between war and discourse

i wonder why it was that i missed the preparation for the attack on fallujah (is that the right spelling?) in the days leading up to the election? i am just kidding, i am not that stupid. but it does make you wonder what the fuck is wrong with the media in america.

i have become more and more frustrated with the democratic party and the political left. i don't want to go on and on forever about how i thought that both parties nominated the wrong candidates in 2000, so i won't.

it's just that when i hear this talk about the polarization of america i find myself a little confused. so few of the people i know fit into either the left or the right side. most of them fall in some indescribable place in the middle. and i think that the two major parties see that. and they have different ways of utilizing it.

the republicans and the right wing try to seem centered but adhere to the basic principals that have supported them/it for so long. bush never tried to be anything during the election ... other than less radical. but he never hid his dislike for homosexuality, abortion, people with brown skin. he just made it seem like he wasn't going to go out and attack them right away, which was probably a deception.

but the democratic party is worse.

the democratic party has abandoned the left wing. maybe they feel that there is no room for left wing politics in america. maybe they see the way that bush (and clinton before him) has seem so centered and gotten so much success. but both clinton and bush are anything but centered.

i know, i am going on about nothing again. but it leads back to what i saw on HBO last night. i was watching the last episode of real time with bill maher when bill made a joke that because the party was talking about the nomination of hillary clinton as a presidential candidate, then the party was preparing to lose the next election. the implication of course being that clinton could not win an election.

but i am not sure i agree. i think that mrs. clinton is certainly left wing. and i think that america has to be willing to swing that way. i think that america has to be sick of centerist politics -- where both candidate try and appeal to all voters. in fact, i think that what has served the republican party so well in recent years is that it has tried to appear centered while sticking to core values.

i mean, what would be wrong with clinton? it was she who tried to push for universal health care in the early '90s. and i can't go on enough about the need for universal health care, if only to prove to the rest of the world that people mean more than money in america -- though sometimes i wonder if that is the truth.

in that same episode of real time, they had the noted professor noam chomsky (still, i wonder if i can even spell). the old man repeated what i had always figured to be fact, that the united states is very active in the geopolitical fight for power. and that part of it was to gain both control over the major oil supply in iraq, as well as to establish a foothold for democracy in the heart of the middle east.

and though these are not things that have ever been denied by the ruling party, his comments were written off by both bill and one of his guests as being either far-fetched or downright unamerican.

it's this simple: if you don't like it, if you don't want to face it, then go ahead and try and bash it as propaganda (which it is) and not worth your time ... but it is worth your time.

people in america have to realize that the game didn't end when the soviet union went under. in fact, to some, it only began. the men who are in power now were in power before the fall of the soviet union, and had been salivating and licking their chops to get a chance to take another stab at the proliferation of "democracy" -- a cause that they see as being the most noble in the world.

and all the while, these people have failed to ask the most important question: what if no one wants our version of democracy?

and i suppose that long road leads me to my point. we have to change the discussion in america. we have to create and foster an atmosphere where the left wing is as welcome as the right. we have to be able to talk openly about our countries geopolitical goals. we have to be able to talk about what is wrong with the country without being cast as "anit-american." after all, a real american should be concerned about how they are being represented to the rest of the world.

i am still so confused about why the democratic party would nominate kerry, a spineless centerest, rather than howard dean, who sought real changes in america. i thought that we were all hoping for real changes. and i am saying that as a conservative, and not a leftist ... though i am sure that's not how others would see it.

there is certainly part of me that hopes the democratic party will wither and die, and possibly be replaced by a more pointed party.

so here is my proposed platform for a new political party:

- ending the so called "war on terror"
- establishing a foreign policy that does not seek regime change or democratic proliferation by force
- reforming and regulating utilities and power companies
- establishing a national universal health care system
- completely re-authoring the constitution
- changing the money of america so as to not heroize slave owners and indian hunters
- reforming the method by which we elect our leaders

and i am sure i can go on. but i won't. and that's largely because no one would listen. so i am just led back to the same question: how do we change the focus of the discussion in america?