Why is it so hard for people to voice that globalization has been/is a failure.
Ditto, we are ruled by Corpocracy/oligarchy.
I'm just amazed by it. Some make excuses that since they can't do anything about it why bother, etc.
IMO, this government is failing and failure is desirable when you are racing toward the edge of a cliff.
Before we can discern solutions we must know the cause, the root cause of such failure.
Let's take a moment to understand the distinction between Democracy versus Republic.
IMO, we have too much Democracy. The Republic leans toward protecting the individual while Democracy, as a form of government, leans toward giving voice to the majority.
Couple the fact that we have too much Democracy with the fact that the elite, through their corporations, have used Democracy to usurp our form of Direct Democracy. They have been able to do this through Corporate Personhood law coupled with Money Is Free Speech law and of late, Citizens United vs FEC court rulings.
The result is a vocal (wealthy) Minority Group receiving most of the attention of elected representatives. That is why globalization and our government is failing.
Therefore, it seems logical that the solution to restore our Republic, national sovereignty, and the democratic principles we once lived by, is to abolish Corporate Personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform. CFR would mandate that all donations be managed through a private/public arrangement from the individual donor to a non-partisan government agency such as the IRS or FEC or a similar entity of the state.
Accomplishing those two reforms will relieve government of the money influence and renew the correct relationship between the people and their representatives.
But, and a big But, those reforms will never see the light of day through the Corpocracy. It will take a new 3rd party designed for the 21st century with a different political attitude to accomplish this.
Such laudable reform is the primary mission of the Republic Sentry Party, guardian of the REPUBLIC. Check it out, climb aboard.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
28 Comments
How about this, Roy?
http://www.americanselect.org/about
(also why such large type?)
Roy,
There are many ways to go about globalizing markets. All of them will have their strengths and weaknesses to applaud and rail against. Mankind cannot implement a single policy of any kind that will not be attended by opportunity costs, detractors, and those who will lose something by its implementation.
There are many imbalances in our world. There are enormous imbalances in the U.S. There are two classic approaches to wealth imbalances, one is capitalism which allows the marketplace to find a stable proportion of wealth imbalance and the other is a fantasy called Communism in which wealth is equally distributed to everyone who works for the society.
The Globalization we experience today, is the capitalist method of stabilizing wealth imbalances. There are many other ways, to include our own Mixed approach with capitalism creating wealth inequality and social programs that minimize the worst and inhumane aspects of that wealth inequality.
That said, the only way to undo formal globalization is to bankrupt the entire system and start over from scratch with one world government with its first law being, NO NATIONS OR CORPORATIONS MAY ENGAGE IN TRADE WITH ANY OTHER NATIONS OR CORPORATIONS OUTSIDE THE BORDERS OF THEIR HOME NATION.
I don't think that is where you want to go. So, that leaves my question for you. How would you change our current globalization structure to make it better? Who would enforce those changes, and at what political, military, and socio-economic costs to the people of the various nations?
Answer these questions, and we can have a dialogue on an alternative to the current state of globalization.
Roy wrote: "The Republic leans toward protecting the individual while Democracy..."
Our Republic(ans) lean toward protecting the individuals in the wealthiest class as well as the very corporations you rail against. This is the Republic in action. The majority of the American people oppose such governance in favor of the wealthiest and corporations to the detriment of the people. And yet, you carry the water for a Republic vs. democracy.
I scratch my head at your inconsistency on this.
Globalization, btw, Roy, has not been a failure for the Japanese post-WWII, nor for Germany, nor China, nor the S.E. Asian nations, nor for Taiwan. Globalization has been a boon for Brazil, and Russia in the last 12 years, not to mention to a lesser degree for S. Africa and Australia.
So, when you say it has been a failure, you are going to have to define for whom it has been a failure. There are many Americans employed by American international dealing Corporations who will say globalization has been the fulfillment of the American Dream for them.
So, define for whom it has been a failure while acknowledging for whom it has been an enormous leg up out of poverty for billions, and then we can discuss the relative merits of globalization extant in an objective and unbiased fashion.
Oh, sorry, forgot to mention the Saudis. They too have benefitted enormously from globalization as has the UAE.
Greg, didn’t realize I was using large type. No inference intended.
Thanks for the interesting website. Two million supporters ain’t shabby.
Really interesting if the people do get to vote in a presidential candidate. Suppose that candidate was not of the corpocracy. We hear that it takes a lot of money to get thru a campaign. One wonders how that candidate would fare amongst the corpocracy candidates.
No reason to believe such a candidate, if elected, would not turn to the corpocracy for support in pushing projects, getting re-elected, etc. That’s the beauty of a 3rd party designed for the 21st where rules apply and membership enforces the rules. Fail to pursue the party agenda and a wayward politician may be rejected from the party.
Onerous task, David, to fill in all the blanks in one setting. But, we can hit some highlights.
You state there are 2 kinds of capitalism, an environment where business can prosper and communism. Saw a Stossel segment, I believe, on TV about the Indians. Those living on the reservations have the most land, free health care, free schools, other amenities provided by the corpocracy. A tribe in NC, the Lumbee’s, never partook of the nanny state largesse and now individual Lumbee’s own banks, Ace Hardware stores, utility companies and other businesses and seem to be thriving. Reservation Indians still sitting there, most poor as dirt, except for those who got into the casino business. You get my drift.
There is unfretted capitalism where corporations can go out and rape, pillage and burn. Then, there is regulated capitalism where corporations can conduct business within the scope of certain rules. Unfretted brings to mind the British West India and British East India Companies. The BIE actually served as the government for a large segment of India.
Today, we have a mixture of unfretted and regulated capitalism. Unfretted can be seen in merging large US corporations in monopolies/conglomerates so they can go out into the globalised world and beat the crap out of any small country or corporation(s). Regulated can be seen in corporations having to pay their fair share of taxes on their US profits. Smoke and mirrors can be seen where BP shows a profit of some billions but pays no US income tax in certain years.
Globalisation, as I refer, started with Regan and the era of ‘greed is good’. Yes, a number of countries developed rapidly after WWII and the beginning of the Regan era. But, the attempt to globalize the world didn’t really get going until Regan and the WTO, NAFTA, etc. So, if you look at the progress of REAL globalisation today; the Asian rim, minus Japan is doing well. And, do note that China is now slowing as well. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is falling of a precipice. Surely, we can agree on that point.
So, in order to bring some millions out of poverty in Asia we are willing to lower living standards for ¾’s of the world. Russia is yet to join the WTO but when they do I would expect a few more jobs will be sucked out of the US.
But, the game plan for globalisation requires that the EU, US and developed nations lower their living standards (wage scale) so that at some point we can all compete more equally in the global economy. That is one way and as you state, there are others. I would prefer a method of working working to bring developing nations up to the standards of developed nations. Way less frustration, angst, difficulty and so on for the middle class and below. The US consumer as much as built the US companies from scratch and the gov’t subsidized them, with your tax dollars, to where they can’t fail through corporate welfare. You helped pay to relocate US companies overseas and paid for foreign advertising. Now, we should sit still while millions of voters/taxpayers get shoved from the middle class into long term poverty. Your suggestion of social programs to minimize the worst and aspects of wealth inequality is not working too well.
I suspect others will feel as I do as globalisation rolls along. We still are taking in and caring for immigrants looking for a stake in a developed country, putting pressure on the work force, high to low. The corpocracy continues to bleed off national wealth by disbursing tax revenue and borrowed money to any entity that will take it. QE3 seems to be building steam. Sufficient wealth has been sucked out of the consumer to where they can’t spend, can’t support retirement plans, insurance plans, buy stock, education, etc. Near half are unable to pay into the tax coffers. Inequality has reached a level of obscene.
The population is quickly being sorted into the haves and have nots. Middle class is toast, as planned. Corporations profits are now generated in the developing world, the US consumer is no longer needed. Companies require fewer workers as robotic technology drives production. The stock market is fast becoming an investment tool for the wealthy only.
We can turn into an India or China pdq if the people are content to sit tight and tuff it out. Or, we can change the way the game is being played. We can work to remove the money influence from gov’t/politics by abolishing corporate personhood law and money is free speech law. We can implement REAL campaign finance reform where donations are limited to individuals, submitted to entities like the IRS, FEC, or similar state agency for disbursement to candidates/parties. We could replace the WTO with an advisory entity with no enforcement ability, solving the sovereign issue. We could develop relationships with countries and work to support their goals re development. Agribusinesses for Africa, clean water projects where needed. Import their excess veggies, etc. Same for light/heavy mfctring, medical technology and so on. Use anti-trust to break up the monopolies/conglomerates thereby creating more companies with more employees. Corporations were once created to serve the community/nation as opposed to exist to create wealth. We need to develop that kind of relationship with the corporation. We can put national strategic/defense interests off limits to direct foreign ownership. Implement a VAT tax to offset the trade imbalance with countries like China. Implement a flat tax to increase revenue and take away the ability of congress to make winners and losers through tax law. Exempt corporations from paying taxes as a corporation is not a person. Most corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer and it would do away with corporate welfare.
There is no relationship, beyond the spelling of the words, between Republic and Republicans, as we know it today. There may have been at some point in history but that has long since faded to dark. Seems I recall the party ideologies switching tracks somewhere around the time of Lincoln.
Apparently, you don’t agree with LexRex’s comparison of Democracy to Republic. Republic stands to protect individual rights while Democracy stands for mob rule, the larger mob wins. Or, since Money Is Free Speech became law, the most wealthy mob wins. Thus, we are enjoying a small wealthy/vocal minority making the rules for the large and really silent majority. Hence, we have too much Democracy. Let’s remove the money influence and bring balance to the Democratic Republic way of governing, in accordance with the Constitution.
That’s about it in brief, David. And, note that I didn’t call for bankrupting the entire system, starting over scratch, implementing a world gov’t, denying trade beyond our borders, etc. It really isn’t hard to square us up, restore our sovereignty, the Republic and the democratic principles we once lived by.
But, and it’s a BIG but, it will take a 3rd (whoops – an aftershock quake) party to achieve any one of the suggestions given. Heck, congress can barely get court houses named these days.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we truly deserve.
Unfretted?? Dunno!
Roy As it stands today the large corporations do not answer to government. Without a one world government corporations cannot not be held accountable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/business-government-corporate-control_n_933581.html
Not on my watch, j2t2. Might be ok for those willing to scrap the Constitution.
Not sure to the degree of indolency you are suggesting re corporations. The Enron dudes did do some jail time.
Wow! Can u imagine the level of lobbying that could be brought to bare on a one world gov't? Billion dollar birthday parties, etc.
Otherwise - - -
Yes a few at Enron did a bit of jail time but at what cost Roy. Enron was guilty of much more. When you look at all the bribery taking place today Enron wasn't even a blip on the screen.
When the 14th amendment was construed to mean corporations are people the Constitution was gone, just another piece of paper. Took the progressives and Teddy Roosevelt to turn things around. That won't happen today as the corporations learned from history and are not repeating it, whilst the American people have not. The Conservatives support the concept of corporation as people and they are a majority in this country, Roy. Beck is a corporatist who consistently spewed on about the progressives and how they destroyed America Roy.
Times have changes Roy, the question is how do we as a people make globalization work for all of us. The answer is of course we don't. We have been led to believe that individual rights takes precedence over the majority. Corporations have the market cornered on individual rights and the majority pays the price.
Don't get me wrong individual rights are important but IMHO have been usurped by corporations, which ironically are really majorities not individuals. After the onslaught of Ayn Rand and her fictional hero John Galt gave rise to Libertarianism we have carried it to extremes.Which leads me to my point, it is individual rights that will lead us to a one world government IMHO. Because as you say it will be easier for the corporations to control one government than to have many to control.
Roy said: "You state there are 2 kinds of capitalism, an environment where business can prosper and communism."
No, Roy, I never defined communism as a kind of capitalism. Different animal entirely.
As for you reference to Indians, it doesn't compute. There are a number of huge variables OTHER than government provision, that determine the relative success or failure of Indian tribes. Comparisons of Reservation tribes is apples and apples, and in that comparison, location and climate are huge variables. There are other sociological and psychological and even biological factors at play, as well.
As a counter-point to your argument on Indians, there are millions of Americans who, upon being unemployed and receiving Unemployment Checks, found other jobs BEFORE Unemployment ran out. Ergo, dependence on government did NOT lead to a lifestyle of dependence upon government. Such sweeping generalizations as your Indian analogy makes, are not valid arguments that hold up under scrutiny.
Roy said: "But, the attempt to globalize the world didn’t really get going until Regan and the WTO, NAFTA, etc."
