Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Hard Cash That Wins the Vice-Presidency
We can't solve challenges until we have broken the lock the super-rich have on US politics
The Barack'n'Roll jet has returned to the United States, and it's just one hundred days until we know how the tour tee-shirt will end: Kabul, Baghdad, Berlin, London ... the White House? Now we are poised for their next move: the unveiling of the Veeps. In the next fortnight, John McCain and Obama will pick their number two, the man or woman who will take the keys if they take a bullet. While the debate has mostly been a personality-obsessed tide of tedium, if we blow off the froth we can find hints about the future of US politics - and the world.
The Republican hunt for a Vice-President has focused on one word: money. Panicked conservative commentators and senators have urged McCain to find a super-rich man to bolt on to the ticket, fast. Why? Because he could "invest" tens of millions of his own cash in the campaign - and persuade his friends to do the same. George W Bush's former chief speechwriter David Frum says megabucks Mitt Romney is the current favourite for Republican number two. It seems the Reagan-Clinton-Bush years have made Big Money so central to the US political system that, in Frum's words, "the Pluto-Vice Presidency" is back.
The last time the top 1 per cent owned a tottering 50 per cent of America's stocks, Charles W Fairbanks was put on to the Republican ticket simply because of his towering wallet. It was normal then. Plutocracy was so integral to the political system that it was standard practice to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency just because you were super-rich and prepared to spend, spend, spend to protect your interests. Enter Mitt Romney, stage right.
McCain has already sailed full-speed in the direction of his super-rich donors. His campaign has taken a fortune from the oil companies. In return, he promises to give them $4bn in tax cuts a year, to drill off the coast of the US, and to maintain US troops in Iraq even as the country's prime minister asks them to leave. It's a logical next step to put a representative of the super-rich on the ticket.
Yet some naíve observers are shocked - shocked! - because McCain built a reputation as a campaign reformer. But they forget the context. McCain only began to call for restrictions on corrupt donations after he was revealed to have taken a great tide of them. In the late 1980s he took money from a fraudster called Charles Keating, and in return lobbied hard for the government regulators to stop looking into his affairs. It worked. Keating went on to steal billions. McCain's reputation was busted - until he tried to make Big Money itself the issue.
But even as he was apparently campaigning for change, McCain continued taking donations from the super-rich and then lobbying federal regulators on their behalf. Now he even says he will appoint Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia, who is committed to striking down campaign finance reform. Pairing McCain with a super-rich tycoon would be a perfect symbol of what the world can expect from his presidency.
What about Obama's hunt? We're told to expect the unexpected, with whispers he may appoint recent or current Republicans such as Michael Bloomberg (yes, a billionaire plutocrat), Ann Veneman, or Chuck Hagel. The Democratic Party has long been enmeshed in the same corrupt hunt for money as the Republicans: Obama himself took money from the coal industry and in return opposed Kyoto until 2004. He has spoken out against this kind of corruption - but he keeps Hoovering up the cash, even now.
Why? Because it is these big moneyed interests that end up defining what counts as the "political centre" in US politics. For example, 80 per cent of American citizens consistently say the government should guarantee healthcare for everyone - yet this is considered left-wing and way-out-there. The New York Times says there is "no political support" for it, and Obama doesn't advocate it. Why? Because no huge corporations or super-rich donors will cough up cash for campaigns calling for it. They make huge profits from the current system - so they only support its political defenders. When Obama is applauded by pompous pundits for moving to The Centre, they don't mean he is getting closer to centre of The People, but to centre of The Money.
Yet the politicians who have best articulated this seem to be dropping out of the Veepstakes. John Edwards has apparently been outed as having a love-child. Al Gore doesn't want to do it. And Jim Webb - the senator from Virginia - has said firmly he won't do the job.
But it's worth dwelling for a moment on Webb, because he showed it is possible for a Democrat to win in long-time Republican states by crowbar-ing open these taboos. Webb is one of the most striking figures in US politics: a boxer-novelist, an ex-Marine-intellectual, a "redneck with tattoos" (his words) who quotes Tolstoy. Webb grew up in a military family, moving all over the South. He was intensely conscious of being part of a poor but tough Scots-Irish tribe that had migrated to America from the Highlands of Scotland. He fought in Vietnam and became a Republican, serving in the Reagan administration - until he realised his tribe was being scammed by the right.
When running for the Virginia senate seat in 2004, Webb started off 33 per cent behind. Today, "populist" is an all-purpose swear-word, shot at any politician who tries to mobilise popular support against an entrenched elite. But Webb picked it up from the gutter and pinned it to his chest as a badge of pride. The great movement of Populists who emerged in the 1890s across the South were the first to fight for the direct election of Senators, a graduated income tax, and an eight-hour working day. What's to be ashamed of there?
Webb repeated their cry, warning: "The existing law in America has become class law, a disguise that allows certain privileges to flow to a few dominant groups at the expense of the many." The US system is filled with politicians "who have made Faustian bargains in order to obtain the vast sums of money necessary to fund their campaigns" and are "akin to mouthpieces for special-interest groups". He warned that the Iraq War was being promoted for profit and would be "a disaster", creating even more jihadis. Result? He trounced his money-bloated Republican opponent.
We can't solve any of the great challenges of our time - global warming, or jihadism, or spiralling inequality - until we have broken the lock the super-rich have on US politics. McCain very obviously won't do it. Does Obama want to begin the slow work of picking that lock and tossing it aside? (Yes we can, Barack.) If he does, he mustn't appoint a right-wing Veep, just to appease an artificially-constructed centre set up by the super-rich. The US should be the Land of the Free - not the Land of the Fee.
--Johann Hari
©independent.co.uk
28 Comments so far
Show AllYou are quite right, Bill from Saginaw.
Elect first, then govern from the progressive left (a thing that then asks the bloggers to do what they do best: DEMAND).
But without "elect first" (Obama and the Dems being your only shot), the progressives don't get any shot at all except to blog to each other.
rumiluv - I second your short list of VP candidates for Obama, and the rationale of the short term and long term campaign strategy behind your winnowing process. Of the four, I personally still favor Bill Richardson. I would also like to see Obama junk tradition and name an Attorney General designate (Edwards perhaps?) who could go out on the campaign trail pressing themes about the need to restore respect for the rule of law and the Bill of Rights after all that the Bush regime has wrought.
Johann Hari writes "it is these big moneyed interests that end up defining what counts as the political centre in US politics....." Citing single payer universal health care as an example, Hari argues "no huge corporations or super rich donors will cough up cash for campaigns calling for it. They make huge profits from the current system - so they only support its defenders."
I think this explanation is only partially true, and it leaves out a more important part of the equation.
First, many huge corporations and fat cat donors this election cycle are covering their bets and donating to both major party camps because they read the same polls the rest of us do and they sense a big anti-GOP backlash vote is on the horizon. Also, there are less-huge entrepreneurs and filthy rich liberals out there who are philosophically attuned to the virtues finally creating a genuine national health care system within the United States that is not harnessed to the inefficiencies of the private health insurance models.
The more forbidable political problem is that any candid call for single payer universal health care by Obama would instantly unleash a torrent of fear-based demagoguery. Each component of the existing system - doctors, big insurance, HMO's, big pharma, hospital administrators, third party contract provicers, etc. - would reflexively look out for #1, and come out swinging as open partisan opponents of creating a genuine national health system, no matter how it was structured. The GOP would love nothing more. The much-needed full frontal attack upon the sins of corporate personhood in post-Reagan corporate America (as several comments above encourage) would be sure to create a similar negative dynamic.
Elect first. Then govern from the progressive left, in the manner of FDR.
Bill from Saginaw
siouxrose (11:12) - Oh yeah, don't worry! I have (& continue to) shed plenty of tears for exactly that.
Nonetheless, when Obama announces his running mate in a few weeks -- if it's a Republican (especially if it's Ann Veneman), I'm certainly going to think of all the DPA's who have tried to kid themselves that Obama is some sort of "progressive." And I'm going to have a good laugh about it. (Just for a few moments, anyway. I promise.) // Actually, Chuck Hagel is probably as "progressive" as most Democrats. (Of course, that's not saying much.)
RICH M: As you laugh yourself silly, shed some tears for the state of this nation. Being right in this instance (and you probably WILL be), is not a cause for celebration due to the gravity of what's snowballing our way as citizens.
The pity of the Veep-stakes is that any choice that shows the least bit of concern for the poor, those deprived of proper health care and all other folks in the lower 80% (income wise) of our populace and any meaningful measures to give them a "hand up" will be labelled as "socialist." The fact is, we have lost most of our concern for "social justice" and our leadership in general have shown little social concern in their public work. Maybe what we reaslly need is considerable more concern for social justice - - and not only in the U.S., but internationally as well!
It appears that voting for a third-party candidate will no longer kill the chances of the party to which the votes would otherwise have gone in a close election. Four states apparently are now committed to casting their electoral votes for the candidate that wins the popular election, and those four (Illinois, New Jersey, and two others) account for 50 of the necessary 270 electoral votes to win. For instance, in 2000, even with Florida going to Bush, Gore would have been elected since he still had more of the popular vote. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't all of this speculation merely reinforce the exaggeration of power in the executive? Shouldn't we be focusing on delegating power downward and broadly?
mrE: Au contraire, a match made in heaven, McCain-Rice vs. Obama-Clinton would be a fight to the death, totally bringing DROVES of people to the polls. I put Hillary up against Condoleeza any day. Now we're talking!!
And just an added note, in the above scenario, the women would BOTH provide the intellectual heft. Right now we're suffering from brain-lite, once again!
iabmc: The only thing that's shocking is that we haven't done something to STOP this insidious regression into the economic past over the past EXACTLY 40 years. Boomers, it's all on us; time to stand up and be counted. This needs to end with a BANG, not a whimper . . . .
"The last time the top 1% owned 50% of America's stock's..."
Am I the only one that's SHOCKED?
I like McCaskill of Missouri or Barbara Boxer, or Bill Richardson, or Feingold; someone who will not alienate the base already built among blacks, idealistic youth, and many working people and leftists. Each of the listed candidates would help activate a significant part of the electorate (women, Latinos, &/or Jewish people--why Boxer might be perfect). I think the vice presidential choice is a statement that exceeds any amount of TV propanganda that $ can buy. Of course the price to be paid by not picking a top 1 per center is pissing off corporate media. But, I think that a choice that electrifies the base might give him majority that that frees him from the corporate shackles. This might be a dream, but it is the only way.
Many of Obama's recent positions have been bad enough, but understandable given the space he's allowed by corporate media. To choose a wealthy conservative for running mate would be disastrous for the campaign; and I think he understands would increase the likelihood of Obama being killed.
If Obama sticks to some of his abhorrent positions or picks a wealthy conservative, as long as the state I'm in seems safe, I will vote 3rd party as I did in '00 & '04. But, Obama must win! A McCain presidency will continue the disaster for the US and the world; and, I believe Obama has the potential to be a great president. We shall see.
everyone forgets that mccain and the repugs have an ace up their sleeve...
with condo-sleeza rice as the vp candidate, an obama/clinton ticket's minority appeal is undercut...
jlocke: Obama will have the power and the Greens will not; however, having a President who may LISTEN to the Greens is much more preferable than having a President who will laugh in our faces. We can't give this away to McCain, and I do totally respect your devotion to progressive causes. The question is, which way is the QUICKEST way to our goals, since our time is, sadly, running out. Thanks for responding.
And RichM, if that happens, we're ALL screwed, and then our REAL test begins!!
Pkokinos:"We can only hope that Obama will listen to his grassroots base, and, if not, that we can fire up MORE grassroots movements to catapult all of us forward, issue by issue"
How is hoping that Obama will listen to non-millionaire Americans any more realistic than supporting the Green party that is not only listening to progressives, they are progressives, on issue after issue?
I can't wait until Obama chooses a Republican as his running mate. Oh, the symbolism! It will be just so perfect. I'll laugh myself sick.
