–That old suicide urge has the left in its spell

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. Until the 99% understand the need for deficits, the 1% will rule. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

There are two major political parties in the U.S. The Democrats are “leftish” (actually, center right) and the Republicans are “rightish” (actually, extreme right).

The Tea party is kook right, but being crazy doesn’t mean they’re stupid. I’ll give these folks credit for being smart enough not to put forth their own presidential candidate.

Why smart? Because if there were a Tea Party candidate and a Republican candidate, the Tea candidate would draw votes from the Republican, and the Democrats would win in a walk.

I refer to that as the “Ralph Nader rule”. Ralph Nader was a leftish candidate, who drew votes from Al Gore, and thus elected George W. Bush. Feel better now, Ralph?

The Democrats, have proved to be the less politically intelligent party. They allowed the Republicans, who owned neither the Presidency nor one of the houses of Congress, to set the economic agenda for the nation.

And so it should come as no surprise that the leftish folks decided to form yet another party — The Green Party — a candidate from which will run for President of the United States. I know this because I have received communications on behalf of someone named “Dr. Jill Stein,” who says she wants to be President, and needs to be nominated by the Green Party.

There is an old joke is statistics that you have the same chance of winning a state lottery, whether or not you buy a ticket. Jill Stein may want to be President, but she has the same chance of winning, whether or not the Green Party nominates her.

I sympathize with many of her thoughts, which are:

*One hundred and forty-six million people – that’s nearly one in every two Americans – is now living below or near the poverty level.

*Last year, one million Americans lost their health insurance.

*Thirty million college students and recent graduates are trapped in the financial prison of student loan debt.

*Overall, nearly 25 million Americans are unemployed or unable to find full time work.

Over seven million are under “correctional supervision”, 10 times greater than in 1965, as incarcerating poor people – disproportionately of color – has become big business with the failed war on drugs.

*The gap between the very rich and the many poor has never been so great.

*And now, the political establishment in the White House, Congress, and state governments are making matters far worse, doing the opposite of what we need, by inflicting needless, harsh austerity policies on the country.

I’m in her corner. And here is what she wants to do:

First, we will guarantee the economic rights of all Americans, beginning with the right to a job at a living wage for every American willing and able to work.

Second, we will transition to a sustainable, green economy for the 21st century, by adopting green technologies and sustainable production.

Third, we will reboot and reprogram the financial sector so that it serves everyday people and our communities, and not the other way around.

Fourth, we will protect these gains by expanding and strengthening our democracy so that our government and our economy finally serve We the People.

O.K., she’s leaning in a praiseworthy direction. But every vote for Dr. Stein will be a vote for Romney (under the Ralph Nader rule). Surely she knows this, so apart from ego boosting, why is she running against President Obama?

I’d imagine she would claim that running for President is the best way she can get her message across. She may be right — or not. But, is getting the message across worth a few more Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito? Is getting the message across worth the reduction of Social Security and Medicare along with more growth in the gap between the 1% and the 99%?

Is getting the message across worth eight years of Tea/Republican craziness?

My advice to the Green Party: Take your lead from the Tea/Republican Party nuts. They know that in politics, it’s better to win as a soulless bastard than to lose as a kind, gentle soul.

Rather than putting up a separate candidate, the Tea Party published evaluations of the Republican candidates on the basis of following Tea Party beliefs. This clever approach forced the entire Republican Party to adopt Tea Party extremism — something like a crowd being steered by the one nut with a megaphone.

Green Party: Don’t run a separate Presidential candidate. Instead, try to sway the Democrats toward your goals. Publish rankings on Democrats’ “Greenness.” Back the most “Green” Democrat Congressional candidates. Fight to win for your beliefs, not for a person who cannot win.

If you compete with Obama, you will take votes from him. He will be forced to compete with you, thereby downgrading your message. It’s the dumbest possible thing you can do to accomplish your goals.

I know. I know. That old suicide urge has you in its spell.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports


14 thoughts on “–That old suicide urge has the left in its spell

  1. SCOTUS cannot end the wars or fix the economy. Nor is it likely that Obama will appoint judges who would shut down the Patriot Act, NDAA, Guantanamo, assassinations, and other civil liberty atrocities since Obama loves the Patriot Act, NDAA, Guantanamo, and assassinations.

    Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have agreed to the Bowles-Simpson cuts to SS/Medicare. They’re on board with Pete Peterson’s agenda. Bill Clinton recently spoke at Pete Peterson’s forum. If anything, the Democrats are more serious about cutting deficit spending than Republicans.

    That’s already being done. Yet Democrats have sold out to the 1%. Money talks, merit walks.

    Roger, you are not taking into account the fact that about half of eligible voters don’t vote at all, because neither mainstream party represents them. You worry about Democrats losing 2% of the vote to Greens, yet you don’t worry about 40 – 50% of eligible voters staying home on election day ?

    Jill’s realistic goal is to build an organization and qualify for matching funds. If she can do that, it will help the Greens in future elections, even if 2012 is a lost cause.

    I doubt if the Greens will succeed in the long run, but wish them luck.

    If Romney wins, it may actually be an improvement over Obama. Like Reagan, Romney supports military Keynesianism. Republicans have never cared about the deficit when they’re in power.

    If Romney does cut SS/Medicare, then 1) it would have happened anyway under Obama and 2) it’ll create a backlash, resulting in even more protests, and pushing the country to the left.


  2. Dan, you missed the whole point.

    The Green Party can accomplish nothing by running a candidate for President. It can accomplish a great deal by following the Tea Party method by coercing major party candidates into following the Green Party lead.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


    1. The Tea Party was conceived by the 1%, funded by the 1%, and directed by the 1%. Their main tactic is primarying old-school Republicans. They’ve been successful because they are well funded and have the support of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, etc..

      There is no equivalent funding for Greens or Progressives. There is no equivalent media support. Without money and media, Greens and Progressives cannot “coerce” the corporate funded Democratic party.

      When progressives attempt to primary conservative Democrats, they usually lose because they are outspent and receive no organizational support from the party, while the conserva-Dem candidates enjoy corporate funding and party backing.

      If a progressive Democrat manages to win despite being badly outspent, they still have no significant power in Congress because the real power resides in the committee chairs and leadership positions which have to be PURCHASED under a “pay to play” system.

      Further, the party will twist the Congressman’s arm to vote the party line, threatening to primary him in the next election if he disobeys.


      1. Why no money? Together the 99% has more money than does the 1%. The problem is lack of direction.

        The Greens focus on getting an environmental President. Gimme a break. An environmental President?? Does that make any sense?

        How about a party that focuses on the 99%, and collects money for the purpose of supporting candidates who support the 99%. Use exactly the same tactics as the Tea Party.

        By the way, Obama has collected more money than any candidate in American history. Most came from the 99%.


        1. “Why no money? Together the 99% has more money than does the 1%.”

          The top 1% owns close to half the wealth. Poor people are busy spending their “wealth” on rent and food.

          Obama gets most of his donations from small donors, but the Super-PAC earnings are heavily skewed towards the Republicans.


      2. If it’s really just about money instead of message or organizing, then why doesn’t the OWS go to some deep blue state and target targeting state legislatures? Surely you can pick up enough money to do influence a state congressional or city election. Or even just a couple of Congressional elections if you’re really feeling your oats. If DailyKos and MoveOn.org can make arrangements — pitiful as they are — then why can’t OWS?

        Once OWS actually gets a few credible candidates in office I’ll start taking them seriously. Until then I’ll just treat them as the intellectually lazy, quixotic morons serving as useful idiots for the right that they are. Can’t wait until the next mass arrest or arson that sets the left back a few years, like what’s happening in Canada.


  3. it also doesnt help that the people who do vote get their info from mainstream media. the dumbing down of america is working. it is straight out of 1984. truly sad state of affairs. why does peterson hate the citizens of america? and to think that our young join the military and defend scum like peterson.


  4. Jeezum, Rodger.
    As usual.

    Ralph Nader received roughly 19,000 votes in Florida where 5 MILLION registered Democrats stayed home and didn’t vote for Gore.
    Was that Nader’s fault?

    What if Nader didn’t run, and the 19,000 also stayed home because they could not stomach the thought of Herr Liebermann-cum-Netanyahu being a heartbeat away from the button.
    Same result.

    For some, the candidate does not need to earn your vote.
    I’ll gladly vote for Ralph again, anytime he runs.

    And why is the ‘type’ so small you can’t read it?


    1. Oh, I get it. It’s okay for Naderites to indulge in pointless quixotic crusades because other people are there to get their hands dirty and pick up the slack. Nice.


      1. First, I apologize for saying that Nader got 19K votes. It was over 90K votes.
        But, besides the 5 million Democrats who stayed home, some 200,000 registered Dems voted for Bush.
        But, let’s not blame DEMOCRATS.
        Gore lost by 543 votes but refused to support the challenge that Florida illegally disenfranchised minority voters(94,000).

        He also refused to challenge just the single issue of te double-buuble votes (checking the Gore box AND writing his name in) – which the WashPo says would have gained him 662 votes and the victory.
        Don’t Blame GORE !
        Don’t blame DEMOCRATS !
        Blame Nader for having the audacity to challenge the powerful.

        I guess you think that voting for the candidate you support is inferior to voting for the party that might win.
        I still say keeping Lieberman’s hand off the button was worth it all.


  5. Joehbed says, “I guess you think that voting for the candidate you support is inferior to voting for the party that might win.”

    Actually, I think voting for the candidate I support is stupid if it causes the party platform I support to lose.

    Happens all the time. Years ago, the Chicago Democrat machine wanted to prevent the election of a black mayor (Harold Washington). Unfortunately (for them), they managed to run two white candidates against him.

    “Democratic mayoral primary, community organizers registered more than 100,000 new African American, Latino and poor and independent white voters, while the white vote was split between the incumbent mayor Jane Byrne and future mayor Richard M. Daley, son of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley. Washington won with 37% of the vote, versus 33% for Byrne and 30% for Daley.” [Wikipedia]

    Had either Daley or Byrne not run, the other would have won. Had Nader not run, Gore would have won.


      1. Asked and answered.

        But let’s see if I can make this simple for you. If voting for the candidate you support makes the party you support lose and the candidate you support also loses, yes.

        Can I be clearer? Or are you going to ask a 3rd time?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s