Political Cartoons

[Hurlshort]

US Presidents also don't wield as much power as the international community tends to assume they have. Even with Obama having a majority in congress, he is dealing with quite a few restriction. And he really only has about 3 years to make progress, then he has to spend a year campaigning to win a second term. Then if he wins, he only has four more years to do stuff, and he has to try and keep his party in power or risk having a lot of his moves reversed.

 

Basically the best part of the US government is the ability to control damage from any one individual who gains power.

[Gorgon]

Maybe we care more about the president and cabinet because they set the agenda on foreign policy, and we aren't as interested in the day to day business of legislation in the house.

 

One small party getting disproportionate influence because they are needed to form a majority is one possible result of a broad spectrum of parties, but ultimately what it teaches all parties is the need for cooperation, for seeking new alliances to break the stalemate. A government will typically contain ministers from several different parties. This is healthier, I think, than cleaving political division down the middle and in effect saying 'stand on this side of the line or the other'.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

I firmly believe in proportional representation, I don't think the federal system is better or more suited to the US, but fundamental political organization doesn't change overnight, or maybe at all, without a revolution or some such, so it doesn't really matter.

 

Agreed.

 

The first, best step for America (and which I hardly think requires a revolution) would be to implement preferential voting.

 

That way if there's, say, 3 parties, 2 right-wing, one left-wing, and they get the following votes (switch left and right if you want):

40% - left

35% - right 1

25% - right 2

 

You don't get a situation where the left party gets in power because of the stupidity of electoral rules. Currently that's the case in Canada and America (with some state exceptions).

[lord of flies]

Ditto Hitler, and to a certain extent, Mussolini. Does that make it right?

Wrong, fascist. Hitler's expansions of power were decided on solely by himself, as with Mussolini. But please, rewrite history all you like if it lets you justify overturning the will of the people, just because your biased, oil-emphasizing media tells you what to think by how it frames everything..

Chavez is a clown, and he's incrementally subverting the democratic process to the point where the country will become yet another banana republic, will spawn a violent right-wing counter-revolution then ooops! Op. Condor all over again. This isn't rocket science, this is politics 101.

 

Most democracies are an imperfect but discrete balancing act between state power and that of capital, else they tend to veer off into some sort of authoritarian / corporatist nightmare.

Of course, the balancing act between "state power" (ie the power of its institutions, which in democracies are responsible to the people) and "that of capital" (ie the power of rich upper-class people to control the general populace). The rest of your post doesn't even deserve a response, it's so full of lying crap. Except this part:

 

Western Capitalist democracy is the least worst system yet developed by the human race, but let's be honest, LotF knows better.

Just... wow. Yes, western capitalist democracy is just so ****ing great, right? Let me tell you a story.

 

Once upon a time, there was an emerging democracy in the second world. But, because of historical happenstance (ie the imperialist devastation the "West" wrought upon the world), a western power had an extremely lopsided trade agreement with it. The local government tried to negotiate with the western power, but they would have nothing of it. It was here that they began to plot his downfall.

 

Because of this, the locals acted to defend their interests, as any rational actor would, by seizing the industries which that western power controlled one hundred percent. And then, not too long thereafter, they were overthrown, in a coup d'etat which ended their fledgling democracy and enacted a long period of bloody suppression. About 24 years later, that government was also overthrown, and the country has been constantly painted as a threat ever since.

 

The prime minister of the new government had previously been arrested by the very same western power which so pushed for his overthrow. Do you know what his crime was? Nazi sympathies.

 

I'm sure you've already guessed which country I'm talking about.

 

That, sir, is western capitalist "democracy," shown clear for all to see. No morality, no beliefs, nothing to back it but rampant unstopped greed, backed by corporate **** who manipulate its every foreign action and a large swath of its domestic action too.

Of course he is. And eventually, the alternative may well be illegal, too. There's a name for that, btw.

Reads like the incredibly one-sided opinion piece it is.

Plenty of examples throughout History. It would do you some good to put Engels' manifesto down for a moment and read that instead. How about you explain why the people have to be trusted to select their own leaders just because they "are the People!"?

Actually, I'm quite aware of history, and horrible leaders who were selected by the people and then had their powers expanded solely by democratic institutions don't come to mind.

Democracy and universal suffrage aren't necessarily one and the same.

Explain further.

[Blarghagh]

How are you guys still going at this? Don't you understand? This is who you're dealing with! All he's going to do is throw accusations of strawman arguements and ad hominem attacks at you for whichever point he can't think of an argument for. Go back to the topic of posting political cartoons and stop taking the bait.

 

Pretty sure a guy with bronchitis can't yell.

 

Between myself and Kurt Cobain, I'm 'pretty sure' you're making things up.

[Meshugger]

BAAAAWWWW-capitalism-democracy, erp, derp, derp.

 

Like anyone is completely unaware of the dark side of democracy. It is the least sh*tty system after all.

 

Your.Manifesto.Now.

[Monte Carlo]

Ha ha ha, he actually called me a fascist. Presumably for disagreeing with him.

 

Then again, I've been called worse things by more substantial people.

 

:: Shrugs ::

[lord of flies]

Like anyone is completely unaware of the dark side of democracy. It is the least sh*tty system after all.

That's not the "dark side of democracy." Tell me, if you put it to a vote, how many Americans in 1953 would vote to overthrow a democratically elected government and replace it with a monarchy where the prime minister was a former Nazi? Do you think it would be a majority? No, of course not. Because, for all the flaws of American culture and society, its people respect some basic dignity. They know that autocrats are bad. Democracies are good. And that the Nazis are the king of all the monsters.

 

This is not the "dark side of democracy." It has nothing to do with democracy. It has to do with capitalism, and the way it twists everything.

 

Did you know capitalism created racism? It's true. Modern racism is more-or-less a direct consequence of colonialism. By encountering new and militarily inferior peoples, the wealthy class - in the case of Spain circa 1492, the inbred autocracy - were presented with an opportunity to expand their own pockets. In order to justify it to the people, they created something: the first form of modern racism. They didn't know who the people on the other side of the Atlantic were. They'd never met them. But they had to categorize them, and they did. They created what is a myth that more-or-less persists to this day: the idea that American Indian civilization circa 1500 was a horrific, murderous creature, a great monster of human sacrifice and brutality that was rightly ended.

 

Later, British settlers became heavily reliant on African slaves. Of course, there were preceding capitalist causes (which lead to those African slaves coming into existence), but those are irrelevant for the moment. It is important to remember that the majority of the white, southern population did not own slaves. Only a rich pseudo-noble class did. But they had to convince the general populace that it was in their best interest to allow slavery. And they did so, with that American racism which still loathes blacks above all others.

 

Tell me - did you know that in their rule, the Nazis privatized, while their neighbors nationalized? It's true. So in the end, what defined Nazism? Socially - racism, created by capitalism. Economically - privatization, driven by capitalism.

 

Hitler was a natural consequence of the capitalist system of oppression.

Your.Manifesto.Now.

True democracy is only achievable in a nation where industry is under control of the people in the form of a democratic government. Maximum responsibility and speed of reaction to popular will are the ideal traits of any democratic government, and this is not possible in a society where a huge swath of the resources are owned by a wealthy few.

Ha ha ha, he actually called me a fascist. Presumably for disagreeing with him.

Good job responding to any of my points. Wait... you just fired off an ad hominem attack and ran away. Edited August 5, 2009 by lord of flies

[213374U]

Reads like the incredibly one-sided opinion piece it is.

Yes, of course, anything that doesn't portray this contemporary Hero of The People under favourable light is nothing but propaganda manufactured by the oil industry-controlled media. Sloppy dodge, even for you.

 

 

Actually, I'm quite aware of history, and horrible leaders who were selected by the people and then had their powers expanded solely by democratic institutions don't come to mind.

"Quite aware", huh?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acerbo_Law

 

They say ignorance is bliss. In your case, it's ****ing ecstasy.

 

 

Democracy and universal suffrage aren't necessarily one and the same.

Explain further.

