More Radicals and Moderates

Again, read from the bottom up. More from my conversation with Paul G. about politics in the U.S. 

Well, it is not that Lind is wrong in my mind. Rather, it is that by identifying the Tea Partiers with "southern radical thinking" the result is a failure to take them and their concerns seriously. By this I mean not necessarily endorsing them but understanding that they are a reflection of seriousness of changing the status quo. I mean I look at it this way: Occupiers, Tea Partiers, low voter turnout, all point out to me that the political system is corrupt and the people know it. Those in power use their power to serve their class interests. Calling our government "divided" obscures what is actually going on, which is the oligarchs in both parties serving the oligarchs in society. On the most important, basic issues there is little disagreement between the parties that matters. [See the article in the Telegram today on Medicare and how Obama and Paul Ryan agree. Page one.] We the People know/sense this and are pissed off - as we should be. But the system is arranged to make such anger difficult to act on - just as the Founding Fathers intended!! Again and again, throughout American history, popular outrage has been "controlled" or "redirected." [Obama was Bush Lite on Iraq and Afghanistan. He was even health insurance lite: Hence, it passed only after Brown won in Mass. ending the Democrats "super majority." Why? So Obama could say: "Hey, folks this is all I could get.] For me, this is the goal of the primary movers and shakers in our system, which leads to collusion between the two parties. The corruption represented by the "bailout" - that is, that it went to those responsible for the collapse - could never have occurred if one of the two parties objected - that is, really objected!

You may fear changing the status quo but you had better fear the status quo as well. Obama did really sign legislation that allows him or another to detain American citizens indefinitely who are suspected of being a terrorist! And if you own guns, you can be suspected of terrorism! So where are the allegedly gun rights Republicans on this? Not objecting at all! If this isn't collusion then the word has no meaning.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Paul Gallagher <thepgallagh@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter,

It's not an argument.  It's an admitted defect in my thinking.  You've been very good at pointing out to me that it's wrongheaded to separate the two.   But old habits die slowly.

Did Obama really sign such a thing?!?  Obama has *really* been a disappointment.

But honest to God, I lived on the fringe of the left in the early 70s and it scared me.  And this book, "In the Garden of the Beast" is truly scary because it makes the whole Nazi thing so vividly alive.  I feel very uncomfortable with extremists of any stripe.  

Have to run.  You're good for making me think, Peter.  But I'm curious.  What did you find a fault with the Lind article tracing the Tea Party to the southern radical thinking?  I thought it was spot on.