re/ US elections: a waste of your time and energy


Richard Moore


US elections: a waste of your time and energy
From: Dion Giles 
Date: October 7, 2008 4:21:54 PM GMT+01:00
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Absolutely true in spades.  Every issue that matters a damn is “off the table”.  Sixteen months to get the invaders out of Iraq, Obama says.  A couple of aircraft carries and a fleet of helicopters could take the whole boiling of them on board in a few days.
     Noticed how the war criminals are pushing the notion that it’s not a president the Americans are voting for but a commander in chief.?  That term has never in my memory been been bandied about in elections the way is is today.bandied about – top of the candidates’ cv is supposed to be to have the morals of Al Capone.
     Cheers, Dion Giles.


From: “David Silver” 
Date: October 7, 2008 5:29:03 PM GMT+01:00
To: “‘Richard Moore'” <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Richard- Thanks for this so let’s use the Cynthia McKinney candidacy to
raise consciousness of the common enemy-thransnationals and banks (aka the
ruling class) to build an independent political movement. 
     I’ve been trying  to email something to Naomi Klein  (her juxtaposition of
the Wall Street collapse with that of the Berlin Wall.) but cannot find her
e-mail address on the various sites that she written in.  Would you by
chance have it?  

Hi David,

I share your admiration for Cynthia McKinney, and I’m glad if she’s using a symbolic candidacy as a platform for public education. However I don’t share your hope in an independent political movement, and I think people’s awareness is already quite advanced, as regards banks and transnationals being the ‘common enemy’.

At times like these, we need to be aware of relevant history. There have been times of mass discontent before, and there have been independent political movements before, some of them becoming quite powerful. The Populists / Farmers’ Alliance, for example, managed to get several state Governors and several members of Congress elected. Our society is much more atomized / isolated today, and it is very unlikely that we could emulate the success of the Populists. And if we could, we need to understand why the Populists ultimately failed.

Every independent political movement finds itself in a wrestling ring with the two current well-sponsored champions: the Democrat and Republican Parties. In order to win, the new contender must defeat both title-holders, in a two-against-one match, and it’s not a match that follows the rule book. The new movement can be shut out of the media and debates, or be misrepresented and demonized by the media. The Democrats can drastically undermine support for the movement by adopting (at least rhetorically) the main platform planks of the movement, the way Lyndon Johnson campaigned on a ‘no war in Vietnam’ platform, or the way the Civil Rights Movement was decimated by a band-aid Civil Rights Bill (and a convenient assassination). And then there was the case of Eugene McCarthy, who was threatening to bring the Democrat Party into the fold of the New Left. They tolerated an opportunistic RFK campaign, in order to eliminate McCarthy, then they shot RFK (will the Kennedy’s never learn to keep their heads down?) and we were left with LBJ. Like I said, no rule book.

The Populists came the closest to achieving power, in the sense of getting ‘one of theirs’ into the White House. In the 1896 election, William Jennings Bryan, who espoused Populist ideas, was nominated both by the Democrat Party and the Populist Party. That’s when the Republican Campion put on his brass knuckles and grabbed his baseball bat in order to finish off the upstart contender. As Howard Zinn reports, that campaign was the first in which massive amounts of money (from corporations and banks of course) was employed in order to win a Presidential election. Having flown too close to the sun, their wings melted in the heat of big-money politics, the Populists descended into obscurity, losing the considerable gains they had made on-the-ground as an inclusive grass-roots movement. 

The main argument against a political movement is that it can only feed into the adversarial political system, when what we need is to bring people together. When you talk about a ‘common enemy’, who is it you have in mind, that has this enemy ‘in common’? Is it just progressives and liberals? If we think that way, only more divisiveness can be generated. The enemy – whether we characterize them as the Wall Street Elite, or in some other way – are the enemy of every honest and concerned citizen, whether they be on the left or the right ideologically. 

It is not possible to bring everyone together in a political movement, because a political movement must come up with a more-or-less comprehensive platform – and once you start articulating a platform you attract some and turn away others. Platforms are inherently divisive, and the more focused and sensible they are to some, the more repugnant they are to others. When you try to characterize the grand issues of national policy, you must always choose some approach, some philosophy, and that approach and philosophy will always antagonize the preconceptions of some sizable segment of society. 

We have a uniquely promising opportunity at this time to bring people together across the political divides. Rarely has the stark corruption and hypocrisy of our ruling elites ever been so visible to people generally. The across-the-board popular revulsion was so great to the Wall Street bailout that Congress was forced to pretend it was going to reject it, to pretend for a moment that it gave a damn about the rest of us. And the bailout of these criminals is only the straw on the camel’s back. We already had revulsion against wars abroad, economic suffering, failing medical system, loss of Constitution, etc ad infinitum.

We don’t need or want a divisive political banner to bring us together, rather we need to focus on bringing-us-together as an end in itself. When we begin to listen to one another, and understand one another, we can begin to create social visions that we can all support.


PS> I have no contact info for either of our wonderful Naomi’s.


From: PH
Date: October 7, 2008 6:29:31 PM GMT+01:00
To: “Richard Moore” <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Hi Richard,
   Thank you for sharing your thoughts!  Right now I don’t have time to comment on them except to point out that as is usually the case here in the U.S. we’re stuck with choosing the lesser or two evils.
    However, if you were in my shoes, I imagine you’d choose OBama and the democrats because you still have a glimmer of hope that you will continue to survive.
    Chronologically, I’m now a senoir citizen, at 66 years old.  I benefit from Medicare, a small military pension, and a small social security income. Inflation has already put my very survival at risk as I really am not quite making it.  On the edge of ending up a flop — eating bad food and maybe being homeless.
    McCain has repeatedly stated that he intends to cut social programs for veterans and the elderly among other things.  At least with Obama I still have hopes that a few more crumbs will be thrown my way.  You know like feeding birds stale bread.
    Though I remain an idealist, at the moment I see my options extremely limited.
    Perhaps we’re in the middle of a world-wide shift.  A time of creative destruction during which the chips fall where they may.  In order to contribued proactively, it’s reasonable that I first must survive.
    Perhaps the “Fed” will implode and will be replaced by something that puts the people’s interests above the ruling elite.
    Perhaps we’ll return to the proactive governmental policies of FDR, and rebuilt the nation by the people and for the people.
    Free markets must be put in their place, with the interests of the population of citizens coming first.  And so on.

Warm regards,


Hi PH,

Your logic does make sense, and it is an example of what I wrote about: electoral motivation arising from fear and loathing of the enemy candidate. You do this with no guarantee that Obama will be able to manage, or will be motivated to manage, the preservation of a livelihood for those of us on pensions. As you say, as a voter your options are extremely limited. I’d go further and say the political system offers us no real alternatives at all. We need to seek our options, our paths of activism, elsewhere. 

We are without doubt in the “middle of a world-wide shift”, a “time of creative destruction during which the chips fall”. The question is how we choose to respond to the shift, and how we choose to participate in managing how the chips fall. If you think voting for Obama will help, then do that, and that choice is more than enough energy devoted to politics. Rather than being taken over by the government, the Fed has taken over the government. The system is not going to correct itself.

     “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
     – Audre Lorde

     “A banker is a man who loans you umbrellas when the sun is shining and demands it back the moment it looks like rain.” 
     – Mark Twain 



From: Robin Mutoid 
Date: October 7, 2008 8:10:11 PM GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: {cj} US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Hi Richard,
Thanks for your usual excellent insights on this. I too have been drawn to bored disinterest!
However it occurred to me recently that IF Obama is to be the destined leader of the ‘New World’ for the next four years, then just perhaps he is actually playing a very clever and tricky game by ‘feeding’ the Illuminati and his controllers just enough of what they ‘want’ to hear, in order to avoid being wiped out by them before even being elected?
If this is the case then it will, obviously, only become fully apparent AFTER he is actually elected!
Surely this is the one election in US history that stands to gain from a massive voter turnout in order to successfully swamp any further vote defrauding (electronic or otherwise) attempts.
Personally I supported both Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich as candidates…
     I guess we wait and see!
Best Regards

Hi Robin,

Evidently Obama is able to weave a spell that conveys a feeling of integrity and genuine concern, among progressives. That is of course why they selected him to groom for the job of President. Bush is able to weave that same spell, but among conservatives and fundamentalists. To me, they’re both used-car salesmen, but selling different brands. No, he’s not a sleeper for humanity. You’re grasping at straws with that one, not that I blame you for grasping for whatever’s at hand, as the ship goes down.


From: “Claudia Rice” 
Date: October 7, 2008 10:53:56 PM GMT+01:00
To: “Richard Moore” <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

What I sent many of my friends:
      this was written several months ago, but asks some very pertinent questions. I’m not trying to rain on your parade, and McCain would be a disaster yada-yada, but we need to be clear eyed and ready to deal with what we may get:
Progressive Obamanists: Where Do You Draw the Line?


Hi Claudia,

Thanks for the link! A very good contribution at this point in our dialog. The closer to the finishing post, the more we will see the “real Obama”. 


From: Larry Victor <•••@••.•••>
Date: October 7, 2008 11:19:00 PM GMT+01:00
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Richard, I agree with you, in principle, that the elections are a diversion and that I don’t expect significant positive changes from either candidate.
“I have a very hard time understanding why people think a Democrat President will make any kind of real difference in how the country is run.”

     Yet, I believe that activists will have more freedom with Obama over Palin.  I don’t make it a crusade to support the Democrats (who have done many dastardly things). But, if I had a choice whether the hurricane was level 2 or level 6, I would vote for level 2.  However, I agree that the vast majority of Americans have faith that their candidate will “kiss the booboo, and everything will be OK”.  This is not just a trait of “Americans”.
     As to WHY most think as they do?  I propose it is because THEIR (inner matrix) WORLD supports this view. None of us are living in a common objective world. When McCain declares that he never lies, he believes he is correct – in his “WORLD”.  We each create our own matrix. I believe that this is a very significant paradigm shift, whose practical application would be an abandonment of the search for objective truth.  Dialog&Deliberation&Decision processes would involve displaying the semiotic structures (sems) that different persons report as descriptions of their reality – and then we research this super-matrix for patterns. We don’t extract “truths”, but when confronted with a decision need, the super-matrix will present a list of possible actions with probabilities of success.  Obviously, such a system will not soon be used – but it may be a process those who survive the Singularity can use for the re-emergence of humanity.

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your contribution. I see an irony in your views, an irony that all social analysts share. When we try to characterize other people’s mental matrix, we reveal the nature of our own inner matrix. You, for example, tend to see the dissimilarities in people’s inner worlds, while I tend to see the similarities. You interpret what McCain says in a way that makes him honest; I interpret what he says as lies and PR. Most likely neither of us fully understands the deep psychological reasons that lead us to choose our particular perspectives. 

Of course I agree with you that dialog, deliberation, etc. are how we can discover what we have in common, but I don’t think we’ll need any fancy research to interpret the results. I think what we have in common will become so abundantly clear, that we’ll wonder what ever kept us separated. Fortunately there is no need for us to waste time debating our interpretations. If we both believe in the dialog path, then we can support each other in pursuing it and let the exercise bring forth what it will.


From: Bo Filter
Date: October 8, 2008 9:09:36 PM GMT+01:00
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Good article Richard,
I am concerned about abandoning the vote entirely. I will be voting for Nader. If nothing else, it informs the elite that we are not all duped or despondent.
Keep up the great work,

Hi Bo,

I tend to agree that a vote for an outsider who stands for something, whether it be a Nader or a Ron Paul, is probably the most ‘meaningful message’ that can be sent by casting a vote in a Presidential election. But keep in mind, elites are very well informed already about public sentiments. They have focus groups, access to databases about us, etc, and control of the media as well; they are proactive re/public sentiments (as evidenced by Obama’s appeal, who is very much their man). It is to one another that we need to send a message. When the Battle of Seattle occurred, a climax moment in the anti-globalization movement, millions of ordinary people (and third-world delegates to the WTO) suddenly realized they weren’t alone – they weren’t the only ones who weren’t buying all the globalization bandwagon crap. Seattle dramatized what was really obvious already: the Emperor has no clothes.

Personally, rather than a symbolic vote, I’d go for a symbolic celebration on election day: neighborhood potlucks, with banners like, “Hell No, We Won’t Vote in Your Phony Election”.


From: “M.A. Omas Schaefer”
Date: October 9, 2008 12:49:19 AM GMT+01:00
To: “Richard Moore” <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: US elections: a waste of your time and energy

Well said! I’m sure you’ve already seen NuffRespect’s YouTube animation of the Alex Jones lecture on the two-party scam. Just in case you haven’t, here is the link.

Hi M.A.

Thanks! That’s a great animation, and a great talk by Alex. He’s much more pleasant to listen to in his presentation mode, rather than his strident mode. His analysis is quite good here, and the animation helps a lot. This makes a suitable wrap-up to this dialog posting, and it also makes a good introduction, so I put it at the top as well



subscribe mailto:
old archives: 
Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)