February 5th, 2008
|04:50 pm - Political thoughts and an excellent socialist analysis|
I quite sadly largely agree with this excellent socialist analysis of Barack Obama and his campaign, not that Clinton is any different. Nevertheless, I fervently hope whichever of them wins the nomination wins the November election, because despite their very many problems, they remain vastly better than any Republican alternative. The fact that this is true is a very sad statement about American politics, but it's true and I'll definitely be donating at least some of my time to help the Democratic candidate win in November. It's also very odd to be feeling happy over Huckabee's victory in West Virginia, and yet I do, because it's equally clear that every state that John McCain does not win helps the Democrats to victory.
Current Mood: indescribable
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 01:50 am (UTC)|| |
has commented to me many times that he feels the Democratic leadership is trying to lose the election. They do not want to inherit Bush's mess. They want the republicans to did their own grave so they can pick up the pieces in 2012.
Of couse, since the agenda of both parties is pretty much the same, the working class, and foreign nations will suffer under either of the ruling class parties.
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 02:24 am (UTC)|| |
I don't believe that for a second. IIRC, lassiter
also claimed they'd lose the House and Senate races in 06, and was wrong then. I don't know who will win, but I especially don't believe someone like Clinton wants to lose.
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 02:44 am (UTC)|| |
Oh no, the candidates do not want to lose. But they are tools to be used, then discarded by an agenda far greater than they.
Dems appear to have won in '06, but they aren't using their power to stop the war, cut-off corporate welfare, and restore public services. So the Dems "victories" may be a victory for their particular pork barrels, but not for the working class.
Their power is somewhat limited by a bunch of the Democrats not being all that progressive themselves, or being supporters of the war/troops/not abandoning the mess we made.
The Democrats raised the minimum wage from about $5 to about $7. All their Presidential candidates are talking about some sort of universal health care. And there's abortion and related issues; last I checked, women were also part of the working class.
BTW, Krugman on minimum wages:http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 02:48 am (UTC)|| |
A living wage needs to be at least $15 an hour. Rich need to be taxed at 90% of their income, like it used to be. And corporate welfare needs to be eliminated. "Universal" health care means more money for hospitals and drug companies. Many of the proposed programs want to make people pay for the health care insurance, whether they want it or not. I'd rather spend my money on vitamins and alternative medicine, but those options won't be covered.
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 05:39 am (UTC)|| |
You know, I'd think a more sensible "universal" health care program would be the other way around... give EVERY individual person a certain amount of money earmarked for health care insurance (rich and poor alike,) and let individuals choose their own providers and care. It's much more in keeping with a free, competitive market and will lead to a better outcome than if the government dictated exactly what health care everyone should have.
I agree with you about a living wage, but it's nonetheless true that raising the current minimum wage -- and indexing it to inflation -- would be better than NOT raising it. I don't think it makes sense to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
There is no form of universal health care -- including single-payer care -- that doesn't include paying money to hospitals and drug companies (and doctors and nurses too). I don't think that's a reason to oppose universal health care. Universal health care provides a "floor" of treatment that everyone would have available; if you want something extra, like vitamins and alternative medicine, then you can pay for it.
It's like a public transportation system. Everyone's taxes pay for the public transport; but if you want something else, like a motor scooter or a private car, it comes out of your wallet. What's unfair about that?
As the campaign goes on I find myself with less and less enthusiasm for voting for either of the Democrats. Clinton is so obviously part of the Establishment and who knows what Obama is for. I haven't even decided which of the Republicans I should vote against if I decide to vote as a spoiler in the Republican primary. McCain has the better environmental record, but Romney might be enough of a "slick Willie" to dampen Republican enthusiasm. Are there any Republicans who are actually enthusiastic about Romney?
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 05:21 am (UTC)|| |
The best reason to support Romney is that the fundys do not remotely trust him. A couple of months ago, when discussing their opinions of Romney and Giuliani, most of the powerful fundy leaders stated that they'd strongly consider running a 3rd party candidate if either of those two became the Republican nominee. Them running a "Christian candidate" would both guarantee a Republican loss and might permanently separate the Republicans and the fundys. The first of these is clearly a very good thing, and the second (at least from my POV) would be an event that could reshape US politics on a fundamental and very positive level. I'd dearly love to see Romney get nominated.
What if he wins??? Then what?
The torture is a rather important political edge, since the entire world hates us right now because of it.
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)|| |
They also hate use for starting pointless and horrible wars, and McCain is the biggest war-monger of any of the Republican candidates. I'm fairly certain McCain would get us into a war with Iran, and attacking a Muslim democracy would insure levels of international hatred that are difficult to imagine.
|Date:||February 7th, 2008 01:55 am (UTC)|| |
I'll be voting for Clinton/Obama because it means health care and vetoes on stupid Republican crap.