Warning! Controversial Subject Matter! Enter at your own risk...

[McCamy Taylor]

Gore Vidal "There is no difference between the two parties"

I did not say it. Gore Vidal, Pulitzer Prize winning essayist wrote it and said it, many times. His views about the "Property Party" have not stopped him from coming out in support of various Democratic candidates---including Obama---or running for office as a Democrat himself. Here are some quotes, starting last year and moving backwards to 1972.

In 2009 to The Real News :

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: This idea that this undemocratization or growth of fascism is incremental: What are the other signs of it in American society?
GORE VIDAL: Well, it's been the monopolizing of great wealth, which tends to happen in basically unjust societies and undemocratic societies. We have plenty of would-be democrats, would-be liberals, and would-be progressives. But how do you organize?The Democratic Party is a machine to get votes for its people. None of whom should probably be elected to the high offices of state. The Republican Party is fundamentally crooked.”

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=342

In 2006 to The Progressive

Q: Talk about the role of the opposition party, the Democrats.

Vidal: It isn’t an opposition party. I have been saying for the last thousand years that the United States has only one party—the property party. It’s the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican

In 2006 in The Nation

The author, resident in Los Angeles, has thrown himself into the campaign of Marcy Winograd, the teacher and progressive activist who is mounting a spirited challenge to Bush-friendly Democratic Representative Jane Harman for an L.A.-area House seat in today's California Democratic primary.
Harman, who voted to authorize President Bush to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and who has supported the administration repeatedly in divisions on issues ranging from the Patriot Act to warrantless wiretapping and domestric surveillance, is trying to sell herself as a generally solid Democrat who should be forgiven her lapses.
Snip
Vidal is not merely anti-Harman, however. He is pro-Winograd. Noting the challenger's clear vision with regard to foreign policy, her consistent critique of the domestic eavesdropping programs so favored by the current administration, and her pledge to hold Bush accountable -- using all the means available to a member of Congress, up to and including the option of impeachment -- the author labels her "a real Democrat" and suggests that she is the sort of candidate who might inspire the party's broad if frequently disenchanted base.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/gore-vidal-campaigns-real-democrat


In 2003 to USA Today

We only have one political party in the U.S., and that is the property party, which essentially is corporate America, which has two right wings, one called Republican and one called Democrat. I can't say I like either of them.

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030204001/tscript.htm


In 1975 State of the Union

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party . . . and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently . . . and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

In 1972 The Best Man ’72

When I attacked the Democratic and Republican parties as two of a kind, and a kind bad for the Republic and the world it was spoiling, they cheered. Incidentally, this was to be my constant experience wherever I went last October. No one liked Nixon. No one liked Humphrey. Muskie was dim.

snip

In the past new American parties have been the result of some real or imagined flaw in national policy (the Republicans in 1856). Today the flaw which makes a new party a necessity is not one of policy but of structure. To put it simply, the wrong people dominate the two parties which in turn dominate our affairs. A familiar cry of Americans both left and right: We never have a choice! The military-industrial-media complex effectively keeps out of electoral politics those who would make substantive changes in the society.

http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vidal-archive/best-man-1972

Comments, flames, tombstones? Since I am not rich enough to afford a poll, here are some suggested answers:

1.He was correct then but he is not correct now.
2.He is correct now but he was not correct back then.
3.He was correct then and is correct now.
4.He is full of shit and trying to destroy the Democratic Party by promoting apathy and third party splitters.
5.He is full of shit and mad because Democrats never nominated him for anything.
6.He is right, but so what? "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
7.He is right, and I suddenly feel motivated to do something about it!

[Edweird]

1. Is there a full moon tonight or something?

:popcorn:

[EFerrari]

8. I thought it was full yesterday but may have been mistaken!

[Edweird]

10. Tonight has been a wild night.

[EFerrari]

16. Lately, I"ve thought that Monday day has been pretty wild

at DU. Maybe global warming slowed us down today. :)

[ohheckyeah]

24. Yes, tonight is a full moon. n/t

[slay]

2. K&R for Gore Vidal

a brilliant man. Very insightful and 100% correct IMO.

[tularetom]

4. Either Mr Vidal is a tiny man or

he has one big ass cat!!!

[ZombieHorde]

5. Or he could be a moderately small man with a moderately large cat. nt

[rfranklin]

55. That's a puma!

Watch out, Gore!

[femrap]

83. Except for his support

of Polanski and stating that the young woman he raped was a whore. She was 13. Polanski drugged her. And Gore blames her?

Of course, Gore has some big sexual hangups himself. He never had sex with his long time 'lover.'

And I'd rather see the face of the cat on the cover of the book....he should regret that...lol.

[slay]

86. We'll that is a complicated situation

I never saw him call her a whore, and if he did that is WRONG. The LA DA only cared about this case because it was Roman Polanski and could further his career.

There are many problems surrounding this case and I don't want to stir up ill feelings so I'll just leave it at that. On a whole, Gore Vidal is usually right on though IMO. Perhaps not in about this, but most always when it comes to politics.

[femrap]

94. I was truly shocked when I

read Gore's words about the 13 year-old girl.

It revealed to me a very dark personal side of him that he can hide quite easily when discussing politics. And I agree with him on most political policies.

I always wanted to meet him, correspond w/ him....I truly admired him.

Now, I see him in a totally different light. Many of the 'hollywood' apologists for polanski shocked me....Whoopi Goldberg, for one.

I guess it just demonstrates what our patriarchal culture thinks of women and girls. Oh well, I guess one could write a book on that topic. It saddens me though.

And may the LA DA get the Karma due him as well. Young girls raped by old men are just a way to advance one's career.

I think I'll go :puke: now.

[The_Commonist]

3. There is a difference between the two parties.

One is the Global Corporate Fascist Party.
The other is the Global Corporate Socialist Party.
If those are my choices, I will pick the Global Corporate Socialist Party, because at least they will throw we, the people, a bone once in a while.

I have been saying this since mid-1999, when I knew that GW Bush would be our next president.
I knew that because fascists steal things...

[boston bean]

6. please explain the socialism part. specifics please.

I don't see the democratic party as socialists. isn't that what the right calls them anyhow.

What is socialist about an obama admin.

On the other hand, you could probably come up with quite a few corporatist (fascist) policies emanating from the Dems.

[The_Commonist]

22. I don't see the democratic party as socialists either.

Global Corporate Socialists would be those limousine liberals people used to talk about.
They don't want to see old people starving on the streets of Manhattan.
It's the understanding that we do need a safety net.
It's the difference between the top 1 percent owning 90 percent of everything, and owning 75 percent of everything.

They're both corporatists, but Global Corporate Socialists wear nice socks inside the jackboots.
It's Comedy Central vs. Fox News.
They're all still about making money, but one would rather make you laugh, and the other wants you quaking in fear...

[Capitalocracy]

38. So people who want to hide poverty

or keep it out of their backyards, versus people who want to see and laugh at starving people on the street?

[The_Commonist]

46. Not too far off the mark.

I don't think the Global Corporate Socialists want to simply hide poverty, but I also don't think they want to eliminate it. They understand that poverty acts as way to keep workers in line, as in "this could happen to you if you get too demanding." I don't think they are hell-bent on keeping everyone who is not like them out of their exclusive club, like the Global Corporate Fascists are.

And yes, Global Corporate Fascists want to see and laugh at starving people on the street. I have witnessed it firsthand. Ultimately, they would like to kill off most of the people on the planet, so they can have the place to themselves. A few hundred rich families at the top, and a billion serfs. Large swaths of unpopulated land to be exploited. You know, that whole "They're sitting on OUR oil!" attitude. At least the Global Corporate Socialists understand that a thriving middle-class is good for business, and that a major culling won't do anyone any good. A minor culling is OK, but not a full tilt die-off.

