Abandon hope, all ye who rely on the Democrats.
LaFeminista's essay about the hopeless Dems made me think of a recent Jimmy Dore clip. It is 8 minutes long and it's dynamite. They have descended into irrelevance.
Our political system is a shadow of its former self. I'll let political scientists and sociologists debate the causes. Big money. Lobbying. Pay for play. Licking their fingers and testing the wind rather than voting conscience. Evangelism and single issue voting in politics. The media. On and on and on. I'm not sure of the cause(s), I just know that the entire system is nonresponsive to 99% of its citizens. Literally.
The concept of citizen-legislator is dead and has been for years. It's all about getting that 7 figure lobbying job or making $250,000 for a 40 minute speech. And serving their masters while they're in power. (Wonder how much it will cost to hear ex-President Obama perorate?) The Dems are surely part of the problem, not part of the solution. It would not occur to the Dem hierarchy that putting Schumer, Pelosi, Dean, et al, in charge of the party is like signing the coach to a 10 year extension right after his 10th straight losing season.
They won't change. Here's Jimmy's clip. Believe me, it's worth a watch and not just because he says what most of us have been saying here at c99%:
Comments
Good piece, brother.
Gracias.
... and a big THX for still signing in, OPOL --
...no room for the likes of us at TOP --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
"civil servants will have a slowing effect on the crazy stuff"
Huffman tours Ukiah on trolley, talks about marijuana’s ‘complicated’ future
wtf? LOL the idea of a "sane shadow" government somehow gonna save it from itself. As if plutocratic California is not already a wholly owned subsidiary of the oligarchy.
ding! Note the thriving labor movement in California? UFW? Anyone? Beuller? "That's the system."
Edit to add: Huffman represents yuge CA-02 Emerald Triangle south to Pelosi's CA-12. The Californian Ideology writ large.
I wonder if the dems had put in charge Bernie instead of
Schumer, what the reaction to the dem party would be from Dore and many on this blog. Or maybe Tulsi, the new hero, Gabbard.
It would give a little hope that they would change
The haven't and they never would.
"Parseltongue" Sanders? placation awaits
Bernie: "Anyone who works 40 hours a week in America should not be living in poverty"
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
PDF link: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/katz_krueger_cws_v3.pdf
Why would Senate Democrats make an Indie their leader?
Bernie has long been an Indie who has dissed Democrats--rightly so, but still--and he used the Democratic Party to run for POTUS, then went back to being an Indie. No one was a bigger Bernie fan than I, and I still can't imagine why Democrats would make anyone who is not a Democrat their leader.
Stages
I know this is an older* essay, but I wanted to stew on this comment a bit. I think that, when it comes to political thought and discourse, that there is...a hierarchy of systems that people must go through to see and understand what is happening.
First, you have those who know nothing about politics, absolutely positively zero. The next tiny jump is then the two parties. This category has a wide, wide range in it. In this wide range you have those who all work within that system; those who believe that the two parties are vastly different, some thinking each party is fine, some thinking they need to reform or "push" a party, and some who are almost done with the idea of the duopoly and dip their toe into the idea of another party. From here, the branches become many: some don't vote because they find it meaningless and doesn't change anything, some view both parties serving the same masters, some vie for a 3rd party, some vie for a completely different political system, and on and on and on.
Anyway, the whole point here is that some people are stuck within certain categories. For myself, even if Bernie had been put in charge, so to speak, it wouldn't matter. The working within the defined system, keyword defined here, does not produce the sustainable change we require. Some latch onto the hope of Bernie doing something with the Dems; I have no such hope. I'm not certain of Sander's intentions, some have varying thoughts, such as sheepdog for the corrupt dems to trying to reform one of the major parties. Folks like Dore, who had voted Green, are often talking about boosting up the Democratic Socialist party. I think as the months progress, those who had hope of the Dem's reforming may finally force them to move beyond the two party system.
For myself, we need more than just a new party. We need a new system of economic, environmental, and even political apparatuses. With the election over, Bernie should have moved on, discarding the Dems and branching off into a 3rd party. The following would have been quite large, but instead, he sticks with the decaying corpse of the Dems. Either way, I want something more, and we're not going to get it with the Dems, or even him sadly. What that means, I don't know. As I said, there are many branches that people wish to pursue, and I don't know the correct or viable path.
I cant find anything to argue about in the video
The are a waste of time
I think the Democrats have some hope in this time of haters
If they make Keith Ellison chair.
Beware the bullshit factories.
The smear campaign against him is well under way
The Nation of Islam, Anti-Semite etc etc
The Anti-Defamation League, among other Zionists, have come
out against Ellison. Dershowitz, says the "hard left" is very anti-Semitic.
Ellison committed the "sin" of asking why a nation of 7 million should dictate our foreign policy.
Don't think that of the billions the USA gives to Israel, some doesn't come back to guide US policy in that region.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Sounds like they should be supporting Trump then. /nt
Beware the bullshit factories.
By saying the chair should be a full timer, Reid disqualified
Ellison. In fact, I believe Reid said that solely to disqualify Ellison. The handwriting is on the wall: Ellison is Bernie's choice, but not the choice of Establishment Democrats. No surprise there, just more reasons to walk away and stay away from the Party.
Disqualifies him how?
Rep. Ellison says he'll quit House if elected DNC chair
And although I don't understand why it is so, Schumer has endorsed Ellison, and I believe Schumer counts as Establishment.
Schumer supports Ellison for DNC chair: report
There may be plenty of reasons to walk away from the party, but those assertions are incorrect.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
For the sake of accuracy, the source you linked says
Shumer reportedly supports Ellison, citing a single anonymous source.
As so often happens, reading past the headline is a must. I am not saying whether or not Schumer actually does back Ellison; I'm only pointing out that the source you linked does not say what you claimed or what the headline says.
Moreover, while Schumer counts as one member of many Establishment Democrats, he does not count as the Democratic Establishment or as Establishment Democrats. For example, Obama also "counts as Establishment" and he seems to like Granholm or Perez, both of whom were Clinton campaign surrogates, including during the primary. http://observer.com/2016/11/obama-admin-wants-clinton-surrogate-as-new-d... Or so "multiple Democratic officials" told the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/democrats-leadership-fight...
When a new DNC chair is chosen in February, we'll both be able to say for certain who most Establishment Democrats supported. Until then, implying that Ellison is the choice of Establishment Democrats because of what one anonymous source claimed about a single Democrat doesn't seem to me to be sound or a sound basis your claiming flatly and unequivocally that I was wrong to predict that Ellison is not the choice of Establishment Democrats. Again, I wish you would be more careful before claiming another poster is wrong. I only wish that I had noticed your reply sooner so I could have replied to it sooner.
I was, however, unaware that Ellison promised this month to quit the House if elected DNC chair; and I thank you for that datum and that correction.
My question was about this:
...and you do answer that question at the end.
A) There are multiple reports of schumer supporting Ellison, but Lord knows that having both public and separate private positions has been in vogue this season, so who knows whether what's reported comes out of whose mouth and whether it represents that person's actually feelings.
B) Yes, the bulk of 'the establishment' (and primarily the Obama Adminstration, as I interpret what I have seen) supports Perez. I find him unremarkable, but I distrust anything they support at this point. He is not an inspiring speaker, and some charisma is a good skill for the head of a party.
I am relieved that The Establishment is not lining up behind Harrison (D. Podesta Group). A lobbyist who has represented foreign governments is likely a step down from the DWS/Brazile era.
Was fortunate to hear all five (I believe there are 5 - I have trouble with numbers) speak a couple weeks ago at a party meeting in my town. There were threats to kick the Bernistas out of the room for rowdiness (which was not happening). Had about 5 minutes to speak with Ellison after his talk and found him to be extremely supportive of the priorities I hold most dear - so we'll see how it all plays out.
Am quite fond of Buckley's priorities, but he won't be a finalist for Chair as things stand. Really would like to see him head up finances for the DNC if it has a chance of recovering itself.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
OK, so...
How does diaries such as this one recommend any specific course of action other than "we should continue to support the Democrats, because that's what the donors want"? Right now I understand the complaint about the Democrats as a sort of catharsis. They suck, sure. I get that. Gee, if there were only something we could DO about it!
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Learned Helplessness
It's a concept that seems to be embedded in our political system (advise folks to look into the term). Both parties have spiraled downward so fast, you would think that people would jettison themselves from their respective party. While the Libs and Greens did better than normal, it wasn't in miraculous amounts sadly. 2016 should have been the year when 3rd parties rose to greater heights, and even with showing other people a new alternative, they just can't take another path.
Citizens
This line stuck out for me:
There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals, perhaps even low millions of people who would be better suited to run various parts of our government...and yet they can't, or have no desire to for various reasons. There are very rarely, times when a newcomer appears on the scene that seems genuine, instead of having the approval of one of the two powers. A normal citizen, running for some part of government, no longer has that ability to succeed on a general basis. Instead of "what are your ideas?" it is "how much money can you raise?". People set out for politics as a career; however, it is meant as a means for citizens to enact certain callings or pressures from their community.
The American people built this.
Thomas Jefferson warned them to update or fully rewrite their constitution every 19 years. And never to follow laws written by dead men unless their own generation ratified them.
Never has a legacy been so richly deserved.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Perhaps Jefferson hadn't noticed how
difficult amending the Constitution is or how very dangerous a Constitutional Convention would be. http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution
I don't know that mentioning something in a rambling letter to Madison that was mostly about long term debt = warning the American people of anything. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
Then again, Jefferson, a man who purported to own his own children, his own, young mistress and many other people. wrote that all men had rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so who the hell knows what he actually believed or meant or how serious he was about it? He speaks of a "power to repeal" which is not in the Constitution. And, if he did thing the Constitution should be repealed every 19 years, I would bet he expected plutocrats to replace it. The masses had precious few powers in 1789. Only 6% of them had any right to vote--and they were white male landowners who could afford to pay poll taxes.
Inasmuch as the original Constitution took two years to draft, it's hard to imagine people intended it to last only 19 years. If they did, they should have written the amendment provisions differently.
Even today, I am reluctant to blame the populace for much. They have day jobs--maybe two or three jobs even-- and are trying to raise families, so they pay taxes to pay other people to do the right thing by the populace. The fact that politicians take the tax dollars of the populace, but don't do their duty when the populace is doing its duty is not the fault of the populace; and there are very limited things the populace can do about anything.
Here in the 21st century, people write their own constitutions.
The people in nearly every country in the world are currently engaged in some phase of the ongoing process of constitutional evolution in order to benefit the people and confer upon them the ever-expanding social, civic, and human right that they require to live in freedom, with every advantage to develop themselves fully.
Nobody "repeals" a constitution in order to write a new one that works better in the century they are living in. That would be absurd. Constitutions are written for the future. In the present, the government continues to take care of the people's business, as the people modify the new rules and processes the government will follow in the future.
Things that work well are retained. Things that have become obsolete are eliminated. Things that are contentious are clarified with new language. Things that are recent visions that the people aspire for themselves and their children are incorporated.
This is a legal process, not a political one. The people are at the table and they are joined by invited specialists from around the world who guide them. On the table are dozens of current and new constitutions that are the most admired globally. The US constitution has not been among them for many years because it has grown fully obsolete and entrenched. However, it would not be unsusal to see a US Supreme Court justice volunteering their time to help another country write a modern constitution. The world's high court justices make up these international teams of experts that citizens call on when they upgrade their constitution. Nations do this once every 25 years, on average.
. This is not about crisis.
. This has nothing to do with revolution.
. There is always a government in place during the process.
. No one is worried about how long it takes. There is no deadline.
. Drafts are generally published for public review as they are written.
. All citizens are invited to participate, and they must for a constitution to be completed.
. The people themselves are the only authorities who can ratify a constitution, and a very high majority of people must agree.
. The Constitutional work group continuously modifies the wording of the system until a super majority of the people approve it.
Organizations that help nations write and update their constitutions are a global industry. They are a coalition of experts and constitutional shepherds. Some of the world's best legal minds participate in this important work. The processes they follow is how highly functional and successful nation are developed. Nationhood is not treated as an accident of geography. It has evolved into a community for the development of intentional governance.
Canada has quietly engaged in the process as long as it has existed, modernizing its cooperative structures and systems to better serve the Canadian people. What the US's obsolete slave owner's constitution has done to the minds of Americans is a terrible thing and serves as a warning to the world. Americans are now too terrorized by their government to even discuss the idea of self-determination and taking control over their unelected rogue government. They avoid, at all costs, any hopes for self-governance. American fascism will crush them like bugs before they ever experience a single human right, such as freedom from hunger.
When nations revise their constitutions, there are no bizarre conflicts over universal human rights such as health care — the strangeness that goes on in America's chamber of fear. These components of true liberty are not addressed as contentious issues. When people confer human rights directly upon themselves, those rights cannot be taken away from them because there is no authority greater than the people's own. The ever-growing list of human rights are ratified at the UN and Declared to be Univeral Human Rights. Thus, if a people choose to grant themselves "Life and Liberty," then National Healthcare will immediately be established in their nation. because there can be no Liberty without health. If the people grant themselves a national election system free of privately-funded corruption, that is a mandate automatically empowering an agency to oversee that reality. All nations quietly engage in this process every day.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Repeal was Jefferson's word, not mine.
I can't speak to other nations. My thoughts on either amending the U.S. Constitution or writing a new one are in the essay of mine about amending the Constitution to which I linked in my prior post.
