You don’t bring “Kumbaya” to a gunfight

Look, I’m not going to write a “candidate diary.” I never read those, and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to read them, either.

But BenGoshi’s diary on the Big Orange Satan today got me. I hear what he’s saying.

Forgive me, but none of these really address my issue with Obama, to wit:  Happy Talk, Hope, and Fairy Dust will run into a BUZZSAW of GOP/Neo Robber Baron opposition that will CRUSH all those pretty notions of “change” . . .

[I] got very turned off, not at “hope” (hell, I hope, too!) but at what I consider to be a milquetoasty naivety that hope alone, that a willingness to be conciliatory, that wishful thinking and a willingness to compromise — before even beginning to join the fight — will do anything but (again) leave a large swath of the American citizenry under the heel of the most powerful corporations in the world, and a hellofalot of stunned Obama supporters wondering if anyone got the number of the truck that ran ’em all down in the weeks and months following Inauguration Day 2009.

Amen to that. And I’m not just speaking about Obama – I’m talking about every Democrat, including those in Congress.

Listen, I was as gung-ho as anybody about the Democratic takeover of Congress way back in November of 2006 (remember that?). Yeah, I gave Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the benefit of the doubt, even after Pelosi had taken impeachment off the table. Long after.

The reason I did so was that I held on to the belief – based on no evidence – that the Democrats were pursuing some clever, brilliant political strategy that involved somehow concealing their true intentions. You know – saying one thing and doing another, right?

But unfortunately for we who worked so hard to get them elected (and unfortunately for the rest of the country as well), the Democrats under Pelosi and Reid’s leadership did what they said they would do – and nothing more. During their campaigns, they made it a point to assure everyone that it wasn’t their intention to be confrontational, that they just wanted to “work with” their “colleagues” across the aisles, that “bipartisanship” would be the order of the day, that impeachment was “off the table.”

We all know where that has gotten us.

I for one have grown weary of Democrats who tremble in fear at the thought of confrontation over fundamental issues. I am mystified by milquetoast Democratic proclamations of comity and cooperation with Republics who have repeatedly and without apology blocked, trampled upon and derided efforts by Democrats to pass legislation that would benefit the vast majority of Americans, or that would ensure protection of the civil liberties of Americans.

What I really don’t understand is why it is that Democrats who are so damn concerned about getting elected don’t seem to understand that making a principled stand for protection of the individual also happens to be, at this moment in American history, a very politically savvy thing to do?

So – why won’t so many of them make that stand?

I’ll let you, dear reader, come to your own conclusions as to the answer to that question.

Democrats must be unapologetic and, indeed, fiercely combative in their pursuit of what is right for the American people. Anything less, particularly in light of the undeniable history of scorn demonstrated by Republic officeholders toward the interests of individual Americans over the past seven years, is pathetic and inexcusable.  

Anyone who is actually serious about advancing a “Democratic agenda” – as opposed to just pandering, saying what he or she thinks voters want to hear – surely knows that Republic opposition to any single iota of that agenda will brook no half measures. There is no “making peace” with Republics in office. The last twelve months of ostensible Democratic control of Congress should be enough to remove any doubt on that score. If anyone needs further proof of the necessity for uncompromising pursuit of Democratic policies, I do not know what to say to them.

The reason that there is no making peace is that Republics are simply doing the bidding of their corporate masters. And what BenGoshi said in his diary is absolutely correct: unless they are backed into a corner and forced to do so, in 99,999 cases out of 100,000, corporations will only do whatever in their opinion will most greatly enhance their profitability in the near term. Period. That is what they do.

I work in corporate business. I speak from personal experience, as do BenGoshi and John Edwards: In dealing with corporations, when push comes to shove, good intentions get you nowhere. (Although certain corporate executives – particularly those in the health insurance field – might find those intentions useful for paving the thoroughfare to their eternal homes.) Corporations act out of a profit motive, pure and simple. In the vast majority of cases, regardless of what their TV ads or their annual reports might say, there are no “values” that guide those corporations beyond the “value” of increasing the value of their shares – indeed, it can very truthfully be said that the directors and officers of those corporations would be in violation of their legal obligations, their fiduciary responsibilities, if they were to act any differently.

So – corporations look out for their own interests. That is what they do. There is no sense arguing about that; it is a fact. Once you accept that fact, you realize that in order to best serve the interests of the human beings of this country (as opposed to the corporate beings), we must, when necessary, fight the corporations not only in the courts but in the other two branches of government as well. Because of their financial resources, corporations – which have no vote – have plenty of “friends” who work hard to influence government to act in the corporations’ interests. Voters have only themselves, acting at the ballot box. The question facing American voters – not just in this election, but in every election – is, How much of the government that is supposed to be representing ME do I want to hand to the corporations?

Is there anyone among the readers of this blog who believes that the Republics and their corporate cronies (and, for that matter, the representatives of corporate interests among Democrats) will not fight tooth and nail, using every tool at their disposal, to take care of their interests during the next administration? By that same token, it is only right that those who are fighting for the people’s interests should do the same – and should strongly and unashamedly say, during their campaigns for office, that they intend to do so. Otherwise – particularly given the Democrats’ recent history of playing nice – just like they said they would when they were running for election before November 2006 – it is only logical to assume that any Democratic candidate will approach citizen advocacy exactly as they say they will during their campaign. And if their support for citizen advocacy is tepid during their campaigns, it makes sense to assume it will be no more enthusiastic once they have taken office. And if insipid, mealy-mouthed, tepid-at-best citizen advocacy is what is promised during the campaign, you can rest assured that after the oath of office has been taken,  the relentless, merciless corporations will have their way.

Until any Democrat comes out and – in so many words – says that he or she will fight corporate interests wherever and whenever they conflict with human interests, I will not believe that they intend to do so. And even if they do proclaim such a position, I reserve my right to be skeptical. But at the very least – again, based on bitter experience after the November 2006 election – I will believe that no candidates’ actions once elected will be more forceful than their words on the campaign trail.

The great news is that it’s not too late for all of the Democratic candidates to come out and – in so many words, not cloaked in some ambiguous platitudes, but expressed forcefully and pointedly – state exactly where they stand when it comes to Humans vs. Corporations

And, in case anyone is thinking that this diary is a “hit piece” – I’ve got no dog in this fight; I was a Dodd supporter. Ever since I went to his breakout session at the YearlyKos convention, I have appreciated his outspokenness on issues of Constitutional importance.  To me, there was nothing more pressing facing this country than the defense of our founding document. But I also realize this: The threat that Republics in general and this administration in particular represent to the Constitution – that is, to the individual liberties guaranteed by that document to all Americans – flows naturally and unavoidably from their single-minded pursuit of corporate profits, to the exclusion of any other regard.

It therefore naturally follows that any Democrat who makes it his or her stated purpose to take a stand for the interests of individual American citizens when they are in opposition to those of corporations is standing for the protection of the Constitution – because the Constitution was never intended as an instrument designed to protect corporations.

Those who support defense of the Constitution will support Democrats who hew to that principle. And – it is to be hoped – those Democratic candidates who hew to that principle will say so, loudly, repeatedly and without apology.

Also available in Orange