Friday, December 30, 2011

Have We No Choice?

Say you are politically liberal as I am and was impressed by candidate Obama's soaring rhetoric and uplifting promises of change back in 2008; and say you are hugely disappointed by the fact that after election he mostly shut up and quietly took a moderate to conservative approach to the grave problems facing us as a nation; and say that you are irritated that now that reelection time is drawing near President Obama is out stumping and pushing again for the same liberal approach to problems that he promised but did not deliver the first time. What are you going to do?

I have a theory that President Obama and the Democratic party take the liberal vote for granted. After all, as some of my readers have suggested: who else is there to vote for? Better shall we not be for voting for Barack Obama than by voting for anyone in the Republican field who is running?

I do understand that line of thinking. But it is the chain that binds us to the plutocracy that has seized our country and is holding it in its viselike grip. It is the political version of Stockholm Syndrome.

So I would ask in return this question: If we really are concerned about the direction in which we are headed and want to see things change, how will voting for more of the same bring that about? A choice between the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. (And before anyone gets sidetracked here, I'm not calling President Obama evil; I'm suggesting that if we disagree with his approach yet think it is more tolerable than the alternative with which also we disagree, but maybe a bit less, we still in the end have willingly accepted something that we find undesirable.)

The truth is that President Obama is a plutocratic pawn. He promised as a presidential candidate to protect Social Security and Medicare but as president has willingly put those good programs on the table to be eviscerated by those who want to privatize them in the interest of Wall Street profiteers. He has repeatedly failed to address the regressive income tax system that has virtually eliminated the middle class and sent poverty and near poverty through the roof. He brought us a sweeping health care reform that is geared toward protecting the interest of the insurance companies more than recognizing it as basic human necessity. He has mostly continued the war policies (including the war against terror) of the neocons which seems to be the fulfillment of President Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. The economy, it seems, took a back seat through most of President Obama's term as he worried about other matters. Yet he came into office with a clear mandate to change the way things were being done, and along with that mandate and control over both houses of Congress he still delivered to us more of the same.

And now he wants our vote again.

A vote for President Obama is a vote for more of the same. We are implored not to waste our vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning. But is a vote of conscience ever a waste? Is sending a message to the Democratic party that our votes should be considered important rather than something to be taken for granted not a worthwhile thing to do?

If those of us who are sounding the alarm about the Plutocracy that has replaced our democratic republic are right, it will take more than the results of one election to change things. It will take a long and sustained journey to wrest power back away from the privileged few. There are things we can and should do and first among them, I believe, is refusing any longer to be sympathetic to our captors.

Saying Hell NO! is a first step.

There are some folks trying to do some things about the problems we face. One of those folks is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont who has is championing the cause of protecting Social Security, and has recently introduced legislation that would strengthen the program. He has sent President Obama a clear "Hands Off" message after the president placed it on the bargaining table. Also, Sanders has formed a Defend Social Security Caucus and a petition which as of this writing has over 115,000 signatures. I urge my readers to follow that link and check out this man's mission.

Frankly, I would write in Bernie Sanders before I would vote for President Obama based on this one issue alone. It is, I believe, that critical.

Another person who is trying to do something about the mess in Washington and has been one of the foremost proponents of campaign funding reform is well-respected Democrat Russ Feingold. He has founded the political action committee Progressives United, which has as its stated mission:

To stand up to the exploding corporate influence in our political system by organizing and amplifying the voices of those who believe that corporations have too much power.

I am impressed with Mr. Feingold and hope he is able to get enough people fired up about this matter so as to get some things done in the way of addressing this important concern.

Finally, although it may be news to many, there are least two out and out political liberals who are also running for president in 2012, albeit without much fanfare. One of these is the Green Party's Jill Stein. Here is a link to her On The Issues page which details where she stands on things. I find her interesting and want to get to know her a little better.

And then there is Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson former Salt Lake City, Utah mayor. A man of unquestioned principle and a proven leader and pathfinder. He has started the Justice Party and is running on their ticket as a presidential candidate in 2012.

This shouldn't be considered as an endorsement (yet, anyway) but here is what a liberal prescription for what ails us looks like, taken directly from his website:

Economic and fiscal policy: Rocky supports increased tax on investment income; immediately ending the Bush tax cuts; cutting defense spending significantly; offering tax incentives to firms who hire US workers and disincentives to those that don't; splitting up too big to fail banks; and he opposes hiring ex-financial executives as advisors to the president on economic policy.


Healthcare: Rocky supports a system of universal healthcare, which would cost far less, be far more efficient, cover everyone, and achieve better outcomes.

Foreign Policy: Rocky has been a leading and unflinching opponent of the wars of the Bush-Obama Presidency.


