A Criticism of the Right-Wing's Attempt to Act as an Opponent of Some Oppressive Authority
I have spent some time reading your website, but it seems quite limited. Except for a blog, you only have about three or four sentences about your cause. You mention a few senators and legislators you consider to be "dedicated to cutting waste and fraud" and who have "recognized the dire state of Wisconsin's budget."
Your first line is enlightening, "Wisconsin has become ground zero in the fight between corrupt big-union bosses and the fiscally responsible conservatives..." The wording is quite one-sided, which makes sense -- that is only one out of three sentences where you actually try to express an opinion. Look how you have set up "the fight": you point out the leaders of the unions on one side, and "conservatives," or ordinary people, on the other side. It's like, you want us to believe that it's the common people, rising up against bureaucracy and corrupt leadership, who want to create Conservative policies.
I'm not sure how to interpret this. You're using the paradigm of unionism with an introverted lens. A bunch of common, ordinary people, who work and labor, need to organize, in order to resist a few who have seized authority for themselves? Sounds like the perfect tactics of revolution. Except, you're using it regards to "union bosses." Thus, one can easily assume, you want the workers to jump straight into the arms of their bosses, asking for forgiveness and benevolent rulers.
Why not revolt against union bosses and against Capitalists? Both situations show a group of people, who are opposed to "a few leaders," and are trying to resist. Why not support the revolt against the system of private property with as much enthusiasm as the revolt against union bureaucracy? How can you support the fight of "conservatives" against "union-bosses," but then oppose the fight of the working masses, the great vast majority, organizing to overthrow Capitalism? Either people have a right to their lives and their liberty, and should resist every attempt to take it; or they have no right to it, and should give it up to whoever is strong enough to snatch it. There's no point in taking sides between different slaveries.
More than that, there is the phrase "union boss." You say it like making up a phrase proves that it exists. Oh, it definitely is a real thing, but most union bosses cooperate with the Capitalists. They are assistants to the king, the property-owner, and not his enemy. Why does the AFL-CIO throw out Socialists and Communists? Why do unions participate with the blacklisting programs that once targeted them? Why are capitalists sitting on the boards of union stewards? Why are union presidents so directly opposed to strike action and so much in favor of political donations? If anything, Wisconsin's protests don't represent a struggle of conservatives against union leaders -- it represents a struggle of union workers against their leaders.
In defense of the Capitalists, and the government officials they have propped up, you stated "Six Wisconsin State Senators that have represented their constituents with honesty and integrity are under attack from the left." How come some union delegate, who makes $18.00 an hour and has a full family, is suddenly a "union boss," but a senator whose paid for by corporations is full of "honesty and integrity"? What a ridiculous revolution you're trying to create. Here's a summary of your view: "Your millions of neighbors are kings and union-bosses lording everything over you! But those two or three people in the senate, now they really understand your pains!"
Another quote from your opinion page: "The well-funded and well-organized Democratic Party and Big-Union machines are trying to defeat the State Senators featured below." They're "well-funded" and "organized like a machine." Wait, you mean, like the Republican Party, the federal government, and the local governments? In the exact same way? Yes, basically. Why not make a war on system that allows funding to direct social policy? Why not make revolution against the system of orders, money, and property?
If you're consistent, you must make revolution against all forces that try to coerce the common people. If you think union bosses are problem for the workers, then make war on Capitalists. If you think labor delegates are tiny tyrants, then by all means, prepare for war against the great tyrants, too. "A certain position of authority, necessarily, leads to corruption." This is your insinuation, but you keep it strictly within the organized labor movement. Maybe you should have tried to write more than a few sentences about it. You'd probably have come up against some of these difficulties.
There's nothing else on your site, except a blog. Oh, but the blog is full of goodies, too....
Are you sure it's the Left? Because I'm pretty sure that was actually you, a Conservative, who just used it quite freely. This appears in a rather well-titled article, though: "Are We Over 'The Black Thing' Yet?" Apparently not. Just look how you end your statement there, "the left freely uses the 'n' word." After using the n-word, I'm glad that you decided to become a self-appointed avenger for all the victims of Racism.
This article begins with the statement, "America elected an incompetent black guy as leader of the free world to prove that we are not racist." First, all of the candidates were incompetent. After all, Sarah Palin only stuttered when asked what books she was currently reading. (WSJ.com) Second, doesn't it seem somewhat contradictory, that you talk about America as feeling guilty of Racism, and then two seconds later you use a racial epithet? Is it just me, or does something not line up here?
If you revolt, revolt against all authority, and you won't look like such a fool. But if you revolt against small bosses, in favor of bigger bosses -- if you revolt against anti-racism, in favor of racism -- then you're not a revolutionary. You're only a reactionary, trying to stem the rising tide of the Real Revolution.
I patiently await a response,