Seeds take time to grow and flower, Roy. The rebuilding of Germany and Japan and investments in S. Korea, spawned the dawn of globalization. America's economic defeat of the USSR via the arms race, was a wake up call for China, that the capitalist system works and is the model to follow for growth of a middle class (vital to China's interest in staying off another Revolution). These were the seeds of global markets in which ever increasing numbers of nations had resources and desires to participate in. Add to this, the rapid increase in the population of the planet, and you had a situation in which no one nation could export the needs of other nation's populations, so a decentralization of resource development and export was a natural byproduct of the population explosion after WWII across the planet.
Capitalism is the most efficient means of discovering and providing for consumer demand for products and services. These are forces which accelerated the entirely natural sociological trend toward globalization of markets, which is just another way of saying, global trade to meet international supply and demand which no one nation could accommodate.
There were law makers and policy makers and central banks who acknowledged this natural direction toward globalization, who, in turn erected regulatory mechanisms and agencies to facilitate an orderly international currency and balance of trade accounting systems to insure clarity and transparency regarding who owed who, what, and when, and courts and treaties were established as enforcement mechanisms without which, peaceful international trade could not have replace military resolution of disputes over trade.
The point here, is that globalization was not a conspiracy in the mind of one or few individuals, to take over the world. Globalization was a natural outcome of other nations adopting America's and Western Europe's models of capitalism in order to trade with America and Western Europe. Other nations emulated the West's economic systems to share in the West's historical record of economic success.
America has always had the choice of whether or not to depend upon trade with other nations as part of the foundation for its own economic future. America made the choice to make international trade a big part of its economy, at both the corporate and political and legal levels of our society, and this dates back centuries to the tobacco and cotton export trades from the pre-Civil War South, and export of industry and technology from the Northern States. This decision to engage in globalization of trade began NOT with Reagan, but, with the original colonies turned States of the Union.
What we are witnessing in globalization is an evolution of international trade, currency markets, and banking that has its roots in the 18th century. Population growth following the end of WWII throughout the world along with the spread of technology for even poor nations to begin to tap its natural resources for export trade, created an acceleration in that evolution in a huge way. But, it is, nonetheless, just an extension of a trend toward international market supply and demand systems dating back to the founding of the United States and the U.S. Dollar.
The debate today, cannot be whether or not to put a halt to globalization. That cannot happen in the absence of global economic failure. The debate today, has to be centered on how to regulate globalized trade, if in fact, it is presumed that global economic failure is avoidable. That is the debate central bankers and corporate strategists are engaged in, and it is a debate the citizens of the world need to become versed in, if they are to have their case represented in the planning for how to manage globalization of markets going forward.
You are WRONG to say the plan is lower quality of life in Western nations to accommodate global trade with emerging markets. There is no Cabal Of Corporatists who have drafted such a plan.
This is a natural BYPRODUCT of the evolution of globalization, specifically, the international market for wage labor which induces corporations to move production where labor is of equal quality and capacity at lower labor costs. It is a natural part of capitalism to constantly seek ways to reduce costs of operations, in order to increase profitability. If you find this sinister, then, you must be honest and condemn capitalism as a means for the distribution of capital, products, and services where they best fulfill demand.
Eminent Domain laws in the U.S. have been decried by those forced to sell their property at less than what they wished the market fair value would bring, as the coming of Communism in Europe and America. Communism never arrived in Europe and America, despite the protestations of the 'victims' of Eminent Domain.
Globalization has lifted the quality of life for more than a billion people on this planet in just the last 20 years. What I hear from you, is the protest of an American that because American wages have stagnated and the American political system has become corrupt, the BoogeyMan must be globalization, because laying the blame on oneself as a voter and ones fellow voters is too big a personal responsibility.
The alternative to globalization was export and import tariffs. Anyone with even a modicum of objective economics education knows that this alternative would have resulted in dramatic shortages of goods and services for all nations, and the general decline in consumer power of citizens in virtually all nations.
I remind you a wisdom about economics and government. There is no policy that can ever be enacted that will not be viewed as harmful by some, and beneficial by others. But, the thing to remember about globalization is that it never was a policy objective in its own right. It was an evolution of capitalism as capitalism spread around the globe.
The real threat facing consumers the world over, is the ease with which capitalists and politicians are able to over leverage their positions in the name of future prosperity. They have an irresistible urge to fashion law and policy for the short term profit, and at the cost of long term sustainability. That is the REAL THREAT which comes with this evolution of globalization of markets.
And the answer to this threat, is more democracy, in which the citizens of the world have a greater voice in erecting such policies and who will, if given the choice, choose to slow globalization evolution by the amount necessary to insure solvency of both their governments and their capitalist business infrastructure.
The problem with a Republic, is that the republicans are all to easily BOUGHT by the corporatists who are hell bent on today's profit increase, and to hell with the future when they won't be the CEO anymore. Address that problem and you will be addressing an issue of enormous threat to our way of life going forward.
Attack globalization, and you fail to address the real threat, entirely.
J2T2 said: "Roy As it stands today the large corporations do not answer to government. Without a one world government corporations cannot not be held accountable."
Whoa! Couldn't disagree with you more, on that J2T2.
A one world government makes an awfully small target for blackmail and bribery and corruption.
Best to stick to national sovereignty and international treaties which can be re-brokered as conditions in those nations change over time. It is nearly impossible to bribe, blackmail, and corrupt, dozens upon dozens of governments, even for the likes of the Saudi's, Soros, or Koch Bros.
Create a one world government, and revolution and civil and economic mayhem will not be far behind as that government is corrupted by the most powerful players in the economic system that follows. I recommend a reading of your Orwell again, regarding the pitfalls of a one-world government, Animal Farm speaks to this directly.
David I am not advocating for a one world government, in fact I am against a one world government. I do agree that with it would make a small target. However globalization as practiced leaves the door open for multinational corporations to do as they will in many cases.
J2T2, thanks for the clarification. Had me worried there for an hour or two.
Yes, globalization is being managed by the corporations for the most part, and that is proving harmful to working people in America in the millions. And worse for working people in many other nations as their quality of lives are lowered while for millions of others, quality of life is being elevated (China for example).
Globalization, IMO, should not be left to the corporations, alone. There is a role for governments, as representatives of their people, to play a larger role playing tough with the corporations to insure a better deal for their working classes. In America, that has not been the case. And it won't be the case, until and unless, the American people take control of their Representatives, away from the corporations.
As I have written for many years now, there can be no meaningful improvement for the Middle Class American going forward in the absence of some fairly radical political reforms, most important of which, is the removal of corporate control over campaign and election financing.
This is true and inescapable, and the source of my frequent bouts of pessimism about the future of my daughter in America.
My daughter is in the military now, and I am trying to impress upon her the importance of either staying in the military as a career (Corporations love and need the military to protect their interests), or, prepare to make a living in Brazil or Japan. She is beginning to understand the merit of that limited choice. If only the rest of America's voters could be made to understand it, they might choose vote differently and widen their choice options for their children going forward.
David, some of your statements leave me wondering if you read/understood my post. But, that happens all the time and I’m sure I’m guilty as any.
At no time in any of my writings have I ever been against corporations or international trade. Both are highly desirable, necessary.
And, then you come around to agreeing with me on the major points. Corporations have to much influence in our government which requires nothing more than regulations thru reform to correct. This influence is not limited to trade and campaign finance as you relate but in most facets of our life, medical, insurance, defense and so on.
And, I believe j2t2 is in basic agreement. Where we are like the ‘tower of Babel’ is in settling on a solution.
I am simply amazed that so many will vote for ‘hope and change’ or some new fangled term for reform. How is possible that they can’t understand that REAL reform cannot be accomplished through the Corpocracy. Why, why, why would the corpocracy roll over, shoot themselves in head, just because some voters want ‘hope and change’.
The top view graph is that in order to reclaim our sovereignty, restore the Republic and the democratic principles by which we have lived we must remove the money influence from gov’t/politics.
That requires going to the source of the problem; corporate personhood and money is free speech law.
Both must be abolished/repealed. Following that we must implement REAL campaign finance reform whereby any legal donation is a donation from the individual, not a group, a PAC, or a political party, etc. And, that all donations will be tested for legality, accounted for, and bundled and distributed EQUALLY among all qualified political candidates, regardless of affiliation.
For example, a person may donate a million dollars the entity authorized to receive donations. The donor will be validated, the money will be accounted for and bundled with all incoming donations and at some point in time based on the election cycle, will be disbursed equally among all qualified candidates standing for office.
Of course, such reform can only come through a 3rd party with a diff - - -.
Otherwise - - -
Roy, thanks for the reply. I read into your comments the implication that corporations had implemented a plan for globalization with the results we have today known to be part of their plan.
All corporations did was to seek demand centers in the world for their products and services as well as the least costly environments in which to produce those products and services. That is the extent and limit of their plan. Globalization was an evolution of trade across national borders in a near geometric growth rate as a result of many variables, bridging language barriers, the advent of computers for accounting and up to date exchange rates, not to mention inexpensive long distance communications, as well as international organizations which lent themselves to enforcement of international trade agreements without the advent of war over disputes.
Yes, you and I are in perfect agreement on the corrupting effect of big money in politics.
Of course, if your prescription for pooling and distributing campaign donations were implemented, our work force would quickly quit their day jobs and run for office - virtually free money for expressing your mind. I.E., wouldn't work as intended.
The far simpler avenue is to simply have Congress LIMIT contributions by for profit and not for profit corporations (unions are incorporations also) ONLY to candidates, and only in a fixed amount per election, fully disclosed and transparent.
This prescription does not run afoul of the Constitution's (Supreme Court ruling) Money as Speech, which means a Constitutional amendment isn't required to effect such control over corporate money in elections.
What does have to be reversed either by Judicial overturn or by Constitutional amendment, is the Citizen's United v. FEC ruling which permits unlimited corporate funding to political organizations other than candidates. This is the most important argument for a Democrat, and not a Republican, be elected president. Democrats will appoint Justices who will overturn Citizen's United, Republicans will appoint justices who will uphold the Citizen's United ruling.
Considering the massive negative consequences yet to be realized by the Citizen's United ruling, even a mediocre Democratic President will be better for the nation's future than any Republican. Citizen's United guarantees bankrupting of the Middle Class labor force, as corporations increasingly control election outcomes going forward.
David, you keep trying to solve our problems in a 'simple' way. Making some fringe changes while leaving the money influence alive can solve nothing. Just kicking the can down the road.
Both parties have had ample chance to deal with campaign finance reform over the last 30 or so years. Why one would expect something different from voting in the Dems again is beyond me.
We have to do the hard stuff to get it straight. 3rd party with rules and membership serving as oversight/enforcement. Then, abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech followed by the implemenation of REAL campaign finace reform.
I see no other way. Will keep the light on.
Otherwise - - -
Roy said: "Both parties have had ample chance to deal with campaign finance reform over the last 30 or so years. Why one would expect something different from voting in the Dems again is beyond me."
There is wishful fantasy, and then there is the real world, Roy.
When your wishful fantasy of a viable third party exists competing in all races for Congress, you get back to me, and I will seriously consider supporting it. Until then, the voters have ONLY 2 choices, Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans have gone insane choosing to destroy America in the name of remaking her in their ideological view.
Democrats are the only alternative for the time being. They got the message in 2010 about long-term fiscal responsibility and addressing the deficit and debt, but, unlike Republicans, Democrats have not abandoned the present economy and its absolute requirement to be kept growing, as a first step TOWARD addressing deficits and debt.
Bernanke signaled today from Jackson Hole, Wy., that the ball is in Congress' court regarding salvaging this economy through stimulus and job growth. This was good news to the Markets, because it was eminently sensible and logical. Bernanke, stipulated that one can't address the long term fiscal challenge by wrecking the present economy through austerity measures. This is an understanding shared by all liberal and most conservative economists, not to mention investors and Wall St.
There is momentum and consensus on this, now, by all except the ideologically insane in the Republican and Tea Party. This kind of logical and rational consensus has a way of being adopted by the majority of voters, and contrary to current polling, if Republicans continue to obstruct progress in job creation and rescuing the current economy, they will get trounced in the 2012 elections.
There can be No More important task before the American people and government than getting this economy growing again with jobs, and the Democratic Party is the ONLY option for accomplishing that in the near term.
So, when your imaginary 3rd Party becomes real with challengers in all 50 states, you get back to me, and if their platform is pro-American economy, jobs, and fiscally prudent management, I will sign on immediately as a supporter and voter for it.
I live in the real world, and make my choices among real world options. In the meantime, as far as Congress is concerned, I continue to believe that voting out incumbents is the best way to get their attention drawn back to the plight of the American worker and family.
