The putative left has definitively prevailed in the social sphere and there is no end in sight for that. The ascendancy of the libertarian right has meant that traditional social mores are under constant attack with fewer and fewer influential defenders, and at least a major part of even the American “right” isn’t much concerned. Gay marriage, to cite the current watershed issue, is now widely accepted by the moneyed right and still only reliably taboo among the working class and less educated, déclassé right.

But. Where money is involved, on economics, regulation of private business and taxation issues the conservatives are routing the left as surely as the left is carrying the social battles. It isn’t really even a question of conservatism–any policies that protect or increase the wealth of the already wealthy, however non-traditional or even radical they may be, are brought on board by the right. Today’s right has no apparent significant reliable ideological moorings beyond wealth accumulation and concentration into as few hands as possible.

The establishment right has pretty much come around to the position that you may get gay married or smoke some pot without government interference, but at the same time we’ll steal your retirement, move your job to China, see that the bank can illegally foreclose you out of your home, give all your tax money away to criminal fraudsters who by the way are also our largest campaign contributors, oh and you’ll be put under microscopic total government surveillance and imprisoned or even killed without trial if that’s what we really want in the new police state we’ve created because dark Muslims booga booga. Actually the mainstream left is pretty onboard with all this bad stuff too. So just STFU hippies, marry your same sex partners, spark a bowl and don’t cause any trouble. OK?

This is short because the scam is a very, very simple one.

The beauty of initiating war is that among the conventional thinkers who dominate any society there can be no questioning or reappraisal of the wisdom or rationale for doing so. While the conflict is in the hot phase, you must be seen to “support the troops” which means not questioning the mission. Then later, nobody wants to hear their sons, brothers and friends have died for no good reason so retrospective judgments are off the table as well. Once the bombs start falling, the bullets start flying and the maimed victims and body bags start their glorious patriotic assembly line march home, you can call anyone questioning it “unpatriotic” and the charge will find traction. The more kids you can kill, the more sacrosanct the mission becomes. Is there any better way to poison a political opposition? And the more ridiculous and pointless the war, the better this works because then the opposition will be more likely to take the bait. You just have to get the initial sell done using whatever lies are necessary. Then you are set.

Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!

There is no serious argument against the premise that wealth disparities beyond some arbitrary point are destructive of societies and even eventually to the well being of the putative “winners”. One can look at objective data–there is a wealth of it to study–and come to a reasonable conclusion on more or less where that arbitrary point exists based on metrics having to do with societal health, broad educational and economic opportunity where meritocratic considerations outweigh the built in advantages of inherited wealth, the existence of a broad and viable middle class to fuel economic prosperity and many other factors I’m sure. There is also in the vicinity of that point, one where wealth concentration destroys even putatively democratic political systems as the political class becomes unduly influenced by a tiny demographic minority and the entire premise of democracy fails to apply any longer and government ceases to represent or serve the many but instead the few. And this point is a classic tipping point that inevitably becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop– the wealthy rig the rules of the economic game incrementally further and further in their favor until the situation becomes untenable and great general misery and poverty ensue and society essentially disintegrates.

I would argue that it is self evident that the US has far surpassed that tipping point and unless strong correctives are devised and applied to stop and reverse the current trendlines, the economic, social and political future of the US is in existential peril.

Once this realization sets in we can begin to look at methods for addressing this knowing full well the headwinds will be howling against our accomplishing anything substantive. But in the end we are many and they are few and should a popular resolve coalesce that this needs fixing, there’s precious little the billionaires can do to stop it happening. There are plenteous historical precedents to accomplish a necessary leveling to a healthy sustainable point, from monetary policy, tax policy, electoral finance reform to New Deal-type programs to pitchforks and torches and tumbrels and guillotines. The less bloody should be tried first and if those efforts are stymied, then obviously the more bloody must be employed.

An admirably cogent and accessible explanation of why the so called “fiscal cliff” is pure political fear mongering in the form of an audio interview between Harry Shearer aka Ned Flanders and an actual economist, Dr. Stephanie Kelton. The Democrats and Republicans would strongly prefer you not understand this lesson in fundamental economics. The upcoming “Grand Bargain” between Obama and the GOP led House isn’t about protecting the dollar or the country’s solvency but about destroying/privatizing the social safety net, privatizing education and essentially gutting or destroying all government except “defense” so that already obscenely rich people can become even more obscenely rich. Um, guess who are paying for both the D & R campaigns? Those same obscenely rich people.

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/ls/ls121028le_show_-_october_28

There was a presidential debate where the candidates actually discussed the important policy issues that the corporate Republican and Republican Lite parties– aka R & D parties– assiduously avoid because they don’t want you thinking about them. Issues like:

Do we really need to spend as much on “defense” as the next 19 largest countries in the world combined– mostly to protect tax dodging multinational oil companies with no allegiance to America? (Obama and Romney agree we do.) Should presidential candidates take millions in contributions/bribes from the very entities they are charged with regulating? (Obama and Romney are both more than happy to.) Is outright killing and indefinitely detaining even American citizens with no legal process or judicial oversight in direct violation of the Bill of Rights a good idea? (Obama and Romney both agree this is a good policy.) Is locking up more Americans for non-violent drug crimes than are held in Europe, with a similar population, for all reasons combined a good idea, and should we double and triple down on this failed and racist policy? (Obama and Romney are both completely convinced this is a good plan.) How do you feel about not only failing to prosecute the ringleaders of the largest systemic financial fraud in world history but rewarding the perps with multi-trillion dollar bailouts? Seem like a good idea? (Obama and Romney are both fine with this.) Or maybe protecting sadistic torturers and unapologetic war criminals unambiguously guilty of violating both international law and treaties we have signed and bound by our pledge to enforce? Is that good politics or complicity after the fact? (Obama and Romney vote good policy!)

I obviously could go on but we don’t need to put up with this dismal standard from our politicians. Doing so in fact makes we who support these policies by voting for the politicians and parties that promote them part of the problem.

We cannot fix any of this voting for Democrats and Republicans. They are both unapologetically and implacably opposed to fixing any of this. They are in fact the problem we must get past to fix any of these issues, most of which outright majorities of Americans agree they are wrong on. Lesser evils get us nowhere but into greater evil more slowly. This D & R thing, people, ain’t working.

Sorry, but this blog has been marked as spam as defined in our Terms of Service.
The admin has already been contacted to review.

Re: http://my.firedoglake.com/barefootaccountant/2012/10/05/progressives-are-in-need-of-a-supportive-webblog-in-which-to-communicate-and-organize/

Spam? Really?

It just happens over and over here and the mods never learn a thing or get any smarter. Entire diaries and comment strings censored not because they are spam, or egregious violations of the posting rules. But based on simple disagreement, on thinskinned, pearl clutching, straight to the fainting couch inability to deal with any criticism. Are your egos really that fragile? Is the control freak inside that hard to control? Modding ain’t that tough a job; when in doubt, let it ride. Don’t insert yourself into the process as a censor if there is any ambiguity to the situation. Basically don’t be a censorious asshole. DailyKos would be proud.

Edit: For the record it is reported that the diary in question (containing dozens of interesting posts by other FDL members in good standing) was officially deleted for the reason that the author, pseudonymously named Barefoot Accountant, had used other pseudonyms on the site. Why this correction didn’t appear in the original thread as a clarification rather than an entire thread deleted, well I’m still working on that one. I suspect the pseudonyms would never have become an issue had the original now deleted diary not been unpopular with the moderation staff. But that’s just my personal theory.

First let me preface this by opining that putting up a diary with comments turned off is disrespectful to both the readership and the spirit of a participatory site like MyFDL.

Although I have not followed the discussion on FDL, ubetchaiam’s “No Obama in 2012″ stimulated me to make an attempt to deal once again with the oldest and most frustrating question the U.S. Left asks of itself. What is different this time is the emergence of the internet as new tool of political communication and the accelerating pace of chance. What is not different is the need for a sound political strategy. And that is what ubetchaiam doesn’t have. The fact is most people know they are going to end up voting for Obama in the general, like it or not. The Administration knows it, too.

The primary fault with the rejections of the third party and primary options is that they assume success can only be the winning a particular election. In reality success can also be establishing the Left as a force to be dealt with. The third party option is much abused, often for the wrong reasons, but the killing argument against it is that the black community is thoroughly committed to the Democratic Party as well as Obama. That leaves us with a primary challenge.

Can a serious candidate run in the primary without challenging Obama? Why not combine the announcement of a positive issue-oriented campaign with an endorsement of Obama? It hasn’t been done before but seems like it would make our candidate safe to vote for and thus maybe move Obama back our way. Unusual circumstances and tumultuous times call for daring solutions.

How about combining the announcement of a “positive issue-oriented campaign” with an endorsement of Romney? Because it makes about equal sense insofar as he is essentially equally as likely to ‘move our way’ as Obama.

I welcome feedback.

Editor’s Note: MyFDL comments turn off automatically on old posts after 48 hours. This is a spam prevention technique. -MyFDL Editor

I know that comments are sunsetted after two days, Kit and if you’d read the comments you’d know that I do. I clicked on the original diary ( http://my.firedoglake.com/grogers/2011/04/07/what-to-do/ ) from the MyFDL list of most recommended topics that appears in the right column of every MyFDL page. My question is, why are moribund non-current diaries over one year old seemingly randomly appearing on that list of most recommended topics?