Wait. Don't tell me you're one of those cranks that actually believe that The Party invented democracy (along with the wheel and penicillin)?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_dem...n_and_exclusion

 

 

Did you know capitalism created racism? It's true. Modern racism is more-or-less a direct consequence of colonialism. By encountering new and militarily inferior peoples, the wealthy class - in the case of Spain circa 1492, the inbred autocracy - were presented with an opportunity to expand their own pockets. In order to justify it to the people, they created something: the first form of modern racism. They didn't know who the people on the other side of the Atlantic were. They'd never met them. But they had to categorize them, and they did. They created what is a myth that more-or-less persists to this day: the idea that American Indian civilization circa 1500 was a horrific, murderous creature, a great monster of human sacrifice and brutality that was rightly ended.

That's a pretty flimsy connection you're making there between "capitalism" and racism, considering that the practice of conquering territories and enslaving the locals was thousands of years old in the 1500's already. They didn't really need to convince the populace of anything, since the power of the Holy ****ing Roman Emperor was pretty much absolute. But nice try.

[Hurlshort]

They created what is a myth that more-or-less persists to this day: the idea that American Indian civilization circa 1500 was a horrific, murderous creature, a great monster of human sacrifice and brutality that was rightly ended.

 

Are you joking here? The "dem injun's got whats they deserved" line of thinking went obsolete quite awhile ago. Indian reservations have been making huge strides in the US, and they are using old fashioned capitalism to do it.

 

 

As a teacher, I can tell you exactly what is taught in our schools today about Native Americans. They are the good guys, and the explorers, missionaries, and colonists are the bad guys who brought disease, war, and religion at the cost of American Indian culture.

 

Seriously, that is how the textbooks are written right now, that is how the state education standards read, and that is how young folks are learning. So I'm not sure where your myth is persisting.

[Aristes]

And frankly, neither case is true. I think that there were so many factors building into the meetings that it's hard for us to make a fair assessment this late in the game. ...But, hey, the Europeans did bring death and destruction to the Americas. That much is certain. They also had the wherewithal to bring it because of their economies, although I would also argue that Spain, having emerged with a highly trained and effective army and a growing population had extra incentive at any rate. The point is, though, that capitalism didn't genetically engineer diseases to which the native population had no natural resistance. Without that biological factor, there's really no telling what might have happened here. Africa? That's a much better example, in my opinion, because the biological factor actually worked against the Europeans and the case against Capitalism is much stronger. I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist, but I think it's fair to point out deficiencies or problems with any system.

[Gorgon]

They created what is a myth that more-or-less persists to this day: the idea that American Indian civilization circa 1500 was a horrific, murderous creature, a great monster of human sacrifice and brutality that was rightly ended.

 

Are you joking here? The "dem injun's got whats they deserved" line of thinking went obsolete quite awhile ago. Indian reservations have been making huge strides in the US, and they are using old fashioned capitalism to do it.

 

 

Seriously, that is how the textbooks are written right now, that is how the state education standards read, and that is how young folks are learning. So I'm not sure where your myth is persisting.

Well what else would they 'use'. Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the way the world works. Play along or get left behind.

 

PS :

 

LoF doesn't really believe his own position, he's arguing it for laughs, in case you missed the news.

[213374U]

LoF doesn't really believe his own position, he's arguing it for laughs, in case you missed the news.

This is the internets. Nobody is to be taken seriously.

[alanschu]

Least of all LoF.

 

I still chuckle at his accusations that my Coltan comes from the Congo. It was clear then he was either a troll, or just someone not so good at playing Devil's Advocate.

 

 

At least I hope so. Otherwise he's just one of those misguided sycophants with a warped perspective on reality.

Edited August 6, 2009 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

I just love the idea that history organises itself along lines of what is right and wrong. The fall of a civilisation, with all its people, thoughts, art and ideals is no more right or wrong than rain fall. It's a consequence of actions and events.

 

Personally I fail to see why one should get more animated about the conquering of the Native Americans than the conquering of the Welsh. Or for that matter, the Celts. Understand it, be saddened, fine. But the fall of a militarily feeble culture is as predictable as a sandcastle getting washed away at high tide. It's just a matter of time.

[lord of flies]

Seriously, that is how the textbooks are written right now, that is how the state education standards read, and that is how young folks are learning. So I'm not sure where your myth is persisting.

Apocalypto. It is a movie about how an American Indian is going to be sacrificed, but at the end he is saved by the arrival of the Spanish.

"Quite aware", huh?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acerbo_Law

 

They say ignorance is bliss. In your case, it's ****ing ecstasy.

Mussolini gained power in a coup. Hitler was already suppressing his enemies long before the Enabling Act and kept on doing so long after it should have rightly expired. In the end though... if Hitler had never invaded another country, only suppressing his own people and perhaps annexing Austria... he would not be noted as one of history's greatest villains. Massive genocides have been committed since then and gone unnoticed.

Wait. Don't tell me you're one of those cranks that actually believe that The Party invented democracy (along with the wheel and penicillin)?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_dem...n_and_exclusion

Democracy means "rule by the people." If only a small minority (as in Athenian democracy) can actually vote, it is not a democracy - it is an oligarchy.

That's a pretty flimsy connection you're making there between "capitalism" and racism, considering that the practice of conquering territories and enslaving the locals was thousands of years old in the 1500's already. They didn't really need to convince the populace of anything, since the power of the Holy ****ing Roman Emperor was pretty much absolute. But nice try.

Xenophobia is very, very different from racism. Xenophobia is an underlying human condition. But for a xenophobic Roman (let's say), it makes as much sense to fear a German as a Turk. Everyone is equal, in a way - there is Us, and Not Us. It's simple. Pure. There is no depth there, no proximate cause but human tribalism. But modern racism is too complicated to be described as just a natural extension of xenophobia. Why fear blacks, but not, say, the vietnamese?

 

And what does the power of the "Holy Roman Emperor" have to do with anything?

[Monte Carlo]

Apocalypto. It is a movie about how an American Indian is going to be sacrificed, but at the end he is saved by the arrival of the Spanish.

 

Funny thing, really, I was reading The UK Times 'Top 10 Historically Innacurate Movies of all time' and Mister Gibson directed three of them (Braveheart, Apocalypto and The Patriot).

 

For the record, Apocalypto is about a Mayan (not being pedantic, it is utterly different from being an American Indian) who by some bizarre distortion of historical accuracy ends up being involved in an Aztec sacrifical ceremony and escapes. Having escaped by his own volition, he sees a Spanish galleon off shore (which I read as an Out-of-The-Frying-Pan moment, personally), harbinger of disease and slavery. There's no way that any cogent viewer can say that he's 'saved' by the Spanish.

 

Anyway, as a suspense driven and violent chase movie it's actually quite good, but this is the wrong thread for that.

[Monte Carlo]

And what does the power of the "Holy Roman Emperor" have to do with anything?

 

I'm sure the guy can speak for himself, but I took it as a comment on your insistence that racism appeared, magically, at a specific moment in history driven by Capitalism. And that humankind's long and painful history of nastiness to each other based on race, that almost certainly predates modern capitalism, is conveniently ignored in your rather specious analysis.

[213374U]

Mussolini gained power in a coup. Hitler was already suppressing his enemies long before the Enabling Act and kept on doing so long after it should have rightly expired. In the end though... if Hitler had never invaded another country, only suppressing his own people and perhaps annexing Austria... he would not be noted as one of history's greatest villains. Massive genocides have been committed since then and gone unnoticed.

Quit squirming. You asked for examples that were elected by the people and had had their powers expanded by democratic institutions. Both fit the bill.

 

Mussolini had a ~2/3 majority in the 1924 election AFTER the Acerbo Law was passed by the Italian Parliament. Vote rigging and coercion can only do so much if you don't have a vast popular support. So much for democratic convictions, eh?

 

Hitler did earn his seats in the Reichstag, like it or not. And with von Papen as his vice chancellor and von Hindenburg as President, his power was FAR from absolute. It was in fact von Papen's overconfidence and von Hindenburg's apathy and inability that allowed things like the Reichstag fire decree to be enacted. It's a clear example of a powermonger manipulating the people and gaming the system.

 

 

Democracy means "rule by the people." If only a small minority (as in Athenian democracy) can actually vote, it is not a democracy - it is an oligarchy.

Um, not quite. If you had actually read, you would know that all it took for citizens to earn the right to vote was for them to complete their basic military service. It wasn't dependant on heritage, wealth or influence, so it's only an oligarchy in your mind.

 

Twice you have dodged the question of why political rights should be freely given as opposed to earned somehow. What have YOU done for the good of your country to be entitled to ANYTHING?

 

 

 

Xenophobia is very, very different from racism. Xenophobia is an underlying human condition. But for a xenophobic Roman (let's say), it makes as much sense to fear a German as a Turk. Everyone is equal, in a way - there is Us, and Not Us. It's simple. Pure. There is no depth there, no proximate cause but human tribalism. But modern racism is too complicated to be described as just a natural extension of xenophobia. Why fear blacks, but not, say, the vietnamese?

Wrong. Outsiders in any given society in antiquity were treated as inferior beings. There was no argument behind it other than "they are barbarians". Pretty much the same as it's with your racism, only there's more words and pseudoscience to disguise it, a reminiscence of the Enlightenment, perhaps. I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on that connection between "scientific" racism and capitalism, though.

 

 

And what does the power of the "Holy Roman Emperor" have to do with anything?

You know that's the title of the guy that made the Spanish Empire, right?

[Calax]

Because, for all the flaws of American culture and society, its people respect some basic dignity. They know that autocrats are bad. Democracies are good. And that the Nazis are the king of all the monsters.

Ah, but do they know these facts because they were taught about others and decided that this was the best way? Or do they know this because it's drilled into our heads from day 1 of school that America is da greatest nation? I'm not saying out school system is trying to corrupt our youth or anything, just that often our sense of good, evil, right, wrong, proper, and improper, is built around the society we live in. For example, in the 1800's people weren't really bothered by slavery, in fact they thought it was the way things were done. This was because society raised them with this concept, now a days we view slavery as abominable, but to hold our ancestors up to the same moral standards we have is a stupid idea because we don't have the same mindset or frame of reference that they did.

 

As to the Apocolypto comment, you're really using a movie to prove your point? I guess that you also believe that in the Civil War a single militia captain was able to make the british loose the war. Or that at the end of the roman empire, King Arthur was a Roman captain who ran a garrison and who trusted indentured servants more than he trusted other Legionaries.

 

If you're going to argue, give examples and facts rather than changing somebody elses words to suit your needs, or changing what you said to "win". Particularly on the 'net where your every word is logged by the system.

[Hurlshort]

I point to the educational standards of public education and he points to a Mel Gibson movie. Well played sir.

[Aristes]

Actually, slavery was quite contentious from virtually the very beginning. It was always the 800lb gorilla in the room. Most assuredly, most folks in the 1800s were not okay with it. The issue was contentious and most folks probably wanted the issue to go away one way or the other.

 

However, your larger point seems fair enough. I mean, the Romans literally had a slave economy. Most of them were okay with it for the reasons you said. Even then, there were plenty of folks in antiquity who argued against slavery.

[Pidesco]

At the risk of offending almost everyone in the world, I'd like to point out that most likely, at one point, slavery was a revolutionary source of progress for mankind.

 

 

How's that for evilly controversial?

[Aristes]

Sounds Lawful Evil!

 

And slavery did work well for labor intensive industries like mining and farming. Now we have technology. I still hate slavery, though. That's because I'm one of those misguided Americans who believes in freedom. oh my goodness! I said something positive about my country? Oh noes! haha

[Calax]

Actually, slavery was quite contentious from virtually the very beginning. It was always the 800lb gorilla in the room. Most assuredly, most folks in the 1800s were not okay with it. The issue was contentious and most folks probably wanted the issue to go away one way or the other.

 

However, your larger point seems fair enough. I mean, the Romans literally had a slave economy. Most of them were okay with it for the reasons you said. Even then, there were plenty of folks in antiquity who argued against slavery.

so I picked a bad example, but still the point stands that we are "brainwashed" by the society we're raised in, taboo's, shame, modest, all of these are pushed into our head by our society, which is not necessarily a bad thing but can limit peoples thinking.