POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY
Earlier, in our discussion regarding principles, we noted a significant change in politicians since the 50′s. A political animal used to be a bull-headed warrior, now the average politician is a verbal chameleon not only adapting to the changing tides of popular opinion, but often altering his position to fit the demographics of the audience to whom he/she is currently speaking.
Over the last few decades the Republican and Democratic parties have been speeding towards an ideological head on collision where the differences between the two parties is negligible. The collision has taken place somewhere to the right of center and liberal candidates of today look frightenly similar to conservatives of the 60′s and 70′s.
In today’s competitive politics most act as if it is easier for people to decide what they don’t like than what they do. Maybe the consensus is that hate is a stronger and more enduring feeling than love. Maybe people feel it is easier to tear apart other’s solutions than to rally support for their own. Yet, whatever the reason, our political world is quickly becoming a bickering, vicious one party system.
Politicians gain employment through the glorified popularity contest we call the electoral process. In order for a politician to get elected they need to be known by the voters. Elections are often won by the skills of campaign managers and speech writers who carefully tailor a candidates publicity strategy. These individuals are gifted at manipulating media attention to foster the most support of their candidate, or the most hatred towards the opposing candidates.
In politics, as in almost every aspect of a free enterprise system, perception is much more important than truth. A politician’s success often depends on what he doesn’t say as what he does, or as to what people think he means rather than his true intention. A calm, confident, reassuring and non-threatening presentation is often the veneer which allows a candidate to survive the opposition’s mud slinging relatively unscathed.
Political campaigns being increasingly about image rather than positions are becoming incredibly expensive. Elections are no longer a contest where two or more candidates go toe-to-toe over their views. Most modern elections are an elaborate media chess game in which each candidate quickly responds to the moves and accusations of his opponent. The cost of this media exposure and, therefore, all elections is skyrocketing.
In theory our political system was designed to allow all individuals an opportunity to not only vote, but to serve in public office. The reality of the situation is that only the wealthy and those well connected with affluent supporters can run. In such a system how can the rights of the common man ever be represented?
Our electoral system makes it near impossible for any candidate to emerge who serves the purposes of the majority rather than the economic elite. The running for any state or national office depends on the existence of a sizeable economic base. Any citizen, no matter how independently wealthy, will have to rely on the financial assistance of many influential people in order to be taken seriously as a candidate.
Political contributions seldom come without strings being attached. Corporations, special interest groups and lobbyists view their donations as an investment and as protection for their interests. Even those without a specific agenda will often treat their contribution as an insurance policy to be utilized when the need arises.
Politicians and the media both have to respect the wishes and interests of those who bankroll their enterprises. A politician needs corporate money not just to cover the expenses of a well managed campaign, but for protection from those businesses and groups which stand to lose the most from his platform. Without the influence of powerful friends a candidate can be mercilously crucified by a press being pressured by its benefactors to attack a candidate which they view as detrimental to their interests. With the political and economic backing of a few wealthy institutions these “friends” will be able to apply equal pressure to the media to lighten their attack, or at least to mount a counter attack on the opposition.
Without appeasing the affluent a candidate lacks the resources to acquire the necessary media exposure and the power to monitor the media’s portrayal of his character. A candidate unprotected by friends from the economic ruling class is left stranded in the media desert, free game for every political vulture with an interest to protect or promote.
The vulnerability of a politician continues after he/she is elected. If a politician hopes to become effective and stay popular he must continue to rely on the support of his wealthy friends. Major contributors and friends must not only be rewarded for their support, but listened to often in the future.
A politician learns early on that it is much easier to lie to the general public than to the wealthy ruling class who influence and manipulate public opinion. Spin doctors and other masters of political language are quite confident in their ability to paint even the most blatantly obscene political picture in a favorable light. Both political parties are gifted at choosing words which will inspire popular support even when what they are proposing is quite damaging to the average citizen.
The ability for spin doctors to contort and reconstruct the truth is only made possible by the complicity of the commercial media. Which under the guise of objectivity promotes some of the most blatant uses of double speak and falsehood ever rammed down the throats of a nation.
Events protested around the globe as heinous genocidal acts of oppression are often hailed by our “free press” as heroic and noble deeds when they serve the purposes of our economic elite. The media’s reputation as being persistent if not irritating investigators of the truth throw the public’s cynical scent off the trail of deceit laid down by our nation’s military-industrial complex.
