[Peace-discuss] Re: [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential Candidates and Single Payer

[John W.]

At 01:24 PM 2/24/2008, unionyes wrote:

>Hello again John,

Hello.  :-)


>You always have insightful analysis, I may not always agree with your 
>specifics, but your opinions are always challenging and thought provoking.

Thank you, Dave.


>A few specific points from your last post I would like to talk about....
>
>In particular the term "mainstream"  ... what does that mean?
>I know what it is supposed to mean, but what does "mainstream" really mean ?
>
>Immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq is NOT mainstream, yet the 
>majority of Americans support it.

How do you know that a majority of Americans supports IMMEDIATE 
withdrawal?  It seems to me that Americans are all over the place, 
depending on how you phrase or frame the question.  They want our troops to 
come home safely, sure, but they also want us to "win" or "succeed" in 
Iraq, whatever the hell that means.  And they want the price of gas to go 
down, and they want to be assured of an adequate supply of gas in 
perpetuity for their SUV.


>A non-profit public Healthcare System is NOT mainstream, yet the majority 
>of Americans support it.

Again, how do you know?  And again, they want better and more accessible 
health care but they also don't want their taxes to increase.


>Being pro-Union is NOT mainstream, yet over 70% of workers who do not 
>belong to Unions, would like to be Union.

Where do these figures come from?


>Being against corporate trade treaties like NAFTA is NOT mainstream, but a 
>majority of Americans are opposed.

Same question.  And do they know WHY they're opposed?  How many Americans 
can recite even two or three specific provisions of a trade agreement like 
NAFTA?  All they know for sure is that most of the good American jobs have 
been or are being outsourced overseas, and of course they're not happy 
about that.  And I suppose some of them blame NAFTA without really 
understanding the relationship.  Do they imagine that if NAFTA were 
repealed tomorrow, those good old union American jobs would come trooping 
back here to the United States?  If they suppose that, they'd be dead 
wrong.  It's much more complex than that.


>Being in favor of de-criminalization of marijuana is NOT mainstream, but 
>again a majority of Americans are in favor.

Source?


>So if "mainstream" is not a majority opinion, what exactly is it ????

Well, obviously the media plays a role in creating what is thought to be 
"mainstream".  What I said was, "Obama is perceived as more 'mainstream' 
than Jackson and Sharpton and Kucinich."  Note the word PERCEIVED.  And 
note that I put 'mainstream' in quotes.  So I'm obviously talking about a 
perception which is created in large part by the media.  Obama is extremely 
good at playing to the media in a relatively non-threatening manner.


>Similar to the other corporate media buzzwords like "moderate" and "middle 
>of the road", the word "mainstream" is a corporate media fantasy, created 
>to confuse and manipulate public opinion (i.e., majority opinion).

I won't disagree.


>In fact, the words "liberal" and "conservative" have little real 
>contemporary meaning anymore, other than corporate media spin.

I quite agree.


>In regards to Jesse Jackson's run for president in 1984 and 1988. If you 
>remember John, Jesse Jackson had a lot of MOMENTUM at various times during 
>his campaign in 1984 and 1988, winning all of the deep south states in the 
>Dem primary and even states like Vermont (where few African Americans 
>live) and placed 2nd in many other states.

No, I did not remember all that.


>But lets compare how the corporate media covered Jackson's momentum in 
>contrast to Obama's momentum.
>Of course the corporate media at first tried to ignore and then joke about 
>Jackson's run in the begining, then when that was no longer possible, they 
>began the propoganda attack machine, which had some kind of negative info 
>about Jackson every single day.

I'm sure you're right.  It was a different era, PLUS Jackson already had a 
history: he was and still is perceived as an "old school" civil right 
advocate, a hard-liner who "plays the race card" at every opportunity.  And 
there's SOME truth in that.  Obama, on the other hand, has been very 
careful to position himself differently.  He rarely if ever cries 
"racism".  He portrays himself as being representative of ALL people.  And 
of course, being part black and part white, he can.


>Obama on the other hand, was never ignored or joked about, and other than 
>a few brief moments of negative info (unpaid parking tickets, a campaign 
>contribution from a chicago slumlord and illegal drug use during his 
>college days....OH MY!),

:-)


>he has had nothing but positive media coverage from the CORPORATE 
>MEDIA....REMEMBER, CORPORATE MEDIA.

How could I forget?  :-)  And I've explained why.  He's relatively 
non-threatening to whites and to the corporate world.  That doesn't mean 
that he won't, if elected, be less friendly to the corporations than, say, 
Bush.


>That is the problem, and that is what "mainstream" really 
>means....pro-corporate.

Okay.  Let me ask you this, then, Dave:  What would happen if we had a 
President like, say, Nader, who really wanted to regulate corporations in a 
relatively draconian fashion?  Haven't things gone too far?  Wouldn't the 
corporations just relocate their corporate headquarters to, say, Dubai, 
further emasculating our economy?  I hate corporations as much as you do, 
certainly, but I don't know how to reign 'em in in this new global economy, 
which is like the Wild West globally.


>Lets go back further in time.... Martin Luther King was NOT "mainstream" 
>when he was alive. He was viciously attacked by the corporate media and 
>the FBI.
>But of course after his murder, when he was no longer a threat, he was 
>canonized,  and his message sanitized of political content, in particular 
>his opposition to the Vietnam War, the military industrial complex, 
>anti-Union employers, the mixed race poor people's campaign and even 
>capitalism itself.

That's more or less true, yes.


>Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, and most recently 
>Dennis Kucinich were never treated by the corporate media positively, 
>because they are (were) a threat to the corporate system...they wanted 
>REAL change that would improve the lives and enpower the majority of 
>people in this country.

Correct.  And I go back to my question.  What could they realistically do 
if they were elected to office in November?


>Which leads into another point. We are both cynical John but in different 
>ways...
>You are cynical about working class people and people in general in this 
>country having the mental capacity to understand real issues and their 
>being lazy in terms of not wanting to understand real issues.
>Yet you have "hope" that a career politician (Barack Obama) will do the 
>right thing when he is elected.

Well...more so than the Presidents we've had since 1980.  :-)


>I on the other hand have "hope" in the American people to see the truth 
>(eventually) and demand change.
>Yet I have NO trust in the U.S. government (Republican or Dem) or 
>politicians in particular.

Let me ask you this, then.  (I've wondered this for a long time.)  You're 
in favor of universal health care, right?  In your paradigm, who's going to 
administer the single-payer, "non-profit", universal health care 
system?  Isn't it going to be politicians, or career political bureacrats 
overseen by politicians?  Don't we have to ultimately hope that at least 
SOME politicians will have a modicum of integrity?


>I am not advocating not to vote for the corporate "choices"  that have 
>been selected for us. What I am saying is that we need to see the truth 
>for what it is in regards to who controls this country and how they do it. 
>And voting being only one of MANY actions that we citizens need to do if 
>this country is ever to change for the better.  Voting by itself will 
>change little of substance.

I agree.


>Maybe we are both delusional in our "hope" and correct in our cynicism, 
>John...

I suspect so.  :-)  I suspect Laurie and that young guy Nick are correct.


>.....but I truly hope we are both right in our different "hopes".

That would be lovely, my brother.


>David Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>John W.
>To: <mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>unionyes ; 
><mailto:discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org>C-U Citzens for Peace and 
>Justice ; <mailto:announce at communitycourtwatch.org>Court Watch ; 
><mailto:ucprogressives at lists.chambana.net>UC Progressives
>Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:17 PM
>Subject: [ucprogressives] Re: [Announce] Fw: CLNews: Presidential 
>Candidates and Single Payer
>
>At 06:11 PM 2/23/2008, unionyes wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:unionyes at ameritech.net>unionyes
>>To: <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com>Marti Wilkinson
>>Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:06 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Announce] Fw: [Discuss] Fw: Fw: CLNews: Presidential 
>>Candidates and Single Payer
>>
>>Running a presidential campaign is hideously expensive and both Clinton 
>>and Obama will need some level of corporate endorsements in order to run 
>>for office.
>>
>>Hence the problem in a " nutshell " , the corporate media supporting the 
>>( what else ) the corporate system.
>>
>>AGAIN, no other developed democracy in the world has this system of 
>>corporate control of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, and the system of LEGALIZED BRIBERY !
>>
>>WE MUST STOP THIS, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER !
>>
>>It is destroying our country and the rest of the world as well.
>>
>>NOW, is the opportunity ( election year ) when the corporate ruling class 
>>is vulnerable. WE the people must DEMAND accountability and change for 
>>the better.
>>
>>Why do you think Obama has had such glorious media coverage ?
>>
>>Did Jesse Jackson get that kind of coverage in 84 and 88 when he ran ?
>>
>>Did Al Sharpton in 2004 ?
>>
>>And last but not least, did Dennis Kucinich get even a fair chance, much 
>>less the " rock star media coronation " that Obama has ?
>>
>>So what does that alone tell you ( not even counting the amount of 
>>corporate money Obama has received. And guess from who ? )
>>
>>Suprise, suprise,... The Health Insurance Industry !,, Defense 
>>Contractors ( aka. war profiteers ), and the list goes on.
>
>
>I would suggest that Obama has received the media coverage he has for 
>several reasons:
>
>1) He has built up a certain momentum which is virtually impossible to 
>ignore.  He's a front-runner, for goodness sake, unlike Jesse Jackson and 
>Sharpton and Kucinich.  Yes, becoming a front-runner is highly related to 
>campaign finances.  But Obama has supposedly received almost a million 
>individual contributions from the "little people".  He doesn't talk, of 
>course, about his contributions from big donors or from corporations.  He 
>claims to be responsive and responsible to us, the little people.  He's 
>not perfect, but he's the best shot we have this election.
>
>2) Related to number 1, Obama is perceived as more "mainstream" than 
>Jackson and Sharpton and Kucinich.  He has been, it seems to me, very 
>careful to position himself in that way.  He may actually BE that 
>mainstream, but on the other hand he may have a few surprises in store for 
>the American people once he gets elected (IF he gets elected, of 
>course).  I'd like to believe that, with a Democratic Congress behind him, 
>he may have a few pleasant surprises in store for us.
>
>
>>So what to do about it ?
>>
>>Make Obama accountable.
>>Threaten to withhold your vote, either by abstention ( none of the above 
>>) or a vote for an alternative.
>>
>>I know what you are going to say next ( it's TOO predictable ) .....
>>But if we do that, a republican ( MCain ) will win.
>>
>>My, my, what a problem. The feeling of being a puppet on a string. The 
>>corporate interests like any good business people have hedged their bets,
>>they don't care who wins, because they OWN ; Clinton, McCain, and OBAMA.
>>
>>But i can see why they prefer Obama.
>>They know that the dissatisfaction in the U.S is at an all time high, and 
>>when the economy tanks, and the government oppression begins, who better 
>>to do it than someone who people think is about " Change and Hope ".
>
>I fully understand your cynicism, Dave.  But I'm willing to take a chance 
>on Obama where I wasn't on Kerry or Gore.  Maybe it IS because he's more 
>of an unknown quantity, without all the skeletons in his closet that Ms. 
>Clinton has.  Maybe it's because I think there's a chance that he'll have 
>a more global perspective.  Maybe it's because he has actually written or 
>sponsored some pretty decent legislation.  Maybe it's simply my own last 
>gasp of hope, responding to his "charisma".  Maybe it's all of the above.
>
>But yes...if he IS elected President, we the People definitely have to 
>hold his feet to the fire.
>
>John Wason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080225/4c725e9d/attachment.html