The War Against Democracy
 

more at: http://truth-out.org/news/item/24121...henry-a-giroux

I just wish there were right wingers here capable of more than just calling this names. My main issue with the whole article is that while the criticism of current events and trends is incisive, suggestions on 'what is to be done' are vague and abstract.

There is nothing wrong with the Democracy. The mass of people are too
damn lazy in terms of their civic interaction.

The point of the article is not that there is anything 'wrong with democracy.'

I'm really puzzled as to why you respond to a piece suggesting that the elite are at 'war' with democracy, with a swipe at the 'masses.'

I wish there were left wingers here who would open their eyes and see that they are enablers of the process described in the article as well. For example:

The commanding institutions of society in many countries, including the United States, are now in the hands of powerful corporate interests, the financial elite and right-wing bigots whose strangulating control over politics renders democracy corrupt and dysfunctional.

While the author would choose to blame "right wing zealots", its truly the left in this country that is firmly in control of the machinery of government. The "machinery of government" goes far beyond the current inhabitants of the White House and Congress. Its the left that controls the bureaucracies that actually carry out the laws and regulations that government imposes, which are written by elected officials that have become corrupted by those "powerful corporate interests".

Yet folks in this forum want to continue to turn to the elected class to solve the very issues that the author or your article cites. It blows my mind how some folks in this forum can conclude that more laws and more government oversight is the solution, when government is corrupt and dysfunctional as a result of being polluted by money and influence pedaling. I just can't figure out how some folks think that feeding the beast and helping it grow and sustain itself is the fix for this.

Picking sides in the political battle isn't going to fix this. I really think we're at the point where we need to disassemble the machine, give it a thorough cleaning, and then put it back together so it works correctly.

I guess the difference is between those who want better government and those who want no government.

Its posts like this that will continue to perpetuate the problem. There is NO ONE who is actively and appropriately participating in the political process that is advocating for no government.

The issue is more likely that we'd all like to see a good spring cleaning in Washington - and to a greater or lesser extent at the state level. Some of us would like to see government in DC reduced in scope - I for one believe that there is far to much political power - and the accompanying influence pedaling and corruption - inside the beltway. But no one I know or respect advocates for "no government"

Of course, 'no government' is impossible. If you tear down the current government because you think you want 'no government,' that's not what you'll get. You'll get a new government, and it will clearly demonstrate how silly it was to think of the current one as a 'tyranny.'

Ah, some good sense. Reform and good government are worthy goals, and we can work together, find areas of agreement, compromise, get some things done. We each get some of what we want, as opposed to the current climate of stalemate and animosity. Sound good?

Right. And no government, Anarchy, is the ultimate corruption. It is the legitimatization of damaging unethical and criminal behavior.

Dave

Thus far, the Tea Party's record with respect to governance belies your assertion.

Precisely the point I have been trying make to government haters. The question they hate to hear is, "What do you think will replace it?". Because something WILL replace our current form of government. Most likely something that does not involve the ability to vote out tyrants..............:rolleyes:

Dave

It may come to that, but I much fear it.

The metaphor you choose, the 'disassembled, cleaned, and reassembled machine' suggests radical change, by someone with the power to totally stop and remake the government. Under the Constitution, that could only be done by a new constitutional convention.

If that is not possible, the only other option would be some sort of extra-constitutional means, some sort of coup or violent revolution. Would you support that idea?

And that word 'clean' in there really scares me. In the political context, 'clean' is usually an euphemism for 'kill.'

Better to turn to the "elected class" than the "unelected" class. The unelected class is responsible to no one and never goes away.

Corporate style oligarchy is Fascist tyranny.

Dave

What's interesting is that these sentiments to disassemble, clean and reassemble didn't come to the fore until Obama won the Presidency. Where were they when their government (under Dubya) sold us a bill of goods to support their ill-conceived, ill-managed and ill-fated trillion dollar war while ignoring malfeasance and criminal activity on Wall Street?

If we turn to ANY "class", then it becomes some other group's or person's problem to fix. What's wrong with turning to "our" class?

The government doesn't need to be replaced or eliminated it just needs a few good sprays of deoxit.

How about starting with the elected class not all being wealthy individuals. The only way to be elected anymore is huge amounts of money and almost always money brings corruption and special interests.

citizens United and Mccutcheon rulings have pretty much sabotaged the election process permanently. Term limits are still an option.

Oh BS! You continue to want to be petulant about this, and perpetuate idiotic and dis-proven narratives.

Conservatives have been increasingly concerned about the scope and reach of government for years. That's why there's still a fondness for Reagan: he may not have been successful in achieving his stated goals, but his message still resonates. Conservatives fired Bush Senior in 1992 by either staying home or voting for Mr. "I'm all ears". What the hell do you think THAT was about? We later had the Contract with America that resonated not just with conservatives but centrists as well. We then proceeded to watch Gingrich and company become corrupted by Washington and piss it all away.

We haven't had an election cycle that advanced core conservative principles since 1994. Dole? Not hardly. Bush Jr.? At best, Bush was a moderate, and conservatives had plenty of disagreements with Bush. McCain? A train wreck. Ronmey was a conservative wanna-be, but governing in MA and his inability to clearly articulate a coherent message damaged his candidacy.

