I was recently informed that we shouldn't raise too many doubts about Obama because there is no alternative. This is a common argument and the Mass Media has attempted to drill it into our heads that we have to accept this primice; the following is my short responce which I decided was worth a blog.
Zacherytaylor wrote:
The real opposition to the real Obama is being totally ignored by the Mass Media.
They're hoping we'll believe the lie that we have to choose between the candidates that they present to us all of which are owned by the same corporations that own the Mass Media.
What is the alternative?
What realistic alternative do you see for next November other than choosing between the candidate of the Democrats and the candidate of the Republicans?
Do you honestly think the candidate of a third party can get enough votes to win?
And if so, I will ask the same questions I ask of all “third party” advocates:
What makes you think the politicians of your third party, if they win, will not get as corrupted by power as the politicians of every party that has ever existed on the planet?
What makes you think that the politicians of your third party, if they win, will be immune to the influence of the money that influences power in our country?
I hope you answer those questions, Zachery. I’ve never had a single advocate of third party wishful thinking ever respond to them.
Frank: "What is the alternative?"
The alternative is that we try to come up with something better. It may not be easy and it may involve a lot of organizational and educational efforts; but we try.
What is the alternative to not trying?
Submitting.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Marcia G. Yerman
Pat Davis
TimingLogic
Kenneth Sibbett
Kate Flannery
RogerShuler
Salon.com
Comments
As it is they're doing such an atrocious job that it is obvious to just about everyone and everyone has to know that we need major change.
This provides an enormous opportunity if we take it.
It might make some wonder why they don't do a slightly better job if they want to preserve their power; one possibility is that the system they're trying to defend has become so extreme that it is next to impossible to defend it rationally.
I'm also known to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE" when I do not believe ANY of the candidates running are qualified for the job.
Perhaps instead of looking at it as "Either - Or" or the "lesser of two evils" we should be more inclined to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE" when the candidates presented are not qualified to do the job.
Also local elections have a better chance of electing independents. If we can get enough members of congress elected at a sincere grass roots level they can gain a major bully pulpit an drive some real change.
Jack, I’ll take another look too, at a glance it seems to have been busy. I agree that we can’t accept this if there is an option and if there isn’t an option we should create one! The current system is based on blatant bribery and as long as we continue accepting the premise that accepting bribes is required to be a viable contender then it won’t be a real democracy.
Peter, actually the democrats are already to the right of what used to be the Republican Party and the new Republican party is even farther to the right. The system has gone insane and unless people from below get involved and change this it will continue to get worse. Accepting the false premise of choosing between the candidates approved by the corporations isn’t going to change this.
Stuart, some things may have to happen in the streets but if it comes down to violence then there will be a serious risk that this will devolve into something much worse. It would be much more effective if the protests remained peaceful and more people were educated about the corruption that is going on and the fact that the corruption is the leading instigator of protest and even the violence not the people that want sincere reform who are trying to get good government.