The Bipartisan Ship
Any time you hear the term bipartisan, check “your six” and check your wallet. It means the ruling class is united and on the move. Given the history of this term, I can’t imagine why it doesn’t send shudders down our collective spine. They call it bipartisanship; but it’s more like The Bipartisan Ship — the primary war vessel of the ultra-elite.
The Bipartisan Ship is why we don’t have universal health care. The Bipartisan Ship is why there is no meaningful right for workers to organize in most states. The Bipartisan Ship is why the two state-institutions that can openly engage in heterosexist discrimination are marriage and the military. The Bipartisan Ship is what gave us the “free trade” agreements that have gutted local enterprises, destroyed the trade union movement, savaged the economies of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and reinforced overpriced war materiel contracts as a surrogate export market during an apparently permanent trade deficit. The Bipartisan Ship gave us the largest prison population on earth (raw numbers… China with 1.3 billion people has 1.5 million in lockup… we have 2.1 million locked up in a population of a mere 300 million). The Bipartisan Ship is the Death Star dressed up like the Love Boat.
In this election, the average cost of a House seat (in campaign cash) was alm ost a million dollars ($960,000 to be more exact). The average cost of a Senate seat was $7.8 million. This pretty well consoidates the loyalty of anyone wanting to serve (and that is the right word) in Congress. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money, updates the figures frequently; and what is remarkable is not which top contributors give to which party, but how many of the top contributors (representing Wall Street and Big Business) give generously to both parties. You see, they are all on the same cruise, headed for the same destination.
That destination includes perserving American supremacy in the world, which allows us to live our profligate and completely unsustanable lifestyles here long enough to get through another business and election cycle… all at the direct expense of the poorer people in the world. Yes, I know this is an unpopular thing to say; but the manner to which we have become accustomed is paid for by a steady flow of value drained from the peripheral regions and sucked into this giant, wasteful, dangerous, and dirty technomass that will one day leave our children stranded on a toxic scrap heap wondering how we let this happen.
Right now, that means the mission of The Bipartisan Ship is to ensure the continued flow of the fuel (literally) for this massive parasitism. The Bipartisan Ship is committed to maintaining control, by hook or by crook, of the region whose residents live inconveniently atop more than half the world’s easily recoverable oil, and adjacent to most of the world’s natural gas. Let’s not forget that The Bipartisn Ship was all-aboard for the Energy War. Their reluctant change of heart is nothing but a dilemma. They are caught between the Scylla of growing domestic opposition ot the war and the Charybdis of the necessity of cheap oil to maintain this profligacy a little bit longer. Apres moi, as they say, le deluge.
So they blame the Republicans, and poor delusional Donny Rumsfeld (may his name be forgotten until the first subpoena), for mismanaging the war. How do they get out of this dilemma… for just a bit longer? I’ll tell you how. They claim they are waiting for a bipartisan commission.
Commissions… the last refuge of bipartisan scoundrels.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission that Democrats are now using as cover and concealment is led by two professional commission-leaders, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, both veterans of ruling class, pasty-faced, male mandarinism — one a Republican operative and the other a Democrat… respectively.
Opportunism and an unwavering committment to American imperialism led the Democrats to jump on the war wagon. Now that the war has proven unwinnable, and support for it is disappearing like Spring snow, they find themselves stranded. They can’t oppose the war (as a party) and call for immediate, unilateral withdrawal (the only sensible, legal, and moral option), even though opposition to the war just vaulted them over the finish line in an off-year protest election. They can’t investigate the war based on its illegality (an unequivocal violation of the UN Charter), because they committed the same exact violation of international law when they eagerly supported Bill Clinton’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.
Bipartisans love bombs. They love the contracts to build them. They love the macho cache of talking about them and raining them on the heads of anonymous families abroad as a display of “resolve.”
The Baker-Hamilton Commission, if you’ll pardon my language, isn’t designed to do jack shit about the war, except figure out how to dampen down our opposition to it a little bit longer, and to give the Democratic Partysome breathing space, now trapped in its victory and the twin-realities of an unwinnable war and the beginnings of a permanent decline in American imperial power. Exposing this sham is the first step in retaining the power that we-the-people exercised two days ago.
The message was not, “We love Democrats.” The message was that we want this bloody, illegal, and immoral war to end. We don’t expect opportunistic Democrats to inaugurate a love-fest with battered Republicans. We are polarized, and we expect you to act like it. We don’t expect reconciliation. We will never be reconciled to this war, and the Baker-Hamilton Commission can go straight to hell.
ld:
But Stan, within the noxious constraints of the moment, the election outcome that came to pass is precisely what you hoped for, n’est-ce pas? The Dems take control of Congress and prove to be the vacillators and Janus face of death’s-head neo-liberal imperialism we know them to be; those who voted with the inchoate hope and expectation that things would be BETTER with Nancy Pelosi snatching the gavel from Denny Hastert’s hands will have the scales peeled from their eyes. (Oh goody goody gumdrops, we may see bigtime NIH contracts for bio-tech conglomerates doing stem cell R&D — the proletarian revolution is right around the corner!) That was your argument a few weeks back, one that initiated no small amount of teeth-gnashing elsewhere: have some consistency for Chrissakes.
LD
Akita, Japan
PS Not to bash, I greatly admire your analysis even when I beg to differ, BTW!
9 November 2006, 12:17 pmRandy Morris:
Check out this similar cautionary statement from Robert Jensen on Counterpunch.org:
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen11092006.html
9 November 2006, 1:29 pmChicago_Stan:
LD,
I doesn’t sound at all like Stan is being inconsistent. The Democrats won and now our work just begins. I’m not saying this is a revolutionary situation or soon will be, but people need to loose the “spring” model of social change; that the oppressors will keep pushing the people until they can’t take it any more, and then they will spring back with violent fury and overthrow the oppressors. Many historical examples show that increasing misery leads to just more misery. Revolutions happen when things are getting relatively better, and people learn to demand more.
Remember those who argued that after Hitler took power, the proletariat would soon tire of him, and the backlash against him would radicalize the people and lead to imminent revolution? Where did that get us. I don’t think that Stan is complaining about the Democratic victory. He’s just pointing out that if we stop here we’ve gained precicely nothing, and maybe even have lost something. The Democrats will do nothing for us. But their victory was still important.
9 November 2006, 4:22 pmCleon:
Workers World (www.workers.org) has a pretty good article on the elections this week.
It’s important to remember a couple of things:
1. The Democrats are NOT our allies.
9 November 2006, 6:11 pm2. Electoral politics are very limited in what they can accomplish.
3. The Democrats are NOT our allies.
4. We need to be putting the pressure ON, not sitting back and “letting them work.” Whether it’s Republican-led or not, the US government is not going to pull out of Iraq unless they’re forced to.
5. Democrats are NOT our allies.
salvarius:
I caught a interview of Sen. Byron Dorgan on PBS tonight and when asked what the Dems were going to do once they took control in Jan. the war was glaringly absent from his list (minimum wage was front and center - the liberal half of panem et circenses).
When they got around to it he said something like “get the Iraqi’s to take responsibility for their own security” in which the interviewer (surprisingly) took him to task by saying something like “this is exactly what Bush has been saying.” The Senator then went into some ramble about the elections being a ‘call for change’ without any explanation of what this change would be and then as Stan mentioned threw up a shield of the Baker Commissions. Its going to be quite entertaining (in a dark humor kind of way) watching the Dems scramble and engage in ridiculous rhetorical obfuscation.
I agree with both Stans here that the Dems election was important - the idea that it needs to get worse for some kind of backlash seems to me to be a dangerous one and it lets those in power control the tempo, so to speak. However, I do worry that the Dems are very adept at pacifying the left (see raising the minimum wage being so front and center) and may get away with inaction by claiming that the president isn’t working with them.
