Scum vs Scum

[RavenSky]

Y'all don't know Chris Hedges very well.

From your Wiki link: He is also a host for the television program On Contact on RT.

 

[poster]

Y'all don't know Chris Hedges very well.

From your Wiki link: He is also a host for the television program On Contact on RT.

Already addressed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Y'all don't know Chris Hedges very well.

Your link identifies him, among other things, as, ".... a host for the television program On Contact on RT.[3]" RT is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government. Maybe you should consider that your op rant was Russian propaganda.

I have considered that, and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't. Contrary to what you've been swallowing, RT is a quite good source for news. Perhaps not always on its own, but when one actually seeks to prove what is said, RT holds its own.

OMG - I just sinned, didn't I?

Good propaganda isn't all false. A good propagandist (and Russia has some damn good ones) knows that outright lies with no truth is easily recognized and debunked. Good propaganda is spin. Yes politicians accept donations from businesses but the spin that this means that businesses own them and dictate their actions is propaganda. Closer to the truth is that businesses contribute to politicians that have a political philosophy that they agree with.

 

[poster]

I have considered that, and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't. Contrary to what you've been swallowing, RT is a quite good source for news. Perhaps not always on its own, but when one actually seeks to prove what is said, RT holds its own.

OMG - I just sinned, didn't I?

Good propaganda isn't all false. A good propagandist (and Russia has some damn good ones) knows that outright lies with no truth is easily recognized and debunked. Good propaganda is spin. Yes politicians accept donations from businesses but the spin that this means that businesses own them and dictate their actions is propaganda. Closer to the truth is that businesses contribute to politicians that have a political philosophy that they agree with.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so scared of the "R" word. You won't catch any cooties if you read or watch any of it. All it takes is a bit of work to check out what's said to either prove or disprove. Don't forget Patton defeated Rommel by reading his book.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have considered that, and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't. Contrary to what you've been swallowing, RT is a quite good source for news. Perhaps not always on its own, but when one actually seeks to prove what is said, RT holds its own.

OMG - I just sinned, didn't I?

Good propaganda isn't all false. A good propagandist (and Russia has some damn good ones) knows that outright lies with no truth is easily recognized and debunked. Good propaganda is spin. Yes politicians accept donations from businesses but the spin that this means that businesses own them and dictate their actions is propaganda. Closer to the truth is that businesses contribute to politicians that have a political philosophy that they agree with.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so scared of the "R" word. You won't catch any cooties if you read or watch any of it. All it takes is a bit of work to check out what's said to either prove or disprove. Don't forget Patton defeated Rommel by reading his book.

I don't fear the "R" word. It is the "P" word that worries me. And the "R" word isn't the only entity that employs the "P" word. Our US news outlets employ it lavishly but they are a hell of a lot more obvious because they don't have the skills.

 

[RavenSky]

I did read the OP article, and find nothing of substance to discuss (that wouldn't be a derail). He cherry-picks a very very very few examples, does not do any sort of in-depth analysis of the hundreds of candidates currently running for office, then shifts into a long-winded book review that doesn't have anything to do with the actual roster of candidates in the 2018 midterms.


4 paragraphs on New Jersey. Sen. Bob Menendez

1/2 of 1 sentence naming Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib (zero discussion about why their positions might be worthy of consideration)

1 paragraph of generalized claims of corporate sponsorships

2 paragraphs of Trump bashing

1 paragraph of Hillary Clinton bashing

10 paragraphs about Bertram Gross's book “Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power” with a few scattered sentences throwing out boogeyman names (Jeffrey Epstein) of people not running for office.

There is actually some interesting stuff in those last 10 paragraphs, but they don't support the thesis of his first 8 paragraphs, and have little to do with the tone of the quoted section in you OP

 

[PyramidHead]

Chris Hedges is not a Russian spy. He's a socialist, and socialists often feel the need to remind people that there is another end to the political spectrum, from which the difference between Democrats and Republicans is vanishingly small. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote or that you shouldn't vote for the least bad candidate (or as may be required, vote against the worst candidate), but the problems of the American system of politics go far deeper than the differences between the two major political parties. Voting every two years between parties that are basically in agreement on most issues, even as they may differ in areas that have important consequences for millions of people, is no substitute for the actual democratic shaping of society by its citizens, which neither party has any interest in. So, while it's not as if the consequences of Republican and Democratic governance are the same in all respects, we should still constantly question the cultural framing of "get out and vote" as something noble and participatory. We need people like Hedges to remind us of what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one.

 

[poster]

True PH, good observation.

What I think Hedges is pointing out more than anything is not so much that both parties are the same substantively now, but that the movement to the right the Democratic party has made relative to the movement of the GOP means the GOP is now running against an older version of itself. Today's Democratic party is the GOP of the late 90s, early 2000s. Liberal representation has been replace with neoliberal representation.

 

[RavenSky]

True PH, good observation.

What I think Hedges is pointing out more than anything is not so much that both parties are the same substantively now, but that the movement to the right the Democratic party has made relative to the movement of the GOP means the GOP is now running against an older version of itself. Today's Democratic party is the GOP of the late 90s, early 2000s. Liberal representation has been replace with neoliberal representation.

Then Hedges isn't watching the 2018 races very closely.

 

[RavenSky]

Chris Hedges is not a Russian spy. He's a socialist, and socialists often feel the need to remind people that there is another end to the political spectrum, from which the difference between Democrats and Republicans is vanishingly small. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote or that you shouldn't vote for the least bad candidate (or as may be required, vote against the worst candidate), but the problems of the American system of politics go far deeper than the differences between the two major political parties. Voting every two years between parties that are basically in agreement on most issues, even as they may differ in areas that have important consequences for millions of people, is no substitute for the actual democratic shaping of society by its citizens, which neither party has any interest in. So, while it's not as if the consequences of Republican and Democratic governance are the same in all respects, we should still constantly question the cultural framing of "get out and vote" as something noble and participatory. We need people like Hedges to remind us of what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one.

I actually agree with you here. Unfortunately, that wasn't how the discussion here was framed.

I would be interested, though, to hear what you mean with "what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one." Obviously, other countries have different political systems, so we could have a debate about the merits of each, but is that what you are talking about?

 

[Elixir]

Chris Hedges is not a Russian spy. He's a socialist, and socialists often feel the need to remind people that there is another end to the political spectrum, from which the difference between Democrats and Republicans is vanishingly small. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote or that you shouldn't vote for the least bad candidate (or as may be required, vote against the worst candidate), but the problems of the American system of politics go far deeper than the differences between the two major political parties. Voting every two years between parties that are basically in agreement on most issues, even as they may differ in areas that have important consequences for millions of people, is no substitute for the actual democratic shaping of society by its citizens, which neither party has any interest in. So, while it's not as if the consequences of Republican and Democratic governance are the same in all respects, we should still constantly question the cultural framing of "get out and vote" as something noble and participatory. We need people like Hedges to remind us of what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one.

I actually agree with you here. Unfortunately, that wasn't how the discussion here was framed.

I would be interested, though, to hear what you mean with "what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one." Obviously, other countries have different political systems, so we could have a debate about the merits of each, but is that what you are talking about?

<insert something about how democracy is the worst system possible, other than every other system that has been tried...>

 

[PyramidHead]

Chris Hedges is not a Russian spy. He's a socialist, and socialists often feel the need to remind people that there is another end to the political spectrum, from which the difference between Democrats and Republicans is vanishingly small. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote or that you shouldn't vote for the least bad candidate (or as may be required, vote against the worst candidate), but the problems of the American system of politics go far deeper than the differences between the two major political parties. Voting every two years between parties that are basically in agreement on most issues, even as they may differ in areas that have important consequences for millions of people, is no substitute for the actual democratic shaping of society by its citizens, which neither party has any interest in. So, while it's not as if the consequences of Republican and Democratic governance are the same in all respects, we should still constantly question the cultural framing of "get out and vote" as something noble and participatory. We need people like Hedges to remind us of what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one.

I actually agree with you here. Unfortunately, that wasn't how the discussion here was framed.

I would be interested, though, to hear what you mean with "what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one." Obviously, other countries have different political systems, so we could have a debate about the merits of each, but is that what you are talking about?

There are many ways of running a government and an economy that have not been thoroughly explored in our short history as a species. For some reason, the majority of people seem to think that the way we produce and distribute goods is just a natural reflection of human nature and is the best we'll ever come up with, despite the fact that the peculiar system of markets and property relations we have been using is actually only a few hundred years old. I don't want to derail the thread, but this tendency is another manifestation of the "righward shift" spoken of in another topic here, where as a society (in our media, our classrooms, our casual conversations) we imagine the scope of possibilities for humans living together on a single landmass as much narrower than it actually is, and right now that scope is hugely skewed toward market capitalist solutions to every problem. The arguments are over which kinds of regulations might soften the impact of the recurring downturns without scaring away investment or burdening businesses, but nobody seriously wonders whether recurring downturns that periodically decimate our livelihoods is something we should be trying to accommodate, something that must just be accepted as the way of things with no other option but to patch it up now and again. Trump and his administration are aware of a small contingency of people who are starting to question that assumption, which is why the disgusting little pamphlet about the "opportunity costs" of socialism is now making the rounds. But judging by the Democratic party's actions recently, if the shoe were on the other foot then Clinton might be circulating just such a pamphlet to dissuade people from considering anything to the left of Eisenhower.

 

[RavenSky]

Just a head's up:

World Travelers started a thread using Pyramid's post as the OP so we can discuss further without derailing here: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?16842-Best-political-system-(and-how-to-get-there)

Thanks World Traveler!

 

[poster]

True PH, good observation.

What I think Hedges is pointing out more than anything is not so much that both parties are the same substantively now, but that the movement to the right the Democratic party has made relative to the movement of the GOP means the GOP is now running against an older version of itself. Today's Democratic party is the GOP of the late 90s, early 2000s. Liberal representation has been replace with neoliberal representation.

Then Hedges isn't watching the 2018 races very closely.

Meaning?

 

[poster]

True PH, good observation.

What I think Hedges is pointing out more than anything is not so much that both parties are the same substantively now, but that the movement to the right the Democratic party has made relative to the movement of the GOP means the GOP is now running against an older version of itself. Today's Democratic party is the GOP of the late 90s, early 2000s. Liberal representation has been replace with neoliberal representation.

Then Hedges isn't watching the 2018 races very closely.

Meaning?

If you'd like to raise an issue, we can go find out where Hedges stands on it. I'm happy to help.

 

[Opoponax]

We need people like Hedges to remind us of what else might be possible if we don't assume that this system is the best possible one.

We know what's possible. The problem is that what's ultimately possible isn't what's in front of us.

What's in front of us is a vicious minority political party holding a gross imbalance of power. We're not knocking on the door of universal healthcare, a minimum living wage for all, and free higher education. Our backs are to a cliff and this may be the last chance we have to push back. That means electing (D) across the board; not because it'll be the culmination of what we want, but because it's the only practical step towards avoiding permanent disaster.

And then we have to keep electing (D) to the point where the GOP fucking dies and a more progressive party than (D) forms as a rival to it. And at this point, that's so far down the road, it isn't worth worrying about.

 

[bilby]

The only choice available, given the current electoral system in the US, is 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

That's it.

It is observably true that making neither choice is, today, more often than not, making the latter choice.

It's frankly irrelevant to consider any other possible outcome. A new left wing option, or the success of an independent, libertarian, green or any other kind of political force simply isn't on the table. You can choose 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'. Or you can opt out, and get 'Move a bit right'.

To consider or discuss other possibilities is a total waste of time and effort. PERHAPS, in the very unlikely event that you consistently choose 'Move a bit left' a large number of times in a row, then MAYBE your grandchildren, or their children, might see other options become available. More likely, at some point your nation will lurch rightwards off a cliff, become a failed state, and be put back together probably as more than one sovereign nation on the North American continent, with radically different constitutional makeup(s) than what you have today. But none of that is happening today, or even hugely likely in the next few decades. Today you get to pick: 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

The tipping point into chaos is dramatically closer on the 'Move a bit right' side of the scale, but exactly where it is on either side is fairly unclear. Maybe you won't fall off the edge into crisis until another hundred, or a thousand steps to the right are taken. Maybe a hundred, or a thousand steps to the left will bring you close to a tipping point in that direction. Or maybe one or two more steps to the right will be enough to break your country irreparably. It's impossible to be sure.

But today, you get to choose. 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

That's the only choice you have in front of you. It may not be what you want, but I want never gets. It's what you have. And refusing to pick is not an option - it's a decision in favour of 'Move a bit right'.

Everything else is just noise, fear, obfuscation, confusion, propaganda, and dreams. None of it, from either side, changes a thing about the simple fact the your choice is 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

Choose wisely.

 

[JohnG]

The only choice available, given the current electoral system in the US, is 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

That's it.

It is observably true that making neither choice is, today, more often than not, making the latter choice.

It's frankly irrelevant to consider any other possible outcome. A new left wing option, or the success of an independent, libertarian, green or any other kind of political force simply isn't on the table. You can choose 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'. Or you can opt out, and get 'Move a bit right'.

To consider or discuss other possibilities is a total waste of time and effort. PERHAPS, in the very unlikely event that you consistently choose 'Move a bit left' a large number of times in a row, then MAYBE your grandchildren, or their children, might see other options become available. More likely, at some point your nation will lurch rightwards off a cliff, become a failed state, and be put back together probably as more than one sovereign nation on the North American continent, with radically different constitutional makeup(s) than what you have today. But none of that is happening today, or even hugely likely in the next few decades. Today you get to pick: 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

The tipping point into chaos is dramatically closer on the 'Move a bit right' side of the scale, but exactly where it is on either side is fairly unclear. Maybe you won't fall off the edge into crisis until another hundred, or a thousand steps to the right are taken. Maybe a hundred, or a thousand steps to the left will bring you close to a tipping point in that direction. Or maybe one or two more steps to the right will be enough to break your country irreparably. It's impossible to be sure.

But today, you get to choose. 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

That's the only choice you have in front of you. It may not be what you want, but I want never gets. It's what you have. And refusing to pick is not an option - it's a decision in favour of 'Move a bit right'.

Everything else is just noise, fear, obfuscation, confusion, propaganda, and dreams. None of it, from either side, changes a thing about the simple fact the your choice is 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

Choose wisely.

I agree with all of this. I think it's worth attempting to steer the ship even if it's small increments. It's probably better than a radical shift.

The corporate control of both parties isn't out of line with US interests anyway, except I would say that the Democrat party also makes considerations to people below the 1%, where the Republican party do not. In other words, If a political party's purpose is to represent it's country, any truly American party would be remiss not to favour corporate interests. That's what they are about.

Further to the OP - The US isn't in a situation where it-doesn't-matter-who's-on-the-ballot-they-are-all-corrupt is a pressing concern- The US has a serious leadership problem at the moment, and if the US can vote themselves out of this mess, they can get back to complaining about the gubmint.

In a best case scenario, things are learned from all this, but if no one votes, that doesn't happen.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

LEAVE IT BLANK is a better choice. Neither the Red or the Blue scum.

But today, you get to choose. 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

There's another choice: leave it blank. Submit your ballot, but leave most/all the candidate choices blank.

That's the only choice you have in front of you. It may not be what you want, but I want never gets. It's what you have. And refusing to pick is not an option - it's a decision in favour of 'Move a bit right'.

Everything else is just noise, fear, obfuscation, confusion, propaganda, and dreams.

Whatever that means, it might be something better than having to vote for the Left- or Right-wing stampede.

For many voters, leaving the spaces blank is a better choice than joining either the Red or the Blue Stampede. Surely there are millions of voters who would make this choice if they thought others would do the same, so they could be part of a new group who are saying some other kind of choice needs to be offered.

None of it, from either side, changes a thing about the simple fact the your choice is 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

No, leaving it blank is a 3rd choice to each individual voter.

The country might not move either way, if it splits about 50-50, which is likely. So after all the votes are counted and the races are settled, there may be no net shift either way.

And many voters really can't decide which Stampede is the least evil, so they have no preference which way it should shift. So for them, the right choice is to leave it blank.

What if large numbers of voters started doing this. Isn't it possible something new would emerge, over several years, which would offer citizens some kind of new choices?

What would be wrong with giving us choices -- allowing hundreds of new options other than these two -- and let citizens make their choices, which they cannot do now, and then most of them would fail to get what they want. But at least they would be able to make their choices. Whereas now we are denied to make our choices. Instead our only choice is to join the Red Stampede or the Blue Stampede.

Why not give us other choices, allowing us to "vote" for this or that, out of hundreds or thousands or millions of possibilities? And even though we would mostly lose, at least we'd be able to "vote" for our choice, instead of being suppressed into joining one of these two official Stampedes as the only choices.

Leaving it blank is the best choice for now, for those who want something in the future other than the Blue Stampede and the Red Stampede, even though it might require many years for something new to develop. Even decades, or generations. It's better to do what's possible now to give a slight push in that direction, rather than waste our ballot by further promoting either Stampede.

Also, this Red/Blue combined double-Stampede is very likely leading the country to a major disaster, because there is a composite outcome, or net result from the 2 combined into one driving force not intended by either side, which could be taking the country over a cliff.

Maybe this could be headed off if enough voters leave it blank, possibly leading to a change which would put an end to this Red/Blue double-Stampede and the impending disaster.

 

[bilby]

There's another choice: leave it blank. Submit your ballot, but leave most/all the candidate choices blank.




Whatever that means, it might be something better than having to vote for the Left- or Right-wing stampede.

For many voters, leaving the spaces blank is a better choice than joining either the Red or the Blue Stampede. Surely there are millions of voters who would make this choice if they thought others would do the same, so they could be part of a new group who are saying some other kind of choice needs to be offered.

None of it, from either side, changes a thing about the simple fact the your choice is 'Move a bit left' or 'Move a bit right'.

No, leaving it blank is a 3rd choice to each individual voter.

The country might not move either way, if it splits about 50-50, which is likely. So after all the votes are counted and the races are settled, there may be no net shift either way.

And many voters really can't decide which Stampede is the least evil, so they have no preference which way it should shift. So for them, the right choice is to leave it blank.

What if large numbers of voters started doing this. Isn't it possible something new would emerge, over several years, which would offer citizens some kind of new choices?

What would be wrong with giving us choices -- allowing hundreds of new options other than these two -- and let citizens make their choices, which they cannot do now, and then most of them would fail to get what they want. But at least they would be able to make their choices. Whereas now we are denied to make our choices. Instead our only choice is to join the Red Stampede or the Blue Stampede.

Why not give us other choices, allowing us to "vote" for this or that, out of hundreds or thousands or millions of possibilities? And even though we would mostly lose, at least we'd be able to "vote" for our choice, instead of being suppressed into joining one of these two official Stampedes as the only choices.

Leaving it blank is the best choice for now, for those who want something in the future other than the Blue Stampede and the Red Stampede, even though it might require many years for something new to develop. Even decades, or generations. It's better to do what's possible now to give a slight push in that direction, rather than waste our ballot by further promoting either Stampede.

Also, this Red/Blue combined double-Stampede is very likely leading the country to a major disaster, because there is a composite outcome, or net result from the 2 combined into one driving force not intended by either side, which could be taking the country over a cliff.

Maybe this could be headed off if enough voters leave it blank, possibly leading to a change which would put an end to this Red/Blue double-Stampede and the impending disaster.

You misunderstand; I am not giving you a choice - I am telling you what your choices are.

You are free to disagree with me, but then you will be wrong.

Your proposed 'third choice' is making a choice.

For more details, please read my earlier post.