Do we need 4 more years of BushCo to learn our lesson?

This is quite the interesting idea in this piece, I'm curious what others think.

First couple of paragraphs are below, then link to full article:

----------------------------------------------------------


Love Masochism? Vote BushCo!

Could four more brutal years of the Dubya nightmare actually be good for America?
By Mark Morford

I have a good friend who believes, gloomily, bitterly, resignedly, that not only are we in for four more years of painful and cheerless BushCo-branded tyranny and misprision and aww-shucks dumb-guy shtick but also that we are actually at the beginning of a long, brutal, fear-based Republican juggernaut that will last a good 16 more years, at least.

Because this is how long it will take for the current horrific conservative cycle to play itself out, and this would resemble a more typical and historically proven 20-year pendulum swing, in this case one toward neoconservative right-wing hate and homophobia and warmongering that will careen us toward heretofore unprecedented extremes of sadness and isolationism and far too many overweight white people with guns.

But here's the catch. Here's the argument: This dark era, this wicked 20-year dystopia America could now be facing, it might be a very good and necessary thing indeed ....

(click below to read the rest)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/09/15/notes091504.DTL&nl=fix

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ANARCHY! It's the choice for a brighter american future. Sure their'll be chaos at first but soon! Utopia!! And we all want a world like Utopia!

(Support John Kerry and the democrats of tommorow for a brighter future today.)

Maybe i should've said "anarkerry"...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On our present trajectory, rock bottom could happen much faster than Morford anticipates. The Bush Administration has likely set in motion a sequence of events that will result in an energy and economic tailspin soon, and an international climate where many will welcome our fall. But I'm not one of them- I'd rather see a more humane and considered reform including the decentralization of our society away from federalism/central planning.

I often get frustrated with the dangerous general ignorance, exceptionalism, and sense of entitlement in my country, and sometimes want to throw up my hands and resign myself to our learning the hard way. But this too is very self-serving, because our trials will characteristically involve a much higher proportion of death and suffering on the part of others as we get a dose of reality. And learning the hard way, the resentment and stigma we garner could last long into a new era of collective American situational awareness and humility. Here are a couple of threads I remember touched on this subject earlier:

A Democrat/Socialist Who Hopes Bush Wins

America's Really Big Shit

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I don’t understand is how people can honestly support GWB? I’d hate to sound like Mr. Generalization but how ignorant are these people? We know what the GOP runs on is not logic, but some abstract machination called “values”. The modern GOP as we know it today has lost most of her core values, individualism, fiscal management, capitalism (not corporatism), and decentralization of the government. Under Bush all these things have been turned on their head, the new GOP sounds more “liberal” is some senses then the Democrats. Even Mr. Buchanan had to write a book detailing what went wrong with the republicans in the US. Corporatism, Zionism, and Christianity have taken over the GOP to unprecedented levels to create this monster of sorts. Does America need four more years of Bush? It is possible that America deserves another four years of Bush. The question is how “value oriented” are Americans, Marx called it mysticism where reality takes second seat to belief.

 

And yet even so the GOP speaks to the heart of self-motivated Americans far better than the entitlement-oriented Democratic party. I understand what you're saying, and I think you have some very valid points. I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater with EITHER party. All I'm saying is that you can't rest the world's ills at the feet of the Republican party.

Good point about Buchanan's book (you're talking about his new one about the neo-cons stealing the party, right?). I haven't read it yet, but it sounds like it might make a nice counterpoint to Zell Miller's excellent book about the loss of the Big Umbrella aspects of the Democratic party.

 

And yet even so the GOP speaks to the heart of self-motivated Americans far better than the entitlement-oriented Democratic party.

Because of ignorance, not because of knowledge, because of intellectual prejudice, not fact. The Democratic Party has shifted way to the right since Clinton, and she has proven that she can fix the budget, and entitlements can wait until the fiscal responsibilities are dealt with. How can the GOP speak to the self-motivated American if their fiscal policies ensure massive tax hikes, and massive spending cuts in the future? What is sad here is there are two America’s as Mr. Edwards indicates, labour vs. capital. Ignorantly it seems that 50% of labour supports their own demise.

All I'm saying is that you can't rest the world's ills at the feet of the Republican party.

This isn’t the Republican Party.

 

I don't understand. GOP = Republican Party.

Oh I see, you're saying that it's not the Republican Party you remember and once supported?

 

I never supported the Republican Party, I still have my differences with it (even traditional conservatives) but at least with the old GOP there could be some common ground that appealed to both sides of the isle like the Reagan. Now on the other hand we have two totally different parties, and two totally different ideologies. One based on values, and corporate influence, the other labour, and economic populism. This new Republican Party has disenfranchised many conservatives (many who are staying home not voting), and this new party is in some instances more liberal then the Demo’s.

 

My mistake, I guess I was thinking of earlier when you mentioned that there were a few Republicans whom you felt were moderate enough to support (like McCain).

I agree with your last post in general. I agree with your complaints about the neo-cons.

I think you've already said something similar to this above, but let me see if I can express my view of it briefly by way of an example. I have a number of friends who are conservative, and they support Bush as a matter of course. I spoke with them recently and learned that they weren't aware of the term "neo-con", and when I started to talk about it they thought I had put on a tin foil hat and contacted my buddies on Alpha Centuari.

No, really.

These are smart guys, too. One runs the financials for a small company. Another is a mid-to-high level manager for one of the big paper producers. A third is a programmer for a telecom company. All extremely intelligent, all well-educated, all familiar with current events. All follow the news.

What I'm getting at here is that the split between neo-cons and moderates is not immediately obvious to the general public. I believe that the general public IS aware of the "hawks" argument -- that some members of the administration are hawkish about Iraq, and perhaps war in general. What I don't think most people understand is that this has a solid philosophical and organizational foundation behind it. It's a movement, not a personalities issue.

They also thought that Democrats cut the defense budget, and Bush restored it. (That was what brought the conversation on, after you and I talked about those budget figures a couple of weeks ago.)

My point being that I suspect that for most "Republicans", or "conservatives", the GOP still DOES represent those things which you feel they no longer represent. They don't understand the extent to which the wool has been pulled over their eyes.

But to a certain extent, it's JUST wool. It's not real fabric. Bush runs the party, but he isn't the entirety of the party. There are many "moderate conservatives", many folks who feel that the party has been pulled way too far to the right. Who feel that it should be pushed back to the middle, and to try and become the "grand umbrella" that the Democrats no longer are.

The question is whether those kinds of Republicans can become dominant again, perhaps in 2008. The question is NOT whether the GOP is dead, but whether it will return to where it belongs.

 

That's where I think Buchanon's book may have some impact, by the way.

 

There is already talk within the Democratic party, to suggest to let the Pres. Win regardless because the damage he would do to the GOP would be like that of Hoover. Those friends of yours are (sorry to say) the people I fear the most, ignorance breeds compliance. To think they don’t even know what a neo-con is yet they are voting for them. The GOP is not a big party tent; I don’t know where you are getting that idea from. They are exceptionalist, most Americans are liberals, and if the election was done by one national election for president Democrats would usually win. Democrats are still relative to the GOP the big tent party.

P.S: Tell your friends to stay home on Nov.2.

 

None of them live in swing states, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course the GOP can be a big tent. It offers help to everyone in the form of helping them help themselves. Motivation is the key to success, Undecided, not handouts. Why are you going to college if you don't believe that?

 

Of course the GOP can be a big tent. It offers help to everyone in the form of helping them help themselves.

Is that actually possible for most Americans? The answer is no, do you want to go back to the pre-depressionary era where there was no real safety net?

Motivation is the key to success, Undecided, not handouts. Why are you going to college if you don't believe that?

Many people wouldn’t go to college without hand outs…think about it.

 

So you believe that for some Americans it is impossible to achieve and be successful?

Wow, you really are a pessimist.

 

So you believe that for some Americans it is impossible to achieve and be successful?

Capitalism dictates as such, the idea that all of America can be self-reliant is a joke. America the country saddled with racism, sexism, elitism, debt, lowering incomes, etc. Sorry but now Pangloss you are being ideological.

 

I disagree, I think it's possible for *anyone* to succeed in my country. I can't speak for other countries, but I don't think that position is ideological, at least to the extent that it's a partisan left/right belief. It's just my opinion -- it's not something I skew my thinking on in order to fit a particular ideology. I don't believe there is one single person in this entire country who has zero ability whatsoever to be successful. Not one.

Okay, maybe Al Gore. But NOBODY else.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So you are telling me that you should get rid of the social safety net because you believe in the impossible?

 

Sure anyone can succeed but not everyone, there will always be a lot of failures, that’s capitalism. Not everyone can be successful, image a world were everyone is a CEO, who works under the CEO then? who’s the janitor? It is the simple truth that capitalism requires classes, Upper, Mid, lower, and the poor.

 

Exactly...and for those people they can't afford Harvard, or the best medical care.

 

exactly? the fetus merely throws out tired old cliched slogans

eyeball reforms....

http://cog.kent.edu/lib/rosen.htm

http://www.johnkharms.com/capitalism.htm

as you can see, there are those that do not buy into impotency