Thursday, November 8, 2012

So Actually, We're In The Same Place We Were Before the "Election"

An interesting result, to say the least.

We still have a chaotically gridlocked Congress, with the House in the hands of the renegade radical Republicans, the Senate in the hands of their Democratic enablers and a re-elected centrist-compromiser in the White House -- who is ritually disparaged as a Socialist by his rightist political opponents.

In other words, nothing has changed.

That of course doesn't mean that nothing will happen. In fact, all the signs point to some serious squabbling behind the scenes regarding how best and how quickly to extract more from the groaning masses through benefit cuts, tax and fee increases, and required expenditures for governmental and private services (ie: ACA).

There is no debate about the objectives themselves, only how quickly and how unmercifully to enforce them.

Rs want to go balls to the wall, forcing as much pain and suffering on the masses as possible in the shortest possible time while the Ds want to take it somewhat slow and easy, but there is no faction in among the Power Elite which was re-confirmed in office to abandon this program of mass suffering and try something else.

That means we are so screwed.

And that's what the People voted for -- well, some of them. Looking over a sampling of statistics, the turnout for this election was shockingly low in many precincts, under 50%. Was there a boycott? I'd like to think so, but without a public statement regarding such a thing, it's more likely people just weren't interested in the long lines and the hassles on voting day as well as the fact that neither candidate was offering anything substantive to the common people, only more benefits to the rich and well-connected.

I noticed this in the summary of political ads on the news. Rob-me had a definite program in mind which he mentioned in many of his ads, focusing on jobs (but he wouldn't say how he would increase employment), lower taxes for the rich, and reducing or eliminating regulations on employers, resource extractors and financiers.

You may not like the policies, but it is a policy program. Obama on the other hand seemed to concentrate on abstractions, what might be possible one day, and how to set the stage for the New America of the Future. He did not offer a policy program as such but instead focused his attention on ideas for doing something someday.

Obama's approach was rather soft and soothing but it lacked definition. Romney-Ryan on the other hand were cold and harsh -- though defined.

Neither appeared to be the least bit interested in the real issues the public faces, though both put on game faces of pretense. Romney for his part at least made "jobs" the centerpiece of his campaign. Obama barely mentioned the j-word.

They were both focused on the needs and demands of the Plutocrats.

That's where we were before the election, that's where we are now.

Nothing has changed.

Maybe after Barry and Mitch sit down together and have a good long heart to heart...



  1. Hey, Ché,

    Hope all is well.

    I voted for Jill Stein, and then for the Dems state-wide. If someone had to win between the two parties, it was better that Dems win, in general.

    But, I agree with ya. It's mostly keeping the status quo.

    An interesting "thing" noticed when listening to the post-election commentary . . . and this fits a general pattern:

    Everyone was talking about the Republican party, and its future. Kinda amazing, given who actually won the election. This is also the case on so-called liberal or progressive blogs and assorted media.

    "What will they do?"

    Someone needs to come up with a equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome for political parties. Cuz that's what seems to apply.

    This article in N+ may shed some light on the above:

  2. I noticed the same thing about the post-game commentary, at least what I saw of it: it was all about the Rs, what will they do now, how can they recover, what should they do to re-brand, re-market, yadda, yadda.

    There is almost nothing about the ostensible winner of the election, a certain Mister Obama -- except that he tweeted out a picture of him and Michelle, and he said he wanted to meet with Romney and... do what?

    The media focus -- including many of the blogs -- is almost entirely on what the Rs are going to do, not at all on what the Ds will do. Isn't that something?

    Good for you for voting for Jill Stein. She seemed like a very good candidate, not simply a throw-away for show. Not enough voted for her though. She was less than one percent in New Mexico (surprising given the number of ostensible Greens here) while Gary Johnson running on the Libertarian ticket did pretty well; 3% overall, 4% up in Santa Fe, 7% in my rural/ranching county.

    But given the low turnout in many places, I really wonder if there was a boycott...

    I've got the n+ article open in another window, and I'll give it a read this evening. "Neurotocrats" indeed.

    Hope you're doing well, and that the weather hasn't been too awful. If it isn't one thing, it's another.


  3. One of the guys I follow on Facebook, a bit, was calling for a boycott. His idea was that if enough people boycott the election it will rob it of legitimacy. While that's true, I don't know that it would overly bother them that rule. This isn't Iraq, where they'll worry that after an election boycott will come the IEDs.

    Another guy was all in for Rocky Anderson. A fine candidate, but he didn't do big numbers.