Real Change

[WilliamPitt]

Real Change
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Wednesday 23 January 2008

I put a dollar in one of those change machines. Nothing changed.

- George Carlin

Change, right?

That's been the big buzzword since the middle of December or thereabouts. While the last days of 2007 bled away one by one, and as the pre-Iowa political bedlam became loud beyond endurance, "change" was the word on the lips of every candidate. One could not swing a dead cat by the tail in Ames or Des Moines without swatting campaign literature pledging "change to come," but only if they got the votes.

Giuliani described himself as an "agent of change." Clinton talked about needing experience in order to be able to bring change. Obama fairly waxed rhapsodic on the topic, setting the pre-caucus benchmark late in November by using the word four times in one sentence. Romney vowed to bring change to Washington, DC. Even McCain and The Artist Formerly Known As Thompson were grudgingly forced to work the word into their speeches after a while. It was everywhere, and any credulous folks in the crowd must have gotten to a point, after hearing it so often from so many candidates, where it felt safe to assume "change" was really coming no matter who wins come November.

"Change." Let's talk about that word, and what it involves. Certainly, making change in America's domestic and foreign policy priorities is a necessary activity. Consider ...

Iraq - A suicide bomber blew himself up in front of a school, wounding 22 teachers and students who were arriving for the beginning of the academic day. Another suicide bomber blew himself up at a funeral in the oil refinery city of Biaji, killing 15 and wounding ten others. The bodies of six family members who had been kidnapped the day before were found shot execution-style in Diyala province. Seven other bodies were found in different Baghdad districts. A bomb went off in Baghdad and wounded a policeman. Gunmen in Baghdad attacked and wounded three other policemen in Baghdad. A roadside bomb detonated on the Diyala Bridge killed an employee of the Transport Ministry and wounded six others. Two US soldiers were killed in Kirkuk, bringing the total number of American soldiers killed in Iraq to 3,931, with 27 of those deaths coming in the month of January to date.

All this happened between Monday the 21st and Tuesday the 22nd of January, 2008.

America - Consumer confidence has cratered. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke had to scramble in order to avoid having Wall Street detonate in a frenzy of mortgage-crisis stock-dumping. "Debt" has become synonymous with "Ain't getting paid" for massive lending institutions that are now, one by one, declaring galactic write-offs to the tune of billions. Bush and his crew of cretins are trying to fob off another massive tax cut for their friends under the guise of a "stimulus package" that will probably meet with Congressional approval because that's what Congress does. Oil prices continue to hover near the $100-per-barrel line, clobbering families from sea to shining sea wherever heat and automotive transportation are involved in day-to-day existence.

All this happened yesterday, and the day before, and will happen again tomorrow. So, yeah, "change" is an attractive menu item. Too bad it isn't coming around anytime soon.

How can this be? Aren't all these 2008 candidates promising just that?

Indeed. They are promising that which is beyond their capacity to deliver, assuming "change" is something any or all of them actually want to see happen. Change has not been an easy action item to tick off the Get-Done list for many decades now, and for a variety of reasons.

Corporate Personhood, as delivered by several 19th century Supreme Court decisions, gave faceless financial juggernauts the same 14th Amendment rights as any living American citizen, and exists now as the bought-and-paid-for breed of politics that is beholden to a media machine owned by those same faceless powerhouses. If you know the name of a politician or presidential candidate, odds are better than good he or she earned their national notoriety and campaign viability by signing on to the program as it stands today. That's not a good recipe for cooking up an agent for change.

Add to this apparatus the economics of America's war machine, dubbed the "Military Industrial Complex" by President Eisenhower in his 1960 farewell address. Preparation for and waging of wars have become as important to the American economy as consumer confidence, housing indices and fuel prices. The ridiculous calamity that is America's occupation of Iraq is, for a notable few, nothing more or less than a magnificent revenue stream, and those who profit from American war-making have enough financial muscle to make sure this gravy train continues as it has since 1947. Once again, national candidates have no hope for achieving higher office without first bending a knee to this phenomenon. They have all signed on the line that is dotted, which is the only reason you've heard of any of them to begin with.

Those are two reasons "change" is not in the offing after Inauguration Day in January of 2009. Both parties are beholden to this situation, and have been for some time now. No one candidate, party or national election is going to undo this mess. There will be no change in any real or fundamental sense once this farce of an election has been and gone.

But.

More: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012308R.shtml

[Tom Strong]

1. You gonna endorse, Pitt?

Or are you much too smart for that?

[WilliamPitt]

10. I endorse the nominee.

[DFW]

31. Second that! n/t

[GalleryGod]

32. Hey, Oldtimer! Great to see you again!

[BobTheSubgenius]

36. Great answer.

The most important endorsement of all.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. I watched the South Park episode about the homeless, "Spare some change?"

It seems like a very different episode now that we are in the middle of a recession and hovering on the verge of a Second Great Depression, and everyone just wants to push the problem along to the next group of folks.

[donkeyotay]

3. That's the truth. K&R nt

[bigtree]

4. I had a moment where I thought I could turn away from the political process and chill

. . . but, it was just denial. This is a generational fight, because, our democracy is dependent on our vigilance and unending participation.

Rolling that 'rock up the hill' will almost certainly be an up and down endeavor. The continuing participation of voters, after the election is over, is the only thing which will compel the elected officials to 'change' the system.

But, there is a great deal riding on the personage of whoever we elevate these positions of power and influence over us. These elected officials must be pressured to allow more of our voices to be represented in whatever they do. That would encompass election reform, campaign reform, and a reform of the judicial process and administration to allow the accountability which is already built into the system to proceed unobstructed. That prospect, as you say, is stymied by institutional 'beholdings'. The dismantling or reform of those obstacles to change will, indeed, take time.

[redqueen]

5. They have a good idea of how many will tune right back out

after the dog & pony show is over.

[tavalon]

13. In my list of what I plan to do,

I forgot to add that I'm going to keep the pressure on the national electeds, but I'm just not going to invest so much hope. I'll believe in them when I see them do something worthwhile but I'm still gonna ride their asses. I think that was a mistake made after President Clinton got in, the progressives stood down a bit. I think that needs to not happen this time around, no matter who the President is.

[eridani]

21. Guilty as charged here. Never again! n/t

[tavalon]

24. I was worse than that then.

I was politically asleep. I voted in the main Presidential elections without really researching, just getting a feel of who I liked (funny, always Dems). My awakening came in the year following 9/11, not the event itself but America's response, both on the ground and in the halls of power. I'm awake now and while I may not know exactly what I should be doing to best help, I will not sleep again.

[eridani]

25. Hey--caucus for Kucinich

If he doesn't get enough votes in your precinct, go for Edwards.

[tavalon]

26. I have a question

What is the impact if I caucus for Kucinich and he gets enough votes, does that mean that our delagates go to him forever or do they at some point end up going to someone else (if he doesn't have enough nationally to become our nominee)? Unfortunately, I always lived in a Primary State and am a little hazy on the differences.

[eridani]

27. Precinct votes for Kucinich are to national delegates--

--as a good snowpack in November is to skiing for the rest of the year. You can afford to caucus for your values at that level. The right progressive strategic decision after the precinct caucuses is less obvious, and will depend on whether or not one of the money candidates is a clear winner on Feb 5th. In that case, voting for Kucinich or Edwards is a protest vote that can and should be carried up to the LD/county, the Congressional District and then the national level. At each level, the number of delegates decreases until you wind up with the 50+ who will be going to Denver. CD and national delegates can raise a stink even if they can't get their candidate elected. Kucinich is obviously the far stronger protest vote.

If it's not a done deal after 2/5, then moving to Edwards may keep his candidacy viable. Hopefully that would turn out to be viable enough to lead to a brokered convention--one in which there was no clear winner before the national convention. In that case, progressive issue delegates would actually have some real power. If Edwards can't get viable even with the extra support from Kucinich people, they might as well stick with Kucinich.

[tavalon]

29. Thank you

Bookmarked. That really helped!

[Avalux]

6. Change won't come from the top; won't come from a politician.

Hillary bloviates much like Bush that she is the only one who can fix this country so we must elect her; if not we will be doomed. Her manner is different but the message is the same.

The only real change that will happen in this country must come from us, when we finally say "enough is enough", put aside our differences and work together as a people (regardless of political party) to force our elected officials to do what we want.

I'm not sure it can happen or that it will be allowed to happen, but I must hope that it's possible.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. For people to change, they must detach from their proxy thinkers

Talk radio, news pundits, preachers.

Nothing good will happen till people take charge of their own opinions.

[tavalon]

15. If you're talking ditto heads, absolutely!

But I use the progressive voices to stir my thoughts. They often offer up alternatives I hadn't even thought of, but then I do think and end the end, I decide. When Nance Greggs or William Pitt or Molly Ivins (May she be having just a wonderful time with Ann Richards in heaven) or Mythsage say something, I listen carefully because they often have important stuff for me to mull over. But, in the end, it must be me who decides if those ideas work for me, as it must be for all of us.

So, I think we're saying the same thing, unless you are saying I should stop listening to folks who have proven to have valuable information, in which case, we disagree.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Dittoheads and all the similarly-minded folks who believe everything they're told

Wasn't really talking about you (or hopefully most of the people at this site)

The reason the pukes keep getting within stealing distance of elections is because millions upon millions (roughly 60 million in 2004) ignored reality and voted based on what their RW heroes told them.

People who read others' writings and consider them are not the problem. But on the right, "consider" is just another dirty word. They expect their followers to swallow everything they spew out. And there's a damned long list of Americans who are on board with that.

[Truth2Tell]

7. The video to complement your post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x86699

[CorpGovActivist]

8. KNPnta

[Mythsaje]

11. As I said in my most recent rant:

"There are those who try to tell us it's not really that important, that none of these people will bring any meaningful change. Perhaps that's true. But if it is, then all of THIS is for naught, for the fate of not only America, but the whole human race could well be at stake.

Plan accordingly."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4166589&mesg_id=4166589

[tavalon]

12. Exactly!

And that is why I've dropped out of the primary fights (never jumped in much to start with, truth be told, except that I got mad that Edwards was getting a media blackout - that's just rude) and why, I will do the caucus here if it matters, and may do a bit of phone banking and a bit of money sending and a whole lot o' voting, but, my focus has changed. I've just become my hospital unit Union Rep and we go to the bargaining table in April. Very busy time. After that, I'll take a few months off of politicking, and then, I'm going to push to implement a change that the Republicans actually used to their advantage, that being that I'm going to work for local progressive candidates. Hopefully, one day, they will be prominent without having signed in blood. I'm also going to continue my progress into the rejection of as much corporatism as I can. And I'm going to learn to accept that I will not see the change I want in my lifetime. While I'm at it, I'm going to pray that I see the change that is happening now (Fascism), go away, or at least be pushed back a good bit. That wolf is breathing on our necks. I'd really like to see it go back into the woods.

Ninety percent of the time I'm in sync with you. It's disconcerting when I'm not, because those are really skewed odds. I'm not feeling disconcerted with you right now. Especially with one of your statements further down. Sure, I have a favorite, but when this nasty part is done, I endorse the Democratic candidate.

[eridani]

22. "Local progressive candidates" is key

Very few progressives were involved in getting more of our people into the pipeline in the 70s. That's why there aren't many like Wellstone and Kucinich coming out the other end of it now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. It looks like we're going to have to settle for spare change. As usual.

[no name no slogan]

17. Sadly, I think it will look something like this, again

vs.

[tavalon]

18. Right now,

I think a little breathing room is a fine thing. At the very worst, we will have fascist lite after this election. It's better than the snarling beast that is dying to slouch, nay roar into Bethlehem.

As an aside, the internet grassroots are growing by leaps and bounds. If we can keep this medium under our control, the change will come so much faster, maybe even in my lifetime and yours.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'd like to believe that.

But, cynic that I am, things are going to have to get much worse before real change will occur.

In the meantime, my nose holding days are over.

[tavalon]

23. Well, I will grant you, that is a way to make sure those much worse days

come sooner, rather than later. That's not a snark. There is merit to that angle too. I just question whether bloody revolution will turn out the way we progressives would want it to. Once the blood spills, no one really has any control over the how it ends up.

[tavalon]

16. Interesting aside,

The newspaper here in Seattle put out by the homeless, is called Real Change. I don't live in Seattle proper anymore, but when I lived in Fremont (remember the cute pepto bismol colored barge?), I used to buy one from every homeless person I saw. I bet I got 20 copies each week. It's actually a good newspaper for keeping up with the homeless issues in Seattle.

This is actually just a kick with a little substance. :)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

28. Well, we had real change with George Bush

George Bush brought us change. We are now fighting an open-ended war against terrorism, a tactic, and not against a specific nation or enemy. We've had the most costly war since Vietnam. We've now had two major economic downturns in the last 7 years. We've had tax cuts that have primarily advantaged the extremely wealthy, stimulating very little, while our nation's bridges and highways continue to fall apart and war veterans continue living under these decrepit bridges. Torture and whether it's appropriate as a regular practice of our government has now become a matter of debate and not something automatically rejected as a barbaric relic of the middle ages. We no longer trust that our vote will count in any election where voting machines are used. Our own Constitution and such important rights as the right to counsel and habeus corpus have come under attack. Our executive branch now refuses to cooperate to any extent with any Congressional subpoena under the all-encompassing and ever-expanding blanket of executive privilege.

I know that real change in the power structure in Washington and its business as usual will only come about slowly and gradually, through the constant efforts of the People. But if we can at least have a change from the change brought to us by George Bush I will be happy. I look forward to a change in the White House with giddy anticipation.

[Nailzberg]

30. The antithesis of uplifting, William. Probably true, but this is how I end a great day?

I need ice cream. I'm depressed.

[antigop]

33. "This is the way the world works."

http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/The_Bomb_in_the_Shadows%3A_Proliferation%2C_Corruption_and_the_Way_of_the_World/

This is the way the world works. Behind the glitz and gossip of presidential campaigns, behind all the earnest "policy debates" on Capitol Hill, behind all the "position papers" and "vision statements" of think tanks and political parties, behind all the great panoply of state and our august Establishment institutions, thieves and murderers have their way, in league with the great and good.

Anyone who ascends to national power has to make a deal with the devil: either directly to plunge their hands into filth and blood, or else swaddle themselves in "plausible deniability," looking away from the grubby details but knowing full well that their minions, agents and backers are doing "whatever it takes" to keep the machine of power and money rolling on.

This doesn't mean that leaders can't also try to do good things as well, and occasionally accomplish them. After all, Al Capone was famous for his acts of benevolence. Indeed, some leaders pursue idealistic or ameliorative policies in order to "justify" the crimes and lies that sustain the system which has raised them on high. But the devil will have his due, and the price of power must always be paid – and it is ordinary people, especially the most innocent and vulnerable among us, who always end up paying it.

[Raster]

34. Stay off small planes, Brother Pitt. Stay off small planes.

[robbedvoter]

35. BULSHIT!!!!! Any Dem taking office after W would be a change of cosmic proportions

You guys got so entangled in the primary food fight - you lost the perspective.
From a former fan of a pro-war ticket in 2004 - this is kinda funny. Did Ralph just fart around here?

[BobTheSubgenius]

37. But is it ENOUGH change?

In the case of any given candidate, I mean. The current spot on the continuum of political thought....dialogue.....governance...whatever...has been dragged so f'ing far to the right that it could take more than one election, candidate, sea-change-in-the-collective-mind to get it and us back to something that a thinking person could be proud of.

I hate to seem like I see the glass so half-empty, but I have seen little to encourage me over the last 7 years. You're right, though. How could it NOT be so? A bite of the elephant, at the least.

(on edit....removing failed HTML tags)

[robbedvoter]

38. It's NEVER ENOUGH change. We'll always need more - and demand it. Even if DK came as POTUS

it still wouldn't be enough. It's an ongoing struggle - it's supposed to be. But to get back to the "no difference" BS with Bush in the White House just because you aren't that pleased with the candidates running - that's irresponsible!
I was far from pleased with the candidates picked by the 2004 MSM(Will Pitt was present at the coronation and proudly wrote about it) before the first primary vote was cast. They took the war off the table in the GE - as they were all, both tickets pro-war. And still Kerry would have been a vast improvement. Just as this year nominee - if he/she takes office will be a colossal improvement over Bush.
And we never stop asking for more change.
But don't give me the Nader BS with "no difference". Look at W. Look at his simpering clones. Then drop this idiotic talking point.