portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

alternative media | political theory

What's Wrong with the Opposition in US ?

Some comments upon the activity of the opposition in US: its targets, the ways to achieve them and the real results.
It's already some time I have a strange feeling when visiting these independent web sites and blogs - it's like watching windmills: From a distance it seems that everything is ok: wind is blowing, blades are turning, the machine inside is roaring, from time to time a person approaches a window or walks near the mill. ... It's quite sure that "something is being done".

But there is an important question:

"Is the opposition really doing what is necessary to do? And what is it?"

When facing a problem we have to:
1. Analyse the problem and find its cause.
2. Suggest solution.

It is a standard procedure, that everybody of you knows well. We can see it everywhere and everyday: when repairing cars, correcting errors in computer programs, when doctors treat patients. We can see very complicated cases like for example after space shuttle crashes.

We have to follow this procedure also in case of problems in society: find the cause and then suggest solution. Just at the beginning we face a serious problem: There are TOO MANY problems! Like:

- Fake terror (like 9/11 or OKC bombing)
- Rigged elections & black box voting
- The loss of constitutional rights (like Patriot Act, wiretapping)
- State approved torture & killings
- Silenced mainstream media
- Wars (Iraq, the looming war with Iran)
- No real political opposition
- Political assassinations (JFK, MLK)
- Diseases (like AIDS) developed and spread by pharmaceutical companies and doctors
- Loss of public control over research (GM foods, HAARP and who knows what else)
- Privatization of social insurance
- Loss of jobs due to globalization

They are usually not new, but they became a lot more grave in last years as if some force which opposed them was removed. If these problems were independent, we could solve them separately, one by one. But it is not so: at least some of them depend on others. This means that to find the cause we have to analyse the whole situation in society.

Some independent web sites (like www.GlobalResearch.ca) present analyses, but they analyse only separate problems like 9/11, Iraq war, black box voting. Some articles talk about society as whole and suggest causes of problems, but it is usually a guess or opinion. I found no real analysis of the situation in society: why this and that happens, which problem is the primary one and which problems are secondary.

Here are some opinions and solutions (with my comments):

--- Sam Hamond [ link to legitgov.org] (June 13, 2003) talks about where to start:

"There are so many things wrong in this land ... that it is hard to find out where one must start. It is easy to say, become involved-but, involved in what? You can't turn to the major two parties-both are corrupt and complicitous ..."
(Why a new party was not yet built? It would be easy to win elections if there are so many discontent people.)

He suggests: "... we must form delegations ... to go to the United Nations and the IC at the Hague." (UN accept dictators, why not accept Bush? He was elected.)

--- Valenzuela [ http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com] (Land of the Puppet People) describes his view of the US society, but it is not possible to take his interesting article as a real analysis. It seems he thinks the main problem is, that people are brainwashed by TV. (But every TV set has a switch!)

Here is something he says: "Television is the greatest addiction we face, a malignancy that controls entire populations, becoming a drug infiltrating all regions of the brain, altering brainwaves in children, thoughts in adults, creating a population easily controlled and programmed, becoming, over the course of a lifetime, the human antenna receiving the endless stream of propaganda disseminated by government and corporate entities."

--- Some people say that politicians are bribed or blackmailed. (Why better ones were not elected?)

--- Livergood [www.hermes-press.com]:
- "Beyond all this individualistic action we must create a broad-based, all-encompassing organization with which to fight the Bush junta." (But will the next government be better?)
- "... fight for the rights of all Americans." (But this is the job of democratic institutions.)
- "We may not be able to stop Bush now, but we sure as hell can throw him out of office next year at the ballot box." (This was written before the elections in 2004. Now it seems almost ridiculous.)
- Unified Activist Citizen Taskforce [www.hermes-press.com/restore1.htm]: "... we must have a general program, a plan for reforming this country." (If there is no plan why to talk about it?), "This informed activist group would respond to crises as they unfold ..." (When Fake terror or martial law occurs, it's too late to respond.)

I like Livergood's articles for his ideas, but his list of "what to do" is misleading.

--- Patricia Goldsmith [www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Goldsmith13.htm] says it straight: "I'm tired of playing the self-defeating electoral game. We have no reason to expect that in 2006, after six years of rigged elections, everything is suddenly going to work. In 2006 ... our situation could well be worse."

--- Clean Money/Clean Elections [www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-06.htm]: They support candidates by public funding. Candidates must agree to accept no private money beyond the $5 qualifying contributions. "Clean Money/Clean Elections is a structural reform that will make other reforms possible." (But because candidates financed from private sources are not banned, the danger of rigged elections remains. Anyway, this is the best idea (already in use in few states!) I have found.)

--- www.MoveOn.org
When I noticed their "2006 Election Plan" I hoped to find something really important, but they only collect money for Democratic party. Here is what they say: "The 2006 elections are only months away-and if we keep our eyes on that goal, we're in a position to win big. Democratic control of Congress will mean we can finally move forward with big ideas like health care for all Americans or energy independence, and make sure the troops get home safely and soon from Iraq."
(This is a plan for 3 000 000 of discontent people who support them! And do Democrats really say what is in the last sentence? And would they do it?)

Some time ago MoveOn.org asked people to help them find the most important problem in US society. Thousands of messages were posted on MoveOn.org pages and people were voting. Instead of looking for causes of problems, people vote! 2+2 will never be 5 even if everybody votes for it.

--- In [www.hermes-press.com/restore1.htm] Livergood lists important partial victories:
1 - recent worldwide anti-war demonstrations
2 - women's rights movement
3 - civil rights struggle
4 - Vietnam war resistance
(Anti-war demonstrations didn't stop wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and will not stop the war with Iran. Patriot Act was a big defeat for civil rights movement. So it seems that only 2 and 4 were victories, but it's already long time ago.)



Previous list of opinions and suggested solutions of problems reveals a sad true: these people do something, but it seems they do not care about real causes of problems. It's no surprise that their victories (if any) are small or temporary. They concentrate on secondary problems and even if they succeed, new problems are already piling up because the source of the problems remained untouched.

What happened to these people, that they are not interested in going inside problems to find their causes?. They spend a lot of time by getting, evaluating and spreading information, but they do not think about it. This is simply unbelievable.

The absence of critique of the activity of the opposition is probably the biggest problem of the US society.
hmmmm 12.Mar.2006 13:15


One big problem.

Opposition in this country is undermined by Democratic Party infiltration. The Democratic Party has subverted the anti-war movement and all but killed its effective expression. The Democratic Party infiltrated the Green Party and set it back so far that it may be a lost cause.

The Democratic Party is not the opposition. It is the status quo. Until people stop hoping for and depending upon the Democratic Party, and allowing the Democratic Party to influence and control oppositional energies, then such opposition will remain scattered and far less effective than it should be.

The majority of people want the U.S. out of Iraq. The majority of people want native forests protected. The majority of people want clean air, water, and food. The majority of people want an end to corporate corruption. The majority of people want a more sustainable future.

The term opposition is not accurate. It is really the majority will of this country and the Democratic Party plays its part to keep it weak and under the boot of monied interests.

A gross underestimation of the problem (hence our failure t organize) 12.Mar.2006 16:47

Mike Novack stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

No Jason. And sorry if I seem to be picking on you, but the original article writer is too mired in phantasy and you at least understand what the PROBLEMS are.

"The majority of people want the U.S. out of Iraq. The majority of people want native forests protected. The majority of people want clean air, water, and food. The majority of people want an end to corporate corruption. The majority of people want a more sustainable future.

The term opposition is not accurate. It is really the majority will of this country and the Democratic Party plays its part to keep it weak and under the boot of monied interests."

I guess the problem is how you and I use the term "want". You apparently think people "want" something because they will answer "yes" to a question on a poll. But it doesn't "cost" anything to answert a poll question. You know how the capitalist lackey economists use the word? They say that somebody "wants" somethign if/f they are willing to lay down their sweated for cash for it -- to choose IT rather than somethign else they have to then give up becasue not enough money for both. Now I am NOT talking about that kind of paying, but if you mean really "wanting" then you have to think along the same lines.

The majority of people want native forests protected? REALLY? Then how come when faced with the choice, forests or throw away paper cups and towels they choose the conveninece over the forest.

The majority of people want clean air? Then how come they still drive around in gas guzzling polluting cars.

Clean water? Then how come they water lawns (plant lawns that require water in their climate). How come they use flush wasteful flush toilets and flush for EVERYTHING.

Food? You mean not prepared in advance so all you need do is pop it in the microwave and remove the plastic wrapping.

The majority of people want a more sustainable future. SUSTAINABLE? Then they have decided to drop their average birth rate to below 1.5 children per woman for the next 100-200 years.

Sure there is a majority willing to have corporate corruption addressed (most of them don't own corporations and so isn't their ox being gored).

Understand what I am saying Jason. We DON'T have a majority who really want those things you list, not in the sense that they might be willing to "pay" for them (with changes in how they live, things that thye would consider "sacrifices"). The only reason you don't see the problem is that you have deluded yourself into imagining that just because "the monied interests" got us into this ecological mess eliminating their control gets us out. Yes of course, eliminating them may well be a NECESSARY condition for getting to sustainability -- but unfortunately far from SUFFICIENT.

It's like there has been a bully running around breaking people's legs. I agree that eliminating the bully will keep more people from being lamed. But you seem to be under the impression thatthat elimination of the bully will ALSO set broken bones, help those lamed to walk, etc. And it won't.

Right now in this country there is no organized social opposition. THAT is why there is no effective political opposition. There are plenty of us who are oppsoed to those in power, probably a majority. Unfortunately we are also divided into oppositon among ourselves just as much as we are against those in power. THAT is what we have to do something about and it's hard, very hard. Hard because the way forward is NOT in trying to get the other fellow to agree that your evaluation of what is important is correct. NOT in trying to convince her that the ideology of your particualr splinter group is the one and certain truth. We have to learn to listen.

Democratic Party is not the real problem. 12.Mar.2006 18:23


Hi Jason,

You say: "Democratic Party .. undermined .. subverted ... killed ... infiltrated". If people, who REALLY want a change, create a party, then this party can only be undermined (and so on) by somebody "inside". In a society (which is not sick) such a person would be fired immediately and it would mean his/her political death.

Yes, Democratic Party is not opposition, but I do not talk about DP. I talk about people who seem to be real opposition: Have you read what they say? Do you understand, that they DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO? Or even worse: they KNOW IT, BUT THEY DO NOT DO IT? Do you feel, that the problem is a lot more serious, than 'Democratic Party involvement'?

hmmmm 12.Mar.2006 21:35


I said Democratic Party influence is one big problem, not the problem. It is hard to build momentum for something when you let interests opposed to your effort have a large say in the matter.

The Democratic Party needs to be eliminated from the equation. Then the work of building an alternative can move forward. It is not the answer, but an important first step. Right now the Democratic Party is more dangerous than the Republican Party because so many people do not see it for what it is.

Where is the problem 13.Mar.2006 06:42


To Jason:

You say: "... It is not the answer, but an important first step." No, you first need to know where the problem is. Then you can do something. If you do the first step without knowing the problem, it can be the first step into quagmire.

.. and "Democratic Party is more dangerous than the Republican Party because so many people do not see it ..." Two biggest parties are dangerous, people do not see it ... do you understand, that the society is really sick?

Maybe I will post something about this, but I do not have it yet.

hmmmm 13.Mar.2006 09:15


Sure the society is sick. In a deep state of dis-ease.

Sickness can be cured. There is an impulse, a movement to create the right medicine to heal that sickness. That effort needs to be protected.

The media spins lies. The political parties and corporations are synonomous with corruption. This poison has infected the blood of the society. Most people want something better, but simply do not believe or see the way.

The anti-war movement is one form of medicine. Anywhere people come together and put conscience above greed, love above fear, there is the medicine to correct the sickness that has become rooted in the society.

Novak is right! 13.Mar.2006 09:45


Give me convenience of give me death!

That is our true motto.

hmmmm 13.Mar.2006 10:42


Give me convenience or give me death!

That is our true motto.

No it is not. It has become the state of things, but that does not reflect peoples true aspirations. The sort of defeatism and nihilism that many people feel is not what they they hope for when they dare to envision something better.

The state/corporate power wants you to feel defeated, hopeless, thinking that nobody cares, that people only care about convenience. This is not true. Criticizing society as a defeated motto is also giving in to convenience. We want change to be easy. We give up when we realize we have to work for it.

Yes, the society has grown very indulgent and superficial. Decadent really. Yet people everywhere are feeling it and there is a hunger for more growing in the cracks and under the surface. The story is not yet written.

Medicine 13.Mar.2006 11:15


To Jason:

Right medicine. Good. But what disease this society suffers from? And what if it is lethal?

To Jason 13.Mar.2006 11:38

Convience or death

Regardless of what you think it is the motto of most citizens. Does that mean give up? No.

It does mean we need different strategies, tactics and goals.

Voting and looking for leadership and solutions from the political establishment is ineffective. Why do we think CHANGE happens from the top down and that we are powerless while Wyden is powerful? Wyden had no more power to stop the global madness than you or I. He too is powerless.

People don't change behaviour until they change thoughts, beliefs and attitudes. This is the level we would get the most leverage for real change. Unfortunately, we put too little effort at this level because it's tough to assess progress. However, I submit this is where we must work to change beliefs.

The first belief we need to change is that humans are separate, apart and above all other species. Is it doable? Yes! Is it effective? Yes! Is it easy? No, but what is.

Here is an excellent keynote speech on this subject:  http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/houston_youth.shtml

what disease this society suffers from? 13.Mar.2006 16:51

Jody Paulson

I'd say that disease is ignorance. And I think combatting our own mistaken assumptions is the first step we can take to fix what ails us.

9-11 would be a good place to start.

Ignorance? 14.Mar.2006 12:22


Sure. Many people do not care. But what about people who run opposition movements, web sites like 911? They spend a lot of time by spreading informatin, organizing protests and meetings. They are not ignorant. What is the problem with them?