Prediction is a fool’s game, as we don’t know the real intentions of those who won the elections. But it is safe to say that they money behind them has more sway than the shallow appeals to popular issues they indulge in while campaigning. So when it comes to fighting for issues of importance, we are in for more of the same – strong Republicans and weak Democrats. It’s toxic.
When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006, George Bush simply vetoed anything he did not like. He was strong. Barack Obama will not do that. (He is indeed weak, but that’s not his real issue.) When Democrats had a large majority from 2008 forward, Republicans merely filibustered everything in sight, and Democrats allowed it to happen. Going forward, Democrats will not use the filibuster.
The natural impression to draw from this is that one party is strong but an obstacle to progress, while the other is weak and unable to get its act together. But if each party has a role to fill in service of wealth, then it is the Democrats who are strongest, as they thwart popular will at every juncture where there is a chance for real progress. This is what they did to us, 2008 forward. They took our great opportunity, and rubbed our face in it. Democrats had as massive a victory as American electoral politics allows, and nothing changed.
The conclusions drawn from that are that we have to redouble our efforts now to elect good Democrats. But that is wrong, in my view. Think of the two parties as parts of a large sausage grinder – no matter the input, the output is the same. The Democratic Party can only serve us if they are swept out of office and replaced en masse by populists and progressives. Incremental additions to the progressive minority are mere distraction. And such a massive change in leadership cannot happen in a climate where the public is uneducated and distracted, financing is done in secret, money buys advertising, and advertising buys elections.
In our money-centric two-party system, elections and voting are the least functional outlets for reform.
The only answer, as always, is on-the-ground organizing, outside the two parties and around issues. Health care was an organizing opportunity in 2008, but instead we ran it through the Democrats, and it became sausage.
But there is no other answer. It has to happen outside the parties. Daunting as that is, it is the only reason FDR is seen as a reformer, while Nixon and Ford are perceived as contradictions – conservatives who signed into law progressive legislation. FDR was backed by massive popular movements, and Nixon and Ford were confronted with them. Power came from below.
Organizing is power. Electoral politics is a distraction.
There is no other answer, friends. In the last two years Democrats could easily have handed us many victories, but allowed Republicans to block them. This is because too many Democrats are merely closet Republicans, including Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Michael Bennet … and Barack Obama. And you cannot tell who is who at election time, as they lie. Elections are a crap shoot and we’re in a casino. The house usually wins.
Enough of electoral politics! It’s fun, but useless.
Piece of Mindful 
Whenever this has happened in the past, millions of people have suffered horrendously.
Progressives have killed millions with there bizarre theories that society can be forced into a certain mold.
End of politics should be the cry – but the People love evil too much to let it go.
LikeLike
False. You oversimplify history to the point of absurdity.
LikeLike
Mark,
100% of all cases prove me correct.
LikeLike
You are misinterpreting data. You tend to interpret through your own lens. What you see in history is not related to any one ideology. Hitler was a fascist, Stalin a Communist, Pinochet and Saddam Hussein free market capitalists.
It is the power equation – power, and not ideology, corrupts. Whenever one group has more power than others, it will use that power for evil. If one group, such as Hitler or Stalin’s, holds all power, watch out.
If liberals and progressives got hold of the reins of power, and if there were no counterbalancing power, they would indeed do evil. As would you, as would I.
What I said above, since you don’t read so well, is that it is impossible for we on the left to snatch control of the Democratic Party, and pointless to try to augment the minority. Go back and read it again.
LikeLike
Trotsky:
If you had more money, you, too, could be on the winning side.
Anyway, good luck organizing the mutts, stoners, and homos.
LikeLike
Ah yes … these are my people! You forgot the homeless and mentally ill.
LikeLike
Mark,
National SOCIALIST Party… and a fascist.
Stalin a Communist,
and Socialist.
False.
Fascist Mercantilists.
No, it is the GOVERNMENT equation – those that hold legitimized violence will use it, and use it savagely.
No, when one group OBTAINS the LEVERS of GOVERNMENT is when the greatest slaughter of humanity occurs, as demonstrated by Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pot, etc. …
There exists no such “counter balance” to government, such as there is no such thing as a counter-balance to evil.
You do not ‘balance’ doing some evil by doing some good.
You do not evil – period.
You either have:
government
OR
civlization.
Both cannot coexist – one must diminish as the other grows.
I did read your post.
You advocate for “Progressives” in government.
If you “win”, millions will die.
LikeLike
Hitler was a …. had that debate too many times. Not going there.
Have yerself a nice day!
LikeLike
Mark,
Here, I’ll help you finish your sentence.
