The 100 Days Daze

While the collapse of the GOP coalition has led many on the right to question their preferred duopoly party's priorities, the new Democratic majority has led many liberals, progressives and leftists to do the same. At the WSWS, Tom Eley considers 'Obama's 100 Days' and concludes:
After only 100 days of the new administration, workers and youth are coming face to face with the fact that Obama represents no change from the anti-working class, anti-democratic and militaristic polices of his predecessor. His presidency has already established the impossibility of effecting real change in government policy by means of elections within the framework of the existing two-party system, or through appeals to the Democratic Party.
Glenn Greenwald reflects on Sen. Dick Durbin's admission that the US Congress is "owned by the banks," and states the obvious:
That Congress is fully owned and controlled by a tiny sliver of narrow, oligarchical, deeply corrupted interests is simultaneously so obvious yet so demonized (only Unserious Shrill Fringe radicals, such as the IMF's former chief economist, use that sort of language) that even Durbin's explicit admission will be largely ignored.
Last month, I noted Chris Bowers' complaint that he has . . .
helped raise over two million dollars for Congressional Democrats . . . who, upon their arrival in Congress, do whatever they can to openly distance themselves from both me and the causes I believe in. Why do I keep giving money to people who will respond by publicly slapping me in the face?
Liberals and progressives should ask themselves the same question with regard to their voting habits and party affiliation. Why support a party which does not represent your interests or uphold your politics?

Update: Kevin Hayden at the American Street responds to Greenwald's post, and asks:
So should we shrug and say “same old, same old” then bend over and say “thank you, Sir, may I have another?” Only if you consent to being a tool . . . Will there ever be a way to successfully bridge the gaps that the rich like to plant to keep the peasants distracted from their thieveries and predations? . . . is there a way to make it change?
Insofar as you support the duopoly parties you consent to be the tool of the bipoligarchy which they represent and which controls them. Insofar as you buy in to the ideology of the duopoly you are part of the problem. The surest way to "make it change" is to join the opposition to the two-party state.

No comments: