|Here’s the Problem. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bipartisan politics, it is apparent to all that the term has become an oxymoron.
Politics, by its very nature and design, suggests there are opposing forces with contrasting perspectives on whatever. Of course variances are often be mitigated via compromise. But that suggests a willingness of minds to meet. Compromise has been, for four-plus years, off the table.
It is not the issues that have become so eroding to our national and local politics. It is the people representing the issues who have made politics, and compromise, a lost art. Actually vulgar art. Sometimes pornographic. Rarely worth framing.
Clearly there are reasonable and logical solutions to most critical issues of our time. The budget can be balanced without worsening economic inequality. People can be free to marry people of their choosing. Immigration problems such as employer’s taking advantage of undocumented workers can be resolved. Gun reform can be addressed without people hiding behind a misinformed interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The provocateurs are ample and powerful. Industries that put profits ahead of all else. Lobbyists who represent those industries. Politicians who are readily susceptible to the influenced ($$$$$) by the industries and their shills. Political leaders too weak to stand up to the most radical and rancid elements of their party. Individuals who are greedy beyond all reason. Corporate media which is in cahoots in one way or another with each or all of these interests.
Capitalism run amuck? Ought that to be in the form of a question (interrogative) or just a plain old declarative statement?
We are losing (have lost) sight of an economic system that, at its core, offers long-term benefits to all. The daily rancor and division are rapidly destroying a system that has been proven to work.
There can be no legitimate argument, for example, against regulation. Nobody gets up in the morning and says, Let’s pass a law prohibiting (fill in the space). Legislatures regularly pass laws in response to situations that demand attention and intervention.
There can be no argument about who are the job creators. Nobody awakes to the notion, Let’s hire people today. Employers add workers because they have a need to do so. They need people to create, to manufacture, to sell, to represent, to provide service. The guy with an amateur drone manufacturing company will not hire because he wants extra people hanging around waiting to be assigned some yet unknown task. He or she hires because people want to have a drone as a hobby perhaps (like those little toy helicopters flying around the living room or rear yard advertised on TV) or as a commercial interest (weather forecasting, real estate, whatever).
There is nothing inherently evil in drones. They are the next logical step in aerial technology. The problems arise as people decide how drones can be put to use But the drone factory needs people to craft parts, to assemble them, to package them, to process orders, to ship them, to design packaging and advertisements, to do the bookkeeping, and to perform human resources functions. From this collective effort, with so many advantages to individuals and the economy, comes economic benefit across the board. Ya think?
If drones are an example too provocative for your taste, substitute any product or service of your choosing. That is what makes the working/middle class the engine of our society. When capitalism gets out of control, it is then that the country loses, its economy destabilized. It is the cause and effect of bubbles that collapse an industry, assault our economy.
Hence the need for intervention. Sometimes the intervention is new regulation. Other times, given change, it is reshaping existing regulation. Still other times it is recognizing that some ideas are right and just. Other ideas are wrong and unjust
The problem, it seems to me, is that too many powerful entities, individuals and corporations, choose from among evil, greed, manipulation, and control. It is evident who these are: the Kochs, Fox news, Walmart, Monsanto, Rove, Limbaugh, . . .
It is interesting that each of the interests these entities represent–individuals, political parties, corporations, industries–could and should do such much good if they would place national interest ahead of personal interests.
The bottom line is the only way for us to compete with the forces of evil, the frighties, the greedy, the super-entitled, is to do it with numbers. Democrats vote, Democrats win! We have to collectively put our shoulders to the wheel. Griping will not get anything done. Yelling back at the TV screen accomplishes little other than raising one’s blood pressure. It seems individual calls to representatives’ offices are, more often than not, of little consequence.
Progressives need to act collectively. National organizations with local branches (Move to Amend, MoveOn) need to lock arms with local, independent groups such as Yes We Can! Long Island, local Democratic clubs, like-minded civic groups) instead of re-inventing the wheel and wasting so much energy. These groups have much in common but have insufficiently coalesced around doing good.
All that said, a dilemma?
On one hand, you may have been contacted earlier this week by a brand new organization –PAC for a Level Playing Field–organized by Elizabeth Warren:
I’ve formed a new organization – PAC for a Level Playing Field – to advance our fight. Together we can do more, and we can support candidates across the country who believe in consistent accountability, investing in opportunity, and fighting for families and small businesses. PAC for a Level Playing Field won’t be funded by big corporate interests. It will be funded by grassroots donors like you.
There’s nothing at all wrong with supporting Elizabeth Warren and a level playing field. She is one of us. Click here to sign up Another piece to the puzzle. But so long as the pieces are not interlocked, there will be no big picture. Just a jumble. And the prevailing forces of evil, of greed, of control, will continue to benefit.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bipartisan politics, it is apparent to all that the term has become an oxymoron.
On the other hand, you may be learning about Organizing for Action. The new and improvedOFA is touted as a nonprofit social welfare organization and community organizing project that is not affiliated with the Democratic Party. A re-manifestation of Obama for America, the group seeks to mobilize supporters in favor of Obama’s legislative priorities. Registered as a 501(c)(4) organization, the reconstituted OFA
will advocate for legislation although it is prohibited from from supporting political candidates.
This seems a wise move for the Obama administration. After all, the OFA machine that has successfully elected and re-elected our president has proven itself to be an invaluable tool–too worthy and far-reaching not to put to use in support of the president’s policies throughout a second term.
Recall, however, that candidate Obama was reluctant to move in such a direction. The NY Timesreports that the new OFA will not be looking for the $3 contribution that became a worthy trademark prior to the 2012 election. Rather, it will be seeking–primarily–big donations from a very select group. A group composed of people who can donate $500,000 or more. In return, they will be granted opportunities to meet with the president throughout the year–opportunities that you and I very likely will not be afforded.
Some of us will find themselves conflicted by this decision. Others will say it is a practical decision that stays within the boundaries of the political game as it continues to be played. OFA will not do what American Crossroads does in promoting favored Republican candidates. But it is awfully close to the line. OFA will be permitted by existing rules to raise unlimited money and accept corporate contributions. However, unlike American Crossroads and similar groups, OFA will disclose donors and donations. Transparency is obviously a good thing. But is it, in this case, the right thing?
It is the righty thing; maybe not the right thing.
Leadership will be shared among , Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod, Stephanie Cutter, Jim Messina, Jon Carson, and Michelle Obama (will this make her a target of the frighties?)
(I recommend this video.Very motivating.)
How will those who are fighting for election reform react? I can live with it. But I look forward to your reactions. Share here.
- How About a ‘Teach-In’ for Change?
- Time to Get Off Our Collective Asses
- Guess Who’s Going (Not) to Jail
- The Sad Simple Reality
- Don’t Hold Your Breath. Conservatives Remain Arrogant and Self-Deluding.
- Interested in Joining Yes We Can! Long Island ?
- Offering a Response to ‘We’ve Got it Backwards’
- The Problem: We’ve Got it Backwards
- The Terrible Winter
- Tikkun Olam: Repairing the World
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009