Hitler was a … man who used the violence of government to enforce his world view – which ultimately took the lives of more than 20 million people.
LikeLike
Mark,
Question:
Do you believe Hitler would have been responsible for the deaths of 20 million plus people without government violence?
LikeLike
There is no beginning and no end with you. You are intensely focused on what you think you know, and ignore everything else. That is your fundamental flaw – fundamentalism.
One, “Hitler” could have been “Joe Smith” or Ivan Griggs” or “John Galt.” He was mere the guy provided by happenstance at the end of a longer chain of events. Those events were random, but since we look backward, we know they happened and can now impute some cause and effect.
Europe was having one of its wars, and the U.S. wisely refrained from participation. But a tremendous amount of wealth had accumulated in banks on Wall Street, and these banks foolishly lent money to the French and British, and it looked liked those loans were going to default with a German victory. Because they had so much power, the bankers turned to Wilson and ‘persuaded’ him that the U.S. should enter the war. That tipped the balance, and led to Versailles, which extracted disproportionate damaging from the Germans, which led to wild inflation and anger, which were easily fed by a group of people who chose Hitler as their public face.
There was no one way that it could have gone – there were infinite possibilities. This is the outcome that we know happened, but ignores the millions of other possibilities because they did not happen.
To say that it was “government” is to ignore the complexity of interactions that produce “life” and “society” and “countries” and wars. It is utterly oversimplified. You are pointless.
“Government” is much like “markets” in that they are an extension of humanness, or interactions. Both need to be kept in check, as fire. I like a good camp fire, I use fire to heat my house. A forest fire can kill me. SO it is too with both government and markets – it is not about one or the other, but rather the third factor – concentration of power.
You are off the deep end. Do not assume you are right about things and need to lecture me further. You are not. Do not take what I wrote above and break it down, responding to each sentence and creating a long monologue. Do something else this time … think about how you might possibly be wrong. Admit that possibility.
LikeLike
In addition to being a million other ways events could have gone, my description of events is a sham too, as it involves the activities of millions of people over decades. At best, I offer here the standard version of the high points with the addition of the Wall Street influence, as there was no reason for the US to enter that war, no good side, no bad side.
LikeLike
Mark,
Though I would argue there was more in play then Wall Street (ie: Munroe doctrine and Empire building opportunity), I agree on the point – there was no reason at all….
LikeLike
Mark,
You are not paying attention, as usual.
I regularly give the “beginning” – a premise and axiom from which principle are developed.
You start in the middle with only looking at your own ego, and then try to warp principles to fit.
The “end” – never comes, the future is undetermined. Not even God can tell you the “end”.
No its called “Reasoned Consistency from a Principle”
….and it angers you because you have flawed reasoning, you are wholly inconsistent and you hold soft-as-sand Principles.
But he wasn’t. He was Hitler.
He was the guy who seized absolute government power and used it.
In this, there is no doubt nor question.
We already know you have no understanding of the concept of “random”.
…and now you say “cause/effect” creates “random”….
Whew!
“Europe” does not have wars.
Government have wars.
French and Brits were not going to default on loans.
French GOVERNMENT and the British GOVERNMENT may have (and did) default on loans.
Perhaps, but some more probable then others.
It does not ignore them – nearly infinite number of them were simply improbable to happen no matter what.
Of the very few remaining, of those some sort of “almost the same outcome” is the norm.
“The past does not equal the future” does not mean that if we do the same thing, a different outcome may happen.
It means “we do not need to do the same thing as we have done in the past”.
Because you require government, you blind yourself to its evil.
Hitler simply could not have done his evil without government. Period.
The difference between Hitler, a small-time crook and Hitler, a mass murderer is access to government power.
Government is the OPPOSITE of the market. They are “not alike at all”.
The former depends of violence and coercion, while the latter depends on non-violence and voluntary action.
Fire is violence and it needs to be checked.
Markets are non-violent and voluntary – there is no need to ‘check’ anything about it. You either participate or you do not.
Your analogy is warped.
Here is the fix for it:
Human action is fire.
It can be based on violence and coercion (forest fire)
It can be based on non-violence and voluntary (heat your home)
The former does kill you.
The latter enriches you.
I am right to the degree that my principles and reasoning are aligned.
This disturbs you because you wish to hold on to certain principles but you also envy what you do not have.
To get what you envy will confound your principles – so you warp your reasoning in attempt to resolve your conflict.
And you fail – you either fail your reasoning or you fail your principles.
First, it is my style, because I have found that one cannot address the flurry of irrationality in “one blast”. Heck, you have a hard time with a short sentences without getting them materially wrong in your understanding.
The only way I can be wrong is a failure of principle or a failure of reasoning.
Go for it.
LikeLike
While hanging out here today, doing a little liberal bashing, I just remembered that I had something to add to this thread: There is a very good movie available on the subject of National Socialism’s last days.
The movie is called “Downfall.” (“Der Untergang”) (2004). Having studied modern Germany for over 40 years, both as an amateur and in a professional setting, I can confidently say this is the best movie yet on Hitler’s personality and the cult that surrounded him. (Yes, Hitler was Germany’s first vegan!)
I was unable to find any historical inaccuracies in the film or any deliberate emphasis or de-emphasis of facts in order to make a political statement. This greatly surprised me because, up until recently, it was virtually impossible in Germany to make a film about Hitler or National Socialism without a heavy dose of apology.
The film is well scripted, well directed, and well acted. The props and costumes are first class, right down to the (little known) fact that SS uniforms, traditionally black, were gray during the last months of the war. This was so because the SS factories that made the custom uniforms were either bombed out or had no raw materials. Thus, the SS started using standard army (Wehrmacht) uniforms with SS insignia.
The cinematography is of good quality, competent and not gimmicky. Unfortunately, because the movie is in German, the viewer cannot study the camera work too closely while trying to read the subtitles.
If you rent the DVD, rather than stream the movie, be sure to watch the bonus material on how the movie was made and what the moviemakers hoped to achieve.
LikeLike
Hey Max,
On the web there is a BBC documentary about Hitler’s voice.
The only know copies were of course his public speeches – and we use those to interpret his personality.
Bu that would be like interpreting the personality of, say, Tom Cruise based on one of his movie characters.
A team found captured home videos of Hitler taken by Eva. But they were silent.
So a company that makes lip reading software was used to “hear” Hitler – and what a surprising change!
One video:
He appears to be charging at Eva with an angered look.
Interpreted: He was angry at her for videoing him. His controlling command mind was attacking her insolence.
His real words: “My darling! Why are you videoing an old man! It should be your beauty that the camera captures, not me!”
Another: He is with his generals reviewing the War in the East. He suddenly slams down his right arm in anger and his generals recoil.
His real words: (Background, it was two weeks after the assassination attempt which had severely injured him). He barks in pain… “Damn, I cannot lift the magnify glass with this worthless arm any more” His generals move to assist him by holding the map and the magnifying glass…..
Another: he is in a railway car talking with the President of Finland (currently also at war with the Soviets)
“The Russians are excellent fighters. They are relentless and brave. It is a miracle we do as well as we are against them.”
Mark posted in the past between perception and reality in politics. I can think of few better examples….
LikeLike
Black Flag:
In the 1950s and early 60s, when psychoanalysis was the popular rage, several books were written about the “mind” of Adolf Hitler. What you describe seems to be of that ilk, i.e., an attempt to see beyond Allied propaganda and achieve another view.
You will enjoy the movie I reviewed, above. The plot is developed from Hitler’s secretary’s point of view, although it does wander away from her perspective at times. The movie begins with a real-life interview with her when she was in her 90s. Some of the movie storyline is also drawn from a book she wrote about her time as Hitler’s personal secretary.
I only mention that because Hitler is portrayed as a very kind and fatherly figure vis-à-vis the secretary. (Not so, of course, in his relationship with some of his generals, many of whom he orders shot during the movie.) That characterization of Hitler compares favorably with the assumed dialog between him and Eva Braun that you mentioned.
As for Eva Braun, I know very little about her. Sometimes I think she was just a Leni Riefenstahl wannabe. However, the movie “Downfall” seems to characterize her as loyal, fun loving, and somewhat ditzy. There is a fairly macabre scene near the end of the movie when Eva throws a wild party for Hitler’s staff, with Russian artillery crashing down around them.
Hitler’s hand and arm shake throughout the movie, to the extent that you will pity the actor who had to play the role. But no reference is made to his hearing loss.*
My favorite character in the movie is the wife of Dr. Goebbels, “Magda,” another female in Hitler’s inner circle whom I know little about. The woman who played the part seemed perfect to me, based on pictures I have seen of Mrs. Goebbels. You will be greatly impressed by what she says about the future of Germany without National Socialism, and you will never forget the scene when she murders her six children.
_______________________________
* I am reminded of Count von Stauffenberg and another good movie on this subject, “Valkyrie.” Tom Cruise took a big gamble and lost. But that often happens when a movie is historically accurate.
LikeLike
Thanks, Max. I will most certainly get a hold of a copy.
LikeLike