what Democrats and Republicans really stand for...

This weekend I attended a gathering of approximately 1,000 people in downtown Albuquerque seeking to voice their opposition to mindless, unnecessary and destructive war. There were people there with all kinds of causes and chants of "this is what democracy looks like." Unfortunately, there were folks in the crowd that were all too willing to declare their support for democracy, but totally unwilling to step up to the plate when pushed.

If you've read anything I've ever written here, you understand how I detest the Democratic Party for selling out the American people and the global community to become the moderate wing of the Big Business, Uber-Wealthy, Destroy America conservative movement...and if you are new...now you know. This weekend, just when I was beginning to believe perhaps the boys and girls in blue might be able to salvage a return to humanity I was reminded just how little the Democratic Party cares about the democracy they whine about the Republican Party stiffling.

I've been a rather vocal opponent to everything this group gathered to condemn, I've helped organize a similar rally (without the assistance of many of them...it was a weekday afterall), and spoke (rather eloquently might I add...yes, I am plugging myself...what of it?) at that same rally. And being that the folks that had gathered were (theoretically) supporters of democracy in action, I thought it would be a good place to begin to gather the 3,000 signatures necessary under New Mexico law to be "qualified" as a political party for the New Whigs. Anticipating the obvious questions and concerns of peoples, I brought with me an explanation of what it was we wanted to do, and what it is we stood for. Most people were very receptive and more than willing to sign the petition (now, keep in mind, this was not asking anyone to switch their party affiliation, give money, etc...it was merely a petition that states "we desire the Whig Party to be qualified under New Mexico law"...talk about no commitment necessary). A few even discussed my positions with me, the historical significance of the Whig Party and the growing movement, my hopes and dreams for the party...some expressed concern over what might become of the Whig Party, but indicated their willingness to support the expansion of choice and democracy.

The most trouble, the outright refusal, came from a "grass roots" Democrat. Silly me, I figured someone holding themselves out to be "grass roots" and liberal would support political participation from all peoples, especially at this level. Silly me, I believed someone that theoretically wished to see much of the same policies as I enacted would be supportive of a movement with that goal in mind. But no, the concern was containing all "liberals" within the Democratic Party and strickly sticking with the two party system that has served us so disastrously. Guess I shouldn't be suprised though, these are the same people that blamed the Green Party for losing elections...

So here's a hint for the Democratic Party (even the "grass roots" ones)...if you need to stifle political participation from others that are on the side of the spectrum that you hold yourself out to be...maybe, just maybe, it is because you no longer stand for something that can be supported by your own side. I know, self-reflection is difficult and painful...but we already have one big childish party in this country, and we really don't need a second.

And then there are the Republicans, trying again to convince us they are not in the pocket of the uber-wealthy. The latest was Bush speaking out against high executive pay on Wall Street. When I first looked into his words, I was shocked, I thought, maybe, just maybe, someone had pointed out to him that a strong economy has never included executive pay so out of wack with worker pay. But I was quickly reminded that Bush and the Republican Party remain shitbags out to fuck the American people and working people across the world in any way they can, as long as it means the wealthy get wealthier.

While anyone with any knowledge of what has happened to previous economic superpowers with such severe stratification of wealth and crumbling manufacturing capabilities is explaining that such a gap between executive and worker pay is an incredibly foreboding sign...Bush is simply complaining that executives are paid to well even if they don't push stock prices up enough. That's right...take note all you not lucky enough to be in the top 20 percent of Americans on the economic ladder...his concern is that executives are paid too much for screwing you because they aren't doing enough to give even more of your hard-earned money to his rich friends.

Now, he shrouds it in talk that he thinks applies to the American people...saying executives need to do more for "shareholders." There's one slight problem though...when it comes to investment assets (the kind he wants to see increased before the golden parachute is given), the top 1 percent owns half of it in this country...add in the rest of the top 20 percent and they own 85 percent. What about stocks you ask? The top 1 percent has about 35 percent of those...add in the rest of the top 20 percent and they own around 90 percent of the stock. Add in mutual funds and the top 1 percent pulls in 50 percent...add in the rest of the top 10 (not even the top 20) percent pulling in 90 percent. So basically, he is upset that executives are being paid too much for what "little" they are doing to help the richest of the rich screw the rest of us.

Don't be fooled by his faux-populist rhetoric. Bush and the Republican Party are concerned for only one out of ten of us...and actually, those one out of ten aren't really us so much as them.

I am a visitor here...I am not permanent...