Did Broad-Based "Anti-Bush" "message" Save Status Quo

[oujiQualm]

Once about two years ago i entered the office and bookstore of one of the left parties, cant remember which one as I dont think these parties really matter, because they are not the vehicle through which change will happen.(ok this is debateable but its going to a be a boring one ) lets just move on to my real question.

I asked the bookstore manager, why were they not attacking the Democrats and just focussing on a very broad based "World Can't Wait" strategy that was simplistically anti-Bush. It seemed obvious to me that there is no way Bush could have done what he has done without mummies like the dem Senate leader from Neveda in their chief spokesperson positions.

While maybe in 1965 few people thought the two parties were the same, now it seems increasingly obvious BUT ALMOST NO ONE SEEMS TO BE SAYING IT. Why have their been so few protests et al outside democrats offices or even comments bashing democrats as bush-enabelers.

Is it becasue all these people are on "left" websites and are thus ceeding ground to the two corporate parties to play their game of false opposites. I know there are lots of good things about the internet, but are there some ways in which it works to fragment the public sphere and preserve the Democrats vital(to capitalism) role of Fake Opposition Party?

[jake williams]

It's because America is a shitscape with no Left. Bush was and is particularly awful, partly in deed but mostly in style, and one must remember that American politics is about marketing and appearances. The sorry state of things, from the various horrors in the world to the vacuousness of the domestic political scene, has made most Americans who might be inclined to oppose very weak and desperate. In their desperation they seek out mainstream figures, feeling that any other opposition is futile. And from their individual perspectives it is, even though seeking out a cheery Democrat really won't improve things substantially.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Simply put, Bush is the fall guy for the American political system and corporate oligarchy. If the problems that are more or less unavoidable in such a society are blamed on one man, the whole apparatus that actually runs the country will stay under the radar.

I was taking in a PBS documentary the other day about the build-up to the Iraq War, and it was really striking how little George Bush actually did. There were entire legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who actually formulated the policies (with people like Rumsfeld and Cheney there is a direct business connection as well) and Bush just read the speeches.

Presidents really don't run the country at all.

[jake williams]

Simply put, Bush is the fall guy for the American political system and corporate oligarchy. If the problems that are more or less unavoidable in such a society are blamed on one man, the whole apparatus that actually runs the country will stay under the radar.

I was taking in a PBS documentary the other day about the build-up to the Iraq War, and it was really striking how little George Bush actually did. There were entire legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who actually formulated the policies (with people like Rumsfeld and Cheney there is a direct business connection as well) and Bush just read the speeches.

Presidents really don't run the country at all.
This is also all true.

[shorelinetrance]

western bourgeoisie politics are about appearance over structure, as kropotkin said, they don't really run the country.

they put up a facade "change change change" but once they get elected they realize they can't do anything without the approval of 100 other people.

it's pointless.

[oujiQualm]

I agree with these posts.

True the so called left in US has been weak, but it has become much much much more so. I think there needs to be an explanation and a discussion as to why.

[Grunt]

True the so called left in US has been weak, but it has become much much much more so. I think there needs to be an explanation and a discussion as to why.
Absolutely !

I have always wondered why there never was a real socialist or
leftist movement in the US.

Practically all my friends in the US think that either Obama or
Clinton, or both - are 'left'...:scared:

But they are not left at all - far, far from it.

Than I tell them that there is the 'Socialist Party USA' and
Brian Moore is the presidential candidate.

Noone, absolutely noone knows that. They don't even know
that a 'Socialist Party' exists in the US ! :ohmy:

And quite many think that a Socialist party is against
the constitution !!! WTF ??

At the same time, some of them have read the great book
'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair.

I just don't get it...:(

[dirtycommiebastard]

And quite many think that a Socialist party is against
the constitution !!! WTF ??

I'd imagine it would be?

[Thíazì]

I'd imagine it would be?

Right to assembly?

Of course a Socialist Party isn't counter to the Constitution. The Constitution allows for the creation of any political party, from the Communist Party USA to the American Nazi Party.

[Grunt]

Of course a Socialist Party isn't counter to the Constitution. The Constitution allows for the creation of any political party, from the Communist Party USA to the American Nazi Party.
Many americans seem to think so. They tell me that capitalism is
in the constitution...:ohmy: