Independent and Oligarch; Avatar or Idiot

Later today the Democratic Convention convenes in Chicago.  At the end of this post are two links which seem appropriate to the Convention and coming days.

*

Early Sunday morning came a response to my “Political We” post from my long-time friend in England, SAK.  The response, also at the aforementioned post, is at the end of this post as well.  It deserves a space of its own.  Read it, below,  before reading further,

There is hardly a word I would change in SAK’s response.  That is the easy part.

First, a preliminary comment:

Of course, the founders of the U.S. were declaring their independence from England,  It was England that they were most familiar with and other than getting rid of the King, their working model was probably England.  Doubtless there have been tons of books written about that.

In the U.S.  system, as it has evolved over our long history,  the common folk have found their voice, and a consistent feature is the secret ballot to elect our representatives: that a persons actual vote is secret, unless the person elects to reveal his/her choice.

We can guess, of course, and we do, how someone voted; we can say how we voted, and not be honest about it; we can respond to a poll, honestly or not, or not at all; or simply declare we’re “independent”, whatever that means to us.  We decide.

There are logical exceptions to this rule.  In the recent Minnesota Primary, each voter received a ballot with a Republican or Democrat ‘side’, and were told we could only vote one side or the other; a vote on both sides invalidated the ballot.  To my knowledge no other party had sufficient public support in the previous election to get a candidate on this ballot.  This primary had very limited choices.  Mine, for instance, had only candidates for U.S. Senate (several competing) and my Democrat Congressperson (none), though the Republican side had several challengers.  There are rules for qualifying to get on the ballot for the general election.  That is reasonable, in my opinion.  It is not reasonable, for instance, that every citizen must be listed on a ballot….

Of course, every state has its own rules, and there are attempts to play games with democracy, but mostly the republic has survived the challenges.

Thoughts

In the end analysis, for our entire history, and this would be the same I would guess for the UK, there are only a few major political parties.  On rare occasions there is somebody who runs a strong race as a so-called independent: John Anderson (1980) and Ross Perot (1992) come immediately to mind, but success is like pushing a rock uphill.

Then of course there is Ralph Nader (2000) whose voters almost certainly gave the election to the candidate least consonant with their political objectives.  I’ll leave the “yah-buts” and the “how-abouts?” to others.  So long as there is a whiff of democracy remaining in our society, the likelihood of changing our political system is extremely remote.

(I’ve often said that my preference for the Democratic Party is basically in support of its ragged edges – it is much more inclusive of the diversity of our nation – there is room for argument, LOTS of argument, very public,  This carries disadvantages, of course.  People have different notions of what is right.  The beauty and the beast of democracy is the imperative of negotiating differences and reaching an imperfect compromise.  The Democratic Convention which starts today is a good example of this.  Just recall the last two months.)

The “Ultrarich”

I agree  with SAK that the American Oligarchs, like Musk et al, use their money to leverage division amongst the peasantry, which is most of us, to consolidate their own power.  It will be a great day if/when enough of we peasants figure this scam out.

There is an immense gap between the ultra-rich and the populace in our country: the “billionaires” vs the “middle class”.

Over the years I have increasingly come to believe that this is much more of a dilemma for the billionaires than for the rest of us.

The rich depend on somebody to spend money on goods provided in the market place.  It makes hardly any sense at all to keep the least wealthy away from living wages and thus from spendable income.

Paul Wellstone, liberal U.S. Senator from Minnesota, said it best: “We all do better when we all do better.”

*

“Independent and Oligarch, Avatar or Idiot”?

In today’s America, plenty (by no means all) super-rich Oligarch’s appear to have selected their Avatar, and their Avatar is saddled by hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties as a lawbreaker, multiple convictions of felonies, and an assortment of unresolved and delayed indictments for other felonies; an has absolutely no traditional moral or ethical guard rails: there is no ‘truth’ beyond what is stated.  It is a dangerous situation.  On we go.

Between now and November 5, I would presume that #45’s extensive record will be publicized.  They are not ‘fake news”,

*

Finally, SAK’s final paragraph on the Atomic Bombs.

Father Bury, a nonagenarian who’s a lifelong peace activist commented on the same blog as follows: “As a Catholic Priest, I wonder why Christians do not take the Triune God and the human and divine Jesus literally when the Triune God clearly revealed in the Ten Commandments,not to kill.  No exceptions. Also, Jesus was clear in His statement  “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” He mentioned no exceptions such as “IN SELF DEFENSE. Hence , If we really have faith in God,why do we Christians not follow God’s commandments/invitation? It seems to me that it is beyond time when we refuse to kill and build instruments designed to kill. What say yee?”

In response to Father Bury, who is a good friend, I said this: “What say yee?”, I would agree with my friend, SAK, in England (see last paragraph in his comment to this blog, below). At the same time, there has always been and likely will always be the irresolvable tension between ideal and real, as it plays out today in Israel/Palestine/Gaza and Ukraine/Russia and on and on. Peace and Passivity are not synonyms, unfortunately. As I have noted, innovations like the United Nations have mitigated albeit imperfectly towards a “Better World”, which is my personal mantra. At the same time, there will always be evil, which has to be confronted in other than peaceful ways. Persons like yourself do yeoman service. Thank you for your service for peace.”

*

The initiating comment from SAK, Aug 18: I really like your Political Scrum 2024 – I also think it’s pretty accurate. Increasingly there are independents – I remember Ralph Nader running & how Berkeley students campaigned for him. I think the system is beyond its sell-by date & needs a lot of fine tuning if not an overhaul. It suits the powers that be & therefore is unlikely to change any time soon I suppose. Similarly for the UK which I know much more about.

As for the ultrarich, while it is true that they have one vote, one can look at the issue from a different angle & note that they have a lot of “influence”. Elon Musk for example. These days he has opted to intervene here & there – including in the UK where he announced a civil war & incited many to serious acts of violence. A poor US farmer distracted by making enough to survive on is unlikely to have such influence.

Aneurin Bevan, was a lively British Labour leader – Labour in the UK is a party close to the US’ Democrats while the Conservative party (also known as Tory) is closer to the Republicans. Well he said something that resonates in the US as well:

“The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century, is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power.”

This “persuasion” can be based on racism, all kinds of phobias, anti-immigrant sentiments, antiestablishment feelings, religious fervour or fanaticism, whipped up anti socialist beliefs, hyped individualism à la Ayn Rand, impossible nostalgia . . . it is ironic that some of the “Conservatives/Republicans” are prominent in the establishment or are far from religious etc. The irony is lost on the poor voters.

As for the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, I know not whether that was correct or not, but from my own Christian perspective it was immoral as is all violence. “Just war” sounds like a contradiction in terms else how can we hope for peace and justice 😊!?