Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Conservatives Manipulate People Into Voting Against Their Best Interests

By Digby , Common Sense. Posted December 7, 2007.


Pseudopopulist conservatives have destroyed reason.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy
Frances Moore Lappe

Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
Rob Kampia

Election 2008:
Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church
Bruce Wilson

Environment:
Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
Stan Cox

ForeignPolicy:
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
Tom Engelhardt

Health and Wellness:
Pollution Can Make You Fat
Geoffrey Lean

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Leader of Anti-Immigration Movement Calls Issue a "Skirmish in a Wider War"
Eric Ward

Media and Technology:
Watch Rachel Maddow's Debut Show Launch on MSNBC Tonight: She Fights Lies Uttered by Politicians, Repeated by Media
The Masher

Movie Mix:
Does "Working Girls" Still Work?
Ariel Dougherty

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Rutgers Center Helps Women Enter Politics
Alison Bowen

Rights and Liberties:
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Emily Jane Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
What Republicans Can Learn from "Gossip Girl"
Sarah Seltzer

War on Iraq:
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
Willam Fisher

Water:
Is California on the Brink of Environmental Collapse?
Rachel Olivieri

More stories by Digby

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

American right-wing populism is an interesting phenomenon that's coming to the fore once again in its usual nativist and racist form, but also as smooth misrepresentation of "tax reform"; clever, misleading public relations messaging about fair trade; and some fairly outlandish paranoia about conspiracies to erase the borders. Various permutations of these fairly common right-wing themes abound among conservative politicians and thinkers alike. But conservative populism is an oxymoron.

As Phil Agre wrote in this much discussed article about the definition of conservatism, "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy ... [it] is incompatible with democracy, prosperity and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world."

Modern conservatism's most successful strategy was to merge public relations and politics into a seamless operation in which it could use modern marketing methods to convince people to vote against their own interests. In that sense, right-wing populism is just another marketing campaign for the aristocrats. And it's working:

South Carolina has embraced foreign investment, with companies from BMW to Michelin transforming a state once dominated by the textile industry. Another aspect of the global economy hasn't gone down as well: immigration.

While an influx of money from overseas has made free trade palatable even as thousands of mill jobs have vanished, voters are growing increasingly hostile to undocumented foreign workers, polls and analysts say. As a result, illegal immigration is a top economic issue in the state's Jan. 19 Republican primary, a key test for the candidates since it's the first in the South.

"Trade is all right as long as everybody goes by the same rules," said David Robinson, 65, who recently retired from a job at a Michelin tire factory in Spartanburg and whose son works in a Hitachi Ltd. plant nearby. Illegal immigration, on the other hand, "is a big problem, and that's one you can get a handle on," he said.

South Carolina only has about a 3 percent Latino population, both illegal and legal. It isn't actually a problem at all, much less a big one. The sad truth us that no matter how much "foreign investment" comes into their state, South Carolina manufacturing workers are still on a race to the bottom and they know it. But the conservatives have successfully misdirected them away from the real culprits by stoking latent (and not so latent) racism as an explanation for their insecurity. In a time of rising income inequality, a housing and credit crisis, and the ever more obvious fact of conservative corruption of epic proportions, the Republican Party has worked their rank and file into a frenzy over very poor people who work for next to nothing in hot, dirty fields, blood-soaked poultry plants and steaming restaurant kitchen sinks. It's quite an accomplishment.

But there's more to this than simple manipulation of the racist id. As Agre points out:

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

One of the ways that this modern aristocracy gets people to internalize that the aristocrats are better people is by stoking a fear that the "American Dream" is being threatened by hordes of undeserving interlopers. Who's looking out for the common man? Why, it's the conservatives, your liege lords, who want to close the borders and keep those people out!


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: inequality, marketing, voting, public relations, populism, pr, conservatives

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not so
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aristocracy is, by definition, un-American.

This country was founded by aristocrats. To state that aristocracy is un-American is to buy into a naive view of the United States as the great standard-bearer of liberty and freedom, which is itself a nationalist public relations message, an ideology serving the selfish interests of aristocrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't forget Sen. Kerry..... Posted by: gellero
» RE: Don't forget Sen. Kerry..... Posted by: The Heretic
» RE: So, So? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: So, So? Posted by: moflard
» 'progression?' Posted by: zorro
» RE: Not so Posted by: BunkerHill
» RE: Not so Posted by: zorro
» RE: Not so Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Not so Posted by: aberdeen
» RE: Not so Posted by: gellero
On the whole
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I take your point. Corporate greed mongers like to rave about the infinite nature of wealth, which is an idiotic concept rooted in magical thinking that bears no relationship to scientific limits. But increasing their absolute wealth is only part of their aim - just as much, they want to increase their relative power in an ever more hierarchical and socially immobile society. And power in society has always been regarded as a finite resource.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On the whole Posted by: bcain
Current economics is as much about power as about wealth.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Dec 7, 2007 1:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Defenders of our cutthroat economy try to calm people about the turbulence caused by restructuring economies around the sole purpose of monetizing everything by claiming that wealth is infinite, therefore when you hear about some people becoming obscenely wealthy, this is no threat to you. Everyone can do it!

These hustlers fail to mention the power dynamics that accompany the rise of an ultra-rich class. Power is a zero sum game - it comes from decreasing the power of others, subordinating them, controlling them. Even if all boats were to rise in the new economic tide, so that everyone is wealthier in absolute terms than before (which is not actually happening, though it is claimed to be the case), as long as some boats are rising faster than others and financial inequality is growing, this trend will translate into increased power differentials and further abuse of low-status groups by high-status groups.

Wealth might be somewhat flexible in that its absolute value can be increased, even if it can never be infinite. But there is always a fixed supply of power in a society, and obtaining more of it requires taking some from other people. This always occurs when economic inequality grows, despite the (theoretical) possibility of all people becoming wealthier together even when inequality is rising.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats have to Preach what they believe ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 7, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats have to draw blood. No more Republican lite. The contrast has to be drawn in stark terms not shades of gray. This is what they did to us all. This is what we will do about that to change things for the better.This is how they have been ruthless. We will call them on it and make things right.

To balance the rhetoric the Democrats have to emotionalize the issues, galvanize the anger and discontent , not try to abate it .

Where's the discontent , the anger , the rage ... If you don't own it, why would anybody else want to. Man Up Democrats.

Eric Alterman has a good article on the media.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/alterman

Democrats need to challlenge the media to report the truth. Joe Klein was a good start. Dems need to dismiss experts who were wrong. The old Iraq experts who got it all wrong are back in business. Shame them ...

Dems need to dismiss discredited people. Take Newt Gingrich , when asked Dems should say he is a liar and philanderer and refuse comment to anything and everything he says. The Dems need to characterize their opponents , especially those that have been discredited and refuse to give them any positive response. Example: John Bolten = verified nut case , Paul Wolfowitz = liar and incompetent and so on. The Dems need to coordinate this so everybodies on the same page and gives the same characterization.

I, like so many Dems are tired of seeing these war criminals , liars , cheats get back in the limelight after they have been thouroughly discredited.

Preach what they did wrong and fight against it .When an expert or one of their own is discredited , put a God Damned stake through their heart by characterization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Words for the ignorant
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 7, 2007 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised Alternet actually printed this!

"Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy ... [it] is incompatible with democracy, prosperity and civilization in general" ----- well, this is probably the most ridiculous, and divisive statement I've ever seen written - many conservatives see liberals as nothing more than children spending all their money on candy and never really wanting to work,an equally ridiculous and divisive statement -

wonder why this country is so polarized?

Loss of manufacturing jobs in this country is a big problem - Carolinas especially as much of theirs was furniture - guess where that comes from now!..but we can look To NAFTA (democrats brain child) for much of that..


Extreme views such as this article does nothing to present a realistic analysis of anything.. all it does is to help perserve the preception that there is a good and bad political side to this country - in the end they are all the same..if you have money you'l lwant to keep it..if you dont, you'll want to earn it.. if someone breaks into your house, you'll want to defend your family - basically not much is different

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Words for the ignorant... hardly! Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: weslen1
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: cardboardurinal
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: talkville
» Words to live by Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Words to live by Posted by: talkville
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: The Heretic
» RE: Words for the ignorant Posted by: rocketman
They're very good at manipulating "liberals," too
Posted by: photon's feather on Dec 7, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why else would Hillary Clinton, not much better than a neocon herself, be leading in the Democratic polls?

The neocons 'hate' the Clintons. What a joke! Just watch Bill Clinton next time he is hanging out with his pal, the elder George Bush - you know, the one he let off the hook by dropping the Iran-Contra case. Don't think that Clinton II wouldn't do likewise for Bush II.

Isn't the war-mongering Corporate Clinton at the top of the polls in large part because of the misguided notion that, "If the neocons hate her for being 'a liberal', then she must be their worst nightmare"? In fact, short of getting another Republican into the White House, they see her as the next best thing.

It's misdirection again: keep the spotlight on her; keep throwing darts at her, and you'll persuade people that she is what you say. Get enough Democrats to think that Clinton is the antithesis of neoconservatism, and they will vote for her.

Whatever you do, though, don't let the spotlight shine on the "second tier" of Democratic candidates, because they really do stand in opposition to neoconservatism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People do not think rationally
Posted by: Vaxalon2 on Dec 7, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any movement based on rationality will never gain a foothold in America. This is because Americans do not live by rationality. They live, instead, on faith, trust, emotion, and instinct. In order to win people's votes, we must win their hearts.

We must become the people they trust.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I knew this was a great article...
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 7, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...when I found myself wanting to come to the defense of 'conservative.' The critique is not deep enough until it stirs such a reaction. Outrage is needed, because the scene is outrageous.

One point missing, however, is how willing we are to go along with our own abuse. It's not just the sell-campaign. There's reflected glory in defending the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter that in actuality we are cutting our own throats. Being on the same side with the rich and powerful creates an appearance of belonging to the aristocratic club.

Not really, of course. Except maybe as the sheep's clothing worn by the wolves. Humans need a fiction to live by. Conservative's myth of "noblesse oblige" no longer even applies. But Good=rich, even when patently unjust.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The root of conservatism is authoritarianism.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Dec 7, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives believe at their very core in authority, at every level. That is why political polls skew so drastically - whites and males trend conservative, minorities and women trend progressive.

Neo-conservatives are indeed striving to develop and maintain an aristocracy. To further that end they have adopted the science of marketing psychology (which seems to be the only science they believe in). Without intensive marketing efforts it would be impossible to force informed people to consistently vote against their own interests.

I know conservatives who are reasonable people. They have been duped by the neo-conservatives. It isn't fair to paint them with the same brush. They will be as horrified as the rest of us when they see what they have wrought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fear of taxes
Posted by: pinget on Dec 7, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many Southerners vote Republican because they fear their taxes being increased. Period. End of. It's that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fear of taxes Posted by: Lauren
» God forbid that Southerners Posted by: hurricane hugo
» I beg to differ Posted by: marid
clarence swinney
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So foolish not to vote for the party that is ALL-AMERICAN.

-------------------- SHOCK & AWE------------------------
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.
clarence swinney
political research historian
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: clarence swinney Posted by: Lauren
» Quit using facts, Posted by: marid
Perhaps not so irrational at all
Posted by: DrSuess on Dec 7, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I look at the messages framed by the two parties- I see Democrats who support abortion and Republicans who oppose it. There are other discussions- but the mainstream media is suppressing it. You never hear Edwards’ discussions about poverty on the nightly news- you hear about Hillary’s clothing choice, and Edwards’ haircut.

When you suppress the true differences between the parties- as the nightly news has done, and drop the differences to just abortion and homosexuality- there is nothing irrational about poor people (most born again Christians are the working poor) choosing to vote for the Republicans.

But there is downside to this that the Republican strategizers have not counted on. When the Republicans become too associated with born again Christians (mainly poor uneducated people) they loose the well educated middle class. My father is a lifetime Republican- he is the “business of America is business” type of Republican. Giuliani is the only Republican who is playing well with this group. Romney could- but has not focused on them. McCain move away from this group right at the start of the election cycle- and has not moved back. But Giuliani cannot win. When the business of America is business Republicans learn about how badly Giuliani ran New York- he will loose their respect. I already know what my fathers reaction will be when he sees the scandals about Giuliani ‘s “wives” and sees Giuliani in women’s clothing. And my father is fairly tolerant. I cannot see my father voting for someone like Huckabee who doesn’t believe in evolution. My father hates Hillary- but in a choice between Huckabee and Hillary- my father would probably fail to vote for the first time in his 80 year life.

The Republican party has ceased to carry the “business of America is business” message- and this is the part of the party that has held the middle class. No one in the media is focusing on the fact that the current Republican crowd is extremely weak among middle class voters. The media makes it seem that 90% of America is born again. That is not even close to true.

