Pyrrhicism – yes, I coined another word, but its time has certainly come, what with all the threats on the Chicken-Little Left to vote third-party or not vote at all come November. And to compound their perfidy, they dare to boast that makes them morally superior.
Really? So when did foolish and reckless behavior become morally superior? When did abdication of responsibility suddenly become noble? Do they somehow imagine they are warriors fighting for a cause?
Perhaps they’ve been brainwashed by the recent comic book-cum-movie 300, you know, the movie with the tag line “Prepare for Glory”. Well, in the case of the Far Left, the tag line ought to be “Beware of Glory”. Note to those who don’t learn from history: The Spartans lost – badly, and their widows and orphans paid the price, too. Life isn’t like the movies.
While we’re on the subject of Thermopylae, one is tempted to say the Far Left is behaving more like Ephialtes, who defected and informed the Persians of another path by which they could outflank the Greeks. Traitorous is perhaps too strong a word to describe these misguided and foolish souls, but blowing their vote on a third-party candidate – or not bothering to vote at all – will not make them heroes. Either way this election turns out, they’ll be losers.
Come the first Wednesday in November, Barack Obama will still be President – or Mitt and Ann Romney will be hiring a decorator – a very expensive decorator – to measure for drapes – very expensive drapes – at the White House. If that’s the case, it will be curtains for the country.
Sacred and Profane
To vote wisely is the most sacred duty we have as citizens. Indeed, it is a sacred trust, a vow each citizen makes, tacitly or otherwise, to educate his or herself about the candidates, and then cast a vote for the candidate most likely to succeed at pursuing policies that will “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.”
The vote is no place for pyrrhicism, and it’s certainly no place for childish tantrums. To stick out one’s tongue at the system is not courageous, it’s irresponsible. To throw away your vote is to display the same sort of “courage” as wilding teenagers, besotted drunks, and Teapartian ignoramuses who think compromise is a four-letter word.
Far Left, meet your doppelganger, the Far Right.
Courting Disaster
There is simply too much at stake in this election to risk even one vote being wasted on a candidate who can’t possibly be any more than a historical footnote. Concerned and educated citizens already know what’s at stake, but the most obvious concern is the Kangaroo Court in Washington that hops from one disastrous decision to the next.
The disastrous decision in Bush v Gore gave us our first unduly elected President, and the horrendous decision in Citizens United gave a handful of citizens with millions more influence over our elections. Any day now, the Court will hand down a decision that could spell the end of the American Healthcare Act, a step toward universal healthcare that has been the goal of Progressives since Republican Teddy Roosevelt first proposed it more than a century ago.
This election will likely determine who will choose the next two or three Justices. By now, it should be obvious to all we can’t afford any more corporate lap-dogs on the Court. If you can’t imagine a worse Court than this one, never fear, Romney can.
For the post-literate, who need simple images to imprint a message, imagine the Corporatocracy as a kangaroo with all those little Joeys – Johnny, Sammy, Anthony and Uncle Tommy – and whoever Romney would add – tucked safely in its pouch. It gives a whole new meaning to “The Land Down Under”.
Good, Bad and Worst
Under our system, the President alone is elected to represent all the people – even those we disagree with vociferously. That’s why they call it a democracy.
Good Presidents – we’ve had a few – pursue policies that benefit the Commonweal and that are politically viable. That is, they must not only take into account the concerns of the people but the content of Congress. Political capital is scarce and lost causes are for losers – witness the Dixiecrats-cum-Republicans, who are still fighting the Civil War 150 years after they lost it. Thus, the South is condemned to forever be the racist, redolent, red-headed stepchild of this country.
Bad Presidents – we’ve had more than a few – and bad Congresses – we’ve had way more than a few – recklessly pursue the goals of a vocal and obstinate – and too often ignorant – minority. That was the lesson of Prohibition, a lesson we forgot, and thus we now suffer the awful consequences of the War on Drugs.
We see this same dynamic in the present Congress, where a vocal and obstinate – and too often ignorant – minority, a ruthless gang of Droogs/Teapartians, is the crowbar in the clockwork.
The worst case is when a President pursues the agenda of a well-heeled minority. That was the lesson of the Great Depression, another lesson we forgot. Thus, we suffer because every President from Reagan through Bush the Least, pursued that agenda with Supply-Side/Kiss the Rich’s Backside, Voodoo/Trickled-On Economics.
The Least of These
Lest I be accused of rank partisanship, I include Clinton among that cadre, and his statements of late only confirm that charge. His Gobblization wet dream was accompanied by a giant sucking sound (sexual allusions are purely in the fetid mind of the reader) – just as Ross Perot predicted. And as I’ve said many times, it was not “the rising tide that lifts all boats”, but the tsunami that sinks all life rafts.
But Clinton was a godsend compared to Bush the Least, who catered only to his friends the Have-Mores, as he liked to refer to them. But Bush at least pretended to be a “compassionate conservative”.
Romney, on the other hand, boasts of being a “severe conservative” who enjoys firing people. If you think things were bad under Bush, get ready for things to get a lot worse for ordinary citizens under Romney.
Frankly, Romney gives every indication of being a sociopath. So one might say this election is between a Sociopath and a Socialist. If only.
Jumping the Shark
The Far Right has selective amnesia and has blotted from its collective mind the horrors of the administration of Bush the Least by blaming those horrors on Obama. Thus, despite all reason and experience, they are ready to double-down on their horrific bet come November – just as they did in November 201o.
Count on it – they will vote like a school of fish for whatever Great White Shark swims into their path. Thus, it is imprudent – nay dangerous, even suicidal – to vote third-party or not at all – unless you enjoy swimming with sharks.
Indeed, Great White Shark is an image even more apt than usual to describe the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. While some might not agree that Romney is a sociopath, it's more than apparent he’s a political-hack, a vulture capitalist and a pathological liar. And in the view of many on the Right, he’s also a heretic, a member of a dangerous religious cult.
Despite all that – despite their thorough dislike (and in some corners, abhorrence) of Romney, Far Right voters will vote for him en masse. And the Far Left has the temerity to complain about being given the choice of Obama?
Cause and Effect
The Far Left suffers from selective amnesia as well. Their collective mind has blotted-out the lessons of '68, when millions of Democrats deserted the Party in favor of third-party candidate and overt racist George Wallace. I remember it all too well, because my father was among them, god rest his tragically mistaken, racist soul.
That tragic defection gave us Richard Nixon rather than Hubert Humphrey – anyone care to argue how that benefited The Cause?
Okay, for the young who weren’t around then and the drug-addled old hippies who weren’t conscious then, how about the disputed election of 2000 – an election that wouldn’t have been disputed save for all those disaffected votes cast for Ralph Nader.
Anyone on the Left care to explain how those votes benefited The Cause?
Swimming Upstream
It's true that President Obama has been a disappointment in many ways. He, too, has catered to the economic elite, and his appointment of Tim Geithner (among many others) is Exhibit A in that indictment. But I suspect his actions were also intended to try and prevent the Great Depression 2.0.
So far, it’s worked (crossing my fingers).
But any fair measure of his performance must take into account the godawful mess left behind by Bush the Least and congressional Republicans who spent like drunken sailors – and now claim to be deficit hawks. Their hypocrisy is compounded by the fact the most rabid of them come from states that feed like swine from the federal trough.
It’s undeniably true – or ought to be – that Obama has had to swim upstream from the beginning. What’s also undeniably true is Republicans have been pissing in that stream from the beginning.
Given all that, Obama deserves a gentleman's C. That’s good enough to get my vote, given the only real alternative.
Dream the Impossible Scheme
Apparently, a C isn’t good enough for those on the Far Left; they have their eyes fixed on a slice of pie in the sky. Or perhaps I should say a tiny, tiny sliver of pie, since their candidate – Jill Stein of the Green Party – will most likely receive a percentage of the vote with a decimal point in front of it and an asterisk behind it.
As close as this election may be, that could be enough to tip the outcome in favor of Romney. Tell me again how that helps the Cause?
Since the Far Left is so fond of philosophy rather than practicality, perhaps they’ll heed the words of Hegel (with a nod to James Emmerling):
"The goal to be reached is the mind’s insight into what knowing is. Impatience asks for the impossible, wants to reach the goal without the means of getting there. The length of the journey has to be borne, for every moment is necessary ..."
You see, Obama is right about at least one thing – the Perfect is the enemy of the Good. An adolescent longing for and reckless pursuit of Utopia inevitably leads to Dystopia.
Pyrrhic victories may clothe the vainglorious in an ethereal glow, but they inevitably lead to poverty for naked, hungry and desperate widows and orphans left behind. Think about those widows and orphans before you throw away your vote on a pyrrhic “victory”.
Lennon not Lenin
Finally, for those pathetic, misguided souls who imagine the election of Romney will bring on the next Great Depression and thus a revolution, I suggest you heed Lennon not Lenin:
“You say you wanna revolution
We all wanna see the plan”
Frankly, your “plan” sounds eerily like that of those other Fundamentalists, you know, the ones who want to bring on Armageddon and bring back Jesus. With either plan, the center cannot hold.
Take heed, those other Fundamentalists could well be running things come the revolution. You’ve been warned.
©2012 Tom Cordle
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jeremiah Horrigan
koshersalaami
Kim Gamble
Stacey Youdin
Steven J. Gulitti
Ben Sen
Salon.com
Comments
I'm not buying your excuse. I live in Tennessee, where Obama has a less than zero chance, but I'll still be voting for him because the total vote -- or I should say the difference between the two major party candidates -- effects whether that candidate has a mandate or only claims to have a mandate -- as Junior Bush did in 2004.
If Bush had a real mandate instead of bullshit, SS and Medicare would much more likely have been at risk during his second term. And all that money would have been sucked into the market, and that likely would have put off the economic collapse till after Bush left office. So I guess that's the bright side of the economic collapse.
In short, regardless of what you've heard or believe, every vote does count.
Our present two-party system really does present a Catch-22 -- damned if you do and damned if you don't. But until that system is changed, what we really have is damned if you do and even more damned if you don't.
Frankly, at the moment I can't see that system changing short of revolution, and given the present level of ignorance among the population, this revolution isn't likely to turn out nearly as well as our first. See Egypt circa 2012 for details.
Nader and Naderites did give us GW Bush, so that gaggle of Floridian Fools caused a disaster that won't be overcome in our lifetimes. In trying to advance Nader's ideas...many of which are good ideas...they demolished any hope of implementing any of them.
The fact is that votes, even in a redly-red Red State, can have an impact. America wanted Gore...the best reason being he wasn't Bush...and the electoral system gave us the inferior product. Someday this may happen in a bigger way, and Americans will start asking why the dirt and cattle in flyover states have more influence.
If every disappointed Dem voted 3rd party, that could have some influence there.
As far as the Big Picture goes, though, the intramural and biennial bitchfest -- where the Left accuses the Left of either influencing the election or lacking proper moral principle to vote Green (as example) -- is the most useless circle jerk in politics.
The proper political junkie should know we are all Dian Fossey and the vast pool of influenceable voters are gorillas in the mist. We observe, but do not influence in any way. Absent a Nader or Perot situation, arguing blame among PoliJunkies is misdirected aggression combined with delusions of grandeur. We can't reach those people. They ignore us. We have no clout or Klout.
That's why we properly blame the only person who CAN get to those people. In this year's example, that's Obama. If he loses, he loses because he is, especially in this case, massively incompetent -- a word that should cover many aspects of being unable to best the Destructors so soon after they performed obvious Destruction.
It would be easier to fix the D Party than elevate some other party over the bar.
But whatever the outcome this November...don't EVEN try to blame anyone else...me in particular.
You may now resume the food fight...
Agreed that Obama has been a disappointment, agreed that I'm in favor of much of the agenda of the Far Left. I also agree on occasion with Lewis Farrakhan and the Unabomber. Where I disagree is with tactics.
Yours is a reasoned response, tho, as always, and I suspect you're also reasonable enough to hold your nose and do the practical thing -- even tho some say it's not the right thing. In this case, right is relative. A vote for a third-party candidate in our present dire straits is wrong; a vote for Romney is tragically wrong; two wrongs don't make a right.
By making the case I have, I'm sure to be accused of being unprincipled. I disagree, there are things worth standing for and fighting for, it's just that pursuing them in a lost cause rarely if ever accomplishes anything. Under present circumstances, any third-party candidacy is a lost cause, tho O'Rourke is right, as usual. Ron Paul could significantly affect the outcome, in my view pulling a substantial number of votes from both sides, including from folks on the disaffected Left.
Interestingly, there are historical parallels -- Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party snatched victory from the Republicans and gave it to the Democrats and Wilson, who got considerably less than half the vote. Then there's the aforementioned election of '68 and the American Independent Party candidacy of George Wallace, which in my view cost Humphrey the election and "blessed" America and the rest of the world with Richard Nixon.
It's also my view that election was the beginning of the downward spiral of the Republican Party to the point it has now become the New American Independent Party, with all the racist baggage that entails.
Could it happen again this year? Yes, and if it does, Romney will win and god help us all. If that happens, the likeliest outcome isn't that the Democratic Party would become more progressive, but that it would become even more conservative.
That could lead to a situation like the Republican Party endured during its Progressive/Reactionary split during the first half of this century. Or it could lead to a permanent minority Progressive Third Party.
In that case, the Republican Party could continue to be successful, despite it worsening demographics. In that case, its divide and conquer strategy would come to full flower. Talk about a pyrrhic victory for Progessivism.
Yup. It seems like such an easy choice, but alas, wisdom is too often trumped by idealism.
Yes.
Don't step on my toes
or dis my momma
I'll hold my nose
and vote for Obama
I wouldn't call Romney a sociopath, however, since that dismisses him, and that's a mistake. The fear among moderates at present is caused by knowing the right isn't going to make the same mistake they did in '08, come out in droves no matter who the candidate is, and still there is little to indicate much fervor on behalf of Obama supporters.
An interesting question is posed if the Court knocks down the health care bill. I've actually seen MORE postive articles about it since that started to appear likely and that it could be the proof ambivalent voters need to see exactly what he's been up against. Millions of lives will be impacted, and if only a third of them have finally gotten the message, they could make a difference in the election. Time will tell.
Rated.
From what I gather from the comments I've heard on the Far left, Obama's greatest sin was overpromising. Well, the only candidate I can recall who offered people a reality check during his campaign was Jimmy Carter, with what has come to be known as his Malaise Speech -- tho he never used that word. We know where that got Jimmy.
All candidates overpromise, but fortunately for Republican candidates, the only promise Hard Right voters seem to remember is the one to never, ever, cross my heart and hope to die, raise taxes -- as Bush the Elder learned the hard way.
The Left, taking politics too seriously and not seriously enough at the same time (must have something to do with String Theory) never forget a promise. Thus the failure to close Gitmo rankles the Left, despite the fact Obama tried, but was rebuffed when he dared to suggest trying detainees in civilian courts. What the Hard Left ought to keep in mind is those cases were made much more difficult to win as a result of the Bush/Cheney/Addington torture regime.
I could go on, but what's obvious to me is that, as you suggest, the coddled Left is too-easily discouraged and too quick to turn and run when their unrealistic expectations aren't met. One rule has served me well in life, if at first you don't succeed, lower your expectations.
Thanks for disagreeing agreeably -- or do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your response?
Anyway, I really liked PJ's poem, and I, too, will vote for Obama. If the last Supreme Court rulings down party lines just recently are anything to go by, we are in dire trouble with this court....
r./
Thanks for commenting. Rocky, you say? Hadn't hear of him -- with that name, tho, he's sure to get the sappy movie vote -- which is considerable in this country.
Say, maybe I should write in Teddy Roosevelt, even dead he's got as good a chance of winning and doing something about the mess we're in.
That's all anyone can ask of another citizen, and if my tone is too strident in this point, it's because I've been here before back in the 60's, and I witnessed the long, godawful slide toward a fascist corporatocracy that has transpired since.
The election of 2010 was a very bad sign, and if there's a repeat of that folly -- with the Right driving out the last moderates in their midst, while the Left frittered away an opportunity -- well, I fear this could be the last such opportunity.
I'm with you -- I'm all for rightwing third-party candidates. My enthusiasm is tempered, tho, by what's going on with the Teapartian candidates, most of whom are clearly nuts.
Still, I'd love to see Ron Paul gummy up the works for Romney. His supporters have been scooping up delegates to the R convention sort of on the sly, and they will surely extract a pound or two of flesh in the platform to keep them from causing a ruckus at the convention.
At the very least, the old man will be given a prominent place on the speaking schedule. But I don't see him making too big a stink -- not as long as he thinks Junior Paul has a chance at the brass ring.
The whole blessed system is broken and I honestly don't think there's anyone on the horizon inclined to try to fix it, certainly not the populace :-/.
Rated for well meaning.
But it’s like there are two completely different mindsets when it comes to deciding on how to vote. For me it’s the art of the possible which means picking the least imperfect of the flawed candidates likely to win. Perhaps if I lived in a smaller, less globally influential country like Belgium or Singapore, I’d be more inclined to vote my conscience in the hopes that one day, maybe in a generation or two, some movement reflecting my beliefs might gain enough of a following to actually win something. Quite a different matter in the U.S. where its screw-ups (Iraq, financial regulation) can have severe adverse effects all over the world.
There is an element of the Vote Green argument that’s fairly strong though. If you go back a century or so in the UK, I can well imagine the early Labour voters being told they were splitting the anti-Tory vote. Had those labour voters bought the vote-splitting argument, how would Labour have ever come into being? Perhaps it’s a short-term pain versus long-term gain equation. If the Green voters reckon that a few or several more Republican presidencies are worth living through in the expectation that eventually people will turn to a Green candidate, well, that’s at least a logically consistent argument. I would disagree on the costs versus benefits calculation. The argument that there are no significant differnces between Obama and Romney is absurd, IMO.
You lost me a bit there, but as for your seeing no one interested in changing things, I give you the quote from Machiavelli that accompanies my bio here:
“And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of change. For he who innovates will have as his enemies all who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the incredulity of mankind, who will never admit the merit of anything new, until they have seen it proven by the event.” Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI
And they call me cynical ... I must agree with you, tho, about the over-leveraged nature of financial institutions. Or to put it more plainly, the so-called smartest guys on the planet who are instead gambling addicts who need their own twelve-step program -- Banksters Anonymous.
Your numbers are even worse than those I've seen, which put the potential losses in the 24 to 42 trillion dollar range for the Wall Street casino operators. The only difference between the rigged game in Vegas and the rigged game on Wall Street is that the casino operators in Vegas never lose. And I strongly suspicion the mob is involved in these financial transactions. Which reminds me -- has anyone heard from AIG's Joseph Cassano lately? Or is he sleeping with the fishes?
I was against the bank bailout (which in reality was far in excess of the purported $700 or so billion advertised) because it was obviously a stop-gap measure. The financial mess can't be straightened out until some more of the big boys -- including JP Morgan and Goldmine Sux -- take a veeeery big and very deserved bath.
The rest of us will get hurt in the process, but we can't get well until the price is paid.
Believe me, I have mixed emotions and second thoughts, too, but the alternative to Obama is simply to awful to contemplate, and that will be the consequence of a third-party/stay-home movement.
As for the longer term, yes, anything's possible. But as I commented above; if Obama loses, the likeliest outcome isn't that the Democratic Party would become more progressive, but that it would become even more conservative.
That could lead to a situation like the Republican Party endured during its Progressive/Reactionary split during the first half of this century. I'd love to see a truly Progressive Party, but that would make it all the easier for the Republicans to be successful with their divide and conquer strategy.
The only scenario that makes any sense to me is if moderate Republicans abandon their Party (it's already abandoned them) and form an Independent Party with Moderate Democrats, leaving the Republican Party to reactionaries and the Democratic Party to revolutionaries. Seems to me, that's what we have in reality at present -- tho without the name changes or overt party affiliations.
So when did foolish and reckless behavior become morally superior? When did abdication of responsibility suddenly become noble?
It’s undeniably true – or ought to be – that Obama has had to swim upstream from the beginning. What’s also undeniably true is Republicans have been pissing in that stream from the beginning.
You see, Obama is right about at least one thing – the Perfect is the enemy of the Good. An adolescent longing for and reckless pursuit of Utopia inevitably leads to Dystopia.
Second, anyone who thinks that because they live in a state “safe” for Obama they can vote and advocate for a third party…and do so without helping the far left’s determination to throw out the baby with the bathwater…is simply NOT thinking at all.
I notice that many on the far left are already proclaiming their innocence in the debacle that may well come our way because of their recalcitrance. Obama will have on vote. If he loses…it will because of the electorate—NO MATTER what motivated them.
The far left…the unthinking left…is out of control. Not only is the perfect the enemy of the good…most often “the perfect” is anything but “the perfect.” “The perfect” is often a dream…and the “perfection” of the Jill Stein’s of the world is the very thing that got the far left into its snit. Unrealistic expectations of Obama brought many of those people to where they are…and unrealistic expectations of third party advocacy will only get them further from their goals.
Great essay, Tom. I was wrong about who the Republican nominee would be…but unless the misguided souls of the far left wake up very, very soon, I still think I am correct that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. America will suffer as a result…and the fault will be as much the far left as any mistakes or shortcomings on the part of Obama.
He is a a career negotiator who saved the Olympics when an array of agendas had it all but collapsed. He handled that within a short time frame and with incredible hurdles ranging from Gold Medal egos to funds that had vaulted out of the control.
He was a boring Governor in a State/City whose paper of record attacked him daily strickly for not going to or being in the party.
But, in reality, the only difference between his administration and a Democratic one was as a former Democratic "House Majority Leader" put it -"There are more shaved legs on Capitol Hill".
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/43953/killer-drone-attacks-illegal-counter-productive
Much to chew" before I comment. R.
Always liked to use the phrase Pyrrhic Victory.
I was sure this post would appeal to you, since you've been fighting the good fight for some time now. As you now, I've not been hesitant to criticize Obama when I thot it was warranted -- i.e. Geithner and the kid gloves treatment for banksters, and the failure to prosecute torturers regardless of their station.
Those failures are still a disappointment to me, but I'm also adult enough to understand there are valid political reasons for not pursuing those prosecutions. In short, even Obama has to live in the real world.
As do those who decline to vote for him, and I fear there going to like the world the will come to live in even less if he is defeated.
Thanks for reporting in from the RNC -- now, have another hit of the red Kool-Aid.
The plain truth is Romney was a "moderate" in Mass because he had no choice, just as he now proclaims himself a "severe conservative" because he has no choice. He is a classic example of "there is no there there", he is a cipher, a shameless, spineless chameleon who changes his "principles" and behavior to suit his audience.
This time around, the audience isn't moderate Democrats in Mass, but zealous ignoramuses on the Teapartian Republican Right, and Romney is clearly changing his "spots" to appease them. If he wins election, it will be because of them, and he will surely sidle up to and side with their Droogs in Congress.
Romney's behavior -- past and present -- is a textbook example of sociopathology. He's also a pathological liar, who has lied so often he can't remember his lies: "I don't remember what I said, but whatever it was, I stand by it."
Well, it's good to know where he stands, even if he doesn't.
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/assass.htm Following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be "put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s-70s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1973-83 - Various Tupamaros in Uruguay (at behest of US)
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1993 - Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia
1998, 2001-2, 2011 - Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia
2002 - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord
2003 - Saddam Hussein and his two sons
2011 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya
These are, of course, only the ones we know about, and that's only the big boys -- god only knows who many underlings and innocents got in the way of a stray bullet or bomb. And as you can see, these acts occurred under every President, including, I regret to have to say, during the Carter administration.
Drones do present an additional moral dilemma because of the collateral damage -- a phrase I despise. But some of those attacks have led to the deaths of dozens of men on this list:
Killed in 2012:
Badr Mansoor
Mansoor, a Pakistani citizen, served as al Qaeda's leader in Pakistan and a key link to the Taliban and Pakistani jihadist groups.
Date killed: Feb. 9, 2012.
Aslam Awan
Awan, who is also known as Abdullah Khorasani, is a deputy to the leader of al Qaeda's external operations network and a Pakistani citizen.
Date killed: Jan. 11, 2012.
Killed in 2011:
Hazrat Omar, Khan Mohammed, Miraj Wazir, and Ashfaq Wazir
Omar was Mullah Nazir's brother who served as the group's operational commander in Afghanistan. Mohammed, a senior deputy to Nazir. Miraj Wazir and Ashfaq Wazir were senior commanders.
Date killed: Oct. 27, 2011.
Ahmed Omar Abdul Rahman
A senior al Qaeda operative with ties to the Haqqani Network. Rahman was a son of the 'Blind Sheikh,' the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group who is in prison in the US for his involvement in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.
Date killed: Oct. 14, 2011.
Abu Miqdad al Masri
A member of al Qaeda's Shura Majlis who also was involved in al Qaeda's external operations.
Date killed: Oct. 13-14, 2011 (exact date is unclear)
Abd al Rahman al Yemeni
A senior operative who was involved in al Qaeda's external operations network.
Date killed: Oct. 13-14, 2011 (exact date is unclear).
Jan Baz Zadran
Siraj Haqqani's deputy who served as the number three for the terror network.
Date killed: Oct. 13, 2011.
Haleem Ullah
A deputy commander to North Waziristan Taliban leader Hafiz Gul Bahadar.
Date killed: Sept. 30, 2011.
Abu Hafs al Shahri
A senior al Qaeda leader who served as the operations chief for Pakistan.
Date killed: Sept. 11, 2011.
Atiyah Abd al Rahman
A senior al Qaeda leader who served as Osama bin Laden's chief of staff and a top operational commander.
Date killed: Aug. 22, 2011.
Ilyas Kashmiri (Unconfirmed)
The leader of al Qaeda's Lashkar al Zil and the operational commander of the Harkat ul Jihad-i-Islami. He also was a member of al Qaeda's external operatiosn council.
Date killed: June 3, 2011.
Abu Zaid al Iraqi
A senior al Qaeda operative who served as the top financial officer in Pakistan.
Date killed: Feb. 20, 2011.
Killed in 2010:
Ibn Amin
A senior al Qaeda and Taliban military commander who led forces in Swat in Pakistan.
Date reported killed: Dec. 17, 2010.
Sheikh Fateh al Masri
Al Qaeda's leader in Afghanistan and Pakistan (or the Khorasan).
Date reported killed: Sept. 25, 2010.
Saifullah Haqqani
A Haqqani Network military commander in Afghanistan and a cousin of Siraj Haqqani. Date reported killed: Sept. 14, 2010.
Qureshi
An Islamic Jihad Group commander who trained Germans and other foreigners in North Waziristan and then sent them back to their home countries.
Date reported killed: Sept. 8, 2010.
Inayatullah
A Taliban military commander based in North Waziristan.
Date reported killed: Sept. 3, 2010.
Abu Ahmed
An al Qaeda military commander who conducted operations in Afghanistan.
Date killed: June 19, 2010.
Sheikh Ihsanullah
An al Qaeda military commander who conducted operations in Afghanistan.
Date killed: June 10, 2010.
Ibrahim
The commander of the Fursan-i-Mohammed Group, an al Qaeda group based in North Waziristan.
Date killed: June 10, 2010.
Osama bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Damjan al Dawsari
A senior operative and key link with the Taliban in South Waziristan, Pakistan. He also facilitated operations in Afghanistan.
Date killed: May 28, 2010.
Mustafa Abu Yazid
Yazid, who is also known and Sheikh Saeed al Masri, is al Qaeda's leader in Afghanistan and top financial official.
Date killed: May 21, 2010.
Sadam Hussein Al Hussami
A senior operative in al Qaeda's external operations network who was involved in the suicide attack that killed seven CIA officials in Khost. Hussami is also known as Ghazwan al Yemeni.
Date killed: March 8, 2010.
Qari Mohammad Zafar
A leader of the al Qaeda and Taliban-linked Fedayeen-i-Islam wanted by the US for attacking the US Consulate in karachi in 2006
Date killed: February 24, 2010.
Mohammed Haqqani
A mid-level Haqqani Network military commander and brother of the group's top military commander Siraj Haqqani.
Date killed: February 18, 2010.
Sheikh Mansoor
An al Qaeda Shadow Army commander who was based in North Waziristan and operated in eastern Afghanistan.
Date killed: February 17, 2010.
Abdul Haq al Turkistani
A member of al Qaeda's Shura Majlis and the leader of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party.
Date killed: February 14, 2010.
Abdul Basit Usmanusman.jpg
The US has a $1 million bounty on Abdul Basit Usman, an Abu Sayyaf master bomb maker, for conducting attacks that murdered civilians. Usman's death is unconfirmed, however.
Date thought killed: January 14, 2010.
Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahimrahim-thumb.JPG An Abu Nidal Organization operative who participated in killing 22 hostages during the 1986 hijacking of Pan Am flight 73.
Date killed: January 9, 2010.
Mansur al ShamiMansur-al-Shami-thumb.JPG
An al Qaeda ideologue and aide to Mustafa Abu Yazid.
Date killed: Exact date is not known, he was last seen on As Sahab on January 4, 2010.
Killed in 2009:
Haji Omar Khan
A senior Taliban leader in North Waziristan.
Date killed: December 31, 2010
Abdullah Said al Libi
The top commander of the Lashkar al Zil, al Qaeda's Shadow Army.
Date thought killed: December 17, 2009 (exact date is not known)
Zuhaib al Zahib
A commander in the Lashkar al Zil, al Qaeda's Shadow Army.
Date killed: December 17, 2009
Saleh al Somali
The leader of al Qaeda's external network.
Date killed: December 8, 2009
Abu Musa al Masri
A senior al Qaeda explosive expert and trainer.
Date killed: October 21, 2009
Najmuddin Jalolov
The leader of the Islamic Jihad Group, a breakaway faction of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Najmuddin was closely allied with al Qaeda.
Date killed: September 14, 2009
Maulvi Ismail Khan
A military commander in the Haqqani Network.
Date killed: September 8, 2009
Mustafa al Jaziri
A senior military commander for al Qaeda who sits on al Qaeda's military shura.
Date killed: September 7, 2009
Tahir Yuldashev tahir_yuldashev_3.jpg
The leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Date killed: August 27, 2009
Baitullah MehsudBaitullah.jpg
The overall leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan.
Date killed: August 5, 2009
Kifayatullah Anikhel
A Taliban commander under Baitullah Mehsud.
Date killed: July 7, 2009
Mufti Noor Wali
A suicide bomber trainer for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Date killed: July 3, 2009
Khwaz Ali Mehsud
A senior deputy to Baitullah Mehsud.
Date killed: June 23, 2009
Abdullah Hamas al Filistini
A senior al Qaeda trainer.
Date killed: April 1, 2009
Osama al Kini (aka Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam)
Al Qaeda's operations chief for Pakistan who was wanted for the 1998 bombings against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Date killed: January 1, 2009
Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedanswedan2.jpg
A senior aide to Osama al Kini who was wanted for the 1998 bombings against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Date killed: January 1, 2009
Killed in 2008:
Abu Zubair al Masri
Served as an explosives expert for al Qaeda as well as a leader.
Date killed: November 21, 2008
Abdullah Azzam al Saudi
Served as liaison between al Qaeda and the Taliban operating in Pakistan's northwest. Azzam facilitated al Qaeda's external operations network. He also served as a recruiter and trainer for al Qaeda.
Date killed: November 19, 2008
Abu Jihad al Masri
The leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group and the chief of al Qaeda's intelligence branch, and directed al Qaeda's intelligence shura. He directed al Qaeda's external operations in Egypt.
Date killed: October 31, 2008
Khalid Habib
The commander of the Lashkar al Zil or the Shadow Army, al Qaeda's paramilitary forces in Pakistan's northwest and Afghanistan.
Date killed: October 16, 2008
Abu al Hasan al Rimi
A senior al Qaeda operative.
Date killed: October 2008 - exact date unknown
Abu Ubaidah al Tunisi
An al Qaeda military commander who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Date killed: September 17, 2008
Abu Musa
An al Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia.
Date killed: September 8, 2008
Abu Qasim
An al Qaeda operative from Egypt.
Date killed: September 8, 2008
Abu Hamza
An explosives expert from Saudi Arabia who served as al Qaeda's commander in Peshawar.
Date killed: September 8, 2008
Abu Haris
A senior al Qaeda military commander from Syria who led more than 250 Arab and Afghan fighters under the guise of the Jaish al Mahdi in Helmand province. He became al Qaeda's operations chief in the tribal areas in 2008.
Date killed: September 8, 2008
Abu Wafa al Saudi
An al Qaeda commander and logistician.
Date killed: September 4, 2008
Abdul Rehman
A local Taliban commander in the Wana region in South Waziristan.
Date killed: August 13, 2008
Abu Khabab al Masri
The chief of al Qaeda's weapons of mass destruction program and a master bomb maker.
Date killed: July 28, 2008
Abu Mohammad Ibrahim bin Abi al Faraj al Masri
A religious leader, close to Abu Khabab al Masri.
Date killed: July 28, 2008
Abdul Wahhab al Masri
A senior aide to Abu Khabab al Masri.
Date killed: July 28, 2008
Abu Islam al Masri
Aide to Abu Khabab al Masri.
Date killed: July 28, 2008
Abu Sulayman Jazairi
The chief of al Qaeda's external network. Jazairi was a senior trainer, an explosives expert, and an operational commander tasked with planning attacks on the West.
Date killed: March 16, 2008
Dr. Arshad Waheed (aka Sheikh Moaz)
A mid-level al Qaeda leader.
Date killed: May 14, 2008
Abu Laith al Libi
Senior military commander in Afghanistan and the leader of the reformed Brigade 055 in al Qaeda's paramilitary Shadow Army.
Date killed: January 29, 2008
Killed in 2007:
No senior al Qaeda or Taliban leaders or operatives were reported killed during the strikes in 2007.
Killed in 2006:
Liaquat Hussain
Second-in-command of the Bajaur TNSM.
Date killed: October 30, 2006
Imam Asad
Camp commander for the Black Guard, al Qaeda's elite bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. Asad was a Chechen with close links to Shamil Basayev.
Date killed: March 1, 2006
Killed in 2005:
Abu Hamza Rabia
Al Qaeda's operational commander. He was involved with two assassination plots against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
Date killed: December 1, 2005
Killed in 2004:
Nek Mohammednek-mohammed.jpg
A senior Taliban commander in South Waziristan who had links to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
Date killed: June 18, 2004
http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes-hvts.php
All this begs the question which of these men would you have spared, if you had to make the decision? And if you answer is none, than how about a hypothetical: Would you have supported the assassination of Hitler?
The fact is, we all draw the line somewhere, but damned few of us draw it in the same place. That fact is, sometimes one must do that which would otherwise be considered evil.
Contradictory? Certainly, but sometimes that's the way it is, particularly when it comes to war and politics.
I don't wish to be argumentative, but complaining about resorting to the legal dodge doesn't really address the issue at hand. As you see, many of the acts I listed were carried out outside the law. Can you cite one instance where any administration prosecuted any one for these crimes? I think not, because the administrations were complicit in those crimes.
That's one reason -- among many -- Obama decided not to prosecute any one in the Bush administration for torture, because any lawyer worth his salt would have opened up this can of worms and asked a jury to ponder why it's not okay to torture someone for reasons of national security, but it is apparently okay to kill them.
One might argue -- tho I wouldn't -- that it is far better to have administration officials cloak themselves in suspect legal rationales for such acts, than to continue with surreptitious and all too common illegal acts committed in our names. At least the level of hypocrisy and legal exposure is reduced. That certainly seems to be the tactic the Bush administration employed -- or more precisely was forced by the actual perps to employ.
That does raise the question of the law and our legal system itself, and I find myself in agreement with Bertrand Russell: "compromise and common sense are "habits of mind", which cannot be embodied in a written constitution ..."
Indeed, in my concert/presentation Native Sons, I point out the impossibility of convincing an "ignorant savage" that something can be both immoral and legal. Yet our "civilized" society routinely makes that claim.
That notion ought to be preposterous in a nation that also claims to be the most Christian on Earth. After all, Jesus routinely broke the law and defended doing do by saying "Man was not made for the Law, but the Law for man."
The ugly truth is that this self-proclaimed Christian nation is utterly resistant to the most fundamental teachings of Jesus regarding pacifism and communism. But to even suggest those are the twin pillars of his teaching is to risk public denouncement -- or far worse.
Finally, let me say it isn't so that people have lost respect for the law, but that the law has lost respect for people. But that's an inevitable outcome when the law is more interested in protecting property rights than people rights. And everywhere in our society we see that is the case, most notably in the horrendous decision in Citizens United v FEC.
If you want to see more of the same -- and worse -- do all in your power to see that Mitt Romney is elected.
On your return, read the commets, too, if you have time. As is often the case with my posts, the responses have more meat and less overcooked potatoes.
I take exception to your acceptions -- and you might try using some bikini wax.
Many of these folks need to study statistics and math, before they go around supporting third parties.
The best you can hope for, is to create a CAUCUS within the Democratic Party, that pushes for issues within the fold of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, the way LABOR did in the Dem party in the past, and the way the Tea Party and Xtian Right do in the present in the GOP.
Your analysis is dead on. Numbers always trump fantasies, but that never stops dreamers from dreaming.
Tom-Regarding me being on RNC talking points, I am on an Island here in MA and I know very few Republicans that are big fans of his policies. I do admire his intellect and I beleive he is a great compromiser and on many issues it will not sit well with the RNC.
Do I think he will be better than Barry O? Most any candidate from either party would be better than our "Present" President.
You are entitled to your opinion -- right or wrong. You may be right about Romney's intellect, but it requires more than a good mind to be a good President -- indeed, it begins with empathy, and Romney exhibits none.
I would point out that Richard Nixon was one our most intellectually gifted Presidents. But it's glaringly obvious Romney does not share Nixon's vision. In fact as far as can be gleaned from his pointless (other than to raise money) campaign appearances, Romney has no vision and no goals other than getting elected, principally because (I presume from Ann Romney's words on the matter) "It's our time". Talk about entitlement.
I suspect another reason Romney wants to be President is to escape his father's long shadow. Only his psychiatrist knows for sure, but I suspect Romney has some pretty deep-seated Daddy issues. We saw Oedipal rage play out in the White House with the previous President, and we can't afford another fiasco like that..
Romney is reputedly a good family man, just like Nixon, but he also shares Nixon's inability to share an intimate relationship with close associates, let alone relate to ordinary people. Like Nixon, there's something off about Romney -- and that was the first sign he was a sociopath.
The second sign was his mistreatment of the family dog. Laugh if you like, but mistreatment of animals is a classic sign of sociopathic behavior. I accept that even though I'm not a pet person.
The next sign was the revelation of Romney's prep school bullying. That might be dismissed as an adolescent mischief, but not once understands that bullying was at the heart of his business practices at Bain Capital. Romney confirmed that charge himself with his boast that he enjoys firing people.
You will also note that when pressed about any of this, Romney first denies it, then says if it happened he doesn't remember. What's also telling is that he dismissively chuckles in response.
All these signs are classic symptoms of sociopathy, and I recommend you submit Romney to The Psychopath Test and see for yourself that this is clearly another man, like Nixon, who has NO business in the White House.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
I agree with your analysis that casting a vote for another party or simply not voting at all due to disaffectation of Obama's lackluster performance or because of assertions of illegal acts of assassination, which, as you so adroitly pointed out, is like holding one guy responsible while letting the rest of the guilty walk without so much as a backwards glance.
So, to me, pragmatics dominate principle, even idealism in this matter. Romney I also believe to be a sociopath. I disagree that this dismisses him. It should, but it does not. If it truly dismissed him, he would not be a candidate.
What it really means is that we had better sit up and take notice. In a two party system, with two candidates who both are clearly disappointing in their natures, their actions and their sheer inability to stand up and act in defense of the People of this nation, we owe it to ourselves to act in our best overall interest.
In this case, there is no reason to toss away your vote if it can buy us another four years of time to try to make a course change and correction. That course correction cannot even be considered under a Republican Administration. The last eight years of Republican effort was only thwarted in it's efforts to take over this country and turn it into a despotic corporatocracy by acting precipitously and reaching too far too fast. Imagine how much trouble we'd all be in right now had they been more patient.
I will once again cast a vote for the actual lesser of two evils, which is the most responsible thing I can do with my vote. That means another vote for Barack Obama.
I think if he had focused on other things beyond health care, there would have been more progress in Congress in his first term. In 2010, the disaffectation and rabid turnabout vis-a-vis the Tea Party changed the entire substance of the ball game. For the Democrats, this was a rejection of tepid, spineless lack of conviction. For the Republicans, it was one more step towards a one party, President for Life (aka: Kingship) form of governance that will, quite literally throw the masses under the proverbial bus.
At least with more Democrats in position, the momentum of a single minded Republican Party bent on social domination of the country through a convenient lapse of memory and a furtive disposal of the Constitution's prinicples.
It is the best I can hope for at this point -- to blunt an assault that all reasonable people would do well to join. Right now, politics is a choice between the insane and the inept. In all counts of history, ineptitude has always been preferable to insanity.
--r--
Like you say, been there, done that.
Really don't know if I have the strength to do it ever again..
The Citizens United decision of 2010, which determined that property is a person may be cited one day as a primary factor which led to the eventuality of the collapse of the republic, and an epic battle of grand porportion pitting the haves against the have nots.
The wholesale purchasing and manipulation of opinion however will have made it nigh on to impossible for some to know which side they have chosen.
Too late it may occur to them that the proper choice was never to decide between having and not having.
It was the choice of the common need to survive or not that should have held their allegiance.
You have put the matter as practically as it can be put, but apparently practically no one on the Far Right can grasp such basic truths
I can relate; it's been a series of major disappointments and disasters over the last fifty years or so. Here's a partial list of reasons to be experiencing a general and tired disillusionment:
The assassination of JFK, MLK and RFK, Vietnam, Miami and the Seige of Chicago; the Southern Strategy, George Wallace, Richard Nixon, Kent State, Plumbers and ratfuckers, Watergate, the pardon of Nixon; Oil Crisis and Hostage Crisis and the defeat of Jimmy Carter; Morning in America - which turned into Mourning for America, thanks to union-busting, downsizing, outsourcing, offshoring, deregulation and merger mania, the S&L crisis; the rise of wingnut news including Fux News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck; Lee Atwater; Clinton the Philanderer and Globalizer; Karl Rove; Bush the Least, America's first appointed (by the Court) President in 2000, 9-11, two elective wars, pandering to the rich, the re-election of Bush the Least, who'd already proven to be the worst President in US history by 2004, Katrina, the torture regime, the financial collapse of 2008, gutted home values, gutted wages, un/underemployment, the rise of Teapartians, the gutting of healthcare and financial reform, no prosecution of banksters, no prosecution of torturers, the mid-terms of 2010, the final curtain for Republican moderates, the House and Senate rendered impotent by intransigent Droogs, Citizens United, the Koching of America, the daily dying of the audacious dream that Obama would or could do something to begin to reverse decades of disappointments and disasters ...
... and now the final wound in the death of a thousand cuts, the foolish fantasizers on the Far Left who are threatening to throw away the last opportunity to stand against Fascism.
You obviously pay attention to history. Another lesson we seem to have forgotten is the price we pay when we fall for divide and conquer politics. As Ben Franklin put it at the beginning of this adventure in self-government:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"
Sociopath-Clinton most certainly is/was one.
Daddy issues-Al Gore was groomed to be President and had a face pollitical daddy of even higher stature than George Romney. Al grew a beard, gained 80 lbs and got divorced but Romney has a sense of entitlement.
