So, JP, you say that leadership of both parties is the rich, and I would agree. Even Robert Reich has admitted he would be affected by the Rupert Murdoch tax (and he supports that). I don’t think that I’ve been complaining about who leads the parties. Lobbyists, super-rich, and well connected people are partly a necessary evil – keeping a balance of devils up there, and partly filling the vacuum left by the passivity of the voters. Clearly, though you WANT the Dems to be the party representing the Poor, with different nomeclature, who you and they would most like to be referred to as, “everyone else.”
It was just mentioned on NPR that perhaps the Wall Street protesters are a liberal counter to the Tea Party. Carry that idea out with my previous post, and we could see four parties… Not out of the question, if we look toward Europe, with all of their political parties, though I do not think it will actually happen.
Who are the Dems, really? Are they the ones who think greed is evil, and hate Wall street and capitalists in general? Do they want a civil rights revolution? Are they environmental whackos and feminazis (Per Rush’s lingo)? Unionizers? Socialists and Communists? Re-distributors of wealth? Or do they just want honesty and productivity in deserved and rational government services, and a trusted educational system? Common work towards equality of opportunity, protection from corporate corruption?
What I’m really asking is about the ability of reasonable people to be educated, talk and find common ground. And about the ability of our world to see facts and reality, guided by principles, and then make some good choices. At least about the ability of people of various points of view to coalesce!
Which party would you join, JP? Or are parties the problem, as George Washington believed (and so do I)? And do you wish you were there in NCY, on Wall Street? Protesting, or making deals?