I think that part of the events in the Democratic sweep in the last election was the movement of middle class voters. The Republicans are focusing on disenfranchising the poor- but are totally ignoring the largest part of their voting block- the middle class. If the middle class swings- and I think that is very possible in the upcoming election- you will see an incredible change in the parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unAmerican?
Posted by: aberdeen on Dec 7, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I very much agree with the first comment at the top. This author represents the naivety prevelant among modern liberals that there was actually once a true American democracy, which anyone who has read much history, knows is not true at all. America has always been a land ruled by wealthy aristocrates. And, as long as liberals remain naive about Tom Jefferson and the other early American aristocrates, we will continue to remain such.

"All men are created equal" and "democracy" are nice sounding catch phrases that serve the aristocracy well, when what is really meant is that "all WASP men are created equal" and "democracy" means votes purchased by the highest bidder.

Modern liberals really need to grow up about sin and the evil that men (and women) do. For the most part, they really represent the naive among us, just as much as Joe Red-State American, who consistently votes against his own flesh and blood.

How quickly supposedly anti-war, pro-justice, human rights and freedom progressives forget that Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Washington and the rest fomented a violent revolution, practised human slavery and segregation, butchered natives, subjugated women and children and all the while, padded their own pockets in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What's your point? Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: unAmerican? Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
clarence swinney
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Want more Econovomits vote Conservative

# 8 BUSHECONOVOMITS II

JOBS

NET NEW JOBS PER MONTH

Clinton—237,000
Carter----218,000
Reagan---175,000
Bush II----70,000 (He brags on this-wow)

TOTAL STOCK MARKET GROWTH

PERCENT INCREASE PER YEAR

Clinton---41%
Bush I----21
Reagan---17
Carter------5
Bush II-----4 ( he calls this Zoom?)

How? Yes, much money has been made as the stocks climbed out of deep hole.
Example—Cisco zoomed from $75 to $15. Deep hole. Then, over six years it zoomed to $35.
S& P just recently reached it’s 2000 Level.
One-Half the Dow thousands just go back to 2000 level. Not Dow 30.

HOME COSTS

Average annual income to buy an average priced home
2000-3.2 years----2006—5.4 years
An increase of 68% over six years.
The next noise you hear will be Foreclosure Boom

INFLATION

Ignore gasoline—home prices—education prices—heath care prices
Everything is beautiful if you can control the numbers.

MONEY SUPPLY

M-3
Increase in each decade
1970—1207 Billion
1980---2266
1990---2612
2000---3693 (6 years)

Increase per year for each decade
1970—120
1980---226
1990---261
2000---615 (6 years) will hit 800?
Life is grand when Chairman and all Federal Reserve Officials are “Conservative” Republicans
Ok! So the Europeans can buy our goods now—
In 2000 it took $.83 to buy a Euro. Now it takes $1.37
3 course-set lunch—London-$61.50—Nyc-$45
Four Seasons Room—London-$1,000—Nyc-$465

Typical--Shamed of increase so stopped showing M-3 Total Money Supply on reports.

DEBT—

1980—Less than 1000 Billion (after 200 years)
1990---4,000 (12 years of Conservative Republicanism)
2000---5700
2007--- 8881 (7-10-07)

wow! More Spend and Borrow let Kids Pay Tomorrow Conservatism

Homeowner Equity has decresed below any point since 1945.

SPENDING

Clinton last budget 1.84 Trillion. Bush up to 2.9 with one budget to go.
Reagan increased Total Sending by 80%. Bush may tie LBJ at 60%.

Note how Heritage-AEI and all Conservatives count only one-half of the budget as their presidents responsibility. Watch them on Revenues. They will cheat. They will use correlations where there is no connection.

SAVINGS

Total National Savings has gone negative for first time since Conservative Big Crash

PROFITS

Corporate profits at all time high
Buy overseas at $.50 cent per hour labor and sell to suckers as tho $10 per hour labor
Keep minimum wage as low as possible.
Use two part time instead one full time
Do not pay Insurance.
Maximize Profits like good Christians.
Ever hear of optimizing profits?
Buy Washington. It is cheap.

INTEREST RATES

Republican Federal Reserve let Clinton end with a 6.5 % rate then few months later gave Bush a 1% rate. If this Federal Reserve is non-partisan I will shoot a 61 tomorrow.
Greenspan gave Clinton 13 significant rate hikes during campaign years.

Everything is beautiful if you are Mega-Rich.

Clarence Swinney
Political Research Historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations
Burlington nc
cwswinney@netzero.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bush numbers are actually a lot worse Posted by: ReallyBearish
CLARENCE SWINNEY
Posted by: lifeaholic on Dec 7, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats fail to capitalize on things like this one

PRESIDENT REAGAN SCANDALS

INVESTIGATIONS OF IMPORTANT OFFICIALS

Attorney General—Cabinet--two OIC investigations-no charge
Asst. Attorney General—No Charge
Secretary of Defense—Cabinet—Pardoned
Asst. Sec. Of Defense—Guilty--to Prison
Secretary of Labor—Cabinet—Not Guilty
Secretary of Interior—Cabinet—Guilty—fined
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty
National Security Agency--Director----Cabinet—Guilty—Pardoned
National Security Agency—Director---Cabinet---Resigned
Asst. Secretary of Navy—--Guilty—Fined
Dep. Secretary of Air Force-Guilty—Fined
Director of CIA—Cabinet—Died during investigation
Asst. Director of CIA—Guilty—Fined
Director of HUD—Cabinet--Pled Fifth
Asst. Director of HUD—Guilty
Director of Superfund—Guilty—to Prison
Director of FAA—Guilty-Fined
Director of NASA-Guilty—Fined
Special Asst to President—Guilty
Communications Director for President—Guilty
EPA Administrator—Resigned
Asst. Secretary of State—Guilty

9 Cabinet Members—

REAGANGATES (32)

Illwind-gate (biggie)
Superfund-gate
Hud
Wed-Tech
Interior
Labor
Oval Office
Lt Colonel
Iran-Contra
Basement
Faa
Nasa
Pentagon
Korea
S & L (folks! I think we hit the jackpot—come and get it the vaults are unguarded)
Epa
Postal
Agriculture
Hhs
Home loan
Veterans
Fema
Legal Services
Civil Rights
Transportation
Product Safety
Economic Development
Synthetic Fuels
Social Security
Land Management
Osha
Cia

Sources—
Haynes Johnson book “Sleepwalking”
“When The Pentagon Was For Sale”—Andy Pasztor—(awesome list of criminals)
2 books titled “Scandals”
“The Clothes Lost The Emperor”-Paul Slansky (day by day chronology of 1980’s)
“Stealing From America”—
“Landslide”-Jane Mayer & Doyle McManus

Nathan Miller book states 233 were investigated
Haynes Johnson states 138 were --charged--indicted--found guilty -- investigated

p.s.—Newt and Gang spent $110,000,000-(GAO number) on Hearings and Investigations on Clinton
and one—(yes 1) person working for President Clinton was Found Guilty of a Felony. Evil man took few trips to ball games , etc. No quid pro quo per OIC –Pals doing what they had done for years—take pal to events. Pled guilty for did not have finances to fight the government and Smaltzsmear. His boss fought 37 such charges and was found not guilty on each charge.

I would appreciate anyone correcting what I write. I try to be honest but do make errors.

Clarence Swinney
Political Historian
Lifeaholics of America—president
Burlington nc
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the ammo Posted by: marid
US aristocracy does not want to shut down the border!
Posted by: channing on Dec 7, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Phil Agre: "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy"

Aristocratic-Dependency as both a mind-set and social-infrastructure is an extremely valuable insight with solid examples in many areas of society, but the "illegal immigration" issue is not one of them, at least not in the way the author interprets it here.

There really are between 13 and 19 million people here with no papers, SSI numbers, birth records or "Constitution Tests", all from one country. If these people were Iraqi's, you might understand the reasons for it under current conditions. These are not however from a war-torn or tsunami-stricken country, they're from a peaceful but somewhat less prosperous Mexico. If they were from China or Russia it would be called an "invasion", and the people fighting it wouldn't be labeled "racists".

I have close family living in four different cities across the US, and all of them have observed an influx of undocumented Mexicans over the past few years. We've always had Mexicans here, though, so what's the difference now?

Millions of Mexicans legally immigrated here. They learned the Constitution, the laws, integrated with communities and generally prospered along with the other several hundred ethnic groups living here. This undocumented group differs however, and perhaps it has something to do with the "process of public documentation", the above board "formality" which requires Reading and Testing on the Constitution and other common Laws, perhaps it's as simple as being honest with your fellow man?

