There is a lot of material, certainly. But even still, I don't even want to. I have been of voting age for six years, and have paid attention to politics since the campaign to impeach Bill Clinton. I have seen the Christian Right dematerialize and materialize again, after assured annihilation: Homosexuality, infidelity, and other juicy tales of sexual escapades from deep within their ranks. And they keep coming back: They don't even need Jesus anymore; they are miraculous enough.
I am torn: I know what they are doing is awful, the full-scale assault on women's rights (not a single woman was able to testify on behalf of a pharmaceutical product so ubiquitous and so integral to women's autonomy as the birth control pill), but I know that these dirty old men so intent upon turning attention away from themselves, so wrapped up in their own arrogance, are not ever going away. The problem isn't, finally, with our politicians: Our politicians are greedy, stupid, and bigoted, sure, but why are we electing them?
Why do we need nothing less than a SuperPAC, an engine devised to raise incredible amounts of money, only half separated from the political process and wholly unaccountable, to get elected? Something is wrong with our system, not necessarily with our government, but our election process, when the only way that a candidate can compete is to amass millions (not yet billions, but we'll be there soon) in private funds to even be considered not just by the people, but by the conglomerates that are our two parties.
And once in office, what is it that they care about? How do we get access? Lobbyists [read, companies] get access by enabling the politician to continue his or her political career: By giving money or gifts to his or her campaign fund. We voted them in, and now they have to be guaranteed to stay before they will listen, but they only listen to those who bring them money. The votes, therefore, are secondary, a given.
What ends up happening is that the ads get them elected: They tell us what a candidate may or may not think about a given issue, make generally short arguments for or against candidates, and our participation is taken as granted. The campaigns are largely not funded through public money, and the candidates must more or less buy the support of the wealthy, which is precisely why the work that a candidate originally wanted to do is never done.
Would I be crazy to begin seeing Jack Abramoff as a sympathetic figure? What if, leaving the question of his authenticity aside for a minute, Abramoff is providing an invaluable service to our political process by telling us what is actually going on in our government. "The problem," Abramoff said to Lawrence Lessig, whose book greatly influenced this essay, "isn't what's illegal; the problem is what's legal"1.
I have painted a picture of blatant corruption in this essay, but the truth, as Abramoff and Lessig pointed out, isn't so simple: It starts small, sometimes a return on the "investment" isn't immediately expected: The candidate, grateful for the gift, might feel compelled to return the favor as a gesture of gratitude, perhaps hoping that, pending success, a second gift may be received. Eventually, the candidate begins to depend on these gifts, and is no longer even considering the needs of those who cast the votes.
What I think, as I am writing this, is that we have several factors working against us: Beyond the election cycle, we have almost no say in what goes on in Washington (unless we are willing to start a massive movement, and endure police brutality). Our collective memories are exceedingly short, meaning that many of us cannot keep track of the actions of our representatives, and the political ads are intoxicating to us in the worst possible way. The blazing speed of our political process, combined with its extremely long duration (the presidential primaries drag on at 1,000 mph for about six to eight months, and then the general election goes on for another six at the same speed), makes it exceedingly difficult for most people to make any kind of educated decision, especially when it comes to choosing between candidates of the same party.
We have about as much control over Washington's business as we would have in a nondemocratic political system because candidates and incumbents only listen to us between terms (ironically, when there is very little business being done). What happens beyond the election cycle is entirely out of our control, save, again, if we undertake massive movements, but even then, results are mixed.
Why, for example, was SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act] put up for vote? Chris Dodd, ex-Senator who vowed not to become a lobbyist at the end of his time in Congress, became a lobbyist for the MPAA, and was interviewed on CNN. The founder of Reddit.com, remarked that Congress was paid $94 million by the MPAA to pass SOPA(2). The kicker is that when SOPA did not pass (due to massive protests by Wikipedia and Reddit, among other popular websites), Chris Dodd issued this threat:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake"3If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.
Again, I return to the question of why progressives have such a hard time getting what they want in government. Perhaps it isn't the message, or the agenda, or depressed resignation. It is the money. The people's business doesn't get done because the people don't pay. The people are a given: Run enough ads, and we will vote for you. The progressive platform gets people excited, but it doesn't fill party coffers. Union contributions only account for less than 20% of total contributions by major players. 80% is private interest, interests whose interests, therefore, are not your or my interests.
Ron Paul is the only plausible GOP presidential candidate. He gets people excited, but the party and the media only pay scant attention to him. Why? Because, again, his ideas don't fill party coffers because they scare the interests on whose behalf the GOP operates. The concept of a free market in which a given firm cannot legislate its own hegemony is as terrifying to those who own our representatives as a popular socialist system (socialism for the people, not for corporations).
The Culture War, therefore, is a deliberate distraction. It doesn't matter if Rick Santorum really believes all of the terrible things he says, nor does it matter that his candidacy is extremely expensive in terms of the future of our political landscape in the future. The only thing that matters is that he gets the people who are hurting most to stop talking about the fact that they are hurting. This has been going on for forever, and it works. Every. Single. Time. It turns out that I am wrong: The pool from which the GOP draws support is actually an infinite resource, one that, while it changes shape, the content remains the same and the people who comprise that resource cannot ever see how badly they are being screwed, nor, if they ask, will they ever figure out that they are being lied to. Just today, I read that Americans For Prosperity in Florida are paying $2 per signature to Tea Party organizers4. As China had the Fifty-Cent Party, we have the $2 Party. Just how authentic is our political system?
Lessig, Lawrence. Republic, Lost. Twelve Books. Copyright 2011. New York, NY.
1) Lessig interviews Abramoff (1h 20 mins)
2) http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reddits-alexis-ohanian-calls-internet-blackout-geekiest-protests-ever/
3) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/chris-dodd-needs-work-messaging/47697/
4) http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/americans-prosperity-taps-tea-party-volunteers-tuesday
No comments:
Post a Comment