What would happen if a political party were to gain 98% majority in the House and Senate???

philipuso

Member
Dec 19, 2002
54
0
0
Are we all being mis-lead to think that putting new candidates in office will actually change anything?? Read below and find out.

Quote below of "Understanding Power" by Noam Chomsky

MAN: Then what kind of mechanism for social planning do you think would work? Obviously you're not too sanguine about our current form of government.

Answer: Well, there's nothing wrong with the form-I mean, there are some things wrong with the form-but what's really wrong is that the substance is missing. Look, as long as you have private control over the economy, it doesn't make any difference what forms you have, because they can't do anything. You could have political parties where everybody gets together and participates, and you make the programs, make things as participatory as you like-and it would still have only the most marginal effect on policy. And the reason is, power lies elsewhere.
So suppose all of us here convinced everybody in the country to vote for us for President, we got 98 percent of the vote and both Houses of Con­gress, and then we started to institute very badly needed social reforms that most of the population wants. Simply ask yourself, what would happen? Well, if your imagination doesn't tell you, take a look at real cases. There are places in the world that have a broader range of political parties than we do, like Latin American countries, for example, which in this respect are much more democratic than we are. Well, when popular reform candidates in Latin America get elected and begin to introduce reforms, two things typically happen. One is, there's a military coup supported by the United States. But suppose that doesn't happen. What you get is capital strike ­investment capital flows out of the country, there's a lowering of invest­ment, and the economy grinds to a halt.
That's the problem that Nicaragua has faced in the 1980s-and which it cannot overcome, in my view, it's just a hopeless problem. See, the Sandin­istas have tried to run a mixed economy: they've tried to carry out social programs to benefit the population, but they've also had to appeal to the business community to prevent capital flight from destroying the place. So most public funds, to the extent there are any, go as a bribe to the wealthy, to try to keep them investing in the country. The only problem is, the wealthy would prefer not to invest unless they have political power: they'd rather see the society destroyed. So the wealthy take the bribes, and they send them to Swiss banks and to Miami banks-because from their per­spective, the Sandinista government just has the wrong priorities. I mean, these guys hate democracy just as much as Congress hates democracy: they want the political system to be in the hands of wealthy elites, and when it is again, then they'll call it "democracy" and they'll resume investing, and the economy will finally start to function again.
Well, the same thing would happen here if we ever had a popular reform candidate who actually achieved some formal level of power: there would be disinvestment, capital strike, a grinding down of the economy. And the reason is quite simple. In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the deci­sions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference-I don't want to say it's zero-but the differences are going to be very slight.
In fact, if you think through the logic of this, you'll see that so long as power remains privately concentrated, everybody, everybody, has to be committed to one overriding goal: and that's to make sure that the rich folk are happy-because unless they are, nobody else is going to get anything. So if you're a homeless person sleeping in the streets of Manhattan, let's say, your first concern must be that the guys in the mansions are happy ­because if they're happy, then they'll invest, and the economy will work, and things will function, and then maybe something will trickle down to you somewhere along the line. But if they're not happy, everything's going to grind to a halt, and you're not even going to get anything trickling down. So if you're a homeless person in the streets, your first concern is the happi­ness of the wealthy guys in the mansions and the fancy restaurants. Basi­cally that's a metaphor for the whole society.
Like, suppose Massachusetts were to increase business taxes. Most of the population is in favor of it, but you can predict what would happen. Business would run a public relations campaign-which is true, in fact, it's not lies-saying, "You raise taxes on business, you soak the rich, and you'll find that capital is going to flow elsewhere, and you're not going to have any jobs, you're not going to have anything." That's not the way they'd put it exactly, but that's what it would amount to: "Unless you make us happy you're not going to have anything, because we own the place; you live here, but we own the place." And in fact, that's basically the message that is pre­sented, not in those words of course, whenever a reform measure does come along somewhere-they have a big propaganda campaign saying, it's going to hurt jobs, it's going to hurt investment, there's going to be a loss of business confidence, and so on. That's just a complicated way of saying, un­less you keep business happy, the population isn't going to have anything.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
I think major change in Washington isnt possible at the ballot box since 2 parties control the government and the courts. Remember the democrats suing to get third parties off the ballot in Florida, so they wouldnt "steal" votes they thought were rightfully theirs? This idea thats commonly parroted that you have no right to complain if you dont vote is bull. Voting is pointless, because all you will ever get is slight deviations from the status quo. All the candidates are nothing more than rich lawyers with a letter next to their name, and the letter next to their name just spells out who they market themselves too. Their motivations are money and power, and any little token things they say or do are just the means to achieve that end.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think major change in Washington isnt possible at the ballot box since 2 parties control the government and the courts. Remember the democrats suing to get third parties off the ballot in Florida, so they wouldnt "steal" votes they thought were rightfully theirs? This idea thats commonly parroted that you have no right to complain if you dont vote is bull. Voting is pointless, because all you will ever get is slight deviations from the status quo. All the candidates are nothing more than rich lawyers with a letter next to their name, and the letter next to their name just spells out who they market themselves too. Their motivations are money and power, and any little token things they say or do are just the means to achieve that end.


Heh heh. The problem with the political process is that there are too many politicians in it.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
The biggest problem is the American people. We still have the power in this country but we are afraid to use it, we're too lazy to use it.
 

philipuso

Member
Dec 19, 2002
54
0
0

The biggest problem is the American people. We still have the power in this country but we are afraid to use it, we're too lazy to use it.

Yes, unfortunately the american people will most likely suffer until their 80% in poverty before they grow some balls, organize, and take action.

Let's not be cynical though, thats what people in power want. If we blow off are duties as activists to change policy, we are lifting the wealthy elites up onto a pedestal to control us.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
The biggest problem is the American people. We still have the power in this country but we are afraid to use it, we're too lazy to use it.
The American people have power, as a mob has power. That power can and will always be manipulated by those capable of controling and wielding mob power. And who is capable of that? The wealthy industrialists and super rich.

That's why I've never voted in my life. I realized early on that my votes don't make the rules and neither do my neighbor's votes; money and power makes the rules, both of which I have none. You want to shake up the politicians and the wealthy in the shadows behind them? Don't vote. Let's see a voter turnout of less than 3% and see who gets shaken up.

Unforuntately that will never happen. The myth of "your vote counts" is too powerful, too easily believable, and gets too much play come election time. No one gets on TV and tells you not to rock the vote.

 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
14
81
fobot.com
that is unpossible

and none of the major party candidates (like Obama) will change anything, it is just campaign retoric
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
that is unpossible

and none of the major party candidates (like Obama) will change anything, it is just campaign retoric
You should find optimism in despair; look at what somebody like Bush has done. He's done bad. Another person may not have. In this way, the correct leader, at the very least, will not fvck things up more, even if they don't make it better.