Will MoveOn.org Move On? I Hope So.

I'm hoping Senator Obama wins the presidency tomorrow night. My hopes lie not in the fact that I see Obama leading this country in the right, more humanistic direction. Nor do they lie in the belief that his plan to cut taxes on the middle class will help stimulate the economy. No, I've come to terms with these and other issues weeks ago. Tonight the main reason I want Senator Obama to win tomorrow is so that MoveOn.org stops badgering me with incessant emails and phone calls.

I was once a proud member of the online community, signing petitions and sending them to my friends in emails. I even went so far as to encourage others to join. However once the primaries began I (an Obama supporter since day one and an extremely liberal individual) soon grew increasingly weary of the constant emails and plugs for money. Then as the bid for the White House drew closer to its conclusion, my weariness turned to annoyance as MoveOn members badgered me over the phone, practically forcing me to volunteer (apparently "maybe" in MoveOn's dictionary means "yes"). If this was not enough, I continually receive emails to this day asking for money or my time to ensure that Barack Obama wins the White House. I can't take it anymore!

Still you might be wondering why I'm upset. Shouldn't I enjoy their efforts since they're campaigning for my candidate? The answer: yes, but mostly no. Let me explain.

I love the fact that MoveOn has rallied so much support and grassroots activity for this election. Kudos lads. It's because of efforts by MoveOn members and other organizations that we're going to have a high voter turn-out this election with citizens certainly being more well-informed than they were last time around. Yet from here my enjoyment ceases and falls into a state of contemplation.

Given MoveOn's fervent support for Obama I can't help but wonder what they will do once he goes into office. Keeping in mind that MoveOn has always been a Democratic Party linked organization, its unsurprising that underneath their campaign for more citizen participation in government lies an agenda to usurp Republicans from positions of power. This has probably gone largely unnoticed because we've had a Republican president for the last 8 years, almost the entirety of MoveOn's existence. But once he is sworn into office, will they give Obama the same treatment they gave Bush?

I mean lets be realistic. It's highly unlikely Obama will meet expectations. Anyone who thinks the second he swears in the country will change for the better is either on cocaine or a moron. On top of this, Obama will need time and support to organize his plans and move them forward, after which it will probably take at least a full term before we start to notice the affects. All the while business, citizens, and congressman will surely get disgruntled about a multitude of things and President Obama will come under fire. Which then begs the question: Will MoveOn continue down its former path of citizen participation and critical evaluation of the government, or will it become Obama's core support group?

I'm sorry to say but given their conduct in the last 5 months, I think the answer is puppet. It's quiet clear to me that MoveOn has transformed into nothing but a front for one party/individual, to the point that I don't know if I can stay a member of the organization. The essence of MoveOn was change, change in the way citizens speak out against government policies and reach out to Congress. With Obama in office I can't see MoveOn being so aggressive, largely due to the fact that they put so much time and effort into getting him there. Thus, there is no other option but for them to become a front through which the Obama administration can spread their message. Will there still be petitions? Yes, I'm positive MoveOn will still have some petitions. Yet they certainly won't have any criticizing Obama, and by failing to do so they will help to silence the democracy they've tried to foster.

Some one call Jim Henson. I found him a new puppet.

Obama and Marx

Upon reading my local newspaper I came across an article which said that Obama was a socialistic politician who reads too much Karl Marx. I couldn't help but think to myself, "Are you serious!?" I ask you dear reader, do you agree with his statement?

Whether you do or not let me get something straight: Obama is not Socialist nor is he Marxist.

For starters we must remember that while all marxists are socialists but not all socialists are marxists. Marxists believe in the ideas outlined by German philosopher Karl Marx and his partner Fredrick Engels, mainly the concept of historical materialism and the belief that the working class will overthrow the oppressors of business and society in order to move towards a utopian state of communism. In order to reach communism, which Marx said would take over fifty years, marxists believe society must make the transition from democracy to socialism, then to communism. Hence marxists are socialistic. On the other hand, all socialists are not marxists. The idea of socialism had been around before the time of Marx. In addition while many socialists at the time did agree that society needed to be radically altered, some socialists did not believe in the violence advocated by communist parties while other socialist groups did not feel that their even had to be a radical shift in power, just a shift in policies via democratic voting.

Socialism like many other ideologies has changed over the years and has many different branches, similar to the various forms of conservatism under the Republican banner. However regardless of form, all flavors of socialism support the belief that capitalism has led to the exploitation of millions and the development of an unequal society in which the view possess all the wealth.

The Democratic Socialists of America represent one form of socialism which many individuals across the nation support or would support if they knew anything about the organization. The DSA supports selective nationalization of key industries in a mixed economy (one which has privately and state owned enterprises). This means that the government would only have control over things such as hospitals, roads, schools, banks, and energy sources. In addition DSA believes along with a mixed economy their must be tax-funded welfare programs to ensure society is as healthy as possible. Socialism, as Debbs once eluded to, is a more humane less selfish form of government.

Does any of this sound like Obama's plans for the nation? No. It doesn't. He certainly doesn't advocate revolution for starters. His health plan only wants to drive down costs or/and make care available for lower income families. His economic plan would stimulate growth via taxes, the building of green technologies and infrastructure, and curbing wasteful spending (like the war in Iraq). He wants to get rid of lobbyists in Washington and make sure America talks first and shoots later. I don't see anything socialist, let alone marxist, in his ideas. Unless there is a correlation between taxing the wealthy and armed revoultion by workers that I'm missing...

All this aside and simply put the gentleman who wrote the column, like many ultra conservatives, have simply begun branding the "S word" on Obama as a last ditch effort so steal votes away from him and into the arms of McCain. This may have worked a few decades ago during the Cold War, but the American people are wise enough to realize that just like socialism does not mean marxism, Obama doesn't either.

Go out and vote on November 4th based not on what radical columnists tell you to think, but by what your own objective investigations compel you to do.

--Mr. FDR


More information about DSA can be found here: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

A Second Bill of Rights

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, from his 1944 State of the Union address

It would appear our longest serving President was on to something before his untimely and unfortunate death. Reading the above quote, it would also be funny to consider that many of the points FDR made are now major concerns for the American public, that is if it wasn't so sad. Imagine our country if we would have adopted, politically (as FDR wanted it), a second credo or Bill of Rights striving towards all of the aforementioned goals. What would our country be like?

Would we still have poverty on the scale we do? Would we be suffering from our current situation on Wall Street and in the housing market? Would proper health care cost so much?

It's hard to say, and it's even more difficult to defend a position against these points if you're one of the lucky ones in this country not suffering from poverty, unplayable medical bills, or any one of societies many ills.

Think about it. It's easy for one to stand up and say governmental policies helping the less fortunate at the expense of the wealthy are bullshit, especially if you're one of the wealthy. Yet one must remember that the current source of their wealth is the governmental system that outlined the laws and rules that in effect allowed one to create their wealth. The wealthy owes as much to the poor and government as they do to their own hard work, in most cases maybe even more.

All around the world people are realizing that if we are going to make this world a great place for our kids we're going to have to do it together, hand-in-hand, no matter what the cost. This isn't about traditional values, explanations for markets, or "having the right to keep what's mine." This is about looking around your surroundings and understanding that we have just as much of a responsibility to our neighbors as we do to our family.

In light of this I everyone who reads this post to please consider what the above quote really means. However I want you to do so not as a Socialist, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, or any other philosophy. No, instead take the time to consider FDR's points as a human first. When you're done, consider the world around you from that same perspective of humanity. Finally, think about what it would be like if you were not living in your current socio-economic position. If you do this I promise you that when it's all said and done, you will see what we as a nation need to do.

Society, it's time for a new deal. Are you with me?

Third Party Rising

As the government attempts to pass a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street through Congress, some independents are surely looking back on the last eight years and asking themselves why we don't have stronger third parties in this country. Spanning even beyond the G.W. Bush presidency, it isn't outlandish to state that both Republicans and Democrats have failed us multiple times since the passage of Reagan's absurd "trickle-down" economic plan, and yet those on the outer fringes of the political spectrum are still waiting for more citizens to take up the third party cause. Why?

One reason could be the fact that many of our fellow citizens are baby-boomers, thus products of not only their parents opinions due to the first Red Scare, but a cold war that brainwashed them into thinking that any non-mainstream party might be made up of Soviet agents hell bent on destroying the American way of life. These same baby-boomers had children, whom they raised in a manner that undoubtedly attributed to their political leanings, and as a result the wicked cycle of misunderstanding continued with the donkeys and elephants of politics gaining a firmer hold on Congress at the expense of dissident parties. Another reason for the lack of third party participation may merely be public consent. Controversial journalist Arianna Huffington hit the nail on the head in her 2000 book How To Overthrow The Government when she said that:

"Our political landscape is so littered with duplicity and deceit, we've actually come to expect our leaders to lie. What once would have shocked us now barely registers. We've become inured to wrongdoing. So politicians mangle the truth--call it "spin"--and the public lets it slide, too numb to care."

Who reading the above statement would not agree with this assessment to some degree? We all know someone who doesn't care about politics, no matter how negatively it affects them. Still the last eight years have shown that the tide of apathy is changing, and just how we realized taking cover under a desk wouldn't save us from a nuclear attack, many citizens are finally starting to see the potential third parties possess.

Voters across the nation are starting to ask more difficult questions of their candidates, seeking answers to problems that differ from the standard Democrat/Republican response. Questions about the economy, protection of jobs, state funded education, and universal health care are taking precedence in this election. Presidential nominees and Congress are quickly realizing that the American public are starting to look for a departure from mainstream Washington and if they don't change their image, they could see new faces on the Senate floor.

In addition, Libertarian Bob Barr and radical Republican Ron Paul have both enjoyed a surprising amount of support in this years presidential election, with the latter being particularly popular amongst college students. Given both candidates libertarian stances, their success can be seen as further proof that the public is slowly shifting away from mainstream political thought and the endless woes that accompany it. This news should be greeted with satisfaction and excitement by third party voters who have longed to see a greater representation of ideas in Congress, but many will feel that it's too late with the damage done by lobby-influenced, big-money politics being too great to overcome. Thankfully though it appears many young Americans feel it doesn't have to be this way.

This is because regardless of what happens in this election, the young electorates of this nation realize they are going to take part in a unique opportunity over the next four years to begin exploring new political avenues. We see it's quite evident that the current path is damaged and one way we are going to find brighter skies is to look beyond this election and continue to consider the value of third parties in dealing with future problems. From talking to fellow citizens I see that interest in ideas of Barr and Paul won’t stop after November 4th. A quick trip around the web shows that more people will still be asking new questions after someone is voted into the White House, knowing that just because change is being promised doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. This all means that finally a further willingness to move past the stereo-types and misconceptions of what third parties represent is becoming evident.

As the questions asked of our government get more complex, those offering different solutions will continue to grow and though one may not always agree with what they say, that doesn't mean they can't help point this country in the right direction. If it keeps up only good can come from it, as this nation will soon become fully comfortable with “other” political ideas that can help to create the real democratic, multi-party process we crave.