[FRA:] Marcuse question

[FREDWELFARE at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/22/2006 11:31:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
jamesrovira at gmail.com writes:

I think  you're a little confused about the meaning of terms


Well, I think you are a bit confused.  Representative democracy means,  
obviously, that the people are not really participating in governmental  decisions, 
that their so-called representatives are, and this includes the  executives: 
president, governor, and mayor, etc. In case you haven't  noticed, it is the 
executive positions that have all but completely taken over  government 
functions.  Also, the autonomous individual is not the basis or  unit of the society 
or state even though it is touted to be so especially from a  rights argument. 
 These enlightenment rights if not stipulated have been  whittled down, 
mediated, and reduced, or simply ignored.  Instead, economic  processes have been 
given the upper hand, aka corporations and their handmaiden  lobbyists and 
Political Action Committees, not to even mention election  advisors.  Anyway, 
after a lot nonsense like this, we are faced with a  distinct difference: the 
notion of republicans who object to 'the way things  are' and attempt to produce 
the 'way things ought to be;' and the democrats who  stand for individual 
rights like that long list of rights I wrote in the last  post!, equality as in the 
addressing of the polarization of the rich and poor,  and for more freedom as 
in opportunity to go to college (as opposed to fighting  in Iraq) and pursue 
their dream of happiness.  Even if there is no bridge  to conspiracy, the fact 
that arab terrorism has been going on thoughout the 20th  century, that arabs 
were guests of the 3rd Reich, that arabs have been  irrationally warring 
against jews since 1947, and that arabs have been  terrorizing the US and Western 
Europe since at least the 60's, what other  conclusion than total diplomatic 
failure by a predominantly long sequence of  republican national 
administrations can be drawn.  I see no reason not to  consider the same difference as 
analogous to conservatism and liberalism and I  see absolutely no reason to glam 
them together under some cock-eyed notion of  Western Liberalism or 
representative democracy when so very obviously one side  of the problem rejects and fails 
to address the basic standpoint of liberalism  or democracy.  I don't even 
want to continue onto the differences of these  two positions with anarchism, 
marxism or socialism since I have no doubt  whatsoever that you have already 
associated these terms with Stalinistic  Totalitarianism!!!!!  FrdW