First off, I want to thank everyone who has been posting great comments in response to my last couple of posts. I have replied to all of the issue oriented comments and will continue doing so until the volume of comments is too great for me to respond to each individually. I encourage everyone reading this blog to at least check out these comments as they are very insightful and also provide well supported opinions that in many cases differ from my own. Also, in the future please post your comments directly to the blog - a couple of you have sent me messages on facebook and asked me to transfer them to the blog which I did but in the future it is easiest to post directly on the blog. Also, I plan to add some new poll questions over the next few days so be sure to keep checking the bottom of the page. Before writing my entry of the day I want to share a little joke that Ian Clunie sent me on facebook that should make you chuckle:
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
Hahahahahahah
The Obama campaign announced this morning that it raised a very impressive 52 million dollars in June, its second best fundraising month of the year and a relief to skeptics who worried that the hype of his campaign was fading after its lackluster fundraising performance in May. The impressive June totals are especially important as they bring Obama and the DNC on more even ground with McCain and the RNC. Currently Obama and the DNC are sitting on a combined warchest of 92.3 million dollars, just shy of McCain and the RNC's combined warchest of 95 million. This is very good news as the right wing war machine has been outfundraising the dems ever since Bush's record fundraising totals in 2000 and 2004. The prolonged fundraising success of the right hardly comes as a surprise as wealthy republicans with their pockets overflowing in Bu$H tax cut money are happy to pay up in order to ensure a continuation of this administration's reactionary economic policies that have created a wealth disparity in this country the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. Fortunately, wealthy Americans with graduate degrees (maligned by right wingers as "elitist, out of touch limousine liberals") overwhelmingly support Democrats, an increasingly prominent trend in this country that is helping level the fundraising playing field. Not surprising that educated people who actually know what the fuck is going on are overwhelmingly liberal...... but I digress.......However, the core of Obama's fundraising comes from small donations, as his average contribution was only 68 dollars. This is a testament to the true grassroots nature of the Obama campaign.
While I am certainly pleased that Obama and the Democrats can now compete financially with McCain and the Republicans, it really sickens me how fundraising has become such a focal point of politicians at all levels of government. It is impossible to run for office in this country without massive amounts of cash, a fact that forces politicians to pander to deep pocketed individuals and special interests in order to acquire the necessary funds to run for office. True, an individual cannot conbribute more than 2300$ to a presidential candidate in a given election cycle but when wealthy individuals can contribute to individual campaigns, national and state parties, PACS, and non-party affiliated "527" groups , clearly the impact of big money on campaigns is far from diluted. This is a phenomenon that affects both parties as each caters to a different sets of interest groups. Not only do politicians need to pander in order to get the dough they need, but they WASTE SO MUCH FUCKING TIME RAISING MONEY RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES. Yes, fundraising is such an integral part of any campaign that members of the House of Representatives typically start fundraising for their reelection campaigns shortly after getting elected - it is a never ending cycle.
Look, if we really want democracy (or a fair representative republic) we need to take money out of politics. Period. If every voice is to be heard equally come election day, a person's wealth should have no effect on whether or not politicians listen to them. The best way to take money out of politics would be to provide candidates and political parties with public financing and ban all private political fundraising. "527" groups (with no limits on contributions whatsoever) would still prove a problem but if they are not allowed air time, their impact will be lessened dramatically. Also, with guaranteed public financing, politicans will be able to spend much more time making clear their stances on issues and when in office planning reelection, actually doing their job rather than spending the entirety of their time campaigning and fundraising. America needs to revert to its democratic principles of one person, one vote, rather than putting so much emphasis on the ability of candidates to attract the $$$$$$$$. Both presidential candidates are staunch campaign finance reformers so I have a lot of faith that the problem of money in politics will be addressed during the next administration. Later.
-Artie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Artie- Nice. No reason my man Ron Paul shouldn't have gotten a more legitimate shot at a candidacy - all of his ideas are relevant in this campaign. Only problem is that he doesn't pander to interest groups, and thus had no money (still managed to set a 1 day record with 5 million bucks: "Ron Paul Money Bomb", to which I contributed).
However, you seem to be so blinded with rage that you might be missing another aspect of the problem. The reason these politicians need all this money (of course it would be much easier and more fair if they didn't) is because the public is so damn uninformed. In a presidential race it's a smaller issue (good chance that Joe Schmoe in Nebraska has heard of Obama and McCain), but for congressional elections, it's almost impossible to dethrone an incumbent, simply because having been in office is a form of press that contributes towards name recognition. Ideas and policies hardly matter in small elections because A) Chances are the people know little to nothing about who is running, other than the incumbent and B) All congresspeople do anyway is pander to their constituency, so there are no differences in policy between candidates to compare. Money=press=everything. Congress even allots upwards of 1 million for each incumbent to spend on their own reelections. This system results in "Fenno's Paradox" - people love their representative yet hate congress. Therefore congresspeople have no motivation except to spend all of their energy on pork and reelection. No wonder it's a fucking useless institution.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that public participation in politics has fallen so far since the 60's that policies hardly matter. Few enough people actually watch the debates; fewer research the candidates voting records and history; and practically nobody wastes time reading informed political commentary like Artie's Party (or comment on it). So how can the Messiah Obama get his message out there? $$$. Even then he has to appeal to the broadest range of voters, hence why presidential races take place "between the 45 yard lines" (of the conservative/liberal field). Simply put: Politicians need to be elected to win. Americans for the most part don't care about their ideas: heuristics and social identification do most of their deciding. Republicans and Democrats never change their minds. Nobody reads the newspapers. So money becomes the deciding factor. Would campaign reform solve the problem, or make elections a crapshoot? Chicken or the egg. I'm not quite sure. However, I do believe in retrospective voting. People are aware of their taxes, how much food costs, their mortgages, etc. If a president can do a good job during their first term, they serve a good chance of being reelected.
There are many other interesting aspects to this - pretty much everything I gleaned from Government 30, a class I took this spring. Very cool stuff, taught by Paul Peterson (pretty famous guy). And the broad theme was 'The Era of Permanent Campaign', as you alluded to in your post.
-mistaboogy
Alec,
I completely agree that ignorance of the American voter is a huge problem. However, I don't really see how private money provides any solution. The government could easily provide a few hundred million for public financing of candidates on all levels - in the grand scheme of the budget that would be an almost nominal expense. It would be great to have a more informed group of voters but this seems unlikely. Most voters either vote party line, or select haphazardly based on who they've heard of (incumbency advantage) and who seems like a "nice, trustworthy" person or whatever. Very few voters really understand much about the issues.
It would be easy to say that better public schools and tougher standards would help solve this problem but I have my doubts - when students have no desire to learn, a better funded school can do little to help them. Lots of Americans choose to be ignorant and just don't give a fuck, and I certainly don't think 30 second tv ads with catchy slogans will change that. Hopefully, the terrible job this administration is doing will get more people interested in the process.
In terms of retrospective voting, that has been the general trend in American politics until recently - namely when Bush defeated Gore in 2000 following the 8 years of prosperity under Clinton/Gore. Americans still espoused a very conservative, small government outlook during the 90's, however, so it is no real surprise that they went for a Republican in 2000. The upcoming election will sure be an interesting study in retrospective voting after the right wingers fucked up.
Oh yea and interesting reference to Fenno - I read some of his stuff in my Intro to American Politics Class - sounds like some of the same articles you read. Sounds like you took a lot of good econ and polisci classes your first year at Harvard.
-Artie
Post a Comment