STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
US Elections Giving Rise to Broad, Socialist Coalition
By - April 12, 2016

Several hundred activists were arrested Monday afternoon during a sit-in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to call for action on voting rights and campaign finance reform. The mass civil disobedience, part of a week-long Washington protest known as Democracy Spring, aimed to demonstrate the depth of grassroots frustration at a political system that, participants said, is tilted toward the wealthy at the cost of ordinary Americans … Voters in both major parties are expressing intense anger over a campaign finance system awash in big money donations. -MSNBC

As we can see from the above excerpt, the Democracy Spring movement is being portrayed as protest against money in the political system. But something much bigger is actually going on.

The anger manifest in the current political season is being used by elite money-men to forge a new protest coalition that is extensive and international. A quick glance at Democracy Spring’s website reveals a coalition of supporting groups drawn from the entire spectrum of leftist activism.

Ironically, they are using the current polarization of US politics to build this bigger movement. Meanwhile, US citizens swept up by the current election are once again losing sight of the reality of American politics: They don’t work properly and don’t yield beneficial results.

The US is on the verge of bankruptcy. Not long ago, a Citicorp executive called the US economy a “death spiral.” The issues are deep and intractable and will not be healed through elections, even presidential ones.

Participation in electoral politics actually drains the energy that one ought to be using to apply to private matters in order to achieve personal goals. Within a larger context, political results often yield results that are actually opposite to what voters hope.

For instance, many Americans are hopeful that the flood of Mexican cross-border immigration can be halted, but the populist politics they’re adopting is giving rise to considerable – and increasingly organized – opposition.

In fact, the concept of building a wall on the Mexican border has brought together diverse groups in Mexico who see it as an expression of racism. It has allowed mainstream media in both Mexico and the US to speak out with shared disdain.

Here, from the Wall Street Journal just two days ago:

Mexico’s political class rarely unites on anything, but there is unanimity that [was captured] … by former President Vicente Fox [who] used a vulgar adjective to describe [the] wall.

Last week, Fox penned an editorial for the Guardian along these lines. Here’s the conclusion:

That’s why I ask every Mexican, inside and outside our country, every American and the rest of the world to stand together. Let us not divide our dreams and opportunities; let us be inspired by compassion and true leadership. Let’s … walk towards harmony and prosperity all over the globe.

The polarization of the US election is being used to create emotional solidarity within Mexico and also with a variety of disparate groups in the US. Articles in leftist publications portray the protests as an all-American effort to “take back democracy.” Here, from TruthOut:

Today, though, the founders’ worst fears have been realized and factions have taken control of our political system. They’ve infiltrated and largely taken over our political parties, themselves a kind of faction, and divided themselves accordingly.

… That’s why movements like Democracy Spring and Democracy Awakening are so important.  They don’t just encourage young people to get active in politics, they also rejuvenate the ideals that made this country’s experiment in democracy possible in the first place … So let’s get behind movements like Democracy Spring and take back our democracy from the clutches of faction and oligarchy.

Not so. The DC protests have little to do with “democracy.” They are being funded in large part by MoveOn.org, which is itself funded, ironically, by the same big money elites that the protesters want to remove from US elections.

An article posted at TownHall.com tracks the antecedents of the current protests with the headline, “Occupy Wall Street Rebrands As ‘Democracy Spring’ For Capitol Hill Sit-Ins.” The article goes on to explain that little was left to chance when it came to the actual events:

It was clear from the moment we arrived that the event was carefully planned and executed political theater. The police were already staged and waiting with zip tie handcuffs and large buses to transport protesters … Unfortunately for law enforcement, they seem to have no choice but to play their part in the charade.

The article concludes, “Democracy Spring is a thin veneer for left-wing billionaires to build a large movement with much broader and damaging goals beyond campaign finance reform.”

This is the reality of the current US elections. It may seem to be a cogent expression of civilian anger expressed in populist terms. But it is opening a window to the very trends and movements that such populism rejects.

Conclusion: Ultimately, as we have pointed out before, electoral politics almost never yield hoped-for results. If you are looking to the US political process to resuscitate civil society and a measure of prosperity, you are likely looking in the wrong place. The vast, formal mechanisms of federal elections will rarely yield anything positive except by accident.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Goldcoaster

    Its sad. if the Young Sheeple really knew they were protesting on behalf of those who would enslave them, ie Moveon/Soros/globalists, things might be different.
    But it takes time to learn how the system works. Fact is, they have been so well indoctrinated, that they cry racism at the very people who might in the end make life better for them and all Americans. Not Mexicans or “others”, but Americans.
    Useful idiots indeed. Must be very satisfying for the “programmers”, as their long term plans continue to bear fruit. It likely only gets worse given Common Core.

    • guestimate

      Globalists are just capitalists, after all, lacking patriotism, disdaining human value of everyone but themselves, i.e. missanthropes.

      • Hm-mm, Isn’t patriotism an “ism”? See the end of your other comment above …

        • guestimate

          Very clever attempt to perform verbal judo on your part but superficially applied. Yes, Patriotism IS an “ism” which basically encompasses the mutual interests of one’s countrymen and culture. globalists don’t have that, in fact one investor blogger said it quite well, “It’s not about patriotism, it’s about profits!” Profits aren’t bad unless they’re acquired under terms of oppression, the antithesis of freedom. Globalists are only interested in their own personal freedom, not the slaves and underpaid workers they oppress. Capitalism has always been OK with slavery. Capitalists have had to wait over a century of Abolition, to find legal ways to move their operations to countries where the slaves are, which use to be prohibited under laws that prevented trading with enemy countries. That’s when/where the boundaries defining “isms” started to be erased.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    When you see the time honored socialist clenched fist being waved by one and all at these controlled opposition get togethers —- Watch out! The inquisitorially minded new incarnations of the Red Guards are but a short distance behind.

  • Jim Johnson

    This will not be a political issue soon, except for who helms the military in a martial law re-set scenario. One thing is certain- the days of taking free s–t will be over. It just won’t exist for the ordinary Joe no more. Look to your own street and County. Go from there. My prayer is the simplicity of our original Constitution will be the Fix of choice.

    • guestimate

      The original Constitution only applied to white, landed slave-owners, not women, children, blacks or natives. We need to stop providing the courtesy of allowing investors to participate in (profit from) public debt creation, by taking back ownership of the currency and just printing it on a pay-as-we-go basis. Nationalize the banks, make them currency distribution kiosks ONLY, and implement an automated payment tax (APT) of a fraction of a percent on ALL USD money transfers, int’l & domestic. Of course once Uncle Sam owns his money again, he won’t need to federally tax the rest of US. Money-lenders will be driven out-of-business, unable to compete against govt’s zero-% rate. Issue bonds with every US citizen, value of $10K USD and invest those funds in US companies to accrue to the beneficiary for major life events, like college, buying a home, and retirement. Stop talking about isms and just do what works for everybody.

      • So that’s the solution? Let government handle the money? How’s that worked out in the past …

        • acmaurer

          His premise in the opening sentence is a faulty as his solution.

          • guestimate

            Not.

        • guestimate

          At least government officials are elected by the people (but for the representative, delegate system, intended to undermine that) and hypothetically accountable. Central Bankers are not even that, not to mention, unnecessary.

          • Why is it necessary for government alone to have the right to create money?Why are you insisting on additional government privileges? What has the US government ever done to deserve them? The Constitution didn’t provide such privileges…

          • guestimate

            Goodness you do sound quite young and naive to have bought into so much conservative ignorance & poison. Did you know that Heaven is also a government? Because that’s how the Constitution reads, Congress is delegated (not free to abrogate) the RIGHT to “coin money and set the value thereof” and by extension, to print notes (which used to be backed by gold) …and to enforce anti- counterfeiting laws. It’s given to government because government officials are ELECTED and ANSWERABLE TO the people they’re supposed to serve. How would you expect anything but a debt to accrue if you give a foreign, private interest, control to create money for a nation? It’s illegal on its face, not to mention quite retarded. See: http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/nationaldebt.htm and http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/nationaldebt.htm

          • EDDIE GILCHRIST

            “At least government officials are elected by the people”

            Talk about naivete!

          • guestimate

            Well then why are elections held? Was it a carefully crafted circus intended for pomp & show while special interest delegates make their decisions behind the scenes? Is that what the founders intended? Freedom & government of, by and for the People, is a viable concept or it’s still-born, you can’t have it both ways.

      • alaska3636

        Stalin knew what worked for everybody. Steel Joe gave the people what they needed.

        • guestimate

          Narcissists, bullies and murderers will ruin any system.

      • EDDIE GILCHRIST

        The incessant dithryambs about the framers being racist misogynists has gotten very very annoying, besides being
        appalling displays of stupidity. Look, Cicero, no one but David Barton and his ilk claim the Constitution was penned from God or something. It was certainly a flawed document in that it was penned by men if the time, who did not have the unspeakable advantage of your enlightened perspective. It was, however, remarkable in that it provided both a statement about universal rights and a platform to work out those rights, even when it compromised on them (sufferage and slavery). We would be wise to pay attention to it. You can go back to caterwauling about Washington and Jefferson and slaves, now.

        • guestimate

          They slipped the Bill-of-rights in at the very end, otherwise there would have been NONE so far as “the People” were concerned. And one founder felt that one right should be included to protect the people from the medical profession, but he was ignored. The other thing the founders granted themselves the right to receive gifts, emoluments and gratuities from vested interests (essentially bribes) and they will never vote that right away for themselves, and that has been the singular cause of corruption in our government. The delegate system of electoral voting is another way they throttle the people’s wishes, over-riding the popular vote. It hardly matters if you call yourself a Republic or a democracy if your representatives continue to vote for their own and/or special interests at the cost of your own, the people they were elected to serve, i.e. China is a Republic too, so what. Another issue is capitalism, which has proven its depravity, to ignore workers’ needs & rights in singular persuit of profits in favor of private share-holders and upper-level management, even at the cost of wider social standards and the environment. “Don’t like us? we’ll take our marbles elsewhere” …even where vulnerable people can be enslaved, while leaving prior workers high-and-dry of any means to earn a livelihood, and having a most corrosive social effect when the corporate owners’ piggish, over-bearing and dictatorial (kiss-my-butt, or worse) demands are not met. Don’t even get me started on private banking, fractional reserve fraud or quasi-agreements with governments and thievery licensing that allow banks to concentrate wealth & power while dissenfranchising the People of all that they own and same time being bailed out at taxpayers’ expense. Past generations of oligarchs understood they would have to give an accounting to their Maker someday, current rich brats have yet to discover morality. In the words of Ted Turner, “Humans just aren’t good enough.” (But he should have started with himself.)

          • EDDIE GILCHRIST

            It is difficult to have an online discussion with someone who is either ignorant about the process they are describing, deceptive in how they describe it, or both. The BOR were not “slipped in at the end” and if you knew what you were talking about (or were honest about it, I can’t tell which is the problem), you would know that this is a gross misrepresentation of the process. There are a number of criticisms of the process, not the least of which is that the framers were not actually commissioned to do what they did, and so this did actually represent somewhat of a coup and power grab. Men are men, after all. However, the concerns about putting a limit on the government they outlined was a constant theme in the parliamentary debates which led to Madison attempting to edit the Constitution itself to address those concerns. The legality of erogating power to the body to make the change was in fact why the BOR was “slipped in.” You either know that and are deceitful or don’t and are ignorant. I don’t know which and don’t care.
            The ridiculous ululation about the founders giving themselves the right to receive gifts emoluments and securities (bribes) from vested interests is utter nonsense. All I can say there is that I doubt you set the scale for your logic class in school. That is the most creative rendering of 1/9/8 I have seen. While not ruling out bribes from domestic sources is a serious and glaring error, someone who states this is a granting of that right to themselves is such a creative use of “logic” that this reminds me of old online debates with communists.
            When an ideological agenda trumps history, it poisons revisionist history no less than established narratives written by the powerful.

          • guestimate

            When I first read the Constitution (age 12) I immediately saw it was written so broadly that entire armies could pass through. 99% of it is about powers of government which are pretty extensive. the Bill-of-Rights is the other 1% and has been terribly eroded since GW’s admin though it was under attack by termites before that.

            As for gifts, gratuities and emoluments, the evidence is in how government works today, just like I don’t have to prove what the founders meant re; the 2nd Ammendment because people still own guns; present reality proves history. No one is putting politicians in jail for receiving money from special interests, so it must be legal, the end.

          • EDDIE GILCHRIST

            If you confined yourself to the proposition that a piece of paper can never restrain the lust for power and wealth of men, I would agree. I have a number of criticisms of the Constitution myself, and am a devotee of a ConCon under article 5 to make changes. No one argues that the document is not flawed, and no one I know argues that some of the flaws are not deliberate.
            What I am nauseatingly tired of is the incessant self righteous harping of the cranially vacant crowd who argue that the answer is “more democracy,” and ignore the fact that those guys DID recognize that collectivized power is the greatest threat to liberty.
            Go feel the Bern, or whatever.

          • guestimate

            Eddie:

            I’d make the point again, that China is a REPUBLIC so what could be worse than that? Oligarchs have partnered with dictators to thoroughly enslave a population. I really don’t care what ism you call it. Maybe you agree with the founders that “Men of industry should run the government” but WHICH industry? Banking, gambling/Wall St., drug manufacturers? Well, they do already …vs. the People. What we have now is nothing the founders could forsee or intend, unless they were apron-wearing Masons, secret Satanists, if the layout of Washington is any indication, and it sure wasn’t democratic.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck3exIumq7k

  • rahrog

    bread & circus

  • alaska3636

    Remember this Princeton study:
    “Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts…

    “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

    http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

    From a New Yorker article:
    Is America An Oligarchy?
    “This is what the data shows: when the economic élites support a given policy change, it has about a one-in-two chance of being enacted. (The exact estimated probability is forty-five per cent.) When the élites oppose a given measure, its chances of becoming law are less than one in five. (The exact estimate is eighteen per cent.) The fact that both figures are both below fifty per cent reflects a status-quo bias: in the divided American system of government, getting anything at all passed is tricky.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

    The elite friendly New Yorker answers: kind of. Imagine the extend of elite influence if partisan gridlock wasn’t gumming up the oligarchic system.

  • Danny B

    Free market capitalism distributes wealth to those who produce it. Socialism distributes wealth to the masses whether they were productive or not. Fascism distributes wealth disproportionately to the rich whether they earned it or not. GOV welfare to the rich is 10 times the cost of GOV welfare to the poor. The very rich don’t want to see an end to their welfare so, they instigate the poor to protest. It won’t matter in the end when the default cascade hits

    • guestimate

      Bankers and investors don’t produce wealth, they extract it for themselves as money-for-nothing. A far more equitable, public system of finance could be articulated that would create real wealth for everyone vs. concentrating it into the hands of a few, which is what we have now, is not capitalism but financialism. Also capitalism historically per se, tends to enslave the vulnerable wherever it can for the very reason it’s AMORAL. It also contains the seeds of its own demise, and the evidence of THAT is also staring US in the face in a most undeniable way…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P97r9Ci5Kg&nohtml5=False

  • Samarami

    Conclusion: “….electoral politics almost never yield hoped-for results…”

    I can see but one flaw in the concluding statement: “…almost…”

    Sam

  • Bruce C.

    So let’s look at this futile (ridiculous) POV the DB is claiming from the opposite perspective:

    “If you are looking to the US political process to utterly destroy civil society and any measure of prosperity, you are likely looking at the right place.”

    Pay attention, understand what’s going on, hold people accountable, talk to others about issues, focus on what you want, clarify your ideas, understand why the US Constitution says what it does, respect and support the rule of law, vote, etc. and you will soon be living in a hell hole.

    Ignore it all, know that society is run by “elites”, don’t waste energy trying to hold people accountable, mock those who think anything matters, realize what you think doesn’t matter, don’t be fooled by anything that appears to be otherwise, mistrust everyone, know that society will inevitably get worse, maintain a low profile, look out for yourself, accept that the law is arbitrary, don’t bother voting, etc. and you will soon be living in paradise.

    Great piece. Thanks for the advice.

  • Liberal Zombies

    fuking left-tits should be treated like terrorists

loading