Apparently there are not enough of us bleeding just yet

Originally posted on January 10, but it got stuck in the spam filter. So now, without further delay... -- GH

Preface: This note was originally a post in response to a fed-up independent expressing her distaste for any political propaganda, even if apparently evidence-based as Rachel Maddow recently blogged.  My connection to the writer is through our recently shared understanding that the time is overripe for Nader's thinking, that he'd be a perfect opponent to lobbyist-in-residence Senator Joe Lieberman..

...
Nader's one of the few who speaks to the corporatist agenda that is evident behind the scenes of most American politics and in exactly the right terms. It's clearly the dominant driver of our collective political agenda.

And it's been the belief that I understand that problem which led me to finally understand and to rationalize (what people have called) his spoiler effect as serving to hasten the_only_thing_that_can_fix_the_problem_with_our_political_system.

How's
that?!

I figured Nader knew that the system will only (--actually NEVER--) fix itself when it becomes utterly broken and completely unable to function.


We'd only recognize that fact when half of us are bleeding financially, or possibly, literally, because the corporatists had finally broken American politics beyond repair and us, in the process.

I have expected that was what had occurred as the result of 2004 and, in fact, I've almost been excited for the last year and a half, or two, because I thought, "Nader was
right, the RNC would break us alot more quickly than the DNC, wrecking the world's financial system is pretty good evidence!"

But apparently there are not enough of us bleeding yet.

I have to say, however, I'm confused
by the current discussion.

I'm a researcher who got dragged into digging into the dirt on the dark side of politics after the farce of 2000 first suggested that I needed to pay much more attention than I had.

Doing so on the way to 2004 suggested I needed to pay attention to the voting process, particularly, and the cold dark night of the 2004 'election' pointed me directly to just who I should address my attention. I've been doing that
collaboratively with other folks ever since.

If you're interested, much of that collaboration was compiled after tracking backwards from 2004, @ Mike Connell: A Trail of Questions At the End of the Road . These two pieces were written after we began working
forwards from historic origins Tobaccoup Road and The Freedom of No Choice but most of the evidence connecting the dots is still being written (and understood, as I'll suggest below).

I don't have cable TV so I only see Rachel Maddow when links such as Teri posted at the top of this thread point me to notable Maddow work.


The amazing thing that I've found about Rachel Maddow is that she actually finds the same players behind the scenes that I find involved in the great train robberies and wrecks of the last twenty years.

I tracked to Maddow's video through Teri's posted link, above, thinking that I'd understand why the tone of this [her disparaging] note confused me.

Because, in truth, in Maddow's recap of the first season and her prospects, she put a name on what some key threads developed by collaborators and myself have been pointing to.

I understand the need for independents (I am lowercase "I" in sentiment) to advance "Other" rather than R or D. I'm anxious and will be happy to vote "Other" for most elections in a non-bipolar race. But I'm like many who feel we've settled for "lesser of realistic evils" by necessity.

I'll be the first to concede that it's a really strong hold that corporate interests have on the D's, the healthcare 'reform' dynamic crystallized that.

But my reaction here, on this thread, is almost to recoil. It makes little sense to me that you'd want to ignore 'greater evil' because you can't stand the taste of
any evil, period.

Independents should reject the bad but...Damn, can you really afford to ignore it by what seems to be throwing out both the babies and the bathwater
indiscriminately?

Apologies for length, and please accept my assurance that I intend no insult, in advance. Please just read me as not understanding the logic, if I'm anywhere near right interpreting the intent here.

 

0
No votes yet

Comments

I am not really too sure where I stand on politics these days. The current climate just seems so very very corrupt and devoid of any pragmatic leadership. The labels used to define our political parties and movements have also become corrupted. Whenever I try and define what it is I'd like to see...I don't know what to call it.

I see societies as needing some basic functions which should not be profit driven. In short, sh*t happens. Disasters, job losses, injury and illness, technology advances as another declines, natural resources are finite, etc. Seems to me civilized society needs a basic safety net and infrastructure that is available to all.

When it comes to the idea of this 'social infrastructure', citizens should have the free market option of a low risk government run entity (broad access, fewer options, less etc) vs a high-risk private entity (narrow access, greater options, but you could lose everything). This applies to everything from transportation, to postage, to education to health care.

But I also believe it's healthy to encourage and reward risk - because without risk, there's no innovation, no exploration, no new ideas. So what am I? Because there doesn't seem to be a label out there for someone like me.