[Peace-discuss] Naked Capitalism on election

Fri Nov 14 18:57:47 EST 2014

Within living memory, how were political victories won? The US didn't withdraw from Vietnam because Republicans (or Democrats) lost an election. (Remember that the anti-war candidate, not the pro-war candidate, was elected in 1968 - and again in 2000.)

From ending the Vietnam war to labor and civil rights victories, New Deal and Great Society reforms, two presidents driven from office - none was the result of electing a Democrat rather than a Republican (or conversely). 

Elections - like Supreme Court decisions - came after, not before a public demand for change: e.g., the ending of war, depression, official racism.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will," said Frederick Douglass in 1857, and turning up once a year in November to pull  a lever or check a box can at best registers the existence of a demand; it can't create it.   Our rulers hope it can contain (that is to say, retard) it.

--CGE

 “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” --Emma Goldman (attr.)

On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Jenifer Cartwright via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

>     Let's agree to disagree, David J. I LOVE the world y're describing, but voting 3rd party won't get us there (think Tea Party influence). The lesser of two evils is realistically what we must settle for, unless the electorate starts twittering worthwhile tweets, turns off Reality Shows, loses a whole buncha wt per voter, and actually does rise up. Not in my lifetime.
>      Re 2000 -- yes, what you say re post-election is right on, but that wasn't in the voters' hands, it was ultimately up to SCOTUS. 
> From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> To: 
> Cc: Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
> Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 2:13 PM
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Re: Naked Capitalism on election
> 
> 
> 
> And what you seem to fail to understand Jenifer, is that the republicans and the corporate dems are part of the SAME team, think good cop / bad cop routine.
> People are sick and tired of being sold out by the dems.
> A third party AND running good Working class people ( NOT millionaires like Sam Rosenberg, etc ) in the dem primaries is what needs to be done.
> BOTH need to be done, so that if the good working class dems are beaten by the corporate dems in the primaries, people will have the option of voting against the corporate dems in the general election.
> Einstein was quoted once as saying that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
> Hence your strategy of voting for any piece of shit corporate hack with a
>  " D" next to their name has NOT been working. The dems have been getting progressively worse every year since Bill Clinton because they know that people like you will continue to vote for them regardless how bad they become. They don't fear us, but they do fear their corporate contributors.
> This dynamic MUST be changed !
> The only way that will happen is if targeted corporate dems who have sold us out our faced with a sanction from THE PEOPLE by being voted out, regardless if a republican wins. That is the ONLY way it will change, in conjunction with electing working class people in the dem primaries.
> 
> And in regards to Nader in 2000.....
> You seem to be in denial about the 2000 elections.
> That election was STOLEN via fraud, it had nothing to do with Nader.
> If the democrats were a REAL opposition party in a REAL democracy, they would have called for general strikes and massive protests to shut the country down until a re-run election was held in Florida with international voting observers.
> But as we know, your precious Al Gore, rolled over when his corporate masters told him to back off and the rest is history. Of course to cover their collaboration and cowardice the Democratic National committee began a " blame Nader " campaign.
> And lastly, what makes you think the dems are not also cutting social security, medicare, etc. ?
> Would you like me to go into detail about that ?
> 
> David Johnson
> 
>  
> On 11/9/2014 1:36 PM, Jenifer Cartwright via Peace-discuss wrote:
>>      Absolutely, Mort Brussel, it's ignorance/failure to realize that as bad as the Dems are, the Repubs are far, far worse. Staying home or voting 3rd party is a vote for the Repubs, tho' you'll brag about doing that, as if it somehow makes you A Superior Person, instead of an ignorant show off. Get over yrselves -- this is not about you, it's a looming crisis (think 2000 and what the Bush presidency bro't us). 
>>      Get ready for WW III and loss of: food stamps; social security; supported healthcare; medicare; medicaid; unions; minimum wage; subsidized housing; environmental protection; widening of the income gap; The Middle Class. 
>> 
>> From: "Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> 
>> Cc: "peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
>> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 11:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Naked Capitalism on election
>> 
>> It is hard for me to believe anything being expressed about why the election results occurred as they did, except that it is linked to the influence of money, media and ignorance. This is not to say that disgust at the present affairs of state was unimportant. 
>> 
>> —mkb
>> 
>> How admirable was the informative letter by David to the N-G, responding to the N-G commentaries on Illinois finances by Winkel, Dye and Nowlen. Many thanks. One hopes it will register in the public’s consciousness.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 9:44 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> The midterms were not a “wave election” for Republicans, and in fact left policies were adopted by voters. The Democrats did not lose because of technical factors like the electoral map, structural issues with their “coalition,” or even for the reasons put forward by emo-dems. Rather, the midterms were a protest against neo-liberal principles and policy outcomes successfully achieved by Obama and the dominant factions of the Democratic Party: An active protest against Obama’s redistribution of income to the rich, and a sullen refusal to take ObamaCare as the positive good that the political class, refusing to look out the windows as they talk on their cellphones on the Acela, are sure that it is. Finally, Republicans are no less despised than Democrats, and in 2016 it may well be their turn to be subject to the cycle of massacre. Only a cat of a different coat….
>>>  
>>> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/midterms-2014-red-wedding-democrats.html
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 