars.

That's a pretty good deal for an amoral organism with a life span potentially several times that of we mortals.

[welshTerrier2]

11. corporate personhood ...

corporate personhood has been a disaster ... but a Constitutional amendment to ban it would take years ... i'm all for doing what you call for but i don't think it's the best starting point ...

we need to hold Democrats accountable on this issue ... if we keep electing Democrats who are either supporting the corporate state or so fearful of it they won't "engage the struggle", we certainly will never see broad support for a Constitutional amendment ... we need to start right in our own party ...

in fact, the intent of this post is to solicit a buy-in right here on DU ... once, just once, it would be nice to find some unity between "candidate supporters" and those who are more focussed on issues like corporatism ...

are we likely to see all the Kerry supporters jumping in here to talk about lobbying him on these points? the Clarkies? the Clintonistas? or any of the others?

what troubles me about DU is that they are not likely to even read a thread like this ... i hope they prove me wrong but i doubt they will ... how are we ever going to heal the rift in the Party if there is no "cross-pollination" on threads of this nature ???

i really don't know how to promote this kind of issues-focussed dialog ... if i had chosen a title like (just an example): "Kerry the Corporatist Sells out Americans on foreign policy" this thread would get a hundred responses ... with hot, flashy subject lines, everyone wants to participate ... the problem is, with inflammatory subjects like that, the issue gets buried and only the candidate, the flaming and the poster personalities are discussed ...

oh well, i'll keep trying ... not sure what else to do ...

[jody]

12. I agree it's most unlikely but it does highlight the problem.

A more realistic option would be to limit campaign donations to some dollar level that most middle class people could afford, e.g. $300, and prohibit donations from corporations and any person not a registered voter in the district that a candidate hopes to represent.

That would quickly return the House of Representatives to We the People.

[welshTerrier2]

13. works for me ...

and outlaw "paid lobbyists" because they what they're doing is nothing less than legalized bribery ...

as far as election and campaign reforms, i'd like to see a new law that would only allow the candidate to speak on his own behalf ... no jets flying overhead, no announcer, no music, no kissing babies, no slick marketing campaigns ... just a candidate, a camera and a microphone ... that's it !! we cannot afford to have our electorate influenced by slick advertising and marketing distortions ...

and access to TV, radio and print would be a required public service ... all "reasonable" (based on level of public support) candidates would be given the same access at the beginning of a campaign and only those with a substantial share of support would be given access as the campaign progressed ... this would expose Americans to a much broader ranger of ideas on the great issues of the day but would also allow them to more narrowly focus on viable candidates as election day got closer and closer ... this idea would also apply to mandatory presidential debates ... the first debate might have 10 or 15 candidates from all kinds of parties ... the second debate might be narrowed to say 5 candidates ... the third debate might only offer the most popular 3 candidates ...

Americans should not be afraid of a system that broadens the discussion ... unfortunately, the two major parties have been intolerant of doing so ... and that's too bad ...

[jody]

14. Agree outlaw "paid lobbyists". Congresspersons and senators are the

people's lobbyists, a role most of them don't know or ignore.

Voters would be no worst off if we just put social security numbers in a hat and drew a number for congressperson. :shrug:

[Ysolde]

16. This is a valuable thread

and I just put it in a tab yesterday, but didn't get a chance to read it then. Hopefully, this will "kick" it and some more folks with read it.

I especially like the ideas about unifying our party and getting away from the "cult of personality" that does seem to exist around here (and pretty much everywhere in this country).

I love your ideas about how to run campaigns. I'm sick of the form over substance we've degraded to. None of the Founding Fathers could get elected in this day and age because they were exactly the opposite of the image that American voters seem to want.

We do need more ideas in this country. It's shameful that we get such a narrow focus and ideology treated as the only ideas out there. When I listen to the diversity of opinion in Europe, I can only conclude that we would benefit from a parliamentary system where even small parties have clout because they are needed by a major party to form a coalition.

I realize that it's a pipe dream right now for a third party to be taken seriously as there are so many obstacles in place, but we'd all be better for it.

[yurbud]

15. Kerry has said good things on energy. He should have spoken this

forcefully during the debates, so the press and America couldn't ignore him.

I don't think ALL Democrats are subservient to corporate masters, but if you read the history and background of the DLC, that is pretty much why they were started.

Also, after having some involvement in local politics through my union, it's painfully obvious that whatever an elected officials party affiliation, most are in it for business, to trade favors for money and nothing more.

I hope and suspect that Kerry doesn't fit that description, but too many democrats do.