Thursday, June 7, 2012
In Politics, Money Is Everything
By Tom Kando
For progressives, the June 5 primaries were disappointing. The most crucial voting took place in Wisconsin. The failure to recall Gov. Walker was a serious defeat for Democrats, for President Obama and - in the end - for America. The only silver lining in that state is that John Lehman’s victory returns control of the State Senate to the Democrats. American politics have now reached a vicious cycle: Because politics are entirely determined by the power of money, progressives’ chances seem to be in irreversible decline.
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has irretrievably stacked the deck in favor of the plutocracy. Once corporations became persons and super PAC contributions became unlimited, it was only a matter of very little time before the Republican Party and its candidates became immeasurably richer than their opponents.
The June 5 Wisconsin elections were a preview of worse to come. According to MSNBC, the Walker campaign had 8 times more money than that of its opponent Tom Barrett. Walker supporters dispute this, saying that Walker’s advantage was “only” 3 to 1. Whoop-dee-doo!
The plutocracy is doing the obvious: It is out to destroy the last and only major institutional support upon which the Democratic Party can count for significant financial support: the Unions.
Of course, Unions have been declining for over half a century. Today, only 11% of the labor force is unionized, compared to 36% in 1954. The only growth in unionization has been in the public sector (teachers, etc.), where 37% of the workers are unionized.
So in the age of super PACs, the Democratic Party is dependent on a declining organization of not-so-well-off workers. Plus a few pockets of affluence such as liberal Hollywood.
By finishing off the Unions, one party achieves an unprecedented monetary advantage over the other. It’s not that the playing field becomes slanted - there IS NO playing field any more!
Obviously, the vast majority of super PACS are funded by private corporations and individual billionaires such as Nevada Casino owner Sheldon Adelson.
The 2012 election is going to cost $8 billion. We used to cringe when presidential campaigns cost hundreds of millions. Can Democrats raise enough money to be competitive? Obama might squeeze by this time, but it stands to reason that in the long run, progressives don’t stand a chance. Money rules, wherever you look: In California, Prop. 29 (the Tobacco Tax) was defeated due to the Tobacco Companies’ massive infusion of money. San Diego’s Proposition B and a similar initiative in San Jose to cut current public employees’ pension benefits passed because supporters outspent opponents 8 to 1!
And why does money rule? Because it funds brain washing. The billions would not matter, if the electorate were not swayed by the bs of political advertising. But it is. And only a small percentage of eligible voters vote, those most biased, but not necessarily the most informed (in California, fewer that 25% of eligible voters voted on June 5).
Another weapon with which Republicans have a good chance of achieving permanent supremacy is their assault on the working class’ voting rights. By requiring voters to show proof of citizenship, photo identification, and raising other such obstacles, Republican authorities in states like Florida are attempting to disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters, most of them poor and likely to vote for democrats.
Bill Clinton recently said that a Romney victory in the Fall would be cataclysmic. Rachel Maddow said that the demise of Unions would be catastrophic. Well, get used to it. We may be moving right back into the 19th century. While we are at it, we might as well re-introduce the poll tax (you can’t vote unless you make over $100,000 a year), and get rid of the income tax altogether, so that the rich - the “job creators” as Romney calls them - can save us all.
We call it democracy, but it is plutocracy. leave comment here
10 comments:
This is spot on - as bill moyers said- politics is coin operated
By no means do I wish to sound optimistic in such a negative situation all-round. As a native of Wisconsin, I've been following things there pretty closely. Obama's primary vote exceeded Romney's by 7% (granted, they were not running head to head), and many voters told exit pollsters that, though they voted against recall (whether they liked Walker or not), they plan to vote for Obama in November. All is not lost. Alan Wade
Thank you for your comments.
Hope is good, Alan. I am a firm believer in, and practitioner of hope.
