In A Shift, Obama Doesn't Plan To Reopen NAFTA Talks

[Purveyor]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — The administration has no plans to reopen negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement to add labor and environmental protections, as President Obama vowed to do during his campaign, the top trade official said on Monday.

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative. It was perhaps the clearest indication yet of the administration’s thinking on whether to reopen the core agreement to add labor and environmental rules.

Mr. Kirk spoke in a conference call with reporters after returning from a regional summit meeting that Mr. Obama attended over the weekend in Trinidad. He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

But while he said that a formal review of the 1992 pact had yet to be completed, Mr. Kirk noted that both Mr. Obama and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico had said that “they don’t believe we have to reopen the agreement now.”

Mexico in particular, whose exports have exploded under Nafta, has little interest in such a renegotiation.

Not only Mr. Obama but also one of his rivals for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had promised during their campaigns to renegotiate the accord — a politically popular position in some electorally important Midwestern states that have lost thousands of manufacturing jobs.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/21nafta.html...

[jody]

1. "no plans to reopen negotiations on [NAFTA] . . . Obama vowed to do" that's CHANGE you can count on.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Blame Canada!

[Canuckistanian]

133. We'd LOVE to have NAFTA reopened

With all that new-found oil we've got, we could make a better deal for ourselves. Some people think we gave away the store with the last agreement.

Also, there's a lot of pressure to make the labor protection provisions stronger and to lessen the power of multinationals to use NAFTA as a bludgeon to get what they want.

[OhioChick]

3. Color me surprised...Not.

He went back on his campaign promise of stopping the outsourcing of jobs, as well.

US doesn’t need outsourced jobs: Obama

http://infotech.indiatimes.com/News/US-doesnt-need-outs...

With unemployment rates this high and to only to worsen, if he keeps up this "more of the same" BS, he'll only be a one term president.

[Skittles]

9. yeah, like we couldn't see this coming

no surprise at all

[ihavenobias]

18. But, but, Free Trade has been GOOD for our economy!

From Robert Borosage:

* Americans strongly believe that NAFTA and similar trade agreements have hurt our economy. Fifty percent of Americans think “free international trade has hurt the economy” while only 26 percent think it “has helped the economy.” Fifty-eight percent say globalization is “bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor” while only 25 percent say it is “good.” Moreover, nearly half of all Americans believe that free trade agreements have hurt their personal financial situation, while only 27 percent believe such agreements have “helped.” Source: PollingReport.com

* NAFTA has cost more than one million U.S. jobs. NAFTA advocates promised that the treaty would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. Instead, trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have displaced over one million U.S. jobs. Roughly 660,000 of the lost jobs were in manufacturing. Source: EPI

* NAFTA has driven down U.S. wages. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the one million Americans whose jobs were displaced by NAFTA were forced to take a pay cut of about 18 percent. Because of NAFTA, U.S. workers lost wages totaling about $7.6 billion in 2004 alone. Source: EPI

http://ga3.org/ct/FdeMpen1BEbs/

[Zhade]

31. Notice that those who oppose NAFTA actually have detailed reasons?

Meanwhile, those who "like" it just say it's "good" how it's "helped".

That's because pro-NAFTA idiots have no credible argument.

[Roadcyclist]

80. UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE - OBAMA IS BACKING OFF OF EVERYTHING

For those old enough to remember, Ross Perot told us exactly what would happen with NAFTA - that loud sucking sound you here. American jobs leaving the US. Jesus Christ! What the fuck is going on in Washington. Obama is caving on everything. I am losing complete confidence. Pretty soon I will want my vote back. I should have voted for Nader.

[No Elephants]

114. I feel the same, except that every vote for Nader

helped McCain Palin. Look at the close race in Missouri. If it were not for Nader, Obama would have won that state, so it comes off looking like a red state. In reality, if it had been less blue, Obama would have won it. If that had happened in a few more states, McCain Palin would have been elected. T

At the worst time in our history since the 18th century, we'd have had McCain at the helm. The stress would have turned McCain into even more of a blithering idiot than the stress of the campaign did. Struggling with this crisis would have been the same McCain who said the fundamentals of our economy were sound, then called off the debate to fly into Washington to get Republicans in line--then failed to get his own party in line, even as he was its flag bearer, runnning for electon.

Or, the stress may have killed him, in which case, at the worst time in our history since the 18th century, Palin would have been at the helm.

If you think you're upset now (and I AM TOO) just think about the alternative.

[Grinchie]

183. Absolutely, if McCain/Palin had won they'ed have two pliable morons

To sit back and spew the message from the Back Office boys to the world from a Neo-Con perspective.

Now we have a sophisticated speaker, who can Deliver a moderate message from the Back-Office boys. It's still the same masters though, they just need to cater to the dream that we actually have a two party government on the surface, while maintaining the cumbersome machinery that remains static and unchanging, such as Military/Corporate coddling, shaping opinion, "Protecting" the silly sheeple that don't have a clue how royally screwed they really are, etc..

[4_TN_TITANS]

137. Chill.....

How many gargantuan problems could you tackle and succeed at in your first 100 days? He's got to pick the right battles at the right times. There's plenty to choose from and I'll accept that others are more important at the moment than NAFTA (although it contributes to many problems at home).

[Roadcyclist]

145. Are you kidding?

I could list ten things Obama has backed down from. These perspectives of how much someone could accomplish in 100 days are maddeningly silly. He has made a dozen explicit decisions NOT to follow through with concerns of the people. He has done plenty in 100 days. You are just too beholden to this groupie phenomenon surrounding his election. I want action not rhetoric.

[JDPriestly]

173. He's picking the right battles -- but the wrong side.

This is not about picking battles. This is about betraying your constituents and breaking your promises -- spoken and unspoken.

We expect Democrats to stand up for us rank and file Democrats.

Obama often compared himself to Reagan. Well, Reagan did not renege on stance after stance. I worked hard for Obama and now I get this tee-shirt. I am very disappointed. I won't make this mistake again.

[Grinchie]

189. The first thing I'd do is run like hell from the DLC goons he hired as his team.

That would have been a good start for his first 100 days.

Oh course, if you frame this Nafta statement in terms of what he said on the campaign trail, then you can't really defend it can you?

It's just another tic mark next to Fisa Telecomm Immunity, Geithner, Summers, Clinton.. Et all

[JDPriestly]

168. He still has that great smile, but that is about it.

[truedelphi]

112. Not only are those numbers significant enough to consider -

NAFTA's sister treaty GATT makes it necessary for states who ban poisons to pay out of pocket to the manufacturers whatever damages are deemed necessary to help those toxin manufacturers cope with the loss of business.

When California backed away from MTBE the gas additive, we had to pay some Canadian company millions (if not a billion) dollars for that "privilege."

[Snotcicles]

116. Thats in chapter 11 of NAFTA. ( Tantamount to expropriation.) nt

[truedelphi]

187. Thank you for that reference.

Much appreciated.

[WarhammerTwo]

165. It's bad to bring back low paying jobs...

That's what he said. The thing is, they WEREN'T low paying jobs! People were able to make a good living off them. Until some one else in another country would do it for a fraction of the cost. And that's what we have to change. We have to level the playing field. We need to figure out someway through our trade agreements to force other countries establish minimum wages and such. That way, the American worker can compete with the foreign worker based on the QUALITY of the work, not the ECONOMY of the work. In my opinion, the Americans will win, hands down.

Obama's right, though. The jobs that are gone, well, they're gone. The horses are out of the stable and we can't corral them back in. But if this is going to be global economy, we need to ensure that all workers are TREATED EQUALLY. Fair pay. Fair hours. Benefits. Paid vacation. No child labor. These are humanitarian causes. And if a country wants a trade agreement with us, these are the standards they must meet for their workers.

That baloney about creating new jobs that can't be outsourced is a bunch of baloney. Y'know what can't be outsourced? Plumber. Electrician. Mechanic. Trade school type jobs. Things that 100% hands on service industries. You can't send your toilet or car to China to get fixed. THOSE are the jobs that will never get outsourced. EVERYTHING else is fair game thanks to the internet...especially high skill white collar jobs. So that's malarkey.

Again, I say, we need to level the playing field. We need to force other countries to bring their standards of living UP to OUR level, rather than drag ours DOWN to THEIR level! Only then will we be able to fairly compete in a global marketplace.

[Grinchie]

182. He already is, and the Back Office Government is Business as usual

Tossing out a few scraps of meat to make it look like something is happening. Meanwhile, the next phase of sweetheart deals are being negotiated out of sight of everyone.

I like Obama, but he's just as powerless as all the rest of the figureheads that get elected via a rigged popularity contest, where slogans and jingoism mean more than followup and action.

If one realizes that there are tons of Black Budget programs that Obama doesn't qualify as "Having a need to know" then really what power does he have when massive portions of our resources are hidden from his view?

He is the PR Point man, with a little leeway, but not much.

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Su-prize, su-prize, su-prize!

[Metta]

5. He's going to run into his shadow if he keeps running away this fast from his promises.

Whew. I'm winded already.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. 'they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement'

Perhaps President Obama has some ideas to fix this without formally reopening months of 'negotiations and lawyering'. I'm all for that.
Remember: With someone you trust, you don't need an 'agreement' - and with someone you cannot trust, NO agreement will ever protect you.

[Skittles]

11. you have a lot of faith

good luck with that

[EFerrari]

12. So, in which category do you put politicians?

[Rage for Order]

16. Super double-secret invisible plan

Now I understand

[tomm2thumbs]

20. just my take on it

I have worked without contracts for 22 years - handshake and a personal bond. Call me an exception, but I know of very few families which have to draw up a contract to extend financial support to children, neighbors and friends. If someone genuinely doesn't trust someone else, they should not be entering into any contract with them. It is only a piece of paper. Look at the Geneva Convention we are all reading about currently... we are witness right now to 8 years of a 'contract' that was broken - and then lawyers using 'more' agreements and legal papers to justify it all. That 'paper' did nothing. There was no trust behind it.

As for where politicians fall, they still function very much on personal relationships - one to one. I bet you a personal one-to-one agreement between two heads of state like Obama and Canada's Harper about some term adjustments to Nafta would stand stronger than most paper contracts between two country's legal departments. This is not a 'Bush looking into Putin's eyes' kind of nonsense - a paper agreement between Bush & Putin would not make me feel any better because it was written down - the relationship was not genuine.

Even the fight against torture should be looked on as a sign that this is true given recent events. Interrogators say that they get more reliable information when they develop a trust or bond with those they are interrogating. Is there a written contract or is this relationship based? If we believe this to be true in adversarial relationships such as this, than it holds that it would likely be true in other areas.

That is why I believe Obama's seeking out personal relationships through the world right now is so important and why he is such an asset to our country.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. No offense

but the work you do must be very different from the work I do. If I went without contracts, I would be derelict in my duty to protect others, as well as my self. We are a nation of laws, not of personalities. Laws live longer than four years, eight years, or even than a lifetime. That is why 'presonality politics' is no substitute at all.

[tomm2thumbs]

170. non taken

I do stand by my statement - 'with someone you trust, you don't need a contract, and with someone you can't trust, no contract will protect you.'

I'm speaking specifically to the idea that Obama can make adjustments to nafta that benefit the U.S. without having to reopen a full negotiation. He can fulfill his pledge by building on the agreement through cooperation, not starting over from scratch with a legal team vs. legal team mentality. It makes complete sense to me - it's why people like McCain and Kennedy can oft times work together, but people like Bachmann will be hard pressed to find a 'bud' across the aisle to help her legislate.

How did people function in early America? In the old west? It most likely was by handshake, trust and commitment. I look at it this way. I provide a product and/or service. If people want it, they play by my rules. If they don't - fine. No harm done. So far, have had zero problems and I like it that way.

[Zhade]

32. Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, too?

NT!

[tomm2thumbs]

66. yawn

[Maven]

153. HE'S PLAYING CHESS

[gizmo1979]

7. It just never gets better

for the U.S worker.

[depakid]

29. Not with Republicans and center right corporate Dems

Like many here- I'm not the slightest bit surprised. Nor will I be surprised when, in 2010, the activists who got Obama and Democrats elected in 2008 keep their boots in the closet and stay home on election day.

[lbrtbell]

92. That's what I'm afraid of

If the Dems lose faith in Obama, the RW'ers will be able to get another Republican elected President. As if things aren't bad enough already.

[Donnachaidh]

194. well if the Dems we voted in do NOT keep their promises - what difference are they from the pukes?

a LOT was promised. And so far, the only ones making out like raped apes are the Banks and the uber-wealthy. So it's different if the shit we are fed after the fact is from a blue spatula?

[No Elephants]

115. A Democrat's staying home has the same impact as a Democrat's voting

third party; and we all know how that worked in Florida in 2000.

The reality is the two major parties have America by the, well, you know what I mean. Before you help a Republican by staying home or voting third party, work to loosen the grip of the two major parties on our election process. Work to change the laws they put in place. Work to make the Presidential debates inclusive and REAL debates once more. And so on.

