Noam Chomsky on Post-Midterm America: "Democrats are barely what moderate Republicans were 30, 40 years ago."

Heralded as the most quoted living thinker, Noam Chomsky is one my favorite scholars. In the following he makes a great point, that the Liberal-Conservative divide in our country is no more than an illusion in the minds of ordinary Americans. Yes, politically we tend to think left, right, and center. However, in effect they're all one in the same with little distinction; more importantly, both parties have shifted to the right.


Here's an excerpt from the above interview via The Real News Network:

I would drop the term left, 'cause, I mean, what is called the left in the media is what used to be called moderate Republicans. The so-called new Democrats are barely—they're essentially what moderate Republicans were 30, 40 years ago. The Republicans are just brashly and openly the party of private power, private tyranny. They—I mean, they talk about we're the common man and elites, but so does everyone. But if you look at the policies, that's what it is. Take, say, Obama. I mean, the core of his funding in the 2000 [sic] election was actually financial institutions. And when groups of investors get together to control the state—what we call an election—they expect to be paid back. And they were.

[...] Well, you know, I think the term stimulus has been turned into a dirty word, like taxes. But if there was real discussion about this, public discussion about it, I think most of the population would probably agree with leading economists, Nobel laureates, who say what we need is a big stimulus. Deficit reduction down the road, maybe. But we didn't have a stimulus. I mean, if you take a look at the Obama stimulus, I mean, contrary to tons of lies about it, there's good objective evidence that it did save maybe a couple of million jobs. However, it was a very small stimulus, and it was wiped out by cutbacks in government spending at other levels. So the stimulus was actually more or less the same as the cutback in state and local spending. So that means there was stimulus.

[...] for roughly 35, 30 years, a little more, wages for the majority, real wages, have pretty much stagnated, working hours have increased. People have been getting by by having two adults working, or women in the workforce at lower wages, and by debt, and by asset inflation, like, say, the housing bubble. Well, that's just not viable. And meanwhile these same people see that there's plenty of wealth around, but it's going into very few pockets. I mean, the top maybe 1 percent or even one-tenth of 1 percent of the population have been making out like bandits. And so we now have this incredible inequality, maybe back to the '20s, or maybe even a record. And this is part of people's consciousness. I'm working harder. Things are getting worse. I'm working more hours. Benefits which were never very good have declined. Meanwhile, other people are getting very rich. Something's wrong. Give me an answer. They were right to ask for an answer. They're not going to get it from the Democrats, the people who are called the left, because they are the ones who have been denying and implementing policies. They're not going to say, yeah, that's true; that's what happens when we participated in the huge growth of the financial sector, which is of dubious significance for the economy, may be harmful, largely; we did that, and we assisted the policy of hollowing out production, which is a policy of setting working people in competition with each other throughout the world. So what we call our trade policies—a bad term for it. Certainly not free-trade policies. What are called free-trade policies are essentially a program setting working people against each other throughout the world, but protecting the privileged people. So, for example, we don't allow foreign doctors and lawyers and economists and others to practice here. There's all kind of barriers to it.

Two Black Republicans Elected to Congress: Thank You Jesus; We're Finally Post-Racial!

I'm not in a very good mood right now, folks. Well, put it this way, there's some stuff I'm hearing that has me pretty foul right about now; and it has to do with my beloved president. I hope it's just a rumor, but I'm hearing talk about the White House caving to the republicans, and choosing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. Yeah, that combined with the talk of proposed cuts to Social Security, and an increase in gas tax has me a little ticked off right now.

But I don't want to to talk about that right now; no, not yet. However, I do want to throw something out there that I received in email a couple of days ago from my cousin AverageBro. It's an article written by that beautiful Nubian Goddess above, Star Parker. A woman who up until a little over a week ago, like me, didn't believe that here in Amuur'cuh, our society is post-racial. However, she firmly believes we are now, and here's why:

Will the NAACP be celebrating the arrival of two new black faces to the U.S. House of Representatives?

Don’t hold your breath. They certainly will not.  These two new black congressmen are Republicans.

There’s a powerful message here that should and must be digested.

