I see a few problems with the U.S. Political system... for starters, it seems like it's more of a one-party state run system with the illusion of it being divided for the sake of democratic discourse. In reality, both parties serve the agendas of their large donors, which do not significantly differ. The policies that are implemented are thus those of the large corporations, lobby and other interest groups, only slightly disguised as ideological and societal reforms through party rhetoric. Remember that in 94% of U.S. elections the candidate that raises the most money wins. What i would like to suggest is for these coming election to be different. Vote blank or vote alternative, and if enough people do it, the people running for alternative office may get just enough exposure to get the national public attention they deserve! Of course, I agree with you, it would be quite naive to believe that any of them could take office this coming election, but at least it would start a discourse.
Occupy Wall Street can't single handedly change the rules of the financial sector, but they have started the discourse and pushed the discourse to the public and made it realize it was in their interest.
The anti-Vietnam-War demonstrations did not stop the war themselves, but they started the discourse and pushed the discourse to the public and made it realize it was in their interest.
The civil rights movement did not directly make any reform, but they started and pushed the discourse to the public and made it realize it was in their interest.
Secondly, there is no pluralist party representation in the United States. In essence, if you are not with either of the two predominant parties, there are no viable candidates for elections or vote. What the U.S. needs, in my very very humble opinion especially not being a U.S. citizen, is a debate between candidates from various political spheres and convictions, not a debate between 8-9 candidates of the same party, and no debate on the democratic side. The U.S. Needs a debate with the Green candidate, the objectivist, the socialist worker, American independent party, independent constitutional party, the communist, the Christian democrats (why not, perhaps even a Muslim or Hindu party?) etc. etc. as well as the democrats and republicans. If you study political sciences you are introduced to the concept of "catch-all" parties, those attempt to encompass so large a segment of the populations that their policies, and rhetoric, are often determined by who they are speaking to, and contradictory. I think that by definition a bipartisan system cannot avoid having both parties attempting to be catch-all parties!
Whoever the republican candidate may be, with Ron Paul perhaps being the exception, if s/he gets elected it will be a disaster. I supported Obama and even worked for his campaign during the elections during my stay in the U.S.., but he is a sell-out. He marketed himself as a progressive democrat, and got a mandate of 15 million votes on that view, and turned out to be a closeted conservative republican. There are many positive policies he has passed through (Pushed the Dream Act and the healthcare reform), and I do recognize that he is the president of the U.S. that has maintained the highest percentage of electoral promises made. Not only that, he has done so with overwhelming opposition from the republican party and their led and bought congress, and having inherited a disastrous situation from his predecessor G.W. Bush. Problem is many of these promises were made to the financial sector, military equipment and personnel contractors etc...
Yeah, you may be leaving Iraq, but ALL your troops are being replaced by private contractors'.
He may have managed to kill Osama and Al-Awaki, but both were murders and gross violations of international law - don't get me started on the whole Libyan issue and the murder of Gaddafi which literally wants to make me puke.
The drone wars escalating all over the world.
He failed to close Guantanamo Bay.
He took too long to say no to the keystone XL pipeline plan, and has not done so but has merely postponed it to a time when a republican candidate might be president and pass the project.
He failed to veto the recent Defence Appropriation act that effectively revokes all your civil liberties.
He is laying down the foundations for a war with Iran.
Twice in both Cancun and Durban he has failed to do anything meaningful, and in fact obstacles, global climate change deals and solutions.
He appointed a crook as his chief financial advisor.
He appointed the supreme court judge that is responsible for authorizing the sale of 4,000 weapons to Mexican drug cartels and "lose track of it", which is more publicized than the amount of MILLIONS of dollars which they are "losing track of" by actually using them for undercover drug deals and, supposedly, tracking them.
He has made every effort to block Palestine's bid for statehood while publicly maintaining the opposite stance.
He has received the largest contributions from lobbies, corporations and wall street financial firms than any other candidates...
Now we find out that he has authorized the illegal spying of Iran for months, and then criticizes them for their nuclear program and "provoking" a conflict (they have systematically been surrounding Iran with military installation for years, no shit they are nervous).
- - - All of these things he did himself, without opposition from the republican party and he had the choice whether to implement these policies or not, and he chose to. He seems to have accomplished a LOT, just not for the american people. The mas has got MAAAD style, but very little substance.
Thirdly, the above suggestion will probably never happen as "debates" are indeed just publicity stunts, hence the media frenzy to ensure the rights to broadcasting them... The mainstream media cartel conglomerate benefits from the perpetuation of this bi-partisan/single-party state system and the enormous and pervasive influence it exerts over it, to its own benefit.
Within a bipartisan political system, and most other supposedly representative democracies (my rant on this later) is that popular protests have in fact been the great drivers of social and political change, NOT votes. Voting once every 4 years for a representative who is forced to compromise with a bought congress (in the case of the U.S.) to get anything done is NOT a democracy, it's a plutocracy. Votes themselves are influenced by corporate media conglomerate that has an invested interest in maintaining such a system, as people are FORCED to know their "representatives" mostly only through the media since they have to represent about 40,000-60,000 people and cannot possibly be in contact or in tune with them all.
Also, keep in mind that only 60-70% of the electorate votes. A lot of those who do, do so because of invested private interests. Poll after poll we are shown that the U.S. public is in fact much more in tune with leftist policies than it shows in election results. What hampers this is political apathy - the feeling that things will not change regardless...
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the underlying problem is in reality the ability for monetary and commercial interests to infiltrate the U.S. political system and turn it into an institutionalized, corrupt corporatocracy. Government is meant to protect and ensure the rights and livelihood of the poor and the destitute, support the lifestyle of the one who have enough to live on, and make sure they keep it, and control that those with power and money do not abuse it by exploiting the ones less fortunate. In effect, the U.S. governments (and many all over the world including here in Europe), have done the exact opposite - served the interests of those with money and power, destroy the lifestyles of the middle class, so to create a larger pool of uneducated exploitable workforce... all because money run s political interests.
So... there are solutions... Turn off your SpinBox (the TV) and get your news from alternative and more factual sources, vote for an alternative candidate which you feel represents you more, regardless of how slim the chances are that s/he wins, and encourage everyone you know to do the same! Bring the alternative candidates to the public discourse and attention, ask that your community ratio or TV station do a report on them. If you do not feel represented, vote blank, but vote / you´ll be voicing your discontent!
The whole U.S. political and electoral system is wrong, and it's not going to change without someone in power who is actually willing to change it, and that would HAVE to be an underdog, for anyone in the Dem and Rep party would not attempt to change the system that holds them in power. In a pluralist system, they would have to. The change has got to start somewhere, and if you want change, you should not vote for someone who promises it hollowly. Convince as many people as you know to vote alternative if they feel representative, do this next congressional election, next presidential elections, and keep on speaking out on it and voting alternative until you are 80. Who knows, maybe by then you would have made what was a revolutionary act into common practice!
Would you not be participant in evil by contribuiting to the achievement of a lesser than two evils?
I'm not proposing that you don't vote, on the contrary! Part of my post was actually to refute the concept of not voting because it's useless. Rather, it was to point out that a vote on an alternative candidate is NOT a vote wasted, rather it's a vote gained! To the contrary, voting for a candidate which would perpetuate the system that is endemically and systemically responsible for the very problems you are trying to fix IS a vote wasted...
Thank you to: Roshni Hemlani, Shanti Leon Guerrero, Oli Leeb, Joanna van der Hoek for the discussions that led to the writing of this article. The continued intellectual support of my friends, family and teachers is what keeps me going!
0 comments:
Post a Comment