Buchanan: "McCain would be worse than Bush"

[AzzurroItalia]

I was really pulling for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination, unfortunately, that did not happen.

I have decided to abandon the Republican Party definitively, and I will without a doubt vote the Constitution Party. What else is there? McCain to me looks as unappealing as a Democrat - they are two sides of the same coin. No use to go for the 'useful vote' - therefore, better a third party.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by AzzurroItalia

I was really pulling for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination, unfortunately, that did not happen.

I have decided to abandon the Republican Party definitively, and I will without a doubt vote the Constitution Party. What else is there? McCain to me looks as unappealing as a Democrat - they are two sides of the same coin. No use to go for the 'useful vote' - therefore, better a third party.

That makes sense to me. I had it in mind when I said, in Is there any point in voting?, that one should vote for something real. More people should take the uncompromising option, and we would have more life in politics.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by AzzurroItalia

I was really pulling for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination, unfortunately, that did not happen.

. Everything about Romney is fake. He doesn't have a sincere bone in his body. I'm not saying he'd be any worse than McCain, just no better. Everything about Romney is fabricated, pastiche. He's the ideal (virtual) candidate for today's mass media age. Empty, vague, pious, banal platitudes issue forth in a never-ending torrent.

This is what the presidential elections are about:

What struck me, living and working in the United States, was that presidential campaigns were a parody, entertaining and often grotesque. They are a ritual danse macabre of flags, balloons and bullshit, designed to camouflage a venal system based on money power, human division and a culture of permanent war.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Gnist

More people should take the uncompromising option, and we would have more life in politics.

Ah, but the prerequisite for that is that people should be more intelligent, informed and discerning. And not be susceptible to mass advertising and propaganda, to empty and meaningless rhetoric. And because this is absent, this is why democracies don't work. This is why the candidate with the biggest war chest can afford to buy more advertising and hence win more votes. And why those who contribute to such a chest have a disproportionate impact on public policy. In the USA, politicians are a commodity just like labor, land, and equipment. If I had $5 billion behind me, I would buy political influence just like I buy other factors of production. As Greg Palast says, the USA is the best democracy money can buy. So forget the waving flags, the balloons, the empty pledges and promises, the worthless rhetoric: the real deals are being made behind closed doors. They just need the rubber stamp of public approval in terms of votes -- by a public that doesn't even know (or maybe even care) about the deals made. This is why the candidates are almost identical -- they've been vetted and bought by the same buyers. Regardless of who gets voted in, the policies will be almost identical. In the rare instances that someone really radical and populist gets in, he will get assassinated.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Ah, but the prerequisite for that is that people should be more intelligent, informed and discerning. And not be susceptible to mass advertising and propaganda, to empty and meaningless rhetoric. And because this is absent, this is why democracies don't work. This is why the candidate with the biggest war chest can afford to buy more advertising and hence win more votes. And why those who contribute to such a chest have a disproportionate impact on public policy. In the USA, politicians are a commodity just like labor, land, and equipment. If I had $5 billion behind me, I would buy political influence just like I buy other factors of production. As Greg Palast says, the USA is the best democracy money can buy. So forget the waving flags, the balloons, the empty pledges and promises, the worthless rhetoric: the real deals are being made behind closed down. They just need the rubber stamp of public approval in terms of votes -- by a public that doesn't even know (or maybe even care) about the deals made. This is why the candidates are almost identical -- they've been vetted and bought by the same buyers. Regardless of who gets voted in, the policies will be almost identical. In the rare instances that someone really radical and populist gets in, he will get assassinated.

I'm well aware that it's more or less a case against human nature by at least some theories on it from the behavioural sciences. But I think there's more to it than what can be predicted that way. The corruption of public life is a gradual process. And even if most people aren't all that smart, I think we will probably get to a point where the bubble of confidence bursts, and people may then adopt a sceptic attitude to the hands that feed them, just as dogmatic as the accepting attitude they used to have. It may well come to a point where people are threatened in a physical way before that, but I think it can happen. And there's some truth to it that real politics happen in everyday life, because even if we are a small bunch, we can change other people's points of view. The sceptic line of defense against corrupt politicians takes you only halfway. We need something positive to back it up.

Conspiracy theories about what would happen if someone "really radical" gets in aren't very productive in my opinion. And why would "really radical" be "populist"?

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Gnist

The corruption of public life is a gradual process.

Politics in the USA has always been in the hands of an oligarchy. At times it has made modest and temporary concessions to populist outbursts (e.g., early '30s, late '60s). But it has never relinquished control

And even if most people aren't all that smart, I think we will probably get to a point where the bubble of confidence bursts, and people may then adopt a sceptic attitude to the hands that feed them, just as dogmatic as the accepting attitude they used to have.

What generally happens is that frustrated and infuriated mobs lash out at strawmen. They look for scapegoats. Not having the intellect or training to diagnose cause and effect, to ferret out the true villains, this is inevitable. Sort of like the medieval days, when European noblemen used Jews as lightning rods for mob fury. I think the ideas of 19th social theorists like Mosca and Michels remain ever-relevant: a small minority will always control and exploit the large herd.

And there's some truth to it that real politics happen in everyday life, because even if we are a small bunch, we can change other people's points of view. The sceptic line of defense against corrupt politicians takes you only halfway. We need something positive to back it up.

You have more faith in human nature than I do.

Conspiracy theories about what would happen if someone "really radical" gets in aren't very productive in my opinion. And why would "really radical" be "populist"?

The USA has a history of political assassinations.

[Ioannis]

"McCain wins nomination"

- Google News

Think he will beat Obama?

[Marulus]

McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq (Correct) - Yahoo! News

[RolloDesaixDeBurgh]

Don't blame me ! Haha, as an American Libertarian I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries but he really never had a shot I guess; it's too bad really because he was the best candidate IMHO.

[Marulus]

McCain seeking to assure Americans, "I detest war" - Yahoo! News