The Democratic Party is the Face of the Global Warfare and Corporate Welfare State

At TruthDig, Chris Hedges argues that "liberals are useless" and makes the case against any progressive alliance with the Democratic Party:
Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them . . .

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine . . .

Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back?
Naturally, partisans of the Democratic Party and the duopoly system of government do not look kindly upon principled left-wing criticism of their continuing support for the ruling parties and the corresponding global warfare and corporate welfare state. At firedoglake, Blue Texan is unable to marshal anything other than the old lesser-of-two-evils argument in favor of Obama, demonstrating the absolute moral bankruptcy of establishmentarian liberal progressivism:
Does Hedges really believe the country would look no different today if the Supreme Court hadn’t appointed Bush in 2000? Because I think he’s wrong. Similarly, does anyone think John McCain would have overturned the Bush policy on stem cells, acknowledged the seriousness of climate change, spent a huge amount of political capital trying to reform health care, reversed Bush’s policies on labor, on the environment, or endangered species? Does anyone think John McCain would’ve nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court or signed the stimulus bill?
Rather than waste time engaging Blue Texan directly, perhaps it makes more sense simply to lay bare the hypocrisy of liberal Democratic lesser-evilism. At Boiling Frogs, Sibel Edmonds points out:

Many referred to the previous administration’s figureheads as evil; many of us would find that aptly put and easily justified. After all, they sanctioned torture practices, extraordinary rendition, and world-wide assassinations; they took away civil liberties and put in place police practices ironically named the Patriot Act; they increased secrecy and decreased (ceased) accountability; they established untouchability and granted themselves immunity fit for kings, such as the State Secrets Privilege invocations; they spied on and illegally wiretapped Americans with no cause or oversight; they lied and engaged in preemptive wars . . .

Do we all agree with the evilness of all the practices mentioned above? Then, let’s be honest with ourselves, and let’s objectively plug in the same standards to the man who was marketed and sold to us by the establishment and its media tentacles as the ‘candidate of change, for change’:

The Obama Administration has agreed with and continued the Bush Administration’s illegal domestic wiretap practices. They have granted immunity to all involved in these unconstitutional and police state practices.

The Obama Administration has granted immunity to all criminals who’ve been engaged in illegal renditions and torture practices.

The Obama Administration has continued the previous administration’s secrecy practices, including the invocation of State Secrets Privilege, and the Executive Branch’s immunity from judicial oversight.

The Obama Administration has condoned and promoted the previous administration’s assault on American’s liberties through the Patriot Act.

The Obama Administration has fought against any rights for national security whistleblowers and blocked the passage of legislation attempting to grant protections to those who expose Executive branch criminality, waste, and abuse . . .

Last year, during the final stages of the primaries and the elections, I stood almost alone. I knew candidate Obama’s track record, which told me pretty much all I needed to know; that there weren’t going to be any changes, if not those for the worse . . . I did not waste my vote on Obama or McCain.
There is no place for opponents of the global warfare and corporate welfare state inside either of the ruling parties because there is no opposition to the two-party state inside the two-party state. In related news, the Green Party has announced an "emergency" anti-war rally for this Saturday in Lafayette Park to oppose the Democrats' escalation of the war in central Asia, stating, "we promise intensified opposition, with anti-war candidates prepared to defeat his war policy."

6 comments:

Samuel Wilson said...

There are always issues that differentiate Democrats from Republicans. However much the two parties disagree on these issues, it's in both parties' interests to stress that those are the real issues any political campaign. It may be that sincere partisans sincerely believe this, hence Blue Texan. But the problem with the American Bipolarchy is that too many Americans depend on the two parties and their media auxiliaries to tell them what the issues are or what issues count. We need Thomas Frank, or another Thomas Frank, to tell us "What's the Matter With" Democratic voters that makes them put some issues before their own interests.

d.eris said...

The "not a dime's worth of difference" claim is weak, though (or maybe because) it expresses the popular opposition to the duopoly system. It requires critique and clarification. I've been meaning to write something up in that vein for a little while now. It might work well with your thoughts on the necessity of breaking the bipolar liberal/conservative form.

Ross Levin said...

Look, as you know I'm a huge supporter of third parties. But I understand where people like Blue Texan are coming from - Obama is definitely a better president from his point of view than McCain would have been. And on the presidential level, I see nothing wrong with holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, because our presidential system is structured to be a two-man race. I also believe that no third party will win the presidency until they really build up an organizational structure - and even then it's unlikely. The only time a new or third party has won the presidency was in 1860, and that was a very unique situation.

However, there are two big caveats to what I just said.

1. The lesser of two evils argument (which in many cases is valid, even if it's upsetting) does not excuse people who bought into the Obama brand (or those who continue to do so). I was skeptical of him from the beginning and, as a somewhat progressive (although I hesitate to label myself like that - I also have libertarian and some other leanings), I knew that he was always very similar to a corporatist like Hillary Clinton. His record and opinions never pointed to any of this "secret liberal" business that some people believe. And we have seen incremental improvements, like the small announcement today about government transparency, but nothing on the scale that Obama's rhetoric suggested. Unfortunately, many people didn't look past his rhetoric - and many progressives really worked hard to elect him. This is a perfect example of the problem of obsessing with the presidency, but I could go on a whole separate rant about that...

2. Just because it makes sense to compromise a bit in the presidential election doesn't mean that it always makes sense to do so. Voting for Obama as a progressive doesn't mean that Democrats are always the answer - oftentimes they're not, and on more local levels of government, everyone should be able to vote their interests instead of party.

d.eris said...

Ross, in what way do you think the presidential race is structured differently from other races, so that it is a two-person race?

It should also be noted that the Green Party press release emphasizes Dennis Kucinich will among those at the rally alongside Cynthia McKinney and Mike Gravel.

Samuel Wilson said...

Actually, the Constitution anticipates a field of at least three presidential candidates in its provision for election by the House of Representatives in the absence of an Electoral College majority, since the top three Electoral Vote getters move on to the House round. If anything, reforms proposed to "democratize" presidential elections by doing away with the Electoral College or circumventing it tend to make two-candidate races even more likely than they are now.

Ross Levin said...

Samuel, I disagree. The presidential election is designed to be a two competitor race because of the Electoral College. Sending it to the House is a kind of runoff-like device. In the first "round," it is designed for two major candidates, since a majority is needed to win.

Also, in a national race it's just more likely that a moderate with a lot of organizational backing will win. That often makes in impractical to vote third party, while the circumstances on more local levels favor third parties more often.

 
http://www.wikio.com