Because You Never Asked

(11/04)

     I suppose a certain degree of this essay's purpose is to convey the dismay this moment in history is causing amongst the millions of people who had at least hoped to somewhat contain this fanatical imperial madness currently taking hold in our country. From a personal standpoint, I might describe my emotional state as a combination of depression and humiliation, a funk that has entrenched itself in the remote innards of my midsection, a heavy handed distress that lurks beneath the façade of my mundane actions like a feeling of nausea you try to live with. Does anyone else feel this way?

     In discussing the state of our nation with many like-minded people, I've found our distress magnified by the idea that all of this might be getting to a point of no return, that the battle could be seen as being irreversibly lost. On numerous occasions, our discussions led us back to the Germany of the 1930's, where many clear thinking people must have seen the Nazi madness for what it was. Can you imagine their helpless agony as their country slipped into the clutches of the insanity to come?

     Many of us can now imagine.

     I don't mean to exaggerate the similarities between Hitler's Germany and a continuance of Bush's America. The historical context is markedly different. Hitler's rise, in what was a broken nation, was more sudden than the patient neo-con infiltration into all facets of America's socio-political life. Certainly, the racial demagogy of Hitler is not a serious element in the American psyche, but the stubborn, creeping advance of Christian fundamentalism into our political power base represents something similar to it.

     But Fascism is not defined by its racial-religious policy. Its essence is a seamless existence between government and corporate interests, or a melding of government and big business into one entity. As my good friend John C. has so cogently pointed out to me, Fascism is forever an on going project. Mussolini-Hitler-Franco's rise and fall were just a part of a long journey that is still in progress. Its most fertile ground now seems to be found in contemporary America, no matter how "democratically" it is being presented.

     The election of 2004, for those connecting the dots, brought forth another similarity between the respective rise to power of Hitler and the Bush Gang. In the mid 1930's, when the Nazis tried to justify their military build up, they pointed to WWI and claimed it was an aberration, that the German people had not really lost the war, but rather, their leadership, along with the Jews, had sold them out. Quite similarly, the neo-cons, in order to sweeten the sulphur-fart smell of their military aggression, have pointed to Vietnam and insinuated that it wasn't the "gooks" that beat us, but rather, people like John Kerry and his mob of long-haired traitors had undermined our efforts. In other words, America (uber alles) is always right, always pure, always on the side of everything that is good for the world, and we have the guns to prove it.

     At least Hitler was a soldier.

     A friend of mine asked me yesterday if I could find any shred of positive spin to put on this catharsis. I pondered for a moment, furled my brow, shrugged . "no, nothing." The question is: have we bottomed out? Can we turn this thing around or is this the end? Are the neo-cons off their leash and free to rape and pillage as they see fit? Can the slowly eroding but still basically 50% of America that opposes this imperial arrogance show the resolve to dig in and keep fighting?

     I think we can if we clearly understand what the problem is and begin to focus on it more intensely.

     The problem is simple to express: the political system is rigged. When I say this, I don't mean hanging chads, voter suppression, or evaporating vapor trails that make voter confirmation impossible. None of that should be poo-pooed away, but it is not the fundamental problem.

     The system is rigged because it is completely dependent on huge sums of money for electoral success. Anything that dependent on big money has to answer to big money. This is not rocket science. This is not even the dissection of a frog in high school science lab. Even the hapless Democrats, who Karl Rove mows down with all the intimidation of a fireballing left-hander, should be able to see this. In such a system, the Republican right has a built in advantage. They don't have to cuddle up to the big money because they are the big money. In general, they are clever in spreading this money around, giving the opposition just enough to be competitive (we must have good theater) but victorious with more difficulty. (Something like the Yankees compared to the Twins or A's). One snooping into the campaign contribution game will usually find big corporate donors shelling out substantial sums to both Parties, but more to their real buddies. (I'll let the reader guess which side that is).

     But an even more insidious and perhaps more important result of this rigged system is the emasculation of what used to be America's center-left, still known as the Democrats. If success in the system demands gargantuan sums of money, then the Democrats must go after it too. Once again, this is not molecular biology. Perhaps a born-again Christian might have trouble understanding this concept (it's not in the Bible), but it is well within the range of most liberal intellects. Much (if not most) of this money will have to come from sources that shorten the leash on progressive ideas --- a national health service, petroleum weaning and conservation, media monopoly break up, an unwavering dedication to public education, the regulation and watch-dogging of overly omnipotent financial interests, etc. In a sense, in the "Bushyworld" currently being force fed to the planet, a "liberal" or "progressive" is little more than someone who believes in policing huge sums of capital that have a tendency to abuse its power. This is a legitimate function of any democratic system. This function has been discredited in America because the electoral burlesque is controlled by these huge sums of money.

