Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: The American "progressive" as Neocon handmaiden

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Rigby View Post
    When Nothing "Left" Is Left The People Will Vote Far Right

    Moon of Alabama

    12 March 2017

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/03....html#comments

    Some of the people around the U.S. Democrats finally start to get the message of the 2016 election. An editor at Salon writes a slightly satirical critic of the Democratic Party under the headline: How the DudeBros ruined everything: A totally clear-headed guide to political reality . The core sentence:

    When “the left” endlessly debates which core issues or constituencies must be sacrificed for political gain, as if economic justice for the poor and the working class could be separated from social justice for women and people of color and the LGBT community and immigrants and people with disabilities, it is no longer functioning as the left.
    When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and after that.

    Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)

    The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where else should they go?

    The U.S. Democrats are currently applauding the former United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara. The position is a political appointed one. Whoever is appointed serves "at the pleasure of the President". It is completely normal that people in such positions get replaced when the presidency changes from one party to the other. The justice department asked Bharara to "voluntary resign". He rejected that, he was fired.

    Oh what a brave man! Applause!

    The dude served as United States attorney during the mortgage scams and financial crash. Wall Street was part of his beat. How many of the involved banksters did he prosecute? Well, exactly zero. What a hero! How many votes did the Democrats lose because they did not go after the criminals ruling Wall Street?

    Bharara is one reason the Democrats lost the election. Oh yes, he is part of a minority and that makes him a favorite with the pseudo left Democrats. But he did nothing while millions got robbed. How can one expect to get votes when one compliments such persons?

    But the top reader comments to the New York Times report on the issue are full of voices who laud Bharara for his meaning- and useless "resistance" to Trump.

    Those are the "voices of the people" the political functionaries of the Democratic Party want to read and hear. Likely the only ones. But those are the voices of people (if real at all and not marketing sock-puppets) who are themselves a tiny, well pampered minority. Not the people one needs to win elections.

    Unless they change their political program (not just its marketing) and unless they go back to consistently argue for the people in the lower third of the economic scale the Democrats in the U.S. and the Social-Democrats in Europe will continue to lose voters. The far right will, for lack of political alternative, be the party that picks up their votes.
    Don't look now but Trump and the GOP are planning to take health care away from people in the lower third of the economic scale.

    And of course ignore the fact that millions of minority voters -- lots of them in the lower third -- have been deprived of their right to vote.

    Also ignore the fact that Trump only got 46% of the vote, and lied his ass off doing it.

    Don't let these facts get in the way of a convenient narrative, by all means...

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Rigby View Post
    When Nothing "Left" Is Left The People Will Vote Far Right

    Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)

    The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where else should they go?
    I suppose we have to thank the saintly Tony Blair for some of this. Until the smiling one entered the fray the UK Labour Party was still focused on the centre left. Few know or now care to recall how Blair, Brown and Mo Mowlem were creatures of America (as outed in a Robin Ramsay article in LOBSTER). Cynics might regard that as interfering in the election of another nation by selecting and aligning future political leaders - but of course that title can only be bestowed by the Intelligence Community and its political vassals on targeted enemies.

    Overall, I though it a good article for pointing out how the left have abandoned their natural support base and become the knee-benders to money and power.

    To the winner the spoils:

    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post

    I suppose we have to thank the saintly Tony Blair for some of this. Until the smiling one entered the fray the UK Labour Party was still focused on the centre left. Few know or now care to recall how Blair, Brown and Mo Mowlem were creatures of America (as outed in a Robin Ramsay article in LOBSTER).
    And even that was luke warm at best. I recall that our own Gough Whitlam was from the 'right' of the Australian Labour Party. And he was too hot for them to handle so they got rid of him. Neither the UK nor Australia has been anything like a prospect for revolutionary change. Just a little bit bigger crumbs. But enough for major melt down in Langley.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post

    Cynics might regard that as interfering in the election of another nation by selecting and aligning future political leaders - but of course that title can only be bestowed by the Intelligence Community and its political vassals on targeted enemies.
    The Labour party was indeed a targeted enemy. And regime change in any guise was necessary.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •