Diatribune

It appears that the 2008 election signals the maturation of something quite different than democracy or tolerance.

It appears that this election really signals that we have perfected the latest evolution of fascism; corporate fascism.

Corporate fascism is different than the old national fascism. National fascism relied on race or culture as the unifying bond.

Corporate fascism is beyond race and gender, for it only judges one's level of sophistication in pursuing wealth and power itself. Greed and desire for power is the social glue that holds corporate fascism together, not race, and certainly not political principals or ethics.

Raw wealth and power are its physical manifistations. All the viable candidates are tools of this corporate power structure. Especially billery and obama, but less so than mccain and romney.

Anyone, from anywhere, of any color or either gender, if talented, greedy, dedicated, and lucky can hope to hold the reigns of power and make everybody else pay and obey them. Democratic principals and ethics are not required for success in our system. In fact, they are systimatically excluded.

I'm not sure how you feel about this, but even if hell had an equal opportunity program, it is still hell.

If hell is ruled by hillary, obama, or satan, it is still hell. I would rather be an honest poor man in heaven, than billery or obama ruling hell.

If the pig wears lipsick, it is not a beauty queen.

But, hillary or obama will make their corporate masters throw a few more symbolic pieces of silver at the poor than mccain or the repugnants would. Yeah, vote dem, they don't steal as much.

Both are where they are because they work for bribes, not because they work for us.

Not really.

Corporations have dominated American society for a very long time. There has been no maturation of it and as examples of the problem, Barack Obama and even Hillary Clinton aren't that bad. Obama in particular is funded more by small donors, not big money interests. So please do your homework before you accuse people of being beholden to big money.

That said, yes there is a problem. But you don't solve the problem by complaining. You solve the problem by getting off your ass and getting busy. The role of small donors in elections and the role of grassroots efforts are larger than ever. This started growing as far back as 2000, but only started getting anywhere in 2006. In 2008 it continues to make its mark. Not enough, but you gotta start somewhere.

Let me be clear. Your attitude can be counteproductive. Back in 2005 I spent considerable effort working for a former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union who was running for Public Advocate of NYC. In that position he could really have gotten something done (for the record, he is runing again in 2009). I can't tell you how many smugly slef-rightous people I ran into who excused their refusal to be involved or even to vote using your exact same arguements. So he lost because the very people who CLAIM they want someone like him running were too lazy or too angry to pay attention. Had they DONE something instead of complaining in a state of inactivity, he might have won. Hopefully the growing power of grassroots and the growing enthusiasm of many young and minority voters will give him a boost in 2009. But if the attitude you express is dominant among grassroots progressives, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And you don't know me and you didn't stick to the issues I brought up. You are the one who came to my diary, so don't expect me to eat what you dish out without complaint.

I have been fighting corruption in politics for years...all across the nation and in both parties. But you speak without recognizing all the facts like the fact that Obama and Hillary in different categories in terms of corporate donations, that the role of the small donor is INCREASING in politics over the past 5-8 years, and that complaining about it isn't the solution. You want to fight it, then fight it. I am doing so here in Brooklyn, and believe me it is an uphill battle. But I keep at it. And I don't appreciate holier-than-thou people who love to hear themselves speak tell me that the sky is falling because corporations have too much power. I have known that most of my political life! So put some effort into DFA or Progressive Majority and see some results. Don't scold me or lecture me or dismiss what I write because I am not presently addressing your pet issue.

Give me a break. The biggest ego in this discussion is yours. You are telling me it's your way or nothing, and you are telling me that I am a fool for having a different view than you.

Looking over some of your other posts around here leads me to believe you are better than the average "we are all slaves of the corporate masters so just give up now!" kind of person. So feel free to insult me all you want, call me names, and feel smug in your opinions. Doesn't really make a difference to me. But don't expect me to take your nihilist, despondent view as my own. And don't tell me who I should or shouldn't support because I make my own decisions for my own reasons.

Two more points. First, I can't figure out how to reply to your comments rather than just post a new one. Normally I'm not so lame about such things, but I can't find a reply button to your comments. You are replying to my comments directly so I know it can be done!

Second, you talk about corporate money in elections. I already pointed out that Obama is not getting most of his money from corporate donors. Hillary is. You continue to ignore that distinction, which detracts from your arguement. But there is another thing you are ignoring that I just learned. Do you know what the number one corporated donor to presidential candidates is? Act Blue. That means the number one "corporate" donor is really made up of a bunch of small donors. Both Obama's dependence on small donors and the predominant position of Act Blue are counter to your arguement.

Keep in mind, I am not arguing that corporate money isn't overly powerful! I am arguing that it is getting better and your equating of all Dems and all Repubs as being the same really is no more valid than Nader's claim that Gore and Bush were the same. You can believe it if you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Still can't find a reply button. Oh well, this seems to work.

Yeah, by the end I figured we were aiming to similar goals but from different angles. I know full well the insidious effect big money has on our political system...and I am almost always backing the grassroots candidates against big money candidates, and so often lose. Right now I have about six friends running for various offices in NY State (City Council, State Senate, NYC Public Advocate, Congress). ALL of them are grassroots progressives opposed in primaries by big money candidates. All six of my friends may well lose. But we are putting up the best fight we can...and who knows, maybe one or two will win.