DEMOCRATS - HOPELESS OR NOT ?

Mike recently advised us to do some housecleaning. And me I always do as I'm told by Mike. :-)

But I'm afraid that this time the task includes him - or, rather, the political choice that he has made and would like to see us share.

Mike believes in improving the Democratic Party. He believes that its long time sorry behavior is but the fault of a handful of righties in disguise, namely the DLC, and that we can take over what's ours and always was and impose our will on the cowards that are supposed to represent us.

I never believed that. I believe that the Democratic Party is rotten to the core and exists only as the other side of an all-Republican coin to give an illusion of a two party system to a country that has long since ceased to be a real democracy, and to keep We The People drugged with a religion of better days, sentimental sex with supposed lovers and shows on TV owing more to sports than to debates. And only the terrible absence of any credible alternative, combined to the terrible evidence of the fascist threat (and also, to be honest, to my love for Mike and respect for his judgment) made me - superficially - change my tune.

But every time I get a chance to be broken the news that the Democrats are not our lovers but American imperialism's whores, it doesn't take a lot for me to convert to the stance. (and then I pour myself a drink, chill and pull out my Feingold 2008 sticker ; that's the usual pattern).

The text below is an excerpt from a grumbling article denying all sense and worth to Lamont's victory in Marxist media Revolution :

The Democrats Are Lashed to the Mast of the Ship of State--But Why Should We Be?

As much as there are Democrats who at times criticize how the war on Iraq was initiated, or even how it is being handled today, now that the U.S. has invaded they are concerned first and foremost with preserving the strength, unchallenged power, and overall interests of the U.S. as an imperialist empire, including in Iraq and the wider Middle East. If you listen, it is from this perspective of preserving America's strength that Lamont criticizes aspects of how the war has been waged: "We are a much stronger country; when it comes to the war on terror when we're true to what we stand for, and we've compromised a lot of that over the last few years. That weakens our country." It's not that the Democrats haven't noticed how many people in "their base" hate this war, it is that the particular role the Democratic Party plays is to pursue imperialist interests while at the same time leading "their base" to believe that it is their will that is being expressed.

In a recent article in Rolling Stone, Al Gore was quoted as saying, "We're all, in some ways, lashed to the mast of our ship of state here. Because the little group at the helm should resign. You know, Rumsfeld and that whole gang have made horrible mistake after horrible mistake..."

This metaphor, of madmen at the helm (steering a boat), and the Democrats lashed to the mast of the ship, is revealing about the role the Democrats play. They may not like the crew at the helm, but they are "on board" for the bigger agenda of imperialist world domination, and from that perspective, getting out of Iraq would endanger the whole ship.

You do not take over the Democratic Party; it takes over you. And the more you try to take it over, the deeper you are inserted into its pocket. The effort you put into it is like thrashing about in quicksand--the harder you thrash, the more immobilized you become until finally you are suffocated to death. Lamont is a perfect example--happy to take your money and your energies into channels that will just piss them away, while the Democrats on top continue to pursue what they perceive to be in the overall interests of the SYSTEM they serve.

Recall what happened several months ago, when the progressive world was abuzz with confidence about impeaching the President. At that time a poll executive admitted that among the population the most requested poll was one about impeachment, but stated that his firm wouldn't conduct it because it was not being discussed by leading Democrats and therefore wasn't legitimate. Then, recall how when Wisconsin Democrat Russ Fiengold made a motion for censuring the President and, despite overwhelming support from the people, was only supported by two of his fellow Democrats.

I know how Mike sees things. I know what he would say.

Mike believes that there is but one ship, and that it's the idea that we can escape it and act outside of it which is an illusion. He would say that the Democratic Party will pursue imperialist interests only as long as "their base" believes their crap and lets itself be led by the leash and by the lies. He would conclude that alienation is not a fatality, and that democracy consists in everyone having a voice, a homeless tramp just the same as Bill Gates, period, and that it's why as soon as we know we will win, PERIOD.

Mike believes that personal awareness and personal responsibility can circumvent, change or topple the laws of sociology. Mike is a Christian before he's a Marxist.

I don't know if I believe that "You do not take over the Democratic Party; it takes over you." I really don't know.

I wonder what I am...