Feuds & derailed democracy

[H2O Man]

{1} feudal system: A medieval European political and economic system based on the holding of lands on condition of homage or military service and labour. Feudalism probably originated in the Frankish kingdom in the 8th century and spread into northern Italy, Spain, and Germany. It was introduced by the Normans into England, Ireland, Scotland, southern Italy, and Sicily. The nobility held lands from the crown and provided troops for the king in times of war. The knight was the tenant of the noble and a class of unfree peasants (villein) lived on the land under the jurisdiction of their lord (manoral system). Bishops and abbots were invested by secular lords with their livings in return for services and the church received produce and labour from the peasantry. It became a varied and complex system: lords built up their own military forces and power to the point where they became semi-independent of the king; from the 12th century payments (scutage) could be substituted for military duties. The system broke down in the 12th and 13th centuries as towns (commune) and individuals achieved independence from their lords, though serfdom survived in some countries for much longer. – Oxford Desk Encyclopedia of World History; 2006; page 218

When I think of President Ronald Reagan, I think of a petty, cruel and vain man who fronted for forces that re-instituted a modern form of feudalism in the United States. Some compared Reagan’s policies to those of the English crown that Americans fought to overthrow in the Revolutionary War. I think the Reaganites were more along the model of the landed aristocracy that held hundreds of thousands of people in semi-feudalism 50 years after the Revolution, which led to the Anti-Rent War. Of course, they don’t teach that one in schools today.

All of the Reagan policies, from the international to domestic level, were based upon a ruling class that could violate any law and crush any people that got in their way. A series of crimes known as the "Iran-Contra scandal" posed a more serious threat to the US Constitution than those known as "Watergate." More, in the Iran-Contra scandals, the congress failed to take the steps necessary to uphold their oath of office: both President Reagan and VP Bush should have been impeached.

The damage done to our Constitutional democracy is beyond debate. Let’s take a brief look at four areas that should be of interest to every citizen who believes in the concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

In a healthy democracy, the legislative branch of the federal government would function properly. A book that indicates how dysfunctional congress is, is "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track," by Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein. They trace the dysfunction back to the 1990s; actually, when the congress fails to do its duty, it betrays our democracy. Just as congress is failing us today by refusing to impeach Bush2 and/or Cheney, the congress failed this nation by giving Reagan and Bush1 a free pass.

The judiciary has been compromised. If you doubt it, read Vincent Bugliosi’s "The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President."

What has the failure of the congress and the courts allowed to happen? Read "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," by Kevin Phillips. In a true democracy, there are not "ruling families" that consider the presidency their private property. (And, while you are at it, read Phillip’s "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.")

The 2008 elections should be about who can rekindle the democratic spirit in this country. All of the republican candidates are part of the sick system. None of the democratic candidates are perfect, or any where near it. The question is: which one has the most potential to begin to make the changes needed to move us back in the direction of democracy?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. The one who holds democratic ideals highest

is Dennis Kucinich. After him would come John Edwards, imho. BTW, an excellent read. And it points out the necessity for Democrats to mount challenges in every Congressional districts, even "safe" Republican ones. In the 90s, there wasn't even a Democratic challenger to the GOP incumbent here, which I felt was a crime.

[puebloknot]

10. I agree about Dennis, and it's a sad commentary on our "democratic ideals"...

...that such a compelling voice is ridiculed and shut out of our national political discourse. "He can't win" is the Swiftboat phrase that is being used by his own party to shut him down.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Yes, and it is sad

Dennis is a prophet crying in the wilderness.

[H2O Man]

18. Good points.

"Some forty years ago G. K. Chesterton wrote that every time the world was in trouble the demand went up for a practical man. Unfortunately, he said, each time the demand went up there was a practical man available. As he pointed out then, usually what was needed to deal with an impractical muddle was a theorist or philosopher." -- Senator Eugene McCarthy; May 9, 1965

A couple of years later, Senator McCarthy would make his most significant run for high office. Also in '68, George McGovern would make a late entry into the race. Four years later, McGovern made his most significant run.

Kucinich, like McCarthy and McGovern, is a good and decent man. But none of the three has been the perfect choice for the job -- not because they are lacking in the qualities of goodness and decency, but from an inability to connect on the practical level.

Theorists and philosophers would likely make the best leaders in a healthy society. We aren't there. To be able to be an effective president, someone will have to be able to deal with the ball & chains of both a dysfunctional congress and judiciary. Thus, we need a person who is both a practical politician and a visionary -- and that is what I intended to say, but did not make clear, when noting that none of the democratic candidates is perfect (for the job), or anywhere near it.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

2. Well, at least Edwards has the courage to challenge the corporatocracy.

Kucinich did, too, but he's all ready been handed his hat.

