Please note I have a new phone number...

512-517-2708

Alan Maki

Alan Maki
Doing research at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

A program for real change...

http://peaceandsocialjustice.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-progressive-program-for-real-change.html


What we need is a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" which would make it a mandatory requirement that the president and Congress attain and maintain full employment.


"Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens"

- Ben Franklin

Let's talk...

Let's talk...

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Obama a "liberal?"

Obama is being portrayed by the mainstream media as a liberal centrist caught between his administration members who are liberal hawks and liberal doves.

I have never heard such a perversion and bastardization of the word "liberal."

Obama is no kind of liberal nor are any members of his Administration--- they are all neo-liberals in service to Wall Street's thoroughly reactionary agenda of wars abroad to secure cheap natural resources and cheap labor with the intent of maintaining Wall Street's dominance in every region of the world.

There are no differences within the Administration on if the United States should go into this war or that war only differences of opinion over how and when to go to war.

War is the only foreign policy Wall Street's imperialist agenda knows.

With Wall Street remaining in power. pulling all the political strings and economic levers, war is the only certainty.

Any reforms that are to be won will have to be won while struggling to remove Wall Street from political and economic power--- this is humanity's only hope for survival; leaving Wall Street in power we are doomed because multi-national corporate profits take precedence over everything else... and there is nothing liberal about this.

The mainstream media wants us to believe liberalism is the problem because progressivism, leftism and socialism are identified with liberal thinking. To buy into the attacks on liberalism weakens our unity in fighting back against Wall Street's reactionary imperialist agenda just like these pseudo liberals, progressives and leftists supporting Obama and making excuses for everything he does no matter how corrupt, undemocratic, warped and barbaric weakens and divides our movements for peace, social and economic justice.

My main disagreement with liberals is they are slow to act but this doesn't make liberals our enemy--- Wall Street is our enemy and there simply are no liberals on Wall Street.

In fact, Wall Street has wiped liberals out of any positions of influence and decision-making in the Democratic Party.

If only we had true and genuine liberals like Paul Wellstone to contend with.

Let's not allow our Wall Street enemies to re-define words--- give these worthless politicians a dictionary, not your vote; and don't let their over-paid hacks in the mainstream media do your thinking for you because their intent is only to confuse, disorient and divide us.

Some follow-up discussion:

There is a lot of controversy as to what liberals are and whether liberals are friends or enemies. Here is how I answer this question and respond to people who say liberals are our enemies:

  • I disagree and I invite further discussion. I am not trying to lecture you; I am stating why I disagree. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think so.

    I think you are making the mistake the mainstream media wants you to make. Liberalism is a way of thinking, which for the most part, accepts what progressives and leftists THINK but lack the initiative for action.

    Liberals have never been a majority in the U.S. government and no liberal has ever been elected president since Lincoln. The last liberal to be elected to the U.S. Congress was Paul Wellstone who took a lot of progressive and left positions; perhaps I am missing someone because I'm a biased Minnesotan, you tell me.

    But, one thing for certain, Barack Obama is no liberal; Obama is a thoroughly reactionary "neo-liberal;" a political animal--- monster more like it--- completely beholden to Wall Street's interests. One cannot be beholden to Wall Street's interests and be considered a "liberal" in any way, shape or form--- especially in this era of the highest stage of capitalism: imperialism which the United States has been in roughly from the ending of the Civil War and the first imperialist war--- the Spanish American War.

    This is a pretty accurate definition of liberal:

    lib·er·al
    [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
    adjective
    1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
    2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
    3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
    4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
    5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.


    Look in any dictionary from a general dictionary to a dictionary of political philosophy and you are apt to find the word "liberal" defined in a similar manner--- which makes liberals our friends and allies.

    In poll after poll we learn that most liberals fit this definition--- about 40% of liberals even like the ideas, including socialism, of leftists. And well over 80% of liberals are anti-capitalist.

    The majority of working people are liberals with the working class having lots of progressives, too; while leftists--- socialists, Communists--- are small in number in comparison to either liberals or progressives.

    The left has always been the catalyst for bringing forward peace, the need for full equality and solutions to the problems of working people in a way that encourages action. When liberals join the call to action they become progressives--- if they don't support the lefts entire agenda for ending capitalism and building socialism.

    The left and progressives alone have won few reforms and no major reforms. Only the historic coalition of liberals, progressives and leftists moving into action together have won these major reforms--- usually when liberals become progressives so fast we don't even notice it happening. The liberal burden of inaction just becomes unbearable in the face of such massive injustices and the pressure created by leftists and progressives through education and agitation to do something.

    And when this happens people of all different outlooks on life generally join in the movements for peace, social and economic justice.

    But, at the same time there will always be a fairly large group who stand to lose their profits from this kind of change and they will fight back--- I guess this is why they call it a class struggle.

    As Time Magazine pointed out, recently; Marxists always get their "revenge"--- the working class wins:

    http://business.time.com/2013/03/25/marxs-revenge-how-class-struggle-is-shaping-the-world/

    Anyways, push liberals aside and we are almost sure to lose; bring liberals along and we are sure to win.

    My eight year old grandson called and told me he learned an important lesson when he attended the May Day march and rally in Winnipeg a month ago. I asked him what it was that was so important that he learned. He told me, "Grandpa, the working class united will never be defeated." Take it from him, take it from me--- or take it from history. You don't win anything by rejecting your largest ally--- liberals.

    Of course a few administrations had liberals providing advice but most presidents, unfortunately, never took their advice. FDR had many liberals, progressives and even leftists in his administration (along with a gaggle of complete Wall Street reactionaries like general Hershey) but Truman put an end to this ever happening again when he pushed the last holdout out--- Frances Perkins--- and saw to it that the Wall Street ruling class would only allow reactionaries into its ruling circles.

    And, we must not forget that liberals, progressives and even leftists can go bad and become reactionaries--- like many of these "Progressives for Obama," Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the entire gaggle who just "go along to get along" to get ahead... like Van Jones and all these foundation flowers being bribed into inaction--- or wrong action--- by Wall Street "philanthropists."

    It is true that liberals can often be very finicky and can be very self-righteous when their liberal conscience gets pricked by progressives and leftists urging them to action. I don't worry about this. I just go on speaking my mind. They can stay on the sidelines, stand in the middle of the road and get run over or join what they really know to be the winning side.

    This was a good article because it provides a lot to consider and discuss:
    business.time.com
    With workers around the world burdened by joblessness and stagnant incomes, Marx...


    This question keeps coming up: Can we have a liberal president?

  • Alan L. Maki

    And as long as Wall Street remains in power we will never have a liberal president.


    Another question that keeps popping up: Is Obama a fascist?

  • Alan L. Maki

    I would say Obama's policies are definitely making sure the ruling class maintains its last defense mechanism is available as the system continues to crumble--- fascism.