While reading an article today about how vicious the race for the Democratic nomination is getting, I began to wonder if the Democrats are nearing a crisis point. What do I mean by Crisis? Simply put, when the party is so deeply divided that it will have to split.
The problem with the Democrats is that they have at their core two conflicting interests. The first is to help the citizen, the little guy (hence they are the party of unions, minorities, pro-choice, etc.), think Kucinich. The second is to help the corporations, who are their main financial backers. This two-faced quality is what allows the Democrats to hijack social movements and then bury them, basically telling people that all they need to do is vote Kerry/Clinton/whoever into office, and it will get results. On the other hand, this is a situation that cannot last, the two prevailing forces will eventually succeed in pulling the party apart.
So why now? Simply put, you have two people fighting for the lead who represent opposing interests. On one hand, you have Clinton, who is so conservative that she might as well just run as a Republican. On the other hand, you have Obama, who is perceived to be farther to the left (or at least more liberal). Although many are saying that Clinton has very little chance of winning the nomination, it is also likely that she will drag this out beyond all reason, further deepening the division in the Democratic party. If it gets bad enough, there could be a split.
As much as I would love to see that happen (as it would create opportunity for a third party, such as the greens), I don’t think that it will happen just yet. One crucial ingredient is missing, and that is mass involvement on the part of the people. Right now, the corporate influence is overpowering the populists, and so instead of splitting, the party will continue to be dragged to the right. However, as the war stretches on and the economy worsens, movements will continue to grow stronger. When you have the people demanding that they move to the left, and corporations demanding that they have to move to the right, something will have to give.
March 27, 2008 at 5:35 pm
hillary is socialist. she is not conservative. the right is just fascist. it’s easy to get those two confused with each other.
obama is farther to the left, but has rhetoric designed to appeal to free market priciples. but don’t let that fool you.
i think the whole thing just represents how badly divided the country is. no one feels represented adequately.
meanwhile the power continues to grow in dc and the international community. this is not good for the people.
its time to decentralize. allow people some semblance of control over their own lives.
March 27, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Power feeds from liberty, the more we feed power the more we individuals become weak.
This is why decentralize and socialism do not fit together.
And this is why weak counties/cities make weak states pointing to vigorous fed government, in a process that pushes us to socialism.
And socialism is the end of the United States.
March 27, 2008 at 6:00 pm
It’s interesting that you consider those who want less government involvment in our lives, facist. When Hillary says that she will mandate that we all have her health care, we must take from some for the benifit of others, and they have a party that allows a select group of people override the will of their own supporters, you don’t see that as facism? I believe it is Obama and Clinton calling for more regulation of industry and commerce. Those are some of the examples that jump right out of the definition of facism.
You can’t confuse Right-wing Facists with conservatives (or evern right wing for that matter). You can’t equate facist with the right. You can just as easily have left-wing facists, liberal facists, communist facists, etc…
March 27, 2008 at 7:40 pm
@smrtas1
not all on the right are fascist. i didn’t mean to imply that.
it is true…if one sticks to principles then you are right
but the reality is that many “conservatives” are, even if they don’t want to admit it, or justify their positions somehow.
pick your tax, war, or regulation. there are always “conservatives” in the mix..
but i can equate the right with fascism.
there is much support from the right for a protectionist state
the whole question boils down to: what do you want the state to do?
both left and right make obscene “compromises”, or outright design and implement statist measures for their cause. all in the name of conservatism.
many democrats are socialist, but they won’t admit that either.
March 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Secret prisons, Torture, Spying on all citizens, Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial, militarism, Secret detention, Denial and restriction of habeas corpus,
Unfair trial procedures.
now tell me the only one’s complicit in this behavior are democrats.
March 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm
The term facist referes to a dictatorship with total control. I don’t believe that anybody in our government has advocated that (at least not yet).
Just so I understand where you are coming from, define protectioenist state and how that relates to facism.
I believe that you will find many more on the left are for a protectionist state once you understand what that means.
March 28, 2008 at 2:00 am
in very general terms, yes, dictatorial control.
we know in italy, mussolini said fascism could also be called corporatism. obviously this is in economic terms. (the economy is just how society works together)
in america it is not called fascism but planned capitalism or industrial policy.
Mussolini wrote:
“The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.”
(cont’d)
“The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.”
The reason you won’t find American politicians openly calling for fascist policy in America is because of the tradition here. So instead the rhetoric is designed to sound like the policies being implemented are to protect the people and their individual rights. It’s doublespeak and/or an awful understanding of economics. (Which I am sure explains it half the time. good intention with disastrous results)
Here in America we have many wealth reditribution schemes: corporate welfare, IRS, Federal Reserve, control over transportation, managed trade, etc
Private property and enterprise is very regulated.
If you want fascism/national socialism you must destroy individual rights and private property.
War, nationalism, faith in the executive and the state in general, and welfarism are all good for fascist causes.
-by protectionism i mean bailouts, subsidies, and mercantilism.
These policies help the special interests at the expense of the many.
Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html
John T Flynn wrote:
“The test of fascism is not one’s rage against the Italian and German war lords. The test is – how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept and to what extent are you prepared to apply those fascist ideas to American social and economic life? When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as possible the unrestrained, absolute government – then you will know you have located the authentic fascist.
March 28, 2008 at 2:01 am
with regards to the article…..
i have a book for ya! lol
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/