Part 1: Slicing Up America (MSR Spring 2004)
Part 2: Framing the Debate (MSR Summer 2004)
Part 3: Choices (MSR Fall 2004)
Slicing Up America
After an abrupt rant about some of the things that bother me most about American politics last issue, I left readers with the question, “Are you happy with the status quo?”
I suspect that, if you were an IT technician accustomed to a decent wage, healthcare and other perks and now find your severance package (yes, some of them get those) and unemployment have run out; you’re working two McJobs and are still in danger of losing your house or car; you’re probably not too happy with the economy. You might consider learning Hindi or Mandarin.
On the other hand, if you work for Halliburton…well…you’re probably feeling pretty good about the present state of affairs, but you probably wouldn’t be reading this commentary and if you were, no matter what I actually say, you’d label me a liberal.
In his stump speeches, Senator John Edwards has said that there are two Americas. In many ways, I agree, but in some ways, I don’t think he’s accounted for enough slices. Americans have always searched for individual identity within the mass of labels by which we are grouped. By so doing, we break not only along party lines, but along a whole myriad of social, economic and cultural lines that diverge and overlap other divisions within our society. We create private clubs to keep them out; private schools to prevent our children from being corrupted by their ideas; and private organizations to indoctrinate others to our way of thinking.
Then, every four years, the two dominant political parties march out their representative millionaires. The party bosses know that the extremes within the party will vote along party lines regardless of the candidate. All they need to do is convince 51% of the moderate voters in a few key states that their guy is everybody’s guy.
Facts and voting records don’t matter. Marketing matters. Creating the best sound bites for the region matters. After all—most constituents are too busy working two jobs to listen to anything more than sound bites. Also important is a candidate’s ability to relate to people’s pain. That should be easy enough—most are members of Congress who know how to deal with pain. They’ve granted themselves the best healthcare coverage available anywhere in the world (even though it’s not feasible for the rest of us). Pain for them is treatable. In most cases, with sound bites!
The past decade or so of national politics have been indicative of the polarization of America. The extremes at both ends of the political spectrum have laid claim to the hearts and values of middle America. They claim to know what we want, what is best for us. They demonize and try to silence opposing perspectives. Party leaders dangle campaign funds, endorsements, committee seats and chairs to keep members voting along party lines. It’s this partisanship that causes gridlock. Nothing gets done because party power brokers dictate their party’s platform and they disagree on methodology. Anyone who openly challenges their own party’s platform faces excommunication.
With this level of efficiency, we would be better off sending everyone home, eliminating their wages, their healthcare, their perks (and those of their entire entourage); eliminating the cost of elections, election campaigns, the cost of maintaining the pretty buildings they work in, and roll it all back into something meaningful—like paying off the newly acquired deficit.
So what has all this partisanship denied us? Meaningful reforms in campaign financing, healthcare, and education—just to name a few. But something else needs to be addressed: the way we draft and vote on bills and amendments.
Campaign Financing.
Let’s face it, our politicians are for sale and always have been. They don’t represent everyone equally, they represent the interests of those with the deepest pockets first. They address only the issues that do not interfere with their major contributors’ best interests.
Prove to me that we wouldn’t already have healthcare reform if not for lobbyists from insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Tell me we wouldn’t have a more representative group of individuals in Congress if districts weren’t drawn to maintain party domination. Guarantee me that the best persons available for federal judgeships are being nominated on the basis of experience, fairness, and interpretation of established law rather than conservative or liberal ideology.
And look at the mess we’ve made of our educational system. Republicans drafted a “No Child Left Behind” law full of unfunded mandates that, by design, will eliminate federal funding to many of the schools that need it most. The Democrats’ answer is to dumb down standards and talk PC about achievement records so that at least on the surface, everyone appears equal.
One Bill, One Vote.
For decades both parties have piggybacked pork on the back of bills to get them passed (and sometimes, not passed). It’s almost as if both sides of the aisle are in collusion: “Slap an unacceptable amendment on this campaign reform bill for me, will ya? Then we can both say we tried, blame the other side and go about raising money the way we always have.”
If our representatives want to demonstrate accountability, they must vote on one bill by itself, no piggybacking, no amendments. Don’t allow politicians to duck issues by saying, “I liked the main bill, but all the added pork made it unacceptable,” or “I’d vote for it if you can add a provision to dredge this break-water every spring so a couple of my constituents can anchor their million dollar boats closer to the beach.”
