Ted Rall for December 26, 2009

If Obama’s hero Lincoln hadn’t insisted on keeping the South in the Union, this would have become a much better country a century and a half ago.

This should be written on Obama’s tombstone.

Because it makes about as much sense as his policies.

I just don’t see how a big giveaway to Insureance companies and Big Pharma qualify as ‘Reform’. ‘Giant Give-away’, but not ‘Reform’. Or how not having a plan, capitulating away everything useful, and not stepping in to knock heads to keep Lieberman in line qualifies as ‘Leadership’.

sirrom, Care to explain your statement?

Gladius,

I think I can explain: the southern United States is filled with idiots and nutjobs.

Exactly. Most of the obstructionists come from the Deep South (i.e., the Confederacy). Without them, we’d have single-payer health care, gay rights, climate change treaties, and so much more. Lincoln was a terrible President – not to mention that he was responsible for 600,000 deaths. (He gave good speeches, though.)

That’s what I thought, regional bigotry. The south today is not the south of the Civil War. Despite the 600,000 deaths the Civil War accomplished one very important thing, the abolition of salvery in the U.S. We’re still working on the equality issue but statements like the previous two don’t help.

Gladius: The New South may be quite different, but its senators for the most part are still stuck in an antediluvian mentality. As for slavery, the Confederacy would not have been able to survive without European trading partners who had long since abolished it, and would have had to come around sooner or later, like South Africa did. The big winners in the Civil War were northern industrial capitalists, and we’re still living with their oligarchical system.

sirrom,

Your statement is still bigotry however you try to justify it.

Your view of the situation during the Civil War period is not shared by most historians. I’m not going to bother rehashing it here.

He loves citing Voltaire, doesn’t he?

I knew things would get worse under Obama. Most others thought he would be our savior. What deluded dummies they are, who voted for him.

This interchange has got me wondering what would have happened if the American Revolution had not occurred lol.

The real legacy Obama will leave behind will be being re-elected for a second term….if it happens.

The ‘change’ he has promised is beginning to smell like there’s a tuna in there somewhere.

nemesis, you’re on to something. One of the great paradoxes of international affairs is that while on the one hand we are all for the integration of Europe into a continental version of the U.S., with the consequent ceding of parochial nationalistic interests to a greater common good, at the same time every little ethnic and/or linguistic enclave (such as South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Chechnya) is encouraged to pursue independence and self-determination, creating a mosaic of ever tinier nations, resembling the loose amalgam of sovereign states we had during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Trying to accommodate these divergent interests and have it both ways leaves us with contradictory imperatives that are seemingly irreconcilable.

Somehow I doubt Voltaire would think much of Mr. Obama. Voltaire had some serious balls. The President is an appeaser who misuses Voltaire’s words as an excuse for his own weakness.

It’s rather pathetic that it is not even a year into Mr. Obama’s term, and he has already managed to lose my vote. He has made every mistake I feared he would and more. He is more of a Clinton than Clinton…already in his first few months he had shown that. The escalation of the war in Afghanistan was the last straw for me personally. He refuses to show the smallest bit of political courage. He has inherited such executive power, yet refuses to make good use of it. I don’t believe anymore he even wants change, probably never did.

If anyone could please explain why the Dems felt the need to give in to Lieberman, I would appreciate it. I thought the point of having a ‘super majority’ was that you could not be filibustered much less be pressured in any other way. WTF is going on?!

Empirical, my wacko theory is that the Republicans (their special interests more accurately) have infiltrated the Democratic party since a while ago to diminish its effectiveness, until now revealing themselves due to the high stakes before them. Conservatives are Machiavellic because they have the support of the plutocracy, as the latter depends on “free enterprise” which are code words for overtly unregulated markets and too big to fail institutions that favor only a small fraction of the population.

A more realist theory would be more or less the same.

Anybody, R or D, who puts money ahead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is abetting the problem, not aiding the solution. Capitalism is simply evil in all its forms. There is no money inside the gates of Eden.

ER The Democrats do not HAVE a super majority without Lieberman. That’s their problem.

sirrom, The U.S. has offered no support for S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, or Chechnya. The most we have done is whine at the way Russia has treated the Chechen people. Russia has supported Abkhazia and S Ossetia in it’s ongoing attempt to control the entire region. This is divide and conquer, not an encouragement of their independent interests.

edmondd, In reply to an earlier comment. Harry Harrison did a what if novel set in a world where the American colonists lost the Revolution. I think it was called, “A trans- Atlantic tunnel hurrah.”

Several authors write what- if style novels. Harry Turtledove revels in it. Although, he likes to throw in alternate time lines, magic and time machines. Also worth looking at, are S. M. Stirling’s Draka novels.

But Empirical Rationalist, surely there’s no need for surprise - the two major political parties in the United States are better considered two factions of one and the same Party, bought and paid for by the corporate interests that really run the country. «Democracy» without the demos - or, to travesty Lincoln, government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Mr Obama may even be intelligent enough to realise that with his surge in Afghanistan, he is hammering the last nails in the coffin of a bankrupt US Empire - but he’s just doing his job….

Henri

Democracy and capitalism are not equivalent – in fact they’re mutually exclusive. That’s the inherent flaw in American political thinking.

One thing’s for sure, this is not the place to get historical accuracy.

sirrom567, did you mean monopolies?

No, I mean the very concept of private property itself.

Thank you, Thing. Morticia

I would like to know who exactly you were planning to elect besides Mr. Obama? McCain? Because that is the only 2 choices that you had.

Don’t we have the choice to abstain from the mockery of a two party system?

sirrom, you convinced me on the issue of the Civil War; however, I am a true capitalist. Money is liberty, peace of mind, and quality of life. I don’t need to work because my money works for me. I don’t need to worry about my money because I protect it. Even if I lost it all, I could make it back. My wealth allows me to be generous with both my time and my money. But my real money is my financial knowledge. The current system you are referring to is not capitalism; it is more akin to facism. I do not believe in hands off policy or free trade. The economy must be kept competitive by the government or else it deteriorates from capitalism into oligarchy or monopoly and poor business practice.

Owning property is a freedom of choice. Starting a business is a freedom of choice. Being against those freedoms is unAmerican and certainly not what I wore the uniform for. Too many socialists on this blog.