“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”―Karl Marx
If we reverse the headline of this article, it would read something like this: If you take the time and make the effort to vote, you have every right to complain.
But complain to whom? The people who have been elected into office have invariably received large sums of money from those who run the country and to whom they have sworn allegiance.
It is the same dilemma we experience when we choose to vote or not to vote . . . people have fought and died for this right, should we choose not to implement this right?
Let me quote Karl Marx again: “Religion is the opiate of the people.” Organized religion seduces people into accepting their lot in life with the promise of glory in the hereafter. Is it not true that elections are another form of opiate which seduces us into a mindset that we live in a democracy and that periodically we assert ourselves and our desires by voting for representation?
Our political system is a two-party system which allows us the option of voting for ruling class representative #1 (“evil” Republican) or ruling class representative #2 (“lesser of 2 evils” Democrat). Not a great range of choices.
Having gone through many presidential and congressional elections, I have reached the conclusion that it matters little which candidate or party gets my support. There is an agenda that transcends the needs and desires of the electorate and that is the agenda our elected officials will implement, an agenda that will reflect the demands of the ruling class (top 1 or 2%).
The lesser of two evils principal has failed us and has been instrumental in perpetuating a system and its policies and agendas that are corrupt and dangerous.
In viewing the Republican debate on December 15, I came away stunned and numb. Here we had 9 candidates for the highest office in the most powerful nation of this world having what amounted to a pissing contest.
The debate focused on terrorism and specifically on ISIS, using the killings in San Bernardino as the focal point, demonstrating the vulnerability of the U.S. to Arab extremists. All responses to this issue incorporated the need for more military intervention in the Middle East and greater surveillance right here in the U.S. The fact that we have been at war with several countries in the Middle East since 9-11 and the militancy of the Muslim world appears to be growing rather than waning was never considered. Only Rand Paul was willing to challenge the role of the U.S. in intervening in the politics of other countries.
We were then given the opportunity of viewing the Democratic presidential debate, a debate that supposedly would bring more moderate responses to the table. And, it did. The candidates appeared more thoughtful and reasonable to how they would respond to the political crises in the Middle East. Unlike the Republicans, none of the candidates would summarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., but all three agreed that the vetting process must be improved, especially in light of the Syrian refugee problem, a problem caused by the U.S. and NATO military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
U.S. actions for the past 14 years of warring on Muslim countries was never brought to the table by either debate. The U.S. has led the way for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. It is this imperialistic policy that none of the candidates challenged.
In fact, the discussion of the Syrian situation exemplifies the mind set of all the candidates. Hillary Clinton insisted that the U.S. and NATO must defeat both ISIS and the Assad regime simultaneously. Assad, the president of Syria, must be removed from office.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants to focus on destroying ISIS because they’re the real threat to the U.S. and we will dethrone Assad later. The means by which to achieve the goal may vary from Hillary’s but the goal remains the same . . . Assad must go.
Not one leading candidate or any ‘journalist’ questioning the candidates in either debate asked why we felt that we had the right to ignore the sovereignty of other countries and determine for them who their political leaders ought to be. Only Democrat Martin O’Malley raised that issue.
It is interesting to note that Russia, our arch rival, assumed the most democratic stance and stated that only the Syrians should determine who will lead their country. The so-called democracies in NATO have had difficulty accepting that notion.
We should also be aware of the fact that Assad is not an unpopular president and that over 80% of Syrians indicated their support for him.
What we are talking about is the mind set of imperialism and the myth of American exceptionalism. In Syria, we are supposedly currently bombing ISIS. This seems like a noble cause, bombing the terrorists who are running rampant in that country. What we don’t consider is that the U.S. never asked the Syrian government if they wanted us to enter their country and bomb their cities and villages.
What would be our reaction if Canada decided to bomb the white supremacist groups here in the U.S. and proceeded to do so without consulting with U.S. officials. The goal might appear noble but would the U.S. accept this as an appropriate or legal action?
But, let’s not be fooled . . . the U.S. may appear to be attacking ISIS but it is Assad that remains the true target.
And so, I come back to my initial concern. Here we have close to 20 candidates for the presidency and no one questions how U.S. policy has fueled terrorism around the world. We can assume that any one of these candidates, when taking office, will continue the goal of global domination.
We can also assume that the U.S. will continue to support Israel with money and weapons while they implement their policy of genocide against the Palestinians.
Friendship with Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic nations in the world and one the leading human rights abusers, will continue with the U.S. selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to them. As an aside, Saudi Arabia continues to bomb Yemen’s civilian sites using U.S. made weapons. Tens of thousands of non-combatant Yemenis have been killed or displaced by these bombings.
The U.S. will continue to support the newly formed government in the Ukraine, a government dominated by neo-Nazis who march through the streets with flags that show the Nazi swastika.
To continue to vote for any of these candidates, who will continue the policies of war, killings, and destruction throughout the world to fulfill corporate America’s wet dream of world domination, is a waste. The working class will continue to be neglected, corporations will continue to become enriched by exploiting us all, the climate will become more and more dangerous to life on this planet, and the wars will continue to rage throughout the globe.
The problem is not any one candidate and the solution cannot be in the hands of any one candidate. We have a corrupt, criminal system that favors the wealthy ruling class and profits over human needs and no matter who we place in the White House or Congress, the corporate agenda will persist.
I recall when Barack Obama was elected in 2008. He had captured the imagination of the people, he held out hope that things would change. Now, 7 years later, we have evolved into a police state; surveillance of U.S. citizens has increased dramatically; the wars have expanded; government transparency is at an all time low; the wealthy continue to gather wealth while the working class is either unemployed or underemployed and having difficulty avoiding poverty; more and more people have been forced to surrender their health insurance coverage because they no longer can afford the premiums (and this is his greatest achievement as president?).
To vote for any of the leading candidates is to give support to the policies they will implement, policies that will allow the U.S. to continue the slaughter and dismemberment of people (hundreds of thousands as of today) as well as the destruction of their homes and means of survival. I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I’m not one of the people who gave my support to this attack on humanity
We are beyond voting if we want a meaningful change in how we live our lives. It’s time to start organizing and take to the streets to let those in power know that we are angry and we will not accept this any longer. We will no longer have business as usual. This country must be made ungovernable while the working class and the millions of unrepresented people in this country make their demands known.
Nothing meaningful will change until we recognize that capitalism doesn’t work for the great majority of the people and we have to restructure our system, not merely apply Band-Aids.
GOD BLESS AMERIKA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
‘If you don’t vote, you can’t complain!’
Posted on January 6, 2016 by Dave Alpert
If we reverse the headline of this article, it would read something like this: If you take the time and make the effort to vote, you have every right to complain.
But complain to whom? The people who have been elected into office have invariably received large sums of money from those who run the country and to whom they have sworn allegiance.
It is the same dilemma we experience when we choose to vote or not to vote . . . people have fought and died for this right, should we choose not to implement this right?
Let me quote Karl Marx again: “Religion is the opiate of the people.” Organized religion seduces people into accepting their lot in life with the promise of glory in the hereafter. Is it not true that elections are another form of opiate which seduces us into a mindset that we live in a democracy and that periodically we assert ourselves and our desires by voting for representation?
Our political system is a two-party system which allows us the option of voting for ruling class representative #1 (“evil” Republican) or ruling class representative #2 (“lesser of 2 evils” Democrat). Not a great range of choices.
Having gone through many presidential and congressional elections, I have reached the conclusion that it matters little which candidate or party gets my support. There is an agenda that transcends the needs and desires of the electorate and that is the agenda our elected officials will implement, an agenda that will reflect the demands of the ruling class (top 1 or 2%).
The lesser of two evils principal has failed us and has been instrumental in perpetuating a system and its policies and agendas that are corrupt and dangerous.
In viewing the Republican debate on December 15, I came away stunned and numb. Here we had 9 candidates for the highest office in the most powerful nation of this world having what amounted to a pissing contest.
The debate focused on terrorism and specifically on ISIS, using the killings in San Bernardino as the focal point, demonstrating the vulnerability of the U.S. to Arab extremists. All responses to this issue incorporated the need for more military intervention in the Middle East and greater surveillance right here in the U.S. The fact that we have been at war with several countries in the Middle East since 9-11 and the militancy of the Muslim world appears to be growing rather than waning was never considered. Only Rand Paul was willing to challenge the role of the U.S. in intervening in the politics of other countries.
We were then given the opportunity of viewing the Democratic presidential debate, a debate that supposedly would bring more moderate responses to the table. And, it did. The candidates appeared more thoughtful and reasonable to how they would respond to the political crises in the Middle East. Unlike the Republicans, none of the candidates would summarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., but all three agreed that the vetting process must be improved, especially in light of the Syrian refugee problem, a problem caused by the U.S. and NATO military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
U.S. actions for the past 14 years of warring on Muslim countries was never brought to the table by either debate. The U.S. has led the way for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria. It is this imperialistic policy that none of the candidates challenged.
In fact, the discussion of the Syrian situation exemplifies the mind set of all the candidates. Hillary Clinton insisted that the U.S. and NATO must defeat both ISIS and the Assad regime simultaneously. Assad, the president of Syria, must be removed from office.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants to focus on destroying ISIS because they’re the real threat to the U.S. and we will dethrone Assad later. The means by which to achieve the goal may vary from Hillary’s but the goal remains the same . . . Assad must go.
Not one leading candidate or any ‘journalist’ questioning the candidates in either debate asked why we felt that we had the right to ignore the sovereignty of other countries and determine for them who their political leaders ought to be. Only Democrat Martin O’Malley raised that issue.
It is interesting to note that Russia, our arch rival, assumed the most democratic stance and stated that only the Syrians should determine who will lead their country. The so-called democracies in NATO have had difficulty accepting that notion.
We should also be aware of the fact that Assad is not an unpopular president and that over 80% of Syrians indicated their support for him.
What we are talking about is the mind set of imperialism and the myth of American exceptionalism. In Syria, we are supposedly currently bombing ISIS. This seems like a noble cause, bombing the terrorists who are running rampant in that country. What we don’t consider is that the U.S. never asked the Syrian government if they wanted us to enter their country and bomb their cities and villages.
What would be our reaction if Canada decided to bomb the white supremacist groups here in the U.S. and proceeded to do so without consulting with U.S. officials. The goal might appear noble but would the U.S. accept this as an appropriate or legal action?
But, let’s not be fooled . . . the U.S. may appear to be attacking ISIS but it is Assad that remains the true target.
And so, I come back to my initial concern. Here we have close to 20 candidates for the presidency and no one questions how U.S. policy has fueled terrorism around the world. We can assume that any one of these candidates, when taking office, will continue the goal of global domination.
We can also assume that the U.S. will continue to support Israel with money and weapons while they implement their policy of genocide against the Palestinians.
Friendship with Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic nations in the world and one the leading human rights abusers, will continue with the U.S. selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to them. As an aside, Saudi Arabia continues to bomb Yemen’s civilian sites using U.S. made weapons. Tens of thousands of non-combatant Yemenis have been killed or displaced by these bombings.
The U.S. will continue to support the newly formed government in the Ukraine, a government dominated by neo-Nazis who march through the streets with flags that show the Nazi swastika.
To continue to vote for any of these candidates, who will continue the policies of war, killings, and destruction throughout the world to fulfill corporate America’s wet dream of world domination, is a waste. The working class will continue to be neglected, corporations will continue to become enriched by exploiting us all, the climate will become more and more dangerous to life on this planet, and the wars will continue to rage throughout the globe.
The problem is not any one candidate and the solution cannot be in the hands of any one candidate. We have a corrupt, criminal system that favors the wealthy ruling class and profits over human needs and no matter who we place in the White House or Congress, the corporate agenda will persist.
I recall when Barack Obama was elected in 2008. He had captured the imagination of the people, he held out hope that things would change. Now, 7 years later, we have evolved into a police state; surveillance of U.S. citizens has increased dramatically; the wars have expanded; government transparency is at an all time low; the wealthy continue to gather wealth while the working class is either unemployed or underemployed and having difficulty avoiding poverty; more and more people have been forced to surrender their health insurance coverage because they no longer can afford the premiums (and this is his greatest achievement as president?).
To vote for any of the leading candidates is to give support to the policies they will implement, policies that will allow the U.S. to continue the slaughter and dismemberment of people (hundreds of thousands as of today) as well as the destruction of their homes and means of survival. I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I’m not one of the people who gave my support to this attack on humanity
We are beyond voting if we want a meaningful change in how we live our lives. It’s time to start organizing and take to the streets to let those in power know that we are angry and we will not accept this any longer. We will no longer have business as usual. This country must be made ungovernable while the working class and the millions of unrepresented people in this country make their demands known.
Nothing meaningful will change until we recognize that capitalism doesn’t work for the great majority of the people and we have to restructure our system, not merely apply Band-Aids.
GOD BLESS AMERIKA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.