The war seems to me to be the key issue as once the anti-war left see that the Dems are not going to do anything of any substance to get out of Iraq (the Sen. dodged another question about cutting the $ for the war by saying “we won’t hurt the troopsâ€) some will hopefully begin to shift focus away from electoral politics. Those of us with like minds as Stan should be there to point out this hypocrisy and offer an ‘education’ in the systems of social power.
Thanks Stan for your analysis! You continually help me focus on what is tactically important for real change to occur.
P.S. Anyone else catch Bush’s press conference the other day when he addressed the Dem victory? Did he seem like he was relieved to anyone else?
9 November 2006, 9:19 pmpeggy:
Stan, I got it as far as we support the Dems so that they will win a majority in the House, and then we will have a chance to attack them mercilessly and show them up as hypocrites and all the rest. And I was rah rah about that. But it was late at night and I forgot to think, what next? We attack the Dems as mercilessly as we formerly attacked the Reps, and then, people’s memories being short, the Republicans are voted back in?
At the risk of appearing moderate and wishy-washy and dumb, I say we support with all our might the Democratic presidential contender whose policies most closely appoximate what we would want. And then we just keep pushing for a closer approximation, and a closer one after that, and so on. A Sisyphean effort, to be sure, but we are stronger than Sisyphus.
Or, if you’ve got a better idea, let’s hear it.
9 November 2006, 10:46 pmStan:
I quit doing “what’s next?” a while back… at least when it goes two years out. We can’t possibly know what the situation will be like then.
The ratcheting effect you describe tends to move right, not left.
Hope you are well, Peggy.
10 November 2006, 11:50 amJeremy:
This goes with both this post and the “Honeymoon” post. I really love your analysis, stan. I often find myself slipping into the slimy grip of complacency, knowing that things are pretty screwed up, but not really feeling the pressure to do anything about it. Then I read one of your blogs and I feel the toxic sludge washed away.
10 November 2006, 4:22 pmI have become completely fed up with the political system in America. I’m increasingly convinced that it’s all just a game for us to play so that we feel some empty sense of power. We watch the polls go up and down, cheer when our team wins, mope around when our team looses. We cast our votes and hope for some real change…but it doesn’t come. The system is designed to keep things just the way they are while we play our little games. I voted (a straight Green ticket by the way)…I will probably vote in the future, but i have given up believing that it will make any difference.
On that note, I’m still hopefull. I think this global infrastructure of imperialism will collapse in on itself, leaving behind communities and individuals free from exploitation and degradation. Most of them (like many towns here in CT) will have to start from scratch, re-building a functioning local social structure. But humans are amazingly innovative and adaptable, so I still have hope.
Thank you Stan, and thanks to everyone else on this site. Keep up the fight.
-Jeremy
sarkkozi:
Bonjour à tous ,
10 November 2006, 5:56 pmles chiffres que tu donnes , Stan , sont accablants .
Nos raisonnements savants n’y pourront rien .En France , à part José Bové (un ancien agriculteur , qui fait régulièrement de la tôle à cause des OGM ) et Alain Besancenot (un facteur, savamment ridiculisé par les journaux et cette merde qu’on appelle télévision) , le personnel politique de premier plan n’est constitué que de riches .
Votre forum est bien sympathique .
Le bonjour de Bordeaux .
peggy:
Bonjour Sarkkozi
With the help of my high school French and Google, I attempted a translation of your post. Am I anywhere close? I still do not quite understand the meaning of “chiffres” and “faire de la tôle”.
Greetings to everybody
11 November 2006, 7:08 amThe numbers you give, Stan, are cumbersome. Our erudite reasoning is powerless. In France, according to José Bové (an old farmer who regularly makes sheets for the cause of genetically modified crops) and Alain Besancenot (a postman, cleverly ridiculed by the newspapers and this shit we call television) political personnel are nothing but rich people.