Over the last few decades the relative wealth (including the real wages) of the bulk of our populace has decilined regardless of whether the statistics proclaim our economy as in recession or thriving. Confused, afraid and frustrated the average citizen of the US hates all those who can be viewed as a threat. Racism, bigotry and international zenophobia are on the rise in the US. Each day more people feel threatened by the prospect of losing jobs to foreign business’s abroad (usually owned or controlled by US interests) or to immigrants and illegal aliens.
California’s recent laws suspending the rights of education and health care for illegal immigrants is just one more indication of our nation’s growing fear of the foreign. It is interesting to once again note that the law does little to rid our nation of illegal immigrants, but only reduces the rights of these people and their expense to our economy. Under such laws the wealthy continue to be able to utilize and exploit a never ending source of cheap labor without having to incur any additional expenses.
As each day passes more wealth continues to shift to the top 1/2 of 1% of the populace and away from a greater percentage of a shrinking middle class. Our international economic policies which have raped the multitudes for the benefit of the few is being duplicated domestically, where the number of people living in poverty, homeless and starving steadily increases. Recent studies state that 30 million US citizens are numbered amongst the world’s hungry, and that up to 26% of our children are considered malnourished.
Yet, due to the complicity of the media and the verbal talents of our politicians, these facts are often minimized and denied. When hardships are admitted, we are led to believe that they all are a direct result of evil leaders such as Saddam Hussein, who are almost always past friends, business associates and employees of our government and intelligence agencies.
The economic elite in this country want to expand and not just maintain their wealth. This simple logical fact greatly impacts on the politcal process in this country. Our politicians are dependent on these people at every step of their careers. Therefore, their political agendas have to further the economic interests of the elite.
Even when politicians are resistive to the needs of their benefactors the omnipresent lobbyists will persist until their cause is listened to satisfactorly. Lobbyists for corporations, industries and special interest groups methods of persuasion involve a lot more than time and talk. Their diplomatic arsenol includes the standard tools of any intimidator from bribes and threats to negative press and rumors.
In the previous chapter it was noted how our government planners have striven since WWII to maintain the disparity of our nation’s wealth in comparison to all others. The less control we had over foreign economies the less profit we could make. The more people making money the greater the threat to our economic superiority. Therefore, any society, democratic or otherwise, which divided the wealth amongst its populace posed a threat to our national (economic) security.
The greater our nation’s wealth the greater the need to exploit others. In order to protect our economic superiority any social movement raising the standard of living had to be supressed, sabotaged or squashed before its benefits could be experienced.
It is only logical that the domestic need to suppress a distribution of wealth is as necessary as our international one. It also makes sense that our economic elite would exert pressure on our government to exercise the same control on the bulk of US citizens as they do abroad. If this is true, we should be able to see signs of how our government suppresses a better distribution of the wealth and how it undermines the existence of social movements promoting the rights of the average citizen.
A simple review of some of the information we’ve covered seems to support this theory. First, our unions have been decreasing in size and political might for some time now. Union leaders themselves often look more like the corporate leaders they negotiate with, rather than the workers they represent. Our laws stripping illegal aliens of rights and services while leaving their employers unscatehed again depicts the tendency for the impoverished to suffer for the benefit of the wealthy.
Since the 40′s our military budget has grown geometrically while our services to citizens have been drastically cut. Defense spending was always justified in an effort to protect ourselves from communism. Yet, our military budget continues to balloon even after the downfall of Communism. Health and social services, including Social Security, continue to be cut while the needs for these services escalates. Our government continues to build and sell arms at record levels, while millions of US citizens join the growing numbers of people, homeless, uninsured and starving.
Since the 50′s the size of the middle class has shrunk. The average number of hours worked per week has risen while benefits and buying power decrease. Unions have become sterile or castrated, and workers themselves have generally lost a sense of solidarity.
Programs such as welfare, designed to insure that the basic needs of all children get met, are being attacked and challenged. The government and aspiring politicians often cite the existence of such programs as a serious threat to the welfare of all taxpayers. Yet, the cost of these programs is relatively insignificant when compared to the bloated defense budget, or to the economic burden shouldered by the taxpayers for the mismanagement of corporate America. Expenditures from the national debt, the S&L crisis and illegal bank practices far outweigh those caused by social services. The US taxpayer is made to believe their declining lifestyle is caused by the poor rather than the rich, a belief not founded in fact.
A massive PR campaign is being waged against the poor in our country. People on welfare are portrayed as lazy and quite content on taking handouts. The homeless are thought of as being drug addicts and alcoholics. Those uninsured are likewise irresponsible and lazy individuals who with a little forethought could have prevented their dire circumstance.
Of course, what chance do these defenseless individuals have to air their views. Sure an occassional talk show will let us get to know a few of these victims personally. In such cases they are depicted, no matter how much they protest, as exceptions to the rule. The message is clear. Sure a few good people can lose their way, but most poor people are not victims, but rather lazy opportunists. Decades of cuts in social services have left hundreds of thousands of mentally and physically handicapped individuals on the streets to fend for themselves. Yet, this fact is suppressed by a media who would instead rather talk of the terrible way they cope (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.).
Thanks to the vigilant campaign to direct our hate and fear to our fellow citizens we have become a bickering nation incapable of joining together to cast off oppression. We are a culture divided, blacks against whites, men against women, feminists against traditionalists, gays versus straights, Democrats versus Republicans, police versus citizens, parents versus kids, pro-life versus pro-choice, Muslems versus Christians, teachers versus parents, and the list could go on and on.
The media through endless talk shows and magazine news programs has fueled these petty fueds which distract and alienate the masses from their common oppressions. We’ve seen everything on TV from sado-masochistic cross dressing trans-sexuals to neo-nazi urban performance artists. Each label a person wears is just another opportunity for the audience to take sides. By the end of the week the average viewer has over a hundred different causes to defend or oppose.
Early talk shows often discussed major political issues which affected the common man. Yet, through time the focus switched to exposing fringe groups such as the KKK or social deviants such as pedophiles and rapists. As issues became replaced by personal problems, the genre moved away from information and towards mindless entertainment. Talk shows maintaining an ounce of integrity used professionals to help people undestand the stories they were being told. Yet, now most talk shows have become little more than guerrilla theatre in which the audience acts as judge and jury of the bizarre stories being told by the guests.
With all the bickering going on is it any wonder that people find it hard to reach any common ground? What empathy or social clarity can be achieved in a society which uses instant judgement of people’s character as a major form of entertainment?
During all this bickering, prejudice and in-fighting the corporate and industrial injustices go unreported and unnoticed. Even if this was not a pre-planned strategy the government planners and studious members of the economic elite must be thrilled with the way the media has assisted them in undermining the very possibility of a social movement.
Our government and business planners have always been very leary of the potential power of unified people in a democratic society. They have always advocated swift action to subvert any social movement here or abroad which they viewed as a threat to their control or economic privelege. The National Association of Manufacturers speaking of the revived unions warned in 1938 of the “hazard facing industrialists” in “the newly realized political power of the masses”. “Unless their thinking is directed we definitely heading towards adversity.”
In his study of media coverage of labor, Walter Puette provides ample evidence that the press, TV and the movies have portrayed unions as corrupt and outside the mainstream. Unions are depicted as “special interests”, “un-American in their values, strategies and membership”. The negative theme “runs deep and long through the history of media treatment” and “has helped push the values and goals of the American labor movement off the liberal agenda”.
The tragic history of unions in this country amply demonstrates the low tolerance our government and industry have for the rights of workers (and citizens in general). It also documents well the murderous extents the economic elite will go to insure that their interests are protected.
Workers in todays market view illegal aliens, immigrants and foreign businesses as a threat to their standard of living. This fear is not unwarranted for it is true that our industrial-corporate structure does not flinch when faced with the prospect of replacing well paid workers with cheap labor. Yet, anger at these cheap laborers is grossly misdirected.
Our corporate leaders have exploited the fears and prejudices of the average worker just as strongly as they’ve exploited their talents and muscle. The average worker has been programmed to hate and bicker in the name of national pride and patriotism. We have been taught to hate and feel threatened by all those the corporate and political structure has forced us to compete with.
The steady decline of real wages over the last twenty years has caused much anxiety in the US work force, resulting in an economic totem pole in which people mistrust and hate those more unfortunate than them. The economic totem pole forces many American’s to be unsympathetic to the perils of others. Tolerating and even supporting our nation’s bombing and starving of innnocent people around the world becomes possible when they pose an immediate threat to your welfare and survival. Taking advantage of this paranoid emotional climate our govenment attempts to convert our growing discontent into taking pride in their aggressive brand of international policy. Instead of revolting against being raped by our economic elite, we support and offer our children up as sacrifices to insure our declining lifestyle and freedom. Populace support for our numerous embargoes, sanctions and military interventions are forged in fear. A fear that without our governments protection our standard of living will surely be destroyed by the foreignors who are taking our jobs away from us by working long hours and for almost no pay. Yet, what we fail to realize is that more often than not we share the same employers.
During the 80′s corporate America garnished record profits, while the standard of living of the average worker plummeted. This glaring contradiction was explained away in very creative fashions. Everything from global competition to changes in technology and business structure to natural disasters were used to confuse and frighten the public into submission. Utility and Insurance companies used every minor mishap as an excuse to raise their prices. Yet, while we shouldered the expense for every calamity, illegal act and business plunder they encountered, their profits grew and grew. The result being that they never had a bad year, only their consmers.
The Republican Party dominated the White House during these years of corporate oppulence. Despite the increased hardship and poverty of most US citizens, the Republican Party actually gained in popularity. This was accomplished by stating that they were the political party against big government, taxation, and spending. This is actually very true, but not in the way they present it.
Yes, it is true that the Republican’s stand firm in their opposition to spending money on services. They are indeed committed to decreasing if not eliminating the welfare system. They also want to reduce if not eliminate federal programs such as EPA and FDA which monitor the practices of big business. Sure, they are dedicated to cutting down the expenditures in the service realm reducing government funds from everything from mental health and food assistance programs to NASA, prisoner rehabilitation and ecological restoration.
The Republican party believes in letting big business alone and unimpeded. It is this policy which has led to their big profits. Concerns regarding helping business maximize their profits outweighs concerns over pollution, unhealthy working environments or workers rights. The majority of jobs created during the Reagan-Bush years were minimum wage or below which often replaced higher paying jobs with more benefits.
Money saved by the cutting of health and welfare services is lost on other priorities. Instead of this money being passed on to the middle-class it is “invested” into a host of activities which do not necessarily benefit the average person. The Republican party is notorious for its huge defense budget, even when the threat of Communism was reduced or missing. Republican’s are also fond of taking money previously allocated from “unnecessary” services such as health to education to more urgent investments into business.
In this system of priorities our tax dollars are used to protect American corporations and industries from spending their own capital on research and development. Instead, they use our tax dollars to fund their experiements and cover their overhead. So, the end result is that we shoulder the load for their enterprises. If they fail, they lose nothing, and if they succeed they make a lot of money off our investment which we will never see any return on.
A simple example is in how our government is waging their fight against crime. The crack down on crime, including the drug war, has resulted in well over a million American’s in jail. The Republican desire to get tough on crime necessitates that we build more jails. Our tax dollars pay for the jails, their upkeep, the guards, food, etc. Yet, more and more jails are now becoming profitable industries.
Business men seizing the opportunity to make a lot of money with almost no overhead are moving in and exploiting these facilities. Prison workers can be made to work long hours and be paid almost nothing. These cheap laborers who have almost no rights is a dream come true for industries looking to maximize their profit margin. Who is going to complain about the labor abuses these criminals might suffer?
The average taxpayer loses to crime on a number of levels. First we are the victims of crime itself, losing everything from possessions and sentimental belongings to our dignity or our life. Second, we lose to the insurance companies who “adjust” our insurance rates to cover the increased costs caused by crime while at the same time enjoying record profits. Third, we lose our freedom and security by the increasing possibility of becoming a victim. Yet, while we lose, big business profits, turning inmates into cheap laborers unable to share in the capital they generate.
Examples of how government uses our tax dollars to “stimulate” business growth could fill an entire wing of a library. More often than not it is our tax dollars which fuel a major corporations research and development of new technologies. Taxpayers shoulder the load for all the unethical, immoral and outright incompetent actions of big business. We pay for the national debt, bank and S&L closures, junk bond debackles and environmental fiascos. Taxpayer money is used to cover the cost of industry adapting to health and environmental standards and expanding into foreign markets. While we bankroll and bail out the economic elite our economic resources dwindle while their’s expand.
Our fear and hatred of those beneath us in the economic totem pole blinds us to the actions of our government. The Republican party feeds off our fears blaming the poor for our worsening predicament. The democrats they claim are bleeding heart liberals who want to tax us to death forcing us to support the lazy and immoral poor.
Once again there is a grain of truth in these accusations. It is true that the Democratic party has partially acknowledged the responsibility of government to provide for the welfare of its citizens. The Democratic party was the “union party” and to this day is viewed by those in the human service industry as their ally. This concern for the worker though very dilluted still survives in issues such as the parties willingness to consider the impact of industrial pollution on the environmnet. The Democratic party has been more responsive to the rights of blacks, women and gays then their political counter parts.
Yet, the stated goal of the government planners to insure US economic supremacy crosses all political lines. Our international greed has not slackened during democratic administrations. The party’s compassion for the middle class, even if it was more than a surface one has diminished over the years. As the power and influence of the union’s waned so did the benefits of being considered the worker’s party.
The political power of our corporations grew as the rights of the workers diminished. With international economic dominance our corporate monopolies came to enjoy increased control over our government and its politicians. As our electoral campaigns became more expensive and media dominated, it became increasingly difficult for any politician to exist without corporate support. The only business practices a corporate sponsored politician is able to attack are of those competing with his sponsors.
Neither party, being dependent on corporate funds, is able to openly support the average citizen. In a bickering, divided and hostile nation the Democratic party suffers by its past association with compassion. The decreased power and influence of the unions has hurt the popularity and image of the Democratic party. The Republican’s are often successful in depicting the Democratic party as the party of the poor, the lazy and the criminal. The rights it supports are no longer that of the mainstream, but of all the social parasites an angry nation looks to blame for their decaying standard of living.
States with high union memberhsips which used to be democratic stronholds are now voting Republican. The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 represented only the second Democratic victory over the last quarter of a century. Due to the poor state of the economy Mr. Clinton was able to foster support for populist issues such as the national debt and health care reform. Issues which two short years later Republican and corporate propoganda had almost totally eroded this support resulting in the largest GOP victory in a mid-term election.
Mounting frustration over the entire political process showed itself in the emergence of Ross Perot as a third party candidate. Touting himself as a practical man divorced from all the “gridlock” and corruption of Washington politics, Mr. Perot quickly became a significant factor in the election. The fact that a rich billionaire could come to be viewed as a champion of the rights of the common man just shows how confused the American electorate has become.
The fact that Mr. Perot made his enormous wealth during a time in which workers pay and rights were slashed was seldom if ever mentioned. Mr. Perot promised to cut the deficit and make our economy flourish, the question never asked him was how these profits he was going to generate were to be distributed. If his past is any indication, the standard of living of the average American would continue to dwindle as corporate America basked in record profits. Yet, no matter what candidate won regardless of party affiliation the result would likely be the same. In a political process in which candidates are little more than corporate puppets the rich will continue to get richer while the poor head towards starvation.
Just as in the case of foreign policy the value of money pervades and dominates every aspect of the domestic political scene as well. Corporate money, necessary to conduct a successful campaign, make puppets of both the media and candidates. A candidate, whose presence and platform are neatly tailored to please the onmipresent eye of the camera, is sold to the public like any other corporate commodity (product). Yet, the power of money only works when the value of money is not just supreme to the economic elite, but to the general public as well.
Without a societal emphasis on monetary issues, corporate politician’s could neither arouse our fear’s and hatred’s or incite our support for their ruthless behavior abroad. Without our greed induced fears the American public would never support or even tolerate our governments imperialistic strategies of genocide. A compassionate truly democratic society could never condone the bombing and starving of civilians of other lands, or an economic take over of all their industry.
Our obsession with money makes it our most important value, making all other moral, ethical and humanistic cosiderations secondary. Monatary considerations are foremost in all our politcal decisions, from who we vote for to what issues we prioritize as urgent or important. Yet, probably the saddest aspect of our obsession with money is that it often decides what we will allow ourselves to believe in or to accept as possible. Money (both politically and personally) often is the deciding factor of who we define as our friends and enemies. In the world of politics it is easy to see the power money holds over us, influencing what we see, hear, feel, dream, believe and what we allow ourselves to become.