The trouble is, the Republican Party was co-opted in the 1980s by right-wing extremists and wealthy imperialists (and that includes the leaders of the "Christian" Right who colluded with them), and they’ve been able to push the American political climate so far to the right during the last two and a half decades that even most Democrats have found that they’ve had to position themselves to the right of middle in order to compete. And, even though the Bush Regime’s extraordinary errors and abuses of power have made a lot more Americans realize the vain folly and flaws in the right-wing conservative agenda, even that has not moved the country back to the middle yet.
Granted, the political climate has been gradually moving a bit from the right, which has allowed the rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates to begin to address some progressive issues and speak up for the majority. Thanks to John Edwards, their rhetoric has included some awareness of all the poverty, hunger and homelessness which has devastated so many American families. They’ve also indicated an awareness of the huge problems that impact the majority, such as food insecurity, job insecurity, housing insecurity, along with the problems and inequity around health care, prescription drugs, education, inflated and rising costs, price gouging, a degrading economy, a weakened dollar, global warming, a degrading environment, depleted fisheries, political corruption, corporate corruption, economic corruption, unregulated and unchecked greed, war, and all the other problems that have been exacerbated by right-wing Republicans in Congress and in the Bush Regime, and by some Democrats who have been almost equally culpable. But at least some Democrats are talking about some of the things that are wrong, and that’s good, as far as it goes.
However, if they follow the trends set in recent presidential elections, about 80 percent of the funding for the political campaigns of Democrats will be provided by the wealthiest one percent of the population, just as it is provided to Republicans. The wealthiest few learned some time ago to invest in both sides, so no matter which side wins they will get what they pay for. That’s why the term "Republicrats" was coined in 2000 by Ralph Nader.
Now Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will change that, and it would be great if he could. However, during this presidential campaign season even Obama and Democrat Hillary Clinton fell into the partisan political tradition of trying to elevate themselves by cutting down the other. Rather than simply acknowledging problems and presenting their solutions and letting the people decide which is best, they fell into the temptations that partisan politics creates and perpetuates! And that, to me, was a real shame. And even more of a shame is that since Hillary conceded defeat, Barack has recently shown that he has fallen into the temptation of drifting to the right, as Bill Clinton did, in order to get votes from moderates and conservatives.
Obama is smart and savvy. I think he’s the most brilliant, fair-minded and beneficent politician we’ve seen since JFK and FDR before him. Obama does not demonize or lie about the opposition, but reaches out to find common ground, and he is certainly the best man to be president. But, it would seem that rather than continue to fight for his principles for the benefit of the vast majority of us and the least of us, he, like most other politicians, is doing what is politically expedient. He’s been saying things to gain favor from moderate Republicans, from the wealthiest few, and even from the extreme right-wing.
For example, recently Barack Obama said that the country’s current challenges "are simply too big for government to solve alone," and that he would enhance Bush’s "faith-based" initiatives by steering federal taxpayer funds that were formerly used on social service agencies, to religious groups. But he does so to cater to the religious right, and that would be a tragic mistake. (See the section on Bush’s "faith-based" initiative on the page titled Bush’s Real Record, and on other pages and books I’ve written, telling the truth about it and showing how and why it is unconstitutional.)
The Constitution of the United States of America was written in response to the crucial need for religious freedom and equality, and freedom from religious bigotry. But, unfortunately, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain appear to be tolerant of religious minorities like Islam or Buddhism, or even Judaism, nor do they appear tolerant of the freedom to not be a "Bible-Believing Christian." McCain has identified with misguided "Christian" leaders like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson and Franklin Graham, calling America a "Christian nation," and Obama has resorted to talking about the role his Christian faith played in his community work to "fulfill God’s will," and do "the Lord’s work." That is pandering, and it is extremely dangerous. It’s exactly what George W. Bush did.
Thomas Jefferson wrote "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest of ignorance of which their civil as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
That is still true, and just as relevant today as it was in the 1700s.
Obama is doing what he thinks is politically expedient, but it only reveals how willing he is to cater to "religious" forces and corporate forces that still hold power. Furthermore, Obama’s comments in defense of McCain, his invoking Ronald Reagan’s name, his defense of recent right-wing Supreme Court rulings, his endorsement of the latest FISA legislation giving retroactive immunity for telecoms that engaged in illegal electronic surveillance, only reveal that he is like many other politicians, and really not the agent for the real and lasting change that we need.
I must also point out how, as Barack and Hillary were battling, we saw how the commercial news media bottom-feeds on dirty sensationalism and jumps all over stories about conflict and "punching and counter-punching." And that’s all we hear about from the commercial media, for the most part. They tend not to serve as ethical journalists to help the public be fully informed on the platforms and issues. Instead, they stoop to the level of tabloid journalism and cover the mud-slinging, because they think that’s what sells. And sadly, it does, so we’ll hear it from now until November, as the battle between Barack Obama and John McCain heats up. We won’t hear about principles and important things. We’ll hear about what each side says that is offensive to the other side.
In fact, the right-wing neo-conservatives who claim to be Christians are so deceptive that they are already spreading malicious lies about Obama on the Internet, some of which go so far as to claim that Obama’s birth and rise to prominence is part of a conspiratorial plot to create a "one world government of the Antichrist." They do not realize that the Bush Regime is the closest thing we’ve ever had, or ever will have, to a militarily dominant government that will stoop to anything to rule the world in the name of Christianity. It is they who serve the spirit of the Antichrist. And as election draws nearer, we will hear a lot of deceptive claims and lies from them, and from others who are like the "Swift Boaters for Truth" that lied about John Kerry prior to the 2004 election. As I said, these people will stoop to anything to gain or maintain power.
Anyway, considering all that, I submit that this rift in campaign rivalries and this media failure are just more reasons why partisan politics is flawed, divisive, polarizing, hindering, damaging, and unproductive. I submit that there should be only one side, because divided we have fallen!
I also submit that electing a Democratic president and having a democratically controlled Congress will not really solve our problems ... at least not fully, and not for long. Even with Obama as president, progress would be only in the short term, and it would only perpetuate the division and keep the partisan political pendulum swinging.
Considering what's happened just in the last 45 years, it would probably just be a matter of time before it would swing back to the right again. Another hypocritical right-wing demagogic scoundrel would probably take refuge in patriotism and religiosity, waving the flag, thumping the Bible and rattling his sword, appealing to egotism and prejudices, and succeed in deceiving and misleading enough people to get elected, just as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did.
A case in point is how and why Ronald Reagan was able to take the presidency away from Jimmy Carter. And I think it should be noted what a terrible mistake that was (see the page on Reagan’s Real Legacy). After all, in the 1970s the Carter Administration, backed by a preponderance of hard evidence from CIA intelligence indicating the increasing decline of Soviet power, de-escalated the First Cold War and entered into a new era of dialogue with the Soviet leaders of the USSR. In fact, the Carter Administration essentially ended the First Cold War because it focused its efforts on finding common ground and working in the spirit of cooperation instead of conflict. And, as Carter has shown, especially as an ex-president, he is a man of great compassion and goodness, and of peace, and he is a true Christian. And President Jimmy Carter’s initiatives and policies could have changed the world for the better.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
