My hubby said "Doesn't matter who we are talking about Republican, democrat

[southernleftylady]

independent, or whatnot.... They don't care about "us little people" they are just looking out for themselves and their buddies and if you think they do care about us you are kidding yourself"


do you agree or disagree?

[wli]

1. pretty much

The elections are pure fraud. There is no accountability to the people.

[GCP]

2. I disagree

I do believe that people on the left care about the "little people", probably because a lot of us came from lower middle class backgrounds and have walked the walk, so to speak.
I do, however, see his point that most politicians seem more concerned with getting re-elected than actually getting things done for people.
I just have to believe that "our guys" care more for people on the lower rungs of society, than the repukes do. We believe in giving everybody a hand up, and not asking them to take part on some Darwinian clawing oneself up from the bottom and to hell with everybody else you can step on.

[NewInNewJ.]

3. I think I agree.

When it comes down to it, who got the pay raise, Congress Or the minimum wage earner. Who gets the good health care? Who gets the good retirement fund? I bet 99% of them don't know or care what the price of milk is.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

4. Your husband sounds a lot like my Mr. Wonderful.

Unfortunately I'm beginning to agree with him, especially with anyone associated with the DLC.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Sure, I agree that's what the criminal Republicons want you to think.

Whenever they get caught doing something illegal, they like to pretend "everybody does it."

NGU.

[leesa]

6. I think Democrats can be re-trained. Republicans seem to be born that

way. I think his attitude has been a major problem, but the DLC helped to re-inforce that perception because they are GOP wannabes and became the same corporate whores they should have been fighting. They blurred the lines and that was a HUGE mistake.

[The2ndWheel]

7. For the most part, I'd agree

Maybe a very few exceptions, but yeah. I don't even know if you could change that, at least the way it's currently set up. We can't sail west anymore, minus the killing and slavery obviously.

I'd say your husband and I pretty much share the same brain on this one.

[fasttense]

8. It certainly DOES matter!!!!

If Dems were in control, would we get an anti-choice, anti-middle class, anti-environment, corporate shill for a nomination to the Supremes? Hell No.

This "It makes no difference, they are all the same." Is a repuke talking point that Dems buy into as well as repukes. It keeps the Dems from mobilizing and voting. It keeps people who are on the fence from caring who they vote for and it allows the right-wing nut jobs to control this country.

Don't buy it. If Dems were in office would all the anti-choice and pro-religion crap have been before congress? Would we have given a tax cut to the rich? Would we have faked the environmental data? Would we have distorted the unemployment figures? Would we have started the occupation in Iraq? I don't believe so and the repukes want you to believe it doesn't matter. Don't feed into their lies.

It sure as hell does matter!!!

[rman]

23. But we'd still have NAFTA, CAFTA (probably), outsourcing jobs to China.

I'm not even sure we would not be in Iraq.
Dems may be over all not as bad as Repubs, but that's about it.

[Raster]

9. yes, it does matter. if the * mis-administration has shown us anything,

it is that there are fundamental differences between the two. Case in point, Iraq. If we had the Dem president we actually elected, we would have ZERO troops in Iraq today. Iraq would NOT be the terrorist Club Med it is today; and London probably would not have been bombed. No fucking way should these assholes get a break by using the "well, everybody is doing it" bullshit. No everyone is not doing it.

I do agree with your husband, however, that government no longer serves the citizenry. The entire system is riddled with corruption. However, the repubs have swept to power promising to clear the corruption from the halls of government. They have failed miserably.

[jojo54]

10. I would love to see more politicians who've come from nothing.

By nothing, I mean no money, no health insurance, no social standing. and most importantly, no trust fund!

Or, if they would actually go out and live in the "normal" persons' world for a few months.....but I highly doubt that would happen.

[newportdadde]

11. It does matter but not by much.

Both Republicans and Democrats answer to corporate money which in turn screws the regular working person. Its not like one is pro outsourcing and one is anti-outsourcing. In the matter of jobs and economics they both walk in nearly the same shadow.

The difference, and it is difference is that Democrats will take the golden eggs but leave the goose alone, with just enough to make more eggs. The Republicans will take the eggs and kill the goose too.

[raccoon]

32. great post nt

[Zeke]

12. REFERRAL...

Time for a new husband.
I can recommend some good divorce lawyers.

[southernleftylady]

13. ohhh... no ;) i think ill keep him ... dump the crappy politicians instead

[Zeke]

17. What About..?

A good hypnotist(sp?) to help him re-gress
into fixing his cynical cycle, fix from
where he started going wrong? :)

[rman]

20. Do you believe there is no reason to be cynical about politicians?

-

[marions ghost]

39. EVERY reason to be cynical...

that's why it's time to remind them who they are working for. The current administration couldn't be a better example of how far is too far when it comes to power. And Dems who're complete sell-outs can hit the road, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Politcians, as a breed, are all much the same. Vote issues.

A breed whose first priority and ideal is getting and holding on to their seats.

There are a miniscule minority who actually have principles and ethics, but their number is indicative of the American proclivity to ignore the issues and vote for who has the best PR machine.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." - H.L. Mencken

[Tesha]

15. Politically, your husband is the exact sort of idiot who enables Repubs.

(NT)

[MadisonProgressive]

16. We wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

[rman]

18. I agree for the most part. However, there are exceptions.

One Bernie Sanders comes to mind http://bernie.house.gov/
And he's not the only one. How about Conyers, Boxer?

I say judge people by the fruits of their labor.

The fact that it has become increasingly harder to do so due to RW media consolidation, is no excuse to instead judge people by the label they wear.

[southernleftylady]

42. those are "the handful" of ones i can think of... nt

[cally]

19. That's how people like * get elected

It doesn't matter because he's such a nice guy. He's a straitht talker, decisive, a real leader. :puke: :argh:

It does matter. Democrats vote in lockstep on a few critical issues like some environmental protection, social security, medicaid, minimum wage and women's rights. If we were in power, none of these atrocities would be passed. Don't get me wrong, I know most politicians are way too pro-corporation but the Dem party is our only chance on a national scale.

[Walt Starr]

21. I agree n/t

[ComerPerro]

22. I agree in spirit, but there comes a point where it just becomes

libertarian nonsense.

[OnionPatch]

24. I hear this from

my sister and brother-in-law. But over the last few years I have been able to point out the "culprits" in each issue that comes up and guess what.....it's been the GOP almost every time! (I'm still not sure who to blame for the eminent domain thing...they say it was liberal judges but I don't know a single liberal who agrees with it.)

There will always be crooked politicians. It's just that the GOP has made it an art form.

I think there is hope. It's called Clean Money. http://www.caclean.org/
We also need instant runoff voting. These two things will help us be able to pick more "normal" people to run instead of fat-cat, rich, career politicians.

PS Your little ones are adorable, SouthernLeftLady!

[rman]

25. True, it can be used as an argument to depoliticize the populace,

which is where it goes to far.
The system is been corrupted almost beyond recognition, but it's not that nothing can be done about it - unless of course the prevailing opinion of the public is that nothing can be done about it. After all only the public/the people can do something about it - but that won't happen unless the believe they can.

[OnionPatch]

26. That's right

The bad part is that so many people do believe there's nothing we can do about. Just tell them "CLEAN MONEY" "INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING"
I'm at the point where those two things are more important to me politically than almost everything else.

[southernleftylady]

43. thank you! oh he cant stand bush he thinks he is an idiot but he doesnt ..

think bush is the one truely in power ... at least he knows that much ;) lol

[fujiyama]

27. That's a cop out

Politicians often succumb to the temptations of power that their positions give them - as everyone does.

This is the standard line that people use to justify their ignorance - that all politicians are crooks and it's this sort of thinking that keeps republicans in power.

I assure you that we wouldn't be worrying about Roe being dismantled, minimum wage laws being overturned, and environmental laws being gutted, if Kerry or Gore were in power instead of Bush.

[Pobeka]

28. Bullshit.

This is the kind of thinking that helped bring this band of neocon thugs in office.

It is wrong-headed in the first degree.

Just because you don't get everything you want from a politician, doesn't mean you shouldn't make the better choice, yes even what may appear to be the lesser of 2 evils.

Does anyone believe the economy would have been as bad if Gore had been elected and we had a sensible fiscal policy instead of "tax cuts for the rich", and deficit spending?

Would 9/11 have even happened *at all* (because Gore knew how serious the threat was!)? And if it still did happen, do you think we would have reacted by pissing off the rest of the world and stirring up the fundamentalists on *both* sides of this muslim-christian conflict?

The only candidate I heard even say *a word* about out-sourcing offshore was John Edwards.

Judicial appointments.

The environment.

Civil rights.

Regulation of corporations.

Regulation of the media.
--

There may not be many "superheros" for the little guy, but if we don't provide some feedback to the political system on picking candidates we see as better for our personal lives, then there is *no* reason for a candidate to give our real needs a second thought.

Every single one of those issues I listed above would be impacted in a more positive way by having a party in power that *at least* gives a minor amount of attention to the little guy, and the good of the country rather than only being focused staying in power and ever-loving greed.

[UTUSN]

29. If Us Little People Keep Saying It Don't Matter, It Really IS Over for Us

The baddies won't even have to BOTHER fixing elections. They can get the results they want without even TRYING.

[earth mom]

30. With the exception of Conyers, Boxer and one or two others...

I agree with your husband. When corporations come before the people and democratic Senators like Wyden vote for CAFTA, you know it's all about the money and looking out for numero uno.... and NOT about the people. :puke:

[nolabels]

35. Yee shall know them by their by their fruits

Then could we ask you if them few you believe in were no longer there what would you do? A sense of opposition that is false is also used as a back drop for carrying out unjust acts. The get-along-go-along model only can work if the rest of the people are paying attention.


A LOYAL opposition gives legitimacy to what ever the other ones do. If a foreign invader/occupier implemented and carried out all these plans that have been done in the last few years how much different do you think the opposition would be?

[raccoon]

31. Strongly agree!!!

Any real change that benefits us little people comes about through grass-roots activism, not through either of the parties, which both belong to Big Business.

[SmokingJacket]

33. I think certain individuals do care, but not entire parties.

I think Howard Dean cares more than most, but I never got the sense from Kerry that he cared all that much, though I ended up liking him fairly well anyway. His wife certainly gave a shit about human suffering. I wish she would run for something.

[marions ghost]

34. this attitude is out there...

and there's some truth to it, though I have to argue that the Dems do substantially more for "little people" than the Repugs, if you look at the record. And I think they would have done more, if not hamstrung by the Repugs ever since the Reagan era. The Dems at least understand the practical idea that you can't run a healthy society by and for the rich alone. They have demonstrated that.

Not only is your hubby's attitude defeatist and paralyzing, and guaranteed to ensure the status quo (or worse), it also leads to support of corruption at every level of society. "Look out for yourselves and your buddies (like the rich people do)." Today I read about a woman who worked a long time in a school system (making $50,000 a year), who falsified purchase records over a couple of years to skim off funds totalling over a million bucks, which she spread around to friends who loaded up on new TVs and cars. Modern day Robin Hood?" Nah --most likely just another subscriber to Republican "everybody does it" business ethics.

Maybe something to think about re. your hubby: It's not very healthy for people to live under a cloud of powerlessness. It takes a toll over time. If you are alienated by your government, it is a lot more difficult to function as a productive member of society. We ALL need to feel that our system WORKS, that it will not let us down when we need it most. That it functions fairly and honestly. That when we invest in our society, it will invest in us. That it is a partnership. We NEED this relationship to our larger community. It's not healthy to live in a rat-hole with blinders on. This is why I'm here, why I'm an activist. It FEELS bad to roll over and play dead in the face of serious abuses of power.

You seem to be made of different stuff than your hubby, southernleftylady. Maybe he'll eventually see that there's a war on the homefront too. It's better to go down fighting, to work against this sorry state of affairs, (no matter what kind of politician you believe is causing it) than to acquiesce to it. That is a downtrodden victim mentality. One thing you could do is bring small gains in the right direction to his attention. That's what I do to others I know who have this mind-set. The gentle, but steady approach. People who prefer the pit of despair have to be led into the light slowly.

[erpowers]

36. Disagree

There are some politicans that do care and do try to help the little people. The problem is that they are out numbered.

[ernstbass]

37. agreed

It's criminal that we have such a low minimum wage - that there proves your hubbie's point. They are all in the bag for corporate America.

[pookieblue]

38. as others have said

there are some good ones out there who really do care about the little people. But for the most part, I think that most get into the 'business' for the power.

[Lexingtonian]

40. Hell, even "us little people"

are just looking out for themselves and their buddies at this point in a very narrow sense and don't care a whole lot about anyone else. Blaming politicians for reflecting their constituents in their ugly side is pretty wierd at one level but it has always been a traditional rhetorical evasion for The People.

This is what Michael Lerner called 'surplus powerlessness', people looking for an excuse to give up on other people and finding it.

There was a lot of discussion of this phenomenon of very narrow selfinterest during the Eighties. People used words like selfishness and narcissism and 'underclass' and 'yuppie'. People actually 'believed in', or at least championed, Objectivism. It's where Michael Douglas got his best moment as an actor, as junk bond king Gordon Gecko, telling an audience in 'Wall Street' that famous line: "Ladies and gentlemen, Greed...is Good."

From the time of FDR to LBJ the national situation made/kept it necessary to minimize Inequality as much as possible, and it was greatly decreased over 35 years- financial, racial, ethnic, gender, and class inequality diminished. People thought they were all getting better chances than their parents. From Nixon until now the reaction has held sway, to resist any further reduction of Inequality or even to reexpand it. The Constitutional protections against group inequality are subverted and denied, go unenforced.

And what that means is that the bottom has fallen out of the notion of Citizenship. We are no longer people engaged in a common social endeavor- the sense of Covenant (Latin co 'together', venantus 'going') is absent, we are forced to behave as if the narrow interests with which we are associated with individually are the most important ones. Everyone is forced into an identity politics, forced to stand up for individual demands and particular group demands, and often between contradictory ones.

The bad news is the Social Darwinist behavior that results and is championed. The good news for people who want progress is that, over time, the unsustainable forms of individual and group identity are driven to the margins and ground down in the brutish political behavior and battles. It's a high price to pay and almost everybody gets damaged by it. And what are politicians going to do differently than anyone else, but try to survive it as best they can? There are two strategies- stand with the privileged side(s), minimize suffering, and still get ground down and defeated historically at the end (aka Republican). Or stand with the downtrodden side(s) and get ground down at the beginning and suffer throughout, yet prevail- just barely- in the end (aka Democratic).

We're in the last of three phases of this game, which have been a lot alike but had somewhat different emphases. Under Nixon the dispute was most centrally social- about the kinds of American race and gender being superior to the other kinds. Under Reagan the dispute was most centrally economic- about socioeconomic class superiority outside of merely having money. Under Bush the dispute has been centrally about American status among world peoples- about who Americans are superior to (or not) and why (e.g. whether being Christian confers special status).

So, I view politicians as a class of people who merely surf the waves of opinion of the masses as best as they can. Some are always being washed under, others have caught the present wave, and there are always a few out there waiting for the next good swell. Blaming them is beside the point- they reflect the good and evil and mediocrity of Americans rather perfectly, if you watch long enough, which constitutes their particular skill and utility. And if you think politicians are merely exploiting The People, watch for a long time- you'll see the other side, The People using up politicians for their own purposes and discarding them as callously, too.

It's easy to say the politicians don't represent you and represent all the other people and groups in the society against you. But then, look around- almost everyone sees it the same way. Democrats have felt this way since JFK and LBJ, glom onto one or another individual every now and then who can't possibly meet the demands. If you look around, Republicans have compromised terribly in order not to suffer this- and now, despite every effort, they're starting to feel the same thing about their Party.

[marions ghost]

44. interesting...

I take it from this you are saying that the Progrssives/Liberals ARE going to prevail this time, or have a chance to?

I also understand that you say our constitutional protections for equality have been subverted and unenforced, so this is an area we must work on?

I basically agree that we have lost a sense of citizenship and contract with our government. It's everyone out for themselves...

So what's the antidote, realizing that we may not want to repeat the cycle again and again?

[Lexingtonian]

45. I feel sure of it

I take it from this you are saying that the Progressives/Liberals ARE going to prevail this time, or have a chance to?

Yes. The social rights issues of our times are slipping our side's way, the basic economic rights to match them will follow as I see it. As a historical pattern the social rights have to be won first, at great cost and bare survival of the cause of the justice.

I also understand that you say our constitutional protections for equality have been subverted and unenforced, so this is an area we must work on?

As I see it, since WW2 and clear since Brown v Board all of our national arguments have turned on realization or denial of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

All of our great present problems go to this. Gay rights, womens' rights, religious bigotry in public life, minority rights, breakdown of church/state barriers, conservative Christian privilege, underfunding of minority education, and a lot of the nastiness of our economic system- offloading costs- all point to electorates, organized groups, legislatures, and courts who variously refuse to act according to the letter, let alone the spirit, of this part of the Constitution. Republicans hate it deeply.

To be precise, the country considered the 14th terribly radical when it was ratified (in 1868) and stopped enforcement of it during Reconstruction. But the Supreme Court decided to enforce it piecemeal, creating the Civil Rights Era, for a 20 year period from Brown v Board to Roe v Wade. (Yes, Roe is built on the right to privacy construct for individual abortions- but the individual right extends to national legalization on the basis of the guarantees of the 14th.) Nixon famously capitalized on the 'backlash' to it all in 1968 and appointed the likes of Rehnquist to the Supreme Court precisely to stifle this work. But since taking the 14th to its ultimate perversion in Bush v Gore (it was created to get black mens' votes properly cast and fairly counted in the South), the Rehnquist Court has quietly turned on Rehnquist and begun very slowly reextending the 14th properly in verdicts like Lawrence v Texas.

Nixon and his cronies probably didn't care too much about the race/gender/religion parts per se- they just saw that when social rights equality is achieved (i.e. privilege is diminished), economic rights and power distribution to the disenfranchised follow soon thereafter. To some degree they did it because they saw how deeply flawed people of their time were on all sides (the Left was far from perfect) and to some degree it was simply a hatred of and unwillingness to countance the progress of 'socialism' or 'Communism'. John Roberts seems to be the next Justice put in by Nixonites to try to maintain this line.

There was an attempt to improve on this, or reiterate it, or simplify and bypass the technical difficulty in handling the 14th in the form of the Equal Rights Amendment.

I basically agree that we have lost a sense of citizenship and contract with our government. It's everyone out for themselves...

So what's the antidote, realizing that we may not want to repeat the cycle again and again?

We have a younger half of the electorate that is greatly more Modern, i.e. largely accepts the breakdown of the American race/gender/religious social caste system and a lot of them deep down truly don't know why it was worth maintaining in the first place. They see it as irrelevant (and it is, in a globalized economy and its selforganizing societies) and only as posing obstacles, as having little or no palpable benefits. They agree with what was and is being achieved in breakdown of this system (Roe, gay marriage, gay equality, post-prison criminal rights, maintaining the New Deal safety net). They're internalizing the new ways and the old is obsolete to them.

On the other hand, relatively few of the young are embittered against the older order- they haven't suffered that much of its particular oppressiveness. The fighting is very much in the older half of the population, the more victimized and victimizers of the scheme, for the time being. In 10-15 years I think we'll see the younger generations fighting about the economic equalization aspect, i.e. universal health care.

I think Democrats are slowly grasping that the game is not about workers' rights, gay rights, womens' rights, election reform, or the New Deal in isolation. There has to be a realization that Democrats can and must achieve all of these things together, not separately, and that Democrats have a Constitutional basis/center that surpasses all the attitudes, the '-isms', in relevance to the situation. Lincoln's Republican Party ultimately defined itself by the 13th Amendment. Our contemporary Democratic Party has to arrive at a definition of itself by the 14th, or something like it. Barak Obama's highlight convention speech a year ago was such a hit internally- and its content was entirely to identify the Democratic Party with a solemn commitment to the spirit, a lot of the words, and concrete implementation of it. But then the Party (and Obama, sadly) had a failure of nerve. Let's hope that doesn't repeat itself.

I'm not sure we should expect elected politicians to be ahead of their constituents on this matter central to our times, but appointed people- Supreme Court Justices, Attorney Generals, Secretaries of Labor, lower level appointees- should be the manifestations and the great antidote.

[dhinojosa]

41. I vehemently disagree......

People keep electing the assholes is the only problem. People don't like voting for the person that cares about "us little people". Also what is up with "us little people"? Sounds like an insecurity problem to me.

That post was wrong on so many levels. Kick your husband's butt.

[bearfan454]

46. Yep

It's true unfortunately.

[ObaMania]

47. Agree wholeheartedly

.. but it's always nice to have a big D next to all the idiots running the country.

Look, Kerry and Gore both rolled over in concession when things where clearly wrong in both elections. Probably thought that if they bowed out they'd have a chance to politik another day. BZZZZ -WRONG ANSWER.

If they really cared about the people and stood by their message, they would've hung in there.

Those dudes are just two examples. Many of our other "leaders" have turned out to be just as much of a disappointment.

Can you say DINO? They're all the same. Hey, they are guaranteed an excellent retirement. If I knew I was eligible for their retirement after one term, I would make the best of my 4 or 6 years and really hammer my issues and stand by my own and my constituent's beliefs.