COASTAL POST
(415)868 1600 FAX (415) 868 0502
P.O. Box 31
Bolinas CA 94924
http://www.coastalpost.com
email: [log in to unmask]
September, 2004
Democracy? Yeah, right
by Frank Scott
The attacks on civil liberties that began after 911 have served to mask
the longer range assault on their practice in America. An electoral
process dominated by minority wealth is the antithesis of democracy, but
it has been the reality of America’s dictatorship of the rich much
longer than the present court appointed regime has existed. Perhaps no
abuse of that heralded practice in modern times has been more blatant
than the current anti-democratic aggression exercised against an
independent candidate for president. A political class which usually
prospers by working for the rights of minorities, is proving that only
means those it can rely on to sustain its power . Any other minority,
especially if it is seen as threatening to that power, can stuff it, as
Ralph Nader and his would be voters are learning.
An important theory of democracy calls for protection of minorities from
the possible tyranny of majorities, and this is usually the practice of
the formerly liberal, rebranded progressive community . But that
theory is only practiced when those minorities can offer some gain to
the majority, either with votes, or more often dollars, which come
through personal contributions, unions and civic organizations. But if
this majority of usually enlightened and humane forces sees a minority
as a threat to its interests, or is, more honestly, manipulated into
doing so, its behavior becomes reactionary. It moves to suppress the
minority, dishonor its rights, and perform with as much contempt for
its adversaries as the more obvious suppressionists of the
conservative community.
The same people who, say, rise in righteous indignation at the
mistreatment of immigrants, partly through genuine humanity but often
for protection of their servant class, think nothing of telling the
minority of voters who would select Nader as their free choice in the
political process to go to hell. Period.
An alarming series of legal and extra legal moves, and contemptible
character and personal slurs have been made to deny Nader, and the
minority of voters he represents, a place on the November ballot.
Usually reasonable folk, under the control of Democratic party mind
management, are convinced that Nader could mean defeat for the wealthy
candidate their controllers have selected, to replace the wealthy
incumbent of the other controllers of our anti-democratic political
system.
Questions about Nader’s ego, sanity, motivations , bankroll, wardrobe
and dining habits have been flung into the political marketplace in
order to denigrate his character and deny his potential to take votes
which, ostensibly, belong to the benevolent protectors of our rights.
They are so lacking in any purpose other than not being the other
candidate that he is seen as causing them to lose by the very fact of
being allowed into the presidential race.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in the dirtiest
campaign to thwart the democratic rights of the people, at least the
dirtiest since Nader’s last run in 2000. Then, he was denied a place in
the debates, for fear that he would take votes from the corporate
candidates. His pro-democracy, anti-corporate, pro-peace argument, and
his intellectual superiority over the Republican intellectual wafer and
the Democratic moral marshmallow who represented wealth that time, could
have spelled disaster for the status quo.
This abomination of democracy was hardly noticed, while the later, and
completely legal, victory of the minority vote wafer, was treated as
some historic denial of the people’s rights. This double standard is
consistent with our dualistic code of judeo-christian morality,
which is at the root of our problems as a society. This code has a
scriptural basis for indoctrinating schizophrenic acceptance of
contradictions. It teaches us to welcome the stranger, unless we need to
kill the stranger, and to love our neighbor, unless we need to hate our
neighbor. Is it any wonder that we operate with the same tortured logic
and morals in our politics?
2004 will only offer voters a choice between the same wafer, and a new
marshmallow, both designed to keep a majority from even thinking about
voting. While a passionate minority sees the need to get rid of Bush,
an equally passionate minority sees the need to keep him. Polls taken
about every fifteen minutes forecast everything from a landslide for one
or the other, to a close race that may again be decided by a court. But
one thing is certain. As long as anti-democratic forces rule, a
majority of the American people will again be denied a real choice. More
important, a minority of citizens who want to vote for Nader will be
told, in no uncertain terms; you don't count and you don’t matter,
unless you vote as we want you to, because we know better than you.
This behavior, exercised by the right wing and towards a more
politically correct minority, would be treated with shock and
indignation. Perhaps the growing number of critics and nonvoters who
want real change will learn an important lesson about the need for a
new, radical political party, and no longer tolerate these cosmetic
beauty contests between two disfigured parties of the rich, with one
ugly, imperial agenda .
Those who support the Democrat's exclusion of Nader from the ballot, and
the disenfranchising of his voters , are no better than those who
support the disenfranchisement of ex-prisoners, poor people or any
other minority . Voting “rights” are meaningless if only those who vote
“right”, according to the dictates of their elitist masters, have the
“right” to vote. Being told who we may vote for is democracy, the way
being told who we may have sex with is love. It is a form of political
rape , in theory and practice.
Copyright (c) 2004 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.
This text may be used and shared in accordance with the
fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be
archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that
the author is notified and no fee is charged for access.
Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on
other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author
frank scott
email: [log in to unmask]
225 laurel place, san rafael ca. 94901
(415)457 2415 cell (415)847 4105
|