Coming to a conclusion_Romney is bad-and then supporting it with possibly relevant observations ignored in those just supported(Clinon,Gore,Edwards,Kerry)
diminishes the objections value.
Thanks for visiting. I long for the return of the green-eye shade Republicans, as Garrison Keillor refers to them. I suspect you must long for that day even more. I am somewhat heartened by the fact that John Roberts has begun to exhibit the good sense he showed during his nomination hearings.
Striking down the AZ law was a nod to reality, that was clearly unconstitutional -- and it was no way to address the vexing problem of illegal immigration. That Jan Brewer and others are trying to paint that resounding defeat as a victory is proof of how divorced they are from reality.
Roberts decided correctly on the AHA, as well. As I said elsewhere, call it what you will, the mandate provision was a tax no different than Social Security and Medicare. The Constitution clearly states the Federal government has the power to levy taxes and the duty to "promote the general welfare".
Perhaps this is a sign that moderate, thoughtful Republicans are concerned about their legacy -- and about the country. Maybe this is a sign have at long last found the backbone against the Teapartian droogs who are destroying their Party. Maybe they have decided to stand up and do what's right.
Now if we can only get the Far Left to follow suit ...
Thanks. For better or worse, I've lived long enough to witness some history first hand. In the 60's the shoe was on the other foot. It was the Far Left that was behaving like Droogs and throwing a crowbar in the Clockwork. Back then, Supreme Court justices were stretching the limits of interpretation as well.
But -- there was one BIG difference between then and now -- the excesses of the Far Left back then led to more rights for women and minorities, an increase in the voting pool and a lessening on the hold religion had over individuals. Those excesses also helped end an unnecessary, unjust and foolish war.
The excesses of the Far Right, which were largely in reaction to that progress, have had exactly the opposite effect -- impinging on the rights of women and minorities, attempts to limit voting, a breakdown of the Wall of Separation, the rise of the corporatocracy, the gutting of unions and wages, huge deficits, and two ill-advised wars -- that with each passing day prove to have been more foolish, more pointless and more tragic.
As far as I'm aware, Clinton, Gore and Bush the Least are not running for President, so any problems they may have had with their daddies -- tho interesting if true -- are not relevant to this election. The only real question is whether Obama or Romney is more likely to promote the Commonweal as President. For all the reasons I cited in this post and in my comments, that's a no-brainer for me.
I will be voting for Obama, but it's just political masturbation: The evil of 2 lessers.
I saw the news about Barclays on the scroll, and you're right -- I suspect most people missed it altogether. I also saw several other big banks were being investigated for manipulating markets.
What's the line from Casablanca? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. For PiggyBanks, half-a-billion is chump change -- they can steal that much from their customers in a day.
Don't tell anybody, but I voted for Perot in '96. But I learned a lesson in 2ooo -- and no, I didn't vote for Nader . So I won't be voting third-party for the foreseeable future -- can't run the risk as long as Republicans vote like a school of fish. 2000 taught me there's a lot to be said for the lesser of two evils.
They say the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over expecting different results. I believe this to be true and for that reason I am voting either third party or against whoever has been in office more than two terms if there is not a viable third party candidate running.
The argument that you are throwing your vote away on a third party candidate for me is nothing more than BS fear mongering created by two bloated and corrupt political parties with no intention of changing anything unless forced to.
Honestly Tom why should Washington change? We keep electing the same people to office for decades. They break every promise and continue to do whatever the fuck they want to. Why? because we keep electing them to office. If someone has been in office (regardless of party) for decades they are not fighting the problem they are the problem.
Here is my reasoning for voting third party. If there was a strong third party not only would it offer a real alternative, but it would force the republican and democratic party to change their evil ways.
For me it is the long game now. Maybe it is two late and everything will crash and burn, but keep doing the same thing and expecting something different is just down right crazy.
Nice try, but to argue there's no difference between Obama and Romney is to argue there would have been no difference between Bush the Least and Al Gore. Such a contention would be laughable, if it weren't so foolish and so dangerous.
It is not laughable it is just sad.
If you can't see the difference, perhaps it's because you don't want to see the difference. To see the difference might force you to have to make a difficult choice.
I've tried to make a similar point in more general terms. I've noticed that when I do, people have trouble understanding me. I tried at one point with a post called "Dirty Hands" in which I said that you can't be in politics at all and remain pure, in essence because that concept of purity isn't in and of itself pure. People had so much trouble getting my point that I fictionalized an aspect of the post with the next one and most of my audience still didn't get what I was driving at.
In my current post, which is about a dozen off-the-cuff rules for intellectual integrity (which I basically pulled out of my ass while writing it), my final point was that if you're going to tear down a position, be prepared to defend some sort of alternative. I caught a lot of flack on that one but I refused to desert it, for basically the reason you outline here: Tearing down without an alternative can lead you straight to pyrrhicism. This is simply the wrong leap of faith to take - just look around the Third World and see how many times the Corrupt were replaced by the Zealots, the Zealots typically being worse. "This is awful, let's replace it. What could be so bad?" Uy. You don't want to know. Like those Nader voters who thought in 2000 that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush. That may be one of the most blown political calls in American history. If Gore had been elected, there would probably have been little to no deficit, a US way further along the road to going Green, and no involvement in Iraq. (If 9/11 happened, there might very well have been involvement in Afghanistan, but Iraq's rationale was always phony. I was told by an acquaintance with military connections very early in the Bush administration that his friends had already been told we were going to Iraq, and I was told this before 9/11. The later British revelation about this was something I already knew.) Romney doesn't promise to be an improvement over Bush. Bush had some principles, though not too many, and we found them in unexpected places, like that he was really not a hater and put together what was probably the most diverse administration in American history, including this one, and I don't think it was driven by tokenism (because Why bother? It wouldn't help with the base anyway). Romney has run against himself far harder than either Bob Dole or John McCain did, and that's saying way too much.
Lezlie
Let's keep it simple: SCOTUS. Vote Obama or have this country sliding far right for at least 50 years.
But look at Hollande in France. I find him to be very interesting. And this goes against every instinct I had about him before the election there. He's a bourgeois toady, I thought, oh, sure, he's going to raise taxes on the superrich by 75%, oh, sure, when dogs don't smell in July. But look at what he's done in just a few weeks....
He went to the last two eurozone conferences of big states and first got Monti and Rajoy and Van Rampoy to back the idea of bailouts for banks and not putting it on state books. That makes it clear at least where the money is going and who's responsible for it. For that matter, it makes it clear who was always responsible for it. This is a private debt crisis, not a public debt crisis, unless you let these guys make it into one with brutal austerity as the coda. Bingo. The equation, and discussion, changed radically. Yes, there was backsliding, and Merkel initially said she'd never agree to it. But the others stuck to their guns, and really, in the end, Merkel will have no choice. It's either this or let it all fall to pieces.
Second, he proposed ring-fencing of dead institutions, especially those over-exposed to mountains of bad bonds that will never be good bonds no matter how much the bond fairy prays over them and the markets agree. And the establishment of a state bank, basically a good bank or infrastructure bank as Dylan Ratigan likes to call it although that's more a political phrase than it is a realistic description. In fact it would operate a lot like other banks, well, like other banks are supposed to.
Finally. It only took 3 1/2 years but someone who has some actual power finally came out and said this is what needs to be done, let's do it. If we hadn't had this giant detour through neoliberal fantasy land we might be halfway through this mess. But we did. And we're not. And I'm going to shut up now before Hollande does something stupid and evaporates.
entryism: beware that "part of a part."
