I recently read an article written by Mormon author Orson Scott Card in which Card places nearly full blame for today's economic disaster on Bill Clinton specifically, as well the Democratic party in general. I will never affiliate myself with either of the two main parties, I think they are both beyond corrupt. However, Card's argument leads us deeper into a dark hole of getting suckered and then sucker-punched by corporate power that controls our politicians and our government's policies, thus removing any "Is this what's truly right for the people?" thought to be allowed to cross our "leader's" minds. To read Card's article, go
here. This is my response. If it's too long, break it up and read a paragraph a day. The response is actually much shorter than I would like to give, it's just that I didn't want to lose any readers by dragging on. If you'd like more, you're welcome to ask me personally about how I feel on any of the points brought up below. Here we go:
Uh oh,
I have to totally disagree with the Orson Scott Card article. To place the blame for today's economic crisis on a certain political party rather than America's obese buy-now-pay-later, gimme gimme gimme personality only allows us to shovel our guilt off onto someone else and continue the sick practice of excessive consumerism and I-want-more-stuff lifestyle that we are getting more and more comfortable with. To blame the government for loosening loan restrictions rather than blame the huge corporations (Fannie, Freddie, et al) that preyed on low-income home buyers seems foolish to me. People took out huge loans for homes that they couldn't afford, but no one talks about that because it's an accepted practice that probably many of us are also guilty of. Are those people not to be held somewhat responsible? The government loosened restrictions, true, but I don't see how that removes the guilt from the individuals who spent beyond their means.
However, I don't make the individuals as the number one culprit. Do the richer-than-God corporations that knowingly handed loans out to obviously undeserving recipients hold no blame? Who do you think lobbied the government to ease the loan restrictions? Card's article somehow tries to paint a black and white picture of evil Democrats and holy Republicans. Do we really believe that the politicians from either side (whose campaigns are funded by, and in some cases whose pocketbooks are padded by and whose lush and lavish lifestyles are partially provided by these huge companies) aren't swayed by money and power? Card tries to convince us that Republican politicians (who have great and special interest in companies like Fannie and Freddie) weren't reveling in the profits coming in from said companies. I have a hard time believing that politicians from both parties weren't benefiting and propagating the practices of these mortgage companies.
I think it's convenient for these sort of letters to circulate a month or less before the election. Card tries to attack the "liberal" media for hiding story after story of Democrat scandal while blowing out of proportion Republican scandal. He cites John Edwards' infidelity and Palin's daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. He pretends that the former was swept under the rug while the latter was detonated in the faces of every news watcher/reader in the country. That scenario is totally invented by Card, but certainly isn't the truth of how things really are. Edwards' scandal made front page news all over the place, as did Palin's daughter's pregnancy. In fact, I think people expected Democrats to pounce on the whole teenage pregnancy, but for the most part Democrats (except for comedians) left it alone. Conservatives and Liberals alike feel picked on when the opposing party attacks them.
To pretend that both parties don't jump on any little crumb of potentially slanderous information about opposing candidates is to close your eyes to the reality of modern day politics. I'm not excusing it--in fact, I detest it. I think that both major parties have long since sold their souls to big money, and at this point to engage in the pathetic "look how pure my party is and how dirty your party is" argument (like that of Card's) is to ignore the real problem and only keeps us in a false mentality of "I'm right, you're wrong, politicians really are fighting for my best interests." The truth is that Washington politicians, especially presidential candidates, are slaves to wealthy special interest groups whose sole concern is their own bottom line. Politicians' campaigns are funded almost entirely by big corporations who donate with the strong expectation to get something in return. Many donors (like AT&T and several others) donate huge amounts to both candidates so that, regardless of who wins, huge favors are owed. Obama, despite his emphasizing that the majority of his donations came from small independent donors, actually received 3/4ths of his donated sum from major corporations and wealthy special interest. There were obviously fewer of those donations, but they were for MUCH higher sums. The small donations, though many, didn't add up to that much.
Noam Chomsky said that there is really only one party in America, the Big Business Party. If watching the practiced, memorized, and packaged presidential debates teaches us one thing, it's that the current system produces two versions of the same egomaniacal robot and then makes us somehow believe that we have a choice between two very different people. The truth is that politicians will say and do almost anything to get into office, then once there they don't feel any responsibility to stick to any of their promises. That's evident from Bush Sr.'s "read my lips, no new taxes" trick, Clinton's signing of the Helms-Burton Act (which harshened the immoral embargo against Cuba), and Gee Dubya's going back on his campaign promise to, in his words, "jawbone OPEC leaders and personally lobby oil cartel leaders" to lower the price of oil (not that anyone really expected George "I Drink OPEC Oil For Breakfast AND Get Richer Everytime I Do It" Bush to bully around his oil cohorts in the Mid East).
Card would make life easy for himself and for us by allowing us all to believe that Clinton is really to blame for this mess. He would wrap up a pretty, shiny parcel of finger-pointing, deliver it the Democrats, relieve us from having to feel guilty for the life of greed and unchecked consumption that we like to live, and pardon the predatory mortgage companies (who are experts in the field and surely knew better than anyone exactly what would happen if they continued to hand out sub-prime loans like candy, getting richer with each one) of any wrong doing. In doing so, he convinces people that one candidate (and that candidate's party) is obviously stupid, unethical, and entirely to blame for the huge mess our country is in, while on the other hand the other candidate (and his party) was telling us all along how to fix the problem and that he is obviously smarter, uncorrupt, and much more qualified to lead us (like sheep). Card is wrong. The fact that he's a Democrat has nothing to do with it. People often vote against their party. It's convenient to bring it up because it makes us think that his opinion is somehow unbiased or that even the democrats know Obama is a kook. But party affiliation one way or the other doesn't prove much, does it? This election, maybe more than any other presidential election in history, will have many registered Republicans voting for Obama. If Card's being a Democrat somehow means McCain and the Republicans are right, then all the Repubs voting blue tomorrow must, by Card's status, mean that Obama is right. Personally, I find it crazy to align yourself with any specific political party. They are both way too full of holes to hold any ethical water.
I think both parties are wrong. I think the two-party system not only denies us the chance to elect a candidate that isn't over-influenced by big money, but also robs us of any real choice at all. George Carlin said the only choice we have anymore is "paper or plastic, smoking or non." There's some truth to his joke. The presidential debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization headed by Frank Fahrenkopf (former head of the Republican National Committee--a corporation, and Paul Kirk, a former head of the Democratic National Committee, a corporation). They close the debates to other parties' candidates unless those candidates can gain a 15% popularity ranking in the polls, something nearly impossible for third party candidates to do since they have to spend most of their money just getting on the individual states' ballots and aren't left with much campaign money. The two main parties have a surplus of money since they are funded by big business, who, of course, has very special and specific interest in influencing and swaying the candidates.
Sorry to make this so long. I'll cut myself off here, but I just want to say one last thing. The most pressing issue facing our country today isn't the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the future war in Iran. It's not the economy or what to do with illegal immigrants. It's campaign reform. Until we are given a real choice in presidential candidates, we will continue electing equally crappy presidents (party affiliation doesn't matter) who get caught up in scandal, who lie to us over and over again, who blow our tax money in unwise places, and who are really nothing more than slaves to huge corporations and special interest groups while pretending to care about acting in our best interest.
I won't vote for a Republican or a Democrat tomorrow. I won't vote for O'Cain or McBama. I'll vote third party even though I know he won't win this time. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I won't go against my own morals and vote for someone that ethically opposes me. But in four years, a few more people will vote third party. In eight years, many more will be fed up with the current and broken system and they'll vote third party. I really believe that people will become more and more fed up with the candidates we're given to lead our country and they'll start looking outside of the Rep and Dem parties, and that sometime down the road we really will be given quality choices. The thing is, this country is full of awesome people that DO have integrity and would make great leaders rather than pander to Exxon Valdez, Phillip Morris, JP Morgan, Smith & Wesson, McDonalds, Nike, Wal-Mart, AT&T, etc. Under the current system, though, it's impossible for anyone like that to make it to the final playoff round. People like Card will still try to trap us in a childish argument of proving that one of the two meager options is definitely right and righteous and the other is wrong and wicked, when in reality they are both, as Haley's friends might say, totally wack. But I guess writers have a flare for drama (me included), so I can kind of see where he's coming from.
As a goodbye gift to himself and oil companies, our current president has mandated that public land agencies "eliminate obstacles in the way of drilling," ... The rest of this post is at my other blog--StateOfThe Hive.blogspot.com. I'm slowly transitioning my serious political rants to that one so those of you who want all comedy all the time don't have to endure my preaching here at Ye Olde Magick Bones
Posts
