An old saying in politics has it, 'You can't beat somebody with nobody." When it comes to explaining the way the Democrats are still getting rolled by this lame-duck, unpopular administration, something similar obtains. But in this case, it's at the spiritual level. And the problem is, "You can't beat some spirit with no spirit."
WEAK AND INEFFECTUAL
With this audience, I don't need to spend much time and space proving that the Democrats have not done an impressive job in confronting the Bushite regime since taking over the Congress early this year. The recent FISA extension bill removed all ambiguity about how ineffectively the Democrats have stood up to the Bushite lies and manipulations and power-grabbing crimes. Other illustrations could readily be assembled.
But perhaps I should clarify a bit what my standards for success are. For, unlike some others, I do not particularly fault the Democrats for not being able to stop the war in Iraq, nor more generally for not being able to accomplish great things. Such expectations fail to take into account the real limits to their power: so long as the Republicans hold together, they can prevent anything from getting through the Senate; and so long as the Republicans hold together, what passes Congress cannot be resurrected after a presidential veto.
But the Democrats could be effective in other ways. (And if they were, the Republicans might be less able to hold togehter. But even so, the Democrats are not reasonably to expected --with a bare majority in the Senate, counting Lieberman as a Democrat-- to GOVERN the country.)
Aside from the largely unrealistic goal of making decisions and passing legislations that are binding to the nation, the Democrats' goals could also be:
**putting significant pressure on the Republicans in Congress, (and while the Republican Party may be imploding, it is hard to see how the Democrats can take much credit for that);
** rallying and satisfying their political base (instead, of course, they've alienated much of it);
** and especially, effecting a necessary change of consciousness in the American public generally, arousing their outrage at the unprecedented assault on the American system of government that this regime has been conducting;
** and to do these things by dramatizing effectively the TRUTH about the pervasive dishonesty and lawlessness of the Bushite regime.
What I fault the Democrats for is that in many of their battles, they've achieved NONE of these goals.
A LIMITING CASE IN POINT
A propos of this "dramatizing," let me demonstrate what I mean by showing the shortcomings of one of the BEST of the Democrats in Congress --a kind of limiting case-- Senator Patrick Leahy.
Leahy, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been relatively tough in his pursuit of Bushite lawlessness. Relatively. Compared to a lot of other Democrats. But not so tough, not so dogged, compared with the urgency of the challenge.
The Bushites have repeatedly stiffed the Congress --with respect to subpoenas for witnesses and evidence, for example-- and Leahy has not backed down. There has been this glacial movement toward a showdown in the courts, "contempt of Congress" and all that.
But between this small, incremental moves toward confrontation-- what? Pretty much nothing. It seems that Senator Leahy is content to let things move quietly and slowly.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
While I very much agree that human battles are also played out in the spiritual realm, our eyes must be open to how far evil has been willing to go and how far we are willing to go. Will you, Andrew Bard Schmookler, continue to write, if you know that a secret U.S. agency will infect you with a biological weapon if you do so continue? Consider that Senator Leahy, when he held up the Patriot Act, was attacked with the most highly weaponized anthrax ever developed; only available from an American lab and obtainable only by American secret security agencies. When you are willing to put your life on the line, then you can ask Senator Leahy to put his life on the line. The same goes for all of us. Sitting before our keyboards and writing what others should do is easy. Facing death by doing something is hard.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 439 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 5:55:44 PM
When I launched my current mission of speaking moral truth about this amoral power, I asked myself that very question. I was not sure whether or not it was realistic to imagine that saying what I was saying in the forums in which I was saying it entailed a danger to my life. But I believe it to be a real possibility. This was in late 2004, early 2005, when it seemed to me our descent into fascism might be even more precipitous than it has proved to be (and I expect that if this outfit hadn't foundered on their own arrogance and incompetence in Iraq-- and thus if the president's popularity had remained where it was when he attacked Iraq-- it would indeed have become still darker still faster). I decided that a true patriot, and more important than that, a true lover of the good, was obliged to put himself on the line in whatever way was called for in the struggle. It does not seem to me so terribly rare that people will do that. Think of the men on Flight 93, at least according to what we've been given to understand. Emergencies call for courage. What the Democrats should be doing requires much less courage than, say, a Dietrich Bonhoeffer showed under the Nazis.
