Opposition Party

[Deadhead Derek]

It is time. we squabble and discuss the differences between candidates like it makes a difference. We all know it doesn't. The R's, the D's... same shit different letters. There is nobody who defends and protects the Constitution, they defend positions unsupported by voters and protect their own asses.
It has been argued by some that the bailout should be for the working class. It has been argued by some that the bailout should be for the market drivers. My point is we shouldn't have been put, as a nation, in the position of having to fucking bailout in the first place. Both parties had a hand in it, both are guilty, and both need to go.
Is Teddy Kennedy the best man from Mass and as such deserve 30 years in his role? no. Is McCain? no. are any of them? to say yes, to me, is to sign on to blind partisan loyalties instead of logic. everyone in the house and senate , executive and judicial branches are there with their own agenda, not the people they were chosen to represent ( don't stupidly point out the supremes, you all know what I mean) , and it has to change.
I found myself thinking in terms of the bailout, the dire warnings of the politicos and pundits that the system would crash and burn if the bailout didn't occur.
I thought, big fucking deal.

I shouldn't look to a government built on the greatest document ever written and think that. It is time to oppose.
Just for thought , I submit this:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/w.gifhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[freegood]

It is time. we squabble and discuss the differences between candidates like it makes a difference. We all know it doesn't. The R's, the D's... same shit different letters. There is nobody who defends and protects the Constitution, they defend positions unsupported by voters and protect their own asses.

Voters vote them in, so politicians defend positions unsupported by the public?

Social decay, government corruption and the erosion of the rule of law are all signs of a declining nation. Is it still considered a revolution if the signs are all there?

[Tar Heel]

first things first. You need to grow a small moustache and start a labor party.

[Deadhead Derek]

Voters vote them in, so politicians defend positions unsupported by the public?

Social decay, government corruption and the erosion of the rule of law are all signs of a declining nation. Is it still considered a revolution if the signs are all there?
We vote in, but do we honestly vote in mismanagement, waste and ridiculous spending? no. those in power have forgotten to put the needs of our country, and our citizens first above all other nations I want to see change. and not just change as a slogan or a buzzword from either party. real change.

[Stax]

Churchill's statement that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other one tried" can apply to the United States individually IMO. The US has plenty of problems, but its hard to call the nation a failure given our successes even through the worst of times.

[Deadhead Derek]

The nation is not the problem, the entrenched politicians are.

[redsox39]

I can't beleive I agree with Derek...but I do...

[Stax]

The nation is not the problem, the entrenched politicians are.

Because you say so. Again, our system isn't perfect but name me one better?

EDIT - BTW, to your example, Teddy Kennedy and pre-2000 John McCain were two fucking FANTASTIC legislators, both for their state and nationally. Teddy's obviously pretty left of center, but so is Mass, and before McCain started running for president for 8 years he was great.

[Deadhead Derek]

Dude, again, I say that the system, and the documents that established it are the greatest ever known. There is no system better in the world. Period. If I was a religious person I would say that the Dec/Ind had a seemingly divine feel to crafting and intent. But my point is more that our nation was not built on the premise of lifelong careers for politicians. If it were, we wouldn't trouble ourselves with pesky elections every so often. entrenched ideas give us entrenched issues.
I am from Mass, My family has been there since 1620. I have voted for Teddy, and right now, I have a family member working in his office on the Hill. That doesn't mean I give up my right to question his, or anyone else I have watched be elected's intent, motivations or judgment. And I will never stop.
I am simply calling for evaluation of the candidates OUTSIDE of the blind forgiving that comes with party loyalties. Until as a nation, we can rise above party politics, we will remain mired in the ineffective status quo.

[Pharon]

Of course I completely agree with you -- but the question is, what's the solution? Term limits? Campaign finance reform? And what, exactly, would you propose we need to do, specifically along those lines -- or others -- to rid us of this entrenchment you speak of?

[Deadhead Derek]

2 years is hard for anyone to cut their teeth on DC, 6 yrs is good for a Sen to get the lay of the land ( not a joke about aides) Term limits would help and hurt, but three terms for senate, 5 for reps might be a start. I am sure we will hear about how if the voters vote for the reps / sen over and over that that must be a mandate. but it would also be a mandate to change the system for term limits. and it could not be at the state level, as it would have to be across the board. There are no easy answers here, but it is a dialogue that must happen.
Finance reform is a must.

[taters]

I still say we just split the country in land, debt and resources, and let Dems have one and Repubs have the other (repubs taking the south no matter what). From there on, whatever shit each country gets into is its own fault. A sort of American Velvet Revolution.

[Pharon]

I still say we just split the country in land, debt and resources, and let Dems have one and Repubs have the other (repubs taking the south no matter what). From there on, whatever shit each country gets into is its own fault. A sort of American Velvet Revolution.
This idea is completely retarded and fails to take into account that there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans in every state.

[taters]

This idea is completely retarded and fails to take into account that there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans in every state.


Relocation, as is what happened in the actual velvet revolution (look it up), as well as several other nations like Indian/pakistan/Bangladesh, Russia/Kazakhstan, Haiti/Dominican Republic (sort of), Cyprus (kinda) as well as what happened in places that did not become nations but did form united regional districts like quebec and Utah.

Why should one side or another of a nearly even split nation rule the lives of the other? On top of that, the constant conflict in government and interests prevents either side from any sort of progress towards its own goals (liberal example = healthcare, conservative example = abortion).

[Pharon]

People split up nations because of religion and ethnicity, not on whether or not healthcare should be publicly or privately funded.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that you expect blue blood Republicans from New York and Connecticut to relocate simply because a majority of their peers lean slightly more to the left?

Ain't gonna happen. Ever. And shouldn't.

That's why we have debates and elections. And frankly, Republicans and Democrats aren't that far apart from each other, ideologically speaking, in the first place.

Also, what would you do about the swing states? Flip a coin?

[taters]

^ So people do not try and split up or off from nations due to philosphy and ideology? Hm, wasnt there some major event that happened in the US that fell in line with a few major political ideologies? What was the name of that group..oh, the confederacy.

There are plenty of other examples. Belarus, Bangladesh (split from Pakistan proper, though they were not connected in land), The United states (split from British Empire).

Likewise, part of the split would undoubtedly include a level of ethnicity and religion (I dont see mormons joining a blue state anymore than I see blacks or non-cuban hispanics joining a red state).

The split would not require massive amounts of relocation according to current trends. The west and north are predominantly blue, the south and central are red. With the exception of a few interlinking places that may have to be split by state or given one way or another (northern indiana or all of indiana, southern missouri or all of missouri, arizona, georgia and the carolina's), most people already live near others who politically feel the way they do. If you love to drink and are none religious, I dont see you moving to Utah anymore than I see a person who loves rural open spaces and wilderness moving to massachusets. Granted there are exceptions in those places, but thats just what they are, exceptions.

[Pharon]

^ So people do not try and split up or off from nations due to philosphy and ideology? Hm, wasnt there some major event that happened in the US that fell in line with a few major political ideologies? What was the name of that group..oh, the confederacy.
The Civil War was about one thing -- money. Oh, and remind me again -- how did that work out for them?

The split would not require massive amounts of relocation according to current trends. The west and north are predominantly blue, the south and central are red.
"Predominantly"? Okay, let's take California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California, _2004), for example -- a "blue" state, if you will. In 2004, 44% of the people voted for George Bush. And the state currently has a Republican governor. If you break out the results by county, you'll see that almost 2/3rds of them are "red" (see pic). And yet you'd be willing to cede this entire 163,700 square mile state to one of the two prevailing ideological political parties? Such an idea is way too simplistic, when you consider the actual makeup of the citizenry there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/California-2004-Presidential_Vote_By_Counties.svg/300px-California-2004-Presidential_Vote_By_Counties.svg.png

[freegood]

Of course I completely agree with you -- but the question is, what's the solution? Term limits? Campaign finance reform? And what, exactly, would you propose we need to do, specifically along those lines -- or others -- to rid us of this entrenchment you speak of?

Undoing gerrymandering both parties have drawn in would shake things up A LOT.

Now we need an Emperor to get it done.

[Stax]

Undoing gerrymandering both parties have drawn in would shake things up A LOT.


Gotta' agree here, to some degree. Incumbents would still carry a massive advantage in:

1. Name recognition
2. Fundraising powers
3. A voting record to point to rather than promises of action by a challenger

But at least the physical playing field would be fair.

[Pharon]

Plus, they get all those free stamps.

[Deadhead Derek]

I still say we just split the country in land, debt and resources, and let Dems have one and Repubs have the other (repubs taking the south no matter what). From there on, whatever shit each country gets into is its own fault. A sort of American Velvet Revolution.
and the 35% of us who are Registered Ind? where do we go?

[Yelram]

I'd much rather take the entrenched evil that I know than the independent one that could be anything. I like the two party system, there is a reason for it. You think those 50/50 splits piss you off, wait for the 33/33/33 and noone gets it their way. This happens every election year, "third party bla bla bla". Its a waste of time to start a new one when all it takes for reform is people to get off of their asses, and start bitching. And for some reason or another, the parties always seem to be able to turn the sides against one another. I've seen nothing from the democratic party I like, I cannot in good conscience EVER vote for one in a real election. The biggest problem in politics is the MEDIA. Period...

[Genius]

I don't think we need to get rid of the two party system. But I do think we as a people would benefit greatly from a non-violent revolution brought about by voting all incumbents out of office. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Ted Stevens, and Joe Lieberman have long since given up on representing the people, or the constituency, or even their own state's interest. Anything that may benefit any of those groups also just happens to coincide with something that benefits them directly. I'm not saying any of them are horrible people, but once a representative of the people has lost his/her immediate interest in actually representing the people, it's time for them to go. And in this age of viral ideas spreading within seconds, I don't think that it's out of the question that an anti-incumbent voting block could be created.

[Stax]

Why should one side or another of a nearly even split nation rule the lives of the other? On top of that, the constant conflict in government and interests prevents either side from any sort of progress towards its own goals (liberal example = healthcare, conservative example = abortion).

If you believe this then you do not believe in the fundamentals of American democracy, since the entire point of the system is conflict.

As for long time reps who (as Genius said) no longer represent the people? THAT'S THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE. It may be unfair and you may not like it but ultimately we still hold elections in this country. We may need small changes to make the tactical field even (campaign finance, for example), but if 50%+1 want to give Joe Lieberman another term (as they did here in CT) why does someone else have the right to say "No no, you're wrong"?

[Genius]

I'm not saying that they're wrong to elect people a million times. I'm saying that it's within the realm of possibility to create a voting block that would wake people up to the fact that they've been voting on name recognition only for decades, which does not benefit the country. The current crop of Democrats and Republicans have failed the country in more ways than one, but will get re-elected a) because people know who they are, and b) because people are scared that if they don't vote for their party incumbent, it will give the seat over to the other party, thus causing a drop in congressional power. That's a fucked system. A viral campaign to end that sort of nonsense, which obviously was never intended by the founders, would provide a major shake-up in Washington, and also provide notice to those in office that the people have a voting stick, and aren't afraid to use it.

[taters]

The Civil War was about one thing -- money. Oh, and remind me again -- how did that work out for them?


"Predominantly"? Okay, let's take California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California, _2004), for example -- a "blue" state, if you will. In 2004, 44% of the people voted for George Bush. And the state currently has a Republican governor. If you break out the results by county, you'll see that almost 2/3rds of them are "red" (see pic). And yet you'd be willing to cede this entire 163,700 square mile state to one of the two prevailing ideological political parties? Such an idea is way too simplistic, when you consider the actual makeup of the citizenry there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/California-2004-Presidential_Vote_By_Counties.svg/300px-California-2004-Presidential_Vote_By_Counties.svg.png


And you can narrow that map down even further if you ook by district instead of county.

As I said, there would have to be relocation, but most probably wouldnt complain if the trade was fair and equitable. Most people want to live near people who think like themselves. If you disagree to that, ask yourself how long you would last in a country like Saudi Arabia.

[Pharon]

And you can narrow that map down even further if you ook by district instead of county.

As I said, there would have to be relocation, but most probably wouldnt complain if the trade was fair and equitable. Most people want to live near people who think like themselves. If you disagree to that, ask yourself how long you would last in a country like Saudi Arabia.
So you're comparing Democrats/Republicans to Americans/Saudis? Wow. I have no words for that.

Glad to have you back. <3

[Mustard]

After what I have seen today regarding congress' ineptitude to pass an absolutely critical bill, I am done.

I'm just done. Fuck Republicans. Fuck Democrats. Fuck them all.

[Genius]

If anyone started forcing people to move based on their ideology, I'd very suddenly be a proponent of the 2nd Amendment. And I hate the 2nd Amendment.

[Yelram]

And you can narrow that map down even further if you ook by district instead of county.

As I said, there would have to be relocation, but most probably wouldnt complain if the trade was fair and equitable. Most people want to live near people who think like themselves. If you disagree to that, ask yourself how long you would last in a country like Saudi Arabia.

Call up Strom Thurmond we have ourselves a segregationist!!

Seriously, thats the exact same type of reasoning that led to different water fountains for people of different skin color. For a liberal, you sure have some deep set fascist views.

[Deadhead Derek]

I didn't like the bailout, thought it ill conceived, and with a time line set by fear. But consumer confidence needs something to help it along. again, those who are watching the fort for us should not have allowed the US to get to this position.

[Mustard]

http://img148.imagevenue.com/loc1176/th_22568_US_Capitol_FAIL_122_1176lo.jpg (http://img148.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22568_US_Capitol_FAIL_122_1176lo.jpg )

[Deadhead Derek]

If anyone started forcing people to move based on their ideology, I'd very suddenly be a proponent of the 2nd Amendment. And I hate the 2nd Amendment.
My cold dead hands comes to mind, and I have taken full advantage of my 2nd amendment rights.

[Mustard]

I didn't like the bailout, thought it ill conceived, and with a time line set by fear. But consumer confidence needs something to help it along. again, those who are watching the fort for us should not have allowed the US to get to this position.
I'm sure that nobody "liked" the bailout. But liking one thing, and realizing how crucial a thing is, is a far different proposition.

Also, we can argue for months and years about who was culpible in this mess, but we needed a fix N.O.W. Not later, not in a few days, not when congress felt like it, and for what its worth, most of congress got that. Not that it matters now...

[taters]

So you're comparing Democrats/Republicans to Americans/Saudis? Wow. I have no words for that.

Most people want to live near people who think like themselves. If you disagree to that, ask yourself how long you would last in a country like Saudi Arabia.


As you could see if you read correctly, my point was that a person who enjoys our style of life logically would not enjoy or want to live somewhere where they do not have that sort of life. I wasnt asking him to actually move to saudi arabia. In a society with 2 seperate ideological groups in constant conflict, the ultimate end result is either

1-One side gives in
2-One side kills the other
3- Nothing from either side is ever accomplished
4- They separate.

That is the nature of conflict in a democratic society. At least, hard line conflict.

[Pharon]

Yeah, I caught your meaning -- it's just that the analogy is ridiculous. The differences between Democrats and Republicans are minute compared to those between Americans and Saudis. That's all I was saying. Republicans and Democrats have no problem living next door to each other. That's why the comparison fails miserably.

[Yelram]

As you could see if you read correctly, my point was that a person who enjoys our style of life logically would not enjoy or want to live somewhere where they do not have that sort of life. I wasnt asking him to actually move to saudi arabia. In a society with 2 seperate ideological groups in constant conflict, the ultimate end result is either

1-One side gives in
2-One side kills the other
3- Nothing from either side is ever accomplished
4- They separate.

That is the nature of conflict in a democratic society. At least, hard line conflict.

You might want to go find this book, its called "This History of the United States of America", it will explain all those useful tidbits. Why we have seperation of powers, and two houses of congress that represent the people in different ways. I'm sure you're already well versed on the 3/5ths compromise.

[Pharon]

Leave it to tater to actually get me and Yelram to agree on something.

[Yelram]

Leave it to tater to actually get me and Yelram to agree on something.
Taters main plan is to remove both parties, and replace them with a dictator, so atleast SOMETHING will get done. Sounds like an original plan right? Although I guess in Africa, he's pretty much right.

[Pharon]

Don't forget about the part of his plan which relocates over 100 million people from their homes to make sure they live in the proper color state.

[Yelram]

Don't forget about the part of his plan which relocates over 100 million people from their homes to make sure they live in the proper color state.
I mean weighed against ethnic cleansing, I guess its a sensible solution.

[Pharon]

Depends -- I wouldn't rule that out. What about those stubborn assholes who won't move?

[Yelram]

Depends -- I wouldn't rule that out. What about those stubborn assholes who won't move?
Can you say "emminent domain". REMOVE THOSE REPUBLICANS!!, THEY ARE HURTING THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE AREA!!!.

[Pharon]

It's for the children.

[taters]

You might want to go find this book, its called "This History of the United States of America", it will explain all those useful tidbits. Why we have seperation of powers, and two houses of congress that represent the people in different ways. I'm sure you're already well versed on the 3/5ths compromise.
Yes, and our system works so well doesnt it? Everyone gets along civilly, there are no conflicts to which both sides can find a middle ground, and everyones happy. Am I right?

[Deadhead Derek]

if it makes me happy to be an Ind. in a predominantly republican area like cent. Ore. I will stay. pursuit of happiness and all that. next Idea please, or are we getting toward democratic interment camps...

[Pharon]

It's okay, though, because the plan is to relocate all the independents to Hawaii.

[taters]

It's okay, though, because the plan is to relocate all the independents to Hawaii.

Or alaska, after all northwestern states are re-organized into a singular massive state with the highest suicide rate in two continents.

(just joking, except about the suicide part, which is true unfortunately about Pacific North Western states).

[Deadhead Derek]

I found this on Buzzflash, and thought it along the same lines as the thread, though I don't buy into all of it.

Naomi Wolf Asks: Can't We Be Revolutionaries? We Celebrate Revolution Every July 4th, Don’t We?

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 8:46am. Interviews (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews) A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

The Boston Tea Party ... was radical guerrilla subversive theater. And all along, protest has been based on a First Amendment right to have the right to assemble as big as the sky, the right to yell and scream against anyone who is trying to oppress us.
-- Naomi Wolf, Author of Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/1272)
* * *

Naomi Wolf credits BuzzFlash with playing a large role in launching her last book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/754) (Paperback), and we are proud of that. One of our key goals for BuzzFlash is to promote and build a market for progressive books, DVDs, CDs and other products. The more progressives buy progressive, the more we shift commerce in our direction, which has a strong ripple effect on our society.
Wolf is back with a strong follow-up to the compelling The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot. (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/754) In Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/1272) Wolf offers an overview of core principles for a Constitutional democracy. Moreover, she provides a practical guide to grassroots empowerment of the right to protest and exercise our grievances against unjust infringements upon our rights as Americans.

We talked with Naomi Wolf while she was in Chicago on her book tour for Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries. (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/1272)

* * *

BuzzFlash: We are talking with Naomi Wolf, who we interviewed last time about a book that was one of our best sellers on BuzzFlash, The End of America. (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/754) And The End of America (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/754) obviously is kind of a disheartening title, and bleak. But you’ve come back with something that is kind of a handbook for optimism: Give Me Liberty, A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. (http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/1272)

I want to first ask you, Naomi, about revolutionaries. That’s a word that kind of has two meanings in America. We admire at least in name the American Revolution. But if you call someone a revolutionary, that’s considered a pejorative in the mainstream political world and mainstream media. They’re radical. They’re a revolutionary. Can you explain that dichotomy?

Naomi Wolf: I would think that we’ve forgotten, or the propaganda of us as Americans view arose to get us away from an understanding of the revolutionary nature of what we’re supposed to inherit and how we’re supposed to act. And there’s a reason for that propaganda. It’s to disempower us, and to allow the kind of leading by the elites that we’re seeing right now, honestly to be encouraged to lose touch with how truly revolutionary the American project is intended to be, how radically each of us is supposed to be called to action and leadership. And if we can be encouraged to throw up our hands, then it’s much easier for oligarchs to encumber us and manipulate us. And what do we do? What’s the answer?

Well, I went back to our own history and to set out a real, practical, step by step battle plan for how Americans can fight back against this violent repression of our democracy. It was inspiring to me when I went back to the original revolutionary generation. It was the ordinary people that made up the revolutionary movement. Ordinary people were captured by the vision of liberty.

These ordinary Americans were truly radicals.

BuzzFlash: You talk about a fake democracy, a fake patriotism. On July 4th, we celebrate the Founding Fathers and the revolution, which was a very, very dramatic event -– I believe the first of its kind, where the descendants of primarily British heritage broke away from their monarchy. There was a war where many people died, and they wrote a Constitution that overthrew the concept of European monarchies and created a government of the rule of law and rule by the governed. The precedent was set for the citizens of the nation to decide who would lead the government -– this was a dramatic innovation in the course of history, and truly a radical revolution. And yet now if someone challenges the status quo, they’re considered extremists.

Naomi Wolf: This is exactly why I wrote the book. These people who founded America were willing to take on a powerful, tyrannical force. We’re disempowered now if we don’t have access to the tools and the psychology that the founding leaders and radicals intended us to have. And what you said is exactly right. This idea is of a government of law, led by ordinary people with the consent of the governed -– with all the flaws and shortcomings that the kind of vision that 18th Century guys had, the historical blindness on some things like women and slavery that was part of their generation. But, as you said, the kernel of the idea of democracy was perfect, perfect in allowing for subsequent generations to expand the idea of liberty and human rights. And we’ve forgotten how radical it was. It was the most extreme political idea that the human species had ever come up with. It’s still the best idea the human species has ever come up with. And, we are being completely blind-sided by the propaganda directed at making us forget.

I found many examples of patriotism. One of the most important is protest. Our nation was born in protest. But now, we just saw people brutally arrested for protesting at the Republican National Convention, in violation of one of the most basic precepts of democracy. Protest is a profoundly American ideal. The colonial revolutionaries would protest against the tax collectors and the emissaries of King George. They were incredibly vocal and obstreperous and gutsy.

The Boston Tea Party, for example, was radical guerrilla subversive theater. And all along, protest has been based on a First Amendment right to have the right to assemble as big as the sky, the right to yell and scream against anyone who is trying to oppress us.

I have a whole chapter on protest in the book. I looked at how you can fight back at the effort to suppress democracy. I saw again and again, from history, that mass protest has always been effective. This is the kind of protest that brought down the Berlin Wall, for example.

Right now in America, there is an inhibition among many people about public protest. Many young people thing it is pointless. Even when people do protest, many of the powers that be label them as saboteurs or anarchists. This has been a systematic close-down of protests since the Civil Rights/Vietnam War era. One of the ways that the right to protest has been shut down is through setting up onerous permit processes. Right now, in the United States, it is often harder to conduct a mass protest than it is in many nations overseas.

Many protests are de facto made illegal in the United States, so that if you step into the street without a permit to protest you can get arrested. So the mass protests that bring about change have been increasingly shut down.

Not only that, but the police are starting to using rubber bullets and tasers against people who are exercising their First Amendment Rights. The founders of our nation would be horrified.

BuzzFlash: I would say to illustrate the power of demonstrations, I was very heartened that approximately 1500 women assembled a couple of weeks ago in Anchorage to reject Palin. It was started by a couple of Anchorage women having a cup of coffee and deciding that they needed to show the rest of America that many Alaskan women object to the policies of Governor Palin. It showed that a couple of ordinary Americans can have a national impact through a spontaneous protest.

Naomi Wolf: But we need to take it a step further. There is a war being conducted against American citizens. You and I talked about this a year ago in terms of my last book. We need to get ahead of the curve with outlets like BuzzFlash. But this war has escalated dramatically. Protesters and activists are being harassed and arrested and placed under surveillance. Activists are talking about their e-mail and mail being disrupted.

It’s a logical next step, once the technology has been put into place for spying on terrorists, that it will be used on activists.

At a time when the U.S. government will take over a giant chunk of the U.S. economy, you have to understand that it is a very serious and dangerous time.

And while protests like the kind in Alaska are heartening, it is important to take to the streets. Civil disobedience like the kind taken by Dr. Martin Luther King is necessary now because people are being marginalized. It is what will give people leverage.

That is why at the end of my book, there is a section on protests. Martin Luther King went to jail for disregarding a restrictive permit system. I am urging people to use all the powers that they have.

BuzzFlash: We should point out that this is a handbook. You do articulate core principles of democracy, but the largest part of the book is on how to become a “Minuteman” or “Minutewoman” in 2008. It is important to restate that protests from a dedicated group of people for a righteous cause can have an impact. We only need to look back, as you mentioned, to the Civil Rights movement to see how dramatically people who put themselves on the line in protest changed the nation.

Naomi Wolf: You’re exactly right. You’re looking at the building blocks of oppression under this administration, and the thing about tyrants is that they don’t want to relinquish power. If people are intimidated by the police suppression, silence will lead to more and more encroachment and harassment.

I am really excited by efforts to ramp up the democracy memory by the efforts I am seeing on my book tour to form spontaneous groups to defend liberty, and there are 55 action steps at the back of the book to assist their efforts. At this point, it is going to take some radical actions to launch a movement to push back. As you and I have said before, there is a rampant disregard of the rule of law by those in authority. There are more and more dangerous abuses of power.

It is going to be a very dark future if we don’t rise up. This is about what we have to cherish as Americans.

BuzzFlash: A lot of people, given the seizure of the executive branch by Bush and Cheney in 2000, have become passive, particularly given the inability of the anti-Iraq rallies to end the war. Many people now think that if Obama wins, our problems will be solved.

But won’t we really need more civic action if Obama is elected, because he won’t be able to accomplish progressive goals unless vocal activists are being heard loud and clear. Social change comes from the people up, not from Washington, D.C., down.

Naomi Wolf: Absolutely. If there is one insight I got from what Americans are supposed to be doing, it’s that we are supposed to change our psychology. We should not think that if “my” candidate wins, he or she will fix it all, a top down solution. Rather, each of us must internalize the idea that it is our responsibility to take ownership of defending the Constitution and liberty, that we are in charge as a people.

So even if Obama gets in, we’re not out of the woods, because, first of all, these laws are not going to be rolled back unless there is a drastic movement to roll them back. The founders knew that you can get the most decent in power, but the checks and balances must still be in place because the temptation for abuse is too great.

Democracy is hard.

BuzzFlash: Before the American Revolution, there were the Committees of Correspondence in order to communicate the reasons and need for taking action. The American Revolutionaries had to have the courage to take on the mightiest army and naval fleet in the world at the time. Are we talking here about modern day Americans having the courage of their convictions and not feeling beaten down by the political system?

Naomi Wolf: We are talking about exactly that. I am struck by my travels across the country at how powerless and vulnerable many people feel. But at a time like this, we desperately need people to feel courageous and empowered by concrete actions that they can take. The first step is a psychological hurdle.

Our country is based on a psychology of liberty and freedom that is supposed to be transformative. That’s why it was important for me in this book to give concrete action steps to empower people to stand up for democracy.

Everyone should learn how to become the equivalent of BuzzFlash. Everyone should be empowered to expose government abuses. Everyone should be able to know how to start a political movement. Everyone should know how to organize a protest movement.

Each of us is charged with protecting the well being of our revolutionary heritage.
BuzzFlash Interview conducted by Mark Karlin.

[taters]

Good conversation, but judging from history and, well, the nations current state of affairs, apathy, sloth and personal distractions play such large roles in peoples lives that practically no one has the 'revolutionary spirit' anymore. If you look back in history, the last REAL revolutionaries (people that wanted change and were willing to stand up to the hostile masses for it) were 40-60 years ago. The civil rights era, womans sufferage era, and the vietnam conflict brought out the last large pangs of protestory spirit in america.

It may be too early to tell, but maybe the Obama/Political Change/anti-bush/Anti-War movements are a comparison to the similar kennedy/civil rights/anti-nixon/anti-war movements of the 60s. Were seeing the same argument from different people (rampant red-herring communism claims, racial hate speech towards minorities and immigrants, an unsure economy, a fed up populous, and an extremely polarizing and increasingly unpopular president.

[Deadhead Derek]

No Jefferson, Paine, or Adams floating around right now though unfortunately..

[Deadhead Derek]

and after the vp debate, no wonder it is considered a pitcher of warm spit...