How do we go about it? Seriously...no one with any real pragmatism can say that McCain OR Obama represent any real changes in Washington. Oh, we may get bad consequences, but any real fundamental changes to the system? Not really. My intentions early on were to vote third party, but the Justice issue and Obama's ongoing revelations of bad judgement and socialist policies made me go to the "attempting to block" vote when I seriously thought about it and came to the conclusion that a third party President not only would be wasting a vote but would never get anything done, even if they were miraculously elected, with the House and Congress being predominately Dem and Repub. I'm thinking no matter who wins this election, it could be a prime moment for the other parties...Obama will rape the nation and the memory of Bush will linger as Obama attempts to retroactively blame everything on him throughout his tenure (wait and see ). What better time to really build a case for anything but D or R and have it resonate? What do you guys think? Besides turning Washington into a glass parking lot, how do we fix this mess?
The thing is, it doesn't work like that. Hell, just here on Wordforge it seems half the Americans think Bill Clinton was a worthless do nothing President, while the other half hate Bush (with some crossover) so your future scenario is happening now, just with the parties reversed. The problem is that you are leaving things to the future, saying that you will support third party so long as it doesn't come at the cost of your preferred party. The problem is that half the voters are always going to be in your position. Either vote third party now, or admit you never will.
I recently read the best description of his presidency that I've ever heard (though I forget the source): "He was a soft man for soft times."
Unfortunately, history shows only one workable, long-term strategy for real change, and that is a major discontinuity in the socio-economic structure. Even the Great Depression was not enough. Governments, by their very nature, tend to accumulate power. They do not give it up easily. Even when they seem to, it almost never involves any serious, long-term changes. The United States would have to lose a war and have an oppressive foreign government impose their rule on us, or else there would have to be such a major breakdown of the economy that the country simply cannot function any longer (I'm talking something several times worse than the Great Depression) for there to be a fundamental regime change. And make no mistake: The initial result of such a breakdown of our present structure would be a government that is even more oppressive, and blatantly so, than our present one is. It is only when some really catastrophic situation allows major, blatant government oppression that there will be the will to overthrow that oppression. People will complain about high taxes and government intrusion, but it takes a lot before they will actually rise up against the system. And lest someone point out that in the American Revolution they did just that, it needs to be noted that the American Revolution was a special situation. For one thing, it was a continuation of internal European squabbles, where the French were looking for an excuse to get their revenge on the English for the losses they had suffered in the colonies. Without French encouragement and involvement, the Americans would not have gotten anywhere. More than that, the Americans at the time were not just average people. There were too many of them who were immigrants, or recent descendents of immigrants. They were a carefully chosen subset of the European population, a subset that by definition (as demonstrated by their choice to risk everything in coming to the colonies in order to look for a new life) neither wanted nor needed government oversight and protection in their lives. There are such people in any population, but they form a relatively small minority. In the American colonies, they were not the totality (anyone who thinks that everyone in the 13 colonies was all for "overthrowing the English rule" just doesn't know their history) but they were a large enough part of it that they managed--just barely--to get their way. Today, they are a significantly smaller part of the population. Too many American want government intrusion, want the government to provide for them, want the government to protect them from every bad thing that could happen. There is, to this day, a slightly (but measurably) larger tendency among Americans than among Europeans to "get along on your own without the government interfering," but it is nothing like what it was in the revolutionary period. Not even close. It is little more than lip service to a tradition. The people who talk about it today don't mean it. They will never "pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to making it become a reality.
It is supply and demand. The demand is for government to absorb more of our day-to-day burdens. The supply at the moment is Obama. But long after Obama has come and gone, that mindset will only get worse, not better.
It cracks me up anytime someone posts that video. Makes me wonder if they've actually seen the movie, much less remembered the scene it's taken from.
Just let me, Lanzman, and Demiurge know before you do, so we can back up a u-haul to the Air and Space museum to "rescue" a few things and get outta dodge. Thanks!
I think that to say that neither Obama nor McCain represent real change and then to say that Obama will "rape the nation" is a contradiction in terms. Either he represents change in raping the nation, or he is a continuation of the rape that is presently occuring. As for blaming Bush, it seems to me that Bush will likely deserve at least some blame for much of what we're likely to face in the next 4-8 years. As far as voting 3rd party for president, if the person were persuasive enough either to voters or politicians, he or she could gradually develop a consensus or even a mandate around some issues. I would say there are enough people who are disdainful of some of the programs and economic policies of the Democrats and who don't want to enlist in the culture war of the conservative wing of the Republicans to put together a viable third party.
It's not that black and white. The fact is, there isn't really a party the fits my views enough to want to commit to it more than I want to try and keep Obama out of office. I don't fit anywhere. If that imaginary party exsisted, there would be no question regardless of numbers. But I look at all the options and barely feel more than "Meh."
The first thing we need to do is remove the Republicans and Democrats from the positions of control they currently have over the government and ultimately of all of us. Neither of the two have any intention of changing the status quo. I also think both are satisfied in knowing that as a nation we are blind and stupid enough to continue to re-elect them over and over and over again. So bottom line we need to change the political as a starter for creating "real" change. At least in my opinion.
But the "Catch 22" in the whole thing is that the Republicans and Democrats have, together, a serious "monopole à deux" on the political process. Because there are 2 of them, no one calls it a monopoly, but they both benefit from the situation and thus both accept the other one as necessary to maintaining their own advantage. In business, any group that had the lock on a sector of the economy that these 2 have on American politics would be broken up right now. But who would have to change the laws that give the 2 major parties that kind of power? The politicians. And who are the politicians? Members of the very 2 parties that are controlling everything. You want to get elected? Work with the system. The system is self-perpetuating, and I don't see any good ways around it.
Ah, but are your specific views wide enough that a candidate who did represent them would also represent the views of a majority (or at least a large enough group to get elected) of your fellow citizens? If not, then you are right back to that you are never going to get that party you want (one that fits you exactly and can win an election).
So, you found a reason to vote for 'your' guy and you only needed to parrot WF's dumbest to do it. Congratulations.
Context isn't necessary to understand what people mean when they post that clip. So, what movie is it from?
There will be real change if Obama tries to steal from the rich to support the poor blacks in this country.
There will be no "change" as long as 90% of the electorate continues to vote for Republicans and Democrats. It cracks me up to see Obama supporters chant "hope and change' while voting for a party that has practically dominated congressional politics for the past 50 years. As long as you keep sending the Ted Kennedys and Barney Franks and Robert Byrds of the world back to Washington, you have no reason or right to expect any "change". That goes for you Republicans as well. If you want change, send independents and third party people to Washington and to your state legislatures.
"None of the above!!" "None of the above!!" "None of the above!!" "None of the above!!" Been saying that for years
This really is just so perfect. That scene is a spot on criticism of everything that's wrong with Sokar's intent in every post that he ever makes. Fortunately Sokar's intent doesn't matter as his efforts to get people to clap along with him just result in a bunch of rotten tomatoes being flung his way, but still, yeah, his misuse of that scene is a prototypical example of self-pwnage.
I could be making this up or otherwise botching it, since it's a long time since I saw the film. But I believe it's from "Citizen Kane." Orson Welles, the guy up front, plays a rich and powerful newspaper mogul and opinion-shaper. He's in love with a talentless hack of a singer. And at the end of one of her performances, after no one claps, he basically gets everyone clapping by being manic about it and everyone starts following his lead. (That's why the guy on the left is much less vigorous with his applause.) If I'm right, it should be self-explanatory why context matters.
Fix ourselves.* Really, though, things are a little too overgrown and messy for the mess to be cleaned up entirely. But then, it's always been that way. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. *(Not like that!)