The two dominant parties in American politics feed off each other as well as our fears of the other. Their tactics are the same even if their ideology is different. Their goal is to maintain the status quo. They don’t want real change because real change would mean giving up real power and they’ve gotten comfortable with the power they have over our lives. They don’t mind mood swings every four years because it allows them to reinvigorate their followers and demonstrate why we need them.
When the American public finally gets tired of this tug-of-war and truly wants reform, it is within our power to make it happen. Even though the parties want us to believe that we need them, the truth is, it’s the other way around. If the voters in the middle were to walk away from the two party system, register as independents in mass quantities, it would get their attention. More important, it would also get the attention of those who fund political campaigns—especially if a few courageous party members were among those in the middle who said, “Enough” and declared Independent status.
In this Presidential election year, I am sorry to say: Our system is broken. Worse than that, our system is broken by design. The two major parties control our choices. They are in power and want to maintain that power. They have no incentive to fix things. Most candidates are already set for life before they come to office and their supporters will take care of them long after their terms are over. But we ceded power to the parties. As long as we allow them to manipulate the system, there will be no motivation for true change and we will be forced to choose between mediocre options like Big Al and George Dubya.
As the United States slowly creeps through this Presidential Election year, candidates try to focus our attention on issues that make them look best. It’s like taking a group picture at a picnic and trying to single out Aunt Millie and Uncle Herman. As you magnify the picture, you see the mustard on Herman’s shirt or maybe Millie is wearing too much rouge. So you zoom in, cut away or doctor the photograph hoping no one notices once it’s hung on the wall. You are framing what you want the world to see. Welcome to politics.
In the beginning there was the Iraq War and the Bush Administration looked out upon the land and said, “This is good,” (in a political sort of way). They believed they held the moral high ground and American voters were behind them. They were going to ride that pony to a second term.
Democrats looked out upon the land and said, “Holy shit! What’s our platform?” They saw opinion polls favored the President, but they anticipated that he would use the War On Terrorism card. They scratched and clawed among themselves to find a candidate who could stand on equal footing with a Wartime President.
My, how times change. We have witnessed a humble Donald Rumsfeld after weeks of recycled photos of naked Iraqis, the first Court Marshal for Iraqi prisoner abuse by American soldiers and over 800 Americans have died—most of them since the “cessation of hostilities.”
On the other hand, indicators say the economy is improving. There is job growth in the manufacturing sector and unemployment is down.
So where will the real battleground for America be this Fall?
A magician’s act entails keeping the audience focused on one hand, while the off-hand performs the trick. The Republicans will try to steer the debate one direction, Democrats another. I’m not a prognosticator and this is not a political or economic report, this is a commentary: my opinion. Some will say it’s biased. How can opinion be otherwise? What I hope readers come away with is an idea of which hand to watch and why.
It’s still The Economy
Yes, the economy is still the first order of business. Unemployment and the exportation of jobs top the list. Once job loss meant blue-collar jobs, so we promised displaced workers training for white-collar positions. Now many of those jobs are being sent to India.
Democrats will say they can protect American jobs by tariffs or import quotas. Republicans will say further tax cuts and retraining workers for the better paying jobs of tomorrow is the answer. While both ideas will play well within the respective parties, neither will work.
Our higher standard of living and need for instant gratification are working against us. America is not the only big kid on the block anymore. As the European Union expands, it creates jobs and markets as it goes. Because many of these people have a whole different concept of wealth and living standards, the EU can expand its markets and tap cheaper labor than can be found in the U.S. The same thing is happening all over the world.
There are a multitude of problems with the idea of retraining displaced workers. First, by the time a community college or technical training center identifies a need and creates a curriculum, the window of success has already narrowed significantly. Then they do the All-American thing—they “Biggy Size” it—produce more people than are needed. The result: many already-displaced workers are further frustrated by not being able to find a job. Many of these people are older. They have established homes and lifestyles. Employers are simply not as willing to take the time to train older workers with wage expectations and needs. Sorry to say, this trend is not likely to change. Why? Because we, as consumers, won’t do what is necessary to change it.
The big snow job is the apparent shrinking unemployment rate. Think about it, if you were a Republican CEO who was in jeopardy of losing your newly decreased tax rate if your guy in the White House became unemployed, wouldn’t it behoove you to hire a few folks—even if only for short term? It works something like this: the RNC sends out a memo to all those folks who helped build the President’s hefty $200 million war chest that reads: “You know, your President needs job growth most of all. Here’s what you can do…”
And what will the Democrats promise? To take back the tax cuts given to the wealthy, punish those who use offshore labor, and put Americans back to work. While this might sound good to some, increasing the tax on the top 1-2% might stabilize the deficit, but it won’t grow new jobs and the ones that went overseas ain’t coming back.
