My response to one NY Times reader regarding the Supreme Court . . .

[markpkessinger]

In the comments to an editorial in today's New York Times titled, "The Court Follows the Money," one reader wrote:

< . . . . >

If reform is impossible, then a revolution is needed. What kind of revolution? How to proceed? Many paths are possible, none are easy. Let me suggest two places we might start.

First, stop voting. At the least, never again vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, if the system is irredeemable, then the sooner it fully breaks, the better off we will be in the long term. Working for the election of Democrats leads to nothing but heartbreak. That energy is better spent elsewhere. The more the tea-party and like minded elements succeed, the quicker the collapse of the system will arrive. Scarry? You bet.

< . . . . >

I couldn't let that one stand. Here was my response (which has not yet posted to the site):

Terence Stoeckert advises: "First, stop voting. At the least, never again vote for the lesser of two evils."

If we stop voting, we play into the oligarchs' hands -- so that suggestion is possibly the worst advice one could possibly give.

As for voting for the "lesser of two evils" ("LTE&quot , while LTE voting my well be worthy of criticism, I would remind you that this ruling did NOT come about as a result of voters choosing between the lesser of two evils. All five of the justices who voted to overturn the aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon were nominated by presidents of ONE of the two parties: the GOP, and ALL FOUR who dissented were nominated by Democratic Presidents. Similarly, in Citizens United, the SAME FIVE JUSTICES were in the majority, three of the dissenters were nominated by Democrats and one, Justice Stevens, was a liberal Republican nominated by Gerald Ford.

Whatever criticism one may have of Presidents Clinton and Obama, it was the Justices they nominated who did NOT stand with the majority in this case. And it was the Justices nominated by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II that WERE the majority. But that probably doesn't sit well with your "both aprties are the same" narrative, does it?

[Doctor_J]

1. Nice job as usual mark.

thanks for your vigilance.

[Overseas]

2. K&R. Well said.

[JoePhilly]

3. We see that same insane mindset here on DU regularly.

There are folks on the left who think that after a collapse, their version of Utopia will emerge from the ashes. What they forget, is that the right wing has another version of the after collapse Utopia, a Christo-facist version. And that version of Utopia is far more likely to emerge.

Past that ... some of the folks posting that nonsense are trying to discourage Democrats from voting. The GOP won't be able to block enough of us using voter ID laws and similar mechanisms. So the next part of their suppress the vote efforts is to try and convince Democrats to give up and stop voting altogether.

You see that same argument being made regularly here on DU. So its not a surprise that we're seeing it in other parts of the Internet.

Good job taking it on!

[markpkessinger]

5. Well, I think in some areas, there is some validity to the charge . . .

. . . but this is one area where is both wildly inaccurate and wildly inappropriate.

[JoePhilly]

9. I'm talking specifically about the notion that ...

... we need a collapse, and so we might as well all stop voting and let it happen.

I think the people who suggest that are either (a) insane, or (b) trying to depress the Democratic vote to give the GOP a better chance given their declining demographics.

[markpkessinger]

11. Agree with you there n/t

[JDPriestly]

53. We need to amend the Constitution to define "person" as a human being.

And we need to pass laws that tax the super-rich at rates that ensure that they cannot amass fortunes so large that they can nearly flood campaigns with money.

[jwirr]

4. The arguement over voting for the lesser of two evils is one of my real fears. If you do not vote

for someone then it is very likely that the worst of the evil will win. When that happens the poor are thrown under the bus. Todays repugs are a good example of that. As one of the poor I try to get the best candidate I can but if it comes down to two bad candidates I will always favor the Democrats over the repugs. Why? 70 years of experience has taught me that the repugs do nothing to help anyone but themselves. At least the Democrats realize that helping the poor gets them votes.

[AAO]

23. People that won't vote for the lesser of 2 evils are just plain stupid.

If one person is kinda, or just sometimes evil, and another is over-the-top all-the-time evil, and one of those 2 will be in charge of the country, if you don't vote against the REALLY evil guy, the chances are you will get him. If that means nothing to you, move to utopia, if you think it exists somewhere else.

[riqster]

29. Example:

Suppose you had to vote for either scalding water or molten lava? And if you didn't vote, you could have either one dumped on you, and the choice would be someone else's.

Scalding water would hurt. Molten lava would kill. Fail to vote, and you could be in deep, well, lava.

Those who advocate non- involvement would see our country killed. Those who vote for the LTE want it to survive.

[markpkessinger]

44. Great analogy! n/t

[tomp]

66. democrats=scalding water.

not too convincing.

[mikeysnot]

6. prefect.

[sufrommich]

7. I wonder what their DU name is.

Nice answer on your part.

[okaawhatever]

52. Good one It's sad, but true. nt

[mcar]

8. Well done

So tired of the false equivalency trope.

[frazzled]

10. Excellent response, but I wonder whether ...

the person you were responding to is (if not an agent provocateur) most likely a shill. Who has the most interest in encouraging people not to vote? The answer lies in what happens when people who hold views in opposition to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling don't vote: Republicans win.

I'm always suspicious of people encouraging vague, unspecified "revolution" and advocating against voting.

[markpkessinger]

12. That's certainly a possibility . . .

. . . But it's also a possibility that he's simply politically naive.

[frazzled]

14. That too ...

but the politically naive are usually simply following some argument they heard someone else make.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

67. I think that the old adage about never ascribing to malice

That which can be adequately explained by stupidity is likely here.

I have never found a candidate who I agree with completely. So it's always "the lesser of two evils" for me.

[Liberalynn]

13. Excellent Response

While I do believe that there are individuals in the Democratic Party that can be bought just as easily as the Republicans, I still believe that there are also many in our party who have souls, consciences, and a sense of true duty and patriotism.

I do not believe that is true of the Pukes. I normally deplore generalizations about a particular group of people but in this case they earned it. Pukes are lock stock and barrel greedy, selfish, ignorant, assholes with out a brain or a soul to share between them.

My Bachelor's degree is in History with a minor in Political Science. For those who casually toss around the term "revolution" they need to be careful what they wish for. However, noble the goals the end results most often end up even worse than what you started with. Does the name Stalin ring any bells?

We need to keep working within the system we have until we have exhausted all hope of reform. In the end that may prove impossible but the other option should only be the absolute last resort.

JMHO!

[markpkessinger]

41. Absolutely

When I hear people cavalierly talking about revolution, I shudder, both because I think we may be sitting atop a much bigger tinder box than many of us realize, and because once you unleash those forces, there's really no telling where it will lead (despite whatever romantic notions some folks may harbor about the prospect). I mean, we only barely pulled it off the first time, and the tyrant we would be up against would have, oh, one or two advantages over King George III!

[Liberalynn]

55. One of the Professors of European History

at my college used to argue that the American Revolution was never a Revolution in the full sense of the term. He said all the structures of society had to change; religious, economic, legal,etc not just political in order for it to be classified as a revolution. In his view nothing really much changed in American society after it became an independent country except the leadership in government and the laws of progenitor in terms of passing on property. Plus in terms of the government Britian had pretty much been an absentee land Lord until they needed more money from the colonists. So the Americans were pretty much self governing already.

That was his argument as to why ours didn't backfire like so many that followed.

Plus you're right the odds would be much steeper than in Colonial times. Much easier and safer to keep trying to reform the system we have.

[Wounded Bear]

15. Heinlein said...

at least I think it was him.

"You should always vote. While there may not be somebody or something you want to vote for, there will almost certainly be somebody or something you will want to vote against."

Sage advice.

[Maedhros]

33. You realize that Heinlein's personal politics were a bit problematic,

what with the idealizing of a military-political state and all.

I wouldn't hold up Heinlein as a "sage" on this topic.

I'd go with John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

[Wounded Bear]

36. Yes, I know about his politics, in general...

However, just because the dumbest man in the world says it's raining out, that doesn't mean the sun is shining.

[Maedhros]

40. True. [n/t]

[riqster]

47. I'm not much on either.

Heinlein's authoritarian leanings are distasteful to me, and the idea of tossing pragmatism in the trash can in favor of wasteful votes that help the other party win because of purist attitudes is not much better.

[Maedhros]

50. Maybe it's not a "purist attitude?"

Right now, Democrats have absolutely no incentive to fight for liberal or progressive solutions. They know that they can go along to get along because no matter how far short they fall from the promises they make, year after year, their liberal base has no choice but to vote them in again. This makes it very easy on them to take corporate money and deliver on the promises made for that money, because there is essentially no risk involved.

At this point it's somewhat comical, if it weren't so infuriating. 2006: Give us subpoena power so we can hold the Bush Administration accountable! 2007: Impeachment is off the table! Keep our powder dry! Like Lucy and the football, we're all just Charlie Browns to them.

The only way this will change is if we stop giving Democratic politicians our votes without expectation that they will fight for our cause. I don't have millions of dollars to contribute, so the only leverage I have over them is my vote. I dislike having it coerced from me. I'd rather the Democrats earn it.

That said, I plan on voting for Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) because I believe he's earned it.

[riqster]

54. I hear you, and agree in principle.

But I am in a purple state that is turning Red, and all not voting Dem does here is enable Repub victories.

The reason Repubs have total control of Ohio is: four Dems in one district didn't turn out and vote. That's how much turnout means in this environment.

And now the Repubs are laying waste the state, children are dying, unions are being busted, hunger is rampant, women's rights are disappearing, our access to the polls is not far behind...because not enough Dems voted.

Ohio's Dem party sucks a lot of dead donkey dicks. Chris Redfern is an asshole who cares only for himself. If ever there was a party that did not deserve our votes, they are it.

But the people of Ohio deserve to not be ground beneath the heels of a load of libertarian killers. And the reason they are being so served is: four Dems in one district withheld their votes.

I am glad you are in a place that allows you the safe choice of not voting. I am in a place that has no such safety and affords no such luxury.

[Maedhros]

58. Don't get me wrong - I vote in every election, and never advocate staying away from the polls.

I am alarmed at how liberals in America are forced to play this desperate defensive game when we need to start taking it to the Republicans. Democrats are playing not to lose when we need to be playing to win, and I hate how the party knows this and strings us along anyway.

In another thread someone posted that Democrats need leadership, and I think that's spot on. I don't see one right now.

[riqster]

64. No argument with any of that.

Thanks for doing your part!

[Augiedog]

16. The revolution has already occurred

That's correct, the revolution has already occurred and at this point the 1% are seemingly at advantage. What we need is a restoration to a point when the democracy we pretend we have is one in actuality. People form societies to avoid being in what Locke, Hobbes and Pufendorf describe as a state of nature, that of a constant state of war by each human against all others. These societies are in self contest constantly and at times the imbalance created by human beings baser nature or tendencies gets a strangle hold on the common man; adjustment then being necessary. If Jefferson, Washington and Adams are the fathers of our democracy then John Locke and Pufendorf are the Grandfathers, and at this point I think Locke might say that the revolution (coup?) has already occurred and the time is at hand for a restoration. Our democracy is crying out for this reset, we have allowed an oligarchic orthodoxy to assume command of that which belongs to the common man. With the aid of a Republican Party in thrall to these enemies of democracy we are on a path to creating a 21st century monarchy whose only seeming goal is to advance the religion of gold worship. We, at this point, have a CIA who hold the constitution in contempt, an FBI who assassinates citizens at will and an NSA spying on all Americans as a matter of policy, all in support of a oligarchy who doesn't like paying their fair share of the cost of operating a democratic society. They want to pay no taxes, and brag about it when they manage just that, but they expect you to send your sons, daughters, husbands and wives to die in wars that benefit them. Our politicians took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, instead they betray their oath in favor of cash. This base betrayal of such trust is setting the the stage for a failure of society and a return of the state of nature.

[tishaLA]

20. what a good post

I wish I could recommend it.

[sunnystarr]

32. I agree .. there was a coup in 2000

It was accomplished by the SC decision in Bush v Gore. The only ripples made were by democrats who pay attention to politics and news. Most of our nation yawned. It emboldened the Repugs and they set the rest of the plan into motion. I may be getting paranoid but I also believe that the Tea Party is part of the plan and its origins were phony - it was designed and orchestrated. Its purpose is to give cover for the outrageous behavior of the old guard R's until they could all land in cushy lobbyist spots. In the meantime they gerrymandered to make it impossible to upset the new R districts and maintain the House. Now it's the Senate which is why they needed the Citizen United and now this decision to gain control. Then they'll have control of the Legislative and Judiciary branches and give the American people the feeling they still have a democracy because they don't really care if they get all 3 branches because they won't really need it once they can override a Presidential veto. The last step of course is the Executive because they want it all.

[riqster]

48. Paranoia? Not a bit of it.

Read up on the Powell Memo: it laid out the steps that Reeps would take in order to seize power in a bloodless coup. Steps that are easy to see once you know what to look for: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/

Another way of relating the history may be found here:
http://m.

