[Peace-discuss] Romney/cat/bag

[C. G. Estabrook]

Unlike countries that have democracies much healthier than ours -- 
Brazil, say, or Ecuador, which elected presidents whose programs had 
popular support -- the US system has been so got-at that it functions as 
a distraction from real politics.  Instead of insisting on the things we 
want -- and end to the war, healthcare, jobs -- we support a 
presidential candidate in hopes that s/he'll give them to us.  But the 
system works so well that the only viable candidates are ones who 
already serve the interests of those with wealth and power in the 
country, not the populace at large.

In fact, the people we talk to have almost no influence on who even 
within that small group of acceptable candidates will become president. 
  We have precisely two votes before the next president is inaugurated 
(Feb. 5 and Nov. 4), and at least one of those is entirely meaningless: 
  in election day in November, the Democratic candidate will likely win 
Illinois' electoral votes; if not -- if Illinois votes Republican -- 
there will have been a Republican landslide in the country at large 
comparable to 1972.  The other vote will be next month in the primaries, 
and only the carefully screened candidates will be in the running.  By 
then too the arrangements among the members of the political 
establishment that brought us Kerry in 2004 will probably be all but 
complete -- although it's possible that we may still be able to tilt 
towards one of the vetted candidates.

Polls (like the "Vanishing Voter Project" at Harvard) show that most 
Americans think that the presidential election has little to do with 
them, that it's a game for the media and political celebrities on which 
they can have no impact -- and they therefore quite reasonably ignore it 
for the most part.  Why in fact was there so little outcry about 
election-stealing in 2000 or 2004?  Because most Americans never put any 
trust into the process anyway.  They think that it's always already 
"stolen" in the sense that they are systematically excluded from it.

If we urge people to get interested in the presidential campaign or to 
devote time and energy to it, we're just supporting the charade that 
takes the place of real politics in this country and is designed to do 
precisely that.  It seems better to encourage people to demand what they 
want -- not a candidate.  --CGE

Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> It seems to me what Romney or the others 'really think' is less
> important at this point than how many people are willing to follow a
> maniac who plainly states these things.  Likewise how many people
> will follow Hucksterbee when he stands up on national TV and thanks
> the Minute Men for their fine contribution to America, etc.
> 
> Of course, millions of people voted for GW Bush in 2004, even after
> knowing for sure what he'd do as President - if not enough to 'really
> win' then at least enuf to make the election close enuf to steal, a
> national disgrace in itself aside from the question of
> election-stealing, I think.
> 
> Let's not let (some of) our neighbors off the hook so lightly.  Mitt
> Romney, or George Bush, would add up to exactly zero threat without
> many, many followers.  And I'm not even talking about the elite ones
> who of course support their class interests in general.  Besides the
> millions who don't vote or aren't allowed to, and so on, there are
> still millions of people who really should know better who we somehow
> haven't managed to reach yet.  I'm sure you know some of them.  I do,
> and talking to them is like talking to a wall.  But there are many,
> many more we can try to reach ...
> 
> We have our work cut out for us, truly, for life.
> 
> Ricky