Congratulations, OldBadgertoo, for bringing our attention to the abrupt about-face that the progressive media have made now that Hillary is out of the picture. Obama has made one misstep after another, and all of those who fell for the "We can do it" hype because they hated Hillary so much have once again put us all at the mercy of those who will manipulate the heir-apparent into doing their bidding.
An exciting ticket would have been Clinton-Obama, because at least Hillary has the guts to try to get something done, despite the deadweight of Bill hanging around her neck---talk about an albatross! At least that ticket would have, could have united the blue-collar + minority advocates behind one ticket and moved some real progressive thinking into the White House. (Hey, take a look at who Hillary's grassroots supporters really are!)
We can only hope that Obama will listen to his grassroots base, and, if not, that we can fire up MORE grassroots movements to catapult all of us forward, issue by issue. We're going to have to CALL HIM on his promises!! Maybe it's true, as this long campaign has shown us: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow." Maybe this is OUR test, and not his.
And, pardon me for saying this again, and I truly do understand the need for a broader political system, but if you're now back to voting for Ralph, the most important principle you have---a stronger, smarter, more humane, and less warlike nation---is in danger of being usurped once again by hawks like McCain.
And yet Hari was singing Obama's praises and slinging mud at Hillary Clinton up till the point when the media and the DNC selected The New Messiah as presumptive nominee. What an object lesson in being cautious about wishing for things. We're stuck with Obama.
How did we end up with a country where it's 50/50, anyway?
If you believe in Obama, then certainly vote for him. However, on the other hand, if you vote for someone you don't believe in, you just insure that someone you do believe in will forever be a wasted vote. Government by the second-worst is no bargain.
Great article. Corporate personhood is at the bottom of 90% of our nation's woes (conservatively estimating).
That's not going to change under either McCain or Obama, but voting Nader or McKinney (unless your state is so lopsided it just doesn't matter) will give us 4 more years of the worst things have ever been.
I predict that, if we actually have an election, by Inauguration Day our economy will be so far in the tank all platforms and agendas will be toast. I'm voting for the candidate who shows the most potential to galvanize America for a New New Deal: Obama.
At least Edwards does not have the millstone of hypocracy to carry around his neck like `ol what's his face with the Contract On America in his pocket. Children happen, just ask Mother Nature,,,or Jesus.
LambsieDivy Said: "Edwards apparently has a love-child???"
Who Cares. That's not news... that's gossip.
"White House sees record budget gap in 2009"
We can all help out Bush and the Neo-Cons by taking our 'short term' losses now and then deducting them from any income tax.
:)
A few more tax cuts for the filthy rich and all those Bushites with Israeli passports will need to bail out America. Sure they will...
Edwards apparently has a love-child???
Draft Webb. Give Obama some balls.
Nothing will change until the idea of 'Corporate Citizenship' is terminated with extreme prejudice
The economic elites will never allow a leader who threatens their position of wealth to live. The change called for by Webb would require an attentive educated public that does not exist. The likelihood of a significant progressive movement prior to a collapse seems remote. I see no real evidence of a broad-based progressive movement.
There is a cultural movement underway at the local level that may keep the dream alive by surviving the eventual collapse.
I despise Mitt Romney more than anyone else on earth, but I do think he will be McCain's choice (insert huge sigh)
I wish Obama would choose someone like Barbara Boxer or Russell Feingold (i know: Feingold is terrible on Israel/Palestine), but I know: it's all about $$$, so someone terrible will be the choice (or Hillary Clinton, which would be a good choice IMO).
I'm going to vote for McKinney or Nader, but I have to live with the consequences of all the idiots in this country who stay mired in the muck of the two (sic) party system (insert huge sigh)
SHOULD be the land of the free.
The worrying part is that the vast majority Americans would be super-rich self indulging elitists if they had the opportunity--hence they allow the system to continue. When it becomes obvious that they are getting heisted by this obscene minority, then they scream, until they are pacified with a bit more money ( things like $1200 economic stimuli). Critical thinking? Whassat? Modest aspirations? Huh? Social justice? Gimme a break!