John Ralston Saul has argued that Canada is
a fundamentally oral culture -- partly due to the influence of the First Nations, a claim he first made in an intellectual environment that had never given the First Nations any consideration at all -- whereas America is a fundamentally written culture, obsessed with The Documents; and that this distinction helped account for much of the political difference between the two.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Ah. And one was, of course, a monarchy.
As for the mothership, England never had a constitution at all.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
not by our standards, but they have one by theirs.
and it's critical to their political function. its modern foundation is the Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament passed in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution of 1688; which Bill is the inspiration and blueprint for our own. Indeed, one of the things that particularly pissed off the American colonists was that they did not enjoy the "Constitutional Protections" afforded British subjects who happened to live in the British Isles.
Meanwhile, in the modern US, a minority of sufficiently psychopathic and historically ignorant motherfuckers like the Senators who refuse to approve -- or even vote on -- the President's appointments can subvert the very function of government, because nothing in the Constitution says they can't.
any comparable effort to accomplish any comparable objective in the UK would be recognized as a "Constitutional Crisis", and would eventually be resolved by the implosion of the obstructive faction.
the difficulty is precisely the American obsession with the letter of the law, and the fanciful American notion that mere language can comprehensively and sufficiently specify the principles, the conditions, and the constraints by which a people are to govern themselves. 90 years ago Wittgenstein effectively and brutally revealed the childish toddlerism of any such notion (without, so far as I know, ever even considering the state of American politics). unfortunately, i doubt whether 1% of the jurists in America have any fucking clue what Wittgenstein had to say on the subject, and of those, the majority probably consider it an obscure and pointless exercise in philosophic navel-gazing with which they were obliged to wrestle during some undergraduate survey of modern philosophy. were the situation otherwise, our jurisprudence mythology would not include a Supreme Court justice remarking:
because there would have been nothing notable about such a remark.
meanwhile, Canada fought its own long battle for liberal reform, for "responsible government": a technical term of art referring to a parliamentary system on the British model, in which the powers of the "crown" are sharply curtailed.
again, i refer any and all to the writings of John Ralston Saul, and in particular to, Reflections of a Siamese Twin.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
This government can easily be gamed
…from the inside. So many flaws. The telephone was still a century in the future when government procedures were established. The human lifespan doubled since then. The Constitution didn't scale up to the size and population of the US, but the obscure language made it malleable and corruptible. The politically-appointed Supreme Court began interpreting the subtle intentions of those who crafted it, and the court's best guesses and projections became legislation.
The elites and the corporations were well served with this permanent mandate written by people who were long dead. Its built-in tone of appeasement to slavers tilted final authority away from the people and made the people's "rights" arguably conditional. The Constitution could be anything they wanted it to be, context free and un-amendable. And it is.
Found the book — Reflections of a Siamese Twin. Thanks for pointing John Ralston Saul out. I also noticed a review of one of his earlier books, Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, written 25 years ago — and it is somehow very timely:
I wonder if these persistent and specific threats arrived with the Neo-Liberalizm of the 1990s, because the threats have remained in place, unchanged over the years. They appear to be deliberate functions of the US political system. Or the author is very farsighted.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
To see the true scope of the decline of Democrats, measure from
from January 2009, not from 2010.
Of course, Democrats would say that the ostensible stampede to elect Republicans means that making Democrats more electable requires Democrats to go still further right. Either Democrats are delusional or willfully ignorant or both. In any event, I Demexited this summer and see no reason to obsess about Democrats. We need to focus on what is next. JMO.
Having left the Democratic Party behind can give one a new
perspective when examining the remains. Kind of like looking at pond scum through a microscope - there's life there, but an alien, slimy, creepy "other."
I am thinking - and this is not new with me - that it's the money; lotsa money; $$$$$: from the arbs of Wall St, the wizards of Silicon Valley(who want cheap engineers through the visa program); and those to whom RW Israel is the only issue. The top 400 in income averaged over $340 Million in 2014 according to the Internal Revenue Service and if the Republicans have their Kochs then the Democrats are going to have their parasite financiers. (It will forever remain a mystery, an unknowable enigma, how Senator Sanders raised so much money, from so many people, who each gave so little and didn't expect anything in return.)
I think the Democrats are afraid that a younger, more Leftist, Bernie is what's next and are taking steps to forestall such an outcome.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
More than the losing streak -
it's like knowingly signing Joe Paterno.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Love Jimmy Dore
I subscribe to The Jimmy Dore Show on YouTube and listen to his clips while driving around town. It's one of the only things that has kept me sane throughout this election season. Jimmy puts into words everything I'm thinking and can't figure out how to say. He did it again here. Thanks for sharing.