Your forum is quite sympathetic.
Hi from Bordeaux.
Gilles d'Aymery:
Stan,
Les “chiffres†mean the numbers as you said or the statistics. The first sentence should read: “the numbers are overwhelming.”
“faire de la tôle†means “doing time in jail,” getting regularly jailed for his activism. “tôle” is slang for prison…
The remaining of your translation is alright.
Best,
11 November 2006, 1:49 pmGilles
Gilles d'Aymery:
Sorry, I should have addressed my post to Peggy, not Stan. Apologies.
Gilles
11 November 2006, 1:52 pmGilles d'Aymery:
Stan,
Out of curiosity, who got elected in your district, a Dem or a Rep? By what margin (number of votes)?
In your best estimation can you measure the concrete effects of your action and flyer on the voters?
Best,
11 November 2006, 1:59 pmGilles
sarkkozizi:
Bonjour Peggy , merci de ta gentillesse .
11 November 2006, 3:16 pmTa traduction est bonne sauf pour :
“faire de la tôle” = go in jail .
“zizi” = dick .
peggy:
You’re welcome, Giles. It was good practice for me. Your website is fun to read and I shall make a point of visiting it during my weekly rounds.
Don’t make fun of Stan, though. He’s ahead of the pack, and he’s doing his best to find a way to get the US off its current track onto a better one. In this world where it has always been hard to know right tracks from ones that lead to disaster, many of us are just sitting here, enjoying the show and waiting to die. But I admire people who risk their own necks to help others. Don’t you?
11 November 2006, 10:03 pmStan:
Hey Gilles,
I posted a reply to your interrogatives on the other thread (Honeymoon? Ha!) out of plain confusion.
My rep, a Democrat, won with 53%. Don’t know the exact numbers. My own little election day foray was strictly a volunteer thing to wee what would happen, and I have now clue about how much of an immediate effect it had.
Hope you can pop by the other thread, where the debate over voting for Dems is in full swing.
My mass work this year (and last) focused on organizing with veterans, especially Iraq vets; and the rest has been writing (except for a couple of things I did in Haiti, but that’s been ongoing for quite a few years now).
The writing of this post (also published at Huffingtonpost) probably has a more important effect than the leafletting itself… though I don’t overestimate it.
I’m a political ferret. I just keep nosing around trying things until something works.
Et je ne parle pas le francais. (-:
11 November 2006, 11:05 pmG.:
I wonder if they have enough bleach on board for those sails.
12 November 2006, 12:18 amJon Flanders:
My own thoughts on the post election period.
As far as electoral politics go, looking for chances to
get Instant Runoff Voting put in place makes more sense to me than worrying about electing anyone at this point.
Taking away the fear of “spoilers” would finally create a situation where voters could be “for” something rather than “against”. This election was the Mother of All Vote Against Elections.
It might be time to revive the Labor Party effort. Now that the Democrats have power, they will be exposed
to workers expectations. Discussions on my job are confirming this for me.
Lastly, I hope that the opportunities created by this conjuncture force some socialist groups to merge into something effective I might consider joining.
12 November 2006, 10:55 amrobert:
“Bipartisanship” is a very scary word. There is a great risk that the new Dem majority will sacrifice it’s duty to hold the executive branch responsible for it’s criminal behaviors for the sake of appearing prolific with legislation.
13 November 2006, 1:35 amOn the other hand, this word “bipartisan” has been used as a weapon by Republiacans to make Dems look like obstructionists (e.g. “we want to work together with the Democratic party but they refuse to cooperate and get anything done”). My hope is that this word is being used now so freely by the new majority purely as political strategy - in order to set the republican minority up to look like obstructionists.
