Fundamental Dishonesty in Politics


~ Ford, a Texas-based writer, contributes essays on music, Texas life and cultural issues regularly to The Agonist

Note: This is a repost of an article I wrote and then later deleted. Temporary cave-in to conformity. Screw conformity. ~dhf

I go through periods where I can hardly stand to listen to political debates, much less participate in them. The reason: fundamental dishonesty among participants.

On the right we have those willing to con other countries out of their natural resources so Americans can enjoy a higher standard of living. When deceptive economic practices no longer work, then an assassination or two is called for, if that doesn’t work, then military attack is the next option: we kill your ass and take what we want. This group sees the world as a dog eat dog kind of place and thinks diplomacy useless, unless diplomacy is defined as total capitulation by the “other side” in the face of annihilation.

I suppose this would be an honest platform if it was presented to the public in its true light, but instead, such plans are cloaked in disguises like spreading democracy and bringing freedom to the world. Sharing our better way of life with others. Christianity?

I don’t fucking think so.

On the left we have people calling for fairer treatment of others, a more equal division of wealth and privilege. Here you’ll find those espousing universal health care, environmental legislation that would reduce mankind’s effect on the planet and forced socialization of many industries. Some (but not all) of this sounds like the teachings of Jesus. But the first century prophet, Jesus, is publicly scorned in this group. And when push comes to shove, people on the left are as addicted as any to the pleasures and perks of empire. It’s always someone else that should be making sacrifices for the masses.

No, you say? Well…

The United States has somewhere around 6% of the world’s population and use 25% of the world’s oil. So let’s be fair. We’ll get jars and fill them with beans. Three white beans for each black bean (I had it the other way around, but decided it’s time to give black a break for once). Everyone draws a bean. If you get a black bean, you get to keep your car. If you get a white bean, we’ll send your car to someone in a developing nation and you will not be allowed to buy one to replace it. You can walk or ride a bicycle. I am sure those that receive these cars will be happy and probably won’t want to attack us any longer. (And no, Sean-Paul, you cannot take any more airplane trips to foreign lands. It’s someone else’s turn. Maybe one of those Ethiopians would like to visit San Antonio. And no, Don, you don’t get to keep all those horses and cattle or all the acres of land in your family.)

No, you say? Sounds fair to me.

From my vantage point it seems like we have been getting more than our fair share of lots of things (food and medicines and electricity and education. . . ), thanks to the Right’s economic Hit Men and our brave soldiers that kill people and blow shit up on our behalf. The Left is been more than happy to take its share of the spoils.

Neither side of the debate really wants to give up the perks of living in an empire or to admit the things we do to maintain them. We live in a state of denial, hopelessly addicted to having more than our share and fighting like hell to keep it. This addiction will not be broken voluntarily.

So why argue over minutia?

Or bother voting when there ain’t a cunt-hair’s difference between the two candidates left to choose from?

Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich for president.


Don May 1, 2007 - 8:19pm

I give Sean-Paul a hard time. Truth is, Sean-Paul Kelly stepped away from a money management job that paid him well to do what he does here for pennies.

No one is voluntarily giving up their car. What we can and should do is to gut the World bank and cancel third world debt.

Money earned through usury and unfair lending practices is stolen money.

I did inhale.

Don May 1, 2007 - 8:41pm

"So why argue over minutia?

Or bother voting when there ain’t a cunt-hair’s difference between the two candidates left to choose from?"

Don, I recognize what you are saying about the benefits of empire.

But I hope you realize that you are supporting the right wing's most successful voter supression tactic when you make the above statements.
And so I don't sound too pious, I have said the same thing plenty of times in the past until I realized I was making their propaganda point.
Gloss over, blurr the issues and say there's not a cunt hair's difference.
That has been a hugely successful Republican propaganda tactic for the past 30 years. That is a major factor in the low participation rate in our political life.
Were Al Gore president, we would not be talking about Iraq now. We might actually be discussing some of the injustices. There is some difference.
It's not a PC thing either.
You live in Texas. I live in the South. We know voter suppression and discouraging political participation has been a policy of the elites in the South for a looooong time. They've been very effective, whether it's poll taxes or dissing the whole system and saying it's hopeless.
Reagan did this with huge skill. Just keep a slow release of poison into the community well, then one day it's yours.
Why don't we point out that people who hate government can't and shouldn't govern. They just fuck it up. The last 6 years is proof.

JT May 1, 2007 - 10:31pm
Bolo May 1, 2007 - 10:47pm

very, very prescient.

But far, far, far, far too wordy.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."

Sean Paul Kelley May 1, 2007 - 11:27pm

And that ain't easy.

I always feel a tad guilty at skipping Arthur, because he does have some wonderful insights.

Gordon May 2, 2007 - 8:32am

I am tired of watching bushco (corporatists) frame the debate.

I give Gore a hard time. Yet, he remains one of the best and brightest. If he runs for president, I will vote for him.

But I can't understand why people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who have the courage to suggest real overhauls get marginalized. We've gone beyond the point of superficial fixes. They have real answers, not just rehashes of the same policies. They also prove that the debate isn't about left and right; they come from opposite ends of the spectrum, but unite on many issues because they have the best interests of the people at heart.

I think it unfair to compare Reagan to bush. Yes, Iran-Contra and other events transpired under his watch. He built a military machine. But he also used diplomacy and worked for peace. I see him in similar light to Bill Clinton. A master communicator and diplomat.

I submit that had Reagan been president instead of W, we wouldn't be talking about Iraq now either.

I did inhale.

Don May 2, 2007 - 8:07am

did approach Reagan when he was in the White House and presented the forunner of the PNAC plan. Reagan said thanks for dropping the plan off and I will get back to you on it.

How did our Oil get under their sand??

"The president's job is to think not only about today, but tomorrow"
george bush delivers deep insights in a speach given on
April 19, 2007
Tipp City High School
Tipp City, Ohio

Peter C May 2, 2007 - 9:15am

There is no doubt that all of this is going down because the American people think that they are entitled to a lifestyle that is destroying not only them but also the planet. There are others too, but we are the big problem right now, although China is catching up fast.

Are we crass, complicit, in denial or just pain stoopid? Probably some of each. Yes, the elite of the right is crass and the elite on the left is complicit. Yes, many in the middle class are in denial, too lazy to inform themselves, or just plain stupid. If biologist James Lovelock is right in his recent book The Revenge of Gaia, it's already all over, and we are just going to be spectators at the dénouement. However, he does say that humanity does have a moral obligation to try, even though all scientific indications are that it is too late.

tjfxh May 2, 2007 - 5:32am

Has it occurred to anyone that electoral participation in democracies is usually higher in poor countries with higher illiteracy rates and very low per capita energy consumption and access to Rupert Murdoch/MacD/KFC empires? Some of these 'uncivilised' electorates appear to make sane corrective decisions.

sona May 2, 2007 - 3:37pm
Don May 3, 2007 - 10:00am

Don, are you happy you didn't bow to conformity? LOL With the exception of one word I didn't see what bothered you.

Tina May 3, 2007 - 10:18am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.