Books

What Cynicism Costs Us

The author of Soul of a Citizen asks why so many 'social activists almost delight in rolling around in the bad news.'

By Paul Rogat Loeb, 19 May 2010, TheTyee.ca

paul_rogat_loeb

Author Paul Rogat Loeb: Against 'impotent realism'.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

  • Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times
  • Paul Rogat Loeb
  • St Martin's Press (2010)

With over 100,000 copies in print, my book Soul of a Citizen has inspired thousands of citizens to make their voices heard and actions count -- and to stay involved for the long haul. I spent the past year writing a wholly revised new edition, which St Martin's will publish March 30, and which I'll serialize for the next several months. I like to think of it as an antidote to the political demoralization, paralysis, and despair that so many people are feeling these days. Here's the first excerpt, adapted from the chapter called "The Cynical Smirk."

When I and a majority of my fellow Americans elected Barack Obama, cynicism seemed in retreat, beaten back by a wave of ordinary people staking their time, money, and spirit on the prospect of significant change. We seemed to have reached a major historical turning point, offering the chance finally to address our country's root crises. Now, cynicism and despair have bounced back on steroids, as if to mock any new hope that we can help create a better world. Last year's soaring expectations seem distant memories, leaving a bitter taste.

Obama's campaign made grassroots participation central, and he's invited us to help him do the right thing in office. But his compromises and the failings of Senate leaders to overcome the resistance of their obstructionist colleagues have destroyed much of the grassroots enthusiasm that existed a year ago.

Meanwhile, those of us whose passionate engagement helped elect Obama haven't stepped up to help define our national debates (while the Teabaggers have). Most of us have done little beyond signing online letters or petitions, and watching shell-shocked from the sidelines as the country's politics spiraled steadily downward. Yet I still believe that we can help transform America through what Nelson Mandela called "the multiplication of courage," as I explore in Soul of a Citizen. But for that resurgence of courage to bloom, we need to get past the cynical resignation that assumes change is impossible.

'Everybody lies'

What happens when we decide that our politics is so corrupt, bought and paid for, that all talk of ever changing it is naïve? "Everybody lies," says a veteran newspaperman quoted in the Utne Reader, "but it doesn't matter, because nobody listens." In an extreme personal example, imagine a man who tells his young son to jump from the stairs into his arms. The father catches the boy twice, but the third time steps back and lets him fall. "That's to teach you never to trust anyone," he explains, "even your own father." 

We've come to expect comparable betrayals when we think about changing our society. A long-powerful strain in our culture posits all businesspeople and politicians as corrupt, all religious leaders charlatans, all journalists hacks -- and all who'd dare to try to work to change their society naïve fools. Increasingly, it's come to occupy the mental and psychological space we could reserve for hope -- at least for the kind of hope that might inspire us to take larger political stands. Better to expect nothing, in this view, than to set ourselves up for certain disappointment. Taken far enough, this kind of cynical resignation can become as great a barrier to meaningful public action as all other obstacles combined.

Cynicism wasn't always so disempowering. The first Cynics were a group of ancient Greek philosophers, most notably Diogenes, who caustically denounced the established culture of their time. Monk-like ascetics who preached simplicity, self-discipline, and self-sufficiency, they offered a moral alternative to the empty materialism, legalism, and religious hypocrisy that had come to dominate Greek society. Back then, to be a Cynic meant to stand up for one's convictions.

In our time, however, cynicism comes in the guise of an all-knowing attitude that working for a larger common good is the vocation of the terminally innocent, leaving no likely outcome except heartbreak. So what's the alternative? It's not blind trust, as the disastrous regime of Bush and Cheney made all too clear. We need to be skeptical of the lies and distortions that permeate our culture. But too many Americans, convinced that the greediest must always run our country, have responded by retreating into private life, whether the admittedly difficult challenges of economical survival, or the distractions and comforts we embrace as modest respite and recompense. Meanwhile, we bury whatever qualms they may have about our national direction, hoping against hope that someone will take care of things.

'A sorry kind of wisdom'

Barack Obama campaigned to reverse this course, blasting cynicism as "a sorry kind of wisdom." His message resonated to people hungry for something better. It's still too early to say that he'll inevitably fail, because the outcome depends largely on our own actions. Yet the very expectations he raised have combined with compromises from Afghanistan to health care to the bank bailouts to sour the national mood. The result: pervasive dashed hopes and disillusionment -- not just with his administration, but with public engagement in general, particularly in the electoral sphere.  Add in the appalling Supreme Court decision that risks making our elected officials even more direct bought and paid hirelings of Exxon. No wonder those who so recently thought they'd begun to reclaim their country are feeling bleak.

Corporations like Exxon, Goldman Sachs, and UnitedHealth do profoundly deform our public discourse. Too often politicians follow their lead. But once we decide that we're powerless, our passivity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, a habit of mind that's harder and harder to shake. We decide we can do nothing about key common issues, large or small. Then we withdraw from public life before giving it a serious shot. If enough of us withdraw, we hand power over to the greediest.

A "radical" political scientist once explained to me loftily, "We're fooling ourselves if we think government doesn't serve powerful economic interests." True enough, for the moment. But he framed this as inevitable, as if history were something that only happens to us, rather than something we can have a hand in making. He gave his students no vision to fight for—only only the prospect of joining him in the ranks of the all-knowing witnesses to human folly. The political scientist also gave his students an all-purpose excuse for inaction and resignation. If nothing worthwhile can be done about the economy, climate change, global violence, or those suffering in our communities, then we bear no responsibility. Like the Kafka creature tunneling ever deeper in his story The Burrow,we retreat into smaller and smaller spheres of private life, hoping the rest of the world will somehow muddle through.

Salving the pain

Ironically, such resignation can happen in people who aren't personally cynical. We still try to be caring toward family and friends. We may even volunteer at a Big Brother/Big Sister program or help at a soup kitchen. And those are good things to do. But when we look at the larger issues, like global climate change, why so many people in America are hungry, or how to fix a greed-driven health care system or America's strip-mined economy, we throw up our hands in frustration. Taking them on just seems too daunting, and our chances of success too elusive. It seems wiser and more practical to narrow our horizons.

