American voters now have a clear view of who they can vote for next year, with Barack Obama as the Democrats' certain candidate and Mitt Romney as the Republicans' probable candidate. Both candidates offer much the same prescriptions for the multiple crises facing their country -- more war and military spending, lower taxes (certainly no big hike for the rich), more bank bailouts, trickle-down economics for the unemployed and the disintegrating environment.
If Barack and Mitt are the best the political elite can come up with, we can only conclude that the entire American ruling class is suffering from acute paranoid schizophrenia -- fearing commies-turned-Muslims under their beds, shedding tears over the odd child hit by a stray bullet in, say, Syria, while joyously bombing hapless Afghans, Iraqs and Libyans into the Stone Age, wiping out hundreds of thousands in the process.
Obama said last week that the US now must tackle its "greatest challenge as a nation" -- rebuilding a weak economy and creating jobs -- with the "same urgency and unity that our troops brought to their fight." More like: with the "same cold-blooded disrespect for human life ..." Is it possible Obama will promote a Swift-like "modest proposal" to unemployment, and exhort Americans to eat their children?
Of course, there is an explanation for this raving. The chaos is caused by the logic of profit in the economy, and the rhetoric -- by the need to control the political process to ensure profit's uninterrupted flow. But Obama's fine rhetoric is not convincing even Americans anymore, as Occupy Wall Street and demonstrations across the country show. As for Congress; just 6 percent of registered voters think sitting members deserve re-election -- the lowest percentage since CBS News Polls began 20 years ago.
What is the poor -- literally, at this point -- voter to do? There are stirrings, even in the ruling class. Warren Buffett is spreading a chain letter calling on citizens to demand "a constitutional amendment which would make all sitting members of Congress ineligible for re-election any time there is a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP." If only it were that simple.
Oblivious to the obvious, Libertarian Ron Paul is battling it out with the Mitts in Republican cuckoo-land to slash both the budget deficit and taxes. At least Paul wants less war. He is determined to end what he calls the "welfare-warfare state", undeterred by the plight of the record 46 million Americans on food stamps (whose welfare expenditures are a crucial stimulus to local economies), and the fact that his very own campaign manager in 2008 died of pneumonia in 2011 from lack of medical insurance.
Then there is the perennial Ralph Nader, who is bowing out from a full-scale campaign so far, and working with left Democrats to field primary challengers to Obama in the desperate hope to move him to the left.
What about a third-party/independent presidential campaign? The Green Party always fields someone, and Nader ran many times in the past as both the Green candidate and as an Independent. There is a new such campaign this year -- an Internet campaign called Americans Elect, intending to nominate "a competitive, nonpartisan ticket" that "answers directly to voters." A Republican must team up with a Democrat. Give me a break.
It is impossible for such a dark horse to actually win, given the Republicrat control of the media and corporate financing of elections. However, American third-partiers, or rather non-partiers, have a venerable history in the US. Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Bull Moose) captured 27 percent of the vote in 1912, and Progressive Robert La Follette -- 27 percent in 1924. Billionaire Ross Perot created his own Reform Party, running on a confusing mix of balanced budget, war on drugs, gun control, trade protectionism and environmentalism, to gain almost 20 percent of the vote in 1992.
If, say, the Green candidate miraculously takes off, s/he will at best be a spoiler, like Republican Party-pooper Roosevelt in 1912 (allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win), Ross Perot in 1992 (allowing Democrat Bill Clinton to win) and possibly Nader in 2000, whose 2.74 percent of the vote might have been the cause of Al Gore's loss to George W Bush.
The bottom line is, of course, to dismantle the "reality of corporate control," as Cook puts it. He rightly argues that "the rights of citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness require the government to ensure these rights," which means universal health care, freedom from want; in short, a government that serves the people, not the corporations. While this may sound trite, it is the stark truth. "Rights before privilege."
There is strong US precedent for this. In 1944, shortly before he died, president Franklin Roosevelt presented Congress with a new Bill of Rights, which included "the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment," as well as farmers' and businessmen's rights "to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition by monopolies." Of course, Congress being Congress, it dismissed out of hand this parting gift of FDR.