“Lesser of two evils” revisited

Here’s from my friend Fred Nagel

Now is the right time to revisit the “lesser of two evils” theory of governance. As destructive as Obama has been to the interests of working people, the Republicans always appear to be just a little bit worse. And so it goes for the next election cycle, American voters begging for crumbs at the table of those serving the rich.

But when it comes to working people, is having a traitor leading our country actually better than having an avowed enemy? President Clinton, for example, achieved much more for corporate America than Reagan did. He deregulated the accounting, communications, and banking industries while slashing welfare for the poor beyond anything that Reagan had even dreamed of.

Our current president has similar goals. That consummate con man for the cleptocracy, Obama, will end up destroying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all to please his Wall Street patrons.

Having a Democratic president who is a traitor to the working class means that big corporations can get what they want without provoking much of a fight. A Republican president trying to roll back the last of the New Deal would have had millions in the streets. But Obama, being a Democrat, can sneak it though while blaming the other party. Is it any wonder why he rakes in tens of millions from the financial sector?

Some say that the former President Bush destroyed America. Obama, however, will be much more effective in reducing generations of working people to the status of paupers and beggars.

This entry was posted in Big picture, Corporate bonding and domination, Economic injustice, Liberal ineffectiveness, The American Dream. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>