Leaders of both the Republican and Democratic Parties believe, or pretend to believe, that the American people have resolutely moved to the center, abandoning the 'extremes' of left and right. But is that really so? I maintain that most Americans are clearly liberal, and many even further left. I think that this would be revealed if the public was asked questions along the following lines.

  • Would you like to have a government-run healthcare system which covered all residents for all ailments at no charge at all?
  • Would you like to have a government-financed education system where all schooling, including medical school and law school, should be free?
  • Do you think that when corporations are faced with a choice between optimizing their revenue and doing what's best for the environment, public health, or public safety that they should almost always choose in favor of optimizing their revenue, as they do now?
  • Do you think that abortion is a question best left up to a woman and her doctor?
  • Do you think that the United States should officially be a totally secular nation or one officially based on religious beliefs?
  • Do you think that large corporations and their political action committees exercise too much political power?
  • Do you think that corporate executive salaries are highly excessive?
  • Do you think that the tax cuts for the super-rich instituted by the Bush administration should be cancelled and their taxes thus increased?
  • Do you think that the minimum wage should be increased to what is called a 'living wage,' which would be at least $10 per hour?
  • Do you think that the government should take all measures necessary to guarantee that corporations have retirement plans for all workers that the retirement funds are safeguarded?
  • Do you think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake?
  • Do you think that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was a mistake?
  • Do you think that United States support of Israel is excessive?
  • Do you approve of the treatment of people captured by the United States as part of its so called War on Terror - the virtually complete loss of legal and human rights, and subjection to torture?

[...]

And for those readers who wonder where all the money would come from to pay for the education, medical care, and so forth, that's the easy part - The Defense Department would have to do what peace groups often have to do: hold bake sales.

To those who like to tell themselves and others that they don't have any particular ideology, I say this: if you have thoughts about why the world is the way it is, why society is the way it is, why people are the way they are, what a better way would look like, and if your thoughts are fairly well organized, then that's your ideology, even if it's not wholly conscious as such.

  • TransComrade69 [she/her,ze/hir]
    hexagon
    ·
    4 years ago

    There are two passages of this book that radicalized the fuck out of me. Sent me way down the jokerfication pipeline.

    Before the American invasion in March 2003, Iraq tried to negotiate a peace deal with the United States. Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction and offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search; they also offered full support for any US plan in the Arab-Israeli peace process, and to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. If this is about oil, they added, they would also talk about US oil concessions. Washington's reply was its 'Shock and Awe' bombing.


    Under the Clinton administration, in 1996, a United Nations-sponsored World Food Summit affirmed the 'right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food.' The United States took issue with this, insisting that it does not recognize a 'right to food.' Washington instead championed free trade as the key to ending the poverty at the root of hunger, and expressed fears that recognition of a 'right to food' could lead to lawsuits from poor nations seeking aid and special trade provisions.

    The situation did not improve under the administration of George W. Bush. In 2002, in Rome, world leaders at another UN-sponsored World Food Summit again approved a declaration that every had the right to 'safe and nutritious food.' The United States continued to oppose the clause, again fearing it would leave them open to future legal claims by famine-stricken countries.

    Moreover, those defending the US opposition to a Human Right to Food (HRF) have been motivated by the fact that it is not protected by the US Constitution; that it is associated with an un-American and socialist political system; that the American way is self-reliance; that freedom from want is an invention of President Franklin Roosevelt; that food anxiety is an energizing challenge that can mobilize the needy to surmount their distressing circumstances; that taking on HRF obligations would be too expense.


    DEATH TO AMERIKKKA. :amerikkka:

    • BladeRunner [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      When dealing with aggressors, you have to talk to them in a language that they understand:

      Stop wars with war.

      Stop wars with force

      Win peace and respect with victory.