This is the struggle at the top, between these two groups. And they keep us divided, "doped with religion and sex and TV," so that we won't wake up and realize that both groups are fucking us. The difference, however, is that Syphilis is curable, whereas AIDS isn't (yet).

Something like that...

[didact]

93. You, my friend, have seen reality as it is...kudos...

some could argue that "Socialist" and "Fascist" may be inaccurate, too harsh, too extreme...whatever you want. Substitute in Global Corporate X party and Global Corporate Y party...the premise is right. There are two parties and they are in it for themselves and will do *anything* to move their agenda forward.

[Scruffy1]

77. I like that and will quote you

[Capitalocracy]

90. Thanks, all yours nt

[tavalon]

35. Democrats are supposed to be pro worker, pro union, pro social security safety nets

These are awful (not) socialist positions.

They also have nothing to do with the current party using the Democratic moniker.

[dencol]

50. I think the poster meant socialists for corporations.

Like GM, banks, and health insurance companies. They believe in private gain, while society absorbs the risks when they materialize.

[The_Commonist]

85. I certainly think that both sides...

...are willing to "privatize the profits and socialize the risk," but the Global Corporate Socialists seem to be a little more mature about it. Global Corporate Fascists are more likely to blatantly steal whatever they want, and will stomp their feet and whine when they don't get their way.

I think that enough of the Global Corporate Socialists came out of the Civil Rights, Anti-War and Youth Movements of the 60's, or were at least influenced by them, that they understand that the masses have the power to totally disrupt things, if we really wanted to. They're frightened by that idea, having an understanding of history. Unlike the "Disaster Capitalists," I think they prefer things to remain pretty smooth, because that's how you build a rational society. They also have at least a modicum of compassion, so the thought of their parents starving in the streets does bother them.

Now, the idea that George Soros is going to give up his fortune so that welfare mothers can live the good life is ridiculous, but the teabaggers don't understand that. He will, however, use some of his fortune to invest in systems that will benefit others besides himself. The Global Corporate Fascists are not interested in that. For them, it's "I, Me, Mine" all the way.

[pokercat999]

68. Probably just about as many as what the rethugs have passed!

Maybe more, just due to the fact that they held the reins of power (held for corporations) longer.

[Beam Me Up]

13. Indeed, and stealing things is the least of their crimes. n/t

[Raineyb]

34. I'm tired of bones. I'd prefer something with some meat on it. n/t

[valerief]

81. I've been saying it, too, for years. We're like the pigeons in the park.

Dems will throw us a crumb once in a while. Reps will shoot/poison us.

[Newest Reality]

7. Correct!

I won't pick a number.

This is something that I think people can only see and grapple with if they look into the matter rather deeply and over time, while not allowing too much personal or political bias to interfere.

Obviously, we are emerged in a culture that uses information to move, sway and control the body politic, no matter what "side" one feels one's self to be on. Some of our information comes from media or what we hear from others who appear to have a "like mind" and that tends to support our confirmation bias rather than reveal the truth of the matter. There are many well-written books on a diverse number of subjects, but again, that requires time and attention and we can tend to pick books that support what we already think we know. It takes more than that to find out what the Matrix is and you do really have to see it for yourself.

The divisiveness we see seems to serve a more insidious purpose and the proverbial house falls. It works well and I only know a few people who have turned away from the Great Oz Head to get a glimpse behind the curtain.

[EFerrari]

9. I used to think Gore exaggerated when he talked about our "owners".

That was a long time ago.

[reformist2]

12. George Carlin took this idea to a whole 'nother level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[EFerrari]

14. Yes, he did!

Btw, welcome to DU, reformist2. :hi:

[reformist2]

17. Thanks.

I like it here... I think I'll be staying a while!

[Dr.Phool]

32. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it".

[defendandprotect]

44. Love Carlin -- thank you!

[reformist2]

11. He's right. And only public finance of elections will break the chokehold.

Until that issue becomes the #1 issue, fighting for any other cause is almost by definition an exercise in futility, imo.

[rucky]

29. Or we stop voting for the candidates with the biggest corporate fundraising machine.

I'm not counting on Congress changing the rules of a game they just won. It ultimately comes down to people educating themselves.

[TBF]

33. It's going to take more than that -

the bribes will just go underground. Capitalism is the culprit here & needs to go.

[MedicalAdmin]

48. That is certainly true in countries with public financing of elections.

Of course the US written/ proposed constitution for Iraq contains both publically funded election (paid for by the USA for the time being) as well as universal health care (also paid for by the USA for the time being).

The US is the only nation I am aware of that doesn't have a complete auditable paper trail on elections. I just read a story last night written by a journalist who was present in post Ida Amin Uganda for their first democratic election and she described people lining up for hours in the rain for the chance to vote. Then when the voting was over all of the people watched as each ballot (that had been thoughtfully printed up with the name and picture of each candidate next to a box to check off) was pulled out of the box, held up for everyone to see and the totals tallied up on a blackboard in front of everyone.

That is demoncracy. What we have is a sham brought to you by the highest bidder.

[Umbral]

53. And another author, Joseph Heller, wrote the final chapter on that ever happening. nt

[mzmolly]

15. I believe he asserted as much in 2000 when he compared Bush and Gore?

:boring:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

19. Gore was one of the sharpest intellects of the 20th century.

And I don't think he was exactly happy about coming to the conclusion he did. He ate conservatives for lunch for many years.

[whathehell]

28. I guess

Southern Belle-dom has changed a tad over the years..:eyes:

If you are going to use the offensive "p" word, you might at least want to learn to spell "too" correctly.

Just sayin

[branders seine]

20. Who is branders seine to dispute Gore Vidal?

K&R

[slay]

21. "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party . . . and it has two right wings

Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently . . . and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

I wasn't always sure this was true. I'm becoming more and more convinced of it these days. :(

[L0oniX]

88. I can only hope that progressives will eventually become a majority.

[Touchdown]

23. Gore Vidal is a right wing, teabagging disruptor who wants the GOP to win!

... or so I have been told on these pages.;)

[geek tragedy]

26. He is a charter member of the Tim McVeigh fan club. nt

[defendandprotect]

43. Gore Vidal has some common sense about McVeigh and Okla . . .

as questionable an event as 9/11 -- MIHOP

[Kurovski]

27. Oh, he's a teabagger alright,

just more in the traditional sense of our native culture.

Hot nuts and teabags. Yum. Fit for a queen it is.

[Dr.Phool]

31. So is his cousin AL!

[Touchdown]

74. Who's Al Vidal?

: shrug:

[Senator]

25. K&+R

[Dr.Phool]

30. Gore Vidal is a national treasure.

[Kurovski]

54. I wish Mr. Vidal could live forever.

Unfortunately It's Dick Cheney who will be doing that.

[tk2kewl]

36. It's the good-cop, bad-cop shtick

[pnorman]

37. K & R! For later careful study.

n/t

[bvar22]

39. There is a solution.

Look to Latin America for the blueprint.
The populist reforms sweeping across Latin America are nothing short of bloodless revolutions.
They are kicking out the oligarchs.

As soon as America's Working Class and Poor realize WE (Democrats & Republicans) have more in common with each other than we have with our Ruling Class (Democrats & Republicans), these reforms WILL be possible here.

VIVA democracy!
I hope we get some here!

[defendandprotect]

42. Latin America certainly took quite a murderous punishing from US/Superpower .. . . !!

Tragic that they had to suffer so much and fight so hard to recover and try

to live in peace --

I think the right wing learned in WWII, that you can't leave any options open --

no America left to fight against fascism --

This time they've got all the pegs lined up to be knocked over at once --

IMO --

[Scruffy1]

79. I agree

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. The older and politically wiser I get --

the more I see he is 100% correct.

[defendandprotect]

41. #3 -- and we've known this for pretty much 3-4 decades . . .

i.e., that the Democratic Party was being co-opted by elite money/corporate $$ --

Needless to say, the right wing also requires political violence to rise --

that has always been true -- and we've had 50 years of it -- out in the open political

violence with little response.

[jpak]

45. Vidal doth jumpeth ye sharke many fortnights ago

verily

[bobburgster]

47. Still proud to say I'm a Democrat!

:patriot:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. IMHO, #3. He was correct then and now but with a slight caveat.

The Democratic Party is a bit more kinder and gentler than the Repukes when it doesn't affect the pocketbooks of Corporate interest. ie...extending unemployment benefits (money comes from the Treasury) as opposed to the Health Insurance Bill (the industry even wrote it), where feeding the insurance industry's coffers was paramount.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

51. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican are communist

Sorry if you haven't heard. Sorry if you're disappointed.

Now if you are communist and don't like the idea of people having property, then both sides may indeed look like the "property party" to you. This is a perfectly valid perception in your world-view. Communism isn't very popular these days, because it has a historical record of turning into bureaucratic oligarchical tyrannies, but if you still like it fine - whatever floats your boat. You want to keep dreaming that Utopian dream, go right ahead.

It does not, however, mean that there is no difference between the parties. Republicans are the party of crony-capitalistic oligarchy. They're all about concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few, usually through the misuse of governmental power: sweetheart no-bid military contracts, selling off public resources for pennies on the dollar. Democrats are the party of progress, attempting to give everyone a chance to succeed (education, small business loans, etc), but also recognizing that some will fail, so putting in place means to pick people up, dust them off, and get them back in the game. We're also about making the rules of the game fair - not meaning that it's the role of the government to declare everyone a success even when they're not, but rather to outlaw lying, cheating, and stealing. We don't always succeed - not with Republicans blocking everything we do - but we do try.

Now I understand that there will always be communists and socialists who are mad as hell at Democrats for not being socialist. And, speaking broadly for a whole wing of Democrats who have seen this kind of behavior since the 1960s, I wish to say I'm truly sorry you have these anger issues. I'm sure it's hard to lose a dream. But if you've decided to part ways with us, we'll just have to make do with the 60% to 70% of American people who agree with us on the actual issues (assuming we can get them to recognize it through all the purchased GOP media lying about us constantly).

I'm rather tired of being demonized by Republicans. As a counterpoint, being demonized by Socialists and Communists should be ironic and hilarious. But really it's not. Between the Glen Becks of the world and you guys, there really is no place where someone who thinks that the views of the majority of Americans should be heeded can go without being attacked.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[CrispyQ]

52. #3 - He was correct then and is correct now.

The Best Man ’72

"In the past new American parties have been the result of some real or imagined flaw in national policy (the Republicans in 1856). Today the flaw which makes a new party a necessity is not one of policy but of structure. To put it simply, the wrong people dominate the two parties which in turn dominate our affairs. A familiar cry of Americans both left and right: We never have a choice! The military-industrial-media complex effectively keeps out of electoral politics those who would make substantive changes in the society."

It's a Catch-22, & why the solution "Vote the scoundrals out!" won't work.

[NorthCarolina]

56. I can agree to a degree

there does not seem to be much difference between the GOP (Teabaggers not included), and the DLC New Dems as far as whose interests they protect. Both are fairly equally pro-corporate in their politics. The Dems however DO have a Liberal segment that is quite unlike the GOP/DLC.

[Stuckinthebush]

57. Agreed. Vidal is correct.

The people who call themselves Democrats are not the same as the people who are in office and call themselves Democrats. Those individuals in office - for the most part - are tools of the monied interests. We have a few who are not, but mostly all federal level Dems are part of the corporate machine.

Money makes the world go round, no?

[stevenleser]

58. The further left and right you go from center, the more the two parties look the same

Compared to Pol Pot and Hitler & Mussolini, there are no differences between the two parties.

This is nothing new.

[Roland99]

59. Most Dems and all Republicans are merely two sides of the same lobbyist/stock certificate

Very few progressive/liberal Democrats exist in Congress. Been decades since one was in the White House, too.

[sabrina 1]

60. I think there are a few Representatives in the Dem. Party

who are not part of the system, but they have no power. People like Kucinich, who hasn't become rich from his time in Congress, and probably won't be sought out by Corporate America when he leaves, eg.

Which is why it's so sad to see people say 'he gets nothing done' rather than ask 'why' since his ideas ARE the right ideas for the Democratic Party.

Ralph Nader was right also.

I think he is right, but I really didn't know that until after Dems got a majority. You'd have to blind to accept the myriad of excuses offered as to why they could 'not get the votes'. Painful to accept as I was a true believer that Dems were on our side, but no point denying facts, because that just puts off doing anything about them.

[Enthusiast]

61. He is/was partially

correct then and now.

[zeemike]

62. Vidal is just good at spotting good cop/bad cop games.

So the correct one is #3

[Lucian]

63. Gore Vidal's first statement is right.

"There is no difference between the two parties"

Especially today.

[wildbilln864]

64. rec #100! nt

[unpossibles]

65. honestly.... While the Dems piss me off sometimes, to say there's no difference means

the person saying that either is not paying attention, slept through the past 8 years, or is an idiot. Sorry.

[AtomicKitten]

67. +1

[Hekate]

72. +2

[frylock]

80. i'm going to guess that mr. vidal has seen a thing or two in his life..

i'm pretty certain that he's paid attention, has not slept through the last 8 years, and is certainly not an idiot. maybe you are the one that needs to wake the fuck up.

[unpossibles]

89. ok, you're right

the two parties are exactly the same thing.</sarcasm>

[stevenleser]

92. So have all the rest of us. Thanks, but this is bullshit n/t

[Butch350]

66. There is only one, (1), uno, ein...political party..

Corporate American Party - Taking over your town soon.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. He's wrong, It's two totally different heads on the same monster.

Feel better now?

[Moonwalk]

70. That's it? That's the enter-at-your-own-risk controversy of the ages?

Where's a yawn-emoticon when you need it?

There are similarities in the parties? Shocking...not! There are areas where the differences are so small as to not be much of a difference? Astonishing...not! Who else would dare to make such a bold comment? Just about anyone who compares political parties--and that's not just democrats and republicans. Especially if that political party has been around long enough to make compromises, tone down their messages, had internal troubles or issues, gotten enough members who don't think that radically, etc. It's also no surprise that parties change and grow, lose focus, gain new focus, or that people switch parties accordingly, or don't always tow the party line when voting for laws and such. You were aware of all this, right?

Is any of this new? Shouldn't be. Shocking? Only if you believed there was no gambling at Rick's Café. You tell us to bring smelling salts then give us this hoary old house of wax? Shame on you! I want my money back.

Next time you post words of wisdom from some elder statesman, pick something that tells me, instead, where there IS a difference. I rather like voting and I don't want to be told information that essentially says I should forget about it (if the choice is between Dem and Rep) as it won't make a difference. I happen to think that's stupid advice as all it does is get me to give up what little power I've got and what little chance I have to make what littler difference I can. Is a little difference so insignificant that I shouldn't try to make it? Maybe I should stop recycling as well.

In short, I don't care if the difference is huge or infinitesimal--which party, which group IS different. And different in what way? And if I join them or vote for them, how will it make a difference? THIS is information I can use. This is information that matters to me. Trying to "enlighten" me with shocking revelations about the similarities between political parties...just wastes my time. It tells me nothing I don't know, and leads to the pointless conclusion that there is nothing to be done about it...short of making a third party. As if there aren't enough of those already. Greens? Libertarians? Teabaggers anyone?

[DailyGrind51]

71. Vidal was a commentator at the '68 Democratic Convention and witnessed

conserva-dem Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley unleash a police riot on leftest demonstrators in Grant Park.

[creon]

73. not very controversial

Many people have been saying that for years.
I do see why some people would say that.
The GOP believes in laissz faire capitalism - old fashioned orthodox economics. That covers almost everyone in the GOP. Not many GOP people are socially liberal.


The Democrats are more diverse. There are socialists in the Democratic Party, although they may not not come out and say so.
Most Democrats accept the capitalist system with varying degress of modification/reform amelioration. Some want a lot; some not so much. Nearly all a great deal more than GOP people. Most Democrats are socially liberal.

I have no problem with Gore Vidal saying that the two parties are the same.

[deacon_sephiroth]

75. 3

always has been

[Scruffy1]

76. An effective third party is an essential ingredient for progress

It's time for the people that pay attention to grasp this basic truth. Both major parties operate within small boundaries by appealing to the mythical center, which is mostly defined by media not the population. If you are a liberal Democrat you have to show how pro-business you are and kiss big money ass to get elected. If you are a fascist (some call them Republicans) you have to show how compassionate you are. It's a farce. Unfortunately all third parties in America have fallen victim to media manipulation, infighting, and a lack of a clear agenda. If we could only put together a coalition
of leftist of even ten per cent we wold have enough votes to have some power in the process. No politician can afford to ignore a large voting block in a country where the great majority is scarily ignorant and votes by the coin toss.
There is a lot to learn from history on this subject. i would posit the following
1. Stay out of local politics. Bickering over sewers and water leads nowhere.
2. Have a clear ideology. You can't be everything to all people.
3. If you can't make a good showing in an election don't run. It's not about ego stroking.
you will have more leverage on those running as a voting bloc.

[Hekate]

78. I guess it's what English novelists used to call "a risky joke." Under the circs, a triple-entendre

I'm tempted to say: "4. He is full of shit and trying to destroy the Democratic Party by promoting apathy and third party splitters." However, he sees what he sees.

Nonetheless, I have to ask: what is the point of this exercise here at DU? Reform the Party? Or encourage everyone to pick up their marbles and go home?

Sure seems like the latter to me. I don't see any ideas for collective action to reform the only other national party we've got, but I sure see a lot of rending of garments, gnashing of teeth, ashes being flung into hair...

Hekate

[katty]

82. Gore has been saying this for decades - he is nobody's fool

[SaveOurDemocracy]

84. He nailed it 40 yrs ago. All you really need to know:

The military-industrial-media complex effectively keeps out of electoral politics those who would make substantive changes in the society.

Thanks McCamy :hi:

[AnArmyVeteran]

87. We don't have a government, we have a fucking BROTHEL!

Everyone elected to office in this country has to become a whore just to get the money needed to get elected. We have a government of the corporations, by the political prostitutes and for the corporations. In 1992 the Reform Party ran on campaign finance reform to save our country, but the braindead electorate kept voting for the same two corrupt parties who are nothing but prostitutes, one party wearing a red dress and the other a blue dress. Why are people so fucking stupid? Doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. But people keep electing the same whores over and over again and expecting different results.

It obvious from the constant selling out that the people we elected aren't representing the people who put them in office. They are selling out to the weapons makers, the oil companies, the banks and anyone else with the biggest handful of cash to whore themselves out to. No one in government gives a shit about all the people being slaughtered in two evil, useless wars. All they care about is selling us out so they can turn tricks for more corporate cash.

We are a whoredom, not a country...

[BzaDem]

91. "He is full of shit and trying to destroy the Democratic Party by promoting apathy"

BING BING BING! We have a winner!

To the extent that both parties respect private property as a concept, this is true of most major parties in most European countries as well. While the English Labour party is certainly more liberal than our Democratic party, it is a difference of degree, not governing philosophy. There are still plenty of large, rich corporations and rich people in Britain. Same in France, Germany, etc.