Unless and until those things happen, staying home or voting third party is simply helping out the major party you hate most, whichever one that happens to be.

Also, please see Post # 115, above.

[Lasher]

117. Well Obama's certainly not playing to his base.

He should have learned from history that you can do things to appease the GOP but they will usually remain enemies. Bill Clinton went along with GOP banking deregulation and NAFTA, for example. Republicans appreciated his bipartisanship so much they spent at least $91 million of taxpayer money on a 12 year witch hunt against him and his administration. Obama will learn this lesson but he has chosen to learn it the hard way. Republicans don't see cooperation as a virtue; they see it as a sign of weakness.

And as far as Obama's base is concerned, I myself have started to wonder just who this is that I helped elect to the presidency.

[No Elephants]

119. If you voted for Obama, you helped elect Obama. For you at this point,, that may be

good news or bad news. However, the great news is that you did NOT help elect McCain or Palin by either voting third party or staying home.

Also, please see Post ## 115 and 116.

[Lasher]

124. Oh I forgot: rah rah at least he's not a Republican.

Call me unralistic if you will but I was hoping for more than that. It wouldn't hurt him to throw us a bone every now and then by keeping one or two of his promises. Maybe that's not a big thing to you, but it is to me - particularly where the war in Iraq and free trade agreements are concerned.

[Zhade]

33. Or for the overseas worker, the abuse of whom is why we lose jobs here.

NT!

[cascadiance]

8. I wonder if Mexico's exporting more goods, or workers to us with NAFTA!!!

NAFTA, etc. has allowed our corporations to export subsidized corn goods (with our taxpayer's farm subsidies to the companies) below cost to Mexico and other South American countries, putting many local farmers out of work who can't compete with the underpriced goods. They then go to work in maquilas (outsourcing factories south of the border) to get work, until those same companies drop their leases and move to Asia or other places where they can race to the bottom quicker for labor costs... Then those folks "export" themselves up here to get jobs!

This is why NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. all need to be renegotiated NOW! Shame on you Obama! I wish you'd do something more to counterbalance the increasing disappointment I've felt with your decisions the last week!

[wroberts189]

10. No plans because the whole treaty will soon be scrapped.

You never know..?


Sorry I live in an alternate world where things make sense.

[Jackpine Radical]

50. It must be nice there.

What color is your sun?

[ardvark]

13. I'm surprised we were just strung along

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[No Elephants]

120. Some people see an aardvark as not quite an elephant, but not quite a mule, either. Are you

in that group?

[ardvark]

136. i am a donkey

but i know an ass when i see one

and we've had too much bait and switch

i'm not thrilled about corporatists with an ass on their lapel

[Laelth]

14. Hmm ...

Ross Perot was right, and we all knew it at the time. Bill Clinton sold us out ... but why?

And why would Obama continue to sell us out on this issue? With all due respect to posters above who trust Obama, I do not understand this announcement.





-Laelth

[Two Americas]

24. unfortunately...

Unfortunately we cannot discuss this without it becoming a for-or-against our leader feud.

Of course Obama must cater to wealthy and powerful interests. Nothing new there - all politicians do. Hard for me to imagine how anyone here can deny that. So it is not surprising, nor is it damning - nor is it something that anyone of us should defend or support. He is a politician. In the absence of any pressure from below, all politicians will be swayed by the wealthy and powerful few, and they are dependent upon the money from the few in order to sustain their careers.

No politician can stand up to the wealthy and powerful few without massive support from the people. Massive support from the people will never happen if those of us inclined to speak and rabble rouse are silent.

We know have an odd situation - those demanding that we support the president by not criticizing the administration are actually torpedoing the administration by depriving it of a counter-balancing pressure from below to offset the immense power being exerted on the administration by entrenched wealthy and powerful interests. We are really being steered into a box. Not sure how to get out of it.

In the past, electing an administration that was potentially more friendly or responsive to progressive causes did not mean people should cease agitating. In the 1850's, the Abolitionists did not fall silent when Whigs or Republicans were elected. In the 30's Labor organizers did not fall silents when Democrats were elected. In the 1960's anti-war activists and Civil Rights workers did not quit because Democrats were in the White House.

This is a new thing, and I am not sure how to get around it. No one told Civil Rights activists or anti-war protesters in the 60's that they were "hurting the party" or "our president." No one said "do you think Nixon (or Goldwater) would have been better?" No one said that protesters were helping the Republicans by speaking out for left wing positions. Yet that is definitely happening now, and it seems to be getting worse and worse. Some here say "I don't object to criticism so long as it does not go too far." But the criticism they are objecting to is tame and mild compared to what Lincoln, FDR, JFK or LBJ faced. And just who is to decide which criticism gets approval, and which not? Also. how can we know that it is not an effort to promote conservative political positions under the guise of calling for "loyalty" and "support?" We can not.

Politicians are supposed to represent and respond to the people. We are not supposed to be acting as public relations agents for the careers of any politician, and trying to shut down dissent in the cause of promoting the career of a politician.



...

[Laelth]

34. I hear you, and I am equally puzzled by the "no dissent" mantra of some Obama supporters.

My strategy is to continue to dissent, to hold the party's feet to the fire, and to ignore those who tell me to STFU.

But, regarding Obama, his election proves that he is no longer beholden to powerful, moneyed interests. He was able to raise enough money from the grassroots to completely swamp his well-moneyed opponent. I'd like to believe that Obama understands that he is no longer beholden to those moneyed interests. If I am right about that, why not re-negotiate NAFTA in a way that benefits American workers? That's what I don't understand about this announcement. Obama doesn't have to protect the moneyed interests, so why is he doing it? I'd like to believe there's a good reason. I just don't know what that reason is.





-Laelth

[stillcool]

40. Did you read the article?

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative.


He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

---------------------------------------
Thea Lee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. policy director, said that the workers federation would have preferred “more definitive” language on addressing key labor concerns, but that it was understandable for a new administration to start its review with a less confrontational approach.

“We were obviously very encouraged by what Obama the candidate was saying on the campaign trail in terms of needing to recognize the deficiencies of Nafta and to strengthen it,” said Margrete Strand Rangnes, a labor and trade specialist with the Sierra Club

[Laelth]

51. Yes, I read it.

I am willing to wait and see. I am still nervous about what the administration has signaled. I hope my suspicion is unjustified and that the President will insist on greater protections for American labor. That is not, however, what the administration is signaling that it intends to do.



-Laelth

[mvd]

54. Is there a way to..

add protections without reopening the core agreement to add labor and environmental rules? That's the big question IMO.

