Debunking the Liberal Myth: The logical fallacy of the bourgeois dichotomy


One misconception of the current elections that left-liberals uphold is this false dichotomy in regards that Obama is “better than Romney” and instilling the liberal myth of the lesser of the evil two.  It is crucial to understanding the fact that the elections are simply a utensil for the bourgeoisie and an excuse for warmongers. Liberal’s usage of rhetoric to portray the eviler of the two Republicans has deluded the masses into supporting the liberal warmongers. Many left-liberals, on the other hand, do dismiss this bipartisanship, and choose to vote for petty-bourgeois “social democratic” third-parties like Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson—who, we must admit, have better policies than the two warmongers. Yet, we cannot reply on these petty-bourgeois reformists to actually change—or improve the conditio

ns of the working class. The reality is, the masses are either deluded by liberal propaganda or that it’s unlikely the petty-bourgeois third-parties will win.

Probably one of the reasons the masses favor Obama over Romney is because of the liberal rhetoric and

propaganda that has been used to portray that “liberalism is better”.  Domestic policy and the question on women and birth control has been a significant policy that has been commoditifed and misused by the liberals by propagating that “Republicans do not want you to have birth control”. Though much of it is true, this doesn’t hide the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are mostly white men, who obviously are subjected to misogyny. Though

the birth control question for a women living in America might instanteously favor Obama
over Romney, the issue is—why in the world would you been prevented from something that you need already? Misogyny has been instituted in the creation of America before even the creation of the bipartisanship. The truth is, liberals do not hold an opinion about women, because if they did, they would have given all women free access to all needs. Misogyny will still exist. Sure, Republicans had said vile, unbearable things—but the thing is, it is propagating and to trigger the masses to favor Obama.  To talk in general, what consist of ‘women’ according to this granted access, are basically white middle-class women, because there is no place for women of color proletarians here. Especially for immigrants, w

ho can’t afford the access nevertheless due to the fact that they slurred with the “I-word” or are simply discriminated from accessing.

Healthcare, which the masses are deluded and simply vote for Obama due to the liberal rhetoric that Obamacare will “emancipate the masses” by providing the majority with access with healthcare. Progressive propaganda includes this false rhetoric that life will somehow gradually improve. Though Obama’s domestic policy in regards to health and crucial needs are “reforming”, this will not affect the majority of Americans.  One such controversy that Obamacare has not taken in consideration is when the Supreme Court’s fails to aid black women with HIV. Sure, the Affordable Care Act has help women in many parts—however, poor, women of color undocumented women are not qualified for these benefits. Dr. Reginald Clark, from Black Agenda Reports, a website exclusively from the Black Left perspective, reports about the fallacy about Obamacare. Clark summarizes it with “Obamacare for the Few and ObamaDon’tCare for the Majority”.

What proportion of the entire uninsured citizenry will be adversely affected by the inequity inherent in the American Health Benefit Exchange? Well, as of 2011, about 48.6 million American citizens had no health insurance at all. [13] Out of the total 48.6 million uninsured citizens in the U.S., if only 7.25 million uninsured citizens is able to obtain the very best Health Benefit Exchange Plan — the Platinum Plan — that will amount to only 15%, or 1 out of 6, of the 48.6 uninsured citizens. The other 85% of the uninsured citizens (41.35 million people) will get saddled with a health Plan that is inferior to the Platinum Plan. This indicates that the PPACA will not provide 5 out of 6 uninsured American citizens with health insurance Plan coverage most capable of meeting their medical needs. Moreover, the most likely scenario is that poor and near-poor Americans (including Black and Brown Americans)are least likely to obtain a health care Plan in the Health Benefit Exchanges that will make their health care costs “affordable” when they get sick. [14] And I have argued elsewhere, inequities in citizen’s access to quality health insurance coverage create a significant amount of preventable lethality in the health care system. [15] This is how the PPACA fosters discrimination and injustice in healthcare access. Given the discriminatory and unjust aspects of the PPACA initiative, perhaps a more accurate name for the PPACA legislation is “Obamacare for the Few and ObamaDon’tCare for the Majority.

Dr. Reginald Clark, Why Obama Health Care Act Should Be Named “Obamacare for the Few and ObamaDon’tCare for the Majority” via Black Agenda Report

Another fallacy that people uphold about Obama is about the immigration question. The reality of immigration has been distorted by liberal rhetoric and propaganda.

One work of propaganda is from the Amnesty International:


The fact that the DREAM Act, which is designated at immigrant students, is to help undocumented students in a “humanitarian relief”. The fact that Obama has probably increased the rate of deportation—even more than the previous Bush administration has wrought in the two presidential terms. In fact, Barack Obama deported more people than any other president in U.S. history.  The Obama administration deported about 1.2 million undocumented immigrants.  In fact, the DREAM act is liberal propaganda, while the truth is that it’s just an “act” to make Obama look “better of the two”.

DREAM Act propaganda emphasizes the availability of college to immigrant youth, and it will enable some to attend college who otherwise couldn’t. But with the cost of higher education sharply rising and no extra funds for undocumented students, that part of the DREAM Act campaign is pure deception, bait-and-switch, a mirage. DREAM Act green card holders will face the same bleak economic choices as other young people of modest means, with additional challenges of language, discrimination and identity. The military will be even more attractive a choice for qualifying immigrant youth than it is for citizens.

Bruce A. Dixon, DREAM ACT Will Extend Poverty Draft to Immigrant Youth. Such A Deal.

The fact that Obama has deported more than one million immigrants shows the hypocrisy of the liberals and their constant rhetorical propaganda to show that “they stand for the masses”. In his 2008 speech, he promised, especially to the Latin@ community that he will bring immigration reform—which easily fooled the masses.

Another gem by Bruce A. Dixon:

“Third, the memo says that to qualify for deferral of your deportation, you can’t have felonies or even “significant misdemeanors” on your record. That’s not just a high standard, it’s a brand new one that lawyers and judges have not yet defined. Many Latino immigrants live in communities where racially selective saturation policing bestows police records upon disproportionate numbers of young males.


Fourth, most of the million-plus already deported by the Obama Administration were never college grads, college students, college-bound or vets. They were ordinary working people and their families. The memo being celebrated by immigrant reform activists does nothing to slow down their deportations. College graduation, in the US has become a kind of class distinction, and the immigration reform movement and Democratic Latino leaders seem to be acting in the interest of one class of immigrants while abandoning the needs of the rest.


Fifth, immigration reform activists and their allies rarely mention that as the DREAM Act as presently written makes joining the military as a road to citizenship a much easier path than college. Page 12 of the Pentagon’s FY 2012 Strategic Plan states that to achieve its manpower goals it needs access to immigrant populations. This may be the real point of the DREAM Act.


Sixth, since the Obama administration itself initiated the most massive wave of deportations in US history, it also could have stopped those six months, a year, two years ago. So calling press conferences, as Chicago Congressman Luis Gutierrez did, to thank the Obama Administration for maybe stopping deportations just of vets and college-bound youth with spotless records is like expressing sincere gratitude to a brutal assailant who’s beat every square inch of your body the last three years, when he announces he might start going easy on the head and groin shots from now on. If you ask him nicely.”

Let’s now come to the foreign policy, which we all know—they both agree on the same things. One hysterical recent poll that has just released was that Pakistan favored Romney over Obama—which, in a slight way signifies that Obama’s drone policy has dramatically affected the Pakistanis, especially in the targeted area. [x]

A great article in points out and perfectly talks about the fallacy of the Democratic Party:

The (il)legitimacy of the drone war: The administration is in direct violation of several domestic and international laws in its drone war. They have invented a definition of “imminence,” a required element for justifying the use of force for self-defense in international law. They’re ignoring a Reagan-era statute that bans extra-judicial assassinations. And they appear to be violating the decision of the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which said due process must be “accorded to a US citizen deprived of liberty in connection with hostilities (this was ignored, for example, when the administration targeted and killed three US citizens without due process, including a 16-year old boy).

For these and other reasons – like the fact that the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen kills and terrorizes civilians – at least two UN investigators have called the legality of Obama’s drone wars into question. Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions called on the Obama administration to explain under what legal framework its drone war is justified and suggested that “war crimes” may have already been committed. The UN human rights chief Navi Pillay also called for a UN investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan, noting their questionable legality and that they indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.

The failure and cruelty of the Iran sanctions: While Iran will certainly be talked about, the issue of sanctions will only range from harsh to harsher. What will not be discussed is the fact that sanctions have historically failed to change the policies of the targeted regime, and indeed appear to be failing to change the Iranian regime’s policies as well. Especially ignored will be the horrible humanitarian consequences that have already begun to manifest in Iran: The Charity Foundation for Special Diseases, a non-governmental medical organization supporting six million patients in Iran, has warned publicly that the sanctions are putting millions of lives at risk by causing deep shortages of medicines for diseases like hemophilia, multiple sclerosis and cancer.

“The sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran have had significant effects on the general population,” UN Secretary General warned in a statement earlier this month, “including an escalation in inflation, a rise in commodities and energy costs, an increase in the rate of unemployment and a shortage of necessary items, including medicine.”

“The sanctions also appear to be affecting humanitarian operations in the country,” he wrote. “Even companies that have obtained the requisite licence to import food and medicine are facing difficulties in finding third-country banks to process the transactions.”

This, all while the consensus view in the entire US and intelligence community is that Iran has no nuclear weapons and has not made the decision to begin to develop nuclear weapons, which they are years away from technologically anyways.

Government secrecy and surveillance powers: Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Obama administration has led one of the most secretive, over-classified, and surveillance-prone governments in a long time – maybe ever. And again, Romney would only try to appear less transparent, so this topic will not be discussed tonight.

In 2011, the federal government spent $11 billion just on keeping secrets from the American public (this number did not include costs incurred by the CIA and the NSA and other spy agencies, because those figures are classified). The worst of government secrecy has occurred under the Obama administration, which has hailed itself as the most transparent administration ever. According to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), the government made a whopping 76,795,945 classification decisions in 2010, an increase of more than 40% from 2009. Document reviews conducted by ISOO in 2009 discovered violations of classification rules in 65% of the documents examined, with several agencies posting error rates of more than 90%.

The Obama administration has fought tooth and nail to keep the details of its surveillance activities hidden from the public. But documents recently released by the Justice Department after years of litigation with the ACLU have revealed that “federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring Americans’ electronic communications, and doing so without warrants, sufficient oversight, or meaningful accountability.” Homeland Security has also recently been found to have illegally spied on peace activists.

The idiocy of aiding the Syrian rebels: The conflict in Syria has primarily been framed by both parties as a humanitarian crisis that America is morally obligated to intervene in militarily. What most Americans don’t know – and won’t find out at tonight’s debate – is that the rebel fighters that the US is aiding and helping send arms to have committed war crimes and are increasingly fighting under the banner of al-Qaeda groups intent on setting up a Salafi Islamist state if the Assad regime falls. The US military and intelligence community is aware of these concerns, but still the Obama administration has not stopped the aid, which is by most expert accounts only serving to prolong the conflict and worsen the humanitarian situation. The Romney campaign agrees with this policy, but has hinted that it would try to get more weapons to these al-Qaeda fighters if elected. This has blowback written all over it.

US-backed Israeli crimes against the Palestinians: Simply put, US economic, military, and diplomatic support of Israel enables the Israeli leadership to commit blatant crimes, in direct violation of international law. The Likud Party, now in power in Israel, currently receives $3 billion a year from Washington and all the vetoes the UN Security Council can take. But the Likud Party Charter declares Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza as “the realization of Zionist values” and describes the whole of the West Bank and Jerusalem as belonging to Israel. This not only goes directly against official US support for a negotiated two-state solution, but it violates international law prohibiting forced relocation of occupied people and the settlement of conquered or occupied lands.

The strictly-imposed Israeli blockade on Gaza, also, violates international law prohibiting collective punishment and is creating a humanitarian crisis in the small strip. Recently released documents show that the Israeli military meticulously and callously calculated the number of calories Gaza residents would need to consume in order not to starve, and used those calculations to inform how to impose a harsh economic blockade, as if Gaza residents were dogs in a cage. But this is a banished issue, and will not be mentioned at tonight’s debate. [x]

To bullet point some of the Obama’s hypocrisy:


(War on Drugs)

Guantanamo Bay (Torture, Prison, Mass Incaernations related)

People of Color/WOC in America

Exploitation of the Working Class

And many more! (yet Romney would do the same, possibly even worse if he was to be the president)

The Third-Party elections are something that left-liberals tend to be supportive for, due to the two-party system we are currently dealing with. What the elections is suppressing is a proletarian revolution—and to follow iconic socialist nations like Cuba and Venezuela. While you’re probably dead due to being drafted to war, or not having access to healthcare, Cuba has a universal healthcare that everyone has access to.  Whether it will be Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party, Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party, or Jill Stein from the Green Party—they ultimately support the capitalist globalization of America, and participating in bourgeois elections will prevent a revolution and the social means of production. Sure, there will be then, many reforms to many policies that are masses are being oppressed. However, reformation will not lead to anywhere—the capitalistic economy will still exist and labor aristocracy will exist to oppress the third-World proletarians. Capitalism is not the end of the transition of society. Social democracy is liberal reactionary reform ideology that accepts the capitalist system.

As Lenin said,

“Russian Social-Democracy is passing through a period of vacillation and doubt bordering on self-negation. On the one hand, the working-class movement is being sundered from socialism, the workers are being helped to carry on the economic struggle, but nothing, or next to nothing, is done to explain to them the socialist aims and the political tasks of the movement as a whole. On the other hand, socialism is being sundered from the labour movement; Russian socialists are again beginning to talk more and more about the struggle against the government having to be carried out entirely by the intelligentsia because the workers confine themselves to the economic struggle.”

— Lenin, ‘The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement (1900)’



Filed under capitalism, elections, iran, israel, liberalism, syria, war

2 responses to “Debunking the Liberal Myth: The logical fallacy of the bourgeois dichotomy

  1. Pingback: Debunking the Liberal Myth: The logical fallacy of the bourgeois dichotomy « …the point is to change it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s