The US Presidential Election

2008 January 16

I’m often asked which candidate I support in the American presidential elections, as a European, I feel that is like being asked, which would I prefer, to be raped vaginally or anally. There are candidates I despise less than others but I’m not enthused about any of them. Whoever becomes the 44th President, he or she won’t be democratically elected by the people and will continue to be beholden to the same unrepresentative vested interest groups because America doesn’t have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I know many American citizens harbour under the illusion that the US is a democratic nation because they have been raised to believe that, but one look at past US Presidents will prove that’s not true. The first President to be elected after the US civil war was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in 1869; since Grant, every president has been a Republican or Democrat. It is utterly preposterous to suggest that America is a democracy, when in the last 131 years America has been ruled by two political parties, with as much difference between them, as there is between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. Sure, they’re packaged differently but they both pretty much taste the same.

If you can’t imagine Hillary Clinton invading Afghanistan and Iraq, then have a look at her voting record. Bill Clinton managed to, needlessly and without provocation, bomb countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. He even bombed a Chinese embassy. If Monica Lewinsky had a heart, she’d have bitten it off. The differences between Clinton and both Bushes as Presidents, was more a difference in style than substance - ideologically, they’re on the same page. 

And on the 20th of this month, the Bush-Clinton dynasty will enter its 28th year (George H. W. Bush served two terms as Vice President before being elected President). If Hillary Clinton was elected (God forbid) we would have at least another four years of that dynasty. It’s a surprise that Jeb Bush Jnr hasn’t done his duty and married Chelsea Clinton, and sired a heir and spare.

1776 was the year America declared its independence from the United Kingdom; it was also the same year that Phi Beta Kappa was founded in William and Mary College. Since Grant, every President except Harding and Hoover have been members of Greek fraternities, and during the last 131 year reign of the Republicans and Democrats (who have all but two seats in the Senate and every seat in the House of Representatives), over a third of US Presidents attended either Yale or Harvard – before Grant, only John Adams and John Quincy had been to Harvard – none went to Yale.

Why is this significant?

Because it means the selection pool from which US Presidents are drawn is so limited and there is no way that these aristocratic fraternities that select future presidents are democratic or representative. This sort of nepotism and cronyism stifles democracy. That is why there are no dissenting voices in American politics.

During the 2009 election, Americans will be asked to choose between two political candidates: one Democrat and one Republican - there will be little to choose between them in terms of polices or ideology, and neither of them would have been chosen by the people - they will be thrust upon the public just like every President since Grant. This is the reason the Athenians banned political parties because they are thoroughly undemocratic. And if you think none of this matters, look at some of the crooks, liars, philanders, drunks, incompetents, imbeciles, religious fanatics and megalomaniacs, the party system has put in office  - 6 of the last 23 Presidents were members of religious cults: 3 Disciples of Christ, 2 Quakers and 1 Jehovah’s witness.  Most Americans wouldn’t let these degenerates date their daughters, let alone select them to run their country. 

46 Responses
  1. 2008 July 30
    George Carty permalink

    Cortez is reputed to have stated that a sacrifice in blood was not only beneficial for humanity, but a requirement.

    Of course Cortez’s enemies were far more of a death cult than the conquistadores themselves — in fact I’d say that the Aztecs (along with the Mongols) are the only cultures that were probably even worse than the Nazis.

    I’m a bit surprised that the Mongols do not represent absolute evil in Muslim popular culture as the Nazis do in Western popular culture.

  2. 2008 July 30

    @ AR

    There is defintely something in that, it’s also interesting that anyone from skull and bones would have the audacity to call Islam a death cult.

  3. 2008 July 29
    antireptilian permalink

    Cult is the word here. Freud believed that there is an instint for life within the Human psyche, but also an instinct for death

    Cortez is reputed to have stated that a sacrifice in blood was not only beneficial for humanity, but a requirement.
    Some people actually believe this and thus, we have death cults. Skull and bones symbology, the deaths head associated with the Todt and SS organisations through WW2.

  4. 2008 February 6

    I think the political differences between the UK and US are confusing me when we talk… or maybe its those funny “smart person” words you always use…

    More corrupt? Maybe,

    Why is it then that the small 3% you speak of are causing so many problems there and in France, Germany etc…

    I go into a rage every time I hear about a small little segment of the population that wants special rights and treatment because they are a “minority” ,….

  5. 2008 February 6

    @ TRM

    The US political system is more oligarchic, nepotistic and corrupt than the British one, and that’s saying something – the UK is a hereditary monarchy. And the Muslim population is 3% of the total population.

    I think you’re right about the constitution being distorted over the years. I don’t think it’s just become more liberal though, it’s more federal.

  6. 2008 February 6

    Sorry to jump in the middle of your talk, but Steph you just said something I find interesting.

    You won’t find the word democracy in our Constitution. We are actually a representative republic. There is nothing in there that gives citizens the right to vote or even anything about the seperation of “church and state”…….

    These things all came to be commonly accepted through liberal judicial activism from the left…. a fairy tale to be honest…

    I can appreciate your thought’s on what America’s problems are, but the UK has quite a few internal ones that are the result of the left/liberals or whatever you call them over there… how’s that muslim re-population going over there???

  7. 2008 February 5

    @ George

    I see America’s problem as imperialism, oligarchy, corruption and nepotism. Any claim America had to being a democracy ended in 1865.

  8. 2008 February 5
    George Carty permalink

    Corporate personhood (from Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad 1886) is the real problem with American politics.

    What do you think though of the argument that the Islamic world’s relative backwardness is because it had no corporations until 1851 (because Shari’ah law does not have any concept of a “legal person” distinct from a flesh-and-blood human being)?

  9. 2008 January 22

    @ Ric

    Exactly. That is the problem with party politics, it’s legalised election rigging and corruption. There is a good reason that political parties weren’t allowed in classical democracies.

  10. 2008 January 20

    David Cay Johnston said it best : There are not two parties in this country, there’s only one, the party of money.

    Money sets the agenda for everything here. As long as the politicians are constantly on their knees for money, the country will continue its slide into the third world.

    When money is king, the queen is corruption. Integrity is out the window, as is any hope for a socially responsible society.

  11. 2008 January 18
    Heather permalink

    @ in2thefray

    I apologize for saying that. What I meant was what Steph said. You guys don’t believe in social provision for the people on welfare or minimum wage.

  12. 2008 January 18
    Heather permalink

    @ Steph

    I see what you mean now. You’re right that the parties don’t represent us the voters but what can we do about it?

    This post has really made me think why are so many of our Presidents Ivy league frat boys.

  13. 2008 January 17

    20th,I’m scheduling my for around noon est

  14. 2008 January 17

    @ TRM

    So you recognise that the system isn’t democratic – “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal,” right?

    Now what is it that I said that you think is crazy and screwy, this time? :)

  15. 2008 January 17

    @ Heather

    A lot of Democrat voters supported the war too, in fact everyone who voted for Kerry voted for a man, who was warmongering against Iran.

    I agree that less Republican voters believe in social provision than Democrat voters but the point isn’t that there are huge ideological difference between voters, I fully accept that, but that is not the same as saying that there are ideological differences between the two parties, he couldn’t be closer together. That’s my point, these parties don’t represent the American people, how could they?

  16. 2008 January 17

    @ i2rf

    I think there are signs that China will take a more aggressive stance in the Far East. Russia has a lot of control over European gas supplies, and it’s clearly prepared to use that weapon. But I do think that we’re moving into an area of regional hegemony, there maybe still wars but hopefully not wars that would engulf an entire region. I think Iran’s ability to stand up to America is pivotal for the Middle East.

    I’m definitely still in for WPBA post. Do you want us to post them before the 20th or on the 20th?

  17. 2008 January 17

    @ Steph

    The collapse of the US empire has got to lead to regional hegemony.

    Not necessarily. Chinas empire will be economic with a different kind of local imperialism pressing on people. Russia is still something to be looked after. As for regional hegemony I think that’s very true but won’t increase the chances of peace.
    @ Heather

    Republican voters are cheapskates, they support wars but won’t put their hand in their pockets and give back to this country.

    As a Republican voter I have to take exception to the thought that I’m cheap. I have my wallet tugged at and emptied without my consent routinely.
    Steph the 20th is coming hope you’re still in for the WPBA post.

  18. 2008 January 17
    Heather permalink

    Steph

    I see your point about no real choice, so I guess we’re not a democracy but I still think there is a difference betwen Republican and Democrats. The Clintons and Bushes might be the same but voters aren’t. Republican voters are cheapskates, they support wars but won’t put their hand in their pockets and give back to this country.

  19. 2008 January 17

    I don’t know how such a beautiful face houses such a crazy, screwy brain…

    And yes I would like to see someone other than “insiders” and career politicians hold office, but I am smart enough to understand it’s not that simple,,, it’s a tough job…

    Please seek help Stephi, I say that in the most caring way,,, :)

  20. 2008 January 17

    @ TRM

    I believe in redistribution of wealth but not through taxation in a capitalist system, so your money is safe with me… your house might not be tough. I believe in compulsory purchase and social housing – the Democrats don’t believe in that, so you can rest easy knowing you aren’t going to be ruled by real socialists ;)

  21. 2008 January 17

    @ TRM

    I don’t often agree with you but I absolutely love your unambiguous, no bullshit, straight talking.

    I don’t hate America, I hate American imperialism but this isn’t a left or right wing politics – it is about democracy – does the Republican a party really reflect the full range of conservative opinion in the US? I don’t think so. Don’t you think there are candidates who could better represent conservative America than the dead wood you’ve got competing for the Republican nomination?

    Wouldn’t you like a genuine say in who ran you country? Wouldn’t you like to give democracy a try? It’s got to be better than the oligarchy you’ve got now that gave you: Bush, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and maybe Clinton again.

  22. 2008 January 17

    @ JG

    Multipolar, defintely. I wnat to see an end to imperialism. I don’t want to see a waning US empire take on a rising Chinese or Russian empire. I think we might look book on US imperialism with relish. The collapse of the US empire has got to lead to regional hegemony.

  23. 2008 January 16

    WOW, you really hate America huh? The majority of Americans do not want socialism Steph and please don’t say the Dem party isn’t because we have already had that conversation.

    It’s maddening to hear you constantly say, “addressing the inequities between rich and poor in this world.”

    Sure a lot of people inherit their money and piss it away, so be it, but it’s not yours to redistribute to some dead beat down the road with their hand out..
    and all of those people all over the world who live in poverty… sorry,!!! freakin move and stop breeding what you cannot support……
    we send them food and warlords take it and profit from it,,, screw them,,,

  24. 2008 January 16

    @ Steph

    Yeah, I know what you mean.

    As a matter of interest, Steph, do you think a bipolar or multipolar situations would be preferable.

  25. 2008 January 16

    @ JG

    Yeah, I am. More of an Italian analogy than a English one though, but you know what I mean, America has been raping Europe (and most of the world) since the end of WWII, that won’t change whoever is in the Oval office, and we don’t know just how entusiatic a rapist they will be until they take office.

  26. 2008 January 16

    @ Steph

    which would be worse: to be buggered by Obama or raped by Clinton?

    Fond of that analogy, ain’t ya? :)

    I’ll pass on the question, too awful to contemplate!

  27. 2008 January 16

    @ i2tf

    I don’t think the “people” can do anything about it without taking up arms. What’s going to change? You have a collegiate voting system and for an independent presidential candidate to win under that system, he has to campaign in every state – that takes an enourmous amount of money. And big business will continue to support the current system because there are only two parties they need to bribe.

    The “gene pool” is extremely weak -how many have been liars, crooks, degenerates, incompetents or intellectual pygmies (or in the case of G. W. Bush all five)?

    Clinton wasn’t too far removed from that kid sitting under a bridge in a cardboard box but he greased his way to the top by going to the right universities and joining the right societies. He didn’t get there by bucking the system, he got there by not biting the hand that was feeding him and fitting in. That’s why I say this sort of nepotism and cronyism stifles democracy and why there are no dissenting voices in American politics.

  28. 2008 January 16

    @ Heather

    If Hillary was a real feminist she’d have bitten it off or divorced him.

    I meant she should have bitten it off for all the suffering and deaths he caused around the globe. I don’t think she should bite it off because he’s a degenerate, who sticks his dick in teenage interns. But you’re right, the fact that she’s still with him does undermine her credibility as a feminist.

  29. 2008 January 16

    @ heather

    p.s. Steph “I’d vote for Leon Czolgosz”… I just looked him up… you’re never going to get a visa into the US. :)

    I know :)

    Isn’t the fact that you want real change what’s important? You’re choosing who you think is best out of bad lot, you have no real say in who the democratic candidate will be, you’ve not got much choice with Obama or Hillary. If you have a choice of Hillary, Obama or George Clooney, who would you choose?

  30. 2008 January 16
    Heather permalink

    @ JG and Steph

    I agree that whether the next President is black or white or male or female is peripheral and I’d like real change but I still think Obama would be better than any other candidates.

    p.s. Steph “I’d vote for Leon Czolgosz”… I just looked him up… you’re never going to get a visa into the US. :)

  31. 2008 January 16

    Powerful wordings and interesting post overall. The two party system has monopolized in America ,but that doesn’t mean it can’t grow. Whether the two party system is championed by those that genuinely believe in it or if it’s a system of lemmings is open for debate. It is ultimately up to “We the People” to do something about it.I agree that the “gene pool” of those that would be President is weak at times. It like many top of the pyramid things has a negative exclusivity to it. The kid anywhere in America (or the world I dare say) sitting under a bridge in a cardboard box isn’t likely to be catapulted to the head of state.

  32. 2008 January 16

    @ JG

    I agree. On a personal level, I’d detest Obama less than Clinton, but which would be worse: to be buggered by Obama or raped by Clinton? What I mean is that you don’t know just how bad a president will be until they’re in office. I’d vote for Leon Czolgosz.

  33. 2008 January 16

    @ Steph

    That’s exactly it. I couldn’t count how many people have said to me that they’d like to see Obama get it because he’s black or Clinton because she’s a woman. These are such peripheral issues.

  34. 2008 January 16

    @ Ros

    Absolutely. Although I think the problem is more pronounced in America. There used to be differences between Labour and the Tories and we haven’t had a 131 year reign of the same two parties. Although the Tories have been going a lot longer. Our Prime minister are probably just as elitist though, and in real terms are far less accountable than presidents.

  35. 2008 January 16

    Thanks Heather.

    Truthful I don’t think Obama would be any different, he needs to raise cash to win and he’s had to make deals with the old firm to get that cash. I can’t see him:

    *saying that Israel can go hang, America’s going to recognise a Palestinian State.

    *sitting down with President Ahmadinejad as equals and extending the olive branch.

    *asking Moqtada al-Sadr to help him write up a plan to withdraw from Iraq.

    *demanding proportional representation in Lebanon and congratulating Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah on his election as president.

    *persuading the P5 to give up their permanent seats and vetoes on the UNSC.

    *withdrawing Americans forces from Europe, Asia and Africa.

    *addressing the inequities between rich and poor in this world.

  36. 2008 January 16

    @ JG

    I couldn’t agree more, I suspect a Democrat will win this year but I also suspect that the foreign policy agenda in the Middle East won’t change one iota. The only choice will be between a black or white president, or between a president with a penis or vagina. These are token issues without change.

  37. 2008 January 16

    @ Amie

    Hillary is a Phi Beta Kappa Slappa.

  38. 2008 January 16

    Thanks Steve. Absolutely the both full of fizz that rots your teeth.

  39. 2008 January 16

    That is the problem with political systems every where. Whoever you vote for, they’ll be exactly the same as the other party (New Labour just like the Conservatives).

  40. 2008 January 16
    Heather permalink

    Steph…

    If Monica Lewinsky had a heart, she’d have bitten it off.

    If Hillary was a real feminist she’d have bitten it off or divorced him. I don’t know why any women would respect Hillary when she is married to a sexual predator.

  41. 2008 January 16
    Heather permalink

    Steph…

    Because it means the selection pool from which US Presidents are drawn is so limited and there is no way that these aristocratic fraternities that select future presidents are democratic or representative. This sort of nepotism and cronyism stifles democracy. That is why there are no dissenting voices in American politics.

    See, I agree with this and I didn’t know so many of our Presidents went Greek but I knew a lot went to Yale or Harvard. I agree the Clintons and Bushes are Coke and Pepsi but I think there is a difference between the values of the Democrats and Republicans. Don’t you think Obama would be different?

    Great post Steph.

  42. 2008 January 16

    I agree, Steph. Generally I like to follow elections regardless of where they are out of nerdy interest but the sheer vacuousness of this particular ‘race’ (and these candidates) is quite exceptional. The US system is rigged so that nothing ever changes, simple as that.

  43. 2008 January 16

    Hillary is a sorority girl too.

  44. 2008 January 16

    @ Steve

    Yeah, really.

  45. 2008 January 16

    Yes, the Coke / Pepsi analogy fits pretty well. And both rot your teeth.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Election » Blog Archive » The US Presidential Election

Comments are closed for this entry.