     OK, I'll cop to it; the argument just made above is not airtight. Many of the liberal Internet operations did a splendid job raising small amounts of money from large amounts of donors, thus somewhat leveling the playing field. But this "little" money can only be a supplement to "big money", which still plays a pivotal role in all this. In a more fuzzy, big picture sense, I will continue to say that the American campaign organism, with its insatiable appetite for money, will always result in an atrophy of the little man's power, which is what a true Democratic Party must guard against.

     The question is: how can we again make the liberal elements of America into the dynamic force of progress it should be, rather than the compromised eunuch of stagnation it has become? Our principle focus, for now, must be this "rigged" electoral process and how we can change it. By making the process mega-expensive, it has made it easier for the right to succeed. It could almost be said that our election format is their format. Their success has a tendency to move the Democratic Party to the right in an effort to maintain its viability. In trying to walk this tightrope between raising big money and not offending the big donors, the center-left in America has lost its left. This makes it difficult for them to stand for anything. It has caused the Democrats to present a face that is not true to its heart. It has made them hard to be relevant against a right wing machine that knows exactly what it wants.

     This pacification of the Democratic Party had already begun with the Clinton White House. The loopholes undermining sound ecological-fuel conservation policy leading to the Normandy invasion of SUV obesity now overrunning the country . began here. The blueprint for further media-monopoly-consolidation --- with extremely negative consequences for liberal ideas --- began here. But the election of 2004 exposed this identity crisis with all the hoopla of a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction.

     What percentage of those who voted for Kerry would rather have voted for Nader? To say substantial numbers would be no lie, and if a candidate with Nader's ideas and a more respectable political persona were able to cop the nomination, it's not unreasonable to say that almost all real liberals would gleefully fall in behind such a candidate. Unfortunately, the Big Money Game, for now, precludes such a possibility.

     What percentage of those who voted for Kerry is against the war in Iraq and want it ended as soon as possible? Am I wrong in saying something close to all of them?

     The original spark for the Democrats in this election cycle came from Howard Dean and his anti-war "army". What eventually turned into a great mobilization effort led by the liberal Internet practitioners . began here. I can't get too specific, mainly because a clod like myself can't possibly know the details, but Dean's meteoric fall from grace had to be orchestrated by behind the scene power brokers and not by the voters, faithfully following signals from sources beyond their comprehension. This fervor for Dean was turned into an equally exalted anti-fervor against Bush, and the Democratic effort to win was not compromised. Whether or not this anti-fervor can be sustained in a future electoral panorama, is open to debate. But the more negative aspect for liberal chances is the candidate --- and the Party in general --- this mega-money electoral environment has given forth with.

     Here us liberals were, in a bonkerized sweat going all out to defeat a truly despised President, with a candidate and Party that had not opposed the war in Iraq. Our hate for this President coincides with our hate for the imperial war mongering his foreign policy represents . and all we could offer was someone who claimed he could do it better. Instead of being able to say you blundered into an untenable situation; you are killing and maiming thousands of good American kids (and really, they are just kids) for no good reason; you are unconscionably killing scores of innocent people and unnecessarily destroying the lives of millions; you are costing us billions and billions in an immoral, illegitimate, illegal act; instead of being able to attack this fiasco with an "I told you so", we had to pretend to support it in a more competent way. Flip-flop, wishy-washy, and for once, Karl Rove was telling the truth.

     Once America's left realizes it cannot maintain its identity in this bigger than big money political environment, the sooner it can get to work defeating it. This constant grovel for huge sums of money has moved the Democratic Party off its foundation, thus making it easier to topple. As things stand now, the Democrats cannot even claim an attempted mandate based upon the failures of the Republicans, whose global economy schemes and subterfuges have not been strongly enough opposed by them. If it means losing for a while longer, then lose we must. But when the failures of Bush's America become evident, we must be there with an alternative --- a foreign policy not based on imperial conquest, but on a cooperative effort to improve the human condition; a national health service; a just tax system; an energy supply wrested from the "market" and based upon weaning us from fossil fuels; a properly watch-dogged private sector that benefits owners, workers and consumers alike; true ecological concern; support for public education, etc.

     If we don't stand for something then we can't offer ourselves as the answer when "they" have failed. Our ability to do this is severely stunted by the Big Money Game. I am not against a good ration of free enterprise, commerce, private sector activity, etc. Indeed, this is the source of much that is dynamic and creative in a society. All I ask is that business interests have to petition our elected representatives for what they want, just as any other element of our society might have to. As it stands now, it is the other way around: our representatives have to petition big business (big money) for the chance to serve, a situation that is very akin to Fascism.

     I finish by referring the reader to 2 other essays appearing on this web site, where a solution to this quagmire is given in depth. They are: "Campaign Reform" and "Campaign Reform Revisited", both of which show how easy it would be to reform the system.

     Relevant Material: "Well, I guess that means four more years of punching holes in the ozone." Uttered, upon Bush's reelection, by my good friend Lloyd, owner and guide for one of my town's best attractions, Lloyd's Nature Bike Tour.