I don't mean to be flippant. You are right. The presidential election may yet turn out okay. I am crossing my fingers, and sending an occasional (small) check to the Obama campaign.
Tom:
Nice! Some of your very best posts are those in which you are really pissed off, like now.
There are a couple of errors in this post. First, the numbers you cite do not include the massive infusion of union money. The MSNBC numbers failed to include that. Second, Citizens United had nothing to do with Walker's advantage in funding (which from my perspective came from a lot of people across the country who thought Walker was right in his proposals. Look at the votes in San Jose and San Diego to see the power of opposition to unbridled public employee union power. CU dealt with using organizations to fund campaigns - which also widened what unions could do in bundling. The earlier case, which I think is called Free Speech, dealt with individual contributions like Andelson's. As to the people who do not think Wisconsin is in play - don't compare the primary numbers but look at the total Walker votes 2010 versus 2012 (the first was a general election where turnout wa expected to be higher but Walker exceeded his 2010 numbers by quite a bit).
I already accepted the 3:1 money ratio in Wisconsin, as opposed to MSNBC’s claimed 8:1.
You are right that “boots on the ground” matter, and that it was voters’ impetus which made the difference, both in Wisconsin and in California. It would be foolish to deny that the assault on the public sector, on unions, on public (higher) education and on public health care in this country is a widespread populist movement (Tea Party, etc.).
Our difference is simply that I deplore this trend and that, in my view, it reflects Fox-type propaganda, and the lavish funding of such propaganda by both opulent individuals and corporations. In other words, we are witnessing an unprecedented manipulation of public opinion through money. What is emerging, is a country that is farther to the Right that it has been in nearly a century, far more reactionary than during the Nixon years, or the Reagan years, or the Bush years, or any other period in my lifetime.
Tom- I think the fundamental issue in Wisconsin is similar to the problem facing at least five cities in California and a broader issue in most democracies. California has one of the highest sales tax rates, the second or third highest income tax rates and numerous other impediments to growth yet it runs continual deficits. We've got some major cities that are bankrupt (look at the votes in SJ and SD which were much more punitive than Walker on pensions) In addition, as a result of one party rule in this state our compensation of public employees(including pensions and lifetime health care) is way out of proportion to what we can afford. I do not like the way campaigns have developed although obviously I agreed with the result on the recall in Wisconsin. I agree that we need to compensate people who work in the public sector fairly but with things like the last highest rule and other benefits - I think it can no longer be argued that is the case today. Look at the results of Walker's changes. The deficit in the state has been eliminated without blue smoke or mirrors. A higher percentage of the state budget (albeit a smaller budget) is spent on K-12. This election will be about choices, and I for one do not accept that the European system of social democracy is better.
The level of taxation to support redistribution and social programs is a debatable issue.
You and most Americans feel that it is already excessive. I, Obama and other social democrats feel that it isn’t.
I point to places like Scandinavia, Germany, Canada, Japan, etc, where taxes are higher, there is more redistribution, and the welfare state is more generous.
I also argue, from personal experience and from data, that many of those countries enjoy better quality of life than do most Americans. While mean American income is still among the world’s highest, this masks the fact that there is much less poverty and social pathology in many of those countries. Quality of life is better measured by such things as average life expectancy, crime rates, infant mortality, etc., than by mean income. By many measures, the quality of life of a majority of people in those countries is superior to that enjoyed by most Americans, even though there is still unparalleled wealth in the US. And I attribute this to those countries’ better social policies, i.e. their more generous and more re-distributionist policies.
Only the future will tell who is right, and which path progress will take.
If disproportionate spending guarantees election, why did Meg Whitman lose to Gov. Brown.
Whitman spent $140 million, Brown spent $10 Million. That was 14-to-1.
Lets look at all the facts, and then strive for conclusions.
Thank God, there are exceptions to generalizations. Let's hope that this happens again, i.e. that the good guys can win occasionally, even though they have less money. Wouldn't that be a blast.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!