[Laelth]

56. Sure, that could be done.

And, as I said above, that might be what the President intends. But on the campaign trail, he promised to re-open the treaty and completely re-negotiate it. Those of us on the left rightly become nervous when his representative says that the administration is not currently planning on re-opening and re-negotiating the treaty.

Something here smells fishy, and I want an explanation.



-Laelth

[mvd]

58. I have to agree

Kirk is definitely on the pro-trade side, too, which isn't promising. I'll wait before making a final judgment, but lately I've gotten less likely to believe the positive outcome.

[stillcool]

71. ah..signaling...

you get any signals from Congress?

[Laelth]

73. Not on this subject.

Have you? If so, please enlighten us.



-Laelth

[stillcool]

74. No..as far as I know this was the first..

dialogue between the countries.

[Two Americas]

81. no choice

We have no choice but to wait and see when it comes to the politicians. What else? We cannot not wait or not see.

We also have no choice but to continue to speak out. What else? We cannot not speak.

Yet there is an ongoing angry argument here between the "wait and see" faction and the "speak out" faction.

Why don't we all just recognize that both of those are going to happen and that there is no way to stop either of them?



...

[ElboRuum]

176. I have the answer to that...

Talk is cheap, and apparently, in this economy, it's all we can afford. If we all recognized this simple fact, what the hell would we be talking about?

You forget that this board was conceived as a counterforce reaction to one administration... and over the 8 years during it, we had but one enemy, to which was focused all attention. It is a board conceived in partisanship and picking sides. Why should that end just because the original enemy is gone? We'll just choose a new one, pick sides again, and practice that very Democratic of acts, cannibalization from within.

Seriously, you're talking sense. That's a bit unpopular these days.

[Two Americas]

180. I think the debate is important

I don't agree with the "circular firing squad" and "eating our own" and "tearing down our leader" characterizations of the debates. Those concepts, by the way, originated from the right wing propaganda mills. I don't agree with the "herding cats" ideas, either. I don't believe that people are arguing, or dissenting, for the sake of doing that or out of habit - "knee jerk." I don't believe in the "knee jerk" idea at all. The most thoughtful and scholarly posters here are the ones who are targeted and assaulted with jeers and ridicule and labeled with "knee jerk" and "Obama hater" and "poutrage" and "pony" and the rest if that thuggish, brutal. bullying and obviously right wing rhetoric. But right wing rhetoric gets a pass here, provided it is supposedly being used to "support our president" or express party loyalty.

All of those ideas, and that rhetoric about "purists" and "fringe" and "far left" and "poutrage" and "getting your pony" originate from the right wing, and are designed to give liberals the impression that dissent and criticism are bad, and that we should be worried about disagreements within the Democratic party. That is the way that right wing ideas are infiltrated into the party and are promoted and defended. Almost all of the fighting starts because people are trying to avoid fighting, are worried about fighting, and in there efforts at establishing peace they try to suppress dissent and enforce party "loyalty" and attack leftists and left wing ideas. That is what the right wing propagandists hoped to cause among us, and have successfully caused.

Anyone objecting to the suppression and bullying, is then themselves accused of bullying and suppressing - "you are bullying me by calling me a bully!!!" we hear. "You are trying to suppress my speech by saying that I am suppressing yours!!!" is another of these nonsensical schoolyard taunts. "How dare you call me a bigot?" is the response when anyone challenges bigoted ideas. That too is a right wing debate tactic, right wing rhetoric, to reverse everything and throw it back at leftists. "Reverse racism" is the most notorious and egregious example of that debate tactic. If someone challenges a racist statement or idea, they are then accused of accusing the speaker of "being a racist" and we are supposed to believe that calling a person a racist (which almost always did not actually happen) is itself some terrible offense, and that it all "goes both ways" and the person talking about racism is therefore guilty of "reverse racism."

That destroys any chance of understanding or sane discussion, and unfortunately that has crept into liberalism and the same debate tactics used by the right wing are used by people right here every day.


...

[ElboRuum]

196. I disagree. But of course you already knew that.

Let me just get this out of the way first.

Wherever the "circular firing squad" and et. al. memes originated is of little concern to me. Too many arguments around here get derailed by the veiled "that's a right wing/media talking point" insult. Perhaps they did originate that, but I'm tired of arguments around here interpreting any point which is individually disagreed with becoming an excuse to cast that aspersion. If you intend to imply it here, then you have just killed the very debate you hold in such high regard.

That said...

Let me first address your first paragraph by saying that I don't think the posters here are "knee jerk" but they are habituated into looking for an enemy and choosing sides EVEN when such things are not necessary. You may tout the "thoughtful and scholarly" as being bullied by people who express party loyalty. Nevertheless, I've seen these "thoughtful" posters, and their "less thoughtful" brethren have a dismissive and equally bullying view of those who choose to express that party loyalty. That said, should I take your interpretation of what that is or should I believe what I see with my own eyes? Interestingly enough, I could legitimately characterize you of doing precisely what I said about carving out made-to-order enemies amongst one's own party in the absence of an actual enemy to unite against. Have you not just created an 'A' pile and a 'B' pile and characterized those belonging to both? You seem to see it as the "thoughtful and scholarly" ('A' pile for purposes of discussion) and the party loyalist sheeple ('B' pile) with the B pile giving the A pile an unnecessarily hard time.

I wish I could see it that way.

What I see is pile A who think Obama has sold them out, and pile B who think that Obama is the second coming beating each other over the heads for no bloody good reason. You make it sound so important and necessary, yet I ask, what precisely is important and necessary about two groups of people behaving like ill-mannered children? Both groups are nearly equally wrong in their assessments, neither group is willing to be more circumspect about the issues that bother them, and both groups are talking way too damn loud for calmer voices to be heard. So you keep weighting the scales as you see fit in this, if it bears upon your perceptions favorably, but I cannot be more in disagreement with you about either the intent or timbre of either side of this conversation. From my point of view, everyone participating in this whole thing is resembling the "eating their own" remark just a little too closely for comfort.

As far as the rest of it, predicated on your initial premise, is therefore drawing off a perception which I already disagree with and as such, it is not necessary to individually contradict.

You want debate? Debates have an end and are judged by people allowing the parties to express their view as to whose argument was more persuasive. What we have here is an unending series of monologues with very few listening to the other side. Those who are will not see the others' view even well enough to rebut it with attention to the meaning. No, they'll focus on a word they didn't like, and be damned what the person was actually trying to say. And the rare few who can be emotionally neutral enough to actually hold up their end of a debate without getting upset, calling names, or drilling their heads so far up the ass of irrelevant minutiae of semantics that they've forgotten what the debate was about in the first place have been laying low since the election.

