This political process of ours is fascinating to witness, on the eve of a new primary season ripe for change after President Bush and two failed Congresses have plunged the nation's wealth distribution some 100 years backwards to the days of the robber barons. We are 5 years into a staged war whose cost is still hidden, leaving us a grim economic outlook, record debt with spiraling interest and our military readiness at dangerous lows. Our most valued industries have been parceled out to multinationals and our financial markets are artificially held together by nations who sell us goods or hold our debt. Unfortunately, as a nation we have learned almost nothing from this - we stand poised to elect leaders who will not be confronting many of these issues.
The 2006 election showed how slow people are to wake up, even when faced with the prospect of endless war and a host of unconstitutional improprieties staring us in the face. The basis of our electoral system is legal bribery, with corporate cash and special interests speaking many times louder then the will of the people on almost every issue.
2006's electoral outcome gave the US a reversal of power in appearance only - the slim majority afforded the Dems has done nothing to stop the war, the #1 concern cited by voters. The current Congress won't stop the torture or wiretapping or the defense contract cronyism without oversight. Faced with this, what is the 2008 voter to do?
Let's look at the choices, but let's play out the scenarios too. And in each case, let's look critically at the process by which we decide who to vote for - and check our own decision-making and ethics as American citizens who all have a duty to participate, enforcing the Constitution the country was founded upon.
Hillary Clinton is a well-entrenched DC power broker, criticized for pandering so widely she is unable to take a stand on almost anything. As First Lady she crusaded for some kind of national health plan, but met with great opposition and acquiesced, eventually taking money from the healthcare industry. While the Republican governor of Massachussetts put in a plan for state wide coverage, Hillary sat on her duff as Senator of NY, accomplishing nothing memorable other then her votes for the Iraq war and a well-planned Presidential run. Therefore Hillary's connections, while substantial, mean little for the voter. Her "power" is wielded for her personal advancement.
If Hillary is nominated, the anti-war movement loses again - she is the worst of the Dems on her war record, waiting far too long to apologize for her ill-advised vote for the invasion of Iraq. There would be no national "mandate" for pulling out because the right knows she simply followed national opinion. Also anticipate Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky and various other scandals being thoroughly revisited in a general election, as well as the litany of improprieties between Rose Law and the Pan-Asian donor scandals which are still making fresh news to this day. Fast forwarding to November, a Hillary nomination is probably the best shot for putting a Republican in the White House - any other Dem would bore the right-wing base and keep them home on election day.
Edwards has a positive theme - reuniting the two Americas. His stand on combating corporate influence is admirable and he has spoken about reforming elections. I'd like to see these things prioritized, but I think Edwards' health care plan is compromised by the fact that he'd keep the corporate profiteers in the equation, expecting government care to compete with private care. This sounds like it will be "two Americas" of medicine, no? Edwards also voted for the war while millions worldwide marched in protest, skeptical and distrustful of the military-industrial influence on Washington. How did I know it sounded fishy in pre-invasion 2003 without any inside information? Edwards has apologized, but remains a candidate whose election would not be the all-out anti-war clarion call needed. His detractors would probably swift-boat his legal career, painting him as a sleazy shark lawyer who got rich chasing huge personal injury awards, but Edwards would probably get a large turn out from the disenfranchised and middle class.
Obama is an dynamic personality bursting with promise and potential. He opposed this war as "dumb" from the start and shows intelligence in his approaches to all issues. His overall message seems sound, though his favoring coal interests hurts his otherwise strong environmental credibility. His health plan sounds interesting, including government re-insurance for catastrophic illness so employers would be able to keep costs low, but it is still well short of the systems England, France, Canada, Germany, Denmark and many other nations seem to enjoy in which health care is not a for-profit industry at all. Obama is accused of being inexperienced for the job, but in this climate of unchecked corruption, he should be able to turn that into a positive. Already something of an icon in Africa, he may be able to cement new relationships in foreign policy that emphasize humanitarian goals over military or economic imperialism.
Electing Kucinich would be the ultimate blow to the power-drunk DC establishment. Dennis advocates taking decisive legal action against government corruption and has already drafted legislation Congress pursue investigations into crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Bush administration. He proposes a national health care policy that would be a death knell for the middlemen in the healthcare "industry" and make medical access universal, removing the for-profit "insurance" concept that has grown to hurt so many Americans.
