Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Elections Are For Suckers
Let’s just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has the same significance for us as it had for those Iraqis who got conned into thinking they were participating in some grand democratic experiment.
Our own elections, the ones our government has modeled for the world, are a hoax. What other word should we use to describe this year’s presidential election, whose outcome will turn on which party’s super PACs gets the most generous bribes from billionaires? The Republicans, enabled by decisions of a Supreme Court they still control, were the first out of the gate and are far more culpable in destroying our system of popular governance. But the Democrats, no less committed to winning at any cost to political principle, have now jumped in.
The generally reserved New York Times editorial page responded to the Obama campaign’s decision to seek super PAC funding with a scathing editorial headlined “Another Campaign for Sale.” The Times reminded that Barack Obama, in his State of the Union speech two years ago, called out the Supreme Court justices sitting before him over their decision to free special interests from campaign spending limits. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” Obama said then. “They should be decided by the American people.” But sadly, as the Times editorial noted this week, “On Monday, the President abandoned that fundamental principle and gave in to the culture of the Citizens United decision that he once denounced as a ‘threat to our democracy.’ ”
Monday was the day the Obama campaign sent out an e-mail announcing that members of the president’s administration would solicit funds for Priorities USA Action, one of the super PACs that can now, thanks to the Supreme Court decisions that Obama had castigated, raise unlimited funds in an effort to sway the election.
Just as the super political action committee supporting Republican primary contender Newt Gingrich had raised $10 million from Nevada gambling kingpin Sheldon Adelson and his wife, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama campaign set its sights on media mogul Haim Saban.
A backer of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008, Saban had not subsequently supported Obama because of criticisms over the president’s actions toward Israel. Perhaps because the president has done nothing to effectively pressure the Israeli government to make any concessions toward Palestinian self-determination, Saban recently made his first contribution to Obama and in a written statement Tuesday said, “We are looking at all the Super PACs at the moment, will surely participate, but haven’t decided on the details.”
Saban may be one of the more idealistic mega-donors the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action PAC is now courting. Less savory, if one cares about the hold that Wall Street has exerted over this administration, are some of the top donors Obama aides met with Tuesday to urge that they contribute to the PAC. The list included Hamilton E. James, the president of the huge private equity firm Blackstone, and Robert Wolf, the chairman of UBS Group Americas.
Not that the Republicans should worry, since their list of super PAC supporters is far more powerful. To date, the pro-Democrat PACs have collected a paltry $19 million as compared with the $91 million raised last year by committees controlled by Karl Rove and the allies of the Republican presidential candidates. This disparity is the president’s justification for abandoning his principled opposition to such groups. “We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back,” said Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager. “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”
That argument would be more compelling if not for the fact that it was the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, who “disarmed” by accepting public funding in the last election. Obama subverted what remained of political campaign finance reform by turning instead to private contributions, with the result that major Wall Street interests greatly financed his victory. It is not entirely true that shunning the PACs would have left the president at a disadvantage, since he commands predominant media space by virtue of his office. He could have exploited the fat-cat contributions to Republicans as confirmation that they are servants of the 1 percent that has caused the rest of us so much misery. Once again he has failed to take that case for economic justice to the American people and instead validated the Republican assault on what remains of our democracy.
65 Comments so far
Show Allwrong finger.
Obama and the GOP are a tag team made in investment banker heaven.
We have felt this way for years, but voted only as a symbolic gesture. At this point, even that is lost.
Obama has refined the castigate and join strategy. From Obama's 1) June 2008 waiving of public campaign financing, and 2) his widespread 2008 campaign castigating of Billy Tauzin's preventing Medicare from negotiating drug prices followed by Obama perpetuating Billy's actions as the kickoff for Obamacare legislation during his first month in office, serial castigate and join strategy has characterized Obama's presidency.
I might have been tempted to vote 3rd party if Obama had NOT decided to take the money. Sure, the whole election process has been subverted and perverted, but that's the current game. At least a few more people are aware of the wild, wild western democracy comedy-drama. And it's not a bad idea to turn off the tv until next Thanksgiving (or later).
Obama vastly outspent McCain and will in all likely hood outspend the rethugs this time around......
Give me a break.
Go ahead. Take a break. You have my permission. I certainly hope Obama outspends the opposition. If not, then this country is even more fucked up than I imagine.
Your idea of what constitutes 'fucked up' is itself fucked up.
There are so many Obamabots around who don't get it. Either it's the "less of the two evils", or "he'll do better in the second term", or "Oh the Supreme Court appointments are at stake"....and many many superfluous and totally illogical arguments that they these repeat like parrots. It's a waste of time to try and convince them otherwise.
Greg you suffer from the terminal blindness of all mainstream Dems, even those who call themselves "liberal". Glenn Greenwald just reported some polling showing that significant majorities of "liberal" Dems support keeping Gitmo open. it would be the understatement of the century to suggest that this trend indicates an absolute failure to grasp even the most basic concepts of liberalism, justice and the rule of law, yet Obama supporters happily, vacantly support it. My point? You happily, vacantly support Obama's superpac move, because of your absolute failure to grasp even the most basic concepts of democratic, representative govt.
for 2008 Obama raised more than McCain, both on Wall St and via small donations. Obama's final small donation dollar amount was far greater than any in American history up to that point. What does this mean? Simple: Obama could have actually governed as the President of the USA, rather than the President (or was it White House spokesperson?) of Wall St. If so, he might have been able raise even more in small donations than last time, thereby obviating the need to grovel to Haim Saban, Lloyd Blankfein and the rest of their wretched, misanthropic, anti-deomcratic, plutocratic, reactionary, war-mongering but STINKING RICH ilk.
But none of this would have occured to you Greg because you have swallowed the Kool Aid; you believe in what Washington calls "the consensus". You think that this fucking awful, banal, trivial, off-topic reality show, this frightful yet tedious kabuki is actually a democratic election process. This you excuse by saying that "this is the current game". I suppose prisoners at gitmo must content themselves with the same bleak observation, but then they are behind bars, perhaps indefinitely. You are not. Yours is a prison of your own making. You don't have to stay in there..
Excellent article, very refreshing. The only way to battle this is to get a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on every ballot. Can you imagine being one of those billionaires and losing to NOTA! It'd make you think twice. Think of NOTA as a generic non-partisan Third Party candidate. The difference is NOTA couldn't be written off by the media because of lack of funding, obscurity, etc.
Kane Jeeves
I second your motion for NOTA!
Peace
Pet
You're smart. Voting against the establishment, both D/R partees, in the election has a multitude of advantages. Obviously, voting coherently with our personal philosophies keep bodies, minds and souls in sync. What could be more important than this? Voting third party also is a vote for democracy itself. Pretty important in the big scheme of things, anyone's pet frog could agree. But another motive is to turn the tables on the racketeers. Look at FSF's General Public License for software. Two thirds of all web servers run on this software. More like three quarters, or maybe more, outside Merka. This software is copylefted, instead of copyrighted. Copyleft works, "big time, if you will". Copyright is a law that is rampantly abused to enforce a culture of greed today. Copyleft reverses the language and employs the very same law to destroy the cult of greed. If we vote third party in the elections we're nullifying the munny race. Copyleft works. Voteleft can work too. Write in a name on the ballot of someