I no longer believe the political system works

[Possibly more precisely what I mean is that I believe the political system no longer works.]

In response to a dailykos diary by Michael Stark "I blame you for this "

The front page tells the story:  MA-Sen: PPP Has Brown (R) Up One Point.

Need I remind you that this is Ted Kennedy's seat?

The Republican leads the race and has the momentum.  And I blame y'all.

Alright, not everyone of you... but the Obama fan club that's been so willing to shout down anyone that expected something different...  you know...  those of us that expected (and yearned for) change.

another kossack answered with a comment I've reproduced here and taken liberty to use its title as my own (it's important to remember that a key mission of dailykos is to elect more Democrats). I've done so because it echoes a recent comment concerning my rising hope of the last couple years.

I've concluded that we may be near what I consider is an inevitable political pivot. The destruction wreaked upon this country (...this world) particularly in this last of a couple decades of corrupt bipartisan politics is immense.

I think it's evidence of what Ralph Nader has always known, what will happen to an exclusionary bipolar political system that progressively 'reforms' American government into a process that 'democratically elects corporate representatives to govern us'.

The process is a form of suicide, that's like designing an ecosystem that will end up containing only carnivores because it's designed with increasingly fewer natural limits and they're nearly done eating the rest of us, the herbivores.

NBBooks' comment has been surprisingly well received on dailykos. I may excerpt and repost my own later.


From Glen Ford:

2009 will, I believe, go down in history as the year that Wall Street – shorthand for the finance capitalist class – finally chewed up and swallowed whole the government of the United States. . . .

The job of reinflating the Wall Street bubble fell to President Barack Obama, whose executive branch joined with the Federal Reserve to put the entirety of the nation's current and future wealth at the disposal of the bankster class. By July of 2009, Obama and the Fed had committed $23.7 trillion dollars of the people's cash and credit to bail out the banks. In a real sense, it does not matter how many trillions were actually spent, or will be sucked up by Wall Street in the future. The point is, the U.S. government in 2009 put everything the people of the United States own or create, or can ever hope to own or create, permanently at the service of Wall Street. Like the young "Alien" in the science fiction movie series, Wall Street has attached itself to the face and body of the nation and is sucking it to death.

The picture that best explains the historical significance of the year 2009, is President Obama holding a teleconference with bankers who didn't bother to show up for a meeting with him at the White House, in mid-December. Obama is pleading with them to at least pretend to act in the interest of the public whose national resources they have stolen. But the banksters see no need to pay even token respect to a president who is actually their servant. Having swallowed the state whole, they simply...digest it, knowing they can come back for seconds and thirds until the people's credit is exhausted.

From Ian Walsh:

The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.  The banks simply need to be broken up, and the remaining ones turned into utilities with regulated profit levels and compensation levels.  Clearly the people in charge cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of either society or even the shareholders they claim are their primary responsibility.

Until this is done, I will add, the middle class will not see any real gains in real disposable income after all taxes (which includes interest, which is a tax) are taken into account.  It’s you or them folks, and they are damn well determined it isn’t going to be them.  They are parasites, not symbiotes, they sicken their host and can even kill it, rather than making it stronger.

And you are their hosts, from whom they suck blood to stay alive and grow fat.  Except unlike the huge swollen ticks gorged on blood who are their direct kin, no amount of blood is ever enough.



The powerful do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.  Nothing has changed since Thucydides wrote that statement almost 2500 years ago.

Powerful people don’t care whether you’re offended or not, they only care whether or not you can hurt them.

If you can’t, the fact that you’re offended is just noise.


A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

From a post by dailykossack NBBooks


No votes yet


the earlier post that catalyzed my thinking on this one, that will sound something like "Apparently there are not enough of us bleeding just yet".

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

and chuckled a little because I had been toying with writing a quick comment on the same/similar things. That is why I asked if you were going to make it a post.

I lost hope when the media had already decided that Clinton and Obama were the Democratic candidates...before either formally announced they were running in the primaries.

What's transpired since has, for me, been what Iam Walsh calls 'noise.'

The die is cast - and the direction it's tumbling is not pretty.

What can I do? Work on enjoying life. Really, it's all we have left. So we might as well enjoy it to its fullest and the hell with the bankers.

"the hell with the bankers," that's an area where some help might just be feasibly lined up!

Will hope to catch up with you this week :-)

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

I caught this tonight. Rather depressing. On the other hand, things didn't work out so well for Mussolini.

Giving corporations an outsized voice in elections LA Times, By Monica Youn, January 10, 2010

Corporations are pitching a bizarre product -- a radical vision of the 1st Amendment. It would give corporations rather than voters a central role in our electoral process by treating corporate political spending as protected speech. If this vision becomes reality, businesses and other big-money players will spend billions either hyping their preferred candidates or running attack ads against elected officials who don't support their preferred agenda. Voters will be forced into a couch-potato role, mere viewers of the electoral spectacle bought and paid for by wealthy companies.

The Supreme Court's decision in the hotly anticipated campaign finance reform case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission -- which may be announced as early as Tuesday -- will show whether a majority of the Roberts court is buying their argument.

It's this case, as long as I've understood the conservatives desire to rehear it, that has stood as likely to precipitate the events that will force Americans (of natural flesh and blood) that we lost, the corporations rule, we either suck it up or change it.

Most of us won't understand the significance until the election is stolen right out in the open, by Chamber of Commerce advertising.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

that it is not just the United States model, but Australia has demonstrated that a single vote in the Senate can destroy what a majority on both sides of parliament have agreed to in a deal.

We have mechanisms available to us now, we are more connected via the internet than ever before, so if existing government no longer works to advance the common good, as so many of us recognize in both these countries, is it not time to look at what true Democratic participation, one person one vote, would look like?

When so many feel completely at a loss to explain how the system of government we have is doing anything positive to improve our lives, then don't we need to look for something which will work?

60 votes can be blocked by 40 votes on even discussing a change of broken or ineffective policy. Nonsensical.
Something's gotta give when so many of us despair.

on the flip side of the argument, that blocks moderate left ideas from going forward is the 40 votes that should keep right wing radical agendas from getting out of hand. It just doesn't work that way when the elite with the money to buy a megaphone during elections are pulling in the same direction of the elite owned media and the far right wing.