We're all sheeple, when you come down to it

[jpgray]

I believe, as do others, that Dennis Kucinich is the candidate that best represents morality and common liberal values in this race. Some think the same for Dean, Clark, Edwards or any given candidate. What makes the difference between Republicans and Democrats is self interest versus collective interest, respectively. To me DK is the best on collective interest, because he has the bravery to look ahead and confront the looming problems which are so popular to ignore.

Our own defense spending is greater than the defense budgets of most major countries combined. We will be in deep trouble when the boomers hit our social security system for this reason. BOTH sides are ignoring this problem. The major Democrats construct a fantasy world where only four or five years into the future matters, where defense spending and social spending can magically remain the same without increasing taxes as the boomers crash headlong into one and the 'war on terror' into the other. The Republicans construct a more elaborate and comforting fantasy, with the ludicrous assertion that cutting taxes further will help balance the budget. The main difference here is that the Democrats don't want to starve social spending to death as the Republicans do, but they don't want to be seen as soft on defense or as tax hikers either. Therefore they exploit the nation's microsecond-long attention span (don't snicker, that means you and me), and plan for the short term, as though this problem will never materialize.

Kucinich is on a whole other wavelength. He ACKNOWLEDGES the fiscal problem on the horizon, and proposes the most sensible way of dealing with it--cut defense spending to help provide universal healthcare. Were he a major candidate, he would be widely ridiculed for this position, but since major media can afford to ignore him, they do. He would be ridiculed as a major candidate because this is one of our sleeping giants that no one is supposed to talk about. A monstrously bloated 'defense' budget is GOOD for EVERY major TV network, and most newspapers--sometimes directly as in the case of NBC (GE), sometimes more indirectly. You will not hear much about this issue, and you will certainly not hear anyone advocating massive defense cuts to pay for social welfare--it has been demonized beyond the point of discussion.

So what really exasperates me with candidacies like those of the 'major' candidates is their short term view. No one is recognizing the long terms problems and offering the realistic solutions. Sure, they will all give an answer if the question is asked, but it will be an answer on a false foundation. Just as 'major' Democrats proclaim they can "finish the job" in Iraq and yet at the same time eliminate the insufferable overextension of our forces, so too do they claim the ability to subsidize healthcare and fund education and social security all while keeping the defense budget at its current level. All this too while repealing only the high-bracket tax cut (Dean is still in the gray area on this one).

This is why when people puff up and say "the people are sheeple who vote for X on electability!", I get confused. For unless one supports Kucinich, one has to wilfully ignore the major fiscal issue of our time, or believe a fantastical solution that somehow balances the budget in the face of spiraling need by changing almost nothing. Truly, in this case the mystical budget elves both parties apparently employ would be working overtime.

But guess what? Nowhere near a majority of DUers support Kucinich. The difference between the 'major' candidates is marginal at best. Whether it be trade between Edwards and Kerry, or the Iraq war stances between all the 'major' candidates. But this is indeed the primary focus of DU's bickering and wrangling, because like the media, we either are in ignorance of the big issues because we are enamored of the 'major' candidates, or we are enamored of the 'major' candidates because we ignore the big issues.

Out of the 'major' guys, I like Kerry because he is demonstrably the most liberal (voting record trumps words for me). But I recognize that many of his solutions, as with the other candidates, require suspension of disbelief, and a willful ignorance of the paradox and hypocrisy that are our fiscal and foreign policies.

So yes, mark me "sheeple", because I will vote for the nominee in the GE. But I will vote for Dennis in my caucus.

edit: Some clarity fixes. Hope someone reads the whole thing. :D

[toddzilla]

1. 100% agreement.

Unfortunately, this is the way the system has evolved to protect the status quo, and subsequently to keep the power AWAY from the people that are supposed to have it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Lots of people like bush's policies but can't stand bush

So naturally they will be drawn to candidates who can be counted on to preserve the status quo.

If you don't like bush's policies, vote for a candidate who agrees with you.

If you do like them, vote for a candidate who agrees with you.

There is little indication to support the theory of a causal relationship between which candidate gets the most votes and which candidate takes office, so if voting will make you feel good, voting your conscience will make you feel even better.

[Dying Eagle]

3. I agree

DK should be everything that the DNC should stand for. but he is ahead of his time. do you think DK could win over the 30% of center of the road Indy voters. He is still alittle to far left for the general public to embrace. Its too bad buts its the truth

[RichM]

4. Good post. I pretty much agree.

Anyone who recognizes that Kucinich is the only one who directly confronts the sacred cow of defense spending -- does not deserve to be called a sheeple. (What is the singular of "sheeple?") The GE is another matter, because by then, there is much less choice, and the strategy will be different.

The basic equation is: Defense Spending + Social Spending = Total Spending, which must = (more or less) Tax Receipts. Unbelievable as it may seem, all candidates of both parties, aside from DK (& probably Sharpton), try to ignore this basic law. For them, you can add like crazy to the left side of the equation, with no consequences whatever on the right side. "Fantastical" is just the right word for them. (And so is "sheeple," for anyone who believes them.)

[MuseRider]

5. Very nice.

I am keeping this one to help me when I try to explain it to others, you put it out there well. I agree.

[jpgray]

6. If you do so, fix my grammar mistakes. :-)

It is too late for me to do so. G'night, folks.

[charlie]

7. G'nite

Good piece, really enjoyed it.

[Kanary]

8. Read it all the way to the end ^_^

And what I got out of it is since I followed DK when I started reading about the various candidates, then... I must not be a sheeple. ^_^

It seems clear that the agenda of the right is to keep adding to the Defense budget, and keep cutting taxes until they are "forced" to cut social spending. Don't know why that isn't obvious to all.

Thanks for laying it all out so clearly.

Kanary

[snoochie]

9. Read the whole thing

Couldn't agree more