My point (remember where you read it first): Neither party has an advantage when it comes to the U.S. economy. This issue, though often politicized, is not a political issue. It’s an economic issue—and global at that. If you want to fix it, vote with your wallet. Don’t listen to promises that cannot be delivered.
Healthcare
This is probably the single biggest issue that our political representatives can directly and definitively affect. It’s also the one they have dodged the most over the past twenty years. Plain and simple: The healthcare system is broken because it doesn’t work equally for all. Why shouldn’t America’s citizens be entitled to the same healthcare as their political representatives? Why does the cost of healthcare increase annually at a higher rate than inflation?
Two comments have stuck with me from the Democratic primary debates: (1) The wealthy will always be healthy. (2) As long as we allow our healthcare services to be run by for-profit companies, the bottom line will always be dividends over service and always increase at a faster rate than the rate of inflation.
Republicans believe in private insurance, multi-payers, competition to keep prices down. In case no one has noticed, nothing the private sector has done in twenty-five years has stalled the increase in medical costs and/or insurance. The private sector—whether drug companies, insurance companies or lawyers—only see dollar signs. Non-medical people are deciding what services are allowed. People who need medical insurance most are being denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions (their sick).
Does that sound logical? Does it even sound like “good business?”
Democrats have proposed various versions of single-payer government-run coverage. Republicans continue to shout them down calling it Socialism, attempting to perpetuate the fear of government involvement in our lives. But you don’t hear Republicans giving up their own insurance and you don’t hear them applying the same standard for government involvement when it comes to defining the participants of marriage.
The biggest success story when it comes to free enterprise and the health industry is that insurance and drug companies are some of the wealthiest and most stable corporations in America—and their CEOs are some of the best paid.
What about the rising cost of malpractice insurance? Republicans make a good point about tort reform. We can’t expect medical personnel to be able to continue practicing if they can’t afford malpractice insurance. On the other hand, the American Medical Association needs to get its house in order.
There are bad actors in every profession. The medical community needs to hold itself to higher standards by rooting out high-risk practitioners. If it does, politicians will find it easier to justify tort reform and that will drive down the cost of malpractice insurance and healthcare in general.
But Republicans also want to cap malpractice payouts. Here’s a novel idea: Instead of paying out cash awards, payout out in services. If a medical practitioner is found malfeasant, make the entire medical establishment responsible for the error by guaranteeing FREE unlimited healthcare to the patient for the rest of his or her life. Do you think the AMA wouldn’t do a little housecleaning under those terms?
Bottom line: Healthcare needs to be one of our top priorities. Republicans continue to offer different versions of the same beast: deregulate and let a free market decide. If these guys are as smart as they claim to be, I don’t understand why they can’t see that it hasn’t worked to control costs yet and probably never will. I don’t know if government-controlled healthcare will work, but I’ve seen the alternative. It’s time to try something new.
Moral Issues
Here’s an over-stated reason to vote. Let’s vote with the conservatives because they acted more offended by Janet Jackson’s bare breast. Now doesn’t make sense?
I’ve always found it curious that the same people who want to keep the government out of our lives and protect the rights (and privacy) of gun owners, are so obsessed with what goes on in our bedrooms. Republicans preach accountability until they’re being held accountable, then try to misdirect us with social issues.
Personally, I find this ambiguity immoral. Those who are truly concerned about protecting our privacy should gain perspective and maintain consistency. If their calling is religion, then they should enter the ministry, but the ministry has no business in American politics. The last I looked, the Constitution still calls for a separation of church and state.
Those who are morally outraged by certain events or activities have the ability to vote with their wallets. After all, it worked to get the movie about Ron and Nancy off primetime TV. They have radio talk shows where they can pontificate and if they feel the need to further blur the line between church and state, perhaps it’s also time to discuss churches paying property tax.
I suppose the most disturbing thing about folks who see an election as a means to assert moral authority is the way they conduct the debate: by shouting down the opposition. It’s as if their concept of freedom of speech is: “Free as long as you agree with me.”
There is no doubt that a nation needs a moral center, but we have that without having to force personal beliefs on others. Politicians use moral issues to drive wedges between people because they know they invoke strong emotional responses. Don’t be manipulated. People who vote on the basis of moral issues may as well choose their candidates on the basis of how they dress or how they look.
War on Terrorism
From the onset, most voters were either for or against the war in Iraq—for whatever reason. The Bush Administration had hoped that they could play the War on Terrorism card throughout the campaign. Mr. Bush could sit in the White House looking presidential, avoiding questions, repeating the same monolog at every fundraiser and just ride on the war’s apparent success.
But things have not gone according to plan—if there ever was a plan. It will be interesting to see how many people who said they could never vote for a President who lied to them (Bill Clinton) will carry that standard forward in regard to George W. Bush. In light of the well-publicized rationale for going to war, the scandals and how much America’s credibility has been damaged, will moderate Republicans stand by their man or cut their losses and run, then look for someone better for 2008?
The Democrats have been all over the place on the war issue, but most were afraid to question policies since 9/11. They will say that they were misled. They will say they would have done things differently.
The debate will be over unilateralism, gathering a consensus in the United Nations, having an exit plan. Twenty-twenty hindsight and the fact that the Bush Administration seems to choke on words like wrong or mistake might elevate Kerry or even Ralph Nader. The prisoner scandal will also hurt the Bush administration--especially if it drags out and if more abuse is brought to light.
The Bush Administration is basically handicapped in this issue. While other candidates can offer conjecture, they have a track record to stand on and while they will try to accentuate the good, bad news always travels faster and further.
Who benefits from the war issue has a lot to do with what’s going on at election time. By then, control of Iraq will (allegedly) be in the hands of Iraqis. If we’re still losing soldiers at the rate we are pre-handover, it won’t be good for Mr. Bush. On the other hand, he got a big jolt in the polls right after Saddam Hussein was captured, if they can pull an Osama out of their hat in October, who knows? I tend to believe the war has been mismanaged from the beginning and management starts at the top. If we were talking about a CEO in corporate America, he would be replaced.
The Candidates
In an age when people like Paris Hilton can become celebrities for no fathomable reason, is it any surprise that likeability would be an issue when it comes to presidential candidates? There is a saying that goes something like, “A known evil is better than the unknown evil.” I believe someone in the State Department may have invoked it in reference to Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. I don’t want to imply that I think Mr. Bush is evil, but he is the known entity here.
Mr. Bush has an uncompromising air about everything he does. So much so, in fact, that those around him seem to be afraid to disagree with his preconceptions. He is well coached and stays on message—possibly too much on message. His narrow focus puts him at a disadvantage when asked the unexpected and prevents him from shifting gears.
Many reporters have said how personable he is one on one, but in front of a crowd he comes off as arrogant, sometimes even snide. His handlers should sit him down and talk about presentation. They could start with that snicker/laugh he uses when he’s answering a question that he feels he’s already answered and the bouncy shoulder affect that goes with it. Together, they come off as, “Are you too stupid to understand?”
I find it interesting that for four years he has avoided, insulted and intimidated members of the press. He’s limited his contact with the American people to repetitious sound bites of him preaching to the choir at Republican fundraisers. Now that scandal and miscalculation have driven his approval ratings down, suddenly he wants to talk. But did you notice that he never actually answers the question that is asked? He redirects the topic to his message. It may be good politics when speaking to the faithful, but it only further demonstrates his disdain for the press to the non-cheerleaders in the crowd. So, is it any surprise that all three major networks refused to cede primetime to Mr. Bush when he wanted to talk about a timeframe to leave Iraq in late May?
I’ve heard is a lot of snappy catch phrases from John Kerry—makes me wonder if Johnny Cochran isn’t writing some of his speeches. The DNC wanted to choose a candidate early so they could take the debate directly to the opposition as early as possible. They bunched the primaries together to attain this and by so doing, may have given the election away. Why? Because Kerry is probably not The Guy.
As much as I agree with many of his ideas, he has a track record with ample fodder for the opposition to pick at. He may end up spending so much effort fending off attacks, that he won’t have the time or money to demonstrate his vision for America. His best hope of winning the Presidency is the following: (1) Choose John Edwards as a running mate. Edwards is likeable, intelligent, Southern and moderate and most polls show Kerry’s chances improving with him on the ticket. (2) Get the President to agree to open debates. George Bush would have to be foolish, ill-advised or desparate to enter a debate with John Kerry where he doesn’t control the format, but you never know, arrogance makes its presence known in many wondrous ways.
What about Ralph Nader? Mr. Nader’s reputation has made him a favorite among certain sectors of the voting public. That same sector might actually vote for Jiminy Cricket—given the alternatives. Recent support by the Reform Party will get him on more ballots, but he can’t win. The real question is: What kind of showing will he have?
What I like about him is that he doesn’t spout party doggerel and he doesn’t duck issues. He doesn’t shoot down an idea without offering an alternative and many of his solutions are similar to those John Kerry has been drifting toward. That said, I think his assertion that he would pull more votes away Republicans than Democrats is a fantasy.
Mr. Nader is a man with good ideas, but no way to implement them. If he’s lucky, he’ll be able to participate in the debates, but even if his ideas won out, it would not translate into votes because his abrasive personality turns most voters off and because there are too few undecideds.
Summary
Many times, by standing behind a magician, you can catch the misdirection. It takes the fun out of the trick, but life isn’t always about fun. Candidates, media, even our friends and fellow workers will try to influence our vote between now and election day. We’ll hear false information, vague information, supposition, accusations, innuendo, theories, and even spare bits of truth. It’s all part of our national sport of politics.
Being aware when someone is trying to steer our attention away from what matters, is a step toward not being fooled. Politicians will say anything to get elected. Just remember, even if a magician can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he’s not going to pull out a donkey or an elephant. When they start making promises you know they can’t keep—or maybe shouldn’t—it’s time to look for the other hand.
Choices
Ronald Reagan asked once, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The answer got him re-elected. It’s time to revisit this question and to do so logically and unemotionally in a manner that does not invite the type of Fahrenheit 9/11 rhetoric that borders on smear campaign and propaganda.
One of the most disturbing trends in American politics over the past few years is our inability to debate issues without having to slide into a cesspool of name calling, labeling and employing the “shouting down” tactic of people who are so insecure with their position that they need to keep the other side from being heard.
Here’s a news flash for those who fall into the latter category: without the other side, your perspective has no value. For every thesis, there must be an antithesis and without opposing perspective, society sinks into the muck of homogeneity: lack of creativity, social, educational and economic growth. We need our dissenting voices to mold a stronger society. We should not be shouting them down or limiting their access, we should be examining their ideas and seeing where they may have merit.
The problem is that political ideas are no longer the property of individuals. The dominant political parties in American control access to money and media and by doing so they control the areas of debate. In the past decade or so, the Republican Party has made major strides in restricting what is allowed to be taught or even discussed in public schools--even colleges and universities that use public funding. In matters of fundraising, they’ve gone so far as to attempt to lock out access to all areas of decision making to those who contribute to anyone other than Republican Party candidates.
I’ve stated before how I felt this amounts to little more than legalized bribery. What I didn’t offer is a solution. If we want to nix this philosophy, forget about politics and go to the source. Stop buying from companies that support this system. They only have money to contribute because we buy their products. Their contributions are a matter of public record. Look them up. React.
It may be more difficult than I’ve made it sound since there are certain products that we all need (like pharmaceuticals), but spending money in a social or politically conscious way can be effective. Note the following: Ford’s auto sales during late spring were down 12% from the previous year. This was attributed to the increased cost of oil/gas, but the result was that Ford stepped up the production/release of its much-anticipated hybrid SUV. There is now a six-month waiting list to purchase a hybrid Escape. The same is true of the best selling car in this category, the Toyota Prius. Toyota recently announced that it was going to double its production of this vehicle next year. Does anyone believe that market pressures didn’t influence these corporate decisions?
So what does this have to do with this year’s elections? Well, all we need to do is answer former President Reagan’s question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago.” I suspect for many, an individual’s answer may not be as grim as the media would have us believe, but what about the broader picture when it comes to national politics? Currently, the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by Republicans. All decisions and repercussions of those decisions can be laid at their feet—whether you think those decisions were right or wrong, praiseworthy or otherwise, they were attributable to conservative policies. If you are satisfied with the results, just vote the complete Republican ticket—no need to read any further.
Of the other two options in this race, Democrats are obviously the more viable with polls showing John Kerry running neck and neck with Mr. Bush; however the Nader Factor could affect results again this election—but that is not necessarily a bad thing if you consider the two most likely outcomes of the election: Bush wins, Kerry wins.
Aside from the second-hand interpretations of Mr. Nader’s comments and positions as provided by the major media, I have heard him speak twice on NPR. Mr. Nader doesn’t necessarily say what people want to hear. Some of his ideas fall into the extreme range that would prevent them from being applied under our current political system. If, for instance, by some quirk of imagination he became president, the Democrats and Republicans would huddle together to prevent any of his policies from being enacted. He would be a figurehead; inert and ineffective.
But I do agree with some of his ideas; among them, a universal health coverage system for all Americans. I’m tired of hearing how we can’t afford it while candidates spend—combined (Presidential race right down to Mayoral)—over a billion dollars to get elected this year, while we spend $200 billion to make war, while pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and healthcare providers spend billions in advertising and executive benefits at the same time healthcare costs have increased 25% per year over the past 3 years.
