What could Obama do to alleviate the situation?

[RadioRaheem84]

I used to be a fierce critic of Obama, and to a great extent I still am, but that has slowly waned considering that I have been researching the economic situation more and more. I mean what could this man do that would help alleviate an utterly irreparable situation. I mean given his conventional liberal mode of thinking, what could this man do that would be different from the past administrations since the end of Jimmy Carter's reign when the economy screeched to a halt?

The new regulations put on credit cards have made credit card companies go ape shit and charge some of their current clients 30% interest! The man is obviously afraid of capital flight, a scorched earth policy, and right wing retaliation for even appearing slightly liberal. He is not stupid, I am sure people by now have told him that there is no productive economy and the best you can hope for (operating under this model) is to foster the growth of another bubble.

I mean the coporations have this country by the balls and they're willing to squeeze if any move is made to regulate or bring "change". I mean of course the only measure (under this model) is to use the government to prop up a manufacturing base the size of the one created during WWII, but that would be "socialism" according to the GOP and the right wing masses and even New Democrats within the Democratic Party. And even then the situation is different than back then as we might be swallowed up by our competitor nations so even then thats a risk policymakers do not want to take.

OK, so let's play devils advocate, how would a liberal solve this problem? How could he save capitalism? I mean I just think that this system has not only run its course, but we've been running on E and filling up a quarter of a tank while doing 120 on a speedway for nearly thirty years! Is the only option Socialism at this point (I know it always was, but is it just inevitible at this point) ?

[Crux]

He could throw money at the banks.

[Red Commissar]

State intervention in economies used to be relevant during Keynesian theory's heyday, but a combination of market globalization and the prevalence of neo-liberal policies has largely made it be abandoned by most countries. It is becoming increasingly difficult to deal with a country's issues when it's so tied into the global economy.

What Obama's now dealing with is how to fix a capitalist system where Keynesian concepts are no longer so relevant. In that way there's really not much he will do except to adhere to Reaganomics concept of trickle-down and keep those at top in power...

Really in the end Republican or Democrat would have done this, and fittingly the one not in power would have been playing to populist heart strings, as the Democrats were doing for the past 8 years.

[Dermezel]

The Democrats in general have to take a stronger, principled stance against the fascistic Republicans, however just like the Social Democrats in Germany they will do nothing but play the weak hand until the very coup.

[9]

Yes, the only option is socialism. The ruling class only makes concessions when it's forced to by the working class.
I think the whole notion that the Democrats give a flying fuck about the working class in the first place is pretty absurd, but I'm seeing it on revleft a lot lately, coupled with the idea that the Democrats are really in some concrete way better than the Republicans, which is also utter bullshit.

[Dermezel]

Yes, the only option is socialism. The ruling class only makes concessions when it's forced to by the working class.
I think the whole notion that the Democrats give a flying fuck about the working class in the first place is pretty absurd, but I'm seeing it on revleft a lot lately, coupled with the idea that the Democrats are really in some concrete way better than the Republicans, which is also utter bullshit.

Do not fall for the social fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) trap. Social Democrats may not be revolutionary socialists, but they are much better to have in power then actual fascists. The difference between Neo-Conservative Fundamentalism and fascism is cosmetic.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, the only option is socialism. The ruling class only makes concessions when it's forced to by the working class.
I think the whole notion that the Democrats give a flying fuck about the working class in the first place is pretty absurd, but I'm seeing it on revleft a lot lately, coupled with the idea that the Democrats are really in some concrete way better than the Republicans, which is also utter bullshit.

I haven't seen anyone apologize for Obama here on revleft. The Democrats do not care about the working class anymore than the Republicans do. I was surprised that Obama at least was attempting to keep campaign promises even though they've been severly compromised.

I mean the world economy has gone global and Keynesian economics do not even apply anymore so there is no hope, no other road to take but socialism.

[which doctor]

Do not fall for the social fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) trap. Social Democrats may not be revolutionary socialists, but they are much better to have in power then actual fascists. The difference between Neo-Conservative Fundamentalism and fascism is cosmetic.
The US Democratic Party is not a social democratic party. There is no social democratic alternative to vote for in the US, only the dems and repubs, which in terms of the effects of their policies, are not all that dissimilar to each other.

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, so let's play devils advocate, how would a liberal solve this problem? How could he save capitalism? I mean I just think that this system has not only run its course, but we've been running on E and filling up a quarter of a tank while doing 120 on a speedway for nearly thirty years! Is the only option Socialism at this point (I know it always was, but is it just inevitable at this point) ?Well people are right to say that capitalism (liberal or conservative) can not "fix" the economy because of the contradictions of the capitalist economy. Well they can potentially "fix" it by waging WWIII and forcibly reshuffling the imperialist deck of cards, but even capitalists are not going to really support that option until it becomes more or less inevitable.

But I disagree that Keynesian is not applicable to today. The same theoretical basis remains: in this economy, business has regained some stock-value and some profits not by new investments, but by reducing it's workforce and producing less. The theory of Keansinism is that the federal government in times like this can replace business as the engine for financial investments. This keeps everything running and keeps people working (and not rebelling).

But as we are seeing, the US ruling class has yet to really consider this route; there are many ways that capitalists can potentially mediate the effects of the recession and the longer-term capitalist crisis. The way they are doing this in the US now is by making workers pay for the gap. Obama is freezing federal support for the states and this will cause all the states to push austerity onto workers; furloughs, lay-offs, bare-bones services, union-busting. They did this in the past for a lot of industries and now they are aiming for the public sector unions. This is what is happening in California and soon in the rest of the country. SF's "liberal" mayor is planning on firing the city staff and immediately rehiring them at 1/2 pay... this is the kind of union busting that is likely to happen throughout the country (save a push-back from workers) for the next few years at least. In general tolls and tuition and parking tickets and regressive taxes will also come from workers to try and make up for the "budget crisis" in most states.

So how much debt were all 50 states in because of the "budget crisis"... $160 billion (about $50 billion of that was California). Then think TARP and the $700 billion to a handful of banks - and this gives you a sense of how easily the federal government could have responded to this crisis if they wanted to.

The US could have gone full Keynesian if they wanted to, but I think when the crash (and worker fightback) leveled off a bit the ruling class realized they could "shock-doctrine" the US population rather than re-new deal it. If I were a reformist and in Obama's position and sincerely wanted to help the US population from a liberal's perspective (let's assume that I'm an imperialist and don't want to touch the military budget - which is obviously a huge and easy way to open up a huge amount of funds) I might...

Potential liberal reforms:

1. I would have used the $700 billion to bail out the states and this would have kept unemployment much lower than it is now and made a huge section of the workforce feel like they have more stability and less worry about getting furloughed or fired.

2. I would have bailed out some of the people hit by the housing collapse by buying toxic property on the cheep (still a good deal for the business people) and then I would have used these homes for Katrina victim re-housing. This would have helped a few business people and a few hundred workers but the symbolic effect would have been huge: the administration would be loved by a huge section of the American population and the government would be seen by many as being effective and concerned with the plight of regular people (as opposed to letting people rot in unhealthy fema trailers for years).

3. Big projects that would lead to big employment. Part of the effect of the housing market collapse in California is the loss (disappearance really) of a lot of construction work and all the associated jobs. Some public works could help rehire these people and building infrastructure (which is like the mantra of the post-neoliberalism Keynesians) can help attract big business once they begin investing again.

Universal Health-care (dare I say it) would also be a way to bring a large amount of employment while being a giveaway to big business' largest employers. Big employers are not only reducing wages but they are trying to push off the huge costs of providing health coverage and so Universal health-care would take a lot of pressure off them - they could instantly save a lot of money by ditching the health-care while keeping wages and other benefits the same.

Unfortunately, the capitalists have figured that since workers are weak and not fighting back, they can have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to push healthcare costs on us from both sides: through bosses dumping plans on the one hand, and the federal government ensuring that we will still have to pay insurance costs on an individual basis.

As people have said, much more succinctly, since there has been no working class fight-back, the bosses feel like they can get away with "reforms from and for the top" without any reforms for us: it's a trickle-down new deal! But I think all of this will potentially backfire on them and the uniting of students with unionized teachers and workers in California (all realizing on a grass-roots level that our struggle is connected - and forcing the liberal reform organizations and unions to support them through pressure from below) is a glimpse of what fight-back might look like.

[chegitz guevara]

Do not fall for the social fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) trap. Social Democrats may not be revolutionary socialists, but they are much better to have in power then actual fascists. The difference between Neo-Conservative Fundamentalism and fascism is cosmetic.

The Democrats are not social democrats. There is a social democratic wing to the Democratic Party, but it is, overwhelmingly, the employers' Party, not ours. It's not "social fascism" and the GOP isn't fascist, even though it clearly has a fascist wing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Democrats are not social democrats. There is a social democratic wing to the Democratic Party, but it is, overwhelmingly, the employers' Party, not ours. It's not "social fascism" and the GOP isn't fascist, even though it clearly has a fascist wing.I mostly agree, but thought it would be funny to add: there's a social-democratic wing inside the Democratic party in much the same way there is a chicken wing inside me after I visit KFC. The Democrats's "big tent" serves to consume social movements and smaller populist groups in order to keep them tied to ruling class interests - just as when I eat some fried chicken I use that to fuel me, it will never turn me into a chicken :D.

The only thing I might disagree with in the post is the idea that there is a "fascist wing" of the Republicans - there's a wing that has fascist-like tendencies, there's certainty a racist, homophobic, sexist, elitist wing but generally real fascists - including most of the Patriot groups - are outside the party.

[Dermezel]

I haven't seen anyone apologize for Obama here on revleft. The Democrats do not care about the working class anymore than the Republicans do. I was surprised that Obama at least was attempting to keep campaign promises even though they've been severly compromised.

I mean the world economy has gone global and Keynesian economics do not even apply anymore so there is no hope, no other road to take but socialism.

We are a two-party state and within that context the Democrats represent the social Democratic wing. They are not as left as European social Democrats, but European politics are generally more multi-party.

[Dermezel]

The Democrats are not social democrats. There is a social democratic wing to the Democratic Party, but it is, overwhelmingly, the employers' Party, not ours. It's not "social fascism" and the GOP isn't fascist, even though it clearly has a fascist wing.

It is well known that the Republican party has been taken over by the Christian Right (http://www.theocracywatch.org/):

http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm



Spiritual Warfare

"We are not coming up against just human beings to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare." (Pat Robertson (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre3.html) at a 1994 Christian Coalition national strategy conference)
"By mobilizing eager volunteers down to the precinct (and local church) level and handing out 33 million voter guides -- often in church pews -- prior to last November's election, the Coalition is credited with providing the winning margin for perhaps half the Republicans' 52-seat gain in the House of Representatives and a sizable portion of their nine-seat pickup in the Senate." (Time (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,982929,00.html), May 15, 1995)
1991-1993: Religious Right Takes "Working Control" of the Republican Party -- Precinct by Precinct, State by State

Journalists attended Christian Coalition and Republican Party events in the early nineties documenting the tactics of the newly formed organization. Reports appeared in newspapers around the country detailing the take over of local Republican Party committees, and efforts by moderate Republicans to form competing entities. Following are some of those articles.



"WITH GOD AS THEIR CO-PILOT" by Joe Conason (http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over_copilot.htm), Playboy, March, 1993

The rich Republicans of San Antonio's Bexar County consider themselves very conservative. And they are. But the politics of this new crowd gave them a bad scare. Not long after the Christian rightists staged their coup, the president of the Alamo City Republican Women's club just gave up and quit.
"The so-called Christian activists have finally gained control," she explained in her resignation letter, "and the Grand Old Party is more religious cult than political organization.
Next came the Pennsylvania primary ... the shock came the next day, when the votes for obscure Republican state committee positions were tallied. From nowhere, conservative Christians had grabbed dozens of seats. The militant newcomers are now close to controlling the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, too.



In June, in the San Diego County towns of Lemon Grove and El Cajon, a slate of "pro-family" Christian right activists financed by a group of conservative businessmen swept the Republican primary for all of the open council seats, along with a slew of state assembly seats. On the same day, several hundred miles to the north in Santa Clara Country, another slate of "biblically oriented" candidates--committed to the death penalty for such sins as homosexuality and abortion--captured 14 of 20 seats on the Republican county central committee. The GOP apparatus in the nation's most populous state is within a few votes of being absolutely controlled by the Christian right.



Across the nation, in primary after primary, stunned Republican leaders echoed the lament of one longtime party activist in Texas, a personal friend of Barbara Bush, who suddenly found herself ousted by the fundamentalists. "They organized and we didn't," she said. "I didn't think it was going to be this bad.
"The Fifteen Percent Solution: How the Christian Right Is Building From Below To Take Over From Above" by Greg Goldin was originally published in the Nation (http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over_fifteen_percent.htm) in 1993. Quoting moderate Republicans from Goldin's article:

What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America. According to Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:

They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized. Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected.



Increasingly, they have the key say-so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate. In a state like Oregon, with 600,000 registered Republicans, it is possible for 2000 or 3000 people to control the state party apparatus. If they are outvoted by one or two votes, parliamentary manipulations begin, and after two or three hours of discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the more reasonable people with other things to do leave, and in the wee hours of the morning, things are decided. That's how they achieve their objectives.
"The Christian Coalition: On The Road To VICTORY? A Special Report From Inside The Pat Robertson Political Machine," by Journalist Frederick Clarkson, Church and State (http://www.theocracywatch.org/road_to_victory_1991.htm), January, 1992.

When I slipped into the national leadership meeting of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, I thought I knew what to expect. I'd written many stories about the Religious Right. But I was unprepared for what I saw, heard and felt inside Robertson's Virginia Beach, Va., headquarters for two days in November during the "Road to Victory" Conference and Strategy Briefing.
The GOP's Religious War, Joan Lowy of Scripps-Howard News Service (http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over_joan_lowey.htm):

Until last spring, Jo Martin was a relatively non*political Houston housewife. Today she's on the front lines of a religious war that has fractured the Republican Party. Martin, a 52-year-old mother of three, and her husband David, a stockbroker, are lifelong Republicans but hadn't been active in party politics for many years until they happened to attend a local GOP meeting last spring.



They were appalled by what they found. The party apparatus had been taken over by religious activists intent on bringing "biblical principles" to government: outlawing abortion, ostracizing homosexuals and teaching creationism in public schools, among other things. "We honest to goodness felt like we had fallen through a time warp into a Nazi brown-shirt meeting," Martin said.
Inside the Covert Coalition, Church and State (http://www.theocracywatch.org/clarkson_inside.html), Frederick Clarkson, November, 1992.


The Great Right Hope by Frederick Clarkson (http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over_great_right_hope.htm) documents how Dr. Steven Hotze out-shouted the GOP Chair to take over the leadership of the Harris County (home to Houston) political apparatus:
The wildest dreams of the Far Right in America may actually be within their reach - control of the Republican Party.
The Great Right Hope talks about Dr. Stephen Hotze. In 1990, Dr. Bruce Prescott received a video from Dr. Hotze:

In February 1990 I received an unsolicited video in the mail. The video came from a Dr. Stephen Hotze and was entitled "Restoring America: How You Can Impact Civil Government." Filmed at a church in my neighborhood, I recognized the actors as the pastor and congregants of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church (the Jerry Falwell kind). The video was a guide on how to 1) take over a Republican Party precinct meeting, 2) elect "Christian" delegates to the GOP District meeting, and 3) put planks supporting the theocratic agenda of Christian Reconstructionism into the party platform. more (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/11/23/85532/138)
San Jose Mercury New (http://www.theocracywatch.org/san_jose.html)s, 1992, Two articles -- one before the election, one after:

A group dedicated to making the Bible the law of the land has quietly positioned itself to take over the Republican Party's power structure in Santa Clara County.



The 17 Christian right candidates for the Republican Central Committee appear on a mailer put out by a Tehama County group called Citizens for Liberty. The flier says the candidates advocate "traditional family values, more jobs, lower taxes, welfare reform and choice in education."



But at least some have a more sweeping agenda ... Some see takeover plans. More liberal Republicans say the Central Committee campaign is part of a widespread "stealth" effort to take over America by starting with little-noticed local races. They cite elections in San Diego County two years ago, when 60 of 90 Christian right candidates for low-level offices won election, largely by campaigning through conservative churches.



"Clearly the strategy is to control the central committees and then use the central committees to give credibility to their candidates," said Luis Buhler...
A fundraising letter ... includes "a call for the death penalty for abortion, adultery and unrepentant homosexuality."
Many of these links come from The Activists Handbook, by Frederick Clarkson and Skipp Porteous of the (no longer active) Institute for First Amendment Studies. Articles from the Handbook have been scanned for this site because they are not otherwise available on the web. These articles document the activities of the Christian Coalition from 1991-1993 as they began to take "working control" of the Republican Party.
To read about the covert tactics of the Christian Reconstruction movement, click here (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre4.html). What happened between 1964 and 1994?

A group of Republican strategists who had worked on Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign were worried. Goldwater had been soundly defeated, and the strategists feared that the base of the Republican Party -- primarily southern segregationists and the very wealthy -- was too narrow. So they set out to expand the base calling themselves the New Right. Goldwater was not part of the New Right.



One member of the New Right, Republican Strategist Paul Weyrich (http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manual.htm), founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973 -- a think tank to promote the ideas of the New Right. Weyrich also founded ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council in 1973 to coordinate the work of Religious Right state legislators. ALEC initially positioned itself as a counterweight to liberal foundations and think tanks, focusing on social issues like abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment, but became a magnet for corporate lobbyists.

ALEC gives business a direct hand in writing bills that are considered in state assemblies nationwide. Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations -- including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute -- the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy, supplying precooked McBills to state lawmakers. Since most legislators are in session only part of the year and often have no staff to do independent research, they're quick to swallow what ALEC serves up. In 2000, according to the council, members introduced more than 3,100 bills based on its models, passing 450 into law. Ghostwriting the Law, (http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/09/ma_95_01.html) Karen Olson, Mother Jones, Sept.Oct. 2002
In 1979 Weyrich coined the term "Moral Majority." Their goal was to politicize members of fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches - a constituency that had been basically apolitical.



Not all members of fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches support the Religious Right, but those were the groups targeted by the New Right. And some members of churches outside of those mentioned support the Religious Right, while many other Christian leaders strongly oppose them.
1980 -- A Watershed Year

Paul Weyrich, speaking in Dallas in 1980, captured the spirit of this new movement. He said,

"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context."
Jerry Falwell, (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/) who became the leader of the Moral Majority said: "get them saved, get them Baptized, and get them registered." (These two quotes can be heard on the video produced by People for the American Way called Life And Liberty for All Who Believe (http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm).)



Thousands of fundamentalist preachers participated in political training seminars that year, and by June, more than two million voters had been registered Republican. Their goal was to register 5 million by November. In the 1980 elections, the newly politicized Religious Right succeeded in unseating five of the most liberal Democrat incumbents in the U.S. Senate, and provided the margin that helped Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter. The year 1980 was the year that a sleeping giant was awakened, and the political landscape of the United States was dramatically altered.
Many other organizations formed in the eighties. The Reverend Timothy LaHaye (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5601&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1072) founded the American Coalition for Traditional Values -- a network of 110,000 churches committed to getting Christian candidates elected to office.


In 1980 LaHaye was present at the birth of the Moral Majority and agreed to serve on the organization's first board of directors under the tutelage of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, with whom he remains close today.

A year later, LaHaye was co-founder and first president of the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive umbrella group of far right leaders who meet regularly to plot strategy designed to advance a theocratic agenda.
"No one individual has played a more central organizing role in the religious right than Tim LaHaye," says Larry Eskridge of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, calling him "the most influential American evangelical of the last twenty-five years." (Rolling Stone, January 28, 2004.)
In 1979 Beverly and Tim LaHaye founded Concerned Women for American (CWA) claiming a membership of 600,000. With prayer and action meetings, the women were, and still are a formidable lobbying force. CWA was successful in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, and their lawyers won an important textbook case in 1987 to combat Secular Humanism in the schools. That case was later overturned by the higher courts.
James Dobson, host of the radio show Focus on the Family, founded the Family Research Council (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6316&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1469) in 1983 to act as the political lobbying arm of his radio show. Because an estimated four million listeners tune into his radio show daily, the Family Research Council has remained a formidable lobbying organization.



And the highly secretive Council for National Policy (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6949&abbr=cs_) was founded in 1981 to conduct three-times-a-year strategy sessions. The CNP was and still is an umbrella organization of right-wing leaders who gather regularly to plot strategy, share ideas and fund causes and candidates to advance the theocratic agenda. more (http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush_cnp_times_aug28.htm)

(http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush_cnp_times_aug28.htm)
A Short-Lived Sigh of Relief


In 1988 Pat Robertson (http://www.theocracywatch.org/pat_robertson.htm) ran for President in the Republican Primaries and lost to George Bush Sr. In 1989 the Moral Majority disbanded. A lot of people concerned about the Religious Right breathed a deep sigh of relief. But there was one strange event that should have been a warning sign.
Pat Robertson beat Vice President George Bush Sr. in the Iowa Republican caucuses. How did Pat Robertson beat the Vice President in that state? Members of his campaign worked precinct by precinct to take over the party leadership at the local level until, eventually, they controlled the state party apparatus.



In March, 1986, I (Joan Bokaer) was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus:



"How to Participate in a Political Party

Rule the world for God.
Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
Hide your strength.
Don't flaunt your Christianity.
Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing."
As can be seen from the documentation on this page, one of their tactics was to tie up the meetings for hours until people left. Then they appointed themselves leaders and made key decisions. Once they took over the local leadership throughout the State of Iowa, they could control the state party apparatus. After their success in the Iowa '88 primary, they used the same tactic in several other states -- precinct by precinct.



Republican State Party Platforms began to get pretty interesting in 1992. The Republican Party of Washington State in 1992 outlawed witchcraft and yoga classes.
The Decade of Pat Robertson

In 1990, Pat Robertson laid out his key organizing principle in his book The Millennium:

"With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree."
Robertson said to the Denver Post in 1992,

"We want...as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians..."
Robertson hired Ralph Reed as the Christian Coalition's (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6136&abbr=pr&news_iv_ctrl=1509) political mastermind. To get their candidates elected Reed and Robertson taught them to use stealth: avoid publicity, stay out of debates, and work below the radar screen. Don't call attention to yourself. And then Christian Coalition campaigned on their behalf exclusively in fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.



While candidates avoided the limelight, Christian Coalition Family Values Voter Guides were distributed to participating churches. Church telephone directories were used for "get-out-the-vote" telephone banks.
1994: A Watershed Year

By election time in 1994 Christian Coalition had distributed 40 million copies of the "Family Values Voter's Guide" in more than 100,000 churches nationwide. 1994 was the year Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. It was also the year that Republicans made a huge gain in State Legislatures.



The purpose of focusing on state legislative races was to enable Republicans to gerrymander (http://www.theocracywatch.org/redistricitng.htm) Congressional Districts. To be sure, both parties have used the practice of gerrymandering to their advantage, but, in recent years, Republicans have elevated this practice to new heights.
Up until 1994, Democrats held strong majorities in both houses of most State Legislatures. In 1992 Democrats had majorities in both bodies of twenty-five legislatures, Republicans eight. In 1994, Democrats had majorities in eighteen, Republicans, nineteen. By 2003, Democrats had sixteen, Republicans, twenty-one.



http://www.theocracywatch.org/ralph_reed_small.jpg (http://www.theocracywatch.org/ralph_reed.jpg) Time Magazine, in May, 1995, called Ralph Reed "The Right Hand of God" and credited the Christian Coalition with giving the Republicans their victories. Out of forty-five new members in the U.S. House of Representatives and nine in the U.S. Senate in 1994, roughly half were Christian Coalition candidates.
1996, 45 million voter guides were sent out.



In 2000, 75 million voter guides were sent out to support George Bush.
In 2002 - 24 million. In 2002 the Religious Right backed candidates won 18 new House seats, and 11 Senate and Gubernatorial elections. Ralph Reed resigned from Christian Coalition in 1997, it lost its tax exempt status in 1999, and Robertson resigned in 2001.
The organization appears to have lost much of its momentum, but it changed the course of American politics. The candidates it has supported now reside in the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, the courts, state boards of education and more. And most of the Republican leadership of the U.S. Congress consistently receive 100% scores from Christian Coalition. Thirty-eight out of fifty-two Republicans in the U.S. Senate received 100% scorecards from Family Research Council in 2003 and forty-one out of fifty-one Senators received 100% scorecards from Christian Coalition in 2004.



To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three organizations that promote the theocratic right -- the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum -- click here (http://www.theocracywatch.org/cc_senate_2004.xls). (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer, (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/) October, 2004.)
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), speaking at a Christian Coalition (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5492&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1081) gathering in October, 2002 said about the voter guides:

"As a candidate, I could see my polling numbers shoot up as those voter guides went out. I appreciate it and they work."
Bush-Cheney Campaign, 2004

Ralph Reed, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, relied on stealth tactics throughout the nineteen nineties. He no longer needs to use stealth. As a senior official of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, Reed attended the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to ask pastors explicitly for their help in winning votes.
Mr. Reed delivered his remarks at a Bush-Cheney "pastors reception," paid for by the Bush campaign. The hosts were the departing president of the Southern Baptists and three other prominent leaders, and the reception was in a conference room of a hotel adjacent to the convention. As the pastors came in, a campaign aide collected about 100 signatures and addresses from ministers pledging to endorse Mr. Bush's re-election publicly, to "host a citizenship Sunday for voter registration," to "identify someone who will help in voter registration and outreach" and to organize a " 'party for the president' with other pastors" on specific dates closer to the election. (New York Times (http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush_reed_times_june18_04.htm), June 18, 2004)


Even the Republicans themselves (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) admit that they have been taken over by the Christian Right:



DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.


.....


DEAN: What I'm saying is that there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. No question, the academic testing show -- the empirical evidence shows -- when people are frightened, they tend to go to these authority figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this.


......


DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, "I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers." They're not going to change. They're going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them -- and they're growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics -- The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they're doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are.

[Dermezel]

Back from the Brink

Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts.



Five of the Republican Senators who were unseated on November 7 received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Voter Scorecards. (http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=VR06J01) Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. (FRC and FOF are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.) For more discussion of the elections go to Talk To Action (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/8/201547/370/Dominionism_in_the_military/What_happened_yesterday).



Where do we go from here?

Dominionists were very close to controlling all three branches of the federal government from which they could impose their narrow interpretation of scripture on the rest of society. People so close to full political power are not going to go away. The American people need to maintain vigilance and understand the history of how dominionists came to political power (http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm). And we need to embrace democracy with a passion -- for it was voter apathy that allowed leaders like Pat Robertson to get so many dominionists elected to Congress in the first place.


From first link above.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Taken over by the christian right? No, that's the tail wagging the dog. The Republicans need the christian right to act as their social base, but the Republican party leadership is well aware of their allegiance to the ruling class and the use of "christian issues" is more to promote wedge issues than to actually advance some theocratic ideas.

Thinking that the Republican party is "taken over" by the christian right, is liberal-logic. It's the same idea that Labor can re-take the Democratic party or that "special interest" groups run either party. It's just historically untrue - the 2 parties are ruling class institutions.

[Dermezel]

Taken over by the christian right? No, that's the tail wagging the dog.

You could have said the same thing about the fascists in Germany and Italy.

[GatesofLenin]

Problem with Western style governments is that politicians belong in a separate class from the rest of us. There IS NO difference between the parties. All politicians want is to work long enough to qualify for 100% pensions. Here in Canada, the average salary of a politician is $15000.00/month. The politicos only have to work 10 years to qualify for full 100% pensions for life. They don't care for the rest of us. They make promises for the sheeple so they go vote each election year under the idea that the guy or gal they vote for will do as they promise. It's all BS and that is one thing I'm waiting for, for the citizens to finally take notice and demand action. If we vote for you, you must do as you promised or you're FIRED! Are we a democracy or what? Why do we have different sets of rules for politicians and the rest of the citizens? If a working person commits fraud, they go to jail, if a politican does it, they are excused. F this system, I've had enough already! As far as Obama goes, I believe he ran for the presidency with good intentions, hoping to change the system but he quickly discovered that the Office of the US President is nothing but a show seat. The real "system controllers" work behind the scenes. Notice how Obama aged alot since his first days as pres?

[Robocommie]

Taken over by the christian right? No, that's the tail wagging the dog. The Republicans need the christian right to act as their social base, but the Republican party leadership is well aware of their allegiance to the ruling class and the use of "christian issues" is more to promote wedge issues than to actually advance some theocratic ideas.

Thinking that the Republican party is "taken over" by the christian right, is liberal-logic. It's the same idea that Labor can re-take the Democratic party or that "special interest" groups run either party. It's just historically untrue - the 2 parties are ruling class institutions.

Well said. The Republican Party puts on a Christian Moralist front, but it's a dog and pony show.

[Dermezel]

Problem with Western style governments is that politicians belong in a separate class from the rest of us. There IS NO difference between the parties. All politicians want is to work long enough to qualify for 100% pensions. Here in Canada, the average salary of a politician is $15000.00/month. The politicos only have to work 10 years to qualify for full 100% pensions for life. They don't care for the rest of us. They make promises for the sheeple so they go vote each election year under the idea that the guy or gal they vote for will do as they promise. It's all BS and that is one thing I'm waiting for, for the citizens to finally take notice and demand action. If we vote for you, you must do as you promised or you're FIRED! Are we a democracy or what? Why do we have different sets of rules for politicians and the rest of the citizens? If a working person commits fraud, they go to jail, if a politican does it, they are excused. F this system, I've had enough already! As far as Obama goes, I believe he ran for the presidency with good intentions, hoping to change the system but he quickly discovered that the Office of the US President is nothing but a show seat. The real "system controllers" work behind the scenes. Notice how Obama aged alot since his first days as pres?

This is true in a very general sense. Because of the economic laws which induce capital to naturally centralize and accumulate over time, any politician or party working within a capitalist context will find itself extremely constrained by the bourgeoisie order.

However it is not always business as usual. Bourgeoisie democracy, while in many respects horrid, is not as bad as bourgeoisie fascism.

And what Higgins fails to understand with his "the fascists/fundamentalists will not take over because the bourgeoisie rule" logic is that fascism is merely a different kind of capitalism.

Hitler, despite some of his rhetoric, did not expropriate the big bourgeoisie. All major industries remained privately owned, and all he did was reduce the rights of the proletariat:


The Nazis broke unions, lowered wages, abolished overtime pay, decreased business taxes and increased business subsidies. Their program bears a strong resemblance to the Republican agenda in this country.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Capitalism_Fascism_WW2.html

[Dermezel]

It's just historically untrue - the 2 parties are ruling class institutions.

Except for the fact that Republicans started arresting Democrats (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html) during the last couple years of the Bush administration.

[Klaatu]

I mean of course the only measure (under this model) is to use the government to prop up a manufacturing base the size of the one created during WWII, but that would be "socialism" according to the GOP and the right wing masses and even New Democrats within the Democratic Party.

That is a good point: the modern GOP would have resisted turning Detroit's factories into war-making industries, because that would be "socialist." This suggests that is was actually socialism that won WWII, not capitalism! :D

[RadioRaheem84]

That is a good point: the modern GOP would have resisted turning Detroit's factories into war-making industries, because that would be "socialist." This suggests that is was actually socialism that won WWII, not capitalism! :D

It wasn't socialism as workers weren't in control of the means of production but it did show that a country can grow faster when the economy is centrally planned.

[Klaatu]

But as we are seeing, the US ruling class has yet to really consider this route; there are many ways that capitalists can potentially mediate the effects of the recession and the longer-term capitalist crisis. The way they are doing this in the US now is by making workers pay for the gap. Obama is freezing federal support for the states and this will cause all the states to push austerity onto workers; furloughs, lay-offs, bare-bones services, union-busting. They did this in the past for a lot of industries and now they are aiming for the public sector unions. This is what is happening in California and soon in the rest of the country. SF's "liberal" mayor is planning on firing the city staff and immediately rehiring them at 1/2 pay... this is the kind of union busting that is likely to happen throughout the country (save a push-back from workers) for the next few years at least. In general tolls and tuition and parking tickets and regressive taxes will also come from workers to try and make up for the "budget crisis" in most states.

This is what I mean in my signature. Society will be held accountable by how it treats the less-wealthy. Here in my state, they are talking about cutting the pay of state workers, while capitalist aristocracy gets to hog the gold. Something is wrong with a society that allows do-nothings at the top of the dung heap to collect fortunes, while those underneath the dung heap get to eat the stuff or else starve. This is freedom? They can stick this so called "free-enterprise" system where the sun never shines. Spread the wealth to those who actually deserve it. That ain't bankers and Wall Street thugs.

[Klaatu]

It wasn't socialism as workers weren't in control of the means of production but it did show that a country can grow faster when the economy is centrally planned.

Well, yes. Agreed. Planning is obviously efficient. That is common sense. Too bad the "free marketers" don't agree with central planning. It seems to work in Japan? 1930s Germany? They seemed to do quite well, economically speaking, even after the chaos of the Weimar Republic...

[Dermezel]

It wasn't socialism as workers weren't in control of the means of production but it did show that a country can grow faster when the economy is centrally planned.

War Socialism. Every country tends to become more socialistic at times of war, so as to at the very least prevent your merchants from trading with the enemy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Except for the fact that Republicans started arresting Democrats (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html) during the last couple years of the Bush administration.And Green Party members, reformists, radicals and all sorts of people have had their bourgeois rights repressed by the Democratic party, so fascism looses it's meaning. Ralph Nader had every legal or extra-legal means thrown at him by the Democratic party establishment for the express purpose of restricting opposition and repressing dissenting voices (neoliberalism, the war, immigration - all of which Republicans and Democrats agree on aside from the details)... does this mean that the Democratic Party is fascist? Obviously no.

The US ruling class can get things done without fascism at this point and so while they walk by the fascist fence every once in a while and provoke the fascist pit-bulls, the ruling class doesn't want them out of the yard if it doesn't need to.

Just look at how the McCain campaign and the Republican party are dealing with right-wing populism. They were too happy to stoke racism in the campaign, but then quickly had to try and dial it back when things became overtly racist really quick. It's the same with the tea-parties: the ruling class wants them on the one hand to attack "socialism" and deflate popular hopes in economic change for workers (healthcare, other reforms that pro-Obama workers hoped for), but they are also desperately trying to reign-in the tea-party and make sure they are boots on the ground for the establishment and not some independent demagogue or far-right movement like a modern George Wallace.

[Dermezel]

That is a good point: the modern GOP would have resisted turning Detroit's factories into war-making industries, because that would be "socialist." This suggests that is was actually socialism that won WWII, not capitalism! :D

Indeed. It was the Soviet Union and the Chinese Red Army that did most of the fighting against the fascists. They may not have been socialist 100%, but their general ideology was socialistic.

In fact the primary role played by the capitalists was helping to make the Nazis rich.

[Dermezel]

And Green Party members, reformists, radicals and all sorts of people have had their bourgeois rights repressed by the Democratic party, so fascism looses it's meaning.

I'm talking about arresting a governor during an election, and secretly shipping him to 5 different jails. That refutes your claim that the parties are as closely allied and friendly as you seem to believe.


Ralph Nader had every legal or extra-legal means thrown at him

That is different then being arrested after he won an election and secretly shipped to five different prisons.


The US ruling class can get things done without fascism at this point and so while they walk by the fascist fence every once in a while and provoke the fascist pit-bulls, the ruling class doesn't want them out of the yard if it doesn't need to.

You are way, way too idealistic on this issue. What you mean to say is some members of the ruling class don't want fascists. Others simply do not care. And others in the US would be perfectly fine with it as long as they do not call themselves fascist.

Again you are ignoring mountains of evidence, from various articles, all of which converge on a single point.

You have already admitted that the Democrats are not fascist, so your only point can be to defend the Republicans from claims of fascism. Why you are doing this is beyond me.

There are countless articles attesting to a take over by the Christian right:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/ChristianRight_AmerFascism.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2005/03/04/a-fascist-america/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0901-01.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/

There is also compelling evidence that religion played a key role in the rise of fascism:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

Again, I keep having to tell you that the modern day fascists will not call themselves fascist if they are serious about taking political power. They will disguise themselves as something else to the best of their ability. And in the US, the best way they could take power is by hijacking one of the two parties because the nation is so deadlocked in the two-party system.

[RadioRaheem84]

Just look at how the McCain campaign and the Republican party are dealing with right-wing populism. They were too happy to stoke racism in the campaign, but then quickly had to try and dial it back when things became overtly racist really quick. It's the same with the tea-parties: the ruling class wants them on the one hand to attack "socialism" and deflate popular hopes in economic change for workers (healthcare, other reforms that pro-Obama workers hoped for), but they are also desperately trying to reign-in the tea-party and make sure they are boots on the ground for the establishment and not some independent demagogue or far-right movement like a modern George Wallace.

The GOP and the capitalists funding these crazy groups are going lose control of their pit bull and its going to bite them in the ass. The GOP knows they're bat shit crazy and doesn't give a shit about Joe Six Pack and his nationalist zeal. They'll even reign him in if he goes too far, but there will come a time when they won't be able to muzzle him.


War Socialism. Every country tends to become more socialistic at times of war, so as to at the very least prevent your merchants from trading with the enemy.

War socialism? No. I believe the correct term is 'military Keynesianism'. Socialism does not equal nationalization, state capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Dermezel, chill out with the theocratic fascist talk. Yes, there is a growing movement of rabid nationalists, Christian theocrats and proto-fascists, but they won't do anything without the GOP guiding their plans. You're a bit paranoid.

[Dermezel]

War socialism? No. I believe the correct term is 'military Keynesianism'. Socialism does not equal nationalization, state capitalism.

Socialism can exist in different degrees and modes. And you are technically right about US/Great Britain state capitalism since the means of production were still heavily inherited. However, the point was that government control of the economy was necessary.

Also I am hoping you are not calling the USSR or People's Republic State Capitalist because they are Deformed Workers' States. This is empirically proven by virtue of the lack of inheritance of the means of production and the fact that revolutions within such systems tend to be more vertical (from the upper and lower ranks) then horizontal (meaning there is no propertied class interests necessarily tied to the social uprisings) .

[Dermezel]

Dermezel, chill out with the theocratic fascist talk. Yes, there is a growing movement of rabid nationalists, Christian theocrats and proto-fascists, but they won't do anything without the GOP guiding their plans. You're a bit paranoid.

Maybe. But you seem to think if the GOP turned fascist it would "bite them in the ass"- how so?

Are they going to expropriate the bourgeoisie?

[Jimmie Higgins]

You are way, way too idealistic on this issue. What you mean to say is some members of the ruling class don't want fascists. Others simply do not care. And others in the US would be perfectly fine with it as long as they do not call themselves fascist. No, the majority of the ruling class will absolutely pick fascism and barbarism if it means destroying the working class movement - WHAT I AM SAYING: the ruling class simply doesn't need jackbooted vigilantes going around and murdering strikers and intimidating immigrants and oppressed groups because the regular old legal system of bourgeois democracy is perfectly capable of achieving the same results as it is (right now).

In a fascist state if 100,000 people had come out to protest war, then 100,000 militia-men would have come out and shot into the crowd while the police gave them back-up. There would be no immigrant marches on May-Day because the Minutemen would be already marching in these streets.

Calling Republicans, fascists is fatalistic and the only conclusion I could draw if this were the case would be that I need to immediately stop communicating on the internet, go underground, learn how to blow up communication lines and transportation systems, and start training an Antifa to be resistance fighters.

If you believe that the Republicans are fascists and you are not doing all that above, then you are probably one of the people waiting for a savior to come and stop the big-bad fascists for you. People like LaRouche, BoB Avakian, Glenn Beck and countless establishment liberals call Bush or the Republicans (or Obama and the Democrats) fascist because the implication is that they are unstoppable until LaRouche/Glen Beck/Obama/Avakian are listened to and followed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You have already admitted that the Democrats are not fascist, so your only point can be to defend the Republicans from claims of fascism. Why you are doing this is beyond me. Because it's important to know the difference between a snake-bite and a spider-bite (even though either can kill you) if you want to survive either. Calling regular old bourgeois repressive racist pieces of shit "fascist" totally makes "fascism" meaningless.

Secondly, it is used by the liberal establishment to promote the idea that the Democrats are actually different and better than the Republicans. The way I see it, we are testing this theory right now and Obama is proof that the ruling class don't need a Republican to bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan, break unions, restore profits on the back of the working class, make neo-liberal policy. In fact given the unpopularity of the Republicans under Bush, the ruling class may feel they can only count on the Democrats to deliver an effective "bush doctrine".

The real reason the christian right is so strong and why the Republicans court them at all is because THEY ARE HELLA ORGANIZED! The real way to combat them and the Republicans and the Democrats is to be just as organized as they have been since the late 1970s. When our labor unions are militant, organized at the grassroots (just as local churches are), and unwilling to accept compromise, then unions will wild the same political weight (more because of their potential influence at the point of production) as the christian right.

Right now, we need to be organizing our side independent of the mainstream bourgeois parties - not fear-mongering which only causes working class consciousness to swing from the arms of one bourgeois party right into the arms of the other party of capitalism and imperialism.

[Dermezel]

No, the majority of the ruling class will absolutely pick fascism and barbarism if it means destroying the working class movement - WHAT I AM SAYING: the ruling class simply doesn't need jackbooted vigilantes going around and murdering strikers and intimidating immigrants and oppressed groups because the regular old legal system of bourgeois democracy is perfectly capable of achieving the same results as it is (right now).

The bourgeoisie are not always rational. They may overestimate the threat of socialism. They may agree with the fundamentalists. They may even do it for tax breaks.

It is an assumption that the bourgeoisie do not like fascism. As long as you do not call it fascism many may well be perfectly fine with it. You don't need all the bourgeoisie on board, just enough for them to take political power.

Most of the bourgeoisie sided with John Kerry over George Bush and Bush still "won" the election.


In a fascist state if 100,000 people had come out to protest war, then 100,000 militia-men would have come out and shot into the crowd while the police gave them back-up. There would be no immigrant marches on May-Day because the Minutemen would be already marching in these streets.

What do you think the TEABaggers are? Also have you ever been to anti-abortion rallies? There are plenty of fundamentalists there that will attack you.

You are also ignoring the fact that before they get political power they may not have police backing.

And trust me, if the Republicans are in power, and we suffer another 9/11 type attack, it may well go that way.


Calling Republicans, fascists is fatalistic

How? I am saying we should oppose them 100% while advocating socialism.

What's fatalistic is to say fascism will be inevitably this or that, instead of recognizing the cause and effect relationship and the ability of fascists to adopt new disguises. To not apply actual cause and effect analysis to the issue, but focus entirely on categorical reasoning you are overly idealizing the situation because you are not basing your conclusion on material, scientific evidence or research.

You are making categories of what the fascists are and what they will do, instead of treating it as a sociological empirical phenomenon which might not adhere to strict categorization.

It's known as verbalism- defining your way to victory. If I define fascism, as say, a petty bourgeoisie racist movement. And a movement rises that is paramilitary, petty bourgeoisie, ultra-nationalist, ultra-christian, ultra-corporatist, but I refuse to call it fascist because, let's say, they are not racist, I am making a fatal error based on the idealization of categorical reasoning.


and the only conclusion I could draw if this were the case would be that I need to immediately stop communicating on the internet, go underground, learn how to blow up communication lines and transportation systems, and start training an Antifa to be resistance fighters.

Actually you'd need the internet more then ever at that point, you'd just have to disguise your activities and be extremely cautious. Use proxies in other nations.

You do not just throw away technology during a resistance, you adapt it.


If you believe that the Republicans are fascists and you are not doing all that above, then you are probably one of the people waiting for a savior to come and stop the big-bad fascists for you.

No I am proposing a popular front stratagem. That is the fourth-generation warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare) solution.

[GatesofLenin]

That is a good point: the modern GOP would have resisted turning Detroit's factories into war-making industries, because that would be "socialist." This suggests that is was actually socialism that won WWII, not capitalism! :D
One of the biggest reasons the allies won WWII is because the Communist Soviet Union was willing to sacrifice alot of it's own people to keep the Germans busy on a second war front. Remember also who raided the Nazi parliament (Reichstag) first, it was the COMMUNISTS = Soviet Union. The greatest battle of WWII was Stalingrad, where people joined to fight a common enemy. Rich, middle class, poor, it did not matter, Stalingrad must not fall into Nazi hands. The strength of people, when they work together, is incredible! :thumbup1:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'd actually have to disagree with the OP in this case, despite normally having a similar mode of thought.

If somebody who campaigned on a fairly liberal platform then runs to the right because they are 'scared of the right's retaliation', we should not sympathise or understand this. His policies stink, even by the standards of the annoying, hypocritical American liberals. I'm not sure there is much to support with this man, but then I guess the US political system does set President's up to fail, something proven all too many times in history.

[Wanted Man]

Do not fall for the social fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) trap. Social Democrats may not be revolutionary socialists, but they are much better to have in power then actual fascists. The difference between Neo-Conservative Fundamentalism and fascism is cosmetic.

How can he be falling for the "social fascism trap"? For that, one would have to assume that the Democrats are social-democrats, and the Republicans are fascists, which is plainly ridiculous.

You can argue high and low that people who say this are "idealists", but how is it idealist to recognise reality? You're the one who's trying to twist and distort the meaning of the word "fascism" (and "social-democracy") to the extent that it is a meaningless term, because it can mean whatever you want it to. You're only fooling yourself when you claim that this is "scientific" and that others are "idealists".

All the horrible things that Republicans have done, both in and out of power, have always been done by liberal, conservative, and social-democratic parties all over the world. Indeed, the Democrats do most of them today.

By the way, one thing I'd like to know from people who insist that the Republicans are fascists: was the US then a fascist state before Obama came to power? Was the 2008 election then not a changing of the guard, but a peaceful anti-fascist revolution, like in Portugal? :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

You could have said the same thing about the fascists in Germany and Italy.

You could have, but you'd have been wrong. Jimmy Higgins, however, is correct about the GOP.

Some people have a bug up their butt about the Dominionists, see them under every bed, but they are a small sector of reactionary right-wing Christianity.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'd actually have to disagree with the OP in this case, despite normally having a similar mode of thought.

If somebody who campaigned on a fairly liberal platform then runs to the right because they are 'scared of the right's retaliation', we should not sympathise or understand this. His policies stink, even by the standards of the annoying, hypocritical American liberals. I'm not sure there is much to support with this man, but then I guess the US political system does set President's up to fail, something proven all too many times in history.

Obama's run to the right was out of reality that his promised reign of change was not going to happen and pandering to the right would be the only way to avoid an all out war with business interests. The man was probably told, or probably knew ahead of time, that the economy was in no shape to withstand a liberal much less a wannabe social democrat. The pass thirty years put us in such a mess and allowed for so much neo-liberalism that pulling any of that back would spell disaster. I mean Obama would face an Allende-like situation if he even pursued a modicum of what people thought he was going to do once in office.

The best he can do is to offer compromised, watered down vesions of his campaign promises. Stuff that teters on looking liberal-progressive but not pissing off the businesses with too many regulations. A Faux New Deal basically.

I liked what was said before about the possibility of Obama going Keynesian and many neo-Keynesians like Krugman and Stiglitz have suggested that this could be a rational approac to dealing with this situation but I just don't think that with such a globally connected economy that going protectionist is going to help.

What are some of the objections to going Keynesian in this day and age?

__________________

[gorillafuck]

Do not fall for the social fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) trap. Social Democrats may not be revolutionary socialists, but they are much better to have in power then actual fascists. The difference between Neo-Conservative Fundamentalism and fascism is cosmetic.
Democrats aren't Social Democrats. They're center-right, generally. The only actual Social Democrat in the Democrat party I can think of off the top of my head is Kucinich.

And Apikoros is right, the democrats aren't concretely better then the GOP. They have gentler, kinder words to the same politics.

[Klaatu]

Indeed. It was the Soviet Union and the Chinese Red Army that did most of the fighting against the fascists. They may not have been socialist 100%, but their general ideology was socialistic.

In fact the primary role played by the capitalists was helping to make the Nazis rich.

That is a very good point. Capitalists made the Nazis rich. That includes American capitalists, who traded with the Nazis before the war.
(Ford, for example.) And then when it came time to fight, there was much opposition to getting involved (probably from the capitalists)
That is, until Pearl Harbor.

[Klaatu]

War Socialism. Every country tends to become more socialistic at times of war, so as to at the very least prevent your merchants from trading with the enemy.

That seems to have changed under George Bush. Conquer a country in a few days, and then suck the wealth out of it. Or so he thought.
Turns out that the Iraqi people are not as gullible as the American right-wingers are. :confused:

[Klaatu]

The GOP and the capitalists funding these crazy groups are going lose control of their pit bull and its going to bite them in the ass. The GOP knows they're bat shit crazy and doesn't give a shit about Joe Six Pack and his nationalist zeal. They'll even reign him in if he goes too far, but there will come a time when they won't be able to muzzle him.


That time may be already past?

[Klaatu]

The real reason the christian right is so strong and why the Republicans court them at all is because THEY ARE HELLA ORGANIZED! The real way to combat them and the Republicans and the Democrats is to be just as organized as they have been since the late 1970s. When our labor unions are militant, organized at the grassroots (just as local churches are), and unwilling to accept compromise, then unions will wild the same political weight (more because of their potential influence at the point of production) as the christian right.

I would submit that the first people that need to be "put out of business" are the union-busters. There are many of these organizations in states such as Virginia and Texas. They push for "right-to-work" laws in other states (They should mind their own business and stay out of my state) Write letters to the editor of conservative newspapers like Wall Street Journal, and expose these hooligans for what they are, by pointing out all of the good things unions have done for an otherwise-unkind capitalistic system. We need to study 19th century American and British history to learn about early industrial working conditions, and the dark pre-union days. Many of us here on this site seem to be knowledgeable in this area.

[vyborg]

Obama has an impossible task: try to avoid the final days of US supremacy. US imperialism is loosing power by the day vis a vis the new economic powers.
The situation of the US public finance, reflecting this decline, is horrible.

Obama as the representative of US big business cannot do anything to alleviate the situation of the masses if not some gestures.

We cannot have any confidence in him. Anyway, we must also be patient with people that still believe in Obama

[The Red Next Door]

He can stop giving those fuckers on wall street, our money and put it to good use, like education and programs to help the unemployed. He can stop the two wars that we are having, He can drop all the neocon bs, and take this motherfucker far to the left. He need to stop fucking around with the republicans. fuck trying to have a united country.

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree Midwestanarcho but stopping short of nationalizing the banks, there was nothing Obama could do but stabilize the economy with capital injection and pave the way for a new bubble. It was inevitible, unless he took a direct Keynesian approach and that would've probably proved fatal with the connected global economy. Also, you're forgetting that the TARP plan was Bush's.

[vyborg]

Nationalization of the banks is not, per se, a socialist policy. on the contrary. if not Brown Sarkozy and Merkel would be all great socialists. If a bank is nationalized but without workers' control, the formal public ownership say nothing about its social role

[Wolf Larson]

Do not fall for the social fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism) trap. Social Democrats may not be revolutionary socialists, but they are much better to have in power then actual fascists. The difference between Neo-Conservative Fundamentalism and fascism is cosmetic.

No no and no. The concessions liberals legislated into law have saved capitalism. Keynesian liberals killed the socialist movement and bought complacency from US workers. They're corporate economic fascists and colonialists/imperialists. Obama is scum. I usually agree with the OP's posts and point of view but I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with this one. In fact I may edit this post later and show one of his prior posts criticizing liberals in a manner that made me proud to post on RevLeft ;) RadioRaheem84 - I still think you're one of the smarter posters. Not that my opinion matters either way.

[RadioRaheem84]

No no and no. The concessions liberals legislated into law have saved capitalism. Keynesian liberals killed the socialist movement and bought complacency from US workers. They're corporate economic fascists and colonialists/imperialists. Obama is scum. I usually agree with the OP's posts and point of view but I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with this one. In fact I may edit this post later and show one of his prior posts criticizing liberals in a manner that made me proud to post on RevLeft ;) RadioRaheem84 - I still think you're one of the smarter posters. Not that my opinion matters either way.

Thanks for the kind words, Larson. I wasn't trying to make Obama look like a victim of circumstance or to show that he is a friend to socialism but that, at the vantage point of a liberal, there is literally nothing one can do to remedy capitalism at this point.

Obama is in a situation where corporations have usurped so much power that any appeals for reform are going to fall of deaf ears. He cannot be an FDR unless he completley overhauls the system. Being critical of him is almost pointless as he can do nothing even if he wanted to be a social democrat, which we both know he is not.

The only solution is socialism.

[The Red Next Door]

I agree Midwestanarcho but stopping short of nationalizing the banks, there was nothing Obama could do but stabilize the economy with capital injection and pave the way for a new bubble. It was inevitible, unless he took a direct Keynesian approach and that would've probably proved fatal with the connected global economy. Also, you're forgetting that the TARP plan was Bush's.
oh yeah, thanks for bring that up:thumbup1:

[GPDP]

Thanks for the kind words, Larson. I wasn't trying to make Obama look like a victim of circumstance or to show that he is a friend to socialism but that, at the vantage point of a liberal, there is literally nothing one can do to remedy capitalism at this point.

Obama is in a situation where corporations have usurped so much power that any appeals for reform are going to fall of deaf ears. He cannot be an FDR unless he completley overhauls the system. Being critical of him is almost pointless as he can do nothing even if he wanted to be a social democrat, which we both know he is not.

The only solution is socialism.

I agree with this post, except for one thing. I don't think it's pointless to criticize him. Not when you have people like Michael Moore pleading that we stand behind Obama to help him enact his "progressive agenda," whatever that is.

We need to remain a solid source of criticism of the Obama administration, so that we can counteract the delusions of Obamaniacs that refuse to see Obama for the corporatist, center-right bourgeois stooge he is, and would have the working class defend Obama and get behind his bullshit policies, which somehow get spun as progressive or at least as a bulwark against the loony right.

[Klaatu]

Why not start up a truly National Bank, run by the government, in order to
simply compete with these corrupt private banksters? We could restore
reasonable credit and interest rates to the economy. It would seem that
borrowers would flock to this bank, abandoning their old "private" banks
and ultimately put the capitalists out of business for good. Granted, this
would take some time, but why don't we do this? (ditto on health insurance)