Cynical resignation salves the pain of unrealized hope. If we convince ourselves that little can change, we don't have to risk acting on our dreams. If we never fight for what we believe in and aspire to, we'll never be disappointed. We can challenge destructive or duplicitous leaders with contrary information and counter-examples, stories about how the powers that be have misled us. But what can possibly challenge an all-encompassing worldview that, in the guise of sophistication, promotes the bleakest possible perspective on the human condition—the notion that our world has become so irredeemably corrupt, that whatever we do, we cannot change this?

As an alternative to this impotent "realism," I'd like to propose a clear-eyed idealism, which recognizes that these are bad times but refuses to accept that the bad times are inevitable. I'm not promoting a culture of happy talk. It's important to dissect institutional arrogance and greed, to assess how it damages lives, neighborhoods, communities, and the most basic life systems of the earth. It's critical to hold powerful institutions and individuals accountable, including political leaders like Obama who we may have worked for, voted for, and may still support in many ways. But too many social activists almost delight in rolling around in the bad news, like dogs in rancid fish. If that's all we do, we'll foster mostly resignation and despair. So along with the bad news, we need to convey that which is capable of inspiring hope.

It may always feel more than a little absurd to think that we might be able to change history. Especially when our efforts don't go as planned, it can be useful to recognize that fact -- and appreciate the irony in our situation. But that same sense of irony becomes dangerous when it justifies passivity. It becomes what poet and essayist Lewis Hyde calls "the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage." Accordingly, we might think of a modern cynic as someone who's given up all hope of finding a door, much less a key. There are better ways to live. [Tyee]

Adapted from the wholly updated new edition of Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times by Paul Rogat Loeb. Copyright © 2010 by the author and reprinted by permission of St. Martin's Griffin. Loeb also wrote The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear.

68 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Unfortunately

    There's a lot of people out there who buy into the "prevailing wisdom" they download from the media.

    Thirty years ago the Thatcher revolution began which championed the idea that there is no community. That all we are is a bunch of individuals acting in our own economic interests.

    The deterioration of healthcare and education, the rise of poverty and inequality were all justified on the grounds of "There is no alternative" to a regime that lowers taxes on the rich and raises them on the poor in the interest of "fairness".

    Linda McQuaig detailed this mindset in her book "Shooting the Hippo". Lower taxes, less regulation, less government services and a greater ability of corporations to dominate the public sphere were to be viewed as positive ends in themselves while the rise of poverty and the deterioration of community were justified as acceptable losses.

    With an entire generation raised in such an environment, an environment that tells us over and over that community is dead, is it any wonder people feel alone and helpless and resign themselves to the manufactured "fact" that corporations will take care of us better than we ever could ourselves?

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Thatcherism/Reaganism

    Well said, Frank. Reagan promulgated the idea that government is inherently the problem in modern society. This ideology took root after an extended period of government activism that acknowledged and codified civil rights and women's rights, protected the environment, and placed restrictions on the actions of corporations. The people opposed to those changes quite cleverly handicapped that main force that defended them, the democratic government. To add insult to injury, when the reactionaries managed to get into government, they cynically turned it into whore for the business sector. This further turned people against the idea of using democratic government for progressive change -- after all, government is bought and paid for by the powerful and the privileged.

    There are some rays of hope for progressives. Harper has failed to consolidate his hold on government to the point where he can fully implement his program. In the U.S., Obama still is pushing for reform and the teabaggers are failing to get much acceptance in wider society. All is not lost. Also, the Americans got major healthcare reform, something I never thought would happen down there. Lots of work to do though.

  • Urbanismo

    2 years ago

    How can Mr. Obama initiate

    How can Mr. Obama initiate change and hope when he appoints the old guard, who caused the problems, to solve those same problems?

    Joking about drones and prevaricating on so many issues does not inspire me . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cz4vcQKWfA&feature=player_embedded

    George Carlin has a point.

  • cboo44

    2 years ago

    Sorry Frank, the "Blame Game" doesn't cut it

    You can try and blame the various right-wing "isms" for the current general political cynicism, but the spoiled rotten, selfish, "ME" generation of gutless wonders who can't even summon up the fortitude to think for themselves is what allowed your "isms" to take hold.In Canada, the federal Liberals learned a long time ago that pandering to the "What about me?" syndrome allowed them to become the "natural ruling party". It's all about human greed, Frank. And very few have the stamina or character to resist.

  • mainstradical

    2 years ago

    And?

    I hope next week has some cogent and practical ideas for combating this cynicism and "wallowing around in the negative". In Canada.

  • Skywalker

    2 years ago

    cboo44 has a point.

    It might be more productive to rail at the spineless political options ( at least they turn out to be spineless) that are listed on our ballots. Once they are selected they turn out to be sucking up to the same greedy corporate interests as the ones they replaced. Or as is the current case they simply keep their heads down and hang on to their cushy jobs so they can retire with fat pensions. Can you blame anyone having to suffer these clowns for being cynical? Blame the lack of choice and then "Canvass Goebbels."

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    cboo44

    My post was based on the fact that the rise of cynicism and political apathy was in lockstep with the elections of Thatcher and Reagan (and Mulroney here) and the adoption of Chicago-school economic thinking by our governments and central banks.

    I believe that it is not a coincidence that the publicly stated objectives of people like Thatcher have come to fruition in this environment.

    Whereas if I'm reading you correctly your belief is that it is a coincidence that the rise of the New Right and the adoption of monetarism has come at the same time as the rise of cynicism and apathy. Because you think its the "kids today" so to speak who are to blame and they would have been just as cynical and just as apathetic even if they had grown up in a different political and economic environment?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Skywalker

    Actually I think the shift to the Right in the media has occurred as part of the process. Chicago-school advocates now run most of the newspapers in Canada. The Fazil Mihlar's and Michael Campbell's of the world don't just work in Vancouver, they work at newspapers across the country. Hired by owners and publishers who wanted their view of the world reflected in the newspaper (an idea that seems to be imported from Fleet Street and a jarring change from the way Canadian newspapers were run previously).

    Their goal is to breed cynicism and apathy in the general population, to bring them around to the view that "there is no alternative" to the current orthodoxy and that whatever is good for our betters is good for the rest of us.

    It is after all not so much those of us with memories of the way things were that don't vote, its those that grew up in the current environment.

  • barney

    2 years ago

    Generation Me

    cboo44 is on the right track in pointing to a generational element in all of this, but I don't see this in contradiction with Frank's insights on NeoCon-cum-NeoLib influence and a heightened sense of alienation.

