I find it amazing that almost all of the conditions that Eric mentions above were either incipient or evident during the last presidential election yet conservatives were unfazed in their support of Bush. Back then if you’d talk to a conservative about; America’s ruined reputation in the world; destroying human rights; death of American servicemen; death of thousands of innocent people – the conservative proudly said ‘I don’t care’ and blindly supported Bush as though it was treason no to.
‘I support my president against all enemies, foreign and domestic, no matter what anyone says. You shouldn’t question the president when the nation is at war.’
But now, a Republican has been exposed as a homosexual!
‘What!??!?! That’s totally unacceptable! What a disgrace! I’ll never vote for any party that has or ever had a fag in it!’’
For many (not all, but many) there is no other measuring stick.
Pathetic.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at October 30, 2006 06:46 PM
By conservative I mean ‘neocon’ (which is a phrase I don’t like - how can you be ‘new’ about being ‘old’).
And I’m not disparaging all conservatives, just those conservatives who are more obsessed about gay sex than 99% of gay people.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at October 30, 2006 07:07 PM
Agreed D. Canuck…Despite all the factors going against the republicans…I don’t anticipate any major changes happening in the Congress…I would be extremely surprised if Democrats manage to gain a majority in either house….
Posted by williamwallace at October 30, 2006 07:17 PM
“(Eric Margolis is a life-long Republican, who feels that his party has left him.)”
I thought you lived in Canada. So I guess you are PC or what ever their new name is.
I read your articles all the time and I usally agree with you 98% of the time, but if you are so “American”, go live there. sorry, just my 2 cents.
Posted by WhoFan at October 30, 2006 08:42 PM
“And I’m not disparaging all conservatives, just those conservatives who are more obsessed about gay sex than 99% of gay people.”
I could not agree more. Yet this ineffectual Congress in the last several months has decided to fruitlessly pursue this and other divisive yet practically useless issues in an attempt to bring their base to the polls. So desparate are the Republicans that they have only recently voted on the following issues;
- Repeal of the Estate tax (which only affects devised estates of over $2 million!!)
- ‘Defense of marriage’ to be amended into the constitution. (A bar on the last frontier of civil rights in this country(,
- An amendment to the U.S Constitution to prevent flag burning (this amendment was prompted by Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham, whose other notable contribution to American political life was to act as the most egregious cartoon for corruption in recent history…)
Incidentally, every single on of these issues are Republican wedge issues that affect virtually no one, and were absolutely certain to not pass muster in the house. Yet the Republican leadership brought them up anyway. Aside from Congress’s ‘rubber stamp’ rule, this, along with billions of dollars in pork barrel highway legislation, an attempt to ‘tier’ the internet to favor large corporations, and a bogus resolution to include Iraq in the “War on Terror,’ are the high points of one of the most ridiculous congresses in recent history.
Something’s gotta give.
Posted by chatman at October 30, 2006 08:58 PM
Trouble is, the average voter (in US or elsewhere) doesn’t understand all the issues at play and may not care – he just wants to see the US as #1, somehow, some way. One of the problems with a democratic system – a lot of idiots have an equal right to vote. For the most part, all they see are the local ads in their hometown and identify themselves with the local representative who may have a lock on a particular local issue that interests everyone there. There is no sure sign that Democratic candidates are any smarter or any better able to solve the mess, especially in some electoral districts (probably true) so, rather than risk it – they’ll vote for the tried and true. Throwing the rascals out under these conditions is not all that easy. Hopefully, they’ll thin the ranks though. Besides – Bush and all of HIS rascals are still around for 2 more years. But I agree with Eric’s central theme – they’ve done more harm in 6 years than others have done in 2 centuries. Too bad other countries in the world can’t go in and bring about “regime change”.
Posted by restless at October 30, 2006 10:52 PM
I also think it is unlikely much will change. The American media is controlled by Republicans not only at the policy level but the ownership level. A recent university study suggests Fox News really does manage to shift opinion. Most individuals do not only not know the facts, they don’t know that they don’t know…. so they can’t find out the truth. In the end, corruption brings down all governments, eventually.
Posted by doppleganger at October 30, 2006 10:56 PM
Issues that have lately been keeping me awake at night.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sawyer29oct29,0,3390725.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
In view of the above article, both parties in Congress have passed the Iran Freedom Support Act paving the road towards aggression on Iran. The parties and as an extension the people will be complicit in this immoral act of war.
This, as the article states is very reminiscent of The Iraq Liberation Act, which was the prelude to aggression, and invasion of Iraq and the rest, as we all know is history.
The common denominator to passage of both of the above events in Congress was and is around the mid-term elections.
The majority of the Republicans currently are warmongers and the Democrats for the sake of political expediency in the current environment have once again abdicated their responsibility to provide effective opposition to the passage of this act.
EM’s title for the week “ THROW THE RASCALS OUT “ and replace them with what- more rascals. Both partieshave been complicit in undermining democratic institutions for a very long.
Previous posters have mentioned reasons, from corporatization of government, concentration of media, dumbing down of the electorate, special interest groups,big money and many other concomitant factors are the leading reasons today outlining the fact that neither party as a whole endeavours to serve the public that elected them.
umrikkka needs an overhaul of its electoral system, perhaps a parliamentary one or at least some sort of a multi party system where the monopoly of the two status quo parties is broken.
In a diverse country representation from other groups may be beneficial as to providing some effective checks and balances. As well a party in power would be moderated as to the goals and objectives it wants to achieve.
There will of course be resistance to any change from entrenched parties but failing some sort of change or reform the cycle of rascals replacing the ones being thrown out will be no better.
Posted by oldfan at October 31, 2006 05:30 PM
I agree that there isn’t much reason to hope for any change. Roughly fifty percent of the electorate won’t vote no matter what. Among the people who do vote the Republicans have a committed base. With regard to Iraq, everyone knows it’s a disaster but as long as no one says as much then no one is accountable.
At some point there will be a changing of the guard. Maybe now, maybe later. Whenever it happens the Democrats will be accused of stabbing America in the back and “losing Iraq.” It’s all about the blame game now.
Posted by applsoss at October 31, 2006 06:05 PM
American politics is not really worth losing sleep over, oldfan. You can’t control what happens there any more than they can control what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, North Korea or elsewhere. Sounds about even to me - unless you’re really into the regime change thing…..
Posted by restless at October 31, 2006 07:57 PM
Actually, doppelganger, if you get beyond Fox News, Washington Times, Christian Science Monitor and a few others, the majority of news outlets in the US tend to be rather anti-Republican, or at least anti-Bush. Tune in to any right-wing blog or website and you’ll hear a chorus of complaints about the overwhelmingly ‘left-wing’ mainstream media. Having said that, American media still tends to be rather nationalistic - God Bless America and all that (like many other countries), but it isn’t necessarily conservative or Republican in nature. That doesn’t mean voters will automatically vote against the Republicans — there are a host of factors, many of them very local or parochial which are at play there. The Democrats don’t hold all the answers by any means and I can understand some concerns about them holding power again - it will take a few years (generation?) for Americans to understand and accept their new place in the world now that their empire has collapsed in flames around them. This is a roller coaster — just hang on and enjoy the ride.
Posted by restless at October 31, 2006 08:14 PM
I believe Mr.Margolis is from NYC. I’ve been reading him in the Toronto Sun since the 1980s. I assume he’s been living in Canada for quite some time now. To deport him simply because he’s American doesn’t make much sense. Especially when he’s been the most interesting political writer in this country for 20 odd years.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at November 1, 2006 08:16 AM
The funny thing about US voters is that they don’t trust their politicians on domestic issues, yet give them carte blanche on international matters because they are American, not foreigners. It’s amazing to see how anti-french Americans still are, even though the french were right about Iraq! Definitely the “We’re #1” idea has a hand in this ugly and arrogant nationalism.
At the same time we need to be careful not to oversimplify. American voters are very similar to people in other western nations. Even in Canada the majority of voters are only concerned with domestic affairs because they effect their lives directly. When it comes to international matters they’ll simply believe what they are told to believe by the politicians and media.
An even better example is the British. Supposedly they opposed the Iraq war but when the time came to remove the Blair government they reelected it. Why? because they really didn’t care about Iraq at all(except to seem to oppose the war because it made them appear to care). Unfortunately some anglo-arabs put the war at top priority and when the British public gave its blessing to the war by reelecting the warmonger then all citizens became targets - not just Blair - and two months later you had the London bombings.
Yet in Canada we believe these fairy tale reasons for being in Afganistan. No one even attempts to frame the issue in the sense that by being there we are making all Canadians terrorist targets. In that light we’d be out of Afganistan by Christmas! Still Bush has done such a good selling job and most people now believe his manichean good vs evil vision that most assume we’re targets anyway. Right or wrong there is a difference between being an innocent victim and a legitimate target. Everything we’ve done since 9/11 has moved us to the latter position.
Yes 50% of Americans don’t vote. How many in Canada don’t? 40%? If everyone who didn’t vote the last election had voted Green then the Green Party would have swept parliament. Meanwhile 90% voted in the Palestinian elections and we’ve proceeded to destroy the government they elected - with barely a peep of public protest.
Bottomline: US citizens do not have a monopoly on ignorance and hypocrisy. We(other westerners) like to pick on them as a pathetic way of building ourselves up. You don’t have to be American to be apathetic.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at November 1, 2006 08:42 AM
There are some differences.
Yes, voter turnout is roughly comparable. But Afghanistan is less of a political issue in Canada not so much because we’ve been sold but because: (1) we don’t have a lot of troops over there (around 2,300) so it doesn’t seem like a big issue to a lot of people; and, more importantly, (2) there is a sense that nothing can be done through the democratic process. The Greens aren’t going to win. The NDP are ridiculed in the unabashedly left-wing Toronto Star as chickens. And the Liberals were the ones who got us into Afghanistan in the first place. So there is no chance of the policy changing. Harper has said he can’t conceive of Canada pulling out of Afghanistan before 2009. And looking at the political landscape people just feel they have to accept that. It’s not really ignorance I think as a feeling of helplessness. Not a feeling I share, but one I can understand.
Something similar in Britain. Domestically people were happy with the job Blair was doing. And again, if they weren’t happy about Iraq (and polls suggest they weren’t) what were they going to do about it? Vote Tory?
In the US I think there is more of a choice. Not a lot of choice, but a bit. And even if there wasn’t, you would think their elections would be some kind of “referendum on Bush”, as the media claim. If they are, that must tell us something. Nor can Bush claim anything like the domestic record Blair has had in Britain.
In any democracy the voters are ultimately responsible (to blame) for their leaders. I guess I would say I think American voters are slightly more blameworthy in that their choices have been worse.
Posted by applsoss at November 1, 2006 09:28 AM
As I look at the sweep of history, I see that there will be no fundamental difference in U.S. foreign policy (and little in domestic policy) whether it be Democrats or Republicans in office. The anti-Bush movement we are seeing in the U.S. is simply an effect of internecine warfare between the few groups of people whose hands are on the levers of power, i.e. corporate executives of U.S. big business interests - the nobility of the America. Each of the groups tries to generate popular support for their own rise to government by riding the failings of the others, in this case the failed war in Iraq. However much the people in these groups want the power for themselves, there is little difference in the basic policy approaches between them. It is essentially no different than any succession struggle between elite groups as seen in the days of the Roman empire or the European middle ages. The nobility may fight amongst themselves and try to garner public support for their effors, but their world view is essentially united.
In the end, I view U.S. policy as being fundamentally dictated by two needs, one practical and one psychological. These are: the need to consume energy, particularly fossil fuels; and the need to “be the big dog on the block”. The only difference I perceive between the Democrats and the Republicans (or the Liberals and Conservative in Canada for that matter) is that the latter are also heavily influenced by fundamentalist Christian dogmatism. The world is running out of fossil fuels and the struggle to control the remaining reserves is why the U.S. is in the Middle East to begin with. This will not change with a change in government in the U.S. Other western nations, and probably most nations generally, are no better; they simply have less capacity to project power to get what they want.
I think that the next 50 years will bring a series of world wars (or one long world war) that will be catalyzed by collapsing western economies. It has probably already started. With the disappearance of fossils fuels, people in North America and Europe will begin to suffer tremendously as their infrastructures collapse and mass starvation starts to occur. This will provide the popular support for their governments to attack other countries for control of resources, since people like to blame others for the misery they inflict on themselves. This will be ultimately self-defeating as it will simply create more devastation and suffering, both in Western nations and in the nations ravaged for their resources (e.g. Iraq).
During this period of collapse, we will see an incresing amount of internal unrest and development of local energy solutions and lcoalized economies in the Western world. Both the unrest and the local solutions will challenge the authority of exisitng power groups and will be vehemently opposed by the power groups. Repressive domestic laws will be put in place to legitamize the suppression of unrest and the prevention of local solutions. In the U.S., it won’t matter whether the government is Democratic or Republican. In Canada, it won’t matter if the government is Conservative or Liberal. People in power do not like to give up that power. As events and circumstances force such a change, those in power resort to more and more violent methods of retaining that power, until the whole power structure collapses and something else takes its place, and the cycle starts again.
I hope I am wrong.
Posted by Weary at November 1, 2006 12:40 PM
That’s pretty bleak.
Not that I disagree. I suspect a lot of people have the same outlook. Which helps explain the popularity of all the Rapture books, etc.
Posted by applsoss at November 1, 2006 01:24 PM
Weary,
You are a beacon of hope!
DCanuck
Beacon of Sarcasm
Posted by D. Canuck at November 1, 2006 01:35 PM
I know it’s unrelated to world affairs, but I just gottta rant. In Vancouver a 20-year-old guy gets on a bus. He’s drunk and fifty cents short of the fare. The senior citizen driver tells him to pay up. The 20-year-old assaulted the driver into unconsciousness.
Yesterday it went to court. The young man is facing his second conviction for assault this month. The judge said he is ‘going to send a message’ to all the thugs out there and sentenced the assaulter to… one day in jail.
Sorry for being so far off topic, but I feel like my head is going to explode.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=a2ca4643-1443-459f-b027-0917131b85c3&k=78494
DCanuck
Nascent Vigilante
Posted by D. Canuck at November 1, 2006 03:53 PM
“Yesterday it went to court. The young man is facing his second conviction for assault this month. The judge said he is ‘going to send a message’ to all the thugs out there and sentenced the assaulter to… one day in jail.”
Boudin (the victim) should sue the guy in a civil action for assault and battery. I don’t know about Canada, but the findings of a criminal court have no bearing on a civil verdict in this country. Sounds like the assaulter might be insolvent, but if Boudin can get a judgment against him, at least he can force a liquidation of the attackers assets, siezure of licensable property, and a garnishing of wages… Also, the standard of proof would be a lot lower in a civil trial; based on these facts, I have little doubt Boudin could prevail and get damages for the harm done to him.
Posted by chatman at November 1, 2006 04:28 PM
Upon reflection, this is really ridiculously small potatoes when compared to the injustice of the Air India Trial. For those who don’t know, back in the 1980’s an Air India flight was bombed out of the sky. The bomb was made and placed on the plane here in Canada. 329 people were killed.
The guy who made the bomb confessed and identified the main bomber, Ripudaman Singh Malik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
After twenty years, they were acquitted. If someone wrote this as fiction, they’d be ridiculed for outlandish absurd stupidity. So I guess one old man getting beaten for 50 cents is nothing to worry about.
And the guy who made the bomb that killed 329 people? He was sentenced to… five years, which works out to 5.5 days per person killed. When it comes to justice, we Canucks are the laughing stock of the world.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at November 1, 2006 06:43 PM
D. Canuck:
I don’t know why you find it amazing that Bush has been supported so rabidly by many U.S. citizens. Canada voted in a Conservative government despite knowing beforehand that the Conservatives were neo-cons as well. I understand that the Liberals were corrupt, but then so is every party that gets into power, some just hide it better. Canada has its fair share of rabid neo-cons as well. In fact, one Canadian I talked to during the attacks on Fallujah in Iraq went so far as to say that the “Fallujians need an object lesson”. The U.S. has no monopoly on this kind of attitude. What they have is greater destructive capacity in pursuing the ends of this attitude.
Posted by Weary at November 2, 2006 01:38 PM
Sorry DCanuck
I think the bus episode got to you, so I am going to take the liberty to paste this piece for a little fun.
Think before you vote.
While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by
a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at
the entrance.
“Welcome to heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems
there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts,
you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”
“No problem, just let me in,” says the man.
“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is
have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose
where to spend eternity.”
“Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,” says the
senator.
“I’m sorry, but we have our rules.”
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down,
down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of
a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front
of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him,
shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while
getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of
golf and then dine
on
lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a
good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time
that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a
hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St.
Peter is waiting for him.
“Now it’s time to visit heaven.”
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls
moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a
good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St.
Peter returns.
“Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now
choose your eternity.”
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: “Well, I would never
have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think
I
would be better off in hell.”
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to
hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a
barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends,
dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trashfalls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. “I
don’t understand,” stammers the senator. “Yesterday I was here and there
was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank
champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland
full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?”
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, “Yesterday we were
campaigning…… Today you voted.”
Posted by oldfan at November 3, 2006 06:52 PM
The rats, cockroaches are jumping ship in the droves.
These are utterly reprehensible creatures. No amount of castigation is enough for the likes of slime such as this, that infect the umrikkkan body politic at the moment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1939472,00.html
The elections up in the air, these ardent supporters of Bush promoting war and blooshed in the middle East on behalf of the zionist entity are beginning not only to distance themselves but are also becoming critics of his administration.
Amazing how these scoundrels turn on a dime.
Posted by oldfan at November 5, 2006 06:04 PM
I like that expression…. “scoundrels turning on a dime”. Describes these people suddenly developing a conscience, very well.
Opportunists, nothing more. Americans, nothing more.
Posted by Rampart at November 6, 2006 01:49 AM