Politics and the Thought Police

The thought police are an insidious lot.

Their headquarters aren't in some bright shiny building. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that their headquarters are in many shiny buildings.

And they don't announce themselves as the thought police. Who needs to get into the messy work of actually policing people, when it's so easy just to fool them? They're more like a Bureau of Thought Manipulation. This being an election season, they're particularly active now -- throughout the media, the government, the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. They - not the President, as much as he might like to think he is - are the "deciders."

We Liberals like to think our thoughts aren't controlled. We pride ourselves on our independent thinking. We know we shouldn't believe everything we read. We realize the media is skewed, we know it's owned by a small group of people, we realize it's biased, etc. So given all that, one has to ask oneself -- why are Democrats buying so much prevailing b.s. hook, line, and sinker, allowing ourselves to be led down the same path that led us to defeat in the last two presidential elections?

Remember Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate? As much as a lot of us liked him, we were led to believe we'd have to be more mature about this. We couldn't just indulge our passion. We had to be smart here; no just going with our gut, or - God forbid - our principles. We were pressured by the official thought manipulators to go with someone "electable," like John Kerry. It's as though some Democratic "wisdom council" -- the same guys who told Gore he'd never be elected if he just spoke from his heart, and clearly must have told John Kerry the same thing -- decide not just the political strategy that will supposedly win the White House, but even the thoughts that the rest of us have to buy into in order to give them permission to determine the strategy.

No one ever stops to ask "Who are these guys?" (Interestingly, George Washington warned us in his farewell address about "the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally." ) We always just assume they know what they're talking about. We figure they're the ones who understand politics.

Right.

So after Kerry lost, for at least a day or two we saw through the fog. Those guys needed to be run out of town, we all shouted! Their strategy had led to defeat! Next time, we were going to go with our gut, stand on our principles! In retrospect, we could see that Gore and Kerry would have been better off if they had come across like genuine alternatives to the Republicans - not just Republican lites! We got it! 2008 would be different!

Oh yeah? Look again.

That same crowd is still clearly in charge, because you can tell their thought patterns a mile away. Today, their chosen candidate has a hyphenated name: Clinton-Obama-Edwards. This tri-candidate has all the markings of DNC thought manipulator approval: Just enough illusion of real difference from the Republicans to keep the not-yet-resisting-thought-manipulation Democrat happy; and just enough similarity to the prevailing establishment that the American people should buy it. This has been our strategy for the last three presidential elections, has it not? And just like Bush regarding his policy in Iraq, we seem to be in complete denial that our policy is a failed one. It didn't work last time, or even the time before that.

And I don't think we should assume it will work in 2008.

For those of us who actually think we should bring the troops home now, tell me again why we're not supporting Kucinich?

Silly me! Because he could never win, of course! He's not electable! Didn't I get the memo?

I've known Dennis Kucinich for a long time, and I don't think I have illusions about him. Sometimes I find him pompous, male chauvinistic, intellectually unbending. But he is a good man, and a serious one. Some sort of clown? No. New Age woo woo? No way (of course, the thought manipulators have labeled me that as well, so some people would say something here about the pot and the kettle). His banishment to the margins of our political dialogue, his mockery by the media-DNC elite special forces, has less to do with who he is, and what he stands for, than it has to do with the anti-Democratic forces that have hijacked our politics on both sides of the aisle.

Why won't we take Dennis Kucinich more seriously as our candidate in 2008? Because Tim Russert took twenty minutes to even get around to asking him a question in the last debate. Because Russert's idea of a real question -- after a couple of times when Kucinich inconveniently hit the ball out of the park with his answers --was to query him about seeing a UFO, then throwing in Shirley McLaine's name just to confirm the kill. It didn't matter that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had both spoken publicly about seeing UFO's. What mattered was how the image could be used to make Kucinich appear ridiculous -- serving the strategy of the elite machine still running things and for whom Kucinich is not an acceptable candidate.

In 2004, Kucinich was the only Presidential candidate who warned that a war in Iraq would be completely disastrous. I remember how mocked he was when he predicted hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad. I remember Candy Crowley, and other reporters as well, treating his views on the impending war as ridiculous, out there, almost insane. I remember Democratic strategists rolling their eyes then, as they do about him now. But in fact, Dennis Kucinich was the one who turned out to be right. I have to ask you: Who's zoomin' who?

Something very dark, almost Orwellian, is afoot here, and the issue is much bigger than whether or not Dennis Kucinich gets a shot at the Presidency. It's about whether or not we do. Or whether the thought manipulators have it all sewn up.

Sitting at a party recently, among some powerful liberals ringing their hands about Hillary appearing heartless, Obama appearing weak, and Edwards appearing - well, no one can quite put their finger on it - I said, "The only question any real progressive should be asking right now is, 'Tell me again why we're not supporting Kucinich?' " The room grew silent. There was no, "Awe, come on, be serious!" No one good-naturedly shouted me down, as they would have two or three months ago. Rather I was met by silence. I saw people around me slowly nodding their heads.

I feel a shift. Subtle. But there. People are starting to wake up to the fact that a media/political party-complex basically decide our candidate, then create the illusion for the rest of us that in fact we're the ones who did the deciding. But the only thing we're truly free to decide now - and which we should decide now -- is whether we'll put up with all this thought manipulation for one minute more.

Tell me again, why we're not supporting Kucinich?

Comments

[Vanna]

If ever Kucinich could get elected, he'd have the same problem that Carter and Clinton had: a vast right-wing conspiracy to distract, detract, deflect and destroy anything he tries to get done, using phony scandals and disloyal betrayal by "his" party. He'll get boxed in legislatively and endlessly and shamelessly vilified in the media. All the nascent Bush hatred will find a home in President Kucinich. We will, once again, eat our own.

[Guitarsandmore]

Marianne,

H.R. 333 to impeach Dick Cheney was passed by the House today and sent on to the judiciary committee. Since Dennis Kucinich authored this bill this seems to be his moment.

The Judiciary Committee is headed by Conyers which should make this fun to watch.

Best Regards,

G&M

[andygaus]

Dennis Kucinich is the only person I've heard publicly mention that it's a national-security issue if we can't manufacture anything in the United States any more. If we were fighting World War Two again, Rosie the Riveter would have to build ships in Indonesia.

[drblack]

I am supporting Kucinich. he has integrity and will support America Freedom, and prosperity.
Hillary Clinton has no integrity and will destroy Freedom and sell out to Big Business and China like Bill did. Hillary would be a Republican in any time before Reagan.
Vote Kucinich and get an honest person as president

[Zanti]

Hm. Looks like my comment didn't go up.

You ask why we're not supporting Kucinich, and I agree it would be the thing to do--he's my favorite, too. However, the sad reality (but one I think we all know, if we'd admit it) is that looks count for a huge amount in this game. Dennis has a high voice and short stature. That dooms him. I wish it weren't so, that our electorate (including liberals) were too sophisticated to allow these things to count, but we do, and they do. Certainly, much of it is the influence of TV, but, for males, height and voice pitch have been huge determiners of success forever. To put it another way, Mickey Rooney never played James Bond.

[Guitarsandmore]

Marianne,

First of all, you are not “new age woo woo” and you are loved by many. Your writing is heart warming and comforting. I would welcome a Marianne Williamson on my team any day of the week.

Second, there are no perfect candidates; only different choices which would give us different results. As perceptive and cognitive as Dennis Kucinich is, he too, has his faults.

What must not escape our understanding right now is that a Democrat must be elected to the White House in 2008. Kucinich would be a great choice and I am sure he would evict all of the Republican hangers on that have been lurking about the Federal government for decades like vampires sucking the life out of our democracy. But vote for whatever Democrat is nominated. It matters.

Best Regards,

G&M

[HeevenSteven]

That was an excellent essay Marianne. I must apologize, because I've never heard of you; my loss.

I think Tim Russert is a pompous windbag; but you are so right: He and others ditto head media clones ARE the thought police; and as much as we'd like to think liberals are independent thinkers, the truth is most of us are too busy and intellectually lazy to bother learning what we need to know; so we look to idiots like him to sort out the "facts" for us.

The right figured this out a long time ago and have since used their media empires keep their sheep bleating faithfully.

[freespeach]

Fantastic post Marianne.

His support and efforts for impeachment are so reasonable and so right. Same for his complete honesty on the hydrocarbon deal for Iraq.

Orwellian is a good word to describe some of what is going on with Dennis, especially when they lie to us like ABC.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DGfXA8DlE

It would be bad enough and wrong enough if they just ignored him, but as the 2minute link shows, there is more to it.

Perhaps some sort of critical mass is building and Dennis will get a chance to reach more people. We all share the responsibility for helping to make it happen.

Peace.

[LeeFromVA]

Marianne,

I'm a big fan of Kucinich, and BTW I loved "A Return to Love." I also agree with the point you're making, but... I do think we have to be smart about it. I know, I know, I'm just buying into the hype, but for me I find real comfort in an Obama Presidency. He's a good guy and I feel that in my soul, and he'll be a great departure from the Neocons. He has a real message of hope and unity. He can restore respect to this country. Unfortunately Dennis Kucinich is unelectable, hell I think Hillary Clinton is unelectable. With Obama I feel I finally have a candidate I can feel good about, not just one that is electable.

[Dantheman99]

Marianne, great post.

I'm a Green and I'd absolutely support and vote for Kucinich in an open primary.

The issue of course is thought.

The media tells us that the only viable options are Clinton/Ob­ama/Edward­s and they get all the coverage and attention even though not a single vote has been cast, because they have money and won the "fundraising primary" even though we are a nation of one person, one vote theoretically, not one dollar, one vote.

Second, it is only a two-party system if we believe that in our minds. While our first-past-the-post election system with our antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College, favors a two-party system, there is nothing that requires that. We can change our electoral system to have runoff elections, ranked-choice voting, and proportional representation in our legislatures. The Republicans were a third party in the 19th Century and replaced the Whigs. Other countries with the same electoral system have multiple parties in their legislatures.

It is my opinion that the Democratic Party is unsalvageable because it is controlled and contained by the similar corporate campaign contributions that control the Republicans.

Of course, the Democratic Party doesn't need a new campaign finance law to do the right thing. They could refuse corporate contributions on principle (remember doing something simply because it is the right thing to do or even not doing something simply because it is the wrong thing to do).

I support the Green Party in no small party because they embody the ideas I hold dear and do not take these corrupting campaign contributions.

I wish Kucinich would leave the Democrats and run as the standard bearer for the Green Party. Or, after this election, start a new Progressive Party that as part of its founding principles, does not accept corporate campaign contributions.

If one believes in Kucinich, vote for him so he can have as many convention delegates as possible and have the chance to shape the future of the Party and the platform, if the party is even worth saving.

[emilyb]

Thank you for bringing this to people's attention. It is unfortunate that so many people (even those who should know better!) parrot the same statement "I love him but he'll never win" It's like a group mantra...W­e need to think about what we are projecting. Are people really ready for true change and the responsibility this brings? A big excuse people use is that if they hadn't voted for Nader, Bush wouldn't have won. That's such a lame excuse to not vote for Kucinich. Kucinich is as electable and winnable as the group consciousness makes him.

[CriminallySane]

Kucinich is not being marginalized by the media, he is being marginalized by the voters, who are too indifferent to look for themselves at who is running. And he is being marginalized by the voters who realize that he is one of the least telegenic human beings in politics, and a terrible communicator in the bargain.

Having "good ideas" is not sufficient. A winning candidate needs to be persuasive enough to bring the voters along and deliver them to the polls on Election Day. Money or not, media or not, Kucinich will not succeed at this.

Reality check ended...

[peacehappens]

I am supporting Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. Both represent real change, challenge the status quo, etc.

A decision has already been made about who will be appointed president if Bush doesn't declare martial law.

I used to vote against candidates. I am no longer willing to do that.

The thought police have been around for a very long time but have become less willing to hide what they are doing.
I'm afraid we are waking up very late and that our country is in grave danger from the people that have been put in office, the corporations, the unions and MSM.

I just don't know where to go to escape the insanity.

[jesusquintana]

We are supporting him. In the most recent email from DFA, he's leading in the pulse poll. Marianne, saying "..somethi­ng dark, almost Orwellian, is afoot here.." is a huge understatement. Our representative democratic republic is dead. They'll install whoever they want.

[Desiderata]

If Kucinich is the candidate that your soul crys out for, vote for him in your state primary.

If enough do that, Dennis will be the one to go up against the pod candidate of the Repubs.

If enough do not vote for the candidate your soul crys out for, please do not withdraw so much that we tighten the Repub noose around our necks and surrender our republic for eternity.

That is, if there is even an election in 2008. These traitors know that only the power they have now shields them from arrest and punishment. They will not surrender power in the face of an election. Remember how the last national emergency came close to canceling the mayorial election in New York City?