Voting out incumbents worked for the Tea Party in getting all of Congress' attention on responsible fiscal management. That was great! But, we have an even higher priority at the moment, and that is rescuing this economy so millions of Americans can find jobs again and provide for their children and their future.
There are many areas of government spending which we can afford to cut. But, to grow this economy, those spending cuts have to be reinvested in other spending that will create jobs and grow the economy. It is entirely doable to find the new spending needed in other spending cuts and new revenue sources from the wealthiest, the corporations, and ending subsidies and loopholes for them, without impeding American employer competitiveness and growth.
I guess I'm wired differently David, in that I don't think its a big deal to up a 3rd party with a diff pol -- - , abolish CP, implement real CFR and live happily ever after.
IMO, people can push fringe reform as hard and as long as they want and it will go nowhere in the larger scheme of things.
For example, Starbucks CEO has signed up about a 100 companies that are promising no corporate campaign donations this election cycle. What hooey? hooie? Whooie? $*(^ !!
It will take a 3rd party with a diff pol - - -
Otherwise - - -
Roy, and until that third party comes along, WHAT? Sit around with one's thumb up one's butt? Of course not. There is a decision to be made in 2012 by the American voter, and so far, it doesn't include a viable reform oriented third party as an option.
David there was a plan that corporations have been executing for almost 40 years. Perhaps globalization wasn't on the agenda but the usurpation of political power was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-cray/40-years-ago-this-week-th_b_935486.html
Yes, J2T2. We agree on that entirely. Political figures have a very long history of being corruptible by business and the very greedy. Despite all the facade laws against such greed and corruption, corporations continue to corrupt the American people's government and the democratic processes which belong to them. Now, corporations have found a way into the Supreme Court. Which only demonstrates how political our Judicial System has become, of late, with Citizen's United v FEC.
It's enough to make one wonder if the Russians weren't right, in theorizing that democracy was just an evolutionary step toward plutocracy and authoritarian regimes as final mature states for economic powers. As your link points out, the corporations have been authoring all manner of fallacious doctrine, statistics, and bogus science, in order to force government to yield to their own purposes.
Corporate hooks are clearly however, far deeper set into the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Every legislation with anything to do with money offered by Republicans favors corporations and the very wealthy. That has NOT been the case with all of Democrat's legislation.
Positions on the EPA are but one of a host of examples of how the GOP has become the tool of corporations, and not the Democratic Party, despite efforts by the corporate world to buy the Democratic Party's favor.
The GOP is in lock step support of corporations. That is not the case with a great many Democrats. Dodd-Frank legislation stands out as a current obvious example.
Roy's vision of a third party will gain no support from Republicans. It will have to garner its support away from Democrats to achieve competitive status. That will give near total power, for years, to the Republicans (corporations and greedy wealthy). I fail to see how that gets us the future Roy seeks.
J2T2, that old maxim applies, to understand politics you have to follow the money to its sources. Corporate and wealthy giving comprise the vast majority of contributions in total dollar amount, to the GOP. Clever strategy of business, however, to contribute to both parties, as insurance against any claims that the Democratic Party is any cleaner than the GOP. I venture the guess that Obama understood this in 2008, which led him to reject corporate money for the most part.
It is an interesting position Obama is now taking as a pro-small business advocate, while fighting the large corporate agenda. Is there any substantial difference between small business interests and large corporate interests regarding the role of government in society and the economy? I understand Obama's desire to create jobs through the small-business community, but, isn't it really a bargain with the devil Obama opposes, in the long run? I make these questions because I truly, do not know the answer, at this point. But, it is a question of potentially enormous consequences for America's future, ideologically and philosophically, regarding the role of government in a mixed economy with democratic elections.
David, I wouldn't expect support for such a 3rd party as the Republic Sentry Party from Rep's or Dem's. I would think support would come from Indies, other languishing 3rd parties, and moreso from retiring boomers who have the time and freedom to support a movement.
I do agree that globalisation, often termed 'free trade', has been growing incrementally from the gitgo. But the big ramp up came beginning with Carter and the canal, IMO.
Here is some amplifying info.
http://www.czimages.com/CZMemories/Articles/sellout/sellout.htm
Excerpt from the following link:
“Conclusion
This paper does not pretend to give thorough or even complete coverage to such important and wide-ranging topics as discussed above. We have shown that the restructuring of the United States has been accomplished by a very small group of powerful global elitists as represented by members of the Trilateral Commission.”
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick20.htm
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/nov99/psrnov99.html
This quote from David Rockfeller given in the following url: “Sept. 23, 1994 – The globalists realize that as more and more people begin to wake up to what's going on, they have only a limited amount of time in which to implement their policies. Speaking at the United Nations Ambassadors' dinner, David Rockefeller remarks: “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long... We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
http://www.michaeljournal.org/nwo2.htm
It should be clear to all that unless the silent majority stands up to the vocal minority (wealth/corporations) a 'one world' is in our headlights.
Otherwise - - -
Roy, your links refer to conspiracies of apples and oranges.
The fears of a new world order in the early 1900's were built around fears of socialism - NOT FREE TRADE at the heart of capitalism. All the content in your links are discussing something ENTIRELY different from the globalization of trade which we are experiencing today.
The United Nations has never been, and is still not now, about creating a single entity global government. That is pure paranoid conspiracy ignorance talking in your links implying such.
The U.N. has always been, and still is, about averting another World War first and foremost. Secondarily, the U.N. is about elevating human populations out of poverty and despair which create seedbeds for hostilities and war.
One has to be alert and careful to research the sources of one's own tendencies toward paranoid conspiracies.
Read the Preamble to the UN Charter:
It is true, that nefarious elements have, from the very beginning, sought to gain control of, or influence, the UN for their own immoral or unethical purposes. But, the self-interest each nation has in promoting its own security and prosperity in the international world act as an enormously effective check and balance on such nefarious elements. I give you the USSR and Cuba as primary examples, whose influence upon the UN is either negligible or non-existent.
Except for the effects of climate change and overpopulation and internal civil conflicts, the UN has presided over a period of history since its founding in which the relative prosperity of people in the world has dramatically increased. And since1945 there has been no recurrence of World War.
In other words, the UN has been successful in living up to its charter objectives as far as it possibly can.
The heads International trade corporations and consortiums have inordinate indirect influence upon the UN, as they do upon our own government. But, that is due to the near global adoption of capitalism and socialism in mixed economies as the template for economic management of sovereign nations. It is not without its flaws and negative impacts, but, I defy you or anyone else to come up with a better economic model which precludes the advent of world war in a nuclear age.
I reiterate again, there is no policy or legislation that will not have inherent opportunity costs and liabilities. None! Every action carries with it a negative consequence to someone, somewhere. This is the "Butterfly Effect" of social sciences, which is as omnipresent as gravity.
Greed is the opportunity cost and liability that accompanies capitalism and mixed economies. And the influence of greed upon government leaders is the opportunity cost and liability that attends democratically elected governments in which wealth controls the shape of information in the media. These are the fundamental downsides of these systems, and the only way to combat these negative consequences is through global education in citizenship responsibility and objective secular history which afford such citizenry the power of informed choice at election time.
Have a better system? I am all ears.
Roy, you might want to consider joining CUIP whose foremost agenda is to tear down the two party systemic barriers to Independent voters and third party ballot access. Your Republic Sentry Party hasn't a chance unless CUIP succeeds.
Another piece of the NAU about to be glued in place.
http://www.cairco.org/articles/art2005jul17.html
http://www.americanlaw.com/immigrationblog/?cat=4
Some are signing on to directly elect the next President. What are they thinking? What in the world is one fair haired dude, call them President or anything you want, supposed to do given the power of the Executive Branch? Whine, wheedle and beg? Why can’t they just ‘man up’ recognize the problem and move to solve it.
http://www.americanselect.org/about
Problem: Money influence in gov’t/politics
Solution: Remove money influence from gov’t/politics by abolishing Corporate Personhood and implementing REAL campaign finance reform.
Requisites: New 3rd party established in rules to prevent co-option by the money influence. Membership oversight for elected incumbents from their party.
Otherwise - - -
Roy wrote: "Requisites: New 3rd party established in rules to prevent co-option by the money influence. Membership oversight for elected incumbents from their party."
That may be the requisite, but, the PRE-requisite is insuring CUIP's success in tearing down barriers to independent voters and third party ballot access.
You can't get anywhere until you prioritize the required steps in the requisite order of completion.