Still independent, still registered Democratic

by Prometheus 6
November 13, 2004 - 2:33am.
on For the Democrats

When someone says, "I'm a banker," or "I'm a teacher," I translate that to "I am a person whose job is 'banker'." This is not a trivial thing. It's a matter of identifying and identity.

That's why I never say I'm a Democrat. I'm (currently) a member of the Democratic Party.

This political crap we're dealing with, the bifurcation (this is a Progressive site, so I'm allowed to use big words) of the elites on both sides, sits on top of a population that uniformly

  • does not want to see people starve
  • does not want to see homelessness
  • does not want to see anyone broken by catastrophic illness
  • does not want a substandard education
  • does not want to find themselves vulnerable to the above

Ultimately, if Republicans and Southern Christians (who I suspect are less of an issue than we are led to believe) choose to rein in there rather rabid leadership and vote for their own interests I will be perfectly satisfied. But since the major Republican virtue is obedience to the party line it's hard to expect help from that direction. And the Religious Right's leadership have an interesting advantage: when their flock is damaged by politicians following their leadership's dictates they can simple tell the flock they are being tested. And they are…but the test is to see if you understand life well enough to see through the false teachings of people who would be the ruler of the world (or almost as bad, the teaching of those who do not see through the false teachings).

And the root of all the social crap we're going through isn't religion and political parties anyway. It's the fact that change is coming, change on an Industrial Revolutionary scale…maybe an Agricultural Revolutionary scale…and our social rituals can't keep up. Our ability to change circumstances outstrips our ability to respond to the changes we ourselves demand. The conservative "whoa, slow down" response is almost a reflex.

Right now (because everything eventually changes) the leaders of the Republican Party are accelerating that change. The intent is to reshape the world in its image while we are in this moment of great instability…they have chosen their response to the change.

And right now (because everything eventually changes) the leaders of the Democratic Party are accelerating that change. The intent is to make things hurry up and finish being what they're going to be anyway, to get to the other side of this moment of great instability…they have chosen their response to change.

Both responses look past the moment where actual people are dealing with the actual events. Both responses are actually inhumane.

But.

I prefer the progressive perspective. I prefer wood grain to geometric patterns. I prefer bonsai trees to those trained and cropped into globes and cubes.

And I understand that just as many people prefer geometric patterns to wood grain as the other way around. And I understand your appreciation for your cube-cropped tree takes nothing from my bonsai tree.

So I find the idea of removing my options so you can not have your discipline tested is unacceptable to me.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/7430

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Cheesus (not verified) on November 13, 2004 - 4:58am.

I noticed that a lot of conservatives really tried to push their agenda on a massive scale this time around. Both parties are seemingly attempting to exploit instability to twist things towards their ends, but at least in the case of the Democrats they are noticeably less fascist in their implementation of their ideas.  I seem to get from most republicans a simple 'sit down and shut up, let us handle this, and stop asking questions.'

I honestly hope that the Republicans don't prevail; I'd rather not live in a corporate dystopia.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on November 13, 2004 - 12:02pm.

It's isn't just this time.Â

The rules let the party with the most seats set the agenda and rules in each chamber of Congress. When Bush occupied the seat in 2001 the Republicans, with the barest
majority possible in Congress and a disputed Presidency, flexed like
they held 75 Senate seats. It was so offensive one Republican Senator couldn't take it and went independant.

Post new comment

*
*
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

*