Chris Floyd cuts to the heart of the matter:
Sometimes after I write critically of Obama and the Democrats, people ask me: “Well, what are we supposed to do? He’s not perfect, they’re not perfect, but don’t you think McCain would be worse?”
As it happens, I do think McCain would be “worse” — but only marginally so, for reasons I’ve laid out before. But what does that matter? These are the wrong questions for a nation swimming, sinking, drowning in the innocent blood shed by its bipartisan war machine. These are the wrong questions for a nation whose politics have become — literally, with no metaphor or exaggeration — insane, mired in violence, delusion and self-destruction. Whatever happens, whoever wins, there will be more war, more needless death, more mass murder in the name of America. Whoever wins, there will be more state-assisted assaults on working people and the poor. There will be more coddling of the rich, more servicing of the powerful, more injustice, more inequality.
The country is broke — the bipartisan elite have looted it. The infrastructure is rotting; communities are dying; the quality of life is deteriorating for millions of people; the socioeconomic system, based on cheap gas and the consumption of a vastly disproportionate amount of the world’s resources, is unsustainable — but the bipartisan elite won’t fix these problems. They won’t even address them. They are too busy expanding the frontiers of empire, pushing for new adventures in Pakistan, in Georgia, in Iran, pushing for more war, more bases, more missile sites, more troops. Yes, McCain might push a little bit harder and a little bit faster, or in different directions — but the self-destructive, mass-murdering push will go on. Listen to what Obama is actually saying, listen to what Biden is actually saying, look at their records, look at their coterie of advisors. There is nothing but blood and suffering as far as the eye can see.
And the choice of Joe Biden as a running mate only confirms this grim fate, which, it is now clear, we must bear out even to the edge of doom — if not beyond.
The fix is in. Whoever wins, they’re winning for the same team. So if those are the wrong questions, what is the right question? How about, “Is there any way to grow a strong liberal populist movement which doesn’t get distracted into uselessness by playing games they can’t possibly win in national politics?”*
At the moment, labor unions are neutered. The powerful control the media such that political protests which number even in the hundreds of thousands get nary a mention on American TV. There is such a stranglehold on dissent that the status quo has no worries at all. They’ve found just the right formula of bread and circuses to keep us all occupied until things get REALLY bad. When things get bad enough that large numbers of people start feeling moved to protest in ways that powerful can’t ignore anymore– which, at this point, means at least riots, and maybe widespread intentional violent acts of protest– those’ll be scary times.
I don’t know exactly how far off those times are, but the direction we’re headed seems pretty clear to me at this point. And please don’t doubt that things can and will get that bad, no matter which hoi-polloi-ignoring purveyors of the imperialist status quo reside in the White House between now and then.
_________________________________________
*(Kind of an unwieldy phrasing, but I’m trying to train myself to be a faster writer here, so bear with me as I just forge ahead.) (By the way, to those of you who read my last post, obviously this is yet more of the uninformed opinionizing I was castigating myself for earlier. Oh well, I guess I’m addicted to bloviating– good thing I have a blog!)
Conservatives and Libertarians believe that the media is biased towards liberal reporting. I somewhat agree, but the real bias is corporate–Media is controlled almost entirely by large corporations, and what they choose to cover is as important as how they cover it.
Sevesteen-
The “liberal bias” of the media is a farce: the media is biased to what makes money. If what makes money is conservative talking points, then they will spew conservative talking points. If the big money is shallow liberal feel-good points, then that’s what they’ll play.
I actually did this subject in my History of Journalism class, and trust me, the evidence that the media is liberal is fairly overblown. The average journalist is SLIGHTLY liberal in social issues, and SLIGHTLY conservative in economic issues. The average editor is SLIGHTLY conservative all around. Most legitimate scholastic articles place the media as moderate (of course, that really gets into the heart of what “moderate” is- if the spectrum shifts to the right, then what is “moderate” is actually “conservative).
Oh Quin- you and I seem to be asking ourselves the same questions right now. Oh school protesting doesn’t work anymore, but we do have access to a communications device that reaches way more people than a protest or march would. My question is how do we use that access to 1) garner support and 2) effect ( Ok- I suck I can never remember the effect affect difference) change?
We actually know how to garner support. Plenty of organizations do that already. But they haven’t been very successful at using that support to do anything but raise money for candidates (Kos and Move On come to mind- and both were a bit blown away when they found out that Obama is a centrist who will take their money and ignore their platforms).
I don’t quite know how to fix it, but I am willing to work on something, anything with a chance of making things better.
Anyone that says with a straight face that the media has a liberal bias deserves to be pelted with rocks.
Libertarians, lolz.
RE: Red Queen
That is, in fact, a correct use of the word ‘effect’.
RE: Political situation in the United States.
It sucks.
There is a tendency in everyone to blame bias when things don’t go their way. Both sides (All sides?) find ignored stories that they think deserve coverage, ‘proving’ their point. A lot of it is probably incompetence rather than malice, some is corporate interests rather than a particular political view, a lot is pandering to circulation and ratings.
There’s a problem getting *any* third party views visible-The system is designed to protect the two-party status quo, and people don’t see alternatives. I’ve been a moderate libertarian most of my adult life, but I thought I was a moderate liberal. Even when you find a philosophy that fits, getting it elected is trouble–is it really a wasted vote when neither of the mainstream candidates match your views? Do you try to change the least-bad party, or start over?
Red Queen, at the moment, I’ve lost faith that there is much we can do, except watch how things play out. I’m of course as open to good ideas as anyone else. I wish I had some Big Idea That Could Save The World… but in the meantime, the best I think we can do is take care of our own little patch of earth the best we can, wherever we are.
Who knows, maybe there is an answer. I don’t see it coming from any movement which focuses on national politics, though. The game’s as rigged as a carnival stall, with the ruling class playing the carny and we’re the succkers. We only win those prizes the carny wants us to win, when he wants us to win it. But he doesn’t make any money unless we Keep. On. Playing.
And so we stay distracted and unfocused on anything actually changeable. Vainly pushing at mountains when we could be having success moving boulders.
I am glad I am not the only one who is thinking the “bread and circuses / things are gonna start sucking ass in a big way before anyone wakes up” thing.
There is a reason I am planning to vote Green, that my Stumble button takes me to anarchist websites, and that I call myself, with great purpose and intent, a radical feminist.
So. This post – I agree with a whole heart.
Also, I read this blog FOR the bloviating. So, ya know, feel free to continue. ^_^