[bleever]

3. The distinction between "inclusion" and "collusion" can be

a very tricky matter, to say the least.

"Triangulation" smacks of collusion to many of us. Giving everyone a "seat at the table" sounds generally inclusive. But are there times when giving an entity (say, the health insurance companies) a voice in the process corrupts something that should be decided based solely on the public interest by diluting it with that entity's priority on profits?

I have more questions than answers at this point.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Thank you for putting a big concern into words...

and it's a general concern, not directed at any particular candidate. It's a concern about the message.

Love the "don't tase me, bro" - LOL

K&R for another home run for H20 Man.

[puebloknot]

9. When I hear that "everyone a seat at the table" phrase...

...I think solely in terms of We the People. If there is a corporate entity that benefits the people (and there are many), then their "place at the table" should come only by invitation from the People! And they shouldn't be seated at the main table.

[H2O Man]

26. I remember two

of the speeches I liked best from the 1960s. In the first, Malcolm X said that because a person was standing near the table, it didn't make him a diner. Waiters stand near the table. Even sitting at the table with a plate didn't make him a diner, if there was no food on the plate. I think that many democrats at the grass roots level feel the same way more than 40 years later.

The second speech was when young James Forman said that he was angry with politicians telling him to be patient. He noted that he wanted to be seated at the table of brotherhood, and that if room wasn't made, he might be tempted to kick the legs out from under the table. Of course, he was speaking in a symbolic way; still, the older folks would later say he needed to be more careful. Of course, I fully agree with those older folks, though I was reminded a bit of the story of a young street minister over-turning some tables in a temple.

[Me.]

4. Building Blocks Of Destroying Democracy

It's been stated over and over that the so called ruling elite has been trying for decades to destroy the benefits FDR enacted. A thorn in their side and for those years that they had to be circumspect they must have been in hell. Nixon started the ball rolling in many ways because he and his believed in an imperial presidency. Raygun, built on that with an iron fist. And the person now occupying the WH has reached for another level.

I listened to Bernake yesterday and noted how he said we were going to have to cut back and entitlements and an aging population was a major problem. Not once did he mention the trillions that have been blown in Iraq. The Shock Doctrine in action.

The other day Tweety had Breaux and Lott on. He asked Lott a very interesting question regarding their field of candidates. He said to Lott, essentially, 'you know how this works, the head of petroleum and the head of banking (or equivalent) comes to town, has lunch and decides who the candidate will be, so what has happened this time'. Lott's answer was that there was no heir apparent. So, * was the apparent heir the last time around? And is the reason all the Con candidates are such nut jobs is that it's time for the dems and they have the heir apparent?

[Me.]

6. Also...Begs The Question

If the dems have an heir apparent, which one, or who is it? The answer might be obvious to some but I think a case could be made for a couple, warring factions as it were.

[KoKo]

11. I heard that discussion...it was disturbing...I had to turn it off...

I find the more and more cynical stuff Tweety puts out...the more I get disheartened. He's actually enjoying the corruption and rot and maybe he get's perverse pleasure out of having Lott and Breau on so they can all wallow in it.

It's starting to look like we've been set up again. The heir apparent...

[H2O Man]

19. Right.

The part with Lott was interesting. It was fairly close to the truth. But there is something more, which no cable journalist will ever ask a candidate of either party about, and that is the fact that the machine is out of control. It's like a vehicle with no brakes. That's why Lott is getting off.

It's interesting to note that the people who had advocated a strong chief executive after WW2 included (and, indeed, were led by) liberal democrats. There had been an effort by most presidents to grab power through "war powers," but the post-WW2 move included people looking to restrain congress in the area of foreign policy even in times without "hot" wars.

With LBJ's administration, they realized the potential damage this could inflict on the nation; with Nixon, the damage to the Constitution became evident.

Carter attempted to reduce the power of the presidency, but the group that Lott was speaking of knee-capped his administration.

In the years since, we have seen the congress as an institution welcoming a reduced role in return for a comfortable spot on the feudal state. And the USSC is being led by a jurist who is actively seeking to reduce its role in the federal government.

Add to that the concentration of power that has been created in the OVP. It's not what the Constitution calls for.

[Me.]

23. This Is A Conversation That Needs To Be Continued

For all his faults, I think Tweety is an idealist at heart who can't quite give up on the idea of the America he believed existed. If you listen, he veers off in this direction many times. He only sticks his toe in and never submerges himself, but is trying, in a small way to get word out. His behavior on the Plame matter is an example. Another give-away was how he kept saying Allen was going to be the next pres, kind of as if he was prescient. The fact is, Allen was chosen as the heir (read a piece on this somewhere), and when he blew it, all the Establishment plans shattered. That is why they have the field they have now, it became a free for all. And you can hear the outrage in the voices of people like Viguerie who are astounded at the place they've come to.

