Perhaps some would be interested in learning more about the opposition party.
This is my quick take. A lively thread might teach us something useful in the struggle.
Origins of the Republican Party
Civil War history is not my forte. So playing fast and shallow with my opinion ... Conventional wisdom says the Civil War was about slavery. But that was a sideshow, albeit a very moral one. In "Rule by Secrecy" author Jim Marrs clearly states that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a timely political move to prevent Russia (***see corrections in thread below***), with its troops in Mexico City, and Britain with its Atlantic Fleet doing business with the South, from entering the conflict on the side of the Confederacy. Neither power could politically weather a European storm on the side of slavery.
Fort Sumter was not about slavery. It was an economic event, after the deep South's endurance of 40 years of heavy U.S. tariffs on northern manufactured goods, raising costs to the south. Succession had been threatened before, it just wasn't organized or widespread, it was a state by state event.
The roots to understanding all this is in the creation of the Republican Party. Northern lawyers for manufacturers and railroads wanted protectionism and needed a front man for the new political party. Abe Lincoln was a railroad lawyer paid 4 figure fees to defend railroads, a huge sum in those days. He was given prime acreage in Iowa (but don't quote me), gifts that would launch ethics investigations today. And Lincoln was a gifted mind. He could talk eloquently about freedom and opportunity. To the masses, it sounded like civil rights, jobs, and prosperity. His business backers knew it was about profits and monopoly. Exploitation and enslavement to the system was not yet in the lexicon.
That's what sets the rules for society. Little groups of lawyers. Antitrust? Free markets? Marketing and pricing? Inheritance taxes? Tax code loopholes? Tax code complexity? (Blame the tax lawyers). Somehow these exploitative rules are never removed and rarely simplified. Only business seems wealthy enough to challenge the tax code and buy political influence to reduce regulations.
If you take nothing else away from this diatribe, search and learn the origins of the creation of the Republican Party. Lincoln was the first political front man, whether he was in on it, or not. Within 20 years, Jay Gould and that bunch were playing with gold and money, influence that reached into the Grant administration.
Think, people, think. Exploitation is about to wratchet up a few notches in 2015. The 1% are reaping the rewards and motivating with the stick.
I strongly recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln
And this article:
Members here focus on issues, candidates ... problems run deeper.
The party didn't recruit well, nor support their candidates in message, coordination,
training (from a WAPO article today).
Any party is filled with party faithful. New ideas are stifled, suppressed, shelved
in favor of the establishment with tried and true if old ways of doing things.
You gotta say this for the Tea Party: they brought in fresh, younger blood and energy.
The Democratic Party needs an infusion. Every nook and cranny should be scavenged for
energy and drive and ideas. Each county, ward, precinct. The old ward leaders know talent,
ideas should be shared, gathered, catalogued, sent up the chain of command.
We're beaten on money, GOTV, and this time on candidates, message, electability. GOP managed
their flock from DC, less on this, more on that, nothing radical, mainstream. They blamed Obama
to a fault, ditto ditto. Repetition generates buzz and energy. It was a whisper campaign, it always
is with them.
What did our consultants do? Message tweak? Or manage email fundraisers? I've been drowned by
candidates' emails for 9 months. Did it do any good? Did they win an extra race? Okay, VA & NH were
salvaged. Thank God for that.
Where is the permanent spinmeister class at the DNC? Does it change with every election, do the people
at the top of the ticket flush the operatives in favor of their own?
This election from a D standpoint was as ineffective as John McCain. Remember McCain and Mitt controlled
their own organization, made their own calls. They flopped. They selected poor running mates. Obama had
Axelrod and Plouffe. And technology.
The Republican victory was managed from Washington, RNC and all. Why can't we be competitive?
Corporate Triumphs, Progressive Victories and the Roadmap for a Democratic Revival
But come January, the big question for Obama will be whether he is willing to use his veto pen to thwart the GOPs reactionary legislation, or whether he will try to find compromises to provide some semblance of bipartisanship. Liberals and progressives might want to send tens of thousands of veto pens to the White House to remind Obama that hes still the president, even if a weakened one.
Meanwhile, there is much for liberals and progressives to do at the local level, where their allies have in the past year won a growing number of victories by candidates for mayor and City Council in New York City, Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and elsewhere. More and more cities will push to adopt minimum wages, paid family leave and other progressive measures.
November 5, 2014
by Peter Dreier
The roots of Republicanism, it's all here, Survival-of-the-Fittest, Social Darwinism,
The Creationists don't believe in evolution except the part about
survival-of-the-fittest class struggle that selects God-fearing
Christians to be on top of society. The 1%, remember?
The last half is among the best ever, imho.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Member since: Fri Feb 18, 2011, 07:22 PM
Number of posts: 40,296
- 2023 (5)
- 2022 (2)
- 2021 (2)
- 2020 (5)
- 2019 (3)
- 2018 (66)
- 2017 (75)
- 2016 (57)
- 2015 (4)
- 2014 (3)
- 2013 (3)
- 2012 (2)
- December (2)