That’s my hope. But i certainly don’t discount Mr. Goff’s take on the language we are hearing.
conq:
Stan-
The latest Swans Online cartoon:
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/jeb164.html
“The author wishes to acknowledge Stan Goff, Andrew Austin, and all the Marxist Revolutionaries who have called to vote for the Democrats in the midterm elections out of tactical flexibility.”
14 November 2006, 3:51 amElaina:
Yeah. Lefty-world’s all about “skipping” to the “revolution.”
*ahem*
If anybody’s got a revolution ready, brang it on. We WOMEN sure could use one; that’s something I’d like to see before the manifestation of any bougie-white-male-anarcho-lefty-uber-idealist revolution.
I’m not sure I’m willing to stake my bets on revolution now, not even considering the best set of hands we’d be in. CAUSE WE’D STILL BE IN THE HANDS OF THE MAN (albeit the man would probly be wearing chuck tailors, a black hoody, some random political tshirt, etc.) Anyways.
15 November 2006, 2:28 amRandy Morris:
One of the things that drives me most crazy daily is having no clue what a revolution in the U.S. would look like…other than the ongoing quasi-Fascist one that is ongoing.
I get up in the morning, look in the mirror and see a man who knows that absolutely EVERYTHING I was taught was wrong — and in many cases evil — and that I have no idea how to really make a difference except through the way I live my life. I can’t even have a deep conversation with 99% of the people in my life anymore because of my “red pill syndrome.”
But revolution? In this country?!! Ha! Even I wouldn’t want to be governed by most of the hardcore “Leftist” dogmatics that have spewed their vitriol in this blog (I include almost none of the regulars in that group), and I can’t even imagine how the women subjected to their “revolutionizing” might end up.
I will fully and enthusiastically support the nuevo-Bolivarian revolution going on in Central- and South America, but I must hold to my (non-dogmatic) anarchistic tendencies in this disaster of a country. Show me a political group that embodies the values championed in this blog and I’ll throw my efforts behind it.
Until then, it’ll continue to be beating at a burning building with a broom.
Randy
15 November 2006, 5:14 pmGilles d'Aymery:
Hopefully, Stan has understood that Jan Baughman’s cartoon had humor drawn all over it. I can assure everybody that neither Jan nor I are “revolutionaries.”
We simply wish to vote for candidates that represent our perspectives and want to support them as best we can.
We are in favor of third party politics and the fostering of blacks and Latinos (we are whites) in leadership position (as well as women).
We want as many of them to run and we do not want to abandon them in the middle of the river as they sacrifice for ideas and positions we support.
But above all, we want to define the issues better, frame the message more intelligently (less slogans, more practical and appealing solutions to the larger population, the near 60 percent that did not vote), and not change direction, but change paradigm.
I think Stan would not disagree with this approach. We disagree on the electoral tactics.
Sorry, I do not visit the site on a daily basis and do have work to do for Swans, a publication you are welcome to contribute to if you follow the guidelines. — BTW, there will be another cartoon by Jan in the coming issue [poorly scanned though…my mistake) and again humor will be prevailing. There should also be a piece of mine that explains our opinion (unfinished at this time as I am taking a break here) and our approach. Feel free to criticize. As to revolution in this country, if it were to happen, it would be rather messy and bloody and IMO would come from reactionary parts of society. We are kind on pacifists…Oops, sorry Stan…
Best,
18 November 2006, 7:22 pmGilles
Gilles d'Aymery:
And, BTW, I found Stan’s flyer, posted on another thread, excellent for what it was intending to achieve. I disagree with his tactical position (agility, flexibility), but within his approach and frame of reference it was superbly smart. And no, he has not lost credibility for taking this approach. He was and remains IMHO incorrect.
BTW, again, to disagree with someone should not be construed, as lamentably too may people do, as a character assassination. One can disagree and have little patience with someone’s else tactics and strategies without getting into the gutters of slandering and glittering generalities.
Gilles
18 November 2006, 7:34 pmnamaste:
If I had learned education I would not have had time to learn anything else.
20 July 2009, 8:07 pm