Since he has vehemently and vocally opposed the Iraq war from the start, his election would also signal the end of the era of privatized defense profiteering and a loud, clear mandate for ending the war and bringing home the troops. His plans to create a "Green" department and a "Peace" department signal his stands on the environment and foreign policy, but one of his other biggest issues has been his desire to repeal NAFTA so as to resurrect American jobs and manufacturing. Though the Kucinich message may be the most doggedly pro-America, pro-Constitution and anti-corruption, his showing in polls only reveals how much image and popularity play into our candidate choices.
Ron Paul is worth mention because he shows how anxious many Americans are for anti-establishment alternatives, especially in the GOP where the unpopular Iraq war compromises the front running candidates all marching in lock-step. Perhaps the greatest moment in '08 campaigning so far was when Paul stunned a GOP debate crowd, sharing the belief that 9/11 was the result of "blowback" for decades of black bag operations carried out by US intelligence agencies in the MidEast, including installation of puppet rulers, propagandizing, or aiding and then deserting thugs like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban.
This truth has invigorated many within the right to rally behind Paul who advocates peace, removing US troops from all foreign countries, and a general non-interventionist strategy for economic cooperation around the globe, restoring personal and collective liberties at home. This is ironically, a message more strictly adherent to traditional Conservativism then espoused by any of the other candidates, talk show hosts or pundits sympathetic to the illusory "neo-con" ideology. Paul's negatives aside, these qualities should be noted by all candidates - refreshing honesty about Iraq and US involvement abroad resonates deeply.
Sadly, the greatest factors involved in deciding our President are not related to the content of their message: the factors are related more to the amount of TV advertising, media coverage, physical appearance, and perceived electability.
TV advertising time is the greatest determinate, meaning the candidates that raise the most money will likely prevail. This leaves candidates beholden to whomever provides this money (still mostly corporations, PACs and SIGs, legally "bundling" contributions to outweigh private donations from individuals). Also key are the enormous media megaconglomerates upon whose airwaves these ads play - they end up with all this money that comes through the candidates.
Even more shameful are American aesthetic considerations. Network commentators openly discuss whether candidates look or sound "presidential". The media is wholly complicit in the avoidance of issues-based discussions, because they can't sell aftershave and hemorrhoid cream as easily to a well-informed, discerning public. So debates on a candidates' haircut or cleavage may dominate the conversation. But the media is also hiding political preferences, with each major network acting as squire for it's corporate overlord. If Time-Warner will make billions after cable deregulation and setting up "premium" internet tiers, why would it ever cover candidates who insist on net neutrality? If big pharma and defense contractors are major sponsors, how can medical studies or war coverage on these channels ever be trusted? Answer: they can't.
Individual voters are simply gullible - ask around the watercooler or at the local bar, not who their choices are but why. A new body of research presented Dr. Drew Westen's book The Political Brain" The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of a Nation shows convincing proof that Americans have voted with their hearts, not their heads for decades. One chapter shows that our brains shut down logic functions when shown proof that challenges beliefs we've previously held - for example, reciting John Kerry quotes that contradict each other to a staunch supporter, the logic centers in the subject's brain show no activity while the emotional centers flare like fire alarms, looking for rationalizations, excuses and comebacks.
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, "honest" music and art and obscure vinyl records.
'So frontrunners have an advantage - they know you are reluctant to "waste your vote" on a better candidate who is behind in the polls.' - I hope the rapidly increasing number of registered Independents means that voters are getting mighty sick of the lesser of two evils. If the Democratic Party is to be restore its luster, integrity and appeal, maybe Democrats should vote their conviction - and refuse to make a cynical calculation. Cynicism has brought our party to its current nadir: the cynicism of our elected representatives and the cynicism of the Democratic voter. Heck Bush was "electable" enough to be in the running - even if he is an illicit occupant of the White House.
by
Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 11:50:16 PM
My take on this, Americans are less gullible than some believe. Yes, by and large there still exists a herd mentality and a lot of people still parrot what they hear on the 5 oclock news, but things are changing. An awarness is leaking through the seams of our country and Paul is it's champion. That awareness is of a government that is out of control. Record spending coupled with record unpopularity makes for a volatile mix.
The mainstream media, controlled by an every shrinking number of conglomerates, is definitely beholden to special interest. Murdoch has been so bold as to say that his network is a reflection of his own personal ideals. Easy to do if you hire only those that think like you do. So we will still find the attacks, inane arguments, non specific statements etc are still heavily prevalent. However.....
There is an unrest that is brewing low. It hasn't even really begun to surface yet. Wait till the economic indicators that are coming out really come home to roost. Wait until the Social Security payments stop. Wait until the Chinese decide to dump their dollars and send our economy into a tailspin. Or worse yet wait until there is an emergency attack in this country and certain totalatarian edicts from recent passed laws come into play. That unrest will be so much larger than what we are seeing right now it won't even be funny.
The concern here is to try and diffuse this thing before it gets ugly. What some of the powerbrokers in Washington don't realize is that they need Paul. He has the ability to placate those by showing a genuine concern for their plight. The question becomes is if they are to stupid to see the elephant sitting squarely on the coffee table.
by
bgodley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 2:07:03 AM
On the candidates? You can hone your skills by getting some "Impeachmints" from PDA and leaving them in various places, one at a time. I like grocery stores and department stores. (They are at Progressive Dems site and are individually wrapped and delicious.) Then tell people about the "Pick Your Candidate" on Kucinich's site which will give you a good idea of what each of the candidates promise compared to what you want from them. It's fascinating. But then what? What if someone doesn't have a computer? Go to local Democrats or Independents meetings, write letters to the editor and read them from other people, donate if you can to groups like Moveon,or ProgressiveDems of America when they need to put an ad out.
But it would surely help us all if the Newspapers, News Magazines, TV, Radio and all the rest of the Big media would only be honest and objective (as opposed to subjective). We could be educated and make those life affecting decisions confidently.
This article is giving us good background info too, but the Kucinich " Pick your Candidate" gives you a basis for giving order to it all. Thank you, Gustav Wynn, for this good info!
by
zephyr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 64 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 2:19:41 AM
From its first days spamming from a Compuserve account, Moveon has been an advertising agency for the Dem Party establishment. It hasn't even asked for immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. Don't fund the bad guys. Send your money to an organization which, unlike Moveon, puts peace and environmental sanity ahead of the Dem Party's sponsors' financial interests. There are plenty of legitimate progressive information sources: Global Exchange, Common Dreams, Opednews, Open Voting Consortium, dozens more.
by
clsgis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM
AMERICA IS A CAREFULLY CONCEALED OLIGARCHY. A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE, MOSTLY IN GOVERNMENT, FINANCE, AND THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, RUN THIS COUNTRY FOR THEIR OWN PERPOSES. BY MANIPULATING THE SO CALLED TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, INFLUENCING THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, AND CONTROLLNG THE FOW OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE MONEY, THIS OLIGARCHY WORKS TO SCURE THE NOMINATION OF ITS PREFERRED CANDIDATES DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN A LIKE, THUS NOT GIVING VOTERS A DEMOCRATIC CHOICE. RON PAUL WILL MOST LIKLY NOT GET THE NOMINATION OF THE HIS PARTY, BUT IF HE RUNS INDEPEND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAYBE BEAT THE SYSTEM, ITS A LONG SHOT THE ONLY HOPE FOR AMERICA.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:50:42 AM
This is a well-thought-out article. I am one who has been to the "choose your condidate" by the issues site and found it very helpful. Indeed, if we can get this site into tons of hands, I believe folks will become much better informed. I know that many are simply feeling they have no time to research issues and instead vote as they are "told" to. Please, take the poll on the Kucinich site and see who it is really represents you! Then pass this poll onto as many people as you can!
by
treehugger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:54:46 AM
Thanks for your comments and suggestions - but bear in mind, all these things like handing things out at supermarkets or sharing information over the internet all pale in comparison to the efficiency of TV ads. I remember the feeling in 2004 that Bush had no chance of reelection when Iraq turned into such a quagmire and the reaction around the country to his policies was so bad, including seeing footage of him being informed both twin towers were under attack by planes and reacting as he did. But he won the election anyway.
The reasons for this could be many fold - some say enough electronic voting machines (EVMs) were rigged, some say it's because many likely Democratic voters were unable to vote because their names were scrubbed from the lists by Karl Rove's operatives. Some even suggest it was because CBS withdrew it's report that Bush went AWOL and skipped his military commitments.
But one indisputible fact is that the "Swift Boat" TV ads ran all across the nation, along with print and radio spots. Somebody spent a lot of money publicizing information on Kerry's war service that turned out to be fabricated. I had a guy in my office that believed the lies even a year later until I showed him it was mostly made up and wasn't paid for by an authentic veterans group. Though he disliked much of Bush's policies, he voted for him - against Kerry.
by
Gustav Wynn (60 articles, 38 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 281 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 10:40:03 AM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
