$36.12 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: U.S. | Anti-War
WHO YOU CALLING HOMELESS, HIPPIE?
A civil war is being waged in the United States Democratic Party
In the teapot's tempest of middle ground American political discourse that defines the modern Democratic Party,
a civil war is being waged, while casualties are tossed aside, crimes are covered up and the pace of progress flies in amber.
This is a slight return to the many aspects and perspectives that have shaped modern history and conventional beliefs.
In the first eighth of the twenty first century, what appear to be the crimes of the century have gone unresolved, seemingly due to
the complicity of the American system of justice which perpetrated the first installment, an un-elected Presidency.
This tragedy of the commons was followed by a stunning domestic terror attack, and a series of endless wars, operating under the cloak of self-defense, and the supervision of old guard Bush Family friends. The series of assaults on our notion of a representative democracy and justice for all bear consideration, and yet that seems pitifully unmet in modern discourse.
As concerned Americans stood in opposition to genuine electoral fraud in 2000, ballot counting abuses and the organized intentions of Republican thugs to stop vote counting in Florida ultimately prevailed in a per curium decision by the Supreme Court.
Those astonished by the result had no idea what they were in for in the next few years. There was in fact a relentless onslaught of outrageous actions by the newly installed regime in a calculated attempt to keep opposition incapacitated.
The groundwork for this hellish period was laid within the political landscape of the 1990's, which saw two party's at war,
on the face of it Republicans versus Democrats taking their turns at maximizing and minimizing the disgraces of their cores, the Clinton's Arkansas power structure and the Bush Family Mafia, which was nearly undone by Iran/Contra revelations finally buried by Democratic Senate investigators and a historic pre-emptive pardoning of Casper Weinberger.
As dysfunctional as the two parties proved themselves, through gridlock, impeachment proceedings and escalating threats and acts of terror domestically and abroad, Americans became increasingly disturbed and disappointed by the actions of a government divided and seemingly focused on agendas of recrimination.
In the same period the internet took root in every household, as the commercial media was becoming
more concentrated, militarized and liberated by telecommunications deregulation completed under Clinton.
The cable franchises gained dominance over a discarded broadcast news tradition, and the destruction of the public interest was imminent if not complete.
With the benefit of hindsight and historical review, the root causes of the many scandals and ultimate impeachment proceedings, much can be seen as payback for Clinton's refusal to step aside in 1992 for George Herbert Walker Bush's attempted fourth term in the White House, despite the competing factors of a depressed economy, criminal investigations and voters fed up with lying lips.
With the phenomenal uprising of dissatisfied voters clinging to Ross Perot, through thick and thin, a three-way split electorate brought Bill Clinton to the White House, and surely stung both parties when 20% of America said NO! to the two party systemic infection, even before the circus went to town in the next two terms.
Fast forwarding to the 2000 election cycle, a much slighter fraction of voters also rejected the two party candidates in favor of Ralph Nader's rhetorical opposition to the two party dominance and mismanagement, as well as a number of other individuals who ran under alternative party banners through the final election. What happened next was the death of a nation.
When the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Bush family voting procedures in Florida (i.e. not counting the votes)
the veil called representative democracy was lifted, tossed in the trash and incinerated. Without recompense, the American people were tied to a country that was no more democratic than the Shah's Iran. With the full complicity of the Democratic Party in their official positions within the Senate, choosing not to challenge the appointment of George W. Bush, their grassroots supporters were treated like weeds and choked on the Roundup of corporate power exerting its newfound full control over the process.
This is where things got difficult for American democracy and Democrats.
In the following year, a plan to attack the World Trade Center saw success, with the deaths of thousands broadcast to the shocked world. Among the many "coincidences" attributed at the time, was the planned release of a media consortium ballot recount of contested and abandoned Florida ballots, which showed clearly that under any scenario, Al Gore won Florida, and the 2000 election.
That story was obliterated and obviated by a country now completely shaken by a new, seemingly larger betrayal.
A country that wanted revenge more than security, and an administration that wanted many things, all of which were conveniently advanced by the deaths of American citizens. Deaths that were considered necessary in prior strategic planning known as PNAC.
With the identity of sixteen Saudi Arabian hijackers disclosed, we marched towards Afghanistan and Iraq, ostensibly looking for something that was never there, but remaining for years beyond the duration of the previous two World Wars.
While Democratic voters would never see justice for their stolen election, people of conscience around the world rose in resistance to the war drums of America. Mass demonstrations occurred worldwide with millions gathering to march and demonstrate against further death and destruction. To the deaf ears of American "representatives" and British officials, who found the more official political opposition to have a certain mortal fragility that outmatched their moral outrage and factual rebuttals to now disproven claims of transgressions within Iraq. In a game show atmosphere that resembled the sideshows of the 2000 Selection, Bush officials put forward frightening stories culminating in Colin Powell's false testimony before the UN.
Without delineating the snaky course of events that put American soldiers in Iraq (again), the level of war crimes being perpetrated are now very clear and unworthy of debate. Which is not to say they are unworthy of prosecution, but there is justice, and there is Just Us. Many countries have made clear that Bush officials must choose carefully where they travel if they wish to avoid arrest.
In the following decade, the America that democratic voters lived in transmogrified, as their very views of reality were shifted and shaped by interested parties.
This is where things got impossible for American democracy, and Democrats of conscience.
Without tracking every development on the now devolved information system called the internet, many sign posts read portents of doom for open discussion of "controversial" subjects such as the 9-11-01 tragedy. Many Americans were deeply traumatized by both the tragedy itself, and the flagrant dereliction of truth and justice in the aftermath. After lifetimes of belief and faith in the ultimate fairness of America it was clear that country was gone.
Through those years people would find commons online, to discuss immediate and recent historical events, and quite often, to argue the meaning and facts of any given topic. Closing in on the roots of disinformation and the culprits behind the lies, these very activities threatened the same parties that objected to other organizing efforts in previous decades. Cointelpro was dedicated to dealing with such activists and organizers as Judy Barri, the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement. In some circles, those activities were proclaimed finished. In reality that was the most absurd of claims, in a sea of absurdity passing for politics.
With time, there appeared many difficulties, patterns of disruption, bullying and even all out assaults on websites that veered in certain directions, organizing facts and dissent along the path of contemporary history and media mendacity. In parallel, certain notions were hewn to by many "individuals" that were patently absurd, but seemingly lingered long enough to implement Goebbel's directives, and the well worn idea of repeating the Big Lie until enough people believed it.
The most fulsome expression of that practice in the last decade comes from the Democratic Party operatives who fly in the face of statistical facts and historical evidence by declaring ad nauseam that Ralph Nader stole the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
Although this "meme" has fallen from frequent use, it still lingers in the manic proclamations of some very pro-Democratic Party
members who either bought it hook, line and sinker, or simply continue merchandising the notion to combat critical discussion.
Like the stolen election of 2000, the faulty "intelligence" of the Iraq invasion, and the war crimes that took place, it is not worthy of debate. Ralph Nader did not steal the 2000 election, and Nader voters did not cause the problem.
But those concerns were very important to certain interests, in stark contrast to the interests of concerned citizens who continued to demand justice from a nation that could only find it for the interests of money which became officially recognized under SCOTUS decisions such as Citizens United, and a multitude of policy advances favoring multinational non-taxpaying campaign donors.
While the problems of campaign finance are clear to everyone, the solutions would appear somewhat murkier.
As campaign challenges to the Bush administration were mounted by John Kerry and John Edwards, further ballot security issues plagued the process. Many connections can be drawn in the web of electronic vote processing, and those concerns are both validated and obviated by the traditional methods which were certainly adequate in 2000, nationally, and since then within California on many occasions. where the most transparent methods of skullduggery took place repeatedly. Again, not worthy of debate, in modern America, elections are for stealing not for democratic decision making. (But that's insane conspiracy talk, right?)
Yet the process requires some finesse, and that gives hope. The mainstream response of voters to the abuses and dysfunctions of "partisan" battles and electoral thefts throughout the last two decades takes that hope and rends it in a paper shredder of accountability.
The finesse that put Obama in office over the efforts of eager candidate Clinton requires careful analysis. Much more than a series of books could really cover, if there was even a squadron of disinterested investigators to do the research. Some major factors are continually overlooked, however, and those clues bear consideration.
Beside the brutal discounting and silencing of the lone, authentic anti-war platformed candidacy of Dennis Kucinich, the stalking horse candidate, John Edwards remains unrecognized by broken hearted supporters still finding forgiveness for their own duplicity, holding up a handsome co-sponsor of the Iraqi War Resolution as a peace candidate.
The time frame of his indiscretions, and the clear as a bell understanding by other campaigns with any intelligence resources makes it very obvious that his candidacy was a non-finisher. Yet he served a purpose beyond raking in campaign contributions from admirers. The 2008 campaign was never about real change. It was about real money.
With the keynote speech in 2004, the unknown Barak Obama was foisted on the party as their next annointed candidate, much like Bill Clinton in his long winded speech in 1988. These patterns should not be ignored, but the general belief systems are subject to what a condition that ails the Democratic Party to such a degree that in the future it seems likely they will be held up as type specimens for the concept of cognitive dissonance. That psychological phenomena that plagues the modern American, certainly applies most directly to the Democratic voter. What a pity our educational system has been degraded, politicized and disabled in the same way as our information systems. The rapid results are apparent.
A half century tradition of civil rights progress which still moves forward in the changes we see towards oppressed subsets of the white majority, has a little less to brag about when it comes to longstanding race and class based discrimination issues.
Where the Democratic Party has changed drastically in the last decade may be the ultimate undoing of liberal politics.
While much credit (and blame) is extended to long term efforts by the conservative Democratic Leadership Council and its many compatible offshoots, there remains a demographic shift that goes unspoken, or at least poorly perceived in its influence.
The unjust invasions of Iraq, and the protracted quagmire of Afghanistan have put millions of military members in harm's way for extended and repeated tours of duty. It seems quite feasible that these voters, and their family members, have to reconsider any support for the Republican Party which carried the (false) flag into these countries and operations. Few would know better than those serving in Iraq what sort of support for the troops is offered by the Republican power structure, based as it is in the oil rich Saudi monarchy and towering money capitals of Dubai.
These voters have understandably shifted to the Democratic Party, along with many affiliated blocs. Bringing with them a self rationalizing, situational ethic that regards military force and operations abroad in a different light then those more traditional Democratic voters who opposed war before it was fashionable (again).
Now there is a split personality fighting for the single party that cannot, and will not, represent both interests.
This is a recipe for bitter dissension, and the losing side will be the death of the Democratic Party when they take the only way out.
So, while many conscientious people are concerned about the well being of houseless individuals living on the street, perhaps it would be equally important to look ahead to the near future, where the truly homeless will return the Republican Party to power because the Democratic Party took down its tent and tossed it in the trash with world peace, privacy, freedom and representative democracy.
Who will be the scapegoat then?