Spare me the "this is all about Obama" crap. You can't be that blind.

This goes beyond a strategic appliation of deoxit. We need an EchoWars - style restoration! ;)

Might it be that a majority of Americans want nothing to do with the type of jagoffs spewing on about core conservative principles? The clown show of the last GOP Presidential primary made this pretty clear.

GOP fetishism over Reagan is silly, weird and counterproductive. He's dead and what you're left with is a bunch of silly, unappealing idiots trying to pass themselves as conservatives (Cruz, Paul, Palin, Cain, Santorum .....). The truth is that only about 15-20% of Americans buy into this core conservative principles malarkey (the Teabaggers). Most others are smart enough to realize that governance is done through compromise between those of differing viewpoints/interests. This is lost completely on today's conservative movement.

And yes, Dubya was indeed a conservative. Disowning him once he screwed the pooch doesn't change that fact. His foreign policy has the distinction of making Obama's feckless foreign policy look intelligent and nuanced. You really want the GOP/conservative foreign policy apparatus (read NeoCon's) back in power?

True.

Except when we do put wealthy businessmen up to run for office some people react almost like it's the Second Coming. If you nominate someone who speaks of favoring the poor and working Americans, they call him a so(c)ialist.

There is more at work here than just direct economic influence. Some folks have been convinced that it's the wealthy businessmen who have all of the answers, which of course, involves some very anti-working class ideology. And that's the result of a very successful and long sustained propaganda campaign, IMO. :rolleyes:

Dave

Disproven to who? You? Careful what you claim to be "disproven". Some hardheads still insist the presidents citizenship hasn't been proven.:p

What about the "scope and reach" of business and corporate influence within the government?

Spare me this, "It has nothing to do with Obama" crap. You can't be that blind.

Dave

Yep.

Dave

Amazing how we can have a relatively calm and adult discussion without the interjection of certain influences, isn't it?

Dave

Oh, bite me!

;)

.

So please enlighten me: what are the core conservative principles that most folks don't buy into? And lets skip the too-cute responses like "rascim": that's political BS. What are the core economic and social core conservative principles that Americans reject?

And the lack of compromise is indeed a product of today's Washington dysfunction. Unlike you, however, I see it as a product of intransigence on both sides, as both sides become more polarized. As Bob Woodward points out, and most folks on the left ignore:

In Obama’s first meeting with Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders, just two weeks after his inauguration, he told the group that he wanted to hear everyone’s ideas and come to a bipartisan solution—words he had run his presidential platform on. He told those assembled, “If it works, we don’t care whose idea it is.” But the next day his tune changed when Rep. Eric Cantor, then House minority whip, passed out a draft of a potential economic recovery plan that essentially met only the Republican demands. After reading the one-page spread, the president responded: “I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now.” He then told Cantor, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-politics.html

In fact, as Woodward points out, there are a number of reasons for the disconnects in Washington that are traceable to the current leadership. In fact, has been noted that the current administration is the most "insular" of any in recent memory, with Obama surrounding himself with a small group of advisers and information and decision making held in close quarters. There's no question that there's a divide inside the beltway, but to suggest as many on this forum so often do that lack of compromise is strictly on the right side of the aisle is just BS.

Nor am I trying to be that extreme. There's nothing new about influence pedaling and politicians becoming millionaires. Its become its own industry. Some of the most wealthy counties in the country are the ones that surround Washington DC.

Of course the issue is "scope and reach" of business and corporate influence within the government. But I'm questioning the logic of turning to the foxes that occupy the hen house to fix the problem of the foxes in the hen house.

"....essentially only met Republican plans."

Hence the presidents response-in-kind.

Dave

An issue I often ponder when managers assert that employees can always come to them when they have a problem..........

Unless management caused it of course.

Doesn't work. Glad to see you agree.

Dave

Yes. In a negotiation, both sides present their positions, and then negotiations proceed from there. According to Woodward, there was no offer from the Prez to negotiate. Rather, the response was: "Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now.” He then told Cantor, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won."

It is also a fact that Republicans have had the majority for the last two terms in the house and are operating under the Hastert rule. So where is the room for compromise if a vote is not even allowed on the floor most of the time.

"The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships[1] and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.[2] Under the doctrine, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.[3]"

From Wikipedia.

i.e., "I won, give something up."

Negotiating from strength is still negotiation.

It's the Republicans who got pissy.

And, that's putting it nicely.

Dave

Up yours, smarty pants!

I won't mention racism, you did already.;) OTOH, most people find xenophobia, gun fetishism, militarism, science denial, and the damage wrought by supply-side economics pretty unappealing. "Core conservative principles" is a talk radio euphemism for all of the above. When I hear the likes of Sarah Palin, Louie Gohmert, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh sing the virtues of common-sense conservatism, I run for the door.

In politics, demographics are destiny and fashioning an agenda that focuses on fostering resentment among angry, undereducated, old white folks isn't exactly a winning formula.

"Supply Side Economics"

The ingenious plan to save the American consumer money by sending his job overseas.

How's that working out?

Dave