We would, be kidding ourselves to think this is only happening on the Con side, though they certainly are the worst of the warring factions. But when you consider how the DLC tried to knee-cap the party, especially the progressive wing, and things like NAFTA, it becomes evident that the American people are in the center and being squeezed by both sides.

[H2O Man]

24. I think his new book

is very interesting. Certainly people who have a strong dislike for him -- a grouping that includes a strange mix of neoconservatives, Cheneyites, and some on the left -- will not enjoy it. But it has value.

I especially liked the part about when he ran for office. Matthews had gone from working for Ralph Nader, to challenging Representative Joshua Eilberg in the democratic primary. Matthews ran on a platform that called for election reform in the wake of the then current Watergate scandal. He refused to accept contributions, and instead ran his campaign on "student volunteer power."

Although he lost, he made out better in the end. Eilberg was eventually exposed as a slime, a corrupt disgrace to the party. His relatives and friends in Philly still hold a grudge, of course, and I get a laugh when I see their attacks on Matthews' Philly roots.

Perhaps the most important thing in the book is his discussion on how all elections involve three groups: those who always support you, those who always oppose you, and the "undecided" who decide most elections. Those who have read my rantings on DU for the past 50 months will find that sounds familiar.

[Me.]

29. I was Thinking, Just As I Read It

Where have I heard that before

[TahitiNut]

5. We are now certain to have WORSE Presidents than Cheney/Bush ...

... just as the failure to hold Bush/Reagan accountable for their crimes against the Constitution made Cheney/Bush a certainty. Cosmetics only make it more certain. The "leading" candidates are those who've been applying lipstick to the pig. We deserve exactly what comes for not doing ALL that is needed to assert what self-governance we've had.

[H2O Man]

20. "Man's capacity

for justice makes democracy possible; man's inclination toward injustice makes democracy necessary." --Reinhold Neibuhr

[puebloknot]

8. I heard Bugliosi speak right after Selection 2000. He said., stirringly...

..."History will show we should have been in the streets." But all his energy has been spent since then, it seems, on writing a tome about the Kennedy Assassination. And that fact seems *so* reminiscent of what we've all faced since that stolen election. We feel rage and despair, we write letters, we post at DU. But there doesn't seem to be any organizing principle that allows We the People to actually achieve any change. We used to feel we could do it through elections. Many of us no longer feel that way because our elections are so tainted.

For the briefest instant, I engaged in the thought that it would be great to have Bill back in the White House with Hillary, as some kind of revenge for the way our duly-elected President was jerked about by the right-wing machine in this country -- and because he was a much better President than what we've seen with Bush II. When Hillary nailed "the vast right-wing conspiracy," I cheered. But the bitter truth is that since those days, we've seen the underbelly of the Clintons' public personna -- their too-close association with Bush I and corporate entities. The woman who stood by her man against the forces of the right wing has morphed into what too often looks like an ardent supporter of the forces of the right wing.

Obama's passion, though compelling sometimes, is beginning to wear thin. Stirring platitudes are not going to save the day for us, and I can't feel my way to substance with Obama. He is too close to evangelical influence for my taste (as is Hillary, with her ties to the National Prayer Breakfast and The Fellowship). Just the vision of having a black man in the White House (Why, in our language, does White House deserve capitalization when black man does not? I digress.) brings up strong emotions of a 180-degree change for the country. I wish it were so. The black man's ascendecy has to be more than a rush to overcome our national history of racist shame. I fear there is that element at play with some people, just as that issues exists with feminist elements who want *first* a woman, then a national leader -- and the twain may not meet.

I am having a hard time forgiving Edwards for his *strong* participation in leading us into the Iraq occupation. He, at least, has apologized and is ardently speaking out against the corporate forces that have simply taken over our democracy. He has passion *and* legal experience to fight those forces. He is criticized by some for being a lawyer, assuming that carries with it a built-in arrogance and assumption of superiority. If I am not mistaken, Hillary is a lawyer, as is Obama, so that piece of anti-Edwards spin doesn't hold up in the light of day. I am impressed that John and Elizabeth Edwards are giving their energy to the cause of trying to take back the country, in spite of Elizabeth's less-than-stellar health.

I have thought, and posted here, that I will not vote for *any* lesser candidate. That is my frustrated, purist self unburdening itself. When I glance back in time at the leaders we've all been schooled to admire -- none was pure. None can be because, to hypocritically borrow from the religious sentiment that I would like to see left *out* of our political discourse:

All Have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God
~~~ Romans 3:23

Most of all, I'm disturbed over the dynastic turn the country seems to be taking -- as you've pointed out -- and I think we need our next President to be neither a Clinton nor a Bush. Fresh blood, though it be ever so slightly tainted, is what we must have if we are to turn the course of our ship of state.

I'll vote for Edwards, if that choice is freely given to me through the medium of honest elections. Beyond that, the question still remains whether I can make a choice that is, on many levels, a total compromise of everything democracy is said to stand for.

[KoKo]

13. well said....

what you say is exactly where I am at the moment..having morphed from being one of those who supported Bill & Hillary so strongly ...I really didn't believe the "blue dress" was real. :eyes: The underbelly we've seen exposed since then "has" been disheartening. Bugliosi did seem to give up in frustration, maybe, after writing that book about the Selection. I think of people like Eric Alterman who was perhaps one of the first to get a big forum talking about how the "Corporate Media" and their dreadful growing influence. He has published two books on Corporate Media Influence and he has said at times mentioned his discouragement that they didn't seem to bring attention for the change he had thought they would. Eric is not the same person he was back then fighting...(although he still tries with his Media Matters blog.) One just get so tired when you don't have the help from the people who are supposed to be monitoring and protecting our rights...like this ineffectual Congress we've had for so long. It's hard not to look at all the people banning together in the New Media on the Internet and in our State Dem Party and with the Organization and Activism of the Dean Campaign plus the millions who have marched against Iraq Invasion and stood on corners in their hometowns every weekend with silent vigils...who've donated to every group exposing the Bushies and the lies that got us into Iraq...and all the rest....and not feel so discouraged that we are "stuck" now with a congress that doesn't seem to be able to fulfill it's duties...half hearted subpoena's and the rest... and candidates that seem to be triangulating us.

I'm sorry...what I'm writing is hasty...and should be better expressed. I better stop.

[puebloknot]

14. Well, eloquence in writing is not required to express our sorrow...

...over the loss of our country.

To borrow a page from Obama's playbook: You're eloquent enough, KoKo01! :)

Thanks for weighing in!

[H2O Man]

27. If the Gore people

had picked Vince Bugliosi, it would have made for a far more interesting case for the US Supreme Court to decide. Though I think it seems likely they would have announced a decision that had already been made for them before they considered the case, it would have been interesting.

Bugliosi's skill in politics, as opposed to the court room, is not particularly strong -- hence he has been quiet on that front. He has published an enormous book on Dallas, and while I disagree with some of the presentation (and thus conclusion), I think it is a valuable book.

[Me.]

15. Evening

:kick:

[bleever]

16. So the distinction between compromising with our adversaries, versus compromising with ourselves,

is elusive. Maybe it's all about each person, with a deep sense of what they are comfortable with, and what they aren't.

And how to know who cares, and who's a snake.


(ed: the snake in my sig does not necessarily endorse the poster's comments regarding snakes or the character of any actual snake.)

[Me.]

17. Snakes Are Easier To Spot These Days

Because over the last 7, we've learned to spot their code words and grasp their motives. As to compromise, in a room of ten people there will likely be ten opinions. But depending on which ten people you chose to gather with, there will likely be an understanding or consensus as to the common good. As to which common good, just for the ten, or the nation at large will, again, depend on those you associate with.

[rosesaylavee]

21. Which one?

That is what I am struggling with for the first time ever. In the past, my choice was plain as day from the moment my candidate hit the field. How lucky I was in that knowledge and surety. A very important vote and I am still struggling with it three weeks before my primary.

K & R

[H2O Man]

25. In some ways,

I think it is more significant that people are voting in the democratic primaries, than who they actually vote for. After the failure of the democratic congress to even address the most important issues -- much less get any victories -- it would not have surprised me to see people turned off by the system. And that is, of course, one of the things that those who want to crush democracy are hoping for: to destroy people's interest and active participation in the elections.

The fact that you are still weighing your options is a good thing. It is citizens like you, and the others who take a sincere interest on DU, who keep hope alive. Thank you.

[rosesaylavee]

28. I would say this will be my most informed vote...

As you said in your OP, none of them are perfect and they all have some very good qualities. There is no way this can be a one issue election... too many important issues at stake for that nonsense. One thing I am certain - I will vote for the DEM nominee in the fall.

[antigop]

22. Find the candidate who has taken the least corporate money and vote for him/her

Hopefully, they will be less beholden to corporate interests.

<edit to add> After a few election cycles, we might start turning things around.