[Two Americas]

204. thanks

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree with you that calling each other right wingers is bad, and I did not mean to do that. Are you not willing however, to consider the possibility that the feuding here is being driven by the right wing propagandists? I think a good case can be made for that. Whom does it benefit to see left wing points of view as destructive, or as a "circular firing squad?"

I am not casting an "aspersion" - a disparaging remark about you. I am suggesting a way out of the trap we are in. I am not attacking you, but rather asking all of us to look at this a little deeper.

I don't see anyone as the enemy here, and I am not saying anything different then I have always said for forty years.

I do think that some people, myself included, are dismissive of the idea that party loyalty trumps all. So what? That is not attacking the person, it is attacking an idea, and even then I have no problem with people seeing party loyalty as the most important thing. The problem arises when we are told that this is the on;ly way to look at things, and when failure to do so is seen as unacceptable.

I am resistant, and will always be resistant to being told that putting party loyalty first is the only proper way to be a member of the community. I am not trying to stop others from seeing I that way - I may try to persuade them. But being told that anything other than placing party loyalty first is not acceptable is something that I will always fight against. If that didn't happen, there would be no argument from me. Be loyal to the party, and admire various politicians to your heart's content and I won't interfere or try to drive you out of the community.

Would you be content with that? You take your approach, I will take mine and we will stop arguing about it? I would be. Is there room for both in your world? There is in mine.

I am emotionally neutral, and I neither think Obama has sold us out nor that he is the second coming. Yet I am a prime target, accused as much as anyone here is of "tearing down the president" and being driven by emotion, and on and on.


...

[ElboRuum]

220. Some perhaps...

I am willing to consider the possibility that the feuding here is being driven by RW propagandists. Perhaps a good case can be made for it, however, an obvious counterargument could also be made: that most people on this board, on some level, are here PRECISELY because of their unwillingness to accept the filtered untruth of such propagandists, preferring to sort out the truth for themselves, or at least garner their information from less biased sources. Sure, some will always be easy pickings for the noise machine, but by and large, most are much more resilient than that, and judging by the sheer numbers engaging in the acts in question, some non-trivial group of thoughtful people have parsed out the truth and found it to resemble what I see. You misinterpret that I (or most anyone else, although I will only speak in the general for the purpose of my point) see left wing points of view as destructive. Far from it, in fact. However, I do see them as almost unapologetically adversarial in this environment, which goes to my point about finding an axe to grind vs. reasoned debate (which I'm all for and would like to see more of) and that has more to do with habituation of act around here moreso than a desire to be adversarial, in my opinion.

I understand that there are people who are dismissive of the idea that party loyalty trumps all. I know, because I too am one of them, however, I will say that I understand that even if I am dismissive of the idea that party loyalty trumps all, I am also dismissive of the idea that all trumps party loyalty. Sometimes it is important to support the party even in disagreement because it is the most effective power structure the left currently enjoys. And ideas, without the authority to implement them, remain just that, chalk on the drawing board.

But I do believe that you CAN attack the person, unintentionally, when you attack the idea. For a person who can stay emotionally neutral in such a situation, this is not an incipient problem. It is understood that it is not a personal attack. But far too many well-meaning people lack this neutrality, and they have a habit of not drawing clear enough lines between their personal investment in an argument and the reasoning of the argument itself. This is where the tempers flare and the lines get drawn.

I think the main focus of my point mirrors yours in many ways, however, it is my previous statement about which trumps which and when which supplies the keenest difference.

I will fight against pure party loyalty, but I also see pure contrarianism as something worthy of a few admonitory words. Neither extreme is required or desirable, in my opinion. Both run on the "us vs. them" principle, and have we all not had enough of that, in general? If we are "all pretty much friends here" we should learn how to act in an environment which we do not want suffused with our previous adversarialism, which, in a time where our political adversaries were manifold, made more sense.

[Two Americas]

222. that is where the confusion is, in my opinion

I don't think that people are filtering or resilient to the propaganda. They think they are, yes. Bu the reject the propaganda point of view is being created by the right wing propaganda mills. That is their main purpose - not to rally the base or promote conservative ideas, but rather to define and control the opposition. The way in which people are filtering and rejecting and resilient to the propaganda is itself being created by the propaganda.

People think that because they are opposing and rejecting the right wing point of view - as presented and defined by the MSM - they are therefore on the right side of the issues and immune from the propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion.

Left wing points of view may be adversarial in this environment, as you say. However it is the environment that has changed, not the left wing points of view.

Principles and ideals trumping party loyalty does not mean that everything trumps party loyalty. Many of the strongest critics of the party and the Dem politicians have also over the years worked the hardest for the party. I have worked for, promoted, voted for, and donated to hundreds of Democratic party politicians for decades. In my mind, that is loyalty - the only sort of loyalty that is of any value. That is true in my case. Here is how I see it: party loyalty trumps all except the principles and ideals.

I agree that some people feel personally attacked when their ideas are questioned. They too closely identify with their opinions, and that is in large part due to the trend over the last few years for liberalism to become a personal identity rather than a political philosophy. But we cannot ask people to refrain from criticizing certain ideas because that hurts a person;s feelings.

Contrarianism - when it comes to those in power - is our civic duty and moral obligation to express, in my view. That will always offend those who are uncomfortable with having the premises and assumptions upon which power rests challenged. Throughout history there have been those who have resisted that and said "it seems that you are always negative" and "will anything every make you happy?" and "you are being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial."

Some of us are always going to be critical when it comes to those in power. That is just the way it is. If anything, I worry that I am not being critical enough, since it is so much easier and more comfortable to go along with the flow and accept what we are told by those in power and not make waves. Others will always be resistant to and uncomfortable with criticism, no matter what it is or how it is expressed.



...

[polmaven]

156. Well, C'mon!

Sure sounds like "To hell with negotiations - Let's screw the American worker" to me!

(and, just in case THIS is needed)

[stillcool]

179. I learned how to translate the ..

Republican language, and I had a handle on the basic lingo of the primaries, but this noise is difficult to navigate. More rabid dogs, salivating with anticipation, ready to pounce on their prey.

[flyarm]

100. Did you get the memo????????

[Laelth]

155. Guess not.

-Laelth

[Zhade]

35. Yeah, that Dennis Kucinich sure is a corporate whore.

Oh, wait... Politicians CAN be better than this.

[Two Americas]

42. yes

However, Kucinich pays a price for that by being shut out of power in Congress. He plays a constructive role.

I don't think we will ever be able to reform the politicians. We could reform ourselves, however, and stop acting as unpaid (?) public relations agents who promote the careers of politicians, and instead start organizing outside of the power structure - speak truth to the powerless and build strength to fight back. "Speaking truth to power" and "taking baby steps" for "progressive" causes - all held tightly within the partisan context of promoting the party and the politicians - is a weekend feel-good hobby activity for the relatively well-off, it is not serious politics.


...

[Zhade]

46. You don't have to convince me, I'm fucking DONE with politicians.

When a "great hope" like Obama turns out to be a cowardly liar, forget it, it's not even worth trying to work within the system anymore.

[Two Americas]

82. you should be able to say that

I think that you should be able to post what you just did.

[No Elephants]

125. Yes, they can. But maybe they cannot BOTH be better than this AND get elected

President. I stayed clean for Gene and I voted for McGovern. Unfortunately, my voting for McGovern didn't mean much because I live in Massachusetts, which went strongly for McGovern anyway. Too bad it was the ONLY state to go for McGovern, including his home state. I like Kucinich's positions a lot, but, fact it, he could not even make a decent showing in the Democratic primaries, let alone a national election.

[Two Americas]

206. if that is true

Is it true that the party need to run to the right in order to win elections? Or are only right leaning candidates given the bucks and the media attention that are necessary in order for anyone to be a serious candidate?

The "get clean for Gene" movement was clearly designed to collapse the movement, in my view. McGovern was sabotaged by party insiders and power brokers. Kucinich is a weak candidate aside from his positions. I do not believe that those examples therefore mean that the party must move to the right. I think we are being manipulated there - that those candidacies are sabotaged so that we then think that the party must move to the right in order to win. The general public is far to the left from the party right now, in my experiences. I have a much easier time promoting left wing ideas among Republican voting rural people now then I do with Democratic party loyalists. That has always been true to some extent, but the gap is extreme now.

In poll after poll, the answer pollsters got from the public when they asked about Kucinich was "who?" The public does not reject Kucinich - let alone left wing politics - in the primaries, they don't know who he is or anything about him. How anyone here, knowing the control the right wing has over the MSM, can fail to see that is a mystery to me.

Where do these ideas about it being a "center right country" and that "left wing politics cannot succeed" come from? Who is telling us that? The same people who have the power to make sure the public never hears left wing politics. How can any of us oppose the right wing and want success for the Democratic party and ignore or discount that?

I can - and do - go anywhere in the country to rural "red" areas and speak to groups about FDR New Deal politics, and socialism all day long, and get an overwhelmingly favorable and enthusiastic response. Then I turn on cable news and hear them say how conservative the people are. The gap is immense between what the MSM is saying about the people and the truth about the people. But you never, ever see suburban liberals - the people controlling the discussion in the party - in the places I go; poor areas, rural areas, minority communities.

I also do not understand why there is so much hardened resistance to what I am saying here. Should nit every one here be jumping up and down with joy on the remote possibility that there could be any truth to what I am saying? But most often I am attacked for saying these things here. Why? Why would that be? It is not logical. There must be more going on then meets the eye.

Are people saying that the people are conservative, and that we therefore have to move to the right, or are they really saying that they want the party to move to the right and are just using this business about "the people are conservative" as a way to promote that? There is no way to know.



...

[stillcool]

41. Are you referring to the article

or something else?

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative.


He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

-------------------------------------------
Thea Lee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. policy director, said that the workers federation would have preferred “more definitive” language on addressing key labor concerns, but that it was understandable for a new administration to start its review with a less confrontational approach.

“We were obviously very encouraged by what Obama the candidate was saying on the campaign trail in terms of needing to recognize the deficiencies of Nafta and to strengthen it,” said Margrete Strand Rangnes, a labor and trade specialist with the Sierra Club

[OwnedByFerrets]

65. Great post!!

[bbgrunt]

86. what he said. well put.

[No Elephants]

118. There's a huge difference between criticizing Obama and not voting for Obama. And, btw, I am

not so sure that no one said "Do you think Goldwater would have been better?" On what are you basing a statement like that?

With Obama, you are talking about posts at DU. To what during the Johnson administration are you comparing posts at Du from all over the country? What you heard your own friends saying at the time? Not exactly comparable.

As far as trying to shut down dissent, that works both ways. Some seem to want to shut down complaints about Obama; others seem to want to shut down the first group. In reality, neither groups has the power to shut down the other. So, if anyone fails to express his or her opinion for fear of disagreement, that is on him or her, not on those who complain.

[Two Americas]

157. sorry I don't agree

First, we often hear people claiming that DU is meaningless, that it has nothing to do with the "real world." While it is true that DU represents a more educated and upscale faction than the general public - and I believe for that reason a more conservative faction - nevertheless, all of the same arguments are going on off-line. This has nothing to do with what "my friends" are saying. I talk to thousands of people all over the country all the time and have for decades. I don't see any difference between the discussion I have with people online and those that are offline other than the one thing I mentioned - relatively upscale people are disproportionately represented at DU and so there is more authoritarianism and more conservative economic ideas expressed here than in most places.

It does not go both ways. No one is trying to shut down expressions of admiration for the president. I know that I don't care about that - it does not bother me and it does no harm. It comes with the territory and every politician has a following. Just because a person's argument is demolished through reason and logic, that does not mean they are being silenced or attacked. Free speech does not mean freedom from having your argument refuted.

I was deeply involved in both the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement in the 60's. I never heard anyone say "you are helping the Republicans" nor did I hear "you should stop tearing down our president" except from right wingers, pro-war people, and racists. Perhaps some Democrats did say those things somewhere, but it had to have been very rare. The issues - the war and Civil Rights - were what was important, not the success of the party or a politician, and I think people would have been horrified had people said we should be placing loyalty to the party or a politician above those issues, above speaking out for what was right, and we would have seen that as morally depraved. I think it is morally depraved.


...

[No Elephants]

126. Unfortunately, since Perot ran, the Republicans and Democrats joined forces to

ensure that a third party candidate has next to zero opportunity to seem like a realistic candidate. AT MOST, third party folk can only be spoilers now. And, if they are liberal third party candidates, you end up with a George Bush.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HeresyLives]

17. Of course not.

[Zhade]

19. Gee, what a surprise, he's breaking ANOTHER of his promises.

Whatever. Since his "I'm letting torturers walk" cowardice, I'm fucking done with him.

[stillcool]

30. What promise has 'he' broken?

I'm glad you're done with him, but really...what promise did he make to you that he broke? Did you read the article?

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative.


He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

-----------------------------------------------------
Thea Lee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. policy director, said that the workers federation would have preferred “more definitive” language on addressing key labor concerns, but that it was understandable for a new administration to start its review with a less confrontational approach.

“We were obviously very encouraged by what Obama the candidate was saying on the campaign trail in terms of needing to recognize the deficiencies of Nafta and to strengthen it,” said Margrete Strand Rangnes, a labor and trade specialist with the Sierra Club

[nolabels]

93. Discontinuing the occupation of Iraq for starters

I am not disenchanted, getting rid of Republican stranglehold is what I saw Obama good for. The only way to change the government is to start from bottom level first. Giants have to be taken down by grabbing with what they move with.


Btw. never take what ANY lawyer says at face value, they have proven themselves to be the biggest LIARS there ever where

[stillcool]

101. What did he say during the primaries...18 months?

yeah I can see how that would bother you.

[nolabels]

139. What bothers me is people believe every P.R. BS the establishment puts out

What people say they want to do and what gets done are often different when you have that softer, gentler machine gun hand.

US Troops "Might Stay in Northern Iraq"

Tuesday 14 April 2009


US combat troops may stay in northern Iraq after a deadline for them to pull back by the end of June has passed, the top US commander in the area has said.

Col Gary Volesky said his soldiers would stay in Mosul and other nearby cities where al-Qaeda remained a threat if the Iraqi government asked them to.

US and Iraqi officials describe Mosul as al-Qaeda in Iraq's last major urban stronghold in the country.

Barack Obama has said he wants all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

"If the Iraqi government wants us to stay we will stay," said Col Volesky in a teleconference with journalists
(snip)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7998814.stm

[stillcool]

148. We will never leave Iraq...

after building the largest embassy in the world, and setting up permanent bases, we will be there just as we are in the more than 1,000 bases on foreign soil. That does not mean that combat troops can not be withdrawn, nor is it possible to ascertain what the situation will look like next year, or next month. There are ways to establish political stability in a way other than our preferred method of bombs and guns. I don't know if this President has the power behind him that is necessary to combat the entrenched power of Corporate/Military empirical interests that have had control of our government for so long. The best I hope for is the slightest incremental change in foreign policy. I guess that makes me an Obamatron, or whatever the latest buzz word is for someone with my outlook.

[jewishlibrl]

98. Reuters (February, 09): "Obama wants to re-open NAFTA"

Today we hear something different. A change of heart.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE51G0...

[stillcool]

103. What did you 'hear' different today...

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative.


He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

--------------------------------------

Thea Lee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. policy director, said that the workers federation would have preferred “more definitive” language on addressing key labor concerns, but that it was understandable for a new administration to start its review with a less confrontational approach.

“We were obviously very encouraged by what Obama the candidate was saying on the campaign trail in terms of needing to recognize the deficiencies of Nafta and to strengthen it,” said Margrete Strand Rangnes, a labor and trade specialist with the Sierra Club

[stillcool]

21. I guess a headline in the New York Times..

is all that matters?

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative.

He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

Thea Lee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. policy director, said that the workers federation would have preferred “more definitive” language on addressing key labor concerns, but that it was understandable for a new administration to start its review with a less confrontational approach.

“We were obviously very encouraged by what Obama the candidate was saying on the campaign trail in terms of needing to recognize the deficiencies of Nafta and to strengthen it,” said Margrete Strand Rangnes, a labor and trade specialist with the Sierra Club

[KoKo]

25. The issue was "modifying NAFTA"...the article above seems to say

he can do that... I know the headline sounds bad from the OP ...but most of the headlines are written to make him sound like he's letting us down so Repugs get leg up in 2010.

Let's wait and see what he does with it.

[stillcool]

28. Apparently it doesn't matter.

what 'he' said.

[No Elephants]

122. Two things: First, the

headline is correct. He made a campaign promise to re-negotiate the treaty. Now, he says that he has no current plans so to do. Whatever reasons are given for having no plans to re-negotiate, that is a shift. If the headline had been that Obama broke his campaign promise, or that Obama had done a 180, the headline would not have been accurate. As it is, though, the headline is fine.

Second, are you familiar with the cat on the roof joke? http://www.jokething.com/jokes/13/13009

[dionysus]

163. how dare you interrupt this PUMA circle jerk with reason?

[ElboRuum]

181. Apparently...

Latest Breaking News rules:

1) Post inflammatory headline.
2) Wait for reactionary members of DU to lose their minds.
3) Get recs.
4) Introduce "reason", thereby killing thread.
5) Lather, rinse, repeat.

[stillcool]

188. It's like feeding time..

at the Bronx zoo.

[Hotler]

22. BOO! BOO! BOO! eom.

[ShareTheWoods]

23. President Obama has been introduced to world politics and its survival

It's a big world out there and lots of hungry people in it. To live among the lions, one must think at
least as well as the lion.

[No Elephants]

127. And, in your parable, who are the great-thinking lions when it comes to these treaties?

[Generator]

26. If it quacks like a duck?

He's so Deee DEEE Big D. Well thanks, Rahm. Again I'll say I knew with a sinking heartsick feeling the second Rahm was picked that was the sign it was over.

[EndElectoral]

27. Say it ain;t so BO. Man, not a good week. C'mon Obama, be a Progressive, not Regressive.

[Postman]

36. Obama Administration = Third term of the Clinton Administration. Buyers remorse setting in.

This guy is a major disappointment.

[stillcool]

49. only to those who don't read....

“The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” said the official, Ronald Kirk, the United States trade representative.


He said that Mr. Obama had conferred with the leaders of Mexico and Canada — the other parties to the trade agreement — and that “they are all of the mind we should look for opportunities to strengthen Nafta.”

--------------------------------------

Thea Lee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. policy director, said that the workers federation would have preferred “more definitive” language on addressing key labor concerns, but that it was understandable for a new administration to start its review with a less confrontational approach.

“We were obviously very encouraged by what Obama the candidate was saying on the campaign trail in terms of needing to recognize the deficiencies of Nafta and to strengthen it,” said Margrete Strand Rangnes, a labor and trade specialist with the Sierra Club

[Baby Snooks]

87. But some of us can read between the lines...

And obviously doing so we realize that most likely he conferred with his NAFTA advisors.

?

By the way Ron Kirk was a partner at the same law firm, Vinson & Elkins, that Kay Bailey Hutchison's husband was a partner at. Until Enron. Then he became "of counsel." But is still part of the firm.

Read between the lines. Connect the dots. Some are not Democrats. Some are not Republicans. They are Republicrats. And serve the oligarchy. Not the democracy.

If you want to know about Vinson & Elkins, just read the Batson Report in the Enron matter. That's what Obama added to his table.

[stillcool]

97. I tend to read the words ...

as they appear on the page, and I have to assume that your assumptions are due to something other than this article. I made the mistake of thinking you were responding to this article. As far as Democracy/Oligarchy goes, I like the way Ferdinand Lundberg phrased it in his book "The Rich and the Super-Rich", which is available for free down-load from the following website due to it's copyright expiration date of 1968.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socia...

The American System

Treatises on American government often with scrupulous accuracy tell how the government operates formally--the federal system, separation of powers, checks and balances, popular election of officials, judicial review, administrative agencies and the whole remaining bit. None of these treatises depicts how the government actually works in the application of the forms, how it works informally. What really takes place constitutes a considerable deviation from the formal script. Rules are freely bent, especially in the conduct of the legislatures, which make their own rules. Police, too, function pretty autonomously. For a starter let us notice that most of the precious electorate in most elections--state, federal and local--do not vote at all. Many, even though unconstrained, have never voted; and these, under one possible interpretation, may be politically the most sensible of all. For most of those voting haven't the least idea what it is all about.

Power not exercised by dilatory members of any functioning organization will of necessity be exercised by more diligent members, a universal rule applying to corporations, fraternal societies and labor unions as well as to government. To a very considerable extent, then, we see in all organizations, including the government of the United States, rule by default, by a self-selected oligarchy. If the citizens won't run the show the endless procession of Bobby Bakers, W. Judson Morhouses, Everett Dirksens and Lyndon B. Johnsons will.

============================
Democrats, liberals and radicals, have wasted millions of words and hours of their time trying to arouse the people in their own interests either to electoral or to revolutionary assault, and always without avail. Marx predicted, erroneously, that factory operatives, the workers, would take the lead in an assault on the owners; such an assault has never taken place in any industrial country. Marxist parties have taken power only under conditions of war-induced general social collapse, as in agricultural Russia and China, with only the most meager of Marxist proletarian support. Non-Marxist peasants in both cases were the revolutionary instrument. (Marx, inter alia, detested the peasantry, which he saw as reactionary.)

Nor have popular causes been more successful in the electoral arena, where splinter parties have long failed to gain even a foot-hold. For the mass does not vote for its objective interests; it always votes for some fantasy.

From Lincoln onward no more than two out of nineteen presidents are argued by anybody to have been oriented toward the popular interest and even those two are rejected by some experts as true paladins of the people. The people, very obviously, are not capable of wielding the electoral sword, thus accounting for the success of institutionalized overreaching and patronage. The rich, in plain fact, are rich because they cannot help it. They are playing marbles for big stakes against blind men, cannot help winning with little effort.

To the Marxists all these presidents were tools of the capitalist Establishment; but not to the people, to whom the Marxists look vainly as the instrument of social reconstruction. As to this, say the Marxists, the people are fooled by the mass media; but it is of the essence of politics, as of military affairs, not to be fooled. To be fooled in politics is to be conquered. In losing out so consistently by means of open elections the people, clearly, are being hoist by their own petard. They have not the least inkling what the elections are all about.

It would be difficult for any set of men, however qualified, to run so complexly ponderous a country as the United States really well. As it is, the United States is very, very poorly run, year after year, by the quacks, overreachers and patrons, as the accumulation and multiplication of social problems attest. At the same time, propagandic apologists continually bellow how well the country is run. Nothing, though, ever seems to get any better; everything gets demonstrably worse and worse, converging toward some awesome future crisis, some catastrophic reckoning. Après nous, le deluge.

So really bad is the situation that American sociologists have gradually developed a forbidding branch of their discipline labeled, simply, Social Problems, the equivalent of pathology in medicine. To this melancholy subject scores of textbooks are devoted, dealing with crime, its causes and its steady increase; rigging of courts and elections; poverty; racial and religious conflict; curtailments of civil rights; prison brutality; ill health and inadequate and profit-perverted medical care; mal-education, non-education and illiteracy; the prevalence of divorce and desertion; the excesses of pressure groups; faulty mass transportation; child mistreatment and abandonment; personal anomy; inadequate housing; social disorganization; widespread psychic disorder; slums, overcrowding and overpopulation in relation to available facilities; advertising and propaganda; unattended mental illness; commercialized alcoholism; gambling; drug addiction; traffic tangles; prostitution; pathological deviancies; war, etc., etc. 17 All of this bespeaks a very sick society, a poor political system.

[Maven]

154. And some people parse too closely to get the "truth" they want

rather than the truth that's right in front of them.

[stillcool]

175. you mean reading the words..

as they appear on the page? Determining who said what? Or gleaning what you wish from a headline in the New York Times?

[Maven]

185. No, I mean selectively focusing on certain qualifiers and ignoring the overall message.

[stillcool]

186. What overall message from the New York Times...

are you receiving? You do not read the quotes but rely on the New York Times to tell you their take?

[closeupready]

83. Big time.

n/t

[debbierlus]

37. Obama has been strenously disappointing - he had such momentum

But, not much courage...

I held hope for about five seconds - I thought he might realize the grand possibility handed to him on a silver platter - he could have been a revolutionary. But, I know now he is just a product of the corporate propaganda machine...

Set the progressive movement back some years...

[stillcool]

38. oh please...

your opinions of Obama are well known. It's a little late to reinvent yourself, isn't it?

[debbierlus]

45. Reinvent myself? I donated to his campaign & I joined in the joyfest for a VERY short time

For a VERY brief period, to be sure...

Go ahead and read my old journal posts. I was heavily skeptical, and he wasn't my first choice. But, I threw in for him in the general, and I truly hoped he would prove me wrong.

He hasn't. And, there isn't any joy or happiness in that for me, contrary to what you may think. I post, as I do, for the simple fact that once people realize whom Obama really represents and what he stands for...we may unite and work together once again for all things such as single payer health care, end to the occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan, & the restoration of our constitutional laws.

[stillcool]

47. the 'joy-fest'?

do you think that anyone who understands how our government works is a 'joy'? You want single-payer, but will your representatives vote for it? You want to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq..but who do you think our military works for? The restoration of our Constitutional Laws, but don't we have a Legislature that like writes laws? You sure put all your eggs in the Obama basket. I can understand your deep disappointment. Impeachment?

[Fire1]

77. You're SO right, stillcool. It's just not that simple nor just

black and white. A great number on this board think Obama is a 'one man band.' This is not a dictatorship. We also have alliances with other governments (Israel) to consider, civil wars and terrorism to consider. Bush put this country in a tail spin and this shit is not going to be a cake walk.