WANTED - Populist Caucus, Regardless of Party

[demwing]

I've become so mistrustful of so called Democrats who caucus with BushCo, that I just wonder why we insist on party politics as a method for moving the people's agenda?

Everything these apeshit neocon assholes want, they get. WHY?

It can only be because they have the nod of the corporations and churches. In fact, I sugest we stop refering to them as neo-cons and more accurately refer to them as "theo-corps"

The only way to fight their influence is with a huge, non-partisan populist movement.

Non-partisan because we need broad appeal and because we need to cast off the oppressive yoke of party politics. George Washington warned us about partisan politics when he left office. He saw that the political party was a way for corruption to defeat the People's government.

And supporting a third party doesn't break the back of party politics. A third party is simply another party.

Populism, however, is not the domain of any party, it is the domain of people who are united against a ruling elite, and in the America of 2005, that elite is the Theo-Corporate entity.

I suggest we target ten Senators--five from each party--who show the most empathy towards populist reform (building American jobs, keeping our borders and our hearts free, rebuilding the wall between church and state, and fixing our method of voting), and wage an all-out campaign to convince them that their duty--to country, constituent, history, and honor--lies in their carrying the banner of progressive populism.

In the names of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, we can unite a populist caucus, block corporate whores, and re-write our future in real time.

[chicagojoe]

1. Your idea is excellent.

Back during the 2000 elections, I was thinking the same way. Before that, I was an advocate of creating a third major party. Now I believe that would only muddy the waters even more.
The reality is this: The crap being pushed by the radicals at both ends of the spectrum is not what the average American wants. And you know what? The average American doesn't really want a whole lot. Just some straight forward people to mind the day to day business of our nation.
I've finally had it up to here with the ideologues on both sides.

[magellan]

2. This, I fear, looks increasingly like the only answer

Populism, however, is not the domain of any party, it is the domain of people who are united against a ruling elite, and in the America of 2005, that elite is the Theo-Corporate entity.

SPOT ON! If America is to survive then we must unite across parties, AS AMERICANS, against the stranglehold that the corporatists and religious right have on our government. The Theo-Corporate elite don't care about any of us at the bottom except in so far as they can keep us fighting each other, distracting our attention from how they're robbing us ALL blind. Of our futures. Of our very birthrights as Americans.

Progressive populism has saved this country from the demagogues before, it can do it again.

[mikehiggins]

3. Pick a name, as long as it isn't McCain, for support eom

[Skidmore]

4. Spot on.

The working class needs to stand up and be counted again. The "investor class" they created to give people a false sense of potential wealth and now they are pulling that rug out from under the feet of the citizen. It was done to lull a mass of people into thinking they too could be part of the "elite". They let just enough people in to keep the myth alive and now they are slamming the door.

You don't get something for nothing. They offered free money and cheap goods for our freedom. PT Barnum had it right.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. The reason

The apeshit neocon assholes get everything they want is because they control the presidency, both houses, the supreme court, and more than half of the media.

[demwing]

10. The real reason

that the ass pulls the cart is NOT that there is a stinging sensation in his rear that encourages him to run towards a carrot that always seems just out of reach.

That's just the immediate reason.

The real reason, the ultimate reason, is that there is the master with a whip, and a carrot on a string, and this master knows that ass will only pull the heavy cart if he is properly motivated.

The ass gets nothing from the pulling, the master gets a free ride.

Lets look beyond the immediate reason that the neocons/theocorps get all that they want, and try to find out the cause of that stinging in our asses.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I'm afraid I think the meta-reason

Is that the American populace is by and large very conservative.

I agree, we should blame the masters, not the servants. And in a democracy, the electorate is master.

The image of decent, hard-working liberal citizens like Us lead astray by the wicked Them of politicians, the media and Big Business is very appealing, but I don't think it's accurate.

I think that by and large we get the governments we deserve, and what Americans vote for at the moment is foaming conservatives.

Which makes things tough for those of you who live in America and deserve better, and makes me glad I live in the UK.

[demwing]

12. I was confused by your post

until I read that you live in the UK.

The American population is NOT largely conservative, nor are we largely liberal.

But we are largely progressive, and populist, and unfortunately-a bit lazy as well. Regardless of that laziness, the history of America is one of the triumphs of progressive populism.

But in 2005, we see, and are seen, through a filter. The media feeds us information, and we swallow what we are given (there's that laziness I mentioned). Further, Bush and his ilk are so awash in bravado that the rest of the world must believe he's quite popular at home.

He's not. In fact, he has the worst approval rating of ANY president that ever managed to get re-elected.

That media filter works both ways. They don't tell us whats up in the world, and they don't tell the world what's up in America.

[MaineDem]

6. Which Democrats caucus with Bush?

And what exactly do you mean by "caucus"? I don't know of any Democrats who caucus witht he Republicans so I'm not sure what you mean.

[demwing]

8. Caucus with Bush

First of all, no matter how many times I say it, and regardless of the seriousness of the topic--"Caucus with Bush" makes me snicker like a schoolkid.

When I say caucus with BushCo what I mean is they vote with Bush, similar to the way Jim Jeffords is said to caucus with the Democratic party, because he tends to vote with Dems on major issues.

Now, tell me that you don't know of any Dems who tend to vote with BushCo, and I'll say that you're not watching the same game that I am.

[many a good man]

7. You do realize, don't you...?

If liberals and conservatives both fielded populist candidates the right wingers would clean up.

Moderately conservative stances on social issues would prevail:
* highly restrictive abortions
* no gay marriage
* no affirmative action

And a big stick foreign policy.

It would only work to perpetuate our sense of entitlement and unsustainable life styles.

[demwing]

9. You're missing half the equation

I'm not suggesting that we start a "Battle of the Populists" with the Republicans in an attempt to find out whether "our populism" is better than "their populism."

I'm saying that we target likely candidates from both parties who have shown that put people before corporations, and that they are serious about maintaining the separation between church and state, and we support and encourage those candidates to be vocal and proactive regarding such issues.

We're so fucking caught up in Red vs Blue that we're ignoring the fact that most of the country is actually Purple, that the line that separates church from state has fallen--and that this line is the line in the sand that protects our civil liberties--and that unregulated corporations are gi-normous leaches on the ass of democracy, sucking the life out of our economic and social freedom.

And who perpetuates the battle between Red and Blue? Who gains from our infighting?

Who loses if we come together to secure the blessings of liberty?

I say it is the Theo-Corps.

[omega minimo]

13. Then there's the other other half of the equation

and the population. Women.

You might be right that wrong wingers would clean up, except for the substance of "social" issues you raised.

"* highly restrictive abortions
* no gay marriage
* no affirmative action"

These issues affect women and minorities and are, arguably, fully intended to divide and conquer and KEEP WIMMINS (queers, non-whites) IN DER PLACE! And keep the white male privilege and control firmly locked in. With a "big stick."

You might be surprised how many independent and Republican women (and minorities) would jump ship if the GOP abandons them (more than it already has).

You also assume that populist candidates would support "highly restrictive abortions, no gay marriage, no affirmative action...And a big stick foreign policy?"

What's populist about that? That's bidness as usual."

:hi:

[many a good man]

14. Social versus economic populism

Economic populism is something that could unite the lower and middle classes against the unbridled corporatism that's turning this country into a banana republic.

But it could only succeed as long as it remains free from the divisive social wedge issues that plague us today. In the past, populist movements have succeeded when sticking to economic issues. When venturing into the social sphere, it has more commonly been associated with right wing extremism. (I don't consider the civil rights movement or pro-choice movements to be "populist" in the traditional sense).


---

Many people make the mistake of thinking Republicans are conservative and Democrats liberal. You have to break it down at least one more step: conservative/liberal on social issues and conservative/liberal on economic issues. Many Democrats are social conservatives and the opposite is true on the other side.

In my opinion this is the major failing of our two-party, winner-take-all political system. In a parliamentary system, more voices are heard and compromise is more easily reached on issues where parties must be able to form coalitions around important matters of policy. It can force politicians to confront important issues that cross dividing lines and move the country ahead.

Our best hope is to find politicians willing to create a bi-partisan informal caucus on these economic issues.

[omega minimo]

15. Perhaps a redefinition of populism for a new age

and a reconsideration of what constitutes “moderately conservative stances.” Now that the corporate state noses into every private aspect of citizens’ lives, as well as their pocketbooks. Moderation is in the eye of the beholder.

“Economic populism is something that could unite the lower and middle classes against the unbridled corporatism that's turning this country into a banana republic.”

The social issues may not be so simple to disentangle from the economic ones, in order to effectively reach the people that need to be reached. The overlooked voters whose lives are severely impacted by “social” issues will surprise everyone. The fact that the patented “wedge” issues are all about maintaining the dominance paradigm is mainly ignored by the left.

“In a parliamentary system, more voices are heard and compromise is more easily reached on issues where parties must be able to form coalitions around important matters of policy.”

Appreciate your eloquence.

[demwing]

16. Why media ownership matters

Seattle Times
April 3, 2005
by Amy Goodman & David Goodman

George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the al-Qaida terrorist network - notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay.

Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies.

As the Pentagon has learned, deploying the American media is more powerful than any bomb. The explosive effect is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand.

When it comes to issues of war and peace, the results of having a compliant media are as deadly to our democracy as they are to our soldiers. Why do the corporate media cheerlead for war? One answer lies in the corporations themselves - the ones that own the major news outlets.

taken from "Populist America.com"
http://www.populistamerica.com/why_media_ownership_matters