So, one of the big debates in the United States in recent months and years, and perhaps particularly in recent weeks as the build up to the 2016 presidential elections begins to grow stronger is if it is appropriate, or even in the democratic spirit, that so much money comes into play for elections, both on a national, and on a more local, level.
An increasing number of people are voicing their concerns that big money in politics is posing the biggest threat to American democracy that it has ever faced. Private individuals and corporations can pour tons of money to help a candidate of their choosing. This, of course, raises an obvious conflict of interest for free and fair elections, since candidates that are provided substantial money and gifts from private donors are far too often guilty of voting in the interests of those wealthy donors. Enough of this over time, and you get what we are beginning to resemble: a state with a de facto policy of corporate supremacy.
Now, I understand, and can on some level sympathize with traditional arguments that eliminating this would be tantamount to a breach of free speech. However, by this point, we need to recognize that the balance has shifted, and far too much weight is given to big money in politics, at the expense of the people. And remember that this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It was never intended to be a government of the wealthy and corporations, by the wealthy and corporations, and for the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of everyone else.
Perhaps the most unfortunate thing in American history not to have happened was the passage of Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposed second Bill of Rights, which would have provided working Americans with a minimal degree of rights that, nowadays, we are relegated to thinking of as privileges. Things like a decent wage, things like affordable health care. It was defeated, although it took a foothold in other countries, such as in western Europe. Eventually, almost every industrialized country became more advanced in this regard than the United States.
Let us remember that the standard of living in the United States in the post-war years was the envy of the rest of the world. The United States not only enjoyed the highest standard of living of any nation in the world, but it ranked highest in other categories, as well, such as education and infrastructure. Couple that with being the world's leading power economically, militarily, politically, and culturally, and Americans rightfully felt that their country was sitting pretty, on top of the world in many respects.
Somewhere along the line, things changed. I have heard the year 1973 (the year before I was born) as the year of the turnaround. It was not immediately obvious, although by the end of the decade, it was clear that Japan had risen from the ashes economically, while the traditional dominance of the United States in the economic sphere was being more seriously challenged than ever before in the post-war years. If we have been in decline since then, and many argue that we have, then 1973 appears to be the year that can be isolated, statistically, as the beginning of a downward turn.
Over the course of the succeeding decades, other countries began to catch up to the living standards that Americans enjoyed. At first, it seemed more of a fluke than anything else. White South Africans had caught up to Americans and surpassed the living standards, but that was under apartheid, which was a semi-slavery state.
In time, however, other countries began to catch up and, yes, pass, the living standards of Americans. Eventually, Canada, numerous Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and Australia all had comparable, if not superior, quality of life standards. Much of western Europe, if not officially caught up, were pretty close. In the meantime, the standard of living in the United States continued to decline, although it happened at such a slow, truly glacial pace, that many really did not notice.
After decades of such policies, however, people are noticing. Yes, it took decades for people to begin to understand the real nature of these policies, supposedly for economic freedom,and known by the sweeping generalization label of "deregulation". Many people still swear by it.
It seemed to have had it's root during the Nixon administration, particularly the health care reforms that leaned more heavily towards privatization and which, in retrospect, we can see have proven quite catastrophic to millions of Americans.
There was a brief respite during the Carter years, although the propaganda machine was able to convince the public that Carter was a far worse president than he actually was. Reagan won the 1980 election in a landslide, of course, and "deregulation" began to accelerate from that point onward. Reagan proved so popular, the right man for the wrong message for America, and things began to deteriorate from that point on. Corporations received tax breaks and incentives, as did the wealthy. Unions were pressured, those on strike laid off, and the tone was set. The middle class was beginning to feel the crunch.
However, that was only the beginning. It became more obvious over time, although it was disguised by major distractions that occupied the attention of many Americans, including the Panama invasion in 1989, the situation in Saddam Hussein's Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990 that eventually led to war in 1991. George H. W. Bush lost the 1992 election to mast politician Bill Clinton, and soon thereafter, there was an economic boom, most likely largely because of the internet.
When George W. Bush announced that he would run for president in 1999, he was essentially given the title of heir apparent to the throne in a new American political dynasty. Some people did not like it, although the major news media kept telling us that his strength was "likability". He lost the general election by half a million votes, and apparently realistically lost the election in the key state of Florida under very suspicious circumstances, with strange ballots, and weird road blocks that lasted only one day (election day), as well as a number of other strange circumstances that, quite frankly, raised eyebrows (such as Jeb Bush, George's brother, being in charge of overseeing the fairness of the election). Despite all indications that he lost the election, George W. Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd President, after a Supreme Court decision, and a transparent record of a ton of money financing his campaign. People were beginning to notice that something was really, really wrong.
Of course, the corruption and government heavy hand, cloaked in a velvet glove, was plain to see for the next eight years. Numerous corporate scandals, the spirit of union busting and the further erosion of healthcare and other benefits, more government programs spent, all contributed to a major - and noticeable - decline in the standard of living among Americans. All of this happened while corporations and the very wealthy were getting massive tax breaks and other incentives, often referred to now as "corporate welfare". Add to that two costly wars and a massive economic crisis, and the picture gets clearer about the acceleration of the American decline during the second Bush administration.
Yet, we have yet another Bush, with an obvious sense of entitlement, making major waves and headlines now, seeking his term in office. Jeb Bush is praising his brother as a great president, although he claims to be his own man, and would, supposedly, run his presidency differently.
Sure.
While things seem to be getting worse everywhere, things look different depending on where you are. The threat of extremism in Europe looms large. Everyone seems afraid of the rise of extremist, nationalist governments there.
Here in the United States, however, there is a different problem. The problem is not a strong reaction, particularly in any election.
No, here, the threat is that things will continue going on as they have been going for some time now, and without interruption. That is a threat whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Jeb Bush takes the oath of office in January 20, 2017, or some other candidate from one of the major parties will be inaugurated.
Because ultimately, the extremists on this side of the pond are already in power, and more entrenched than they are in Europe. Only, they are not politicians, but controlling politicians through their purse strings, enacting a play that, it seems clear now, is a tragedy, as far as American democracy goes.
That will not change, until we get big money out of politics.
Maine Shows That Publicly Financed Elections Really Can Work February 26, 2015 by Andrew Bossie
No comments:
Post a Comment