Democratici "Illiberali"

[Jenainsubrica]

Contraddizioni dal voto del 7 novembre 2006: democratici che "danno il fianco" all'immigrazionismo di Bush (ossia delle élites di Washington) e "democratici illiberali"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quale potrebbe essere il risultato del voto di midterm sulla questione immigratoria negli USA?

Prima impressione: un Congresso e un Senato a maggioranza democratica sono stati salutati dalle autorità messicane come un fatto positivo. Già questo fornisce una indicazione notevole: un portavoce del presidente messicano ha fatto sapere che il governo del suo paese si felicita del risultato elettorale, in quanto le posizioni democratiche, mediamente, sono più favorevoli agli immigrati e alla loro regolarizzazione di massa.

Non solo: anche George W. Bush (considerato ancora da noi come un campione della difesa della civiltà cosiddetta "occidentale"...) ha esplicitamente affermato che considera positivamente il voto, dato che, associandosi ai democratici, riuscirà a far passare la legge per fornire quelle agognate (dagli oligarchi della Capitale e dalle multinazionali) regolarizzazioni per i circa 12 milioni di immigrati illegali attualmente presenti su suolo statunitense. Il risultato, fin troppo evidente, sarà la distruzione della classe media e l'abbassamento del costo del lavoro, oltre alla sempre maggiore creazione di un orizzonte sociale utile al progetto di "unione nordamericana" (quindi ai progetti di distruzione etnico-culturale messi in opera dalle élites).

Pochi giorni prima del voto, infatti, l'ambasciatore messicano negli USA, Enrique Berruga, ha ricordato come sia necessario (per chi?) il progetto di un grande "Nord America" e come sia necessario abbandonare l'idea di un muro tra USA e Messico, così come servano aiuti economici al paese centro-americano per "tenere il passo" e rendere equilibrata la nuova unione (che dovrebbe essere costituita, parole sempre di Berruga, nei prossimi 8 anni: il che dà l'idea di quanto poco si parli della cosa e di quanto poco i cittadini degli Stati interessati siano informati della cosa).

Seconda impressione: non ci sono solo questi personaggi e i loro interessi pericolosi. Tra i vincitori delle elezioni sembra incomincino a farsi avanti altri personaggi, ribattezzati "democratici illiberali" e fautori di una idea politico-economica nazionalista.

Curiosamente, mentre si parla soprattutto di gente come Nancy Pelosi o Hillary Clinton (la cui campagna elettorale è costata ben 30 milioni di dollari, nonostante fosse localizzata in un seggio di ferro) o il primo maomettano eletto, il nero Keith Ellison, ecco avanzare gente come Sherrod Brown, dell'Ohio, Stato inferocito dalla perdita di ben 200.000 posti di lavoro a causa delle politiche economiche di George Bush.

In Virginia vince James Webb, critico nei confronti di politiche favorevoli ai lavoratori immigrati. Nel Missouri vince Claire McCaskill, contraria alle idee economiche delocalizzanti. In California, Jerry McNerney si dice preoccupato per come l'economia statunitense venga condotta in modo globalizzato, senza sufficienti preoccupazioni nei confronti della realtà nazionale e senza consenso popolare.

L'idea economica nazionalista, in realtà, non è nuova e fu appoggiata da molti democratici per circa 12-15 anni, tra gli inizi degli anni '80 del secolo appena concluso e i primi del decennio successivo. A far sparire questa idea ci pensò Bill Clinton, eroe dei progressisti nostrani e fautore di politiche fortemente globalizzanti (oltre che essere l'iniziatore della prima guerra condotta dalle élites globaliste, ossia quella contro le genti serbe nel 1999).

L'articolo che citeremo tratto dalla rivista Slate (già citata dal Foglio in data 11 novembre 2006, nell'articolo "Democratici illiberali") nomina, nel titolo, il giornalista della CNN Lou Dobbs (nome non nuovo per questo blog: 1; troverete tra i collegamenti la sua pagina sul sito della CNN). Dobbs è una delle firme più famose della nota rete d'informazione statunitense e sta facendo scandalo, da qualche tempo, perchè da giornalista "democratico" (per come lo si intende comunemente degli USA, ossia progressista-liberale) si è trasformato in fortemente critico nei confronti di ogni idea politico-economica globalizzante, tanto che alcuni, ormai, lo descrivono come "populista xenofobo" (secondo le solite accuse "politicamente corrette").

Tanto per capirsi quanto le sue idee siano ormai differenti dalla media della pubblicistica statunitense, ecco il titolo del suo ultimo saggio: Guerra alla classe media - Come il Governo, la grande finanza e le lobbies stanno facendo guerra al Sogno Americano e come contrastarli.

Titolo chiarissimo, che dimostra come una parte dei democratici vivano in maniera conflittuale la globalizzazione, tanto quanto certi repubblicani. Gli anni futuri diranno se vinceranno gli oligarchi e i loro progetti di dominio o vinceranno i cittadini e le loro prerogative di libertà, ma anche di identità etno-culturale e politica-economica.

Dall'articolo "Democrats good for immigration changes: Mexico" (Reuters, 8 novembre 2006):
Gains by Democrats in the U.S. congressional
elections may help promote more liberal immigration policies sought by Mexico,
President Vicente Fox's spokesman said on Wednesday.
Mexico has been deeply disappointed by President George W. Bush's failure to
convince his own House of Representatives Republicans to accept a guest worker
program that would allow millions of mostly Mexicans to work temporarily in the
United States.
Instead, Republicans who controlled both the House and the Senate voted for a
700-mile (1,126-km) fence along part of the U.S.-Mexican border to stem the huge
flow of illegal immigrants.
That angered Mexico, which has more faith in the Democrats on immigration. In
midterm elections on Tuesday, Democrats won control of the House and were near
taking control of the Senate as vote counts continued in an outstanding race.
"We hope this new make-up of the U.S. Congress can be a catalyst for the U.S.
government working toward a migration reform with the characteristics proposed
by Mexico," Fox's spokesman Ruben Aguilar said. [...]

Dall'articolo "Mexico ambassador: We need N. American Union in 8 years" (WorldNetDaily, 5 novembre 2006):
There have been conferences, academic papers, mock student parliaments and
secret meetings on a confederation of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into
future North American Union, but, until now, few officials of any of the
three countries have publicly called for the creation of a European
Union-style merger.
In a panel discussion on U.S.-Mexico relations last Tuesday at the
University of Texas at San Antonio, Enrique Berruga, Mexico's ambassador
to the United Nations, came right out and said a North American Union is
needed – and even provided a deadline.
Berruga said the merger must be complete in the next eight years before
the U.S. baby boomer retirement wave hits full force. [...]

Noting that both countries depend on each other economically, Berruga
urged leaders to put petty politics aside for the region's benefit. He
said the U.S. should abandon plans to build border fences and instead
"invest" more in Mexico so the country can do a better job standing on its
own.
"We will be together forever and we need to make the best out of it,"
Berruga said, as reported in the San Antonio Express News.
Another panelist, economist Mauricio Gonzalez, who works for the North
American Development Bank, created as part of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, explained that illegal immigration was actually
good for the U.S. economy. While it's true, the said, that the immigrants
bring down wages in the U.S., it is only by about 2 percent. In addition,
he cited studies showing illegal immigrants do not drain U.S. social
services. [...]

Dall'articolo "Bush eyes Democrats for help on amnesty" (Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, 9 novembre 2006):
President Bush yesterday said he will team up with Democrats to pass an
immigration bill with a guest-worker program that his own party blocked
this year, and his Republican opponents predicted a bloody intraparty
fight but said they cannot stop such a bill from passing.
"We will fight it, we will lose. It will go to the Senate, it will
pass. The president will sign it. And it will happen quickly because
that's one thing they know they can pass," said Rep. Tom Tancredo,
Colorado Republican and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus,
who had led the opposition to a guest-worker plan. "I am absolutely
horrified by this prospect, but I have to face reality."
Mr. Bush supported a bipartisan majority in the Senate this year that
passed a broad immigration bill including a new worker program and
citizenship rights for millions of illegal aliens. But House Republicans
blocked those efforts, calling them an amnesty, and instead forced through
a bill to erect nearly 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Tuesday's elections removed that obstacle by turning control of the
House over to Democrats.
Yesterday, in an afternoon press conference, the president said he
shares Democrats' vision on immigration and will try again for a broad
bill.
"There's an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with
the Democrats," he said. [...]

Dall'articolo "Democratici illiberali" (Il Foglio, 11 novembre 2006):
[...]

Il gruppo più consistente però è quello degli isolazionisti, dei
protezionisti, dei nazionalisti economici, vicini alle posizioni di
personaggi addirittura più a destra del Partito repubblicano, come
Pat Buchanan, il quale infatti ha salutato con soddisfazione il
ritorno del “nazionalismo economico” e, potenzialmente, anche
all’isolazionismo in politica estera. Questi nuovi democratici
paraleghisti hanno condotto campagne elettorali – soprattutto in
Ohio, in Virginia e nel midwest – contro la globalizzazione
economica, contro il libero commercio, contro l’immigrazione che
toglie posti di lavoro agli americani e contro uno dei più grandi
risultati ottenuti dalla presidenza Clinton, ovvero gli accordi di
libero scambio con i paesi nordamericani. Il loro punto di partenza
è che i lavoratori statunitensi se la passano male, ma anziché
accusare i concittadini se la prendono con i poveri del terzo mondo.
Se sono contrari alla guerra in Iraq è per lo stesso motivo, non in
quanto pacifisti, ma perché reputano più utile aumentare i salari in
America piuttosto che costruire ospedali a Baghdad.

Dall'articolo "The Lou Dobbs Democrats who won the election" (Jacob Weisberg, Slate, 8 novembre 2006):
The bums, or at least many of them, have been thrown out. And so the political
conversation turns naturally to the question of what the Democrats will do now
that they again share power with a Republican president. And while it may be too
soon to fully answer that question, we saw enough during the campaign to be
alarmed about one tendency in particular: economic nationalism.
Many of the Democrats who recaptured seats held by Republicans have been
described as moderates or social conservatives, who will be out of synch with
Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi. The better term, with props to Fareed Zakaria, is
probably illiberal Democrats. Most of those who reclaimed Republican seats ran
hard against free trade, globalization, and any sort of moderate immigration
policy. That these Democrats won makes it likely that others will take up their
reactionary call. Some of the newcomers may even be foolish enough to try to
govern on the basis of their misguided theory.
There is an important distinction to be made between economic populism and
economic nationalism. Many of Tuesday's Democratic victors stressed familiar
populist themes: the little guy against the big guy; corporate misbehavior; and
tough times faced by working people. Al Gore ran in 2000 as an economic populist
and so, implausibly, did John Kerry in 2004. Raising the minimum wage (which
Republicans stupidly failed to do before the election) is a classic populist
position. Opposing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is another. But in places where
Democrats made their most-impressive inroads this year, one heard a distinctly
different message of economic nationalism. Nationalism begins from the populist
premise that working people aren't doing so well. But instead of blaming the
rich at home, it focuses its energy on the poor abroad. The leading economic
nationalist today is probably Lou Dobbs, who on nights other than Election Night
natters on against free trade, outsourcing, globalization, and immigration on
CNN.

The most prominent nationalist candidate this year was Sherrod Brown, who
unseated incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, a state that has lost 200,000
manufacturing jobs since Bush became president and where unemployment is nearly
a percentage point higher than the national average. Brown is the author of a
book called Myths of Free Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed. Here is a
snippet from one of Brown's TV spots: "I'm for an increase in the minimum wage
and against trade agreements that cost Ohio jobs. I support stem-cell research,
tighter borders, and a balanced-budget amendment." Announcer: "Sherrod Brown
stood up to the president of his own party to protect American jobs, fighting
against the Mexico and China trade deals that sent countless jobs overseas." For
some reason, economic nationalists never seem to complain about job-killing
Dutch or Irish competition. The targets of their anger are consistently China
and Mexico, with occasionally whacks at Dubai, Oman, Peru, and Vietnam.
One heard similar themes in the other pivotal Senate races. In Virginia,
apparent winner James Webb denounced outsourcing and blasted George Allen for
voting to allow more "foreign guest workers" into the state. In Missouri, victor
Claire McCaskill refused to let incumbent James Talent out-hawk her on
immigration. "Unfair trade agreements have sent good American jobs packing,
hurting Missouri workers and communities," she said in one of her ads. "We
should be encouraging businesses to stay at home, not rewarding them for moving
overseas." In Michigan, vulnerable Democratic incumbent Deborah Stabenow
survived while promising to set up a federal office to prosecute unfair trade by
foreign governments.
An even harder-edged nationalism defined many of the critical House races, where
Democrats called for a moratorium on trade agreements, for canceling existing
ones, or, in some cases, for slapping protective trade tariffs on China. These
candidates also lumped illegal immigrants together with terrorists and demanded
fencing and militarization of the Mexican border. In Pennsylvania, Democratic
challengers Chris Carney and Patrick Murphy defeated Republican incumbents by
accusing them of destroying good jobs by voting for the Central American Free
Trade Agreement and being soft on illegal immigration. "Fair trade" candidates
also won back formerly Republican seats in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina,
and Wisconsin. Jerry McNerney, who defeated 14-year Republican incumbent Richard
Pombo in California, says on his Web site: "I am deeply worried about the way
this nation is plunging head-long into the global economy without a plan or a
national consensus."
Economic nationalism is not unique to Democrats—nor is it a new theme. The
protectionist wing of the party emerged in the 1980s when America's
manufacturing decline was first linked to imports and foreign competition. For
years, the protectionist urge was exemplified by Richard Gephardt (who focused
on Japan and Korea rather than China). But during his 1992 campaign, Bill
Clinton made a key decision to support NAFTA. Clinton espoused a strong
free-trade position and embraced globalization through his presidency. This set
the direction for his party, despite significant resistance in Congress.
Clinton's argument was always that government should address the negative
consequences of open trade through worker retraining programs and by providing
benefits not tied to employers, like health care and portable pensions. But that
human-capital part of Clinton's globalization agenda never went anywhere, which
partially explains the current backlash.
As a result of this year's election, it now seems unlikely that the new Congress
will extend George W. Bush's "fast-track" trade-negotiating authority, which
expires this summer. The results are further bad news for the Doha round and
bilateral trade agreements with South Korea and other countries. It is possible
that congressional Democrats will revive efforts to saddle China with punitive
tariffs as punishment for "currency manipulation." It would be going too far to
say that the 2006 election ushers in a new protectionist consensus. But free
trade has definitely left the building.

Dall'articolo "The Twilight of Objectivity" (Michael Kinsley, Slate, 31 marzo 2006):
CNN says it is just thrilled by the transformation of Lou Dobbs—formerly a
mild-mannered news anchor noted for his palsy-walsy interviews with corporate
CEOs—into a raving populist xenophobe. Ratings are up. [...]

[Jenainsubrica]

http://euro-holocaust.splinder.com/

[Jenainsubrica]

potrebbero essere eredi dei gloriosi rebel Confederati sudisti, che votavano in massa Democratico.
Quante cose sarebbero cambiate in meglio se avessero vinto i dixies.

[Jenainsubrica]

Democratici "illiberali": emergono le contraddizioni nel partito


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Proseguendo il discorso sui nuovi democratici nazionalisti: il Partito Democratico statunitense, apparentemente unito negli ultimi mesi sulla questione immigratoria e proponente una posizione sostanzialmente simile a quella del presidente George W. Bush, ossia favorevole alla regolarizzazione di massa di milioni di immigrati, adesso si ritrova vittoriosa nelle due ali del Parlamento, ma con una sorta di fronda interna considerata come "conservatrice", cioè nazionalista e isolazionista in politica (anche economica) estera. Fronda che sta facendo emergere forti contraddizioni nel partito.

Tra i vincitori democratici, c'è, ad esempio, Heath Shuler, del Nord Carolina, secondo cui se (sulle questioni immigratorie) c'è contrasto con la linea apparentemente ufficiale del partito non c'è alcunchè da fare: la sua posizione è quella del Nord Carolina! Come a dire che ciò che vogliono le lobbies di Washington può benissimo andare a farsi benedire!

Loretta Sanchez, eletta in California, avverte, infatti, che non basta essere maggioranza perchè il resto ne consegua facilmente e la regolarizzazione degli stranieri avvenga sicuramente. E la ragione è duplice: se da una parte c'è il pensiero nazionalista, dall'altra le preoccupazioni della comunità afro-americana, la quale, come si è visto nella New Orleans post-Katrina e, più in generale, sempre più spesso negli ultimi anni, teme di vedersi soffiare spazi e posti di lavoro dalla crescente comunità chicana e ibero-americana.

Dall'articolo "Democrats clash on immigration policy" (Nicole Gaouette, Boston Globe, 24 novembre 2006):
As the Democratic Party prepares to take power on Capitol
Hill in January, tensions are surfacing over the details of plans to
overhaul the nation's immigration policies.

Statements by
incoming members such as Claire McCaskill, the Democratic senator-elect
from Missouri, could provide an early warning of the difficulties ahead.
In a September television spot, McCaskill sat at a kitchen table and
looked directly into the camera. "Let me tell you what I believe in," she
said. "No amnesty for illegal immigrants."
Democratic leaders presented a largely united front on immigration this
year, providing crucial support for a measure that would have allowed
illegal immigrants to gain citizenship -- a bill critics attacked as
"amnesty."
Now, the citizenship provision is just one of several aspects of the
complex debate that are being questioned by some members.
While party leaders insist that rewriting immigration law remains a
priority, they acknowledge that building consensus on how to do that will
be tricky. They must deal with competing camps within the party and
address concerns raised by core constituencies -- hurdles that could block
passage of a final bill.
McCaskill and a slew of incoming House Democrats took stances that, in the
shorthand of campaign rhetoric, seemed more conservative on immigration
issues than the positions staked out by the party's congressional
stalwarts.
Some unions strongly object to Democratic support for guest worker
programs that would not allow participants to gain citizenship. Party
leaders worry that backing a bill that included a path to citizenship
would alienate some blacks, who have traditionally competed with Hispanic
immigrants for jobs. And the Democrats will have to contend with a newly
energized left wing, which could push to do more for legal and illegal
immigrants.
"Just because we have the majority doesn't mean we have enough votes for
an immigration reform bill," said Representative Loretta Sanchez, Democrat
of California.
One House Democratic strategist estimates that about half of the almost 30
seats that Democrats took from Republicans went to candidates who took
conservative positions on immigration reform.
These newcomers include Representative-elect Heath Shuler of North
Carolina, who "is against amnesty," said spokesman Andrew Whalen. "If
there's friction with the party [on the issue], there's nothing we can do
about it; his views really do reflect his district."
Persuading Shuler and similar Democrats to back the type of immigration
bill the Senate passed this year will be difficult, particularly in cases
where the lawmakers won by small margins and can expect tough 2008
reelection bids.
Many congressional Democrats earlier this year supported President Bush's
vision for a policy revamp, which included tightened border security, a
guest worker program, and a process to give millions of illegal immigrants
legal status.
But Bush faced a revolt in his own party. House Republicans favored their
own enforcement-only approach and skirted serious negotiations over a
Senate bill that embraced Bush's views. The only major immigration bill to
emerge from Congress calls for building 700 miles of fencing along the
border with Mexico.

[larth (POL)]

non c' e niente da fare " la guerra alla classe media" sordamente iniziata contro di lei dai ceti previlegiati gia venti anni fa la " middle class" l' ha gia persa e l' ha persa perche in questi 20 anni di declino la classe media a continuato a fidarsi dei burattini che i media degli U$urocrati gli hanno messo davanti . Soprattuto quandoa votato questi burattini " democratici" o " laburisti" cioe gente fintamente " socialdemocratica" , ideale per mettergli il " liberismo -globalista " in quel posto .. " da sinistra" cioe' dal lato da cui gli sciocchi lavoratori occidentali non smettono mai di fidarsi ... convinti di dover attribuire a questa finta " sociademocrazia" il loro ( passato) migliormanto sociale .

nella fattispecie serve a poco eleggere ( finalmente ..) qua e la qualche rappresentante che non sia il solito miliardario o il solito servo dei miliardarii .. la mafia elitario-mondialista che controlla il governo USA resta schiacciante in entrambi i " partiti" della finta democrazia americana ...Anzi adesso certe politiche passeranno di nuovo e ancora piu' facilmente e senza contrasto sociale perche' appunto adesso vengono " da sinistra" .