The US currently legalizes 1,000,000 immigrants every year, maintaining a total US population of 300,000,000. This must be divided up according to priorities that include Humanitarian/Catastrophic Relief, Diplomatic/Political Persecution, Marriages,and those legally waiting in line. All of these people go through the hoops, and history shows all groups fully integrate by the 2-3rd generation.

This situation is different, and this is where the author is off-cue. The "aristocratic interests" have combined NAFTA with a deliberate avoidance of the illegal border crossings by both failing to secure the border and failing to prosecute the illegal employers. The last thing the aristocracy wants is for the border to shut down: Cheap, unquestioning, undocumented labor is sooo damn profitable!

I believe the actual reason right-wingers from red-states, in their usual aristocratic mode, use this issue are:

1. It is "passionate" and making "passionate friends" on a single issue at a time when they don't have many substantive issues... they know they really can't run a modern government, so, like abortion and euthanasia, they "ride" it;

2. They know they're not really going to threaten the realaristocracy by pushing the issue since "humanitarian" concerns preclude sudden or drastic measures or changes;

3. Illegal border crossing is a real, substantive and national issue when the number involved in this one group is roughly the equivalent of the population of New York City, all here, without any legal documents.

Americans will need to reach a consensus on two issues:

1. The Total Desired Population of the US: 300, 400, 500 million?

2. The possibility of adopting Mexico as our 51st State. Full legal integration may be worth the effort?

What is Unconstitutional and Undebatable however, is No One is above the Law, including both Presidents and Mexicans all the same! The author of this article attacked this issue without mentioning laws, and at the same time didn't seem to notice that the US aristocracy doesn't want the border closed or erased because like the global drug market, "illegal" makes it all work out just fine, and oh ...soo damn profitable!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments better than article
Posted by: daw13 on Dec 7, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which is thrilling to perceive. Also depressing. Lots of bright people, with real insight can't get published on the left. Except as commentors.

Nevertheless.... Thanks alternet for making this forum possible. Better than mainstream journalism and far better than nothing.

One comment on this issue, not thus far mentioned: Conservatives are selling fascism. Join our gang and you'll be protected. If you're white, Xtian and behave yourself, you'll be allowed to beat up and prosper a little at the expense of those who aren't. Reagan's unspoken message and why he got elected. Best deal you'll get. Dems are just the other puppet of the ruling class and can't offer you more than rhetoric.

Powerful message with too much truth behind it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Comments better than article Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Comments better than article Posted by: Lincoln fan
Left and Right
Posted by: Azraelsjudgement on Dec 7, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how the right and the left always claim the moral highground when in fact both sides are immoral, unconstitutional, controling, and steal money for their own agendas.
The right claims we need to follow their way for safety and the left claim we have to follow them for the greater good.
Both sides dont trust people to live their own lives or can be trusted with all their rights.
The left and the right both want control of the federal government to run things their way. How about we each run things our own way locally and strip the federal government of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Left and Right Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Left and Right Posted by: masterjc
As my IWW Grandmother used to say-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 7, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"People are just slave minded".

Depressing isn't it? What do we do about stupid people? Time for a Revolution! But that takes smart, strong, brave people.
Easier to just turn on the TV and have another beer...

I want to save Humanity-it is just People I can't stand-
John Lennon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMOCRACY??
Posted by: gellero on Dec 7, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people are so 'stupid' why would anyone favor democracy??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DEMOCRACY?? Posted by: Lincoln fan
The 'Wobblies'
Posted by: gellero on Dec 7, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is, for the stupid people out there.....the IWW.
They tried to put the 'vanguard' inthe Soviet Union........but the people got sick of the 'peoples elite' and threw them out. They were lucky they weren't executed, like in Romania.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You miss the point
Posted by: smalldave on Dec 7, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason Americans are so willing to blindly accept rule by an oligarchy is because of religion. They go to church and hear that god showers riches on the most godly so that they might rule over the earth in his name. To question rule by the rich is to question god's plan for the world. I don't believe this nonsense, but most Americans do. Until they wake up and start thinking for themselves, Americans are stuck with two corporatist parties that differ only on the extent to which government should intrude into people's most private matters. Good luck America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You miss the point Posted by: WitchyNy
liberals vs conservatives, or authoritarians vs. statists?
Posted by: James W. Harris on Dec 7, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both typical liberals as well as typical conservatives want to use the State to control our lives in almost every area.

Conservatives seem to want to do it in the name of God and tradition and morality and protecting big business.

Liberals seem to want to do it in the name of rationality and helping others and protecting people from themselves.

But it all ends up as the same thing, ever-increasing State control. And a massive State apparatus that power-loving authoritarians, whether Democrat or Republican, can use to further advance their agendas.

I think the real political fight has to be between pro-war, anti-civil liberties, pro-force authoritarians, versus anti-war, anti-State, tolerant civil libertarians.

Example: Supporters of Hillary or Rudy, versus supporters of Kucinich or Paul.

The John Birch Society, of all things, is better on the Bill of Rights and the Iraq War than Hillary Clinton or Rudy G. are. So is the Green Party. So are Libertarians.

I see some messy, but interesting alliances ahead, if the war is to be ended, civil liberties restored, and abusive State power reined in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everything has to start somewhere
Posted by: LawStud on Dec 7, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States was founded of course as a Republic, not a true democracy. The founders knew that the public en masse is too easily swayed by emotion and unperturbed by reason to ever be anything but cleverly manipulated and then of course, ruled. The aristocratic nature of the revolution was just the natural off shoot of Western history. The Magna Carta was the brain child of English nobles and its ideas have radiated down and out through the centuries. In the long-view of history, the American revolution was one of the more egalitarian since the fomentors were aristocratic yes, but low-level, ultimately backwoods, "colonial" aristocrats. That's the real lesson to be learned from the success of the American revolution, not the non-sequitor "duhh what would da founding faders do?" It's that the mantle of freedom can and should be carried by the average middle class joe, fomenting and radiating it further, putting the ultimate power in the hands of the last individual.
Of course today's "aristocrats" can't lay claim to anything close to the actual reality of aristocracy. Where is the military service? Where is the legitimate concern of duty? Where is the consumption of peanuts from a loved-ones stool? The modern rich are just that- rich. All they care about is money, and to a certain extent power but only the power to make more money. That veneer of "class" hierarchy is spotty at best at the present and the simply motivation of greed is never too far from the surface. As soon as the public legitimately realizes that the obsfucating issue of the "class war" for the window dressing that it is, (hopefully) they will then realize that they aren't bound by some bullshit social structure and stop letting the guilt of "station" keep them from getting their piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Capitalism is the mistaken belief ...
Posted by: Don Garb on Dec 7, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the worst people, operating under the worst of motives, will somehow end up doing good for us all."


It was a famous economist who said that, what was his name? I'm sure it will come to me if I can just find my hookah!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not to make too fine a point of it
Posted by: CharliePatton on Dec 7, 2007 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but you slander true conservatives when you refer to today's Republican Party as "conservative."

The Republican Party is anything but conservative.

Remember that Barry Goldwater's wife said--and I quote--"He [Goldwater] hated it that the right-wing zealots took over the party," she said. "Barry hated the right wing."

Richard Nixon was not a conservative-he was a right-wing extremist/corporatist.

Ronald Reagan was not a conservative--he was a radical right-wing fascist.

George Herbert Walker Bush is not conservative--he is a radical right-wing fascist.

Bill Clinton is neither liberal or conservative--he's a radical right-wing fascist (as are all so-called "Reagan Democrats").

George Walker Bush is not a conservative--he is radical right-wing fascist.

Dick Cheney is not conservative--he's a radical right-wing fascist.

The list is endless.

The Republican Party hasn't been conservative since the 1964 Republican Convention, when the right-wing took control of the party to use government to enforce private morality and enthrone corporate America at the expense of the middle-class.

More to the point, Republicans must resort to marketing tricks to "sell" their ideas, because, as the Republicans are well aware, their policy's and idea's are extremely unpopular with the American people.

It's interesting to note that while Americans consistently showed disapproval of Reagan's policies in the opinion polls, they continued to re-elect that lying old extremist fascist coot/bastard.

That's the triumph of marketing over reason--and Americans, it appears, have bought it hook, line and sinker.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Labels are not arguments
Posted by: Upset on Dec 7, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When someone adopts a conservative position, why is it always automatically labelled as irrational? Isn't this practice irrational?
There are arguments on both sides. Don't they deserve to be listened to and judged?
I hate this tendency to rash judgement. Slow down -- calling an adversary stupid is not an argument it is a label.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]