Monday, June 22, 2009


This article was originally a comment on an article by Cindy Sheehan on OpEdNews in which she discusses her "late life epiphany" that both the Republicans and Democrats are part of the same war party and discusses the Democrats recent vote for appropriations to fund the U.S. wars in Iraq, afghanistan, and Pakietan.

By Robert Halfhill

It was predicted that the last presidential campaign was going to cost a billion dollars. Without spending hundreds of millions, a candidate cannot let the majority of voters know that he or she even exists. And the only way to get that kind of money is to go to those that have that kind of money. And the people who have that kind of money are not just contributing to political candidates as a hobby. They are unlikely to fund any candidate who won't legislate to promote their interests. Since both the Democrats and the Republicans are funded by the same wealthy interest groups, it is not surprising that there is so little difference between the two parties

Thus it was the majority of Democrats who voted for the Taft Hartley Act in 1947, meaning that the act would have passed even is all those big, bad Republicans had been magically removed from Congress. Taft Hartley outlawed secondary boycotts so, it there was a strike at a particular plant, the workers in other unions could no longer support the strike by refusing to make deliveries to that plant. The outlawing of secondary boycotts is a major reason for American labor's decline from representing over a third of the American workforce in the 1940's to its present anemic state of representing only a few percent of American workers.

Although the introduction of U.S. troops in Vietnam began under Eisenhower with several hundred American troops serving as "advisers" to the forces of the Diem regime, Kennedy, who many liberals considered so promising, increased U.S. forces to several thousand, which Johnson escalated to the point of having 500,000 troops in Vietnam. It was as if the ruling class assigned to the two parties the task of carrying out an imperialist invasion of Vietnam and the two parties handed off the task of escalating the invasion to each other through their successive administrations. It seemed that way, that it was as if, because it was.

Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on Gays and Lesbians in the military and admit the Haitian boat people as refugees into the United States. Instead, he gave us Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, which resulted in even more Gays and Lesbians being thrown out of the military. ACT UP had to picket Clinton's every public appearance for months before he let some of the Haitians who were dying of AIDS into the United States on medical parole. Clinton did keep one of his promises however; he ended wellfare as we know it. So we can all breathe a sigh of relief that Dole or Bush, Sr. didn't beat Clinton. If either of them had won the presidency, THEY WOULD HAVE ENDED WELLFARE AS WE KNOW IT!!!

Barack Obama is turning out to be as big a disappointment as Kennedy-Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. He has yet to end the ban on Gays and Lesbians in the military, legalize medicinal uses of marijuana and ramp back the war on drugs. The war on drugs was given to us by both the Democrats and Republicans and has led to two millions Americans being currently in prison, not to mention those who are on probation or parole. Enough Democrats may vote with the Republicans to keep publically funded health insurance from passing Congress, leaving us with the same failed health care system we currently have. And the Obama Administration just gor over a hundred million dollars through Congress for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

However, the ruling class in this country have quite cleverly arranged to have two ruling class parties, one, the Democrats, slightly -- only SLIGHTLY -- less evil than the Republicans. But this slight difference enables the advocates of voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil, even after you have pointed out all the evil we have received from the Democrats, to argue that things would be much worse under the Republicans. This fear of how much worse things would be under the Republicans, causes all the liberals who are desperately clinging to the Democrats with there lesser evil strategy, to hysterically attack you once you point out the flaws in their stategy, terrified of the doom they imagine befalling them if you cause enough people to abandon their lesser evil stategy and cause the sky to fall. And since both the Democrats and Republicans are financed by the ruling class, it is no accident that the organizations who advocate supporting one of these parties, even if only lesser evil support, have the larger email lists, etc.

It is time for us all to stop and reflect. The difference in evil between the Republicans and Democrats is no where near great enough to justify all the time, effort, and money liberals have expended on electing Democrats. Remember how the Kennedy Administration, which liberals compared with Camelot, ended in the disaster of Vietnam. Remember all the hopes liberal had for the Clinton Administration and how that turned out. Now Obama seems on the way to disappointing us again, and, if we invest the same hopes in whatever Democratic administration follows Obama, we will be likewise disappointed and no nearer to our goals. And we will continue to be disappointed by the Democrats until we stop letting the Democrats frighten us with the big, bad, Republican wolf if we don't vote for them, bite the bullet, and begin the hard work of building a viable third party alternative.

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 326 comments [3 hidden, 0 flagged]) on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:51:15 PM (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here:, or call 1-888-212-5537.


Anonymous d.eris said...

Exactly. With the appropriate substitutions (i.e. Republican for Democrat, conservative for liberal), the same could be said of the other side in the duopoly charade.

6/24/2009 5:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home