The Impotence of Elections

[jonquil]

Paul Craig Roberts was a cabinet member of the Reagan administration. He is a remarkably clear-headed and sane writer now.

sott.net/articles/show/21736 … -Elections

In his historical novel, The Leopard, Giuseppe di Lampedusa writes that things have to change in order to remain the same. That is what happened in the US congressional elections on November 2.

Jobs off-shoring, which began on a large scale with the collapse of the Soviet Union, has merged the Democrats and Republicans into one party with two names. The Soviet collapse changed attitudes in socialist India and communist China and opened those countries, with their large excess supplies of labor, to Western capital.

Pushed by Wall Street and Wal-Mart, American manufacturers moved production for US markets offshore to boost profits and shareholder earnings by utilizing cheap labor. The decline of the US manufacturing work force reduced the political power of unions and the ability of unions to finance the Democratic Party. The end result was to make the Democrats dependent on the same sources of financing as Republicans.

Prior to this development, the two parties, despite their similarities, represented different interests and served as a check on one another. The Democrats represented labor and focused on providing a social safety net. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, education, and civil rights were Democratic issues. Democrats were committed to a full employment policy and would accept some inflation to secure more employment.

The Republicans represented business. The Republicans focused on curtailing big government in all its manifestations from social welfare spending to regulation. The Republicans' economic policy consisted of opposing federal budget deficits.

These differences resulted in political competition.

Today both parties are dependent for campaign finance on Wall Street, the military/security complex, AIPAC, the oil industry, agri-business, pharmaceuticals, and the insurance industry. Campaigns no longer consist of debates over issues. They are mud-slinging contests.

Angry voters take their anger out on incumbents, and that is what we saw in the election. Tea Party candidates defeated Republican incumbents in primaries, and Republicans defeated Democrats in the congressional elections.

Policies, however, will not change qualitatively. Quantitatively, Republicans will be more inclined to more rapidly dismantle more of the social safety net than Democrats and more inclined to finish off the remnants of civil liberties. But the powerful private oligarchs will continue to write the legislation that Congress passes and the President signs. New members of Congress will quickly discover that achieving re-election requires bending to the oligarchs' will.

[Ingenium]

If this is true, then the only solution that I see is putting them all on term limits. We need to elect the sort of people who know that they’ll never be career legislators and can be free from the enticement of re-election so that they can focus on addressing problems without the influence of the corporatists’ money.

[jonquil]

@Ingenium

If this is true, then the only solution that I see is putting them all on term limits. We need to elect the sort of people who know that they’ll never be career legislators and can be free from the enticement of re-election so that they can focus on addressing problems without the influence of the corporatists’ money.

I have no problem with term limits at all, but I think that the only real solution is campaign finance reform and laws regulating lobbying and corporate influence.

[iris5467]

@Ingenium

If this is true, then the only solution that I see is putting them all on term limits. We need to elect the sort of people who know that they’ll never be career legislators and can be free from the enticement of re-election so that they can focus on addressing problems without the influence of the corporatists’ money.

Current issue: continuing benefits after serving terms. These would also need to be removed or severely limited.

The issue won’t die though. Corporations will have just as much reason to bribe someone who serves one term as someone who serves three. As long as they are reaping large profit from the decision it will be seen a solid investment. And without being able to really know if a person is being bribed, we can still easily be duped.

Dealing with this many human beings (US Population) and entities this size (Think a global corp like Wal-Mart or McDonalds), we are long past the point of really being able to keep hold of our own government “for the people”. We’re too big. There are too many ways in the modern world to circumvent policing when it comes to things like bribes and underhanded dealings. And we’re too apathetic to really do something about it. We are distracted malcontents at best. We KNOW we’re being had by nigh everyone (Though I for some reason still think Obama really is trying) and yet what do we do? Post internet messages or show up at comedic “rally”. Aldous Huxley must be laughing.

[Ganapati]

Why is corporate funding necessary to get elected?

How about people starting their own little campaigns not to vote anyone receiving corporate donations?

[Eran]

If Government is inevitably going to be hijacked by evil corporations, using Government to fight corporations is futile - it will merely be used as a tool by some corporations to fight off their competitors.

Isn’t the best solution to try and give power back to the people, not through government (already compromised), but directly?