This is all artificial inflation. It’s created by the choices Republicans claim will make the system better. Did anyone else notice that when Mr. Bush’s supplemental drug program was initiated, only 1.5 million of over 13 million people who were eligible signed up for one of the 70+ available choices? And of those 1.5 million, most were placed automatically because of their low-income status. Now why wouldn’t people be more enthusiastic? Too many choices. The only option that makes any sense is a single-payer system with universal coverage. Anything else will only make the system less efficient and more expensive.
But back to Ralph Nader. As I write, he represents 4% in the polls and has failed to make the ballot in several states. Republicans are contributing to his campaign and signing petitions to get him on the ballot in the states that are up for grabs because they know that having him in the race benefits President Bush. Pundits have suggested that perhaps Mr. Nader is too arrogant to recognize or admit that his candidacy is a spoiler that will help Republicans. I see things a little differently.
Ralph Nader may be arrogant, but he’s not stupid. I think that—regardless of what he has said—he sees where his support is coming from. More than anything, he does not want George Bush to win again, but he wants his ideas to be heard. The closer we get to election day, the more important 4% becomes and even though he will not be included in the debates, his ideas will be since the dominant media needs drama. This will give Mr. Nader a chance to be heard.
I think it’s no accident that Ralph Nader is accepting Republican support and money. Nor do I believe it’s an accident that he missed the filing deadline for several states or that he rebuffed the other major independent parties—thus losing their support and automatic slots on many ballots. Watch Ralph Nader to drop out half way through October, but before he does, he will eat up some Republican resources on the way and influence the other candidates’ positions on several key issues. In fact, he already has.
Then there is George Walker Bush. I said in a previous installment of this series that George Bush is the known entity, suggesting that maybe a known entity is the lesser of two evils. That was not my intention. For some folks, knowing Mr. Bush and his record is a good thing, for others, it’s reason to vote for a donkey…a real donkey.
An incumbent usually has an advantage, but Mr. Bush has danced so much and so blatantly with those that brung ‘em, that he has even scared some of the more moderate members of his own party. Take note of the fact that even though the rhetoric was loud and the party numbers were in his favor, his attempt to push through an election year amendment that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman was shot down.
There is another, more important example that George W. Bush scares even moderate conservatives. During Bill Clinton’s second term, there was a great deal of speculation that several members of the Supreme Court were ready to retire but were holding out for a Republican President to give him the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.
Well, here we are at the end of Mr. Bush’s first term. Why hasn’t one of the three judges mentioned as considering retirement not done so? No one is talking about this, but this issue is often a deciding factor in the way people vote. Obviously, any reason I provide is opinion, but when I look at my tea leaves, they tell me that even the conservative members of the Supreme Court think George W. Bush is too conservative. Some of their rulings have even echoed that concern.
Being staunchly conservative is what makes George Bush such a polarizing figure. Shortly after his father’s death, Ron Reagan, Jr. stood in front of the Democratic National Convention and criticized the Bush Administration for limiting stem cell research. Since then, Mr. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush have both reiterated that they felt this was the right decision. Mr. Bush has used the moral argument of the anti-abortion faction. Mrs. Bush tried to redirect the debate by saying that the value of this research had been “vastly overstated.”
If George Bush believes it’s morally wrong, he should stand by that position: be completely against it. But if he’s going to allow the research, why limit the materials that can be used. Here is an issue where George Bush is clearly straddling the line for votes very much the way he has accuses John Kerry of being on both sides of the Iraq War issue. With 64% of America and 53% of his own party in favor of stem cell research, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Bush’s position doesn’t take a last minute left turn.
As for Mrs. Bush’s statement, it boggles the mind to think that this woman ever had anything to do with the education system. She demonstrates a total lack of understanding of study procedures. Isn’t the purpose of research to learn new things? If so, how can anyone establish the value of research without actually doing it?
So, what else do we know about our known entity? Track records being so subject to spin, it really depends on the source of the information and our own ability to break it down into truth and embellishment.
Take for instance how Michael Moore depicted Mr. Bush as dazed and confused during the 9/11 event. He learned about the first crash on the way to a grade school classroom and the second while there. Mr. Moore repeated—several times—that George Bush took seven minutes to react. John Kerry has said he would have stood up and excused himself from the classroom saying the President had urgent business to attend to.
