Towards a polar society & civil war

We seem to be living in a time of extremes. Not just “extreme sports” and “extreme makeovers” and even toothpaste that claims to give you “extreme clean.” But in a time when opinions, options and actions have all become extreme.

Four years ago we had a presidential election that was split, almost 50/50. While the popular vote was half a million votes apart (with the loser becoming president), that’s still a tiny percentage difference between these two groups. Traditionally elections are not this close. And the same pattern has been repeating in elections around the world.

This year the highest grossing movie is a right-wing revisionist history about the Passion of Christ, while the best selling book, the DaVinci Code, is a polar opposite revisionist history. Both are wildly popular yet their messages are diametrically opposed.

What’s going on?

The universe is constantly trying to remain in balance. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

There are always extreme fringe factions—a small minority with the strongest opinions, and usually the most closed minds. Whether on the left or right, they are all radicals in their own way. They all think the system isn’t just broken, it needs replacement.

In the past, most people were near the center—they could lean to the right or left, depending on the circumstances.

But now the fringe factions are center stage. The smallest, loudest, most closed-minded groups have taken power. It started on the “right” with the so-called conservatives who are about as conservative as Karl Marx.

While the radical right loves to use the word “liberal” as if it was a four-letter-word, they are rampantly liberal in terms of the changes they are making to the very core of American Democracy. They are not just challenging, but dismantling over 200 years of Democracy. They aren’t merely liberal with democracy, they are libertine.

In reality, the “extreme right wing” are total radicals who don’t believe democracy works. They are working towards a fascist dictatorship model. Even current members of the administration publicly says (and this is a quote from the White House), “Democracy moves too slowly.”

And so, for the universe to counter this growing force, the extreme left-wing, traditionally known as “radicals” is now having to take on the role of conservatives. These so-called radicals are fighting for such radical ideas as freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, personal freedom and fiscal responsibility.

The current “left-wing radicals” are, in fact, fighting for the exact same things as our founding fathers. In their own time, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin—they were all radicals, proponents of freedom and representation.

The agenda of the right-wing is radical. This, then, forces the left-ring to react in a radical way to try to stop them—with a conservative goal of preserving democracy and freedom.

While these two “radical” groups are still comparatively small, as their pull grows stronger, it exerts force on the majority of people in the center--pulling them out of the center and towards the edges. It becomes more difficult to sway left or right, when each extreme is so convinced of their point and so closed to the other opinion that there is no room for compromise.

Franklin once said that compromise was the heart of democracy

One of Franklin’s biggest contributions to the convention was his sense of compromise. If delegates decided to be unwavering on every important issue, the constitution could never have been formed. It is only through the compromises of all parties involved that the system of government which has thrived for over 200 years came into being. Franklin compared compromise to a skilled carpenter when he brought up this illustration:

“When a broad table is to be made and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here both sides must part with some of their demands, in order that they may join in some accommodating proposition” (Bowen 130).

Yet the radical right has continually set a “no-compromises” tone on every thing they do. It’s their agenda or else. IT doesn’t matter if the issue is large or small, because they are in the majority in the house, senate and control the white house, they allow for no representation from the left.

This puts everything out of balance, and it staggered on this way for several years, until the left finally realized that trying to compromise with the right left them with nothing but compromises, that the right was never giving them even a crust, and that conservative government was starving to death.

And so, with stronger forces at the polls, the center, which can normally adjust to the times, feels more pressure to move away from the center, to the fringes. Once again this puts things even more off balance, and as the radical right moves away from democracy, the conservative-left must counter balance by fighting harder for democracy.

But this polarization is dangerous. It leaves less and less room for debate and compromise. It makes every issue contentious. It forces people to “take sides” politically, rather than based on issues. And, in the end, it closes more minds, which only serves to prolong this vicious cycle.

All this can only end when the side that’s pulling the hardest, in this case the radical right, admits that there are other opinions, other solutions—basically other people in the world besides themselves. When they let up, the equal and opposite reaction is that the left can let up.

You say, “Why doesn’t the left just let up, and then the right will?” The answer is because the left is only pulling so hard as a reaction to the right. If the left lets up, the right, which continues its “no compromise” position, will pull things tragically off-balance.

The right started it, and they will finish it, one way or another. Either they will ease up and allow for compromise, or they will pull harder and eventually break the system in half. It’s called Civil War and we’ve already seen one in this country. Given the close-minded, logic-defying, “no compromises,” “it’s our way or else” fervor of the right, we might just yet see another.

Why bother with polling places when we have polls!

When did polls become news? They aren't really news. They aren't concrete facts. They're easily manipulated demographic surveys. Gallup polls, which tend to be Republican, tend to put Bush in the lead, sometimes by a margin so far outside all other polls that it simply defies the traditional "margin of error" and makes the entire survey highly questionable.

But even without this—why is it news? I understand that polls are vital for campaigns who are trying to figure out what people want to hear—it's not pandering, it's politics. Despite what we've seen the past four years, where many politicians have worked solely on political agendas and ignored a majority of their constituents—Politicians are supposed to represent we the people.

So polling is fine for politicians trying to get elected—and even those in office, so they can better represent their constituents.

But why is polling news? How does polling help you and I? Should it matter to us how other people are voting? It does, of course, and it especially does to the notorious "undecideds" who can be swayed by things like, "He's going to win, I want to vote for the winner."

The problem with polls is that they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Election experts and psychologists both say that many people "want to vote for the winner." So if the polls keep telling them that one candidate is going to win, they lean towards that candidate simply because they think he or she will be the winner.

That's not reporting news--that's making news. That's s like TV networks sitting around with crystal balls, trying to tell us what's going to happen, trying to change the future to fit their predictions.

Plus they're notoriously inaccurate. A tradition margin of error of "plus or minus three" simply means that they could be wrong by 6%. When two candidates are against each other, and one has 51% and one has 48%, that's three points. So the poll could say one candidate is "winning" when in reality, they could still lose, even within those very poll results.

And it's not enough for "news" agencies to trumpet polls like election results, they seem desperate to tell us, even months in advance, who will win and who has "already lost."

But they're even more inaccurate about this. Clinton was called "unelectable," by many major pundits and news agencies. But he was elected twice. Howard Dean was "unstoppable" and on both Time and Newsweek. He was absolutely the Democratic candidate, he had no competition, and he would even have beaten Bush if the elections were held in early 2004. But elections aren't held in early 2003, and a few weeks later Dean was history.

As soon as Kerry won the Iowa caucus (not even a real election!), the media dubbed him "unstoppable," and "the winner." This was repeated and repeated, right at the time other states were having elections, and this propelled him to the top. The media gave him the same "unstoppable" treatment they gave Dean, but this time the timing was such that Kerry didn't even need to win all the primaries, because he'd already won in the press.

When I worked on previous presidential campaigns, I saw, first hand, how people are persuaded by polls—especially on election day when I was going door to door trying to get people to vote. Registered voters would just give up and not vote, because the polls "told them who'd already won."

So how, exactly, are these polls strengthening democracy?

They don't. So why not stop running them as if they were news, or worse, election results.

Otherwise, I can see a future like some sci-fi movie. In a few years, government and media will collude and decide elections are too drawn out and expensive. Instead they’ll just poll 1500 likely voters and we’ll all live with whatever the sample tells us. Why bother with polling places when we have polls! And if we fall for that one, you can kiss democracy goodbye for good. Or bad.

Why I’m proud to be a progressive liberal

Liberals stand for Freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of choice. Freedom of religion. Freedom to be who you are, to love who you choose and raise your family the way you want.

Liberals stand for “liberty and justice for all” not just some.

Liberals believe in such radical things as “all men (and women) are created equal.” That was a radical belief, 250 years ago, but the generations of brave American men and women who have died for democracy, have done so to protect those once radical beliefs which are at the core of our beliefs as Americans—our freedoms of speech, choice, and equality.

Those things are worth fighting for, because they are the keystones of what our country was founded on. If you believe in democracy, if you believe in our constitution and bill of rights, then you believe in those things. If you don’t believe in those things, then you can say you love America, but you are confused as to what America is really about.

Liberals believe in an America “of the people, by the people and FOR the people.” Not for corporations like Enron and Exxon, but individuals—like you and me.

Liberals believe in the American dream—where every child can grow up to be what he or she wants, where every immigrant can make a better life for themselves and their children, the way our immigrant ancestors did for us.

In short, Liberals stand for the very things that our forefathers stood for—freedom of speech, religion. Freedom from oppression.

Neo-Conservatives are now Regressives
Yet, strangely, “Regressives” (also called neo-cons or the Right Wing) don’t believe in the most basic tenets of our Republic. They say they do. They wave flags and sing songs and call themselves patriots.

But their actions speak louder than their words. Regressives say one thing, and do another. That’s called hypocrisy. It’s also called lying. Their actions show they don’t believe in freedom of speech. They don’t believe it’s right to criticize your government, unless your government consists of duly elected Democrats. If your government is run by Republicans who didn’t win the popular vote, then you should “shut up” or you are unpatriotic. But that, my friends, is unpatriotic.

I’m not talking about real conservatives—those who believe in less government interference for all. I respect real conservatives. I don’t respect people who call themselves “conservatives” but are really radicals in traditional clothing who are actively trying to undermine civil rights and our very constitution.

Regressives want fewer controls on corporations and more on personal lives. They work to make discrimination a constitutional amendment. Those people are not conservatives. They are radicals, and their very actions show that they do not understand or agree with the most basic tenets of democracy and our Republic.

Regressives don’t believe in freedom of choice. They don’t approve of freedom of expression. They want to restrict what you say, what you hear. They work tirelessly to censor people’s freedom of speech, to intimidate those who try to speak their minds, to punish and fine those who do.

They want to tell you how to live your life. They want to tell you what you can do with your body—even who you can love. They want to control you, personally, just like any communist, fascist, dictator-controlled state.

Regressives don’t even believe in your most basic civil rights—the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. They have already passed laws that let the government arrest you—for no reason. Imprison you, for no reason, without access to your family or legal representation. This is the kind of thing that happens in dictatorships—it’s not supposed to happen here.

And yet it can—and it does—because Regressives have undermined your basic civil rights as an American. While doing so, they’ve repeatedly told you how they’ve made you safer. It’s a lie. You’re not safer from terrorists, and worse, you are in more danger from your own government.

Regressives have learned from oppressive regimes how to say one thing and do another, and as long as they keep repeating the “good stuff” they keep doing the “bad stuff” and people are confused. And scared. They want you to be scared. Not happy. They want you to be angry and unhappy. No happy.

Liberals agree with Thomas Jefferson and what he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness.” Regressives believe in “the pursuit of money and power.”

Regressives don’t even believe in family...
Regressives don’t believe in “America the Beautiful.” They believe only in profit. Now, there’s nothing wrong with profit—America is built on profit. But Regressives believe in profit at other people’s expensive—profit at your expense. For profit, they will despoil your land, pollute your skies, and say it’s OK for your kids to have more poisonous mercury in their milk. This is a fact—this is what they have done in the last four years. They have poisoned your children for their profit.

They have killed your children for their profits. They have sent them to wars they knew were not needed, but wars from which they could make profit. Billions and Billions of dollars of profit. So much profit that it’s costing you, personally, at least $31,000--this year. Oh, you can’t pay that all this year—that’s OK, they’ll keep taking the money from you in the future—and from your children, to pay for their profits.

Regressives are stealing from you. Right now. And what do YOU get from this? Do you get a more secure country? No. Do you get a cleaner environment? No. Do your children get a better education? No. Do you get better health care. No. What do you get out of it? Screwed.

Regressives are immoral.
Let me repeat that, because it’s something people haven’t seemed to notice. Regressives say they are religious. But their actions show them to be immoral hypocrites. A highly religious friend wrote this:

To those people who have studied the Jesus of the Scripture, - we understand that he taught that evil often pretends to be 'righteous' and the hallmark of evil, is hypocrisy. Therefore, if the large factions (denominations) are indeed following a false version of Christianity (anti-Christos), -- then collectively they will be the very thing they claim to abhor. Their primary doctrines will be based on lies, and they will use a superficial 'study' of the Scriptures to allege their doctrines (of demons) are "The Word of the Lawd".

This described regressives, neo-conservatives, the Republicans in power.

They start wars. They kill thousands of innocent people. They steal money from you—and worse, your children’s future. They lie about what they do. They say they for education and they cut educational spending. They say they are for the environment, yet they eliminate environmental regulations designed to protect you—and they destroy your world, and your health. They say they are for health care, but they do nothing for you—while actively working to ensure that drug companies make more money.

Regressives want to create amendments to the constitution which deny rights to at least 10% of Americans. That’s downright un-American. And it’s immoral. It’s immoral to deny basic human rights, and yet Regressives want to turn their immorality into law—law that runs so counter to the constitution that it would require the constitution be amended. That’s wrong.

So why don’t Regressives “seem” immoral? Because they talk a good game. They talk about freedom and American Values, and all they do is talk. Their actions speak louder than words. Their actions show them to be dangerous revolutionaries, true anti-American radicals who are tirelessly working to undermine democracy as we know it.

They talk about how bad Communists are, then they use their tactics against us. They work to remove our right to vote. They try to not count our vote. They try to postpone and cancel elections. They don’t bother counting votes, and instead have their friends on the Supreme court decide the election. They create presidential powers not in the constitution, upsetting the balance of power, so the perfectly balance system designed by our forefathers, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are out of whack, the executive branch has all the power, unchecked. This is not democracy.

The regressive angenda is not what Washington and Jefferson and Adams gave their lives to create. What the Regressives are doing is sliding our government into a Fascist Dictator state. Instead of “freedom from oppression,” the Regressives are turning our own government into the oppressors.

Neo-conservative regressives stand for “the land of the oppressed, and the home of the bully.”

Liberals stand for the “land of the free and home of the brave.”

LINKS

Read this passionate and perceptive piece:

WITH TREMBLING FINGERS

By Hal Crowther

“... I don't think it's accurate to describe America as polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It's polarized between the people who believe George Bush and the people who do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in a state governed by the president's brother, a once-proud country has been delivered into the hands of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics and thieves. The world pities or despises us, even as it fears us. What this election will test is the power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the truth and alter the obvious, to hide a great crime against the public trust under a blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly funded, most cynical, most sophisticated political campaign in human history will be out trolling for fools. I pray to God it doesn't catch you.”

Read the entire piece here.

• Election Protection - Help oversee the vote to make sure it's fair and accurate
  
• One Term President--Great graphics for you to use
• Air America - Progressive Radio--listen to it online
  
• Worst President Ever! - Daniel Carr's daily blog
• Black Box Voting - Consumer election protection
  
• Verified Voting - making sure your vote counts!
  
• See Ya George! - Fun political gifts and clothing