The Foley issue: it's about power and aristocracy

[PurityOfEssence]

After all the brouhaha, let's just back up a second and take a look at what's actually happened here.

It's not about sex (or that icky homo stuff) it's about taking advantage of children. ANY sex with minors is statutory rape, and there's a reason for this: one is taking advantage of the weak. Whether his forays were consummated or not, he actively sought them. By all accounts, Monica Lewinsky (past the age of majority) went after Clinton like a homing pigeon; by all accounts here, Foley was the aggressor.

Rape is largely a crime of dominance. Although clouded by sexual impulses, the basic impetus is one of dominating another person and doing one's will. In a liberal world, everyone is not necessarily equal, but IS entitled to more than superficial fair play. In a conservative world, all animals AREN'T equal and they can be used and discarded at will. This is the real issue here: it's okay to toy with, entice, fondle, plook or otherwise do as you will with inferiors. To the conservative, there are "quality people" and there are "losers"; that's what this is about.

It's just another example of class warfare.

Lest we forget, the only methods of campaigning that seem to work these days are negative ones, and unless one's eyes are firmly shut, one can see that the puritanical American sensibilities are most shocked by sex. We should use the issue of the reactionary leadership covering this up as not just queasy homo stuff but duplicity regarding the abuse of the weak.

The even bigger issue is that the Republican leadership knew about this and let it go. That shows that they'd gang rape an orphan in the snow if they felt like it because they feel superior. To these people, inferiors just don't rate. That's the real issue: the self-proclaimed right to abuse or destroy peons who simply don't count. It's the ugliness of human abuse justified by a claim of aristocracy. This is why modern American conservatism is such a danger: only certain people really matter.

[annabanana]

1. You are absolutely correct...

The subject is also broached in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2301781

We are clearly on different playing fields. "How you play the game" vs "winning is the only thing"

[Auntie Bush]

2. That's why bush et al doesn't give a crap about the Katrina victims,

minorities, the middle class working people and even the environment and lesser country's. He only cares about the rights of rich people's right to get richer.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Hope this doesn't bother you...

I wince to bring this up to a Clark supporter, but John Edwards' early stump speech had a very succinct line: "the only thing George Bush respects is wealth".

It's all about privilege and power. The right is all about the dismissal of others. Be they the fiscal conservatives (which is a joke when looking at their budget policies of the last 26 years) or the moral conservatives (who hate anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs) these people hold as holy their right to destroy or marginalize anyone who disagrees with them.

Money-worship and most religions thrive on the same selfish construct: we're better than you, and you really don't deserve to exist. How dare you complain about us feeding on your efforts; you should be happy that we suffer your existence.

The true ugliness of the modern world is breathtaking if one doesn't know much about history; if one does, it's just the ongoing brutality of human on human relations. Now we have better methods.

You're absolutely right: Katrina victims are losers who deserve what they get. If a hedge fund for millionaires goes down, the government will bail you out just as Clinton did.

Gore Vidal said it best (happy birthday at 81, by the way): "In America, we believe in socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor."

[Tansy_Gold]

6. Well, it doesn't bother me at all! ;-)

I'm with you on this one, PurityofEssence.



Tansy Gold, who takes being called a socialist as a compliment

[Auntie Bush]

7. No, I'm not bothered in the least. Edwards nailed it on the head.

So did Clark. They are both GOOD men! It's just that I think Clark is better for America in these times of war. I'd be all for Edwards during a less stressful time internationally. We need someone (strong on military) like Clark now. After he's had 8 years to straighten out the war/world situation...someone like Edwards would be perfect.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. I don't agree with your principal point, but I'm with ya on the rest

The fear that's been drummed up at every point leads us to think we need a military man to save us from the cowardly jingoists of the right, but I don't really agree with that. If someone would actually stand up and talk about class warfare and the greedy rigging of the current political system, that person could make some significant political hay.

The reactionaries have been very good about scaring lefties away from key points of a moral social system. The very vilification of the word "liberal" is a classic example: it's been so ridiculed that people run with fear from the label. (I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal.) The worst case of this is the successful scaring away of people from talking about class warfare. The ugly and monarchic folks who are well-off know that any talk of class consciousness could spoil their ongoing festivities.

To assume that we need someone with butch military cred to show that we're not a bunch of lily-livered cringers is something I just don't buy. I also have a big issue with the cult of personality, and that's where a lot of Clark's appeal originates. To a great degree, finding a knight in shining armor is playing into the hands of the right. Reactionaries worship the individual; lefties hail the group. It gets tough squaring these two traits in a country like this; the United States worships the individual above everything, which is why we have a winner-take-all system of government. For all the pluralist platitudes bandied about, we really are a country of stars and losers.

As for Clark himself, I think he's a pretty decent guy, albeit after a mid-life awakening. I still harbor much disgust over his lying about Kerry's and Edwards' voting for the Bush tax cuts when he knew full well that it wasn't true, but he's definitely been a good force for change. We should probably talk off board.

Consider me an ally, and thanks for your candor.

[ClassWarrior]

3. You read John Dean's new book, dintcha?

If not, you should.

NGU.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. I've got a really long list...

No, I haven't, but I will someday.

[Ouabache]

9. It's about Foley not following the party line? He is an example to

others?

I have been thinking there is a possibility that Foley has crossed the GOP too much on some votes? He didn't stay in line on something important? And now he is an example to all the others.

Has anyone looked into his voting record and seen if he really crossed them somehwere?

Because it has been said a lot on DU that the GOP has 'dirt' on all its' members ala JEdgarH. That, in fact, it selects candidates it can control in the future in this manner. Is Foley a sacrifice to keep others in line? A shot across their bows to show them what can happen if you stray too far on important votes?