;)
First let me thank you for giving this post a new life. I had hoped more people would read this and pass it on, for I do believe it addresses a critical issue at a critical time in our history. In my view, one more step toward the Right will be the last step off the plank. In light of that, we can ill-afford throw-away votes and other empty flourishes from the Left.
I fear that we are headed toward revolution, and in this country, and if history teaches us anything about this country, it will not be a bloodless revolution. I've often responded to those who preach revolution that are next is more likely to end up like the French Revolution.
Indeed, few revolutions turn out well in the end. The Indian example is one exception, and it's telling to me that that was a largely bloodless revolution.
Thanks for finding this and for your compliment. I shudder to think where Pyrrhicism could lead -- and where a serious power failure could lead as well.
"cutting off your nose to spite your face" Sister, I'm bettin' you first heard that expression at your momma's knee. You and I had the same momma under the skin.
Libby is one of those I had in mind when I wrote this. As far as I'm concerned, the "nobility" of the lost cause is just another form of hypocrisy. Or to put it another way, it is a form of false-piety. If making the "noble" choice leads to a disastrous outcome, how can it possibly be noble? It can't.
If one wants to sacrifice oneself in a noble cause, sobeit, but please don't take the rest of us with you. Setting oneself on fire is one obvious form of self-sacrifice, and in Tunisia such a sacrifice lead to real change.
But that ain't gonna happen here. Like it or not, either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will be elected come November, and all the fawning false-piety on the Far Left isn't going to change that save to make the election of Mitt Romney more likely. That fact leads me to vote the only sensible way, and that is for Barack Obama.
Your comparing apples and oranges -- comparing a parliamentary system to ours is an exercise in futility -- just as is voting third-party in this country. History is clear about that.
The third-party candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt was the death knell of Republican progressivism. The third-party candidacy of George Wallace created the New American Independent Party (the replacement for the once Grand Old Party), And the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader gave us Bush the Least, the worst administration in US history.
A vote for a third-party candidate this time around may well give us Mitt Romney. At least that might give some consolation to Bush the Least, who will then have a chance of being removed from the bottom of the Presidential pile. And I'm deadly serious about that assessment, we can't afford another sociopath in the White House.
Amen, brother! Shakespeare said "parting is such sweet sorrow"; but politics having devolved so far on the Right, nothing sweet will come of "parting" the Left.
Hollande's grouping is interesting because it suggests what a Democratic left coalition with strong left populist support pushing a central leadership from just off-stage might look like. You know, what progressives over here claimed Obama might become when they knew that wasn't the case. He's a corporatist, and an imperialist. And he governs in a heavy-handed, party-hack way within his own grouping, just like Bush and Clinton did before him. For that matter all three of these guys have done a lot to break up the traditional coalitions of their parties--Clinton alienated militant labor and liberals by becoming Republican-lite, Bush alienated moderates by emphasizing evangelical demands way too much (and then doing little to satisfy them, since he was so very busy kissing corporate tushy).
You're right about not having the same mechanisms to break this down that parliamentary systems have. But in practice Melenchon and the anticapitalists couldn't use the first and second rounds to pressure the decrepit old guard in the Socialists either. They used entryism at the local level to eat away at the central bloc and then made sure a more amenable national candidate was pushed forward when (ahem) Strauss-Kahn had that little accident. And if you still believe it was Sarkozy's people who set him up, you haven't been paying attention......
Obviously, interest groups have always played a role within our two-party system. But it's rare that a third-party serves as anything other than a spoiler. As I suggested above, the Progressive Movement in the Republican Party had a real chance of civilizing that Party early in the 20th Century. But when that movement failed, that Party became the stooge of corporate interests -- where it has remained ever since.
Much wingnut hyperbole is excreted about FDR and his supposed socialism, but the truth of that matter lies elsewhere. During the Great Depression sentiment for communism was strong and growing; FDR nipped that nascent movement in the bud by throwing the public a few desperately-needed crumbs, allowing the robber barons to go merrily on their way, all the while bitching they'd been sold-out by one of their own and vowing to tear down the social safety net.
They're still trying, and it looks like this time, they just might succeed. That explains their irrational reaction to Obamneycare, which is in fact an absolute windfall for health insurers. That overreaction flies in the face of the facts, beginning with the fact that the mandate scheme was concocting in their own think tanks and first put in place by one of their own -- Mitt Romney.
So what explains their buyers' remorse? Well, they have some small concern that healthcare reform just might make Obama and the Democrats look good in the long run. But far more importantly, they've come to the conclusion they now so own the political operation that they no longer have to even pay lip service to the Commons.
As for your other comment, I assume by "part" you were referring to entryism or enterism or the Trojan Horse ploy. I also assume you suggesting that Democrats infiltrate the Republican Party or vice versa, with the object of taking it over. Seems to me that's fait accompli -- the Republican Party is now run by the progeny of the former Dixiecrats, with utterly disastrous results for that Party and this country.
To some extent, the reverse has happened as well, for surely the Democratic Party is a damned long way from its former radical policies -- radical in the sense of trying to make the country live up to the long-delayed promises of the Founders about the equality of all men -- and all women.
If that's not what you meant by "part", feel free to educate me.
Thanks for the clarification, tho for all his claiming to say it simply, Lenin's directions are about as clear as mud. I'd say at the moment, both major Parties are in that kind of morass, the Right burdened with a candidate damned few think is Conservative enough, and the Left burdened with one who's not Liberal enough.
But as disappointing as Obama has been to some on the Left, Romney would be a huge step in the wrong direction for all but the 1%, he's wrong even for Conservatives, unless one imagines that conservatism is best served by an even more avaricious plutocracy. That strikes me as the antithesis of Libertarian Conservatism.
That Romney is the antithesis explains the continuing flirtation with Ron Paul on the Far Right. And in my view, the flirtation with Jill Stein and the Green Party is a similar folly on the Left, indeed even more so, since I'm willing to wager that if Ron Paul ran, he would get substantially more votes than Stein. Of course, in the process, he would guarantee the re-election of Barack Obama, and thus cut his son's political aspirations off at the knees.
All in all, a Ron Paul run would be a win/win in my book.
Stu - I am constantly reminded of the fact that you're a Deptford boy.
I confess, I'm not near as informed about the European systems as I am about our own, but as a casual observer, I'd say there's a lot of truth to your contention that those systems are largely de facto two-party. Well, sort of, and the Italians excepted.
But -- again from the outside -- it appears to me that whether Conservative or Liberal, Fascist or Socialist, all those parties have been paying more than lip service to the Commonweal ever since WWII. Here, on the other hand, there hasn't been much but lip service paid since the Sixties.
Clearly, a majority of the electorate has engaged in a form of political self-flagellation since then, electing no President since 1962 up until 2008 -- that's nearly half a century -- who wasn't a Republican or from the Deep South. Indeed, politicos have spent much of that time trying to gut the social safety net one way or another.
To be fair, Clinton made a feint at healthcare reform, but failed, while succeeding miserably with globalization -- or gobblization as I prefer to call it. That giant sucking sound ought to be ringing in the ears of most Americans.
But fully half the electorate is apparently not only deaf but dumb. It's hard to imagine 60 million or so people being stupid enough to repeatedly vote against their own interests, but what else -- other than racism -- explains a boastful vulture capitalist running pretty much dead even in the polls against a Democrat who is decidedly not a Liberal?