DINO alert

That’s “Democrats In Name Only.”

Here is an important email from Josh Mitteldorf, urging that we take a long hard look into the “opposition party,” to find out why it’s not an opposition party.

Dear Mark,
The reason our republic is in crisis is not that we have a ruthless, criminal administration in power; it is not that the press is controlled by self-serving corporations; it is not because rampant bribery has overtaken the Congressional agenda; and the massive, devious and sinister program by Repuglicans to subvert democracy is still not adequate explanation for the crisis. The reason our republic is in crisis is that we have no opposition party.

Without proof, I offer the following hypothesis as a possible explanation for softness of the Democrat opposition: the Democratic party is thoroughly infiltrated by well-paid, under-cover agents of the Right.

It is awfully convenient for the junta that controls America that mainstream Dems are not screaming, “Crisis! Crisis!” In abandoning a great mass of disaffected voters on the left to pursue a tiny sliver of swing voters at the ever-shifting right, the Dems have forsaken their majority status. With their silent acquiescence to election theft, they have helped Repuglicans hollow out the foundation on which Democracy is built.

Perhaps the Democratic surrender should not be attributed to stupidity or incompetence. Rather than puzzle about all this behavior that runs dramatically counter to the Democrats’ self-interest, we should be asking, In whose interest are these policies being pursued? This line of reason leads to the hypothesis that the Democratic party has been deeply infiltrated. Many of the weak candidates that run and win in Democratic primaries are posing in this role in order to subvert the party; and trusted advisors who are whispering in the ears of top Democratic leaders are double agents, generously funded by the Right to infiltrate and subvert the Democratic strategy machine.

We know that the “conservative” takeover of the Repuglican party and the American government which we have witnessed in recent years was masterminded and meticulously planned decades ago by a handful of rich fascists: Irving Kristol, Nelson and Bunker Hunt, Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors
(http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/11377.html ). We know that their plan allowed for initiatives in the media, for think-tank facades, which fabricate the appearance of an intellectual base for the movement. There are paid ideological agents of the Right posing as journalists (Armstrong Williams, James Guckert) as scientists (global warming is a myth), posing as economists (deregulation; supply-side stimulation) and as policy theorists (the dangerous neocon notion of American hegemony). Why would they not have thought to pose as Democrats as well? Infiltration of the Democratic party is easy, legal, and cheap compared to these other strategies. Indeed, if they hadn’t done it we should be surprised, because the tactic is so effective: they can blunt opposition to their initiatives, and promote weaker candidates to oppose Repuglicans. They can whisper in the ears of prominent Democrats, warning them that they risk losing support in the “political center” every time they call a spade a spade. Why wouldn’t the diabolical masterminds have thought of this?

We have read about Theresa Le Pore, the butterfly ballot lady whose Repuglican loyalties were discovered too late to save the Florida election. Harris Miller is a former Diebold lobbiest running for US Senate as a Democrat (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002254.htm). Tom Reilly is running for governor of Massachusetts on an “inclusive” platform, despite the fact that Democrats hold solid majorities throughout the state (http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=120778). When Katherine Harris ran for Congress in Florida, her “Democratic opponent” was a Republican running a sham campaign (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/02/85.html). Joe Lieberman regularly gives bipartisan cover for the Bush War on Iraq. Innocuous small-town peace groups are being watched by Federal agents posing as activists (as Michael Moore has shown us http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=21).

But what if these examples are only the tip of an iceberg? There may be many more “Democratic” candidates whose only interest is in tugging the party to the right for cold cash. Perhaps party leaders (Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? even Howard Dean?) are getting advice from people who wish them no good.

I don’t know that this is true, but it’s a hypothesis that ties together a number of strange trends. The challenge I’m throwing out is for someone with the means and the skills to set about investigating the subject, to trace past histories of suspect political advisors, and to ask questions of campaign insiders who may have first-hand knowledge. I’d love to know for sure.

-Josh Mitteldorf
josh at mathforum.org

0 thoughts on “DINO alert”

  1. here’s someone with the same idea

    Reframe the Debate, Change: Repub vs Dem to US vs Them
    “Oh well, let’s try to win in 2006.” is [the Dems] plan- yet there was widespread evidence of election fraud in 2000, 2002 & 2004. What has been done to remedy the situation for 2006? Nothing.
    The Democrats are silent on all that matters.

    Wake Up America- The DC Democrats are complicit!

    That is the problem. Good people across America refuse to believe that most DC “Democrats” are corrupt just like the Repubs. People want to believe that the Dems are fighting for them, because it allows citizens to shirk their responsibility to be informed- ‘the Dems are doing it for me’. No, they are not- and our children, and others around the world, are going to suffer the consequences- because the Good Americans refused to see that the Democrats are complicit.

  2. Regarding the hypothesis of tying together “strange trends:”

    Divide and rule
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    In politics and sociology, divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer) is a strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

    The phrase comes from the Latin divide et impera, which translates to “divide and rule”.

    Effective use of this technique allows those with little real power to control those who collectively have a lot of power (or would have much power, if they could get united).

    Typical elements of this technique involve creating or at least not preventing petty feuds among smaller players. Such feuds drain resources and prevent alliances that could challenge the overlords.

    Aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the overlords, often by giving them the lands and wealth of rebellious local rulers, fostering distrust between local rulers,
    encouraging expenditures on personal frivolities (e.g., showy palaces) that leave little money for political manoeuvering and warfare.

    This technique requires a lot of skill and political finesse, as well as a good understanding of political science, history and psychology.

    “Divide and rule” works only if the subjects of this technique are willing to go along with it (e.g., because it is to their personal advantage), or behave foolishly. It works best in societies where competition between noble families, clans or social classes was already fierce before the overlord took over.

    The strategy was used to great effect by administrators of vast empires, including the British, who would play one tribe against another to maintain control of their colonies with a minimal number of British troops.

    This strategy is in keeping with the tried and true “propaganda model” cited by dissident Noam Chomsky, who sees vitually zero difference within the common perception of the left/right divide.

    About 20% of the populace [college educated] need to be highly indoctrinated into identifying with one of the two name brand parties.

    Although there are conspiratorial aspects within these broad social systems, the effectiveness of the indoctrination largely rests with the individual and collective internalization of specific beliefs and views which are reinforced on a number of unquestioned levels, by family, friends, peers, co-workers, and especially teachers and those professions of social management. Strength in familiarity, or what could be termed, united we FALL.

    The remaining 80% or so need be encouraged to “tune out” from politics and healthy civic interaction/responsibility – an insideously effective means of distracting people from their inherent sense of morality. It’s likewise no coincidence that such a small percentage of our citizenry bother to pay attention or even vote – all by calculated design. The elite don’t want their mass murdering policies to begin weighing on the collective conscience; better to get them to watch tv, obsess over sports, sex, shopping malls, etc, resulting in a diminished existence which seeks cyclical perpetuation of fleeting gratification. Religious indoctrination used to help keep a lid on “democratic interference,” but we all know how that string played out.

    Such unfulfilled lives are easily swayed through various chauvinistic/jingoistic manifestations within the culture, yet most fail to recognize the true source of the dilemma, chalking it up to “that’s just the way it is.”

    That way, individuals are raised to believe that they are essentially powerless unless they aspire to the “high” water mark established by the elite. It lets em off the hook.

    Historical reality doesn’t exist in this mindset; change comes from the top down, through exceptional “heroes” and “warriors,” and not from countless efforts and struggles of common people whose names we’ll never know or celebrate.

    The few fight relentlessly with the opposing “team,” and the rest tune out, paving the way for Power’s free for all.

    When the situation, as we’re now experiencing, yields greater attention/concern from a broader sector of the populace – normally tuned out – the greater emphasized the “divide and rule” process need become.

    Average folks become ego-driven in defending their championed media personas, belligerently arguing the propaganda talking points of how “their side” is correct, when in reality, there really are no “sides;” it’s a one corporate party system which can keep running to the bank over the backs of fools, blind-faithers and “conspiracy” naysayers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.