Recall also the courage showed by the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Those were not just words at the end of that document where they talk about pledging their lives and their property (as well as their sacred honor): they knew that they all were risking being hanged by the British as traitors.
But for them, those "self-evident" principles for which they declared their independence, and their willingness to fight the world's mightiest empire, were of such deep and compelling importance that they willingly took that risk.
So even if the Democrats did need to risk their lives, they'd only be following in the steps of MILLIONS of Americans who have done so in the name of the freedoms and rights and rule of law that those Founders gave us.
And besides, they have all taken an oath to defend the Constitution, and oaths are supposed to mean something-- like a commitment not to turn one's back on something held more important than oneself, just because one is frightened.
But I don't think the Democrats are really called upon to take anything nearly so much risk as all that, anyway. I think it unlikely in the extreme that it is the fear of ending up dead that inhibits them. It is the fear of being defeated, of losing their positions, of being bested by a propaganda machine that has defeated them over the years time and again.
So, as I see it, the spiritual deficit in liberal America has crippled the opposition in two ways. Not being plugged in to the place from which strength comes, they are ruled by fear rather than by devotion and integrity. And not being plugged into the place from which the experience of deep meaning comes, they lack a sense of the profundity of the stakes in the battle to save the American way of government from these lying fascist thugs.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 6:11:12 PM
The only way to combat such threats is to openly proclaim such threats. If the threats are personal such that the threatened - Pelosi,Reed - then they should step down in the best interest of the nation. Anything else is betrayal of trust, office and a democratic nation.
by
hoscot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 2:13:04 AM
We can dance around issues, sing politically correct songs, play political games, tiptoe through the PR tulips, and whistle in the dark till the nukes go off, but until we connect with that deeper source of power--recognizing and speaking truth--we have no reason for being, and we may as well lay down and ask Haliburton or Blackwater to bury us.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 80 quicklinks, 125 diaries, 775 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 10:38:56 PM
In the debates between Kerry and Bush it was ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that both parties knew what to say and how to behave in advance. It was ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS to WHOEVER WANTED TO SEE that Kerry was put out as a losing candidate just by being a CATHOLIC NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN HIS OWN BISHOPS! It was absolutely obvious that during those debates Bush was nervous only about a possiblity that Kerry might change his mind and simply ask him a meaningful question. But Kerry played his part perfectly. It WAS ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS AT THE DEMS CONVENTION IN BOSTON that Clintonians were running the show that they helped to bury Howard Dean as a candidate ( and bury him further, see what he has become) and that they would HELP BUSH WITH EVERYTHING THEY GOT!
Folks, Andy is a nice guy and surely very Keynesian ('When things change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?') But all that spiritual stuff assumes as Andy says that' their hearts are in the right place'. I am sorry, that is not true and even the best intentions of Andy's will not change that. They have no heart. For a long period of time politics was considered a dirty job and now we have dirty people running it. We here can wake up dead very quickly if we do not realise it. Andy always asks in such cases if I or any other person has an alternative way. Yes, this way means an alliance of the progressive organizations, progressive business, with the trade unions, socialists and communists in the People's Front. It was done before in France in 1930s, in Italy in 1940s. We better learn.
BTW, Bush and his cronies do not have a connection to some 'spiritual energy'. They have a connection to money.
And one more thing: Hitler was opposed by Churchill and Roosevelt only after 1940. Before that he had a COOPERATION of the western elites including SURRENDERING of such even country as FRANCE. French literatrure on the topic reveals that. FEAR OF COMMUNISM made those idiots blind and stupid, the same way the mystical fear of some islamic jihad makes our Vychists sabotage the country itself. And we need to understand that fear *greed*natural stupidity and malice are those evil coefficients which play in the DEM_GOP equation. Oh, for goodness sake, do I have to explain all that to you? People paid by millions of lives for these simple things to understand and I am truly amazed that here it looks like you, folks have been sleeping for at least since 1860s. No offense.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3703 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 9:42:20 AM
**significant pressure on the Republicans in Congress;
** rallying and satisfying the Dem's political base;
** effecting a change of consciousness, arousing outrage at the assault on the American system of government;
** dramatizing the TRUTH about the dishonesty and lawlessness of the Bushite regime.
To do this, the Dems need to FIND their hearts (and indeed, their souls), and gather up the courage needed. They have exactly the power they assume, which is, first and foremost, a spiritual and personal issue. They need the courage to speak the truth, knowing they will be visciously attacked, with who knows what consequences.
Are they willing to risk everything personally? You do that by connecting with your heart and soul, and then doing what's right. If money enters the equation, you have missed the main idea.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 80 quicklinks, 125 diaries, 775 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:27:26 AM
Were all those primary voters in on this conspiracy?
I can't even imagine what you mean when you say, "It was ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS to WHOEVER WANTED TO SEE that Kerry was put out as a losing candidate just by being a CATHOLIC NOT SUPPORTED BY EVEN HIS OWN BISHOPS"
One would think from such a statement about Kerry being "put out as a losing candidate" that he was picked as the nominee in some smoke-filled room.
So do you think the results of all those primary elections were simply rigged, and had nothing to do with all those registered Democrats that went to the polls in those dozens of states?
Or do you think all those primary voters were in on this conspiracy to field a sacrificial candidate in service of the perpetuation of the Bushite regime?
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:55:02 AM
The Dems aren't weak. Its just that they're in cahoots with the Republicans. They don't stand up to the Republicans because both parties are on the same side and support the same agenda.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 11:29:04 AM
"Its just that they're in cahoots with the Republicans." They fail, you say, because they support the same agenda.
I know that a lot of people believe this, but it makes no sense to me either logically or empirically.
If they supported the same agenda, what sense would it make to make a lot of noise about all the defects of that agenda only to roll over and let it pass? Does it help them politically, while they frustrate and disappoint their base and look feckless to everyone else?
We have a two-party system. Being in the minority --losing elections-- consigns one party to comparative irrelevance, particularly in the House. The system is structured so that at the center of these people's lives there is a ZERO-SUM GAME, in which the gains of one and the losses of the other equate. They can cooperate on the margins, but they are inevitably thrown into battle against each other, even if the battle is one of maneuver and subtle positioning. Cahoots? Fundamentally contrary to the nature of the game as it is structured-- the game of getting power.
IN addition, virtually all the journalistic observers of the Congress --I must have read a half dozen in the past week or two-- who talk with the Reps and Senators describe the Democrats as acting out of fear, principally the fear of looking (to the electorate) like they are soft on terrorism.
These observers understand that the main game here is the quest for the kind of public support that confers power in our system. And --from actually talking to the Dems as they attempt to find a strategy to preserve and extend their power-- these observers hear the fear expressed, and see the cave-in strategies as growing out of that fear.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:32:24 PM
The Bushites are beyond the problem of serving money
In today's America, any politician or political party seeking power has to tap into the main sources of financial support for their campaigns. In that sense, it is true that both parties tend to feed from the same trough.
That is a MAJOR corrupting influence in America today, and indeed the mother's milk of politics has been toxic in that way --albeit much of the time to a lesser degree than now-- for much of American history.
But money in America is not a monolith. And the Bushite regime is not representative of the interests and values of all of American business by a long shot.
Indeed, the Wall Street Journal recently ran a piece on the growing opposition to the Bushites from the business community.
Beyond that, if you know people who work in such areas as labor relations, the protection of workers in the workplace, the environment, and a whole host of other issues, while many of them may have their frustrations with what the Democrats do and don't do, they see vast differences between what Democrats do and what Republicans do. And even vaster differences between what Democrats do and what this particular Bushite version of Republicanism does with its power.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:13:03 PM
We can defeat these cretins. We can stop the war . We can get the so-called representatives to do with people's bidding. We can do all this and more and we can do it with little risk and effort and for the life of me I don't understand why it hasn't been done.
You want peace and justice just follow those that have successfully brought great power to their knees before. Especially with the organizational application the Internet now has. What I'm talking about is a General Strike.
They ignore our protests, phone calls, letters and emails. The powers that be behind the phony politicians are the corporations and they are a very single minded lot and therefore easy to manipulate. If their bottom line is effected they'd sell their own children into slavery if they thought it would help to get the public back buying their products.
I don't know how many progressive sites there are, maybe 40-odd major ones, add on the smaller bloggers we're talking perhaps thousands with the potential to reach millions. If all these sites would call for a General Strike where enough people could bring the country to a standstill for even one day I guarantee you the powers that be would take notice. You get several hundred thousand people to boycott GE products, you'd see troops being drawn out of Iraq within a month.
General Strikes don't carry the risk of physical harm. They're easy to participate in and the only cost may be one day's pay. I have emailed all the sites I know and asked why this idea hasn't been even talked about and the only answers I received is requests for donations. I don't know why we don't give it a try. Because if we wait any longer with no organized strong resistance it won't make any difference what we do for the boot of fascism will be solidly planted on our throats.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 51 diaries, 2028 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 11:29:49 AM
Spirituality as an end and not a means? (Evil Laughter)
It would do the Left well if they actually did connect with the spiritual as an end and not a means (e.g., defeating the Evil Darth Bush) as seems to be implied in the article. However, as Bill of "Kill Bill" fame declares to The Bride, "I believe you are truly and utterly incapable of telling the truth, especially to me, and least of all, to yourself."
The Left cannot embrace the spiritual, as espoused and practiced through a religion, as part of their political process because it is SO counter to liberalism's core beliefs of celebrating diversity and revising constantly social practices in an attempt to improve the "human condition". Religion, at best, is an obstacle to enlightenment and reason and, at worst, a source of bigotry and intolerance. The spiritual for many Americans is embracing a singular set of beliefs (a/k/a religion) over the many others that exist.
The typical response of the Left to such an embrace is either (1) scorn the person being "duped" or (2) rewrite the definition of "religion" to better suit the Left's needs for diversity and enlightenment. Either response, though, fails miserably before the "brainwashed masses" of organized religion because this readily apparent contempt by the Left speaks for itself. It's like a monkey wearing a diaper: sure, he's cute looking, but in the end, it doesn't feel right. And more importantly, who's going to change that diaper?
The reason why the current Democratic-controlled (evil laughter there) Congress is ineffectual was already identified in the article: "Democrats are afraid of losing politically if they confront the Bushite evil more energetically," (more evil laughter there). Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts, absolutely. It's taken the Democrats since 1994 to regain the Congress – 13 long and difficult years of "wandering in the desert" ; they're not about to give it up by worshiping the "Golden Calf" of non-existent "facts" that President Bush and company are inherently "evil" and deserving of impeachment or at the very least, drawing and quartering.
If anything, the Democrats have used the President's commitment to his own spiritual principles against him. With respect to President Bush, Democrats are content to let the Executive proceed with "his" surge, "his" war on terror, "his" denying children adequate healthcare, and "his" need to address the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Uhm, what's the role of Congress again? According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Congress' role is to bash Bush at every opportunity and to pin such diverse issues as illegal Himalaya yak racing to the hygiene dangers of excessive belly button lint on him.
It's politically expedient to blame another at the next level. Just as Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco, who ordered the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans knowing that help could not come for several days after Katrina's impact, how convenient it is to blame the Evil Darth Bush (cue evil theme music). In Mayor Nagin's case, it got him re-elected. How's that for "empowering the false possession"?! BTW - both were Democrats. Coincidence? I think not.
In the end, Americans see through the Congressional whining for being what it is – whining. For this reason, Congress has abysmal approval ratings, while President Bush's are just plain poor. Religious people know that although they may disagree with his management of certain issues, President Bush sticks to his spiritual principles. The same can rarely, if ever, be said of the Left. The Democrats have squandered an opportunity to address governmental competence - http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009216 - in favor of partisan payback.
And remember, it's NOT President Bush's war; it's America's war. And seeing how we elected the boobs to represent us, we're responsible for the action or inaction of those pinheads. Remember to vote in every election and correspond frequently with your elected boob
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 11:57:42 AM
You are not a naive person, far from it and you know that Kerry as a candidate did not fly exactly for the reasons I specified. You also know that elections were in fact rigged ( Ohio and others) but Kerry had to supply the redundancy factor which he did by conceding. No, there was no smoke- filled room but there was a simple, animalistic understanding on what to do and what not to do among the people involved. And once and for all- if Kennedy could buy votes and get away with it, even become some kind of a symbol, the current administration had shown that ability many times..
Now to TNT:
'Religious people know that although they may disagree with his management of certain issues, President Bush sticks to his spiritual principles. The same can rarely, if ever, be said of the Left. '
Andy, you got your response right here. As soon as you involve spirits, souls and other methaphysics the argument above not only applies but also is a killer argument to the advantage of all the garbage which now sits up there, floating. Obviously, Bush wins because he sticks to his believes, not because he is just a goon chosen by the coven. And as soon as he wins fair and square as TNT says, it is the America's war, surely. Andy, you are on the wrong turf here- when it comes to spirits and mysticism Bush will always win because God cannot send a lightning ( God does not exist) to punish him for malice and there always will be TNTs who will believe all that nonsense.
Nope, folks. You better reread your history. Otherwise you would come to the conclusion that Al Capone was guided by evil spirits and then Elliott Ness together with Roole and Untouchables got a connection to the good ones. Sorry, no deal.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3703 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:16:12 PM
"The typical response of the Left to such an embrace [of spirituality] is either (1) scorn the person being "duped"..."
And thus we see typical response (1) in action with statements such as "there always will be TNTs who will believe all that nonsense", but I digress...
President Bush does not "win" because of his spiritual principles - were it really that simple! In fact, it's not even about winning or loosing. Instead, it's about respect and conviction. Support from the how-would-you-say? "Jesus Freaks"? is offered because of the President's conviction that America's actions in the war on terror are correct. His support of this conviction in the face of domestic opposition and depressed approval ratings is noteworthy, regardless of your opinion as to its soundness.
What would commit a person to such a conviction?
While I'm confident of knowing the range of responses that most posters on OpEdnews.com would offer, few (if any) would include that such a commitment comes from President Bush's spiritual principles. To further explain, a Democratic president would (probably and more likely) commission a poll or two, float a few test balloons, and then follow the wind that pushes the balloons as America's response. Incredibly, that process is a wee-bit too wishy-washy for most principally-inclined people (spiritual or not) to respect.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer or William Paley (take your pick; the source is not a conviction for me).
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1849 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:11:19 PM
'Support from the how-would-you-say? "Jesus Freaks"? is offered because of the President's conviction that America's actions in the war on terror are correct. His support of this conviction in the face of domestic opposition and depressed approval ratings is noteworthy, regardless of your opinion as to its soundness. '
No, I am not a leftist, far from it. In fact, I sympathise with the conservative people of www.antiwar.com. But the quote above is exactly the same which justified the support of Hitler by the ordinary Germans in 1930- western press where once Hitler was even proclaimed a man of the year and also the seeming support of Stalin by the Russian people. Oh yes, I know, I read the real sources and I remember the statements about the dedication of each of those monsters to be 'worth of respect'. That's what I meant that people paid by millions of lives for a simple understanding that a moron is just a moron- not some dedicated individual with certain vices. History does not know the ' what if'. It does know the killer phrase, ' It happened before.' And as I know what happened before when the 'dedicated morons' come to power I call them that way and I warn Andy and others like him not to put them on some spiritual pedestal. And about being duped- it is the choice of the individual to choose to be duped so, do not be surprised at the consequences.
The support of a madman who so far is the cause of death of close to 1 million people and still has a dare to come out and bubble something comes from only one thing- fear. No, there is no respect here. There is only fear and that fear dictates the unfortunate minds to create stories about Bush ( or Hitler or Stalin) to be dedicated to the cause, to work hard ( Stalin did not sleep at night, so they said he worked hard) and think about us, little fellows 24 hours a day.
Really, Tom, when you see Bush, deep in your heart you do not believe that moron has any convictions, do you? Because if you do, please, no offense, you then use our site to justify your own unfortunate state of mind.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3703 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:27:13 PM
