J Dunlop ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: Ho Hum.  I have been reading through the posts from Denys, Wirt and
: others concerning Republicans and Democrat(ic)s and just want to make
: a couple of comments based on my viewpoint from "over the pond".
:
: I have a problem with the way "democracy" is represented both in the
: UK and in the US. In the UK there are two main political parties which
: seem to have become almost interchangeable in their policies and
: actions. However, if you don't like either of the big two, the other
: "choices" are almost certainly fated to be "also-rans". Both parties
: seem to be made up of self-seeking, power-hungry politicians who will
: always do and say what is expedient to a) maintain or gain their grasp
: of power and influence, and b) line their own pockets. I know that is
: an obvious generalisation and there are probably exceptions but I have
: yet to come across an altruistic politician (is that an oxymoron?) in
: the current political arena.
:
: Obviously I know very little about the political parties in the US but
: surely they are similar to those in the UK to the extent that they are
: groups of people who are committed to certain ideas and policies while
: using this as a platform to further their own ambitions? So, with that
: in mind, it seems very trivial to use this list to espouse a political
: party over any other. I definitely do not subscribe to the "I am right
: and anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong" school of thought.
:

The US is an oligrachy, per the second following definition:

   http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=oligarchy
   Merriam-Webster OnLine

  "One entry found for oligarchy.
   Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
   Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
   Function: noun
   Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
   Date: 1542
   1 : government by the few
   2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially
       for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such
       control
   3 : an organization under oligarchic control"


The two parties in the US are the wings of what Thomas Ferguson calls
the Property Party...

     http://www.discovereconomics.com/bookstore/economicpolicy/
     0226243168AMUS177486.shtml

  Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of
  Money-Driven Political Systems (American Politics and Political Economy)

    "To discover who rules, follow the gold." This is the argument of
     Golden Rule, a provocative, pungent history of modern American
     politics. Although the role big money plays in defining political
     outcomes has long been obvious to ordinary Americans, most pundits
     and scholars have virtually dismissed this assumption. Even in
     light of skyrocketing campaign costs, the belief that major
     financial interests primarily determine who parties nominate and
     where they stand on the issues--that, in effect, Democrats and
     Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the "Property
     Party"--has been ignored by most political scientists. Offering
     evidence ranging from the nineteenth century to the 1994 mid-term
     elections, Golden Rule shows that voters are "right on the money."

     Thomas Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter centered
     accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an "investment
     approach," in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters,
     dominate campaigns and elections. Because businesses "invest" in
     political parties and their candidates, changes in industrial
     structures--between large firms and sectors--can alter the agenda
     of party politics and the shape of public policy..."

As long as the two wings play "World Wide Federation Of Politics", where
the voters thinking there's a difference, nothing will change.

Once the voters catch on to this sham, and decide they would like someone
in Washington that represents them instead of corporations, there might be
a change, assuming the oligrachy would relinquish power without an armed
conflict.

The chances of the voters voting out the WWF of Politics is as unlikely
as the management of Polaroid getting an ethics award from its pensioners
and former employees:

   http://www.aflcio.org/paywatch/case_polaroid.htm
   AFL-CIO: PayWatch

  "Polaroid

     * Polaroid cut severance pay for downsized workers and health
       benefits for retirees.
     * Workers, who had owned 15 percent of Polaroid, lost their entire
       Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) savings.

   Just days prior to declaring bankruptcy in October 2001, Polaroid
   stopped paying laid-off workers their promised severance payments. The
   company also abruptly ended its health care plan for its 5,000
   retirees. By cutting these benefits before filing for bankruptcy, the
   company undermined workers ability to be recognized as a creditor in
   bankruptcy court. [1]

   Having announced 2,000 job cuts as part of the companys restructuring,
   Polaroid executives then set out to obtain extra retention bonuses for
   themselves. After the bankruptcy court rejected their initial request
   for $19 million, including $1.7 million for CEO Gary DiCamillo,
   management now is seeking $4.5 million in retention bonuses. [2]

   Cutting workers claim to benefits is not the only way Polaroid
   management is denying employees a voice in the bankruptcy proceedings.
   Through the companys Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Polaroid workers
   had been the companys largest shareholders. But just when Polaroid
   declared bankruptcy, its ESOP trustee sold the employees shares..."


--Jerry Leslie   (my opinions are strictly my own)
  Note: [log in to unmask] is invalid for email

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *