I, like many other Americans, am disappointed in the choices
I’ve been given this election. Yes, one thing I’m miffed about is that my boy
Bernie didn’t make it to the big leagues, but this isn’t a blog post about
that. Nor is it really about Clinton or Trump individually either. I’m thinking
about the way things were, are, and should be, and I find myself longing for
anything but the present. I hope it doesn’t get any worse than this. What is “this” you wonder, and how did it get this bad?
I’m glad you asked.
First, we’re going to rewind about 240 years. Things sucked
back then, but there were a few good things going on: the environment wasn’t as
destroyed, imperialism hadn’t devastated nearly all native peoples yet, and
Jar-Jar Binks didn’t even exist. The best thing that happened at that time, in
my opinion, was the founding of the Constitution of the United States. If you
feel confused about a Bernie backer appealing to Constitutionalism, please hold
your horses. The Constitution is a beautiful document, not because of the
checks-and-balances law and order it set up initially, based on ideals at that time, but because the law and
order it set up had a built-in check-and-balance system for inevitable and
perpetual shifting National goals. That system is the amendable aspect of the Constitution:
if we don’t like something, we have the power to change it.
How lovely it must have been, immediately after having lived
through the tragedy of non-representative government, to experience that problem’s solution. How much lovelier to dream
about the future for one’s children and grandchildren, with the comfort that as
the country progressed, so too would the laws, leading ever further towards a
perfectly representative government, with laws enacted to protect every
person’s rights to a tee. This was a time of prompt and effective policy
implementation; a time of hope, change, and optimism.
But somehow, we’re not like that anymore. And it’s not
because we’ve already solved all our problems, either. Something changed in the
past 2.4 centuries to stifle our Democracy. Many chalk it up to political
apathy, which cannot be ignored. Voter turnout percentages hover in the 50s and
60s for presidential races, with 2014’s midterm at a whopping 36. Is it possible
that 250 years after Americans went to war and died for the right to vote for a
representative government, that the idea doesn’t pique our interest anymore? Do
we blame the non-voters for their apathy, without calling into question the
ways our system of government has changed to inspire such lack of emotion? Not
on this blog.
The people’s apathy cannot be explained by a general decline
in our demand for a better future because as far forward as progress has raced,
Utopia has remained squarely out of reach. Look to the rallies surrounding this
election cycle’s candidates, and realize that these most vocal proponents are
the half of the eligible-to-vote who believe change can be affected through their candidate’s election. The
inverse, that the other half who don’t vote, don’t care about change, is not
necessarily proved by this. In fact, there are millions of non-voters who were
activated by one of two major candidates this year: Sanders and Trump. These
people wanted change but knew that
establishment politicians would or could not deliver the change they wanted.
Enter the so-called “fringe candidates.”
Bernie and the Donald promised similar results, through
opposite methods. Smallhands McAsshole Lips
went the route of divisiveness, blame, fear, bullying, and violence. Grandpa
McDrooly Face opted for inclusivity, exoneration,
courage, respect, and peace. Both, however, promised to quicken the end of
establishment politics, rallying their bases on the premise that our government
no longer represents their interests. The fact that this message resonated with
so many, and both these figures’ continued influence in our politics, are testament to the truth behind that motivation.
By the way, in a Country founded on the notion of a governmental structure that
is the antithesis of the one it broke free of, “fringe” has accumulated a
troublingly negative connotation amongst certain groups. More on that later.
So, many of the public felt refreshed to see a couple of major contenders for Presidential
candidacy even mention the fact that our government more and more represents
the politically powerful and wealthy, and less and less the People. But what
was the response to this notion? The resonation of this message was stifled by the media, such as CNN, whose parent
company Time Warner has donated over $800,000.00 to Clinton’s campaign. Let’s
not discount CBS and Viacom (MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, BET, and
more), whose parent company National Amusements Inc put in over $500,000.00. It
is important to trust actions over words, especially when these mega-contributions
are shrugged off as one-sided. You can bet your bazooka bubblegum they expect
something in return.
“But wait!” you claim, “Murdoch endorsed Trump so your
premise is wrong!” We can disregard Rupert Murdoch’s endorsement of Trump,
however, because even though the owner of 21st Century Fox threw in
with him, it is clear that the payback would not be in the form of a more
representative government. Just like the other media donors, Murdoch expects
that a Trump Presidency would yield his companies some benefit. In my opinion,
that benefit is obvious, but I’ll share it anyways
because it gets close to the root of the issue.
A study from the National Institute
of Education covered 2,854 subjects to measure the relationship, if any,
between conservatism and cognitive ability. They found that both at the
individual and national level, the more conservative the ideals, the lower the
intellect. They also found correlations between these two factors and socio-economic
status. According to a Pew survey, Fox News is the only major news outlet whose
viewers are more conservative than liberal. Thus, according to that NIE study,
the audience is, frankly, and on average, dumber. That means that if, perhaps,
Fox News wanted to maintain and grow its audience, certain strategies to
achieve this goal that wouldn’t work on the smarter-than-the-average-news
viewer, might be extremely effective. Perhaps, since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (news to me, as of
writing this post. I thought CBS, ABC, NBC, and others still had this
regulation in place on them. Looks like it’s been a free-for-all this whole
time.), Fox News might spew out lies that their dumb audience won’t question,
which energize them in alignment with Fox’ interests. Perhaps one of those interests
is to keep their audience dumb enough to remain loyal. Perhaps they’d benefit
from a misogynistic bigoted conspiracy theorist
(you know, someone like their viewers) in the White House to stoke the flames
of ignorance they’ve kindled, rewarding intolerance with validation. Perhaps.
(end Daily Show Audition)
The media is but one group of many who siphon money into our
politics for an expected return. Lobbying in the U.S. (not including campaign
contributions) was nearly $29 billion
from 1998-2010, with Finance, Insurance & Real Estate at the top of the
client list, followed by Health, Misc. Business, and Communications/Electronics.
Energy & Natural Resources rounds out the top 5. We can infer that they all
expect something in return, and I’m willing to bet that these for-profit
industries do not necessarily always have things like “people,” or “the environment,” or “ethics” as top priorities.
Money has mucked up our politics. Sure, corporations cannot
buy elections directly, but whether you like it or not, the proper leverage of
corporate interest coupled with paid-for biased media coverage can yield votes.
That is what has been happening, and it’s a self-perpetuating phenomenon: it is
only getting worse.
This is the biggest problem in our Country right now. Our
government is no longer beholden to its public. The direction in which our
policy has been permitted to go is not representative of the will of the People.
Business concerned with its bottom line,
and also not beholden to the public, has gained control of our Democracy, and
there is little in place to keep it from destroying all that we hold dear, such as clean air, or peace. This is the
over-arching parent problem which, if solved, will by default solve all of the
rest of our problems (or at least cause the rest of our problems to be
addressed in a way that the American People are interested in them being addressed,
rather than how the powers that be feel like we should handle them). The People
must be appropriately represented again, as it was in the early days of this
country.
This is what I wish I was voting for:
- · Dismantling of establishment politics by implementing congressional and judicial term limits
- · Removal of money in our politics by reversing Citizens United, among other reforms
- · Regulation of news sources to keep them honest and unbiased
- · Increased investment in education, infrastructure, clean energy, and other quality-of-life/GDP-boosting sectors
- · Redistribution of tax to lessen the steepness of the income inequality curve
- · Redistribution of subsidy to benefit poor people more than wealthy corporations
- · A total re-do of the redistricting process to end gerrymandering, including a revamped electoral college
However, it seems that none of
these ideas are really showing up on my ballot. If I vote for Hillary Clinton,
her policies might push us closer to these solutions, but what is that worth?
That would be like wanting The
Declaration of Independence but
getting The Request for Permission to
Suggest Ideas Concerning Our Governance to British Parliament.
Half-measures get us nowhere against a behemoth
such as money usurping the People’s power in politics. It’s a monster like the
Hydra: we must sever all its heads at once, or they will come back more
numerous than before. I’ve decided already that I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for Donald Trump, even in keeping with the theory of accelerationism. Is
my decision made for me as I vote for President? Thankfully, no.
I’m
going to write in Bernie Sanders.
Although
many say a vote for Bernie Sanders might as well be a vote for Donald Trump, I
no longer find credence in that argument as it pertains to my particular vote. Indiana
has a high likelihood of going red. However,the polls two weeks out from the
election indicate a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton, with or without
Indiana behind her. The way the electoral college is set up now, it really does
seem that my vote will not matter, but indulge me as I shed responsibility for
my actions.
If
Trump wins Indiana by one vote, and that victory carries him to win the
nomination, you cannot blame me. The cause of such a victory is squarely in the
votes for Trump. Blame those voters
first, but then have pity as you realize that they’ve mostly been duped by the
Fox News dumbing-down process I’ve written about above. So really, blame Fox
News, but don’t stop there. Blame the government which permits Fox News and
other media outlets to disseminate falsehoods that affect our elections. Blame
the government for continually shifting the power we had over it to corporate
interests, thus leading to the non-voters’ political apathy. And who’s to blame
for such a government? Those long-dead ancestors of ours who took the first
step away from the path of truly representative government in favor of a
selectively representative version. Blame the greed of the industrialists, monopolists,
lobbyists, and crooked politicians of the post-civil war era who set the
precedent that capitalist might makes right. But what can we do to those who
are already dead? We can spit on their graves. What better method of fully
deserved disrespect than to dismantle the tools of their descendants: our
oppressors. In essence, if Trump wins because I didn’t vote for Hillary, it is
a product of over a century of political corruption, which has led to the state
of our election this year. Implying that I must vote one way or another is
contrary to the very essence of Democracy.
Clinton
is going to win the election. If people who think like me reluctantly vote for
Clinton, our criticism of her isn’t voiced. If we vote for Trump, she’ll lump
us in with the basket of deplorables and pay us no mind. If we don’t vote at
all, we’ll seem apathetic and play into the hands of those corporations with
power over our government. By writing in Bernie Sanders, am I throwing my vote
away? I think not. Indeed, given current statistics, one vote, or even a
million, in favor of Trump or Clinton wouldn’t really matter, so in that
regard, a vote for Bernie is on that same level.
The
difference is what my vote will stand for. Sanders has recently envisioned his
future place in the political realm as a liberal thorn in President Clinton’s side,
and I am proud to be a part of that barb. Future President Clinton might recognize
my vote, among many others, I’m sure, as votes she could have earned if she
weren’t so right-leaning. This might have the effect of pushing us closer to
the goals I’ve outlined above. My vote for Bernie tells whoever’s paying
attention that I’d rather risk (ever so slightly, but still risk) a Trump presidency,
with all its atrocities, than show support for Clinton, because she is not
enough aligned with my interests or the interests of the People in general, as
I see them. This is the message in every vote for Bernie Sanders on November 8th,
and the closer the margin between Clinton and Trump, the louder that message
becomes.
It’s
time that our politicians understood that a lot of us are on to them. Progress
for the People has been limited in exchange for progress for corporations, and
we’re not all as complacent as Fox News wishes we were. No matter how twisted
things have become, we still have the power to affect change through our votes.
The time is ripe for a political revolution, and I plan to continue my small
portion of the fight to bring my vision about more swiftly. I trust that you, dear
reader, will do the same, by learning who and what is on your ballot, then voting
on November 8th.
No comments:
Post a Comment