History in perspective
In 1850s America, the two dominant political parties, the Democrats and the Whigs, were united in their support of an economic system constructed upon the enslavement of Africans.Out of that heinous political predicament, a third party, the Republicans, comprised in large part by principled slavery abolitionists, was born. The third party carried Illinois in 1854, electing a senator, and then six years later, delivered one of their own, Abraham Lincoln, to the White House. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and then in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment, outlawing slavery, was added to the U.S. Constitution.
In early 21st century America, the two dominant political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, were united in their pursuit of corporate and military industrial support, and in their backing of an imperial occupation of Iraq. In 2003, members of both political parties in the Senate joined together in brushing aside that chamber's sole authority to declare war, and allowed the nation's chief executive to pursue permanent military action in the battle-torn Middle Eastern country. The decidedly-minor of the two major political parties at that time, the Democrats, began waging congressional and presidential campaigns under the public rhetoric of "reform," but upon gaining control of both houses of Congress in 2006, set about proving their promises hollow-- funneling even more tax money into the illegal and bloody occupation, and granting the country's corporate and military industrial machine greater freedom to construct permanent bases in that Mideast region, inflaming the world.
Out of that heinous political predicament, an as-yet-to-be-determined number of principled citizens began calling for better options on their political ballots. The populace had grown so dissatisfied with their political choices by this time that the concept of an independent candidate for president who could buy his way into the White House with his own personal finances-- an anti-democratic idea if ever there was one-- was considered a more attractive alternative than the status quo-- candidates whose loyalties lied with monied interests in the shadows.
The best option on the ballot promised to be Ralph Nader, perhaps the country's greatest public citizen. Over a lifetime of work, Nader had proven he was beholden to no one but the citizenry at large, and had enlisted thousands of other impassioned Americans to help deliver the progress in which they collectively believed-- fairer elections, greater corporate accountability, safer transportation, cleaner air, and better dissemination and availability of information. Sadly, he has, thus far, encountered more vicious opposition from the players in our corporate-strangled government than he ever did from even General Motors, the corporate behemoth in his crosshairs of reform in the 1960s that futilely attempted to ensnare him in public scandal. What will the future bring?
posted by CM @ 6:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home