    Another study on Millennials (those born after 1979), published last week, which is pretty much true for Generation-Y (those born after 1970) indicates a prevailing, unjustified sense of entitlement, especially with respect to career expectations? Hard work, paying my dues? Fuck that noise. I want entry salary of $100k and a private office with a view + benefits.

    Now, imagine the level of cynicism, alienation and depression when most of these twerps realize that world doesn't work that way.

    Yes, this is crude generalization, of course, but there is social science to document much of this trend. I would argue you can transpose this to the social/political activist subcultures. The type of idealism I see in young activists is not the kind I recall when I was fighting against wars, bad presidents, nuclear weapons and dictatorships in the 1970s and 80s. The Gen-M & Gen-Y sense of entitlement is happening within activist groupings and when the unrealistic ideal isn't realized, cynicism comes crashing down all the more hard.

    Add to all of this the very real impending doom associated with peak oil and climate change (the natural disasters and droughts seem an almost normal, weekly news item these days). I'd be pretty cynical too, especially if I was a youngster raised on a steady diet of self-esteem, which, as it turns out is not self-esteem at all, but narcissism.

  • barney

    2 years ago

    Actually, come to think of it...

    Is there even anything approaching a student protest movement these days? The private sector infiltration of our public campuses across the country, combined with generational factors seems to have all but snuffed out any spirit of activism. Cynicism or indifference, or narcissism?

    The hottest issues in the media related to Uvic these days are (1) The group Save the Bunnies' fight to stop the cull of rabbits; and (2) The civil rights lawsuit involving a campus pro-life group.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    barney

    Would you not agree that that the expectations of new generations originates in the fact that we now glorify the guy who gets his MBA, gets parachuted into a top job with stock options and cashes out at 40 whether he drove the company into the toilet or not?

    Why would anyone be satisfied with doing a day's work for a day's pay and just paying a mortgage when you can have it all without working?

    Get in, get as much as you can and then get out and live off your investments is held up as the road to happiness nowadays.

    After all, when I grew up the Gordon Geckos of the world weren't people you idolized, today they are.

    There's been a huge shift in values over the last 30 years and in my opinion that's because right-wing values are now instilled in the younger generations.

  • Investor

    2 years ago

    Great article

    How about we debate the central thrust of how to combat cynicism and generate involvement in society. I can argue it's the left (due to both leftish governments and the right stealing the lefts best ideas) ..and weak absolvist economic policies that have lead us to where we are.

    Why is Europe bailing out Greece & French/German banks. Why did Obama bail out car companies and big US banks. Why do shareholders allow management to steal so much by way of gross pay packages.

    All due to lack of engagement and the will or conviction to fight.

  • Ronald Pagan

    2 years ago

    Look in the Mirror

    The people who comment on this site should sit, chew, swallow and digest the message of this article.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Ronald

    EDITED FOR PERSONAL INSULT -- MODERATOR

  • barney

    2 years ago

    Frank

    I would not disagree with you at all that there has been, over the past three decades, a convergence of issues related to generational attitude, changing post-secondary culture/emphasis and Neocon/Neolib ('right-wing') thinking, but I'm not so quick to isolate out these factors, or reduce a very complex sociological question to mere right-wing politics. Neither Reagan or Thatcher deserve such full credit.

    I think the question involves lots more factors, including our changing ways of communicating and interacting (Internet = less real social interaction, therefore more real alienation and cynicism).

    The very nature of today's political cynicism is different from the sort a few decades ago. Unlike in the past, today's cynicism seems more of a happy-go-ignorant nihilism, devoid of social any substantive criticism, dialogue and analysis. At least in the old days when we bitched about government corruption, we usually backed this up with action, and in those old days the media usually had a much healthier appetite and budget for hard investigative journalism. We seem to have none of that now.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    barney

    I can't say I disagree with your last paragraph but my point is the "why". Why is today's cynicism different? Why is the media different?

    In your second paragraph you offer our changing ways of communicating and interacting. But 20 years ago I would have expected the ease of today's communication to have combated apathy and to have increased activism. After all, if I want to find people of like minds its easier now than it was 20 years ago.

    So I would have expected disengagement to decrease, not increase. Makes me wonder if things would be worse if it wasn't for the internet.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Investor

    I'm curious as to why you see those bailouts to be a "Left-wing" thing?

    Most Leftees I've ever known have been against corporate welfare.

    In the case of a car company, sure I could understand that, you'd want to save good jobs knowing that if you don't we're not simply going to stop driving cars, we'll just be driving Asian ones instead.

    But protecting employment doesn't explain why the Left could be blamed for bank bailouts. We wouldn't exactly be helping anyone on our side and after all, it wasn't a right-wing group that set fire to an RBC back east, it was a left-wing group.

    And of course when it comes to government, there have been very few left-wing governments in Canada, none nationally, in the last 25 years.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Economics?

    There may well be a widening gap between the rich and the poor but in much of the world millions are better off than they were a few decades ago. In those times the greatest unrest in the west was over civil rights and the Vietnam War, certainly not over any economic philosophy. Both those issues are now history. Another huge factor, aside from Thatcher or Regan, was the fact that the Cold War was on and many countries were under socialist regimes.

    Gorbachev went to China and developed some rapport between those two dangerous states and the Soviet Union has gone completely now and none of the countries in the Soviet Bloc have gone back to socialism, so one cannot expect much support for activists who may espouse that style of governance. Democracy, freedom, social programmes with varying systems of universal health care is what is in place in an increasing number of countries. Even the United States has at last just voted to extend state funded health care coverage to million that have, up to now, been excluded.

    US forces are winding down in Iraq and the Afghanistan caper is seeing less support at the government's level too. In Canada's case the NATO involvement that the Liberals go us into is being canceled by the Conservatives.

    Close looking observers may well see societal problems at their local level but overall there isn't much for the world as a whole to get too upset about. One can call that cynicism and point to low voter turnouts but one could also consider that contentment can also be the reason that people do not vote or become involved in politics.

    The writer correctly notes that; "... too many social activists almost delight in rolling around in the bad news, like dogs in rancid fish. ...". An indulgent luxury for aging 60's rebels nostalgic for the days of protest songs and a Worldwide Commune.

    World finances are fragile and they may yet see street anger but it will unlikely result in socialist dictators taking over.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Interesting

    I guess I'll have to buy the book in order to find out if Mr Loeb thinks the lack of public engagement and low voter turnout is because no one wants a socialist dictator.

    Or perhaps his book will tell us that we can trace the origins of political apathy to the moment Bobby McFerrin released "Don't worry, be happy".

    EDITED FOR SNIPING, PERSONAL INSULTS.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Not Interested

    Are you? I did read the article, twice. I skimmed it and then went back because I found it worthwhile. I also read that a certain commentator suggested that cynicism and political apathy was in lockstep with the elections of Thatcher and Reagan, yet the commentator completely ignored that other side of our contemporary social equation, the absolute and incredible spontaneous dismantling of the Soviet Union and freeing of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States. The reduction of Russian influence in India and the capitalization of China.

    By the book. When you've read it you can smile too.

    If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.
    If you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it.

  • Jeffrey J.

    2 years ago

    Simple Remedies Are Available

    Citizen action is the antidote to corporate and financial elitism. The steps are pretty simple: turn off your TV; read WAY more; volunteer for an organization that actually gets stuff done (there are lots); stop consuming MSM (mainstream media);

    Injustices abound across North America. It is a matter of picking one or two systemic injustices (there are lots to choose from) and show up and start helping out.

    Many people did this in the 1930's and the 1960's. In each decade, the world changed a lot. If Bolivia can improve social justice, surely to goodness BC citizens can.

    Interesting article.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    realisticman

    In my posts I try to answer why what the author says is happening. Your argument is that what the author is saying isn't happening at all.

    So your argument, which is that the author and I completely ignored what you think the article and conversation should be about should really be directed at the author of the book, not me.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Frank

    You may try and answer what the American author is saying, then you widened the scope, bringing up Thatcher, then Regan and included Canada, thereby including the whole western world. I can't see how then this debate can therefore exclude the decline and fall of the Soviet empire.

    When the subject, left-wing cynicism, is considered it could be argued that a world-wide galvanizing issue like Vietnam or the Cold War does not currently exist. A total collapse in finance could become a world-wide issue but economic theories won't.

    The author is only mentioning the USA but his sentiment covers more geography when he writes, "Cynical resignation salves the pain of unrealized hope."

    Obama has formidable challenges but he is changing the US gradually and his health-care bill is admirable.

    We see the same cynicism elsewhere including in Canada. It's the cry that falls limp, 'We're not happy until you're not happy'. I don't think it's a winner.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    realisticman

    Not at all, if you think the fall of the Soviet Union is the reason for disengagement and political apathy in the West then by all means you should raise that issue. I don't buy it but that's neither here nor there.

    And as for me, I do believe Reagan's influence on the US increased disengagement. I look at the general fall in voter turnout over the last 30 years as my reason why I believe that and offer up an opinion as to what the connection might be. Again, you don't have to buy my argument.

    But as you say, the subject of the article is left-wing cynicism and I think I might have a better grasp of that issue than you or Ronald.

    So why have more people become disengaged and apathetic and depressed? You say they're happier because things are better. Well, that doesn't answer the depressed part.

    The author states that Obama galvanized a large number of people who were previously cynical and apathetic and that because he hasn't been able to change much that that is once again turning those people off.

    In other words, pretty much the complete opposite of what you're basing your argument on because if they were happy with the status quo they wouldn't be looking for change.

  • max von smartt

    2 years ago

    demockracy and hope for change

    harper and his lunatic fundamentalist cabal are intent on pushing a bill for mandatory prison for growers of as few as 6 cannabis plants, and has ok'd extradition of self styled prince of pot marc emery to amerika for selling seeds. and obama is going to allow this? gimme another swill of vodka, comrade!

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Frank

    Yes, Obama galvanized a large number of people who were previously cynical and apathetic and that because he hasn't been able to change much that that is once again turning those people off. I agree. Perhaps there was the unrealistic hope of rapid change. The US system does not allow any president to change the structure of the country immediately and that realization has disappointed many but there's not large enough groundswell for activism probably because of that realization and the fact that the status quo is changing, particularly with the Health-Care bill. The difficulty to comprehend the complexities of the world-wide financial situation, with so many countries in trouble from overspending also contributes to a situation where the solutions are a struggle to define.

    The recent collapse of collectivism and socialism just cannot spur the general population to believe that that is the answer and that is what many activists are trying to sell.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    realisticman

    I agree, the hopes were generally unrealistic. Also, Obama's background didn't suggest that he's a messiah of any sort. So it seems a given that hoping one man could change everything was doomed to disappoint.

    However, the author of the second post on this topic (Booker) and I agree that one man, Reagan, was able to change the direction of that country. Like Obama he couldn't change it overnight but as the figurehead of a well-funded movement, he had a lot of support and I believe they were successful in changing the country's conversation and instilling new ideas into the national dialogue and the way Americans see themselves.

    Considering the resources available to those possessed of that ideology it shouldn't be a surprise that those ideas took root. They understood that the legacy of a single president would be fleeting, that permanent change could only be accomplished by not allowing the clock to be turned back to pre-1980. And therefore we saw a mushrooming of more and more voices all singing from the same hymn book. The rise of New Right talk radio, tv shows, newspapers, even channels, the proliferation of New Right think tanks feeding those media and so on.

    Obama has none of that with the possible exception of MoveOn.org so he doesn't have a big wave behind him like Reagan did. In all likelihood his presidency will be a failure and the policies of the New Right will continue after he's gone. However, at this point there's still a slight chance he'll succeed.

    That being said, those that don't like seeing the rise of the New Right aren't happy he's not doing better and more importantly, seemingly not trying very hard to do better. The people he's selected for various positions have generally been disappointing to those hoping for real change.

    Therefore Obama is losing support on the Left when he needs it most just to survive. {Just as in the last election here in BC rabble.ca was full of dittoheads that patted each other on the back for declaring they wouldn't vote because the NDP wasn't left-wing enough. They spent more time criticizing James than they did Campbell)

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    cont...

    The problem is akin to the old chicken and the egg. People will become inspired if they see real change and real change can only happen if enough people are inspired and motivated to the point they become the majority.

    I don't want to judge the author before I've read him in his entirety but I do hope his book is not simply a lecture telling people to cheer up. I assume from the article it isn't but I guess we'll see. As he says, the problems are real, the depression and cynicism is real and the bleak outlook for the future as perceived by those of us on the Left is real.

    The rise in voter apathy, the dwindling of community engagement seems to bolster the view of the Left that society is on the wrong path. Those stats suggest to me that its not just the Left that are giving up on society ever being better. More and more people think succeeding generations will be worse off. A very troubling statistic for any society.

    And yet, there is always that hope that the apathetic masses will start engaging and voting again as things get worse not just for society but for them personally. And that is probably why the subtitle says what it does.

  • Crescent

    2 years ago

    Time to Take Our Country Back With Political Action

    Protesting is limited in its effectiveness at best; hence the growing cynicism. Protesting is limited in effectiveness as the mainstream political parties have been bought with campaign contributions. So we need a coalition of associations that funds a new party with public good as its core policy. The corporations have bought their politicians, so we need to buy ours,then we control the agenda and more importantly the spending. There are countries that are social democrats, the run a tight budget, and their businesses are profitable. Its doable. We just need to collectively reclaim our country, first. That and boycott the main stream media. Vote with our dollars and franchise.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Frank

    I generally agree. As you say, "...there's still a slight chance he'll succeed."

  • deeby

    2 years ago

    What keeps good people out is...

    ...the fact that there are no rules, no decorum, and no protection against having one's name and reputation dragged through the mud.

    The honour in political activity is lost, replaced by a brutal utilitarianism. It's the intellectual and rhetorical equivalent of war.....

  • Mustafarian

    2 years ago

    Cynicism is...

    ... writing this post - knowing that it is highly unlikely the author of the article (or anyone else) will read it, much less respond. But the stubborn 'activist' inside compels me to do so anyways.

    Look, Obama has been the worst thing to happen to all you naive well-meaning Americans. At least many of us knew what to expect with Bush/Chenney - though we could never have predicted how awful they would be of course, nobody could have predicted 911.

    But Obama rode the naive masses like the cheapest of crack whores, and once he got what he wanted, he dumped them like the same aforementioned sex trade worker.

    It is pathetic at this stage to try to blame the always-corrupt Senate, the lobbyists, the Tea Party or the GOP, and much less ourselves, for this situation we are in. Obama wins the world title for political cynicism, not just for doing what all politicians do - lying to get elected - but on such as scale that he has succeeded in eroding the already dodgy reputation of the political system to lows never seen before.

    And don't give me this crap about how the conservatives are revitalized while Obama-maniacs are in self imposed disarray. The Tea Party and the likes are astroturf groups funded by billionaires and supported by Fox news. Obama-maniacs, on the other hand, are a pathetic lot - used and betrayed by their messiah and supported by no-one with money or power.

    Yes, you bought the Obama koolaid and and now you see he's just another corrupt-to-the core mass murdering politician...

    Just ask the families of the ~600 victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan authorized by him if you don't agree with that last assessment. And that's just the beginning...

    Obama's 'realism' and 'pragmatism' are just spin from an administration that is, like all others before it (regardless of party), completely beholden to the real power in the US; corporate, military, financial, whatever - just not average people - and as craven and cynical as can be - gleefully exploiting the ignorance and stupidity of the rabble as needed.

    So 'activists' are shocked and cynical after they bet their 'dreams' on a man and system who right back (and predictably) f****d them in the a**?

    Perhaps then there is hope activist will start seeing the system and its many Obamas for what they really are and start fighting for a new world without them.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Hmmm!

    Realisticman says:
    "World finances are fragile...."
    Bwahhh ha haa!

    No fucking kidding! Where'd you get that idea Sherlock?

    This is the same man who - less than two years ago used this website to trumpet the joys of globalism and crow about the unending prosperity it was bringing to the world and the unequaled opportunities for all and sundry.

    To read again the words of one of this site's chief purveyors of phony positivism to talk about anyone's cynicism is worth the price of admission.

    I may make another contribution to David Beers' baby just so realisticman will continue to have a place to spin his fairy tales.

    And you ask why anyone would be cynical in a country where the banks get bailed out to the tune of better than $75 billion and yet our politicians are circling the globe fighting a 'bank tax'?

    God, where the hell is Monty Python when you need him?

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Always look on the bright side...

    The market has come back big-time since the decline in '09, yet there are questions as to whether some European states can rein in their profligate spending on social programmes and get their debts under control.

    Canadian banks were bailed out, you say? I don't think so and that's why there's a resistance to an international bank tax. If there is a bank tax who do think will actually pay it? Are you prepared to pay higher bank fees because of the reckless practices of foreign banks?

    We see today that Obama's banking regulation bill is moving on to the Senate, so that will be another substantial piece of legislation that splits away the derivatives trading from the investment banks that caused many of the problems. Just more good news.

    Consumers are buying again and retail figures are going up. Notice that that bellwether, copper, did not go down today with all the others.

    Auto sales are up (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html) as the market generally improves and older clunkers are replaced. You're not still bumping around in that 22 year old Toyota are you? The new vehicles are so much more efficient, you'd save on the carbon tax. Sales of the Fusion are up 50% from '09. Have you driven a Ford lately?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Guess you haven't checked the Dow today

    I think it closed down almost 400 points - and where's Pee Wee's looney today?

    Wake up man, your shorts are on fire!

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Yes. Canadian Banks WERE BAILED OUT

    To the tune of $75 billion dollars.

    I know Flaherty won't acknowledge that - but when has that asshole ever told the truth.

    The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOOK 75 BILLION BORROWED DOLLARS AND GAVE IT TO THE BANKS TO PROP UP THEIR LIQUIDITY IN RETURN FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT WORTHLESS MORTGAGES.

    In fact, as your buddy Andrew Coyne (Brother of Deborah - once paramour of the ‘sainted’ – but far from saintly - Trudeau) - someone of a decidedly conservative bent has noted, the bill is actually now $125 Billion on that little item...

    Now, question for the audience: What is the size of our current deficit?

    Extra points if you can explain how this kind of accounting works and why it's not what any sane individual would call laissez-faire.

    Question for the hard-pressed homeowner: Wouldn't you like a little of that lolly to help pay YOUR monthly mortgage?

    And you wonder why people are CYNICAL?

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    What. Me Worry?

    If your buddy Andrew Coyne is peeved then you don't have to be too. The assets were good assets and they were already insured by CMHC, so you taxpayers won't have to cough up anything. The Canadian solution by Flaherty was the least intrusive and cost the taxpayers zilch. Far different than what we see in the rest of the world! That's why Canada is so amired and envied.

    Sorry bud. The Conservatives played this one perfectly and you know it.

    As for the market today, I covered that above. One day is not a trend and the market is up a hell of a lot since 09. The loonie went down because the US is coming back up. People are confident again in the US$. Laissez les bon temps roullet!

    The US was a completely different thing. Be fair!

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Be fair

    Wouldn't that include pointing out the problems instead of only dwelling on the highlights?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    If they're good assets

    They didn't need to have the exchequer bail them out.

    The facts don't support your thesis - any more than they do the ridiculous road show the Neo Cons are conducting to try and convince the rest of the world that 'our' banks are better than anyone elses.

    They aren't - and, as usual, Flaherty and his gang are just making us look foolish.

    As for the market - heres some free advice - if you're still in a positive position -SELL and Sell fast.

    And, Andrew Coyne ain't my buddy dude - he's yours. Which is why using him to refute your mistakes is such a pleasure.

    I'm feeling much less cynical now!

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Maybe

    Some were sleeping. The assets were purchased because the FINANCIAL world needed an injection of cash because cash was not flowing and companies needed funds to pay their working men and women so they feed their families. Remember?

    As for the deficit you mentioned; Canada has the lowest and best deficit as per GDP in the G7. I'm shocked you didn't know that.

    You should also know that since my last post the US Senate has now voted to reform the banking system. Biggest change since the 1930s.

    " US Senate backs Wall St reforms
    The US Senate passes a bill providing the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations since the 1930s. "

    You say that the Canadian banks are no great shakes but I see that the Royal has gone from $42 a share a year ago to $60 today. That's 50% increase, I guess some don't agree with your SELL dictum. I'm glad I didn't 'short' that last year. Are you still shorting it?

    Things are looking up!

    I've never met Andrew so I can't say he's my buddy but I did meet his sister's friend and still have our correspondence. I must tell you, he was quite positive about the future.

  • samuidave (not verified)

    2 years ago

    It's hard to take the author too seriously...

    ..when he admits he was one of those "whose passionate engagement helped elect Obama".

    His premise must be that 'real change can be effected despite the existing, unchanging institutional structures which permeate every presidential regime; the corollary is we must keep positive, retain hope and stick to our lofty dreams.

    At this point store away your answer to this simple question: are we collectively better off on the whole today than we were in 1980?

    Going a little further, the author states "we've come to expect comparable betrayals when we think about changing our society. A long-powerful strain in our culture posits all businesspeople and politicians as corrupt, all religious leaders charlatans, all journalists hacks". Is this true?

    My examination of the evidence I see claims the exact opposite: we still have hope in our political system, faith in god, and believe the daily news.

    We continue to reinforce and legitimize the broken political system by voting for the same players and institutionalized parties;

    we still attend church, say our prayers and pay heed to the wise words coming from the men of cloth in troubled times; and

    we continue to consume the daily media without a lot of thought.

    This behaviour is hardly illustrative of a society that has honestly lost hope, or truly believes its own cynical grumblings.

    The people surely have hope in the institutions even if they are skeptical. Obama sold a nation on hope of a better tomorrow. But hope is meaningless without action. And meaningful action for the collective is not coming from the system in place. [recall your answer from the Question posed above.]

    If we want change and we know our cynicism is true, we would effect change immediately. In fact, I would argue that is exactly what we need.

  • samuidave (not verified)

    2 years ago

    realisticman, you might have an argument buried in there

    but you first need to learn what 'socialism' means and then edit your thoughts.

    Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union failures are simply evidence that socialism may still work; it was the totalitarian regimes that failed those nations.

    Socialism is simply when labour has control over the production of goods. I certainly do not recall China or the Soviets being remotely set up like that politically.

    It has been historically common for despots, authoritarians, fascists and dictatorial types to high-jack, and ultimately bastardize, a word for their own cause. When Karl Marx was asked what he thought about Marxism as portrayed by VI Lenin, he roughly stated, "I sure am glad I am not a Marxist".

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Figures you'd be an old Trudeau fan

    Perhaps you can reconcile his ignorance about the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board among other things.
    The point simply is, and it's undeniable, the banks got a bailout at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Period.

    And, if you read your Coyne, that's not the only critical thing he's had to say about Canada's banks - the fact they're in slightly better shape than Irish ones (you used to tout them too, remember) is no reason to crow.

    Please, hang on to your equities - but don't blame me when you lose your shirt.

  • Jerry Munro

    2 years ago

    British Properties Radicalism....

    Wow. What a wasteland of "liberal" triteness Tyee has become.(Though it has been teepee creeping down this pathway for awhile.) Terry Glavin will doubtless, however, feel fulfilled in this throbbing penile heartland of British Properties radicalism. (And the extreme right, who really think this is where the "serious" left and the challenge to capitalism is at. Tres asmusante.)

    Anyone know of an alternative site to this waste of time, such as might interest one such as myself, who has wearied of Tyee and its Editorial Regime... again? If so, contact

  • Jerry Munro

    2 years ago

    Hmmmmm

    Obliterated my email address. Let's try that again, just to be sure.(If you don't see an email address below here, you know it has been consumed in the Editorial Regime of Tyee.)

    coyote.mann@yahoo.com

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    No Bailout

    The assets the government purchased from the banks were already insured by the government, it was simply a way to get money flowing and may well be of benefit to taxpayers.

    http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip101550

    Imagine if that coalition thingy had flown. They said they wanted to join hands because the government wasn't injecting enough money into the economy and they wanted to go DEEPER into deficit!

    Banks in slightly better shape? Yes, Andrew may be critical but he thinks so.

    " it’s true that, by virtually any measure, Canada’s banks are in healthier shape than their international rivals: profitable, well-capitalized, even raising $9 billion in capital since the fall through fresh share issues—an unheard-of feat in today’s markets. As American banks have tumbled, collapsed, or merged, Canadian banks have risen in relative terms. Of the 10 largest banks in North America, measured by assets, four are now Canadian; a decade ago, we had none in the top 10. Just seven banks in the world retain a AAA rating from Moody’s Investors Service. Two—Royal and Toronto-Dominion—are Canadian. "

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/06/our-so-called-genius-banks/

    You can sell short if you want to but don't cry if you lose your shirt.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    IT was a bail out

    Any time Pee Wee takes my tax money and gives it - in the billions - to the banks of Canada - to stimulate the economy and at the same time runs a deficit of more than $60 billion per annum it is a BAIL OUT.

    Furthermore, it's a criminal misuse of funds.

    Not a liberal fan anymore? Funny, neither am I?

    So what do you think of Nick Clegg and his little pas de deux in Jolly old?

    I don't hold equities - I consider the whole sleazy project immoral

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    The mortgage assets were purchased

    Just ask Nick Clegg. As the son of the chairman of a bank specializing in property development, he can explain it to you. Nick will probably get along well with Iggy since they both have Imperial Russian heritage whose aristocratic family fled the Bolsheviks. I liked his statement after gaining the leadership, "He declared his priorities as: defending civil liberties; devolving the running of public services to parents, pupils and patients; and protecting the environment." He speaks English, Dutch, French, German, and Spanish. He seems eminently qualified for his powerful job. An altogether different coalition than the radically different socialist/separatist one that tried that unworkable stunt here in Canada.

    Don't worry about the equities, the government (CPP) will hold them for you.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    What do you think?

    ...about that latest EKOS poll this week.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-surge-with-liberals-mired-in-unimaginable-depths/article1575402/

    What did the NDP do, or Jack say, to have them down everywhere?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    The government wrote the banks a cheque

    For a total of 125 Billion dollars - if they wanted to stimulate spending there were lots of other ways to do that. Instead they gave banks (with billions of dollars in yearly profits) cash and left the taxpayer with an enormous deficit.

    It was a bank bailout when they should have been bailing out the people who needed the money.

    There were lots (still are) lots of alternatives to corporate welfare - but don't ask Pee Wee because he hasn't got a clue...

    I disagree with your remarks about nicky clegg's little partnership with the Con man in Jolly Old.

    The only reason nicky's dancing with Cameron is so he can twist the conman's arm and get porportional representation - something the NDP in Canada supports - NOT THE LIBERALS...

    Fact is, we're nothing but a bi-colonial backwater anyway. Even wet-noodle Obama believes in an international bank tax.

    How many directorships do you think Flaherty will get when he quits politics?

    I see you're still lying about the Canada coalition too. DO you get regular hypnotic updates from Pee Wee on THAT score too?

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    And the banks turned over...

    ...insured assets. It was a transaction. You think they should have just given us all some cash which would have raised the deficit and increased the debt even more. Something which yesterday you complained about. Which is it?

    Since the NDP is now down again to around 15%. (Not the around 20% that Lawrence Martin likes to imagine.) Proportional rep will not happen soon. In fact, the Greens are now nipping at the NDP heel.

    In reality given the declining NDP numbers we cannot expect any resurgence of a coalition other than a few hand wringers pleading but the reality is the NDP no longer has enough support to bring anything to the table. They're only polling 15% in Ontario! Maybe a couple in BC with 23% but the Conservatives in BC are at 38%. They even stand to lose in the Maritimes. Where's the breakthrough, maybe a second seat in Quebec? Looks like Jack's had his run at it.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    We shouldn't have given the pikers a penny

    Public policy should be for people - not corporations..It was not a transaction - it was corporate welfare - and corporate welfare at its worst.

    We still have the deficit and the fundamental problems we had at the start of this stupidity...

    Why do you keep bringing up polls? - I could care less what polls say and you know that - the fact Pee Wee is polling well is simply an indication of how stupid many Canadians actually are.

    The fact is that the bank bail out helped the banks and increased the debt all working Canadians will have to pay off...along with a whole lot of other reach arounds to corporations - many of them foreign ones.

    They vote against their own self-interest.

    What else is new.

    They're no different than you are - either that or you're a wealthy plutocrat who wants to hang on to his stolen assets - just like every corporate sociopath from the beginning of time.

    Wake me when you have some real news - in the meantime don't bore me with phony numbers that don't mean anything.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Oh and by the way

    That insurance you mentioned - we're financing that too - DID you actually have a point - IT WAS A GIVEAWAY OF 125 Billion dollars to Pee Wee's Corporate buddies on Bay Street.

    Like every stupid conservative from the beginning otf time - they are all on the take or soon will be.

    From John A to BM the PM...crooks, every one of them.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    GWest

    Maybe someone like you on the front lines can give us your expert opinion on why so many 'social activists almost delight in rolling around in the bad news.'

    Absolutely delight; if you prefer.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    GWest

    "- the fact Pee Wee is polling well is simply an indication of how stupid many Canadians actually are. ...They're no different than you are - either that or you're a wealthy plutocrat ..."

    No, I'm not and never were. Perhaps while you dwell on two solitudes you are missing a third. There's an article in the Globe today about high and chronic unemployment in the US. It's emblematic of much of the western world, a serious issue that one might think would deter immigration yet immigrants keep on coming to the US and the UK, etc. One paragraph caught my eye; "He talks about the need for the city to return to its roots, as epitomized by hard-working, inventive newcomers from Sweden, Ireland and Italy. “The truth is that immigrants are much more entrepreneurial,” he says. “They know the answer is to work your ass off.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobless-and-feeling-hopeless/article1577934/

    The immigrants keep on coming because they know they will be better off if they work hard. They know that the industrial world of the last century is over. They know too that technology has to be kept up with in an increasingly changing world and they don't have a sense of entitlement that stultifies the older displaced workers that are helplessly dizzy with the changes. They are less likely to embrace the welfare state, more entrepreneurial and therefore they are more conservative. That, my friend, is the new paradigm.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Maybe someone like YOU

    Maybe someone like you can give us insight into the propensity for self-delusion of so many people as to what exactly the INTERESTS of Corporate Plutocracy are.

    These "snakes in suits", like the folks of Archer Daniels Midland, or BP, or SHELL, or the Royal Bank or Microsoft or Apple or all the others in a very long and dismal parade of corporate kleptomaniacs see customers as pukes and rubes useful only for the fleecing; and they see elected officials as their partners in crime.

    Those elected officials in their own right see their role in this little danse macabre as the button pushers who, at regular intervals, manage to find a way to deceive the rubes one more time at the voting booth with one more set of false promises and thinly veiled lies.

    The mystery is why the sheep move so willingly down the chute to the slaughter. They have, in themselves, the power to change things - but they lack the imagination, the courage and the will to topple the Potemkin Wall of greed, selfishness and lies which stands between themselves and a better future.

    That's the mystery r'man - Anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart not closed to hope understands the problem.

    There's no delight in that - only shame and consternation at how we fail our fellows and let them down - for far less than 30 pieces of silver. And, biggest mystery of all, how we can smile so benignly and chuckle to each other as we walk down the chute…

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Self-Delusion. Think Luxury.

    Snakes, the really powerful ones, don't wear suits. I do agree with the fleecing note. The people in BC are rising up against perceived over-fleecing (thanks to the anti HST crew) and, although this tax cannot be changed, other taxes will have to come down to sate the public's anger. As the tax take is reduced the state will have to reduce expenditures. Greece, et al will lead the way. Less plush benefits for public employees. Freedom 55 will have to disappear for government paid workers.

    I see no mystery at all. Try and avoid joining any doomesday cult. The new paradigm is here and there are many opportunities for hard working innovators. There's always a market for fine quality well designed goods.

  • John Greg

    2 years ago

    G West ...

    Quote:
    The mystery is why the sheep move so willingly down the chute to the slaughter.

    It's not really all that much of a mystery. Worship of the Alpha male/female/whatever is ingrained in our very deepest being. It is a leftover and long un-needed aspect of evolution. The problem is, evolution is so, so slow, and humanity's social and technical advances so fast, that we are stuck with it -- sort of like the appendix: useless and more often than not very problematic.

    And when you combine that with such things a human laziness, common fear of change, the vast number of immigrants who do not really understand what democracy is about, the non-stop onslaught of truly evil propoganda as represented in commercial advertising (which is everywhere, absolutely everywhere), you get what we got.

    Most of the people I know really and truly believe that corporations are beneficent and are there for the good of all. They really and truly believe that books such as Joel Bakan's The Coropration are just empty rhetorical conspiracy theories. The depth of naivety and, sadly, stupidity in the general population is damned near bottomless.

  • Skywalker

    2 years ago

    Sounds like "Don't worry. Be happy."

    I hear this everyday from the politicians in government. Here is comes as "I see no mystery at all. Try and avoid joining any doomesday cult. The new paradigm is here and there are many opportunities for hard working innovators. There's always a market for fine quality well designed goods."

    It sounds so easy if only some of the greedy would stop asking for more form those who have less. If governments by the people would function as governments for the people and not the corporations. The reality determines, or at least should, determine one's response.

    When the Campbell thugs are replaced/gone, I might be able to sing, "Don't worry. be happy."

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    realisticman

    You're posting all over the place that the Left is dead because of one Ekos poll?

    A poll that shows the NDP falling by 1%?

    A poll that shows the Cons up 1%?

    Fact is, according to your poll, the Conservatives continue to be far from majority territory and the only reason they even have a chance at a minority is because of the way the voting system is set up.

    I think your grandstanding on this is kinda pathetic as there's more than pollster in Canada and the others don't agree with Ekos.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Jack Layton

    Still the most popular choice in Canada to be PM.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Jack? Who says?

    Nanosresearch.com

    May 10, 2010
    Best PM:
    Stephen Harper: 29.5% - Iggy: 17.3% Layton 15.6%
    Leadership:
    Steve Harper: 79.2 - Igg: 40.8 Layton 44.8

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100509/nanos-poll-leadership-politics-100510/20100510?hub=Canada

    Angus Reid, May 04, 2010
    Cons; 35%
    NDP: 19%

    They do rate Jack 2 points over Steve as best rated leader but there's no mention of best PM.

    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35476/conservatives_lead_bloc_gains_in_canada

    Leger/CBC - April 29, 2010
    Best Prime Minister:
    Stephen Harper: 31%
    Jack Layton: 23%
    Michael Ignatieff: 16%

    http://www.legermarketing.com/eng/

    It's good to be a dreamer Frank.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Dreamer?

    Which is why you keep claiming the Left is dead?

    Because one poll showed the federal party drop by 1% whereas another poll showed the NDP almost tied with the federal Libs and Jack was rated the best?

    And polls here show the provincial NDP is higher than its ever been.

    And your federal party has peaked and is now in decline.

    Your provincial party is on its way to being recalled and then wiped off the map in the next election which could be soon.

    If one were to go by the polls it would be the Right that looks to be on its deathbed.

    I'm sorry you can't face that reality.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    "Less plush benefits for public employees"

    Yep, the Right as usual wants to get rid of healthcare workers, teachers, librarians, forest rangers, firefighters, police, food inspectors and most of all, people that protect children.

    In fact, its safe to say the one thing a right-winger can't stand is seeing any tax dollars go to helping kids on the street. They like to see the kids be as desperate for money as possible.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Public Employees

    The right, the left, the centre-left, who knows, it was just a prediction. I was wrong Frank, it looks as though the new British coalition has beaten Greece to be the first.

    "London — The Associated Press - May. 24, 2010

    Britain's new Treasury chief on Monday outlined more than £6-billion ($8.7-billion U.S.) in spending cuts, with most of the savings dedicated to cutting a record budget deficit.

    “The years of public sector plenty are over,” said David Laws, a Liberal Democrat who is Mr. Osborne's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) deputy."

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    The Lib-Dems

    So Clegg thinks the public should pay the price for bailing out the rich. Isn't that always the way, and not just in Britain.

    Too bad a politician never says : “The years of plenty for corporations and the rich are over, we're going to help kids, the poor and regular people instead”

    I'm sure that many Lib-Dem voters will be switching their support over the coming years.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Snakes in Suits and who needs a fiscal diet - big time

    I suggest you read Paul Babiak and Robert Hare's book:

    SNAKES IN SUITS: When Psychopaths Go to Work.

    When you're done with that one try this:

    As for who needs to cut back at the trough, I suggest you also read this:

    Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston.

    I assure you the same psychopathic criminals are in charge in Canada and the same sad story was written about here a generation and a half ago by David Lewis...in Louder voices: The corporate welfare bums....

    A lot of stupid and delusional Canadians and Americans haven't been paying attention - to their cost and everlasting shame.

    The problem is slightly different in Canada and the States. In the States Obama, with virtually 'no' economic experience, is being led down the garden path by his multi-milliondollar a year Wall Street 'advisors' - In Canada, out dear leader, the sainted Pee Wee is a willing collaborator with the thieves.

    The joke is on the people in the Conservative Party who don't know what Harpo really is...they should read this:
    "Faith becoming a powerful political force" ... http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/faith-05-24-2010.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Now, can we address the REALISM of the situation

    The only cynical bastards are the ones who think we're getting out of this mess by playing 'nice' with these characters.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.