&feature=kp

Lyrics:
These bastards stole their power from the victims of the Us v. Them years,
Wrecking all things virtuous and true
The undermining social democratic downhill slide into abysmal
Lost lamb off the precipice into the trickle down runoff pool
They hypnotised the summer, 1979
Marched into the capital brooding duplicitous, wicked and able, media-ready,
Heartless, and labeled. Super US citizen, super achiever,
Mega ultra power dosing. Relax
Defense, defense, defense, defense. Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland
Yeah, yeah, yeah

The information nation took their clues from all the sound-bite gluttons
1980, 84, 88, 92 too, too
How to be what you can be, jump jam junking your energies
How to walk in dignity with throw up on your shoes
They amplified the autumn, 1979
Calculate the capital, up the republic my skinny ass
TV tells a million lies. The paper's terrified to report
Anything that isn't handed on a presidential spoon,
I'm just profoundly frustrated by all this. So, fuck you, man (fuck 'em)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland
If they weren't there we would have created them. Maybe, it's true,
But I'm resentful all the same. Someone's got to take the blame
I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting,
But I feel better having screamed. Don't you?
They desecrated winter, 1979
Capital collateral. Brooding duplicitous, wicked and able, media-ready,
Heartless, and labeled. Super US citizen, super achiever,
Mega ultra power dosing. Relax
Defense, defense, defense, defense. Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ignoreland. Yeah, yeah, yeah
I did not do the revolution
Thank you

[Maedhros]

34. We've reached this sorry state because we stopped expecting our elected representatives

to follow through on their campaign rhetoric.

[riqster]

49. True. Sad indeed.

[2banon]

60. excellent post.. wish I could rec too..

and welcome to du!

[totodeinhere]

17. Right. If we stop voting you better believe that the right wing will continue to vote

en masse. Hate, fear and bigotry are powerful draws for those voters. If we stop voting they win. No we need to do the opposite and be sure to get out to vote in EVERY election. And as far as the lesser of two evils goes, we need to fully participate in primaries and caucuses to make sure that we have good progressive Democrats on the ballot that we can vote for.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Great reply ...

It could be extended to point out that Blanche Lincoln, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman ... three Blue Dog Democrats ... were clearly the lesser of the two evils in their respective Senate races; but these three LTEs, not only vote with the Democratic Caucus 70+% of the time, but also, to a person, supported Kagan and Sotomayor's nomination, and (except for one, who was not in the Senate when the nomination was presented) supported Breyer's nomination, as well.

[stage left]

19. K&R

I always like your responses. To quit voting is the very last thing we need to do. And people who want to let the Democratic system collapse are frankly insane.

[chuckstevens]

21. Impeach Clarence Thomas!!!!!!

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

That would be the fastest way to change these rulings! OK, I know what you're thinking: The GOP controlled House would never do it and you're right! But, dam it: key Democrats should create a firestorm of media attention as to what corrupt SOB's these 5 Corporate Shills are, starting with Thomas!

If the shoe was on the other foot, don't you think the Republicans would have been raising hell over legit reasons as to why Thomas and his nut job wife, Ginny, have violated the law? If they were the Clintons (Sorry Hillary; you're light years ahead of Ginny Thomas) we never would have heard the end of it and REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE MADE IT AN ISSUE FOR THE 2014 MID-TERM ELECTIONS! That's how you take back the House, not running away from the mega successful Obamacare law. Honest to God; it's pathetic!

Thom Hartmann said it best, "the Democrats play checkers, while the Republicans play chess."

Bernie Sanders 2016!

[Doctor_J]

25. And, before that, some of the DC Dems need to call for that

The president and the other big shots like Reid and Durbin and Pelosi and Hoyer should be using words like outrageous, un-American, death panels, fascist, and so on. Then the second sentance should paint a vivid picture of the state of thigns in RBG is replaced by another Bush family capo.

Nary a peep from any of the leaders, much less a passionate one.

[dotymed]

22. Of course, not voting is not the answer

even though the gop tries to make our votes less meaningful.
IMO, we must get some viable third, 4th party populist candidates in these races. IF they are a proven commodity, we support and vote for them. If we unite, these are not spoilers.

[Trust Buster]

24. Look at the ages of these Justices...

....Breyer is 75, Ginsburg is 81 and swing vote Kennedy is 77. Assuming the next President serves two terms that ends in 2024, then Breyer would be 85, Ginsburg would be 91 and swing vote Kennedy will be 87. DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM HERE FOLKS ?

If a Republican wins in 2016, then the Right wing will probably enjoy a 7-2 advantage and the groupthink that goes along with that. We must get solidly en masse behind one candidate in 2016 or the Christmas we get we deserve.

[riqster]

30. Good point. I'd add that 2014 is also crucial.

We gotta keep the Senate, too.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. Well said

[illachick]

27. I agree that we shouldn't just stop voting

We should strive to keep a Democrat in office, a Republican would not have passed the healthcare reform that Obama did, and raising the minimum wage for anyone wouldn't have been anywhere on the radar for a Republican, I get that, but I also subscribe to there still being a lesser of two evils thing going on and that won't stop until we put a plug in that pipeline of corporate money that funnels into BOTH parties. The Democrats will throw us a bone every now and then, but we need to get some of the steak too! Could I get an over/under on how long until enough money comes in to do enough corruption that there is virtually no difference between the parties, until both parties get their money from corps and blatantly tell the rest of us to "fuck off" not caring about how they appear to us because they know their corporate money makes them untouchable. Something's got to give.

[emsimon33]

28. I agree--Excellent response

[riqster]

31. K & R

[BlancheSplanchnik]

35. great response!

You certainly have a lot more brains than the editorial's author.

[markpkessinger]

45. Thanks! But understand . . .

. . . the call to stop voting or to stop voting for the lesser of two evils was not in the editorial, but in a reader comment to the editorial.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

46. oh, I see--thanks for clarifying!

And you still gave a terrific reply!

It's good to debunk the comments that need to be debunked.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. if one agrees that we have a government bought and paid for by a small group of wealthy people,

call it an oligarchy, a kleptocracy, or whatever. Then it seems illogical to argue that we should continue to lend legitimacy to that government by participating in their corrupt elections.

I can't reject the premise. I have trouble therefore rejecting the conclusion. I vote, but I do so with increasing disdain and with a clear sense that I am being played by the fuckers in charge.

[markpkessinger]

39. Oh, I'm in full agreement with you on that!

But the way I figure it, I sure as hell don't have to make it easy for the fuckers!

Cheers!

[BlindTiresias]

56. If they had total control

Who could they blame?

[markpkessinger]

38. Thanks, everyone, for the nice feedback -- here's a link to the published comment

Please note that you will see a second comment by me that is basically a rewording of the first. I didn't intend to post twice, but when something like five hours passed without my first comment showing up, I figured the Times had simply declined to publish it. (I dunno -- thought maybe they objected to my use of the word 'oligarchs' or something!) So I posted a slightly reworked version of the same thing and posted again. And wouldn't you know it, both showed up in a matter of minutes. Aargh!

Anyway, here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/the-court-follows-the-money.html#permid=11485664:11487398

[lark]

42. +1000

Just hold your nose and vote for Hillary, if she's the Dem nominee. For whatever her MOR corporatist tendencies are, they are far far less destructive than the far right (fascist), give everything to the rich by taking it from the poor workers, minorities and women - Tea Partiers.

Dems are almost always better than the alternatives, with the exception of Bernie of course.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Wow, awesome! Thank you! nt

[Cha]

51. Thank you.

[Bobbie Jo]

59. Nicely done

Hit send!

[SunSeeker]

61. K & R

[freshwest]

62. Thank you very much... Bookmarking. n/t

[DCBob]

63. I would bet money that poster is not a Democrat.

Most likely a GOPer/teabagger trying to discourage Dems to vote.

Regardless its good you responded.

[tomp]

65. one should also ask...

....how many democrats voted for republican-nominated judges. it's not just about who nominated them.

[Terence Stoeckert]

68. Original times comment writer responds.

I am the original writer of the NYT comment to which markppessinger responded on April 3. I have only just this evening become aware of the long thread of comments in response to his posting of a truncated version of my original commment.

Let me first present the entire comment as written for the Times


"We have finally arrived at the point where every new development in the political/economic realm makes clear that that our supposed "democratic" system is no such thing. Call it what you will, our system should be recognized for what it is, broken, out of control, and unredeemable.

That our system is broken is not to imply that it doesn't work well for the ruling class. That the benefits for the privileged few come from the hides of the working class (i.e. the 99%) is one thing. Of much greater importance is that the agenda of the ruling class proceeds without any regard for the future of the planet and of the human race.

If reform is impossible, then a revolution is needed. What kind of revolution? How to proceed? Many paths are possible, none are easy. Let me suggest two places we might start.

First, stop voting. At the least, never again vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, if the system is irredeemable, then the sooner it fully breaks, the better off we will be in the long term. Working for the election of Democrats leads to nothing but heartbreak. That energy is better spent elsewhere. The more the tea-party and like minded elements succeed, the quicker the collapse of the system will arrive. Scarry? You bet.

Second, stop spending. Stop buying useless stuff that you don't need. Stop discarding perfectly good stuff because something new comes along. In every subsequent year, spend even less. This is where we have leverage.

Of course, more will be needed."


I would hope that a quick perusal of the full comment will dispel any notion that I am an agent provocateur from the right.

The point about voting is an example of older ideas common amongst revolutionaries of the early twentieth century. "Worse is better," or "heighten the contradictions." The central idea that I wish you to consider is that complicity in a sham political process whilst the future of the planet and of the human race is in question can best be described as 'burying one's head in the sand." I maintain that the system is irreparably broken, that accumulated wealth and the consequent power to undermine democratic process that it grants, makes reform thru the compromised electoral process impossible. Something far more radical is needed.

To provide some examples of what I have in mind, I am reproducing the texts of several other comments of mine published online at the Times in recent weeks. I don't represent that these ideas are necessarily the best, but instead offer them as a basis for discussion. Several things to keep in mind. First, Thomas Piketty's new book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" makes it clear that the trend towards greater disparity in income and wealth is very likely to continue indefinitely. As that process plays out, the democratic process, such as it is, can only be further compromised. Second, "It's the planet stupid"


COMMENT 1. The Ruling Class has waged class warfare with extraordinary success for nearly a half century, while consistently attacking any and all progressive initiatives as, wait for it, class warfare.

In this regard, the latest Ryan Plan is welcome in that it certainly "heightens the contradictions" in a transparent way.

Th question to be asked is, "if you find yourself on the losing side of an undeclared and inescapable war, perhaps it is time to mobilize.



COMMENT 2.The main problem is not that we no longer have capitalism, but that we no longer have democracy. To be precise, the demise of democracy has led to stage lV capitalism. And we all know what comes after stage lV.

There is a way to salvage the situation. That is for working people, people whose standard of living is based on a wage or a salary, to awaken to the fact that we have been on the losing end of class warfare for near on to half a century. Now that would truly be a "great awakening".

In a sports crazed culture like our own, perhaps the recognition that we have been on a 40-year losing streak can help to mobilize and raise class consciousness and class solidarity. As our best coaches have told us, we must work together to achieve success. Or, in old fashioned terms, organize, organize, organize.

We must also learn to think differently. For instance, can we turn the vast amounts of money flooding Congressional districts with the aim of further eroding democracy against the spenders, the Kochs and the Adelsons

One suggestion, don't counter the attack ads with attack ads. Instead respond with humor and ridicule, in the manner of John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher. Hire the best comedy writers available and set them to deconstructing the other side's ads, with their lies and disinformation. This will both cost far less and be more effective. Anyone familiar with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's pained responses to Colbert's zingers will understand the point.


COMMENT 3. Paul Krugman asks "What happens to the Congressional Budget Office if a party that has learned that lying about numbers works takes full control of Congress? What happens if it regains the White House, too?"

"Turn this around for a moment, and go back in time 6 years. What happens if "they" win the White House, hold 60 seats in the Senate and control the House? Nothing of consequence, as it turned out, other than bitter disappointment for those of us who supported Obama with such fervor.

Prof. Krugman seeks to scare us with the prospect of a Republican flood tide. Well granted, that's scary. But Electing the "democrat behind door A" would be like patching a failing damn when what it really needs is to be shut down and completely rebuilt. Yes patching the damn may temporarily forestall a collapse, but only at the cost of insuring that when the collapse does occur, it will be far more catastrophic.

We must stop burying our heads in the sand and recognize that our political process is thoroughly broken, probably irreparably. (Do I need to elaborate?) Something much more radical than politics as usual is needed.

Consider the Montgomery bus boycott. Can we use similar tactics against the corporate elites, elites who have so twisted the terms of trade in their favor that they must now feel nearly invulnerable. Think, what else might we try?

It has always been class warfare, and we, working people earning a wage or a salary, have been on the losing side for a long time.