Clearly I have moved well into a sub-topic of the overall middle class economic concern that addresses politics more than it does government. Politics and government are different animals; politics is populated by mice with amnesia (for they are will forget any campaign promises when they have been delivered into office); when they get into public office and are set upon turning the wheels of government, whether from the executive, judicial, or legislative branches on the federal level, or governing, adjudicating or legislating at the state level, they turn into wolves with anemia.
Sheep's clothing: Amnesia and anemia- easily confused. Politicians are meek and conciliatory (think mousy) prior to having culled the voter’s favor, as they deferentially “ask” for the public’s support in the form of a vote, often forgetting the promises they have made. But politicians are also diseased predators, listlessly ineffective (anemic) once the nature of government is set in motion by them. I'd mention that politicians change their stripes, but I can only mix so many metaphors at a time. I’d have used the biblical Mathew 7:15 verse and pretend that politicians were wolves in sheep’s clothing, but the voters are the sheep, so that just wouldn’t do. That verse in full reads: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Note the presence of the word “prophets” in the quotation and recall the material I contributed last time.
Below: The material below was obtained from two other books I was curious to skim, given their titles. The first book will provide those still concerned with the overall topic of the middle class’ economic demise and the identified origin of said hardship, with some historical perspective. The second book, now about four years old, addresses the issue of campaign finance contributors, which I identified as the Rosetta Stone of issues in this political, economic, and social middle class diatribe I’ve been addicted to since May of 2007.
James Reichley: “The Life of the Parties- A History of American Political Parties” (copyright 1992, 467 pages) is about the history of political parties, how they were born, evolved and faded away. The author provides an abbreviated and yet still vignette-like tale of the coming to prominence of U.S. politicians- Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, F.D.R., Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, etc. In a chapter headed “Reaction Against Parties, The Progressive Era” these two important and still pertinent ideas are expressed by Reichley:
“The populists of the early 1890s had aimed to form a party capable of breaking through the existing party system. But they had no particular objection to the party as a political institution.” I think this is true of Independents today. We don’t object to there being parties, but we object to the fact that Independents haven’t been allowed to throw a party (into the political mix) because of any of a variety of natural or unnatural reasons, even unconstitutional reasons, that would take me three columns to outline. But apparently the unconstitutionality of something is only addressed when one of the two major parties is offended by a perceived violation of first amendment rights. Ah, I’ll get to this next time- but McCain-Feingold, in totality, not an unconstitutional action.
“The progressives [circa election of 1912] . . . had almost as low a view of parties as the Founders. Governmental inefficiency and political corruption, they argued, grew almost inevitably from the party system.” So, one might conclude that politics, and politicians are what have corrupted government. Man has often enough been compared to a germ- he spreads ill-will, as a germ spreads illness or disease. Government is like a dead language and politics is the person who gives it life for good or ill. Only an iconoclast would not appreciate the nuances of Latin; in present day America, we have politicians who little respect the nature of government; and as a matter of coincidence, Latin has plenty in common with democracy. At least Latin had its day before it was pronounced dead, but democracy was D.O.A. Progressives “were concerned chiefly with the pursuit of patronage, which produced ‘enfeeblement’ of government.” Hmmm, that is a historical criticism that bears not a little relation to the current political environment; he’s talking about lobbyists and special interest groups chasing after, or chasing down elected officials- like K-Street activities (where many of Washington’s lobbyists, special interest groups, and think tanks make their home and where they conduct their business). Later he quotes a couple of political historians who contend “ ‘that the monopolization of political power by the two major parties prevents voters from having meaningful choices in most elections.’ ” The smear campaign run by a group supporting Huckabee contending that McCain abandoned other POWs in Vietnam (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689222/print/1/displaymode/1098), among other falsified charges, and the divisive campaign run by both Clinton and Obama on the democratic side are major cases in point from this election alone. McCain, it seems, had good reason for wanting to pass campaign finance reform legislation- because he was a victim of similar dealings in 2000 against G.W. and wanted to hold such partisan groups accountable for a gross misdemeanor.
Most politicians and Echo Narcissists would tell you that smear campaigns favor a third candidate, but apparently not enough for the politicians to stop doing it and it can't benefit a third candidate if one isn't let into polls, isn't discussed in the media, isn't allowed into debates and isn't put on the ballot in each state. The benefit of a third candidate in an election will also increase the level and quality of issue debate- a deaf-mute gecko who leaves his job as a car insurance company spokesman could prove this by using the Microsoft word font of wing dings to communicate this understandably to the glaucoma-afflicted chameleon that he loves (i.e. everyone knows this). Desiring that the American political realm have no parties isn’t realistic and having only two isn’t acceptable. I’m using a lot of lizard examples to draw comparisons to the perceived nature of politicians; apparently I've just been innately drawn to those types of comparisons.
Not much has changed in the intervening 96 years since Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party Progressive in 1912. Parties are inevitable, for there are at least two sides to every issue, and holding party representatives accountable must become just as inevitable, which is why the credibility of another party, Populist, Independent, Green, Progressive, call it what you will, is so integral. Just getting two sides to every story is not nearly enough.
Reichley shows the origin of dozens of political luminaries in the course of his book. He shows how popular ideas that gained momentum through grass roots efforts and germinated into popularity were adopted by one of the two major parties, so that a third party could not gain much of a foothold in the political landscape, to the detriment of the middle class, for as I’ve written, and it would be hard to disagree with, the democrats largely favor the poor and the republicans largely favor the rich. The middle income people are not well-represented. Any independent, objective, realistic diabetic manatee with cellulitis would be able to tell you this even if he had to communicate by using bubbles.
Reichley also found that in the time after the revolutionary war when the state legislature’s governmental power could be said to be at its height, the Independents, “who switched back and forth between the two blocks depending on the issue, usually held the balance of power.” Unfortunately, I couldn't have been more clear that this is not the approach that will get a set of Independents into political office these days. I could quote all kinds of articles that are pertinent to the topic at hand, but I think it is safe to say that this country has been an unmitigated mess, politically speaking, since the writing of the Constitution, which was a Federalist (ancestors of the current republican party) masterpiece. I've also admitted that simply electing just one, or hundreds of Independents, won't solve the problem until a number of other political issues are resolved- starting with additional campaign finance reform legislation, because there is a good chance if Independents storm the castle of government they won't be able to do it without being much better financed than they are now.
Any number of quotations concerning the partisan nature of politics could prove how crippled we are in this country from a political point of view, but most anyone with a pulse not suffering from diverticulitis of the brain sees that. The problem is what to do next; the answer is not to be found in Reicheley's book, which has a richness of political perspective, and thankfully is not populated with either subtle or obvious party leanings.
Third parties: Former Presidents- Teddy Roosevelt, Millard Fillmore, Martin Van Buren; Labor Leaders- Eugene V. Debs; Legendary Statesmen- William Jennings Bryan, Stephen Douglas; Business Tycoons- Ross Perot; and Social Activists- Ralph Nader, have all run as third party candidates. The names of third parties putting forth a candidate for president are varied: Independent, Green, Farmer-Labor, Progressive, Union, Libertarian, DixieCrat, American Independent, National Democrats, Socialist, Populist, Liberty, Free Soil, Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, National Democrats, Anti-Masonic, Anti-Monopoly, Constitutional Union, Greenback Labor, Prohibition, and two are more strangely named: Know Nothing, and Bull-Moose. All of these parties failed in their bids to place their candidates in the oval office. Debs ran for president one time while he was in prison. Judging by some of the stunts that presidential candidates have pulled over the years, I’m surprised he was the only one. (Think- the Kennedy's potentially having purchased the win in Chicago in 1960, or Bush Jr.s' being handed the presidency because of hanging chads in the state where his brother was governor.)
Switching parties: As recently as 1854, Lincoln considered the republicans too radical, and as a Whig he refused to join them; Reagan helped gather funding for Truman; current N.Y. mayor Michael Bloomberg was a democrat his entire life, was elected as a republican, and is now an Independent; Joe Lieberman was a democratic vice-presidential candidate before becoming an Independent within the last few years; Teddy Roosevelt was a republican who turned to the Bull-Moose party to run in the 1912 election; Norm Coleman switched parties while mayor of St. Paul; James Madison was one of the major contributors to the Federalist Papers, a collection of what are spirited documents, much like this one, advocating a strong government led by the economic elite, (not like this one)- later Madison was adopted as a republican (which has a historical political ideology which is in line with current democrats). Ron Paul who ran for president as an Independent in 1988, may as well back out as a republican and run as an Independent for neither party would claim him- Independents would. The late, world renowned economist Milton Friedman, whose economic-based book, “Capitalism and Freedom” I have also read in the course of this overall topic, was a New Deal F.D.R. democrat who became a fiscal conservative. So, major players in the game of politics, economics, and social responsibility have been known to change sides. Why would this paragraph be included in a column about the contributions of politicians and pundits via the art of the written word as it might possibly affect the middle class? Because it is good to have some historical perspective when looking into the reasons why things are the way they are. Knowing the history of politics, even the abridged version, can give a person some insight, calm them, lessen their hysteria, and help to manage their expectations about the current state of affairs, but not enough to make them apathetic. Politics and government should not be treated as if it is a market commodity that's stock will always rise to a satisfactory level after it has fallen enough to concern those who can't afford the losses brought about by such volatility. I see the connection between the drain on the future prospects of middle class citizens, the current political climate, and the politicians, who for good or ill, are allowed to shape it. Just connecting the dots- dots that indicate there has been a long history of third party candidacies for the highest office in the country, involving some high profile candidates, whose personal, and then political ideology evolved over time. The Hatfield and McCoy feud had nothing on the republicans and democrats.
Charles Lewis: The founder of The Center for Public Integrity wrote a book in 2004, “The Buying of the President 2004: Who’s Really Bankrolling Bush and his Democratic Challengers and What they expect in Return.” (490 pages) Lewis reveals such interesting pieces of information as:
- George Bush and Al Gore spent a then record of $325 million on the 2000 election;
- Jack Kemp, several time republican candidate for president admits to growing tired of appearing at 200-250 fundraising events the year before a presidential election and “ ‘spending eighty percent of my time on the phone or at fundraisers’ ” (time spent by some sitting senators or governors who would then have little time working on behalf of the taxpaying voters whose intention was that the candidate actually serve their interests; quite right, an apathetic-looking mole, with unstable angina, its head literally buried underground, who is on strike as a certified professional organizer has a better chance of serving the electorate’s needs than a presidential hopeful on the hook with other, rather pressing, governmental duties);
- The top contributor to the republican party to the 2000 election was the Philip Morris tobacco company at over $10.3 million. Simply shocking that the republicans largely voted against Minnesota legislation that bans smoking in public areas;
- Also among the top 25 republican donors as indicated in Lewis’ book on pages 119-120: American Financial Group Inc., Pfizer (medical company); AT &T, Verizon, Microsoft, R.J. Reynolds (tobacco), Citigroup (financial), Chevron Texaco (oil), The National Rifle Association (NRA), Bristol-Myers, and Enron. The proper name for a list comprised of these corporations was the title of a movie released in 1995- it was called- "The Usual Suspects;"
- Top 50 Democratic contributors include: virtually every environmental group, virtually every union from lawyers to teachers, to blue collar workers, to farmers. The top donor was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees of Washington D.C. at $16.5 million;
- AOL Time Warner and Citigroup each gave to both political parties- AOL Time Warner gave $2.2 and $3.1 to the republicans and democrats respectively, and Citigroup gave $3.7 and $3.1 to republicans and democrats respectively. What are they up to? Talk about hedging one’s bets. That last sentence probably makes sense on its own, but it makes even more sense in conjunction with parts 13 and 14 of this topic (political synthesis and odds makers);
- Lewis quotes George Washington- “Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.” (and I should think, few have the stomach to stand him)
Misallocations: I’ve often wondered why Pepsi and Coke spend so much time and money fighting a cola war. At this point, adults are either Coke drinkers or Pepsi drinkers, unless you are going to change the formula, (and why would anyone ever do that). Why would such a cola powerhouse feel compelled to spend millions of dollars on advertising something that all adults have already decided on? Both Pepsi and Coke produced Super Bowl ads to the tune of $2.4 for thirty seconds of air time (http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/20/news/fortune500/superbowl_ads/). Similarly, it is hard to justify to people who live check to check that candidates can rake in, and spend, the money they do in an attempt to BUY an election. Obama raised $32 million in January 2008 alone, and Clinton gathered $26.8 million the last three months of 2008- (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22933562/). I don’t believe that almost $59 million by just two members of one party should be collected to be spent on a campaign to influence 1/5th of the voting public, whether in the primary or the general election. Consider that 40-50% of the public doesn’t vote in the general election, let alone in the primaries, and of the 50-60% that do (43% are registered democrats, while 35% are registered republicans) [Daniel Weintraub http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/349932_weintraubonliner05.html.]* It is hard to believe that the registered party die-hards are going to regain consciousness long enough to vote for the opposing party. I know, that money pays for plenty of things not limited to mailings, making phone calls, conducting polls, and producing television and radio ads that air incessantly right up until the general election.
Money, Money, Money . . . Money: We get it, Coke or Pepsi. We have largely already decided, and the percentage of people who haven’t decided are not worth spending almost $59 million on, despite the fact that “between 1988 and 2004 . . . the number of independents grew by 1.7 million.” (see link immediately above and the footnote below which is mindful that candidates would justify this expense on immigrants). Most of the people with no party affiliation, or who are deciding which democrat or republican to vote for in the primary are more likely to change their minds or determine who they will vote for if they attend a rally where their candidate is the main attraction in the same way people are made more of a fanatic about a rock band they saw in person after years of listening to their music from a cd. They are not likely to change their mind because they have seen an Oboma ad for the fiftieth time in a four days span. So, spending money on attack ads, money derived from Political Action Committees, or mailing a flyer promoting a candidate is largely misspent money. Almost $59 million from just two of the candidates- you couldn’t justify that to me if it guaranteed that a debate would gather more viewers than the final episode of M.A.S.H, unless all viewers were traditional non-voters who are undecided, as distinguished from Independents. Politicians have wasted so much money on these candidacies that millions of ant drones that have been hibernating in the northern hemisphere for months are aware of the candidate’s stances on the issues.- there is no reason to secure and spend that amount of money. And there is no reason it should still be legal. The NFL, NBA and NHL all have salary caps and baseball has a luxury tax, which taxes a team money for paying its players salaries that other teams can't afford. The political game is in dire need of a salary cap.
With a $3 trillion dollar federal budget and a national debt in excess of $9 trillion (http://zfacts.com/p/461.html) the initial 15 candidates (8 democrats and 7 republicans) vying for the office of president of the United States can justify spending a combined $465.9 million on the possibility of being elected? That doesn’t even take into account the DNC and RNC (Democratic Nominating Committee and Republican Nominating Committee) that combined to finance $123.6 million for the presidential candidates: (http://www.cnn.com/election/2008/money/gop.html%20or%20dems.html) or the fact that the remaining candidates still have plenty of cash on hand (through 2/5/2008). Some politicians and pundits complain that campaign finance reform is unconstitutional? And the politicians continue to rail on each other about which party is more responsible for the debt, for unaffordable health care, for immigration, for an education system that is failing. Oh, why didn’t the founding fathers incorporate an amendment into the constitution that addressed hypocrisy, partisan subjectivity, and candidacies based on platitudes. I’ll explore that more next time.
* Humorous- the seattlepi.nwsource.com article also reveals that “California has fewer Republicans and Democrats today than it did 20 years ago, despite an increase of millions of eligible voters.” The article attributes this to young and old voters wanting out of the partisan political system. Any chance that immigrants who don’t even register as Americans wouldn’t take the time to affiliate themselves with a political party- particularly in California? Consider this headline: “Illegal Immigration and Amnesty Supporters Endorse McCain for President” http://newsblaze.com/story/20080204125512tsop.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=286246
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/02/04/a19a_edletter_0204.html Do people think with that kind of Latino anxiety, animosity and righteousness that there won’t be plenty of illegal immigrant votes cast? If we can’t keep them from coming in, getting a job, a social security number, a driver’s license, how in the world are we to keep them from voting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment