Tuesday, August 08, 2006

ATTENTION ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATS

ATTENTION ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATS





The Angry Independent will celebrate if Joe Lieberman goes down in the Democratic Primary later today in Connecticut.

But as Joe Lieberman fights for his political life, anti-war Democrats should be thinking about their political future.

It's time for anti-war Democrats to split from the traditional Democratic Party to form their own Political Party.

Traditional Democrats do not represent your best interests. Here you have a situation where pro-war Democrats were out campaigning for Lieberman. Even a few anti-war Democrats. Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, and numerous other traditional Democrats campaigned hard for Lieberman.

Is the Democratic Party really anti-war at all? I say no....it's not. The Democratic Party has had a long history of being a pro-war Party. One only has to go back to the Clinton administration. It's funny how some Democrats try to play the role of the "Anti-War" Party and condemn the war in Iraq, when at least half of the Democrats supported it. Furthermore, they are against the war in Iraq, yet they make excuses for all of the conflicts that the Clinton administration was involved in. Somalia, The Balkin War, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq (at least twice), Sudan, and more. Clinton was also within minutes of bombing North Korea, before Jimmy Carter was able to intervene. The bombing of North Korea would have led to a brutal 2nd Korean War, with untold bloody consequences. Furthermore, Clinton almost brought the nation into a shooting war with the Russians because of the U.S. adventure in Yugoslavia.

The Democrats have always been pro-war... just as pro-war as the Republican Party. This is the main reason that I am an independent, and despise both political Parties. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson....(and numerous others) were all pro-war Democrats. Even the Dove Jimmy Carter was not much of a Dove while in office. The Carter administration considered attacking Saudi Arabia (to take its oil) during the 1970's oil crisis. And the whole Truman Doctrine.... the Foundation of U.S. foreign policy for the last 60 years, was the policy of a Democrat. I will admit that the policy was partially successful at achieving its aims, however, thousands of U.S. citizens died, tens of thousands of foreigners died (mostly in Africa, Afganistan, S.E. Asia, and Central America), and most importantly we almost destroyed the planet several times as a result of this policy.

What the country needs is a viable third and fourth political Party to emerge, and have a presense in the U.S. Congress.

This is where anti-war Democrats come in. For the real anti-war Democrats and independents- It is time to stop supporting a Political Party that does not support you. Instead of standing up and demanding that they pay attention to you, you settle for them and vote for them despite their aggressive pro-war foreign policy. Stop voting for them just because they are the lesser of two evils.

In most other Democracies (the real Democracies of the world), people take action when they are fed up with a political Party that no longer listens to them and takes their concerns seriously.
What do people in other countries do when they are fed up with their politicians? The Easy "American" answer would be to vote them out. Yes... that's the easy option, but not the answer that I was looking for. Simply voting for the other Party or finding another candidate doesn't really solve the fundamental problem. This is the problem with Americans. Americans are politically lazy. They would much rather put a band aid on the problem rather than fix the fundamental underlying disease. Furthermore, sometimes there is no option for another candidate. It just so happened that there was another choice in the case of Joe Lieberman. Usually, this is not an option, especially in a country where there are only 2 Parties on the national level.

No... what people in other countries do when they get fed up with politicians (besides simply voting for another candidate) is that they create another political Party. This is what great Democracies do. In fact, the ability to create alternative political Parties is the single greatest test of how good a Democracy really is. And on that front, the U.S. would get a grade of an F. Have you ever noticed that alternative political Parties (viable ones) cannot emerge in the United States? Why is that? The answer is because the two legacy Parties do not allow other major Parties to emerge. Republicans and Democrats have set up countless laws, rules, and procedures, that make it impossible for any viable 3rd Party threat to emerge. The two Parties have a monopoly on the Politics in the U.S. and collude to make sure that their political Parties are safe from fair competition. In effect, what you have in the U.S. is a form of dictatorship. The only difference with the U.S. dictatorship is that Americans see two faces instead of one, giving them the illusion that they are living in a Democracy, when in fact the U.S. system is far from a Democracy. Listen to an excerpt from a speech by Ralph Nader (who i'm no fan of) as he makes some great points about the 2 party dictatorship system. Click link at bottom of following page.

India has Dozens of political Parties, the UK has at least 3 major Parties, Germany has several Parties, Norway has at least 4 or 5 major Parties, Iraq (in their last election) had over 100 Parties, France has several Political Parties.... the list goes on and on.
The U.S. is one of the very few so-called "free nations" in the world with only 2 major political Parties. Two Parties is not a good indication that a nation has a great Democracy.

Why are Americans so afraid of true Democracy? We preach it to other countries...but I don't believe that most Americans have a clue of what real Democracy is. It's ironic that U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq so that Iraqis can have an election with 100+ political Parties, yet the soldiers who are being wounded and dying there do not have such an option here at home on election day.

Anti-war Democrats and Independents could provide that opportunity for a 3rd political Party in this country. It's time to split from the Democratic Party...and Party that does not serve your interests. In fact, it runs counter to your interests. The traditional Democrats are much too close to the Republican Party. Capital Hill has become one big Party- The Republicrats. Both Parties would hate to see any new major Parties emerge because it would be a threat to their Power. They do not want to lose their influence amongst lobbyists in Washington DC.

You have an opportunity to create a separate Independent Democratic Party that you could call your own.

This would serve three great purposes.

1. It would keep the Traditional Democratic Party honest. In order to get your votes in Congress (assuming that you could attract enough Democratic Congressmen and women to the new Party), both the Traditional Democrats and the Republicans would be forced to compromise, thus providing a moderating affect which would help to influence policy and behavior of the other two Parties.

2. It would open a second front against the Republican Party. Two Parties Vs. The Republicans would be better than one.

3. It would get Democrats & Independents excited about voting again.

Now there are some Democrats who would say that this would weaken the Democratic Party. This is NONSENSE! The two Democratic Parties could still work together on most issues and would cooperate during major elections (endorsing the other party, etc). However, having a separate Party would allow independence for Anti-war Democrats and other marginalized Americans. This would allow you to go in a different direction on issues surrounding foreign policy, the deficit, renewable sustainable energy/energy independence, and a few other issues.

Create a real anti-war Party, create a Party that encourages commerce but holds Corporations accountable, create a Party that will represent the people and not big business, create a Party that would help make healthcare more accessible, create a Party that would be in favor of building partnerships around the world rather than enemies, create a Party that would improve American education, create a Party that would make the U.S. competitive again and would keep the U.S. in front in science and technology, create a Party that would lead the world by example and not through playing global cop, create a Party that would fight a sensible War against Terrorism, create a Party that would decrease the number of nuclear weapons in the world...restore arms control agreements and make new agreements, create a Party that would get control of the worlds wayward or unaccounted for nuclear materials, create a Party that would provide security for our borders & change the immigration system to screen out threats to our country without closing the country to the outside world, create a Party that would fix weaknesses in our Homeland Security, create a Party that would improve intelligence, that would respect and utilize the judicial system, and not waste time spying on Grandmothers who express their displeasure with the war in Iraq, create a Party that would take a defensive Stand against Iran, Syria, and North Korea with one hand while holding out an Olive Branch with the other (just like we did with the U.S.S.R...and did so successfully).....but now all of a sudden they want you to be paranoid about these smaller countries????? The fearmongering has gotten old. Whatever happened to Truman Containment? Let's be in favor of a strong defense combined with a sensible foreign policy. "YeeHaw" is not a foreign policy. The John Wayne Swagger is not a foreign policy. Being able to drop a bomb down the chimney of a House in Baghdad is not a foreign policy. As we see with Iraq... guns, tanks, warplanes, and more soldiers doesn't add up to a foreign policy. All of those fancy weapons without a sound policy equals chaos.

All of these things are possible..... But not from the existing Democratic Party....It will have to come from a separate Party of your own.


It's time to think for yourselves rather than having the elite members of the Party think for you.
Regardless of whether Joe Lieberman wins or loses the CT primary election....anti-war Democrats should begin to plan and put together a steering Committee that could have the new Party in Place by 2008 or no later than 2010.

Otherwise, you will remain at the mercy of a political Party that does not share your interests (and never has, according to history).

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree. I think it would be effective to create a movement within the grassroots progressives, similiar to how the "conservative" "christians" took over the Repub's agenda, that focuses on truly anti-war candidates for 2008. For example, Wes Clark was involved in many of those "interventions" (wars) that you listed, but still receives about 15-30% support among the grassroots in Kos polls. And I'm sure another "interventionist" Democrat will step up in 2008.

Maybe your blog could help organize the true anti-war faction of the Democrats.

The Angry Independent said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Angry Independent said...

This is exactly what I am trying to get the people on DKos to understand... but they seem to be brain warped lol.

I'm not saying that the two entities would not work together on 80-90% of the issues. I'm just saying that it would provide true Anti-War democrats with a real option on the divergent issues... (war, foreign policy, certain energy policy, diplomacy, etc).

In political elections... there would still be endorsements back and forth... so there would be no risk of Republicans taking advantage of some kind of weakness (there would be no weakness).

If anything... the overall Democratic Party movement would actually grow rather than weaken, because such a move would attract more people to the party (either the main party OR the alternative Democratic faction). The size of the overall Party would actually grow because (with a friendly civil split) it would appeal to a larger range of people...namely a lot of the independent anti-war Progressives like myself who have been marginalized for all these years. Even some Centrist Moderates might be attracted. More importantly, it would get a lot of people excited about politics again.... the idea of a 3rd Party would light a fire under a lot of people. People who didn't have a choice before...would finally have one. Once you create a Populist movement in this Country (as we have seen in other countries) people will get excited...and it will be for the better. But notice how the Democratic elite establishment is scared to death of even the idea?

I'm glad I got through to at least one person. If I can get through to just one, two or three people, then it's worth it for me.