Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Dear H. Wilkinson: Did you report the facts? (2007)•Two Republican Views of War (2007)
•Commenting Rules for The Cincinnati Beacon (2007)
•Evidence of Injustice (2007)
•Open Letter to Henry Heimlich about SALF (2006)
•The Mayor’s Recommendations to the Proposed Budget (2006)
•Know Theatre of Cincinnati Offers Alternative Holiday Entertainment with Christmas Yet To Come (2006)
•Stop the Proclamations! (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, May 17, 2008
If the Party doesn’t fit…
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
I have always had a hard time with the concept of “political parties.” (It’s much more fun to have a political party, than to join one.) At the end of the day, I’m admittedly left-leaning in my positions: I don’t like guns, I have no problem with gay marriage, I have always opposed the current war, and so forth. (I remain forever “undecided” on the issue of abortion, however.) But what really interests me is the degree to which people will pledge allegiance to a “party,” even if that party contradicts some of the things the individual believes.
As a “liberal,” is it bad to support a Republican on one issue if the Republican has the right idea on that issue? Recently, County Commissioner Pat DeWine had a great idea for bringing transparency to County government with the GASP program. Should I be prohibited from saying that is a good idea because of DeWine’s party affiliation?
For the past year, Cincinnati Democrats have taken positions the opposite of the local branch of our country’s oldest civil rights organization—the NAACP. The local Democratic Party supported both the jail proposal and the Democrats on City Council have endorsed the red-light camera concept. Both of these have been not only opposed by the NAACP, but that group has led petition drives to place the issues on the ballot.
As a “liberal,” and a card-carrying member of the NAACP, what does it mean when the Republicans join the effort while Democrats take the wrong side? Does it mean anything when other liberal groups, like the Green Party and Cincinnati Progressive Action, also side with coalitions involving Republicans?
In a recent story in the Business Courier about Christopher Smitherman and Christopher Finney, the two talk about what it’s been like to collaborate across party lines. COAST reportedly lost financial support due to its affiliation with Smitherman. It’s funny, when conservatives freak out that people are fraternizing with liberals—and then liberals do the same thing from the other side of the spectrum.
Democrats become particularly perturbed when the issue of independent presidential candidates comes up, like Ralph Nader. The stakes are too high, they will argue, to cast what they call a vote about idealism. But this seems to happen each election. Every four years, there is some kind of “emergency,” that makes us think we can’t “waste” a vote on an independent candidate. This is exactly the thinking a corporate duopoly requires to maintain hegemony. So how else can the cycle be broken?
At the local level, isn’t it easier to take things on an issue by issue basis? Local Democrats have supported a new jail, supported cuts to human services, supported red-light cameras not for making us safer but for making money for the budget. They sold out to corporate interests like 3CDC, too.
I’m definitely not a Republican: I do not like their social views, their views on welfare issues, on the death penalty, and so forth. But I think the reason I get so frustrated with Democrats is because I feel like they are the Party to which I should belong—but I can’t, because they so frequently are doing something foolish.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
17 May 2008 at 06:38 pm | #
Where are earth do you get that you’re left leaning? You have no credentials. Moderate at best.
17 May 2008 at 06:52 pm | #
Credentials? You mean they are passing out liberal membership cards?
Where do I sign up?
17 May 2008 at 09:48 pm | #
Left leaning or liberal? You don’t support a woman’s right to choose, you’re not against gay marriage (but don’t support it) you don’t like guns and war. And no left leaning progressive would break bread with the likes of Brinkman, Finney and now your latest Republican buddy, DeWine. You fail to mention that all of the past presidents of the NAACP supported a new jail. The current president was the only president against it. Your idea that Democrats were on the wrong side is just your opinion. And you haven’t moved forward. In typical Republican fashion, you’re still trying to ruin the reputations of those that disagreed with you on the issue. Working for humane housing combined with opportunities that include rehabilitation, education and training for those that are in jail fits perfectly into a democratic liberal agenda. Refusing to support the humane conditions, fighting against spending money for training, rehabilitation and education fits perfectly into a republican conservative agenda. Just because the majority won, doesn’t mean it was right. You have adapted the agenda of the anti-tax groups.
Former liberals that have slowly and maybe even unconsciously made the transition to the conservative side are uncomfortable in their new skin and so deny the obvious affiliations and claim that they just “don’t like the party label.” In this day and age Republicans want to be called anything BUT that. So you say you’re Independent. But you’re not non-biased or non-partisan or anti-Republican. You’re clearly anti-Democrat. This and every other article proves that. This is America. You have every right to be a conservative with no party affiliation. There are millions and millions like you out there. Why say you’re something you’re not? And so the merry-go-round continues to turn. Another anti-Democrat article. Anther pro-Republican article. Another claim that it’s something other than it seems.
17 May 2008 at 11:05 pm | #
Dean:
And so your journey has begun. Godspeed.
Freedom is the winning message, not power.
The parties are really a subset of one.
Power.
When you realize the true path to freedom, we will be waiting with open arms.
“We” are not a party, “We” are those that choose to be free.
The hard part has been over for some time for you.
You have chosen to exist some time ago.
You make a difference every day.
That is what separates us from beasts.
A conscience.
Innate ethics.
