The Country Is Being Dragged - Kicking And Screaming - To The Left!

Is the government being dragged to the left? It's leaning decidedly to the right in this view. And that lady's sign is truth-telling at its best.

The absolute unwillingness, or refusal, to acknowledge the truth of what is right in front of our collective eyes is astounding, baffling, bewildering and mind-boggling. It gets dangerous when folks act on the belief that up is down, the world is flat, and that in Washington, the left is radical.

The political, governing left is not radical, it's not even remotely progressive. Just ask all those Goldman-Sachs folks appointed to high places. Or Arlen Specter.

That reaction comes after reading a story telling of a new conservative-centric web site - Ricochet - launching soon. Ricochet is designed as an "online conversation that is akin to a conservative cocktail party." That's the goal, to show how the collective right is funny, thoughtful, engaging and doggone it, people like us! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37189215/ns/politics/

A statement in this article made me roll my eyes. It's attributed to Ricochet honcho Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (I'm sure he's been employed elsewhere the last couple of decades or so - but maybe this job is the best conservative credential he could produce): "At a time when the country is being dragged to the left by Washington and mainstream media, this is another way to fight back."

That statement beggars belief. America is being dragged to the left?! Conservatives must fight back?!? I can think of four major Obama Administration accomplishments - three with the assent of a allegedly-liberal Democratic majority Congress - that should please every conservative of every stripe. Why fight when you're already winning?

1. Congress mandated that every American purchase a broken private-sector product: health insurance. PURCHASE, as in spend money in a capitalist system, as in turn a profit for a company, as in no money, no service. A very conservative approach – everyone pays, cash on the barrel! Don't dare think about distributing a societal benefit equally, paid for by taxes – that would be left-leaning, wouldn't it?

2. Continuing to spend over $500 billion per year, every year, on the War Department - very liberal move there. Maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of private contractors on the taxpayer dime, in an illegal occupation of two foreign countries - if that's a left position, what would the right-wing stand be? Prolonging massive military actions and paying billions to for-profit companies to assist that process - a war to procure resources and a tidy private profit in one package! Which part don't conservatives like?

3. The President has offered an energy bill that advocates more offshore and inland oil drilling, more coal burning, and the construction of new nuclear power plants. And he’s apparently done little to get the Department of Interior to end its incredibly automatic rubber-stamp policy towards extraction industry regulation. Again, moves that most left-leaners have been advocating for years!

4. The President and Congress agree - civil rights are secondary, and the most privacy-invasive laws in American history must be maintained! So the alleged leftist Dems agree with the GOP - the Patriot Act must be extended, domestic surveillance must be maintained, and the government has the right to arrest anyone on the planet, anytime, on executive order alone. Somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Dick Cheney is smiling.

However, this statement from the article is absolutely true:

"In addition, Obama has been in the White House long enough to convince people of the direction he's taking America in..."

That he has. Only folks totally committed to blindered thinking could possibly look at the evidence and maintain that the Obama administration is liberal verging on socialist. (And it works both ways - the president has a lot of unblinking, unthinking supporters, as well.)

Or is this ridiculous position being advocated by those who see a way to gain more power and money by exploiting those who would rather yell than think? So who is funding Ricochet? The fellows quoted in the article are just the faces. Follow the money, and maybe we'll find a cozy relationship with Tea Party funders?

Corporate Money Wins

Stunning news yesterday - the Supreme Court has opened the door for corporations to jump into political campaigns with both feet. Go here to read/watch a very clear explanation about the decision and the background of the case:http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

Going forward, it's legally possible for these "persons" (as corporations long ago gained many of the same legal rights/protections as individuals) to openly spend money in elections - oops, I mean exercise their right of free speech - just like any other "person."

Of course corporations already dominate the political/government landscape - but now they can forgo those pesky rules about PACs, corporate money bundling, and other contributory efforts.

Individual citizens are still face a dollar limit on contributions to any single federal campaign. Corporate "citizens" - probably not.

I guess the "equal-opportunity" of the American system provides a solution: the interested citizens can set up a corporate entities to increase their electoral spending power - oops, I mean amplify their message. That seems simple enough! Then those citizens can successfully compete with messages being sent by their fellow citizens, named Goldman-Sachs, Haliburton, etc.

"Swift boat"-style ads are where corporations may now indulge freely. The overall effect on hearing both sides of an issue in the media - already a massive challenge - will be chilling. Writer/legal consultant Richard Goldberg on the tattered state of regulating money and elections:

As many have noted, this amounts to a significant gutting of our already tepid campaign finance laws, and it will allow corporations like Aetna—if they can find a political issue about which they feel strongly (can anyone think of one?)—to use corporate funds, derived from success in the economic marketplace, to defeat candidates in the political marketplace. That political marketplace, which was once called the "marketplace of ideas," may henceforth be called the "marketplace of whichever corporation can buy the most ads." This money will be spent nearly without regulation.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/17055/can-anything-fix-our-broken-campaign-finance-system-part-i

Journalist Greg Palast weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling. He explores some scenarios and analyzes the potential real-life results of the decision. His assertion that the Obama campaign of 2008 was majority-funded by individual citizen contributions has been proven wrong, but he raises pertinent issues - like the potential that foreign governments/mega-corporations, with a registered U.S. corporate arms (gotta love Joe Biden's Delaware, home of the corps), could spend without restriction on political campaigns.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens United case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. (Ted) Olson (arguing in favor of the plaintiff) offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

Wow, really? It's a bad idea to restrict foreign interests from participating financially in our electoral system?

If that's the case, our system is broken. The two-party system of government "by the people, for the people" has been purchased by business interests - and one of the last see-through curtains shielding us from that reality has been removed.

Corporations are organizations of people - a small minority of our population with a majority of the money. Time for the majority population to figure out how to exercise influence. It won't be through a Democrat or Republican political party, although we can scare them into some action.

It's best to seek another path - let's think seriously about reforming the entire system so it benefits people, not companies, and creates safety and wealth benefits for all - not the minority.