The Aerie
The problem in America isn't that the Republican party has sold its soul to corporate wealth, Christian fundamentalism and plutarchs. The problem with America is that Democrats have, too. The problem with America is that the Republicans and the Democrats are units of the same organization, an organization that has consolidated its control over the American political process to the exclusion of all others.
Learned men have scolded me for my opinion, claiming that a two-party system is somehow both best and inevitable given the structure of our government and our electoral system. Despite the fact that I do not have a degree in political science, I fail to be persuaded. I insist there IS something wrong, under any system of power, in which one organization exclusively controls all the mechanisms of government.
It seems characteristic of Americans that we prefer dichotomies: good and bad, wrong and right, Republican and Democrat. Anyone who speaks up against dichotomy is branded with anti-intellectual and (since decisiveness is considered a male trait, and nuance a female trait) mysogynistic labels - "soft," "wishy-washy," "flip-flopper," "sensitive." The position of strength in America is dichotomy: the position of weakness is thoughtfulness. Reactionary versus thoughtful, and even that is a dichotomy.
So the problem isn't that Republicans are reactionary and Democrats are flip-floppers. The problem is that the political system has exploited our penchant for dichotomy to foster the mythology of democracy under the Two-Party system. We are reduced to splitting hairs and told that these are crises: which wealthy son of privilege shall we select as figurehead of the D.C. political juggernaut?
But what will be the difference if one man is picked over another? A little more money in one Department over another, a slightly greater chance of some bills passing, and other bills being vetoed? Small differences in troop deployments and foreign aid.
None of us expect truly fundamental change, and the political system would strongly propagandize against fundamental change. No matter which candidate wins, no one expects to see US military expenditures decimated or even halved, no one expects to see teacher salaries doubled, no one expects to see nationalized health care, no one expects to drive an electric car, no one expects unilateral nuclear disarmament, a base on the moon, a 32 hour work week or free tuition. Heck, we won't even see instant-runoff voting. In fact, we've been so strongly conditioned against such ideas that my even mentioning them undercuts my credibility with many readers and labels me a socialist, an idealist, or just a kook.
The last gasp of naive progressivism was Bill and Hilary Clinton's reckless efforts to institute a national health care plan, which died under a withering propaganda blitz that labelled the Clintons socialists and communists, and left us with the system that we have today: ruthlessly profiteering, crippling to the national economy, and firmly in control of government policy. After that failure, no new president is going to risk losing political capital by trying to effect fundamental change in the system.
We aren't REALLY facing a choice this election season - we're simply participating in the bread-and-circuses entertainment set up for us by a self-perpetuating monolithic political system. We don't REALLY have a democracy, because we don't REALLY have a choice. No matter which man wins, the same Beltway bureaucracy with grind along, the same world-spanning corporations will continue to extract profit, and the world will continue to heat up and choke on our wastes.
It's easy to get caught up in the soap-opera of American politics, but in the end that's all it is, a soap opera. Radio pundits can call each other names if they wish, but their performances are mere distractions from the machinations of power that have turned our Americna democracy into a mere supporting mythology behind the show.
Posted by Albatross at August 27, 2004 10:07 PMGood piece, though I would argue that Bill and Hilary were not interested in a progressive health care plan. They did not propose a national plan, nor did they really intend to do so. They wanted something better, though, a little out of the mainstream thought. Perhaps they were naive in thinking that the time was right to strike, but I don't think that what they would have delivered would have either been all encompassing or all that progressive.
I've been ruminating over similar issues for the past couple of days and will probably post something on my blog about it. There is a small scintilla of differences between the candidates, but those differences are mainly in the realm of local social policy issues, spending priorities, and Presidential rules about how certain laws are enacted.
This should be no surprise. As you point out, there is hardly any difference between the two parties. I've argued for years that the one thing that the President has the most power over, constitutionally, is the least thing we debate in this country during election time. That one thing is foreign policy. There is less of a difference between the 2 major party candidates on the one issue they have more of a say over than there is about issues which the President can promote, but only Congress can enact. I suppose that is a preview of my blog post, coming soon.
Posted by: B.D. at August 28, 2004 9:48 AMNo matter which candidate wins, no one expects to see US military expenditures decimated or even halved
- I’m assuming that you mean annihilated instead of decimated (which means one-tenth) and would either make us safer?
,no one expects to see teacher salaries doubled
- Would this make our children twice as smart? If so, then I’m for it.
no one expects to see nationalized health care
- I live in a country with nationalized health care and I am not impressed. Be careful about what you ask for.
no one expects to drive an electric car
- I do, in fact I could order one tomorrow and just wait nine months because of the waiting list that has been created by consumer demand and I’d have to pay the full retail price.
no one expects unilateral nuclear disarmament
- I agree that we have too many nuclear weapons, but the number has been slashed considerably and will probably go much lower. The Chinese get by with just a dozen ICBMs.
a base on the moon
- Americans have become too risk averse to anything that flies. We can’t even get out shuttle program back on track. This saddens me.
a 32 hour work week or free tuition
- Do we really want to become as efficient as the French? And state schools are about as cheap as they can get and would rise if the salaries of the teachers were doubled. If you’re talking about private schools like Yale then the marketplace has taken control of the tuition price.
Heck, we won't even see instant-runoff voting
- I don’t even know how this could technically be done. Do you have an example?
In fact, we've been so strongly conditioned against such ideas that my even mentioning them undercuts my credibility with many readers and labels me a socialist, an idealist, or just a kook.
- I agree that political discourse has been distilled down to two talking heads screeching over each other like so many James Carville clones. Your ideas are credible and worthy of discussion, just not on CNN.
While that list represents what I could call to mind at the moment I wrote it, I'm not particularly endorsing any of those positions. I could as well have said "A return to the gold standard, eliminating the IRS, or instituting a flat tax." My point is simply that the beltway political system has a stranglehold on US political dialogue. Republican or Democrat, it's all about maintaining the status quo and chasing political money -- not about improving America.
Given a choice between Bush and Kerry, I'll choose Kerry: but given a REAL choice, I'd choose somebody else. Meanwhile I worry about the health of our nation.
Posted by: Albatross at August 29, 2004 8:15 PM