Only you can dictate the speed of your journey.
Good luck and godspeed.
17 May 2008 at 11:08 pm | #
.
The problem with this DeWine recommendation is that he is pandering. How can your believe a guy regarding full disclosure when the Drake deal was done in the dark with a $22,000,000 loss to the county ? Let’s say that deal was on a website, what could the public do about it ? The commission majority were elected and decided to reward their cronies.
DeWine is trying to appear that he has good judgment because he is running for common pleas. He is grabing for headlines.
The Drake deal clearly demonstrates that he totally lacks reasonable judgment.
.
18 May 2008 at 05:34 am | #
cincysuz,
Let me be more clear: I support gay marriage. In fact, I would happily perform the ceremony if asked (I am licensed to solemnize marriage in the State of Ohio.)
The past NAACP presidents? Name them, and then ask yourself what kind of politics were going on. Besides, the NAACP is a membership driven organization. The membership voted to oppose the jail. Smitherman does not control the minds of the hundreds upon hundreds of new members.
I have not adapted an “anti-tax” agenda because I don’t believe in feeding the prison-industrial complex. The jail campaign was based in lies, as none of their scare tactics have yet come true. I support rehabilitation, but not when combined with a big new jail to appease Republicans.
How is this a pro-Republican article, when I clearly claim that I am not a Republican, and that I generally don’t like their positions?
I guess there is no reason to ask honest questions with you, though. You have a big bag of canned answers that just repeat the same talking points—and I’m sure that’s what your next comment will do, as always.
18 May 2008 at 06:08 am | #
BTW, I guess you love Libertarians, since they are really just Democrats, according to your logic.
18 May 2008 at 06:17 am | #
Me:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.25&soc=-7.23
18 May 2008 at 06:25 am | #
I guess there is no reason to ask honest questions with you, though. You have a big bag of canned answers that just repeat the same talking points — and I’m sure that’s what your next comment will do, as always.
Dean, please stop blaming cincysuz for doing what we all know she does. You easily could banish her and other inane troublemakers to the off-site sandbox/playpen. Instead, by approving inane comments and arguing daft positions endlessly with those who post them, you’re responsible for the mess. You have the means of changing the situation and improving the quality of debate by exercising discipline, but you choose not to.
The consequence of handing the comments section over to inane posts drives away would-be intelligent posters. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the situation is meeting your needs.
Divergent views certainly do collide here. Unfortunately, the comments section usually looks like a 10-car pile-up. Whose fault is that?
18 May 2008 at 12:09 pm | #
Kind of like your belief that democrats were correct was just your opinion as well.
18 May 2008 at 07:51 pm | #
Jason (The Dean), You so hit the nail on the head.
Political parties do not fit real solutions to real problems. The right
and the left are built on issue agendas that set up artificial
boundaries between people with opposable self interests. Political
party incumbents seek re-election based upon left and right
coalitons of various groups of self interest. That is the recipe for
traditional bipartisan politics. Solutions based leadership on current
issues would go beyond devisive solutions based upon left and right
criteria. As the charter party says, “there is no left or right way to fill
a pot hole.” The implications are much broader than the simple act
of “filling a pot hole.”
Bipartisan devisiveness may by the source of our overall lack of
ability to craft public policy that achieves the highest public good.
Any solution based upon favors to political contributors and
supporters on the left or right only add to public debt without
providing a lasting positive public benefit. (e.g. More jail cells do not
provide jobs needed to promote social stability.)(A new stadium
serves only the financial interests of the Browns/Bengals.)
The main purpose of any political party is to stay in power or to gain
power. The support of any issue, left or right, is aimed at retaining or
gaining political power. The power agenda blocks thoughtful
leadership. They leap conventional ideological boundaries.
Neither party is motivated to find solutions to our problems.
Referendums get a broad coaliton out of restrictive right and left boxes.
Maybe we need to seek creative non-partisan populist solutions
outside of the restricted bipartisan political world. To be effective we
need a bottom-up political organization to counterbalance well
financed bipartisan special interests.
I have an immodest out of the box proposal for a populist
non-partisan political mass movement to provide bottom up
organization to oppose bipartisan domination of our political
process: http://www.geocities.com/dist1oh/FreeTools.html.
The Ds and the Rs are the source of our problems. “We are the
leaders we have been waiting for,” to quote Bob Edgar, Pres & CEO,
Common Cause, who spoke at a public forum in Cincinnati on April 24, 2008. We can
be the leaders we have waited for using the Free Tools. We can lead from the bottom up.
The Beacon is becoming the standard of journalistic truth in
Cincinnati. Thank you for your gift to our community.
18 May 2008 at 10:00 pm | #
3 south. 5 east. That is me.
19 May 2008 at 10:14 am | #
No one should support a party blindly. Of course, I do not find myself voting Republican very often, and many of the third party candidates have positions on important issues with which i disagree. So, i find myself voting Democrat most of the time.
Voting should be about the candidate at hand, not the political “affiliation.” The Democrats have won several seats in the House of Representatives recently by running candidates that wouldn’t even qualify as Republicans in other areas because they are so far right.
I support the NAACP, but i do not support Pres. Smitherman.
I support my local Catholic parish, but not the doctrine of the Church as a whole.