As someone who is extremely reactionary, I’m proud of the fact that I’ve developed the patience to look both ways before dashing across the street. It’s easy for Mr. Kerry to confidently predict what he would have done three years ago. It’s convenient for Mr. Moore to use the President’s lip-biting to metaphorically emphasize his belief that Mr. Bush was ill-prepared to be President that day.
I wonder who among us was. Do you remember what you did for the first seven minutes after the planes hit? Stared at a television? I think the 9/11 Commission Report demonstrated that we were all ill-prepared for that day and if you’re judging President Bush on that basis, your expectations are possibly too high, possibly based on some fictional President like the one from Independence Day who jumped into an F-15 to nuke the alien invaders.
There are far better ways to gauge Mr. Bush’s effectiveness as President. Start with what the Republicans considered to be his strength 8 months ago, the fact that he is a “Wartime President.” I was gung ho, let’s go get the bastards, after 9/11. I wanted Bin Laden and Al Qaida to know what it meant to make America its enemy. We had them pinned down in a backward country and we pulled back because George Bush said, “Nope, the real enemy is Saddam Hussein.”
Without finishing what he started in Afghanistan, without building a viable multi-national coalition, without any proof of imminent threat, he declared war on Iraq. Since that time, over 1000 Americans have been killed and the Middle East has become so unstable that the price of a barrel of oil has nearly doubled.
What about the home front? The Bush Administration claims to have created 600,000 jobs in July alone. Other statistics say it’s closer to 30,000. Even if it falls somewhere in the middle, all statistics seem to indicate that higher paying jobs are being replaced by jobs that pay less, offer less security and fewer benefits—at least to employees. Executives don’t seem to be suffering the same plight.
Home loan interest rates are low and there is an increase in the sale of pre-existing houses—which one might think is a good thing—unless you consider that some could be families selling to get out from underneath a mortgage that they can no longer afford.
The stock market has been stumbling around all year. Thanks to Mr. Bush’s tax cut, the Iraq War and the way conservatives are “porking” up the budget, we’ve gone from a surplus to over $400B in federal deficit spending. The trade deficit has increased 19.1% in the last quarter alone: We’re sending our jobs overseas, but the beneficiaries aren’t expressing their gratitude by buying our products. We’re no closer to solving the riddle of why healthcare costs increase at more than 8 times the annual inflation rate.
Our major cities are spending record amounts for security because the bulk of our military is deployed elsewhere. Illegal immigrants, terrorists possibly among them, are slipping easily over our borders because—you guessed it—those most qualified to protect our borders are deployed elsewhere. Train passengers are barely screened, even though the last major attack was committed on a train in Spain, and less than 2% of all containers that arrive by ship are checked for explosives.
To summarize the state of the homeland: the cost of living is up, the cost of education is up, the cost of fuel is up, the cost of healthcare is up, deficit spending is up, individual income is down. The need for nurses and healthcare workers is up, the number of graduating students in this field is down. And why should I feel safer now than I did four years ago? Because we’ve cordoned off our lives and flack-jacketed all our public events?
Again I ask, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” If your answer is, “Yes,” then you are likely so well off that you will still be well off no matter who the next President is. Do the rest of us a favor: If you don’t have a passionate reason to be there, stay home election day. Let those who are struggling decide which course they believe is best for the next four years.
My wife gets mad when I call John Kerry the lesser of two evils, but that’s what I believe. He’s basically the last man standing, the winner of Survivor who stayed under the radar long enough to limit the choices: him or the devil. Hmmm? One has to wonder how anyone can claim to have good ideas for America if he’s been in the Senate for 20 years and never even co-sponsored a bill. What has he been doing all that time? Were all his great ideas a sudden revelation?
John Kerry did “[report] for duty” and gave a rousing speech at the DNC, but for all its energy and hopefulness, it was short on substance. Don’t just tell me you are going to do something, tell me how you’re going to do it. Make me a believer. One thing we should recognize: no matter what John Kerry tells us he will do, he can’t do it unless Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress—and neither scenario is likely.
Less than a week after its release, John Kerry said he would enact all of the 9/11 Commissions recommendations immediately. Well now, John, shouldn’t we take the time to read the dang thing first?
John Kerry says he will make healthcare affordable for all Americans. I think that as long as those in the healthcare industry have competing interests—taking care of patients vs. making profits—healthcare costs will always increase at a higher rate than the rate of inflation. Competition only muddies the waters. Universal coverage means everyone is covered. As Ralph Nader says, “The rest of us are paying for the uninsured anyway.” Affordable isn’t the issue and wouldn’t be if the system were managed by a single entity and indexed to the national inflation rate.
Conservatives suggest overhauling the healthcare system this way will only send our best medical people overseas. Prove it. If they thought there was a better living to be made overseas, they’d already be there.
Mr. Kerry said he would provide tax incentives for companies that hire American. Even if he does, it won’t bring textile companies back to North Carolina (or anywhere else, for that matter). It will likely mean an increased cost for some services—including paying for services that used to be free. If that’s the trade-off, I’m onboard—as long as Americans end up being employed in good jobs that pay a living wage.
I laugh at my local conservative brethren who readily donate $1000 at fundraisers for politicians who promise to keep their property taxes from increasing $35/year. These same people will then complain about damage to their car after hitting a pothole the county couldn’t afford to fix or grumble because they have to roll their garbage to the curb since collection services were privatized to save money. Take my $35. I’ll still roll my garbage out to the curb—just give me a sidewalk that’s wider than a bicycle tire for me to walk my dog.
One thing Mr. Kerry is proposing that I really like is taking the $5000 tax credit the Bush Administration doled out to those who purchased the biggest SUVs (5000 pounds and over—the ones that get the worst gas mileage) and applying that same tax credit to those who purchase alternative vehicles like electric cars or hybrids. Seems to me I suggested that very thing less than 2 years ago in these very pages.
And finally, John Kerry has said he would not put our soldiers in harm’s way without a clear-cut plan to win the peace. Personally, I’m more inclined to believe this from someone who’s actually been shot at while in battle over someone who has not.
But I do believe that John Kerry has several reasons to thank George Bush: (1) If the Republicans had not leaked that they wanted to run a wartime President on his war record, Democrats might have selected the screeching governor as their candidate. (2) If Mr. Bush wasn’t so blindly overconfident, he might not have become such an international embarrassment. (3) If not for Mr. Bush’s tax rebate, Mr. Kerry might not have become the first candidate to whom I have contributed. Which, I suppose, places me firmly in the camp of “anyone but Bush.” I’m not sold on John Kerry, but I’ve seen the alternative and he doesn’t seem to have my best interests—or this country’s—in mind.
When I was younger, I believed in Camelot. I believed in a higher purpose, might for right, not might makes right. It was a naïve fantasy, I now know. There is no nobility in politics. It’s a philosophical tug-of-war that in recent years has had to weight its anchor with extremism because the middle ground was too muddy for solid footing.
I mentioned earlier that having Ralph Nader in the race isn’t necessarily a bad thing considering the two most likely outcomes. So let’s consider the most probable outcomes. If Kerry wins, he won’t have the supporting cast to get anything done, since the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate will still be controlled by Republicans. That could change in 2006, but not likely. He’ll end up getting labeled as “liberal” and “weak” and probably be a one-term President.
What if George Bush wins a second term?
I predict by the time George Bush left office in 2008, America will have lost any remaining credibility we have anywhere in the world. Our high-tech, best paying jobs will have all been exported. We’ll be drilling in Alaska and paying $3/gallon for gasoline—with development of alternatives still decades in the distance (Aside: A report on NPR, Friday August 13, Science Friday, said if America had invested the $162B it spent prosecuting the Iraq War on converting to wind and solar power, we would have eliminated our need to import ANY oil). The deficit will be over $2 Trillion. Elderly will be losing their homes to pay healthcare bills. Medicare will be bankrupt. As will the airline industry. Air pollution will be at an all-time high. A military draft will be enacted because we won’t have enough volunteers.
I could go on, but I don’t want readers to think I’m employing a “scare tactic” to sway their vote. I’m not. In fact, although I will be voting for Kerry, I do believe that the best long-term outcome for the country would be for George Bush to win.Why? Because Republicans could not play the blame game if they could not get things done. Because they’ll concentrate on social issues that will only galvanize more folks into opposition for 2008. Because their agenda will prove itself so unhealthy for the economic well-being of the nation that they will not only lose the White House in 2008, but some of the folks who have been voting their “values” will finally see through the facade and vote intelligently for Congressional and Senate races: the Republicans will lose control of all three branches of government and the world will once again be fresh and new...at least for four years.
THE END
BACK ALLEY / BOOKSTORE / CONTESTS / EDITOR'S COMMENTS / ESSAYS / EVENTS / FICTION / INTERVIEWS / GALLERY / POETRY / REVIEWS / SHELF SPACE / SUBMISSIONSMain Street Rag, 4416 Shea Lane, Charlotte, NC 28227
704-573-2516, contact us