What we see overlapping these shifts in the political landscape every 30 to 40 years are much longer wavelength shifts in the economic and legal institutional structure. Over the course of the 19th century, we saw corporate power grow and grow, with the beggining of the 20th century marking the previous height of corporate power in america. Due to significant and well reported abuses, a major third party movement emerged in this country which, though it did not survive, did have a lasting impact on the structure of american government and on the composition and ideals of the two parties.
As a result of these reformers, corporations were regulated, broken up, taxed heavily, and burdened with severe restrictions in regard to their treatment of Labor. The immediate result was economic depression, as these standards placed a little too much strain on an unstable economy that had gone far too long without being forced to regard the safety and well being of the american people. However, once american companies grew used to these standards, they adapted their practices and were able to begin the most extreme economic boom ever recorded in history. Yet as soon as we began to really grow, greed began to take hold again, leading some in the government to conclude that we could grow faster if it weren’t for these pesky regulations. So, in the 80’s Reagan began a campaign to dismantle this oversight. Bush continued it. Clinton slowed it, and even enacted some new environmental regulation, but ultimately didn’t want to be seen as interfering with the markets. And of course we know what Bush has done.
This country has become a market democracy, where every dollar gets one vote. As Obama and McCain are both comfortable with this, and Nader is not, this is my primary basis for considering Obama and McCain to be the same. This is the most important issue in american politics, and it is not a part of american political conversation. I blame the fact that at this time, as opposed to the turn of the century, access to public opinion is severely restricted. As the public forum has transitioned from print, through radio, to television, the individual american has seen her voice diminish. If you can’t afford a 30 second TV spot during prime time, you don’t get to make your point. 5 companies own the entirety of US media, would those who hold the power of ideas allow themselves to be regulated? Until we have a government elected by people, and not campaign finance dollars manipulating public opinion, we can not force these companies to do anything, and they will not voluntarily relinquish control.
We know the republicans are tied to corporate interests. We have seen the oil industry, military companies, the financial sector, and various other giants grow fat during the years of GW. But it is important to remember that the Dems have corporate backers as well. Health Care providers and insurance companies, major pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications companies have all thrown their hats in with the supposed party of the people. Obama talks about working with american companies in the best interest of the people. Isn’t that what Bush said he would do?
And, given the current health care crisis in the US, and the global information revolution, the impacts of which are likely to be far more substantial and unpredictable than either the industrial or agricultural revolution before it, do we want these industries to hold the ear of the president. Remember, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Will the Democratic party (brought to you by AT&T) have the courage to stand up and try to provide broadband internet as a public utility when it would cost wireless comm companies billions in profits?
I know that McCains economic policies are no good. But Obama’s policies are not good enough. We can’t fix health care by using federal dollars to pay into a corporate care system that wastes an estimated 350 billion in overhead, exec salaries and benefits, billing, and marketing, and an additional 200 billion in straight up fraud and overreported expenses. Thousands of payers are too many, but Obama will not consider a single payer system, because it would hurt to many of his supporters. Instead he plans to mandate health care (read: it will be a crime not to buy health insurance). While he has stated that rates will be “affordable” he has not said what those rates would be, or even provided a ballpark estimate. He as also claimed he will provide subsidies to those who can’t afford to pay into the government system, but he has not made any indication of the size or source of these subsidies. This plan sounds like No Child Left Behind for health care, an unfunded mandate that sounds good in theory but has no practical value.
His official education policy is to provide additional funding to the NCLB plan. WTF Obama?
Its been suggested to me that this is a choice between centrist progressivism and full blown american facism, and i would say we have a choice between progressive facism and anti-progressive facism, unless americans are realistically allowed to consider a third party. So you can see how i consider the two basically the same. Progressive facism will feel better right now, but anti-progressive facism is likely to be discovered more readily, and rooted out. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither party can save this country, but neither will completely destroy it either. The only question is how long it will take for citizens to begin the fight to take back their government. I have decided to begin right now.
I have doubts about tackling this last issue at the end of this note. I just want to make sure you don’t write off my whole commentary here on the basis of this last comment, which is going to sound paranoid. You mentioned that Nader just shows up every four years to take political office. This is an idea i’ve heard repeated in many different ways. I’ve heard that he only cares about himself, that this is a big ego trip, and even that Nader has never done anything substantial for the American people. I’ve heard that he shouldn’t be allowed in the debate because he’s totally eccentric, or because hes a bad debater. I’ve heard he could never be elected because he just doesn’t have the charisma or leadership skills. And then there is the very real question: if he is so interested in being elected, why don’t we hear more from him?
Now comes the paranoid part. We don’t hear from him because there are 5 large companies, the ones that control information, that percieve no economic benefit from letting us hear from him. Did you know that in 2004 after he was disinvited from the debates, and lawsuit after lawsuit could not get him the access to the public that true democracy demands, he bought a ticket to the debate to go in and watch as a citizen. He was not allowed inside. In fact, he was threatened with arrest for attempting to come on to the debate grounds. His ticket was not refunded. The reality is that there has been a concerted effort in american media to discredit and marginalize this man. In between elections he works tirelessly to improve transparency and oversight in government programs, to bolster and ensure the enforcement of regulations governing corporate activity with respect to the environment and safety, to create organizations intended to monitor our legislative bodies and shine the light on corporate influence and control, and finally, to improve third party access to the electorate, not only for himself, but for all third party candidates. You don’t know about these things because you are not meant to know about them. Actually, let me correct myself, You are meant to not know about them.
I have come to believe it is not an accident that the most intelligent and progressive minds in our generation, though as varied and diverse in their beliefs on a number of issues as they are in their multiude of backgrounds, are universally in concert in their understanding of Nader as a spoiler, an eccentric, and a no chance candidate. It has actually been the experience of this that has radicalized me so much in his support. I had believed that voting against their interest was only somethin kansas conservatives did. I have come to learn what every con man knows, it was indeed my knowledge of politics that made me an easy target. It allowed them to take control of my mind, as it has allowed them to take over yours, and pull off the illusion that the greatest public advocate in this country in this half of the century is in fact a quack.
