[Article] How To Take Back America

dahamsta

How To Take Back America

by Thom Hartmann

Marching in the streets is important work, but wouldn't we have greater success if we also took control of the United States government?

It's vital to point out right-wing-slanted reporting in the corporate media, but isn't it also important to seize enough political power in Washington to enforce anti-trust laws to break up media monopolies?

And how are progressives - most standing on the outside of government, looking in - to deal with oil wars, endemic corporate cronyism, slashed environmental regulations, corporate-controlled voting machines, the devastation of America's natural areas, the fouling of our air and waters, and an administration that daily gives the pharma, HMO, banking, and insurance industries whatever they want regardless of how many people are harmed?

This lack of political power is a crisis others have faced before. We should learn from their experience.

After the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, a similar crisis faced a loose coalition of gun lovers, abortion foes, southern segregationists, Ayn Rand libertarians, proto-Moonies, and those who feared immigration within and communism without would destroy the America they loved. Each of these various groups had tried their own "direct action" tactics, from demonstrations to pamphleteering to organizing to fielding candidates. None had succeeded in gaining mainstream recognition or affecting American political processes. If anything, their efforts instead had led to their being branded as special interest or fringe groups, which further diminished their political power.

So the conservatives decided not to get angry, but to get power.

Led by Joseph Coors and a handful of other ultra-rich funders, they decided the only way to seize control of the American political agenda was to infiltrate and take over one of the two national political parties, using their own think tanks like the Coors-funded Heritage Foundation to mold public opinion along the way. Now they regularly get their spokespeople on radio and television talk shows and newscasts, and write a steady stream of daily op-ed pieces for national newspapers. They launched an aggressive takeover of Dwight Eisenhower's "moderate" Republican Party, opening up the "big tent" to invite in groups that had previously been considered on the fringe. Archconservative neo-Christians who argue the Bible should replace the Constitution even funded the startup of a corporation to manufacture computer-controlled voting machines, which are now installed across the nation. And Reverend Moon took over The Washington Times newspaper and UPI.

[...]

I'm particularly interested in people's reaction to this. There are obvious reminders of Michael Moore's assertions in "Stupid White People" here, about the necessity for people to start taking the initiative, and although there is a certain amount of (probably quite deserved) scepticism about Moore of late - he's his own worst enemy at times - they're both really just reiterating what people have been saying for years: If you want change, you're going to have to get your hands dirty.

Personally speaking, politics quite frankly bored the arse off me until I got involved in IrelandOffline, and because I've only being following political matters since then - albeit badly - I'll be the first to admit that I'm pretty naive about it. However I've watched the arena carefully from afar over these past two years, and I find it more fascinating by the day. These days I flick /to/ televised Dáil committees, rather than from them. It's quite odd.

Of course, I still regularly make a fool out of myself here, and I often have to bite my lip in order to stop making it even worse, but then sometimes I wonder if it really matters anyway. We're just talking, and although we may be clearing things in our own head, are we actually changing anything? And that's why I'm interested in this topic -- is anyone here actually going to try and change anything? Who's running for local election next year?

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by dahamsta
but then sometimes I wonder if it really matters anyway. We're just talking, and although we may be clearing things in our own head, are we actually changing anything?

At the risk of going offtopic on the very first reply, may I address this point rather than the actual content of the article which brought this about.

My perspective is that change is the second step, not the first. The first step is that people should become (ideally by choice) more aware and educated about political events. It takes more than a nightly 30 min news bulletin and/or a peruse of your fave broadsheet or tabloid to be decently informed about most issues, and (IMHO) it requires thought and consideration to be able to form a proper opinion.

The more people discuss politics, the more they are aware of it. The more they are aware of the reality, the less likely they are to be a blind "vote for De Partee" body, and more inclined to vote for what they believe in.

I have one political allegiance which supercedes all others, and that is to myself. If that means switching the party I vote for in every election, then so be it - I am voting for the best future I can get. If I see no candidate which is worthy of my vote, I wont give it to any.

Will I change the world, the nation, or even the local government? No - almost definitely not. However, the more people who are encouraged to discuss politics, the more likely it is there will be more like me. Ultimately, conscientious voters will hopefully reach a critical mass, at which point, political systems will have no option but to change, as traditional allegiances and "party strongholds" become weaker, and parties realise that it is their current stance, and not their name or vague general ideals that people are voting for.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

"Most philospophers debate about the state of affairs in the world today; the point is to change it."

Anyone want to guess who that is from?

bonkey

Who cares who its from...change without proper forethought, discussion, and all the rest of it is most definitely not the point.

The point is to change it "for the better", and until we can agree on what that is, all there is to do is figure that out.....

which is where the discussion comes in. The more people who are educated about the issues and willing to discuss them, the more likely it is that a rational solution can be agreed upon and attempted.

jc