A Tad Bit Political

Yes, I know. I've been getting way too political, here of late. But I can't seem to help myself. I'm convinced that we are headed down the *absolutely* wrong path, and anything that my small voice can do to right the ship is a boon. It may not be to you, gentle reader, but I will feel better knowing that I've done my part.

Metafilter member five fresh fish, (a user name I adore as a fisherman), asks the question: "I assure you, US Americans, that the world watchs in stunned bewilderment: how can you call this farce-beyond-words "democracy"?

I respond, in all earnestness (most spelling corrected):

fff, we don't. If we're at all educated, we will call it what it was meant to be ... a Republic based on Democratic socialism. But the fact that "Socialism" has taken on a McCarthy-esque feel makes that word icky, so now we just call it a Democracy or a Republic. Either way, our Federal government serves as an entity that fosters and supports the social well being, hence "socialism", and it is formed by the vote of the populace as a mandate for the representatives in the republic, hence "Democratic Socialism". Anybody who thinks differently is either very stupid concerning history, or is a modern supporter of the Republican party (read "clueless").

The scariest part of all is that we now have a Federal administration that thinks we can foster State's right through Federal mandate (read Bush's RNC acceptance speech and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about ... state control of education through federal mandates governing educators ... WTF???). We have a federal administration that fosters privatization of essential services, and then protects and hides the provision of said services under the blanket of Federal need. We have a federal government that offers federal moneys to those private entities (corporations) that support provision of national defense support and construction, even offering federal dollars to protect them in war torn areas that benefit national (Administration) interest regardless of the deficit cost to the country. We have a Federal administration that seems hell bent on controlling provision of public services based on national interest, and legislation that supports those corporate entities that foster federal control of information (Orin Hatch is a whore), control of energy, control of media (allowing Rupert Murdoch to rape and pillage), control food supply (subsidies to corporate providers that outstrip anything provided to local family agriculturalists), and even control of the legal establishment, (one hunting trip and your secret's safe with me). Gee, that seems a hell of a lot like National Socialism. Now, what was the German term for that?

I encourage you all to take a good long look at the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordane and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

I ask you, quite simply, who better promotes those values? George Bush, who believes that we must attack other nations in the slim hope that we defend our own? George Bush, who supports a social ideology of exclusion based on psuedo-Christian ideals? George Bush, who befriends those who support our enemies while asking us to buy the product of those "friends"? George Bush, who promises safety from terror while ignoring national defense alerts in favor of a missile "blanket" (his word, not mine) that doesn't work, and fails to sheild us from a real threat? George Bush, who has had 4 years to accomplish social change under a friendly congress, and promises the same changes he promised 4 years ago and has failed to deliver? George Bush, who draws a static line between those who agree and those who side with the enemy (a false dilemma)?

Or John Kerry, who, in the President's own evaluation, honorably and bravely served to defend the interests of this nation? John Kerry, who has promised to work with our innovative spirit (scientists) to bring an end to deseases that can be cured with stem-cell research? John Kerry, who will not promote nationalism above the democratic mandate of the American people? John Kerry, who will not promote media providers above the politics they expouse? John Kerry, who understands that the environment in which we live provides the very things that keep us strong.

Some people, both young and older, will choose to remain ignorant of where our country is headed under the self-interested leadership of George Bush. Others will choose Bush because they believe that he has their best interests at heart, while he swells the deficit, and forgives Halliburton for stealing 9 Billion of our dollars. Still others will choose Bush because they like what he says, in complete denial of what he does. Anybody who gives a damn about what our country truly stands for will understand that John Kerry, weak as he may be perceived, is far better for our future progress than what currently inhabits the White House. Please, for the love of God, lets move forward, instead of hiding behind the National Zocialist (Nazi) platform. Nobody is a traitor for saying that IraqAttaq was a stupid move. Nobody is a traitor for pointing out that the President doesn't know what he's doing; he is incompetant. We're doing you a favor by pointing out the truth.

The current President favors your enemy above you. Your current President demands your obedience. I come from Montana. Demand nothing from me that you haven't earned. I will vote for John Kerry. What has Bush earned from you?

Comments

[Kim]

I have some thoughts, but I shall keep them to myself (re: this afternoon's conversation). But, I do agree with you on this one. *clap clap clap*

[Jon]

The fact that we even need to discuss this is proof 50% of the country is screwed. It's like a bad Steven Segal movie. I cna't even bear to sit through the turd, but the rest of the country just loves it.

[Craig]

"Anybody who thinks differently is either very stupid concerning history, or is a modern supporter of the Republican party (read "clueless")."

Perhaps you could point us out to some historical documents that support your claim that the U.S. was founded as a "socialist democracy."

You know, for those clueless folks out there.

[Wulfgar]

Craig, by changing the words "Republic based on Democratic socialism" to "socialist democracy", I think you profoundly change the meaning. The USSR was a socialist democracy (in theory), the USA has never been. We are, by political definition a representative republic. Though the term socialism wasn't used until the early nineteeth century, the ideologies were very in place at the founding of our country. The principles of egalitarianism regardless of social standing, of solidarity in the union, and social responsibility and equal application of justice, are the foundations of socialism as an ideology, and I already did post the support for that ... it exists in the Preamble to the Constitution.

For the record, Craig, your own writing has proven that you're not a very modern supporter of the Republican party. You do not support the FMA (regardless of the your well-spoken defenses of your beliefs concerning marraige). You do not support massive federal deficit spending. You do not support federal educational mandates. You do not appear to support a continuing erosion of fair-use law. All of these things you do not support are hallmarks of the Modern Republican party. This shows directly what I posted here, and what Chuck discusses here. I don't find you clueless, Craig. That's why I remain completely boggled as to where the depth of support for George Bush comes from.

[Umaga]

Cool blog. Go Kerry.

[chuck rightmire]

I think you've got it in one, Wulfgar. I believe that we don't have a Conservative- Liberal split in the country anymore. Rather, as I see it we have a strong reactionary right wing, a small number of conservatives squashed between the moderates and the reactionaries; the moderates who swing left to support the progressive-liberals on some issues and right to support the conservatives on the other. Then we have the radical lefists, who are actually a rather small group compared to the reactionaries. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others are among the reactionaries who go back to Roman times in their Project for an American Century to impose a pax Americana on the world.

[-=e=-]

Is it me, or does Bush use the word "homeland" an awful lot? "Good for the homeland." "Do it for the homeland"...

Sounds eerily familiar to another guy hellbent on dominating the world that used the word "fatherland".

Sure that irritates a lot of wingers who immediately fast forward to 1945, and skip all that stuff about the Reichstagg attack, the blind, sweeping patriotism, and how invading Poland & Chechoslovakia was necessary to protect the Fatherland and its future... And all that other fun stuff in between.

Look on the bright side. If SDI doesn't work, we can all blame Clinton or something.