Civil and Human Rights: As a lawyer, Rocky fought successfully to challenge abuses by government agents. As Mayor, he implemented an innovative restorative justice program. Named by HRC as one of the top ten straight advocates for the GLBT community, Rocky proposed marriage equality beginning in 1996. After completing two terms as Mayor, he founded High Road for Human Rights.


Environment: Rocky was named by Business Week as one of the top 20 activists in the world on climate change. As Mayor of Salt Lake City, he independently implemented the Kyoto Protocols and exceeded them by 48% (he attained 31% vs 21% as in the protocols => +48%). Rocky knows the solution to the climate crisis is not, as Pres. Obama calls it, clean coal. Rocky knows we must stop burning coal and destroying forests. Rocky will make climate protection a major U.S. priority – and provide sorely needed international leadership.

Okay, here is my point: we do have choices. We can vote for more of the same and be assured of getting more of the same, or we can say enough is enough and seek a new direction. I agree with Rocky Anderson when he said we no longer have a two party system ... there is just the one: Democrat-Republican. Whatever happens in 2012 will do little to change the status quo. What is needed is a long range plan for attacking the system that keeps the Plutocrats and their pawns in power. Revolutions take time, but they all begin with a first shot.

Speaking just for myself and with due respect to my fellow liberals and moderates who disagree with me, I don't see how I could in good conscience vote for Barack Obama. It would be a vote against the very things I hold important in facing our problems.

I'm not saying our president couldn't even yet change my mind about this. But it would take real and drastic action and not mere words to accomplish it. Honestly, I don't see how he would be in the position to do that even if in his heart he would desire to do it.

17 comments:

Diane J Standiford said...

So, you don't want more of the same, yet you speak of others who are saying same things Obama did. If our nation were a dicatorship then all of Obama's "promises" could have been kept. Obama has my vote. He inspires people to believe in the possibility of improvements. That is RARE. His list of accomplishments is long. His character is unblemished by sexual scandals. Rare. He can run up the stairs to Airforce One. Rare. He is a leader, not just a dreamer, though he inspires us to dream. You think he messed up the econonmy? Didn't do enough? Really? We were in FREE FALL when he took over. The stock market (our pensions and 401Ks) were at the lowest levels since 9-11. Our housing market was CRASHED and ready to burn. Now it is rising from the ashes. McDonald's stock price is at all time ALL TIME highs. IBM is at the roof. Our pensions are safe, our 401Ks are safe, the faux-war has been ended and the MAN behind 9-11 captured. The continuing wars can't be just dropped like so much trash---Bush started it and we can't allow innocent people die more and more BECAUSE OF US. Go ahead and throw your vote away to serve your conscience, many liberals will, as they do every year. I would prefer to see those you referrence to FIGHT and BUILD and SHOW ME success in getting gay marriage for every citizen FIRST, SHOW ME all the congress members who will support THEIR universal health care plans FIRST. One must make a name for themselves. Like Harvey Milk did. The world no longer JEERS at us IN THE U.N meetings, thanks to ONE MAN--Barack Obama. To repair that torn, burnt, U.S. flag was a momentous task, but he did it. And who SHOULD we have to advise on our economy? Presidential advisors are released from duty when they fail, by SOME presidents. (One word:RUMSFELD) A good president LEADS from different advice. I have waited 54 years for LGBT rights, only in the last few decades have they even been called "rights." If some liberal out there thinks it can be done so fast and easy--WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN?? Sigh, ugh, arrgh, how short memories can be.

rainlillie said...

This is why I love, Diane J. Well said!

Sylvia said...

I know what you mean Doug by being disappointed in President Obama. I am too, but I also agree with Diane. I think he did the best he could do to at least try to bring our country back together. He got a lot accomplished but not near as much as he promised. I don't believe if there was a "god" that even he could bring about all the changes the campaign promised. I will vote for him again because I do not believe that the other two candidates you mentioned #1- could get elected and #2- if they did I don't think they could get any more done than President Obama. I am hoping that if he is re-elected he will quit trying to pander to the Republicans and try to do what he promised when elected. Just my thoughts.

Doug B said...

Diane,

No, I don't want more of the same, which is catering to the 1%. Yes, I speak of others who spoke like Candidate Obama before he became President Obama. The difference is, they haven't gone back on their promises, President Obama did. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

President Obama would have needed to be a dictator in order to keep his word? Seriously? No, he has changed positions. He said one thing and did another. By the way, I don't just fault our president. I also fault the Democrats in Congress who are just as beholden to Big Money. The facts are, President Obama won a mandate in his election - a clear victory because so many thought he offered real change. And he had both houses of Congress with which to work. I don't see how any reasonable person can be satisfied with they did with that.

So President Obama can run up the stairs to Air Force One and FDR couldn't. I still think FDR did a better job representing the commoner than President Obama so far has done and is likely to do in the future.

Again, I don't think voting my conscience is throwing away my vote. Who of us hasn't voted for a candidate we knew had no chance of winning, but we voted anyway because he/she deserved our support and represented what we truly believe? As I said, I think this will take time. And the more support we lend to those who are actually representing what we believe, the sooner change can come. I think voting for someone who doesn't really represent what I believe in is a wasted vote, a condoning of that which I despise. What's worse, it keeps progress from happening.

In all your comment I didn't see you address my concerns. What will happen to Social Security and Medicare? When will we finally shift some of the tax burden back to those who have been profiting from and making off like bandits through the system so that we can keep the safety net strong and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? President Obama and the Democrats has backed off on both of those serious issues.

So finally I would just ask what we should do to change the course the country is taking? Or do you agree with the way Big Business and money controls every decision that is made in Washington DC?

Doug B said...

Rainlillie,

I love Diane and you, too, for that matter. But I disagree with you both on this. So I will ask you the same question I asked Diane. What will happen to Social Security and Medicare in a second Obama term? What will be done to address the regression in the tax system?

Doug B said...

Sylvia,

I'm glad to have your thoughts and like with Diane and Rainlillie, I respect your opinion even though I seriously disagree.

I've come to the opinion that the idea that President Obama and the Democrats did they best they could do is something of an establishment meme. If you get elected with the majority of votes he had and go to work with both houses of Congress in your corner and then don't accomplish more than he did, it must be either because you are not a very good leader or simply did not want to (which is the same thing as not being a very good leader). The truth is he goes back on his word too much. That being the case, I can't take much of what he is saying now very seriously. While we are talking about this, look at how the Tea Party has affected things with their victories in the congressional elections. Now why are they so successful and the Democrats aren't?

Exrelayman said...

Opinions are like noses. That's all this is - my opinion.

Sadly, I don't know. I love Bernie Sanders and Barney Franks who is stepping down. And I will look into Stein, Anderson, and Feingold. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

For one thing, Obama as the lesser of 2 evils is likely the only realistic choice for my vote. I say this principally because no third party or independent candidate has ever yet made a significant enough impact on voters to get elected, or even come close to it. But as Diane points out, enough progressive votes could be siphoned away from Obama to get a Republican elected, but not Anderson. But you are aware of this possibility, no doubt.

Another thing to consider. Being neither democrat or rethuglican, how, with the best of intentions, could an Anderson get the political cooperation and compromise needed to get anything done, standing out there isolated?

I am frustrated and wish enough of us could clearly see exactly like you do and get that accomplished, but my fear is that trying to do a good thing may ironically backfire. Too bad, as D'Ma laments, there is not a divine guidance to help us.

Sorry to not have jumped squarely on your bandwagon, your thoughts and efforts are very much appreciated. This stuff is not easy, and it is hard for any of us to not be in love with our own thinking about it so as to be able to at least think as clearly as possible.

Only one way to conclude here: I hate a yes man, don't you? :)

Doug B said...

Exrelayman,

As always I thank your for thoughts just as I do everyone else who has participated so far. It doesn't bother me that I'm blogging in the minority on this. I think this discussion is helpful.

Now as for the matter of my one vote in a very Republican state having an impact on the election - or maybe of more concern, if a significant amount of others did so and through the election to a Republican, I would just ask: so what?

If you guys keep voting Democrat when they only offer rhetoric as the main difference between them and the Repubs, I say they will keep taking your votes for granted and have little reason to get serious about shaking things up a bit.

And, honestly, when the dust has settled, I'm almost sure that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican candidate. And Romney is a moderate just like Obama. Sure, Romney is engaging in all that right-wing pandering right now and probably will continue to if nominated, just like Candidate Obama engaged in all that left-wing change talk when he was trying to get elected and is starting up again trying to get reelected. In the end they both will govern more or less from the center with a vested interest in protecting the wealthy "job creators" over the poor people who need "entitlements" in order to survive.

I'm wanting something more than this. Sure, if we keep sending the same people back to Washington time and time again things will never change. I think we ought to vote against most of the incumbents and someone for president who is not part of the universal Democratic-Republican party.

I think we need term limits, campaign finance reform, and I wouldn't mind getting rid of the electoral college so that presidential candidates will stop cherry-picking states to focus and concentrate on representing the entire nation.

I know that won't happen in 2012, no matter who gets the liberal and independent votes. But I think at some point the citizens - if they are serious - are going to have to say "enough!" I would just point out that the Tea Party idiocy has had a big influence on what is happening in Washington. How the hell were the Democrats and Obama able to muff up their opportunity in 2010? As I suggested in my post, revolutions take time. That nutcase Goldwater got blown out of the water in '64 only to see his cause come to fruition in '80 with the "Reagan Revolution." Who would have thought it in '64? It took a major realignment of the southern conservative Democrats into the Republican party to help pull it off. Maybe the time is now for Anderson's Justice Party. Where is it written in stone that our choices should be between Democrats and Republicans (which now is practically no choice)? You know, it hasn't always been that way.

Anyway, I've written another post here in my comments section. I say it is time to revolt. I'm not seeing so far any good arguments for shrugging our shoulders and saying, "yeah, the way it is now is fine."

rainlillie said...

Here's some info about the Obama/Biden plan for SS and Medicare.

"They will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike, and they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that will ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).

http://change.gov/agenda/seniors_and_social_security_agenda/

Doug B said...

Rainlillie,

Well, that sounds nice, as does all his rhetoric. But here are the facts, rhetoric aside:

Last summer President Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table. Then a little bit later he apparently said they were no longer on the table. Waffle, waffle. One thing is certain: his bipartisan "supercommitte" as part of their effort to fulfill the obligation to find drastic budget cuts in fulfillment of the debt ceiling deal does recommend a gradual increase in the retirement age of SS recipients, as well as deep cuts in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course President Obama isn't bound by their findings, but it is hard to see how these recommendations can be ignored. What's more, we know for a fact that the president, unwisely I believe, tampered with the Social Security system with his payroll tax holiday, and like the Bush tax cuts, it seems to be proving difficult to let these cuts expire and return to their previous levels. Of course in speaking of the president's waffling, we recall that he originally stood for letting those Bush tax cuts expire for the higher incomes, but that fell by the wayside. And he took the millionaire surtax to pay for his payroll tax holiday back off the table. So how seriously can we take what he said in the quote you sent me?

Lorena said...

I was once ridiculed in a blog when I said that Obama was trying too hard to please the Republican electorate.

A couple of years later, I haven't changed my mind.

Doug B said...

Lorena,

Well of course. President Obama is a Republican.

Diane J Standiford said...

LOL, Doug, I presume you to be drunken on Tea, so I forgive you. When you keep saying more of the same, I just can't take you seriously. Look back over the 8 years before Obama. If you see the same, then you need glasses. If the GOP has its way there will be NO social security, NO medicare, NO such socialist programs. Unions? Gone. Health care? No regulations and pay baby pay. You got cancer? Those under 45 step in that line, those over 70 say bye-bye. gay marriage? REPEALED! A Bible in every child's hands by kindergarten and if you can't recite all the books, no graduation at church. No schools except at church, CHRISTIAN Church, just as our $ says, In GOD we trust. All who deviate will be removed. The GOP will TAKE BACK AMERICA, God will save the day, morals will return and Donald Trump can be the economic advisor. "A gun in every home!" Willbe our next president's slogan. No more abortions without alley and hangar. In fact, removing women from the work force will FINALLY put men back to work. African Americans will have plenty of opportunity in their part of town, in their schools, in their pools. Go ahead, Doug, you are safe in your southern town, your white male skin and your Bible. Oh yes, Obama and his lack of any change is clear as a brown straw in a pile of elephant dung.

Diane J Standiford said...

Thanks, Rain, saved me from answering what I'm sure Doug already knows.

Doug B said...

Diane,

I find your "Go ahead, Doug, you are safe in your southern town, your white male skin and your Bible" a little more than insulting as well contradictory to everything I have been blogging these past four years. It was uncalled for.

President Obama has, despite his rhetoric, fallen into the same tax cut/ budget slash ideology of those on the right. His stimulus package, that he allowed to be negotiated down in order to placate the conservatives, was about 1/3 tax cuts - the very thing that has gotten us into this mess we are in.

He unwisely decided to play politics by imposing a payroll tax holiday on the a portion of the worker's share of SS taxes in lieu of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

His bipartisan Supercommittee is recommending cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and he is going to have deal with this matter or the mandatory cuts that was part of the budget ceiling compromise. That isn't going to be pretty, but he has allowed this by not standing up the Republicans and their Tea Party caucus.

He championed a healthcare reform very similar to Republican Romney's, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance from the insurance industry, rather than demanding a single-payer system.

He has continued the neocon military playbook, even as we struggle financially at home and while he inconsistently bloviates that it is time for some nation building at home. What is he going to do about Iran?

This is the "more of the same" I am speaking of

dakotalin said...

I completely agree, Doug, and am glad to see you blogging about Rocky Anderson. I don't want to spend another year holding my breath to see how much worse things can get. Under Obama, American citizens can now be detained without charge indefinitely and drones are dropping bombs on who-knows-who in one country after another, without discussion or authorization. If this is the "benefit" of taking the cowardly position of voting for Obama rather than fighting for someone who actually supports what we believe in, I completely refuse. Rocky sounds very good to me. I want to spend the next year fighting for what I believe in. The way Obama is allowing/directing the loss of our civil liberties, we may not get another chance.

Doug B said...

dakotalin,

Yes, it is a very serious situation and I'm surprised more lefties aren't concerned and outraged.