We have arrived in post-racial America but establishment blacks – lodged in the political left – refuse to accept it and are doing all they can to get black citizens to refuse to accept it.

The sobering reality is that the black political establishment doesn’t want Dr. King’s dream.  They don’t want an America where people are judged by the content of their character.  They want an America that is Democrat and left wing and this is what they promote today under the banner of civil rights.

The campaign by the NAACP and leading black journalists – all liberals – to paint the Tea Party movement, the push back against government growth and intrusiveness over the last two years, as motivated by racism is shameful.

Look Who's Voted!: Drunk Patriotic Rednecks

According to United States States Election Project, this year, there was an average of 218 million eligible voters. Now, of that many eligible voters, only 42% voted; yes, that would be roughly 91 million people. Now everybody knows that Barack Obama was not on the ballot, and of course, with this being the case, low black voter turnout is being scapegoated by some as being one of the reasons Dems took the hit they did in this years midterm elections.

Well, according to CBS.com:

Independents make up an estimated 28 percent of voters in the early exit polls, with 39 percent voting Democratic and 56 percent Republican.

Black voter turnout also appears to be lower during the midterm election. An estimated 10 percent of blacks are voting, compared to 13 percent in 2008. The exit polling found 8 percent of voters are Hispanic, with 66 percent voting Democratic.

In addition, men are voting more Republican, 55 percent compared to 43 for the Democrats. Among women, Democrats have a one point edge, 49% are voting for Democrats and 48% for Republicans. In 2008, more women voted Democratic. In 2002, women voted 49 percent Republican and 49 percent Democratic.

I've been having a conversation with my father-in-law about the perceived problematic issue of low black voter turnout for a couple of days now. He's convinced that it presented itself to truly being a contributing factor to the ass-whoopin taken by the Democrats. As a matter of fact, he made me laugh when he said that if Lil Wayne was released from prison on Tuesday as opposed to today, black voter turnout would've been less.

GUEST BLOGGER: You Big Dummy: How Black Folks Gave GOP the Nation

by Dr. Torrance Stephens


Imagine this; Fred Sanford is at home, sitting down listening to the election returns from around the nation on his radio from NPR. Well not really, imagine me at home in the bed listening to the national election results on the radio, after all that’s what amounted for my entertainment last night. All I could say to myself, upon return upon return were Mr. Sanford’s legendary description of his son Lamont “you big dummy.”

It seemed to fit the evening correctly, both in terms of describing the democrats and the Obama administration and the fools who voted the GOP in office around the country by a historic level. In fact not since 1948, when Truman was president have we seen such a large take over of the house by one party. We know what happened nationally, now in the US House of representatives the GOP controls 239 seats, a pick up of 60 and also added 10 gubernatorial seats that they swiped from democrats

But even more troubling is what occurred on the state levels. In Georgia for example, the second Republican governor was elected in a row since 2002. Prior to this Georgia had not had a Republican Governor since Reconstruction. And for your history Buffs that is since Benjamin Conley in 1872, who ironically was one of the persons who assisted in promoting harsh resolutions condemning the state's failure to comply with the Reconstruction Acts of Congress in the organization of the General Assembly in an effort to reseat the colored members, kicked out by democrats:“A former Whig, Conley had opposed secession and retired to his plantation near Montgomery, Alabama, for the duration of the war. On his return to Georgia after the surrender it was natural for him to join the Republicans and to support the congressional plan for Reconstruction.”

But back to my point. In the state house the won 17 seats giving republicans 107 of the 180 seats and in the senate the control 37 of the 56 district senate seats.

Now what caused this? I don’t listen to pundits but I have my own developed postulate on the outcome. Now unlike many I don’t credit this too the Tea (Taxed enough Already) party, and don’t understand how folk, especially black folk can suggest such when they likely don’t even know what the acronym stand for or their beliefs, albeit most of which are rooted in agoraphobic based nativism. But I can say first and foremost is President Obama.

How Dems Allowed the Tea Party to Rebrand the GOP

If everything holds true as pretty much every single poll suggests. Democrats are going to take significant losses in the House this midterm elections. I suspect that once it's all said and done and there will be much finger pointing on the left, while folks on the right will see this as some moral victory willed by God.

So, quite naturally, there'll be a lot of blame to go around, that is, if it hasn't started already. But the truth is, the Obama administration, and the Democratic Party, aside from the idiocy that is the right, bears some responsibility, if not all for their demise. However, it would be interesting to see just how this plays out.

With the imaginable quest for bi-partisanship that was as elusive as the unicorn. The White House lead Democrats all but failed to hold up their end of the bargain, and made compromise after compromise.

This from regular reader shadygrady on my last post:

Ladies and Gents....

The POTUS made a strategic mistake in not seizing the moment for bold action to break with what had gone previously. He had the entire free-market right wing orthodoxy on the ropes and not only did he not move in for the kill, he also inexplicably went out of his way to help his opponent off the ropes even while he was being spat upon and kidney punched. In short, the POTUS doesn't seem to have the heart for combat.

Tough talk about "punishing your enemies" or "having to know whose a$$ to kick" doesn't change the fact that 9 times out of 10 when faced with determined and insanely vitriolic opposition from the Right, the POTUS has either tried to find middle ground or folded. And whether or not it's true, insulting the intelligence or concerns of the larger American electorate is not a winning political strategy. Neither was being 100% concerned on health care while unemployment rate was consistently over 9% too smart politically.

So whatever happens tomorrow, I hope that the POTUS can learn and readjust. If not, well the next two years will be that much more interesting.

I couldn't agree more; but I suppose folks would say he's wrong.

The following commentary comes from The Real News Network's senior editor, Paul Jay. In it he sums up the frustration of many progressives and members of the "professional" and "unprofessional" left such as myself.

Take the time to view it, and do share your thoughts, will you? Do tell me, in your opinion, where exactly did things go wrong, and just how did we get here with only 2yrs removed 2008's presidential mandate?

The American Voter: Short on Memory, Full of Fear, & Long on Stupid

Frankly, I'm tired of all the prognosticators with their "this Republican tsunami is a message to President Barack Obama that he's a failure." Wanna know the truth? The only message being sent is that some Americans have short memories, and are downright foolish. But hey, when you listen to oxygen thieves like Sarah Palin, what else is to be expected? But no, polls indicate that "certain folks" are fed up.

OK, so for many, they see Obama's policies as being the epic height of fiscal irresponsibility. And sure, Barack Obama and the Democrats are bad for the country, but are the Republicans any better? Can anyone including the man on Main Street convince me that yes they will better than what we have now?

I'm only asking because, well, according to Main Street, Obama & Co. should have had all sidewalks paved with gold by now; yeah, 18mths is more than enough time. Not hardly a small feat for a Magic Negro, right?

Here's One More Reson to Get Out and Vote for...

The Democratic Party; pay attention:


Not that they haven't before; c'mon, this is America. But you can best believe that they're not sitting at home next Tuesday, so why should you? I know it's become cliche that every election cycle is dubbed as crucial. But, this years midterm elections, more than ever, much like the 2008 presidential elections, is very crucial.

Big props to presente.org, as well as ColorOfChange.org for bringing this friendly reminder of what's at stake. If you haven't already, do vote next Tuesday. I can't tell you who to vote for; you do so in good conscience, on your own. However, after watching the above video, it shouldn't be hard to figure the right thing to do.

Black Republican Candidates Get No Love From the GOP (Oh You Whiney Negroes!)

Memphis 9th District Republican Nominee Charlotte Bergmann 

Seems like some of our cousins aren't happy with the Republican party. Yeah I know, hard to imagine, right? I mean as inclusive and ethnically diverse as is the republican party, it's kinda hard to understand why some of our proud black republican skinfolk are grumbling with party leadership. Hell, in this new age of post-racial politics, the last thing you would expect is a few of them upsetting the GOP apple cart, no?

Three long-shot African-American Republican House candidates are fuming at national party leaders for not doing enough to help get them elected.

Campaign managers for Chuck Smith in Virginia, Charlotte Bergmann in Tennessee and Marvin Scott in Indiana all said the support they’ve received from GOP leaders this cycle has been dismal. They added that there could be consequences for the party if they are elected to Congress next year.

Smith’s campaign manager, Lisa Creeden, said she wishes her boss could count on the party’s help; no Republican has held Virginia’s 3rd district in 18 years.

‘I think the Republican Party is going to damage themselves with the African-American community,’ Creeden said. ‘I understand part of it is they are focused on races they can win easily, but our point is we couldn’t necessarily win this easily, but we can still win it. The effort to reach out to the African-American community will pay out in future elections. (source)

Wait, they're running in Tennessee, Virginia, and Indiana? And they're not getting any love from party higher-ups? And they're upset? Hell, the GOP probably doesn't know there're black people living in those states much less black people willing to dance the jig while tarred and feathered actually run on the republican ticket!

Boy do you black folks love to complain.

Hey Chicago: Vote for "Rich Whitey!"

Oh man this years midterm election shenanigans are indeed a gift from the comedy Gods. Everyday it would seem like there's some goofy story centered on said upcoming elections. Filed under the "you can't make this shit up", or more appropriately "WTF!", comes this story out of the capital of political corruption in America. Only this time, this was an honest mistake that today has left Illinois voters shaking their heads.

CHICAGO (AP) - An Illinois gubernatorial candidate's name was mistakenly listed as "Rich Whitey" instead of Rich Whitney on thousands of Chicago electronic-voting machines and will be corrected, elections officials said Thursday.

Chicago elections board Chairman Langdon Neal said crews will work overtime to reprogram and retest 530 machines being used for early voting and an additional 4,200 destined for the Nov. 2 election. The mistake in the Green Party candidate's name appears on a review screen that allows voters to double-check their selections and not on the screen where the vote is registered. It also is not on paper ballots, Neal said.

He said the board became aware of the typo Wednesday and called Whitney's lawyer Thursday morning. But Green Party Chairman Phil Huckelberry said a party member found the mistake Tuesday and was brushed off by city election officials for a day.

"We don't have any idea what affect that has had on voters," Huckelberry said. "I think something needs to be done above and beyond what they're doing."

Not only has the mistake made Chicago a laughingstock, he said, but "our candidate ... has been tagged with a name that really isn't that nice." (source)

Now the thing that makes this hilarious, is the fact that this actually happened in Chicago, Ill. It could have happened anywhere as an honest mistake I suppose. But it happened in the county with the largest black population per capita. Can you imagine the faces of black voters in particular after seeing the name "Rich Whitey" as a gubernatorial candidate? Yep, and he's running on the Green Party ticket? Green Party, get it?

Now it's not like we've haven't voted for "Rich Whitey" before. Let's face it, with the rising cost of political campaigns, I seriously doubt we'll ever see a "Poor Whitey", or worse, a "Rich Negro" or "Po' Coon" on the ballot ever.

Rep. James Clyburn Pushes Back Against Critics of Dems, CBC

[Editor's Note: Last week I mentioned Rep. Jim Clyburn's outreach to black bloggers to help shape the message as we head into the 2010 Midterm elections. Well, my blog cousin Danielle Belton aka The Black Snob attended the event. Do check out her recap and share your thoughts.]

And he did it with a history lesson.

In a fiery presser on Capitol Hill Thursday where he at times seemed visibly frustrated, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn blasted members of the Democratic base who were withdrawing support, money during the Midterm elections. He said those Liberal and progressive critics who get stuck on things like the health care bill not being exactly what they wanted lose sight of the long battle.

"I don't understand this notion that if I can't get everything right now then there's no tomorrow," Clyburn said.

Clyburn was holding an on-the-record chat with black bloggers, invited to his office at the Capitol, the latest high profile interaction a member of the Democratic Party has made in an effort to reach out to the African American online community to build support for candidates in the contentious midterms where the Democrats face losing their majorities in Congress.

Democrats and President Obama have received criticism from the left for the health care legislation, which they charged did not go far enough. Some are now abandoning their support, leading Clyburn to decry their actions. Pointing out that if members of the pro-civil rights coalition had stopped supporting pro-civil rights candidates simply because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't contain everything they wanted -- a provision on protecting the right to vote by getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes -- the movement would have dissolved.