I may support Republican candidates from time to time, but not the party.
I frequently like what the Green party is doing, but i do not support Ralph Nader nor Justin Jeffre.
19 May 2008 at 02:30 pm | #
cincysuz, John Cranley is anti-choice. He’s not on the fence. Is he a Republican? John Kerry (the guy you voted for)supported the gay marriage ban, the war, the Patriot Act, NAFTA and Israel over Palestine. Isn’t he just like a Republican?
Portune and Pepper worked with Si Leis, Carl Lindner, big corporations and the GOP to build a big new jail. You supported them. Where are your credentials?
Not all of the past Presidents of the NAACP supported the jail and the last one was a Republican that worked for Chabot. Some of the others got some political favors. And they all undercut the position of the current membership. We gave the people a choice and they have spoken. Get over it already.
anon #9, you make some valid points. We don’t like to delete comments at all and the rules we established make sense though we often fail to enforce them. At a certain point some commenter’s aren’t contributing to a discussion, they are derailing it. At some point they shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
cincysuz is making her usual ridiculous argument, but I have to say she is at least on topic in this thread. Though I think her argument is disingenuous and stupid, she hasn’t called anyone a name and has followed our very simple rules here.
19 May 2008 at 03:17 pm | #
I don’t follow any party or anything blindly. That should be clear by now. And that’s your interpretation, not fact. There are two options only. The choice is the Democratic or Republican party. I work to change the Democratic party to more accurately reflect what I believe in. It would be silly of me to try and change the Republican party or any Republican. We all know there should be a third party choice but there isn’t.
It’s naive to say you choose a candidate not a party. The candidate has chosen a party whether you do or not so you’ve got the party along with the candidate. And the candidate will not work in a vacuum. He or she will have to give and take, make concessions and negotiate with the 2 established parties in order to get anything done. That would hold true for a Barack Obama, John McCain or a Ralph Nader.
It’s interesting to hear you cherry pick and point out what you think are inconsistencies in Democrats’ positions. When I did the same thing, pointing out the insidious evil of Republican Tom Brinkman’s anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-public school positions, you claimed that it didn’t matter and in fact started “disappearing” my comments on that. You insisted that none of his other views or positions mattered because you were both on the same side of the jail issue in a “diverse coalition” if you will. Quite a different standard for Republicans and Democrats.
19 May 2008 at 04:35 pm | #
I believe that is what the pro-slavery Democrats and Whigs said before a third party of abolitionists changed the country forever. Free your mind from the two corporate-party prison and lesser evil voting.
cincysuz, what are you doing to change your party? I do believe that you have progressive values but when you vote for a pro-war candidate you are voting for war etc. ‘Power concedes nothing without a demand’, so what demands are you making on your candidates or party by throwing your vote to them?
If Dennis Kucinich got the nomination I would vote for him. He didn’t and he is in a small minority within your party.
I would never suggest that you reform the Republicans. I don’t believe either corporate party is reformable. There are third parties but they are shut out of the debates and harassed by your party. (The Republicans harass the Libertarians the way that Democrats harass progressive parties.)
Both wings of the corporate-duopoly work together to set higher and higher barriers to real democracy and fair competition in the electoral process. If the corporate Democrats were really interested in democracy they would support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Proportional Representation (PR) and real election reform. This would do away with the spoiler issue all together.
But they don’t because they are only interested in protecting the status quo which they are entrenched in and scape-goating third parties and blaming independent candidates for the mess they have helped to create.
No matter how many times you repeat that I support Tom Brinkman, it doesn’t make it true. I don’t have different standards for Democrats and Republicans because I see them as being the same thing or representing the same people and corporate agenda. (I did agree with Brinkman on the jail. And we disagreed with Si Leis and the GOP.)
As I have said, John Cranley is anti-choice too. John Kerry and Bill Clinton supported the gay marriage ban. That’s an anti-gay position. John Kerry, like Clinton supported NAFTA against labor, consumer and environmental groups.
If Obomba supported reducing the Pentagon budget, a full military and corporate withdrawal, single-payer health care, ending corporate welfare and personhood, saying no to nukes, and ending the failed Drug War he would get my support. But he doesn’t, so I’m supporting a candidate that does.
19 May 2008 at 08:53 pm | #
Who exactly is Obomba that you’ve referred to several times? Is this some kind of slur? I’ve asked this before. You must know his name by now so it has to be intentional. And pro-slavery democrats? Oh yeah. Fair and balanced. If you treat Republicans and Democrats the same then why isn’t a Republican name ever used in your examples. Why not say George Bush or Dick Cheney or Rice or Rove blah blah instead of always John Kerry or Al Gore (Bore to you). Come to think of it, you sound like Bill O’Reilly.
Corporate power. Corporate agenda. Big business influence. The status quo. All evils. Your message is strong. Are your convictions? You often infer that me and other “corporate democrats” --I guess that’s all Democrats--are enamored of, duped by, puppets of big business. We’re either stupid or evil or both. As for me, I’ve not been personally responsible for enriching the profits of big business beyond paying taxes that are diverted without my approval. I’ve been careful throughout my working life to take a pass on opportunities, however attactive and lucrative, that I knew to be in conflict with my moral convictions. Have you?
Now I don’t know a great deal about the entertainment industry, except of course that it’s, what? Big Business. Intertwined with the corporate media that we both have such disdain for and corporate media is owned by the corporations that profit from the war and all the other evils of the world. Inseparable. One in the same as you have so often pointed out. You can’t become a multi-platinum recording artist without rolling with the corporate big dogs. I know that. You know that. So back off the outrage once in a while. You’re probably the only person that regularly contributes to this blog that has actually benefitted substantially and probably continues to benefit from a close association with big business.
20 May 2008 at 01:33 pm | #
Obomba is the candidate that tricks people into thinking that he’s against the war when he’s voted to fund it every chance he’s gotten. He says he’ll expand the already bloated military budget and he will keep private contractors (like Blackwater and Halliburton) in Iraq.
He says he’s for a withdrawal of “combat” troops but has refused to say how many occupying troops he will keep there. (An inside memo from one of his top advisors said he’d keep 60-80,000 troops there.) That’s hardly a withdrawal! Or he would say “redeployment”.
His language has been very deceptive on this issue and others, like NAFTA. He has also reversed his position on the Israel/Palestine issue and now supports the status quo. He is protectively imitating Bush/McCain/Clinton on the issue which takes it off of the table.
Do you know the history of your party? The Democratic Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow. Can you say Dixiecrats boys and girls? This was the case right up till LBJ signed away the south because the Civil Rights movement was too strong to ignore.
Now the Democrats roll over and play dead when the Republicans steal elections in Florida, Ohio and beyond. (Perhaps they are too busy trying to knock real progressives off of the ballot and shut them out of the debates.)
Actually cicnysuz, I say corporate Democrats to distinguish between progressive Democrats like Kucinich and corporate candidates like Gore-Lieberman, Kerry, Clinton and Obama. It just happens to be that the party as a whole is represented overwhelmingly by corporate Democrats. Just look at the local level, Pepper, Berding, Cole, Cranley and every other elected Democrat dances to the tune of big business.
Corporations can’t vote so they create PR campaigns that convince you and others to vote for pro-war candidates even though you say you’re against the war. Despite what people may think, I’m not anti-business; I just don’t think big business should control our government or media for that matter. That’s why I don’t vote for big businesses candidates.
Obomba and Clinton have taken more money from big business than even McCain.
Democrats have the majority here and that is probably why you think we focus on them. Of course the Republicans support big business, but at least they don’t lie and claim to be for labor when they aren’t.
20 May 2008 at 02:04 pm | #
Justin:
There is only one way to get rid of corporate fascism, do you know how?
20 May 2008 at 04:07 pm | #
I get it. The Mayor of Cleveland made a slip and called the Senator Obamba instead of Obama. Is it still that funny? By the way, Ralph Nader, or maybe Nadeer, wants to remove the troop in 6 months. How is his 6 months any different than any other candidate’s? He has even called for immediate withdrawal.
20 May 2008 at 05:05 pm | #
My fingers are exhausted. I meant that Nader HAS NOT called for immediate withdrawal.
20 May 2008 at 05:12 pm | #
Mr. Scott Ryan, No.
cincysuz, I don’t get it. I explained why I call him Obomba and it has nothing to do with the Mayor of Cleveland. It’s because despite his sometimes deceptive rhetoric, he’s a hawk that’s supports an imperial foreign policy. Like Kerry, he’s just saying he can manage the war better than the Republicans. I suppose he would find the right war at the right time. If he were against the war he wouldn’t vote to fund it and be calling for an increase in the Pentagon budget. He also supports Israel’s illegal occupation.
Nader has called for a full withdrawal, both military and corporate, to be announced immediately and finished within 6 months or less. The difference is that Obomba would leave troops (60 to 80,000 according to one of his top advisors) and private contractors (like Blackwater and Halliburton) indefinately in Iraq. Do you get it now?
20 May 2008 at 05:38 pm | #
Justin:
There is only one way to guarantee the elimination of corporate fascism. Sure there are ways to regulate it and minimize it for a while, but there is only one-way to eliminate it for good. Simply limit the role of government. If government were limited to solely enforcing property rights, what interest would corporate America have in corrupting the system? I know we all have our ideal world and we see that government is the quickest way to realize such a world, but step back and look at the big picture as a chess player would.
Example:
I would assume that you would be in favor of legislation to improve automobile safety and reduce green house gas emissions. Now, step back and spend a few days thinking about how that would come about. The discussions and who would be involved in these discussions. What do you envision, realistically, the ultimate portrait would be of this legislation?
Think about alternative solutions when government decides to focus on a sole purpose, the protection of property rights.
The complete explanation would take volumes. As you progress down the intellectual path, let me know when you get stuck and I will offer input.
Freedom is the message, not power.
20 May 2008 at 08:20 pm | #
Obomba. Cute. You’ve had 7 years to come up with clever, deprecating names for the entire Republican administration, even the locals. But damn. I just can’t recall the equivalent of an Al Bore or Barack Obomba for your powerful Republican friends. You’re a great undercover spokesperson for them. Let’s see. On-the-Brink-man. Chris Finicky. John McLame. Not so good. I’m not real good at this. But you obviously have a talent. What about it? Got anything?
Let’s talk about hypocrisy and blind allegiance. You rattle on incessantly about Democrats exclusively. Bringing up Dixiecrats and demonizing the party in a lame attempt to make some obscure point. Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you? The only “amen’s” you get are naturally from Republicans. You’re a Republican all right, claiming to be a what? Green? No, the Greens dumped Nader so you’re no longer a Green because you blindly follow Nader. Even more ridiculous than following a party, following one, lone man, that has no appeal, no chance of making a difference. How politically strategic is that. It sounds more like a religious experience than political. Some facts about Nader:
“[Nader] doesn’t want to be a Green, he runs with his coterie rather than party organizers, he doesn’t involve local Green leaders and he doesn’t get the racial issue. I fear if Nader runs, he’ll drag down every other Green in this country.”—John Rensenbrink, editor of “Green Horizon Quarterly”
“[Nader running for president again is] an ego-centered exercise in futility. [Until the Green Party wins more local elections], wasting its time in races that are unwinnable only detracts from its message, its long-term goals and current accomplishments.” --Larry Barnett, Green Party member and former mayor of Sonoma, California
“We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and what happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he starts doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop phoning after midnight.”—Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant
“He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I for one, hope that he will never ride into the White House.”—David Sanford, Nader’s former editor, 1976
This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure—while sketchy—revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major candidates have done so for the last many years.)
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says “I don’t think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit ‘cause’ organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union.”
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these actions are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, “Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5.” Shorrock, with his “union ploy,” became an “adversary” according to Nader. “Anything that is commercial, is unionizable,” but small public interest organizations “would go broke in a month,” Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader’s well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
20 May 2008 at 10:05 pm | #
Mr. Scott Ryan, corporations always want more money and power. That is what they are created to do. I think the idea of limiting government makes sense. It should only do what is needed and nothing more.
One of the things government needs to do is regulate corporations. Without regulations, corporations will engage in the most destructive behavior as long as it makes them more money. In the early days of the modern day corporation, corporations were given their charter which had to be renewed every few years and in order to get a charter and keep it they had to show they served some sort of public benefit.
Your example is a good one. There was a time when we didn’t have seat belts and other basic safety features as an option in cars even though GM and the other big auto-makers knew for just a few dollars they could save lives and reduce injuries.
How did these things come about? Ralph Nader wrote a book called “Unsafe at any speed” which charged GM with putting out millions of death traps every year. Long story short, it became a best seller and galvanized the nation, which then galvanized Congress to pass legislation making safety standards mandatory.
Your argument reminds me of a debate I heard Ralph recently recall between Milton Friedman and himself. Friedman said that one of the problems with our health care system was government licensing and that the market should decide who can practice medicine.
That would mean a butcher could set up shop and put a sign in the window saying; ‘special, $20 operations today’ said Ralph. Friedman’s answer was that charlatans would eventually be found out and people would stop going to them.
When you eat your next burger, imagine none of the government regulations that have made food safer. I know things aren’t perfect, but government is needed for these things. Government is supposed to be of, for and by the people. It should be to protect the weak from the powerful, to protect and serve its people. There are better ways to prevent or stop fascism I think.
20 May 2008 at 11:34 pm | #
I am glad you mentioned Milton Friedman, it tells me we are on the same page.
The only thing I disagree with in the above post is “It should be to protect the weak from the powerful ...”
Who are the weak? According to the I.R.S. I am just above the poverty line. Am I one of the “weak”?
I think you meant to say the “stupid”.
Can the government protect the “stupid”?
Is the government protecting me through regulations that dictate labeling of food?
What is in my beef? Can I trust the labels?
Look to the free market if you wish to see acurate labels.
Profits are a wonderful motivating factor.
I am sure the American Beef Association or whatever they wish to call themselves, would be a much more appropriate org. that would have the accountability for accuracy in labeling. If they are not trusted then we would all be eating bacon.
Property rights is the key to everything.
Think about it. Give it a few days.
Not saying the market is perfect. How could there be a perfect market made up of inperfect people.
What I am saying, is that the market is as close to perfect as you are going to get when dealing with humans.
Freedom is the message, not power.
P.S. You never answered my questions from the previous post.
20 May 2008 at 11:39 pm | #
Justin:
Just found another word I disagree with. Yes, corporations are seeking to maximize profits. No, they are not seeking to maximize power. They can’t offer a dividend of power units. The only reason why power is important to them is because they know if they don’t seek it, their competitors will at their expense.
20 May 2008 at 11:43 pm | #
One last thing. Regulating corporations through the enforcement of property rights is really the only way I see the government can be useful. So, I agree with you on this point, but I get the feeling you meant additional regulation.
Freedom is the message, not power.
Put your faith in the industrialist over the politician.
20 May 2008 at 11:50 pm | #
Justin:
By the way, I am trying to find that Friedman/Nader debate can you point me in the right direction?
21 May 2008 at 01:10 pm | #
Mr. Scott Ryan, I meant weak, not stupid. Compared to a multi-national corporation you and I are weak, that doesn’t make us stupid. Yes, regulating meat has made it safer. Look back at our history before their was government regulations on food. Obviously there is still room for improvement.
That is completely false. Has the free market given us labels for Genetically Modified foods? No, only government regulations will do that. Do you think a butcher should be able to practice medicine? If the free market were to decide they could.
The free market didn’t give us saftey features like seat belts and air bags etc. Corporations will ruin our environment if government doesn’t prevent this. They shouldn’t have the freedom to do this.
I have no faith in industrialists or the politicians they own. I don’t know where to find that debate or if there’s a transcript. I heard Ralph tell that story in a speech about health care.
You’re not the first one to make this argument and I have thought about it and I think your faith in the market is blind.
cincysuz, I see you found the anti-Nader website. It’s funny because after Ralph wrote “Unsafe at any speed” which charged GM with putting out millions of death traps. The head of GM hired private investigators to dig up some dirt, to smear and ruin his reputation.
They came back with nothing so he told them to make something up, but Ralph was too smart for them. Then the head of the most powerful corporation in the world, with more wealth than all but 12 nations sat in front of Congressional hearings and the national media and had to apologize to Ralph for trying to break him for having written a book in order to improve safety.
Ralph sued GM and took that money and launched a constellation of public interest groups like Public Citizen. He’s been ranked as one of the nations most influential men of the past century by both Time and Life magazine. (One of only 4 living individuals to be so honored.)
Ralph has been instrumental in making our air and water cleaner, our food and cars safer, and big corporations have been trying to discredit him for 40 years. That pathetic little website is the best they can come up with after all these years. That really cracks me up. What’s the matter, can’t you debate the issues?
21 May 2008 at 02:27 pm | #
Justin:
I respect your views and your points are fair.
The problem is that we never have had a free market. What would the world look like if we did?
The market wishes to add label food products almost everyday, but they must first go through a long process to get the wording approved.
I have no doubt, in a free market, the instant genetically modified food hit the market there would be competitors making sure that the public knows what is going on and offering alternatives. This kind of market give and take is prevented by the FDA (I think that is the right alphabet).
I would argue that seat belts and air bags would have been the norm much quicker if Nadar would have spent more time informing the public instead of fighting for legislation. Having said that why should I have to pay for a seat belt in my car if I don’t want one?
The government is the one that has ruined the environment. They have allowed their role of enforcing property rights to dissolve. The one area where they really could be a net positive, they have allowed the corporate fascists to whittle away at property rights.
We may never know if my faith in the market is blind. We do know what faith in government gets us.
When you get a chance these videos would be very interesting. I think there are 6 of them. Just watch one if you like. It is short.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo
21 May 2008 at 03:52 pm | #
Mr. Scott Ryan, while I do disagree with you on this it is refreshing to not be treated as if I’m evil and out to destroy you because we don’t share the same point of view. I don’t believe that big-agribusiness has any interest in informing consumers about GM foods. In fact they have fought against labeling because most consumers would be scketchy about buying franken foods. (The competition wouldn’t necassarily have the resources to inform the public and could face a court battle if they are found to hurt the big guys business.)
The safety standards came about because Ralph’s book informed and galvanized the public which then made enough noise to get legislatures to react in the interest of public safety. I guess you have the right to fly through a windsheild if you so choose, but consumers have a right to not be sold a death trap. There were many built in dangers in cars back before government required safety tests and standards. Some Fords would explode if they were rear ended etc. The market didn’t fix this. Safety wasn’t an option and who knows how long we would’ve had to wait for these protections.
Greed will not solve all of the worlds problems. There are other factors than money which should be considered like, health, safety and quality of life etc. Corrupt government has been part of the environmental problems, but good government can be a part of the solutions. A lot of the gains that were made in the late 60’s and signed into law by a right-wing Nixon were good, but increasingly industry is getting to write its own rules. Industrialists prefer to shift their costs to the public and privatize profits and resources.
I agree with you in that we haven’t really seen a free market. I would argue that most people (not including yourself) that push the free market idea don’t really want a true free market, they want more money and power. Yes, corporations do want power.
21 May 2008 at 04:49 pm | #
The old Ford Pinto. I remember that. Government didn’t fix that. The MSM video magazine expose did.
Give that video a try. You may learn a thing or two, or not, but it is very imformative.
Freedom is the message, not power.
21 May 2008 at 04:59 pm | #
Everything you stated is correct. Because of how the system is currently set up, corporations have no other options than to try and bed the politicians. Don’t you see that if you take your agenda down the logical steps, it will happen again?
There can well be a justifiable case that government helped the automobile industry become safer, but who is to say that it would not have eventually happened when the consumer started influencing them with their pocket book. Grantedl, back then, there were only the big three so there was little choice. Did you ever wonder why there was only the big three? You won’t like the answer to that question.
Every action has consequences, directly and indirectly. The market is the best mechanism to ensure correct actions.
21 May 2008 at 05:34 pm | #
I’ve just started to use your tactics. People that worked closely with Ralph gave those opinions. He didn’t and couldn’t sue for someone calling him a lousy boss and it seems that many have.
I’d like to see you address my post #17. You villify everyone else that has any association with big business. Corporate America. I don’t think it’s dirty pool to push for an explanation of your own association with the entertainment/media industry as a multi-platinum recording artist.
21 May 2008 at 06:34 pm | #
Justin and Scott,
Nature abhors a vacuum. Free markets have always existed
throughout history. Parliamentary and constiutional governemnts introduced
control of commercial interests to protect citizens even under the power of Kings, Queens, and other dictators. (The East India Company monopolized trade with the Colonies raising taxes for the benefit of the Kingdom of England. Exorbitant taxes were raised and the colonists revolted by declaring their independence. We asserted our power of self-determination. The commercial world has always been free trade, but controlled by some power broker from above. Princes or criminal organizations assume the power. The village was simpler.
Please read Michavelli, The Prince, in order to understand the relationship of
power to free commercial activity. In it you will find the recipe for political power as understood, completely by an Italian nobleman in the middle ages, before the nation state came in to being in Italy. (Organized crime grew up out of the muck of that degraded land, the Mafia of Sicily. More recently, the Russian mafia
rushed in to fill in the power vaacum in a newly democratized “Russia” after the
fall of the Soviet Union. Power by force on some level always develops whenever
legitimate government does not regulate commercial transactions.) Organized
crime and unchecked greed is the reason commercial enterprise was put under
the control of state governemnts in the form of Corporate Charters. (Thank you
Justin.) Our founders knew from their experience as colonies that greed knows
no limit or control if left to its own devices. Commercial enterprises were put
under Charter in each state for the public good for public interests only.
Corporate personhood was born in the 1890s, delivered by the Supreme court in
one errant decision followed by many others. The floodgates were opened to legal
power and control of our nation by unregulated corporate power. They have been
in control for over 100 years. Public interest died an untimely death.
The free market is no respecter of the lives of our children and grandchildren, or any other citizen within any particular set of borders. The Corporate Charter was a means to civilize the profit motive for the good of the people living under the governments which provided public interest Charters to Corporations. Corporations never regulated themselves. Greed directs Corporations.
A simple example of the free market is Coca-Cola. (And cigarettes.) Coca-cola
bottled a beverage in the late 1800s that developed a brisk and quickly
expanding business. (Better than the caffeine in coffee and tea, which habituated
use by millions.) The beverage made a lot of free market money and created a lot
of free market power for its owners. Coca-cola simply used an ingredient freely
available on the free drug market of the day called cocaine. Since it is perhaps
the most addicting drug known in the pharmaceutical universe, millions became
addicted to the new free market beverage seemingly over night. It seems they
could not get enough of this new free market product.
We had millions of cocaine junkies all over the USA creating a debilitating dopey
condition in ordinary citizens. Coca-Cola was investigated and the beverage
regulated to remove the drug. The caffeine was left in to keep people addicted to
the product. Free markets work. At what cost to society?
Free markets also produced cigarettes. The AMA blew the whistle in 1953 on the
130,000 people per year who died of tobacco related diseases. The free trade,
self-regualting Tobacco industry, not in the public interest, set up the Tobacco
Institute in 1954 to conduct research to disprove the conclusions of the American
Medical Association (AMA). They bought off Congress with campaign
contributions, and prevented any regulation or labeling of their products until
one very courageous Attorney General ordered health warning labels to be put on
all cigarettes and tobacco products.
A clearly useless product against the public health interest of the nation has still managed to kill untold millions since labeling began and since 1953, when I was eleven years old, ten years before I began to smoke and twenty six years before I finally was able to quit smoking in 1979. My dad was not warned either. He had emphysema and died ten years early due to the effects of smoking. Free markets do not care.
Free markets are not free. There is a heavy cost to everyone. Corporate personhood deprives all of us of liberty and justice.
Both parties are in bed with corporate interests. Our interests are not connected
to political party interests. We need representation and control.
22 May 2008 at 07:04 am | #
Rich:
Great post. Very informative. I have read Michavelli.
So for in the course of human existence you have been proven to be right.
But what if…
What if the seeds from the Magna Charta, the French Revelution, the American Revolution have yet to flower?
What if these seeds are of the dioon plant and not of the giant bamboo?
I pray that time will prove you wrong, or at least give us a chance to prove you right.
Freedom is the message, not power.
Hardship and struggle is what defines a man. Without it, we will cease to exist.
In my world, the goal is not to eliminate man’s pain, but to embrace it as an asset.
I am simply asking for freedom. Currently we have been given two options, join or stop living. In my world life is a multiple choice question codified in a language with infinite letters and no wrong answers.
Good luck on your journey.
22 May 2008 at 02:32 pm | #
CincySuz said: “And no left leaning progressive would break bread with the likes of Brinkman, Finney and now your latest Republican buddy, DeWine.”
CincySuz - Obama was the co-sponsor of the federal transparency initiative that DeWine at the County level and Brinkman at the State level modeled their initiatives after. Who was the other co-sponsor - Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republican members of the Senate. Coburn is stridently anti-choice, anti-gay, and advocates for reduced federal spending on social programs. Since Obama “broke bread” with Coburn does that mean he’s a Republican.
22 May 2008 at 07:25 pm | #
Obama doesn’t claim to be left-leaning. The Dean does.
22 May 2008 at 10:00 pm | #
I could care less what Obama claims to be. Are you saying that he, in fact, is not liberal, left-leaning, or progressive?
23 May 2008 at 05:55 pm | #
Yes. I’m saying that he is not liberal, left-leaning or progressive. But he has good instincts seems to be a fast learner and is liberal-ish. With the right support and backing I’m hoping that he’ll evolve into, at the least a “card carrying liberal” at best, a real hard core leftie. I live in hope.
24 May 2008 at 01:35 pm | #
Why would a liberal or progressive support a candidate that isn’t a liberal or a progressive?
I support a real liberal-progressive and you say I’m a Republican because of it. If you were really a liberal cincysuz you would support the only candidate calling for a full military and corporate withdrawal from Iraq. Ralph Nader is the only candidate that will reduce the Pentagon budget, say no to nukes, end corporate welfare and give us single-payer health care.
But instead of praising him for standing up and putting issues back on the table you pretend that he’s secretly for Republicans. It seems that you and Obama are the ones that are Republican-lite.
How is throwing your vote to a non-liberal going to make them “evolve” into a “card carrying liberal” and make them a “hard core leftie”? You live in a dream world.
Power is only responsive when it is insecure and power concedes nothing without a demand. cincysuz’ only demand is that real progressives not speak and criticize non-liberals so she can pretend they really are liberal.
General George C. Scott, cincysuz has consistently shown she doesn’t make any sense, but at least she lives in hope.
24 May 2008 at 02:59 pm | #
In CincySuz’s world it ok to support a politician who doesn’t advocate for the same principles she does, as long as you have a “D” behind your name.
24 May 2008 at 08:36 pm | #
In my world flushing your vote down the toilet on a “candidate” that has shown time and again that he has become irrelevant, regardless of how appealing his views are, is a vote for another Republican administration. You know it. That’s what happened last time. Ralph Nader calling for military withdrawal, a reduced military budget and single payer health care will have about as much influence as Bugs Bunny calling for the same things. Nobody pays attention to him. Nobody cares what he says. He has no power, influence or following. Not only will he not win, he’ll have no impact anywhere, anymore, unless he directs his talents back to consumer advocacy.
24 May 2008 at 11:03 pm | #
Huh?
You do know that the corporate Republicans stole the last two presidential elections, don’t you? And you know that the corporate Democrats didn’t do anything about it?
25 May 2008 at 04:13 pm | #
Justin:
You forgot someone that is still running and is in favor of immediate withdrawl.
Congressman Ron Paul from Texas.
Could you please state a correction?
26 May 2008 at 01:44 pm | #
What happened last time is that the corporate Democrats disenfranchised independent voters by knocking Nader off of the ballot in Ohio. Then they failed to do anything about the tens of thousands of disenfranchised African American voters even though John Kerry knew about the long lines and many other problems.
John Edwards said they’d make sure every vote was counted and soon after that Kerry conceded. Kerry told Mark Crispin Miller he believes the election was stolen, but like Gore, was afraid he’d be accused of sour grapes.
In cincysuz world voting for a candidate whose views are “appealing” is “flushing your vote down the toilet” and “a vote for a Republican”. John Kerry won the election and basically let the will and votes of tens of thousands of African American voters be flushed down the drain.
By voting for John Kerry, cincysuz was voting for the War, the Patriot Act, pay or day health care, NAFTA (the job killing trade agreement), the failed (and racist) Drug War, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, the gay marriage ban in Missouri and more corporate welfare. How is that any different than voting for the Republicans?
How sad that cincysuz agrees with Ralph Nader on the issues, but out of fear votes against her own issues. When people like cincysuz say Nader has no power or influence, what she is really saying is that all the American people that share her views on the issues have no power or influence.
A majority of Americans and physicians support single-payer health care, but the corporate parties say no. A majority of Americans want an end to the war, but the corporate parties say no. Nader gives those Americans a voice in the electoral arena.
Cincysuz says Nader is “irrelevant” and at the same time she says he will influence the entire election. Isn’t that a contradiction? Why would a person who finds his views “appealing” try to take away his right to run for office and the rights of independent progressives to vote for him?
Cincysuz says Nader should advocate for consumers but not for citizens. Why are you trying to prevent him from advocating those appealing issues for our country and world? The political bigotry displayed by the corporate Democrats is disgusting.
You can support a candidate or oppose a candidate but never tell someone not to speak. To do so is undemocratic and truly un-American. Running for office or voting for candidates that advocate for our views are some of our most basic and fundamental rights.
26 May 2008 at 02:18 pm | #
Mr. Scott Ryan, fair enough, Ron Paul is against the war. I think it was a mistake for him not to drop out of the Republican race and run as an independent. I think his supporters are kidding themselves that he will somehow get the nomination at this point. The major parties use the delegate system to keep real mavericks from winning the nomination. It’s a shame he was marginalized by the corporate media.
I think Ron Paul made the other Republican candidates look very foolish and made the debates watchable. He should’ve gone for the Libertarian Party’s endorsement. With his fundraising abilities he could have really built their party and taken his message a lot farther.
It was great to see a Republican speaking out against the war, the Patriot Act and NAFTA.
26 May 2008 at 07:26 pm | #
Justin:
It is in deed fair to say that Ron Paul has nearly no chance of getting the nomination. I question not his decisions. The nomination is less important to him than the message of freedom.
Remember, we all have our roles.
Freedom is the message, not power.