tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post2466145429663820747..comments2024-02-24T00:41:37.836-08:00Comments on The Buddha Diaries: ANIMOSITYPeter Clothierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-13319921057262168072011-08-05T12:23:36.470-07:002011-08-05T12:23:36.470-07:00I believe there are choices which defy conventiona...I believe there are choices which defy conventional political wisdom and are innate to moral perception. Two major principles of democracy are 'the vote' and Habeaus Corpus, the right to trial. The latter is now technically conditional and no longer a right. The first is quickly being limited by draconian voter restriction laws. Some towns have been taken over by imminent domain and their legally elected officials fired as 'select commissions run by corporations take over. That is the way of the future. It behooves a Buddhist to penetrate deeply into the meaning of doing no harm when the shadow of fascism spreads throughout the country. I would vote for Ralph Nader in a nano second.mandthttp://adgitadiaries.blog-city.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-54613140830476721862011-08-05T07:50:51.114-07:002011-08-05T07:50:51.114-07:00And... thanks for the conversation! Really.And... thanks for the conversation! Really.Peter Clothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-64854924101454400832011-08-05T07:49:58.696-07:002011-08-05T07:49:58.696-07:00Okay, MandT. The progressive dog-catcher has my v...Okay, MandT. The progressive dog-catcher has my vote! Also any other progressive who shows up on the ballot. I wonder, though, what I'll do when it comes to the unelectable--like Ralph Nader, a while ago. I voted for John Kerry. These are truly tough choices.Peter Clothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-78524334468206432532011-08-04T19:38:38.593-07:002011-08-04T19:38:38.593-07:00The best ways and means are actually the classic d...The best ways and means are actually the classic democratic formations of politics at the local level. I (we) need to primary and vote out blue dog professionals and starting with the dog catcher vote in 'progressive' and liberals, who will honor the founding legal principles of our Republic. WI is a perfect example of the idea that all politics is local.mandthttp://adgitadiaries.blog-city.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-28777625701154544492011-08-04T15:37:28.469-07:002011-08-04T15:37:28.469-07:00Okay. I'm with you on this. But do you know ...Okay. I'm with you on this. But do you know of a feasible way in which that might be achieved? Would it not involve Congressional action? Does Obama have the power to go it alone? I'm genuinely ignorant about possible ways and means...Peter Clothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-59937632033951531422011-08-04T15:04:09.754-07:002011-08-04T15:04:09.754-07:00Revolution is not possible in its traditional sens...Revolution is not possible in its traditional sense and always a waste of life, resource and time. I think incrementation is fine as it so clearly explains what the FDR and post years of social democracy accomplished up to the Reagan years. What we have now is corporatist deconstruction. The incrementalism is backwards and destroying the social safety nets. It won't work. What will advance is capitalist reformation, starting by regulation of banks and Wall Street.mandthttp://adgitadiaries.blog-city.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-81939900166217511062011-08-04T08:30:12.459-07:002011-08-04T08:30:12.459-07:00Thanks for the further thoughts, MandT. As I'...Thanks for the further thoughts, MandT. As I've said before, I don;t see us as being that far apart, at least at our starting point. I was brought up a good socialist in the European tradition. It's in my blood. I agree with you that there's no "true left" in America--and I very much rue that absence because, as you suggest, it leaves the way wide open for capitalist exploitation. My own position is determined by what I perceive to be the pragmatics of the situation: what can possibly be done in such an environment? It seems to me that the only practical path is the incrementalism that you so dislike! Revolution does not seem to be on the horizon. Yet.Peter Clothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-48986246735279836982011-08-03T16:39:39.201-07:002011-08-03T16:39:39.201-07:00Thanks peter. I agree with Richard that the analys...Thanks peter. I agree with Richard that the analysis is not binary, but a complicated gestalt. My views have been developing over years beginning in the Clinton administration and admittedly, heavily influenced by 'classic' Marxist capitalist economic critique ( the 1840 papers) and the 'Situationist' observations of Guy Bebord. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm<br />Thus, my focus is capitalist politics. What I have observed is the development of neo-con triangulation emerging from the seeds of a 'unitary' presidency in the Nixon years to a full scale version of it in the Bush Presidency. The paradigm shift of corporate governing as a replacement for democratic governing was the gift of the Reagen years. It never occurred to liberals or that which is called the left, that the Democrats were also changing into plutocrats and Clinton is a glaring example, which paved the way for the likes of Obama. The direction is to shift vast wealth away from the shared compact with a democratic populace to the top: Bank and Wall Street bailouts, A failure of the DOJ to investigate high crimes, trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, profits into off-shore accounts, inequitable tax rates, massive cuts in social, health and common infrastructure maintenance programs. The anger over Obama stems from his false campaign as a hope/change populist. To better understand corporate governance and its destruction of basic democratic institutions it is helpful to know the development of classic fascism...particularly in Italy and the justification of state 'socialism' as a measure of populace control. What is frightening about the Clinton/Obama direction is the dismantling of these safe guards and the appearance of what can only be called neo-feudalism. To me there is no true 'left' in America. The likes of Bernie Sanders, a few decades ago, would be seen as a mainstream Democrat. There is a difference between liberals and progressives that points out the Marxist simile: Liberals are what's left of the old mainstream Democrat base: working people, middle class, minorities seeking economic and legal justice, single parents and so on. For the most part 'progressives' are wealthy 'rentiers' with advanced educations and beliefs, but----will ultimately choose the security of defending property and privilege over ideology in the final analysis.mandthttp://adgitadiaries.blog-city.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-20082316712378194512011-08-03T15:39:50.021-07:002011-08-03T15:39:50.021-07:00Thanks, MandT, for the further elaboration of your...Thanks, MandT, for the further elaboration of your take on this. I agree all the way to the point where you tag Obama as not being "remotely liberal or progressive." My own take is that liberal or progressive action is a non-starter in the world we have unfortunately evolved into. Obviously, we disagree on this, but I'm grateful that we're talking. (See above and below)<br /><br />Thanks so much for joining me on The Buddha Diaries, Richard. I very much enjoyed our exchange this past weekend, and the chance to get to know you a little. You are much closer to these things than I, and certainly much better informed, so I take seriously what you have to say; and do listen seriously to others who disagree with me, including my anonymous correspondent yesterday. I also make a point of seriously questioning my own views. And am glad to have this opportunity, in The Buddha Diaries, to do my own talking--often to myself!<br /><br />I'll look forward to following you on HuffPo, where I also have a site. Though not often on the front page! Best of everything...Peter Clothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-10281341584450536042011-08-03T14:19:22.460-07:002011-08-03T14:19:22.460-07:00Peter, it was great to meet you, and thank you for...Peter, it was great to meet you, and thank you for your thoughts on this. My work involves my spending a lot of time in Washington. <br /><br />My view of the President is very different from yours, based on that experience. But I don't believe that he, or those who continue to support him, are evil or hateful. Nor do I believe he's a "eunuch." Your reaction to this word is fully understandable. <br /><br />I believe that he is far to the right of his supporters on most economic and civil liberties issues. I believe he's not the person he presented himself to be, and that this is a tragic fact. I don't believe he's consistently failing to get what he wants - I believe he's failing to get some of what he wants, and that he wants some of the policies the rest of us criticize. <br /><br />But I never use name-calling against the Tea Party, whose fears and anger I understand (and even predicted, before it came into existence). How sad, then, that people attack one another over a relatively narrow spectrum of differences.<br /><br />But I think it's also important to understand the anger behind the people who use words like "eunuch" or "betrayer." They perceive a President who made promises that he chose not to keep, or attempt to keep, and they are not entirely incorrect.<br /><br />My sense is that you, like many others, perceive a President who is doing everything he can. That's not what I see, but actually reality isn't binary. There are elements of truth in both positions, and the differences we have are ones of degree and not essence.<br /><br />So where do we go from here? We talk, and we keep talking. We return to the problems we face and the differences we must resolve, not the emotions that divide us. We accept the anger of others and (as you've said) channel our own constructively.<br /><br />And, as they say in 12-step programs, we take "the next indicated action." Or so it seems to me. That's the only way I can stay sane (or something like it) and deal with politics all day.RJ Eskowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09951452784489009865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-542955037331112552011-08-03T14:11:13.307-07:002011-08-03T14:11:13.307-07:00Anger is a powerful force, particularly when focus...Anger is a powerful force, particularly when focused in critical reasoning and application to understanding the paradigm of current politics. The personal Obama or his 'makeup' is not the issue, but the facts of his decisions and their effect on what most of us hold as traditional democratic institutions. Obama is not a eunuch, weak, or otherwise an inept executive. Obama is a 'Third Way' conservative corporatist and not even remotely liberal or progressive. Did we ever expect a Democrat to put Social Security, Medicare, and desperately need social programs on the chopping block. It's important for progressives to see through the illusion of Obama's posturing to understand the damage he will cause ongoing generations if he succeeds. Obama, hardly weak, is Clinton triangulation on steroids.mandthttp://adgitadiaries.blog-city.comnoreply@blogger.com