Go To:
Contact:
Advertisements
Order your 'Vote Out Incumbents' window - bumper sticker.
Just $3 each. Each order helps Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID) raise funds to spread the message around the country.
Polls:
Other Notable Sites
I confess. I believe there is a ruling class that sustains the two-party plutocracy running the nation for the benefit of the rich and corporate class. Their broad strategy is deception and delusion. Tactically, they use government, the mainstream media, the financial services sector, funding of politicians and the two major parties, and many other parts of the culture and economy to maintain their power and control.
Elections do not threaten elites. To the contrary, political debate and elections are important to maintain the illusion and delusion of a real democracy. They are key to prevent outright revolution, marginalize dissidents and political reform efforts, and suppress third parties. Would power plutocrats allow election of a president that threatened their control? Of course not. And no Democratic or Republican presidential candidate ever poses a real threat despite cloaking themselves with labels like maverick, reformer or change agent.
If you accept my worldview, then you know that the ruling class would prefer John McCain over Barack Obama, though they can live with Obama, which is why many, many wealthy people and corporations have poured money into the Obama's campaign and the recent Democratic convention. The chief disadvantage of Obama and Sarah Palin, from the rulers' perspective, is their relative brief stints as politicians. It takes time to corrupt politicians and cement their dependency on and membership in the ruling class. In contrast, McCain and Joe Biden clearly have shown themselves reliable in protecting the status quo two-party plutocracy.
The best way to view most current events is through the prism of the ruling class. Take lower gas prices and the federal takeover of the two mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both occurred relatively soon before the general election, as has far better information about the Iraq war. Manipulation and engineering of national and even world events are designed to serve the interests of the ruling class.
Why does deception and delusion work so effectively? When it comes to politics, current events and history, the vast majority of citizens are uninformed, stupid and dumb, regardless of their educational level. As distracted and compulsive consumers, they fall head over hills for political lies and slick campaign rhetoric.
First, consider younger voters. So much talk is about the increased interest in this presidential campaign by younger people, especially evident in the Ron Paul and Obama campaigns. But consider these facts: For those age 18 to 29 just 20 percent read newspapers and just 11 percent regularly surf the Internet for news. Most of what people know about candidates' positions on the issues comes from what they learn from unreliable and all too often misleading 30-second commercials. Despite far more widespread and extensive schooling, people today possess no more political knowledge than their parents and grandparents. And don't think that those addicted to The Daily Show and its irreverent view of politics are a lot smarter than those favoring The conservative O'Reilly Factor show. In both groups, only about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scored in the high knowledge category.
Propaganda and misinformation really work. Just prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq some 60 percent of Americans believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack. But here is the kicker: A year later there was a wealth of information, including the 9/11 Commission report, saying that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Yet an amazing 50 percent of Americans still believed that Iraq was to blame, and may still think so. As Rick Shenkman, author of Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, concluded: "By every measure social scientists have devised, voters are spectacularly uninformed." Guess who takes advantage of the stupidity of voters, especially younger ones.
If people can believe Obama when he says that the election is not about him but about them, then they also can believe McCain when he says he is a proven change agent and reformer.
The only real difference between Obama and McCain is exactly how they will screw the public and benefit the rich and powerful if elected, not whether they will. If the electorate was really intelligent, they would understand and focus on the similarity between the two, rather than their professed differences. It is what they share - obedience and loyalty to the two-party plutocracy - that matters the most. As long as voters do not understand this, the oppression and destruction of the middle class will continue, despite people thinking they are free and live in a democracy.
Mostly, Americans are free to remain vulnerable to deception and delusion.
Democracy for dummies is what we have and what the majority deserve. For the rest of us the difficult challenge is to find ways to fight the political system that are not marginalized and only satisfy our egos. As long as you are an enthusiastic supporter of any Democrat or Republican you are a willing participant in our fake democracy. Most voters persist in believing in the myth that some Democrat or Republican can and will reform the political system, fix the economy, and restore American democracy. They refuse to face the painful truth that this is simply not true. They rather keep embracing the delusional myth.
Consider these wise words of John F. Kennedy: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
And so millions of Americans suffering from habitual stupidity will cast their votes confident that they have discovered the truth. Like the march of the penguins diving into icy water without thinking they have any other choice, they succumb to the big myth that this year cost about $1 billion to keep alive. These voters are dummies for democracy. The rest of us will vote for Ralph Nader or some other third party candidate, or refuse to vote at all, and seek ways to ignite the Second American Revolution.
Politicians and media people often praise the smart public and smart voters as if they inevitably make the best, most intelligent and informed electoral decisions. This is sheer hype designed to maintain the political status quo. There is only one smart fact: Every single Democrat and Republican candidate lies. Why do they keep lying? It works.
[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com; he is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]
Expand - Collapse Comment
5:23 PM, 09 09 2008 | Permalink
Joel, it is hard to argue with much of what you have written here. Especially regarding the ability of so many voters to sift and filter the misinformation to get to the truth. But, then truth is often inconvenient, and therefore, consciously and purposefully, ignored, discarded, and dismissed.
Insulting voter's intelligence and acumen for assembling useful information, however, does not remedy the situation. In fact, it hardens resistance to being influenced toward better information gathering and validity testing that information. The answer to the problem does not lie with telling ignorant and unintelligent people that they are stupid.
You wrote: "The only real difference between Obama and McCain is exactly how they will screw the public and benefit the rich and powerful if elected, not whether they will."
Wrong! That is NOT the ONLY difference. They also differ on what good they will do and which problems they will work to resolve or improve for our nation and us, the people. Contrary to your implications, both Obama and McCain have intentions to actually improve America regardless of their motives to do so.
Therefore, voters do have a very positive choice to make, as well. Obama will provide more government services at less cost to the poor and middle class by raising taxes on the top 5% to recover at least some of what is lost in tax cuts for the rest of Americans.
McCain would preserve the Bush tax cuts, resulting in no further tax cuts for the poor or middle class, while continuing the enhanced wealth building capacity of those in the top 5% income bracket.
On the other hand, McCain is more likely to veto Congressional spending bills and force more spending cuts. If I recall his words correctly, these would be across the board cuts, affecting every American with less government services and assistance in one way or another. In the long run, this could benefit future tax payers by holding the line better on deficit spending and growing the national debt.
There are positive choices. But, what is hard for folks to understand is this: No positive decision is EVER made in government that does not have a cost attached to it either in the present, or future, for someone. Every decision has beneficiaries and losers as a consequence of that decision.
The trick is figuring out which candidate will, on balance, make the individual voter the greater beneficiary and less the loser as a consequence of their decisions in office. For many, this is a no brainer. The wealthiest will choose McCain. The poorest Obama. And the middle class will divide between the candidates according to a host of factors they are most concerned about.
I share your skepticism about our democracy. I share your cynicism about how voters fail to hold their representatives accountable on election day for bad government results.
I can't share your view that berating voters is going to improve the situation. I do share your view that vastly improved educational results would go along way toward improving it.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
7:19 PM, 09 11 2008 | Permalink
No doubt about it, as evidenced by these 10 abuses, which did not all come about by mere coincidence.
Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry ? Perhaps the voters aren't feeling enough pain yet from illegal immigration and these other abuses?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
7:24 PM, 09 11 2008 | Permalink
Who else is responsible?
Sorry, but Joel is right. Voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
10:16 AM, 09 12 2008 | Permalink
However, the biggest reason it may offend many voters is because it is true.
Voters have the government that the voters elect.
Perhaps it is time for voters to hear the brutal and honest truth?
Especially since the acceptance of that fact is necessary for enough voters to eventually start voting more responsibly.
Perhaps there is a nicer way of saying it, but the bottom line is that voters are culpable, and voters can't merely blame everything on politicians when the voters repeatedly reward those same politicians with perpetual 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismal 9% approval ratings for Congress.
The ONLY people that can make government more responsible and accountable is the voters, but repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent incumbent poiliticians with perpetual re-election rates clearly is not working, is it?
There is no doubt about that.These 10 abuses did not all come about by mere concidence.
And one very obvious demonstration of that is that 99.87% of all 200 million voters are VASTLY out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the weatlhiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
And those wealthy donors are rewarded with pork-barrel, corprate welfare, and subsidies.
For example, check these subsidies for the wealthy.
The amounts of these subsidies are staggering!
I know some people who are quite well off, own thousands of acres of land, and receive hundreds of thousands (or more) in subsidies each year.
Many are huge corporate owned farms receiving millions annually.
Consider these top 10 subsidy programs for one state (e.g. Texas) 1995-2006:
Rank ____ Subsidy _______ Recipients _____ Total
01 __ Cotton Subsidies _______ 96,628 ______ $6,126,931,257
02 __ Disaster Payments _____ 144,923 ______ $2,410,774,724
03 __ Conservation Reserve ___ 37,769 ______ $1,759,118,624
04 __ Rice Subsidies _________ 5,619 ______ $1,325,261,031
05 __ Wheat Subsidies _______ 95,337 ______ $1,291,098,137
06 __ Corn Subsidies _________ 59,302 ______ $1,213,424,428
07 __ Peanut Subsidies _______ 11,680 ______ $491,103,948
08 __ Livestock Subsidies ______ 84,430 ______ $456,298,603
09 __ Dairy Program Subsidies __ 2,586 ______ $92,836,865
10 __ Env. Quality Incentive ____ 12,036 ______ $80,298,602
And that's is only the tip of an iceberg of nightmare proportions.
For thousands of other examples of welfare for the wealthy, go to the following:
That's only a few of many. The examples of corruption, welfare for the wealthy, and waste are too numerous to count.
That's why databases (such as the Farm Subsidy Database above) was created.
You know something is dreadfully wrong when database are required to merely track welfare for the wealthy in only one sector (e.g. farming).
What would such a database look like if we were to do one for military contracts, mortgage industry, banks, housing, sports stadiums and facilities, oil companies, etc., etc., etc.
Check out these top 10 Welfare-for-the-Rich culprits from year 2006 (notice # 7 on the list: Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae).
Welfare for the weatlhy is so rampant, the many different organizations reporting on it are still only revealing the tip of the iceberg.
A book "Democracy for Dummies" isn't a bad idea.
Perhaps "Good Government for Dummies" would be a better title.
It may help voters to understand that they have only themselves to thank for the government that the voters have.
There are many reasons for voters bad voting habits:
A book "Good Government for Dummies" may help more voters to understand their bad voting habits and to finally understand that too much selfishness can eventually bring pain and misery not only to others, but back onto one's self.
Logic can substitute for a lack of Virtue.
And that's where pain and misery become the final education and motivation for positive change.
However, that doesn't mean that wealthy people are any worse than other people of less wealth.
The goal isn't to fuel class-warfare.
The problem with wealth is that it can buy Power, and influence government.
Power corrupts, without sufficient civil oversight, Transparency, and Accountability.
That is, many people put in the position of wealth and Power will abuse that Power.
The only Power the majority of poorer voters have is their numbers, but too many voters squander that power due to irresponsible voting habits.
Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Refusing to vote at all is not the solution, since that will possibly allow corruption to grow worse.The only potentially valid logic to wanting things to get worse is the belief that things can't get better until they get much worse. But that's a risky and possibly a dangerous gamble, and could give rise to a more totalitarian and oppressive government and actually make things get much worse than they ever would have otherwise.
Voting more responsibly is the solution, and repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election is not voting responsibly.
There may be a few honest and responsible incumbent politicians, but what good is it when most (if not all) 535 in Congress are irresponsible, corrupt, and incompetent?However, what goes around eventually comes around.
Those irresponsible voters will reap what they sow.
There will be painful consequences for the voters due to their bad voting habits.
Already, voters are just beginning to feel the painful consequences of their bad voting habits.
What too few voters understand is that there is a LOT more pain and misery on the way.
For years, no one has been able to answer this one simple question:QUESTION: Who can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, what does it mean about Congress as a whole?
But also, what does that say about the voters who repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
11:49 AM, 09 12 2008 | Permalink
I am very torn in this election. Although I am pro-Obama, not only because of his gift to unite people but also because of his ability to inspire. I refuse to believe until I see it, that Obama will be corrupt. His sheer ability to graduate an ivy league school and join an organization in the slums of Chicago inspires millions of people today. While I used to adhere to the republican philosophy of small government, and allowing people to make choices for themselves, they have completely lost me the last 8 years. I voted for Gore in 2000 because I loved how prosperous my family was in the 90's. I didn't want to change even though I believed in the republican government manifesto. Now, it is clearly imminent that we need a change in policies. Corporate tax cuts clearly aren't working, and the whole republican ideal that cutting taxes for the rich will create a trickle down effect has been mediocre at best. I truly feel that Obama is giving a new insight into politics. Once in offce, the Congress controls the President anyways, so at least with Obama in office he can continue to inspire people all over, rather than like McCain who, if in a virtual gridlock with congress for the next 4 years, would have nothing else to bring to the table. It really feels like the constant bickering and attacking has become meaningless now and outright dissapointing. I feel like if Obama does a terrible job in office, you will start to see a political revolution to a third party. A disasterous McCain will just lead to more outrage and increasingly likely chances of a democrat in 2012, but a failed Obama will finally show that both republicans and democrats are both corrupt and incapable of running the country.
I still can't bring myself to see Obama as a sinister, corrupt politician. He's too innovative, intelligent, and hardworking for me to believe it. If America is in worse shape 4 years from now, that is the day I switch to a third party.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
David R. Remer replied to Viyer06 at: :
10:18 AM, 09 14 2008 | Permalink
It is not that corporate tax cuts are not working. The entire concept of taxing corporations hasn't worked for America for decades. It and higher living standard wages have allowed third world nations to compete with us in the global marketplace.
America needed to adopt the flat rate income tax 30 years ago, and many of the economic problems we face today would not exist or be far less pressing.
Not much of chance of that now, I suspect. Even if there were, I suspect it is too late to recover our predominant economic position in the world for the rest of this century. This century will see China and India share that role if they can keep from blowing each to smithereens in their competition with each other. As the U.S. and Soviet Union were in the 20th century, I suspect China and India will be in the 21st.
Alexander found it impossible to defeat a people who believe in reincarnation. The Chinese may find it just as difficult in 40 or 50 years from now. World events often hinge on such fundamentals of a culture and people.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
2:11 PM, 09 12 2008 | Permalink
- (1) Barack Obama, as with all other members of Congress, refuse to honor their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, by refusing to obey Article V, despite 607 (or more) Article V requests by all 50 states.. And Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law too.
- (2) Barack Obama refuses to enforce existing immigration laws. In fact, he has voted to undermine existing laws. He doesn't give a damn about existing laws and that most Americans want those laws enforced. BetterImmigration.com gives Barack Obama a grade of "D-" on illegal immigration.
- Barack Obama says undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive (Nov 2007). Really? Then why are they driving? Has Obama looked at the statistics of illegal aliens arrested for drunk driving and homicide via drunk driving? Visit VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com to see a small sample of the thousands of Americans killed annually by drunk driving illegal aliens.
- Barack Obama supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants (Nov 2007). Nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, eh? Besides, most Americans will reward Congress with 85% to 90% re-election rates anyway. More...
- Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006). Wonderful. Especially with the 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from the Social Security system. But, it buys votes, and the voters will reward us for all of it anyway with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
- (3) Barack Obama gets a dismal pork-barrel grade of 10% for year 2007 (see page 8) and 18% lifetime pork-barrel grade at Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW.ORG). Here's his 2004-2006 pork-barrel grades. Here's some of Obama's earmarks totalling over $89 million.
- (4) Barack Obama is against upholding the 2nd Amendment (gun ownership).
- (5) more . . .
Do you really think Gore had a lot to do with that? After all, the stock market bubble tanked in 1999. People lost trillions in the stock market. Corporate taxes are merely passed along to consumers as hidden and regressive sales taxes. Trickle down doesn't work.The current tax system is very regressive, as evidenced by Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., who paid a lower percentage of income to federal taxes (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who paid 30% in total federal taxes on an income of $60K).
Despite all of the above? It probably will be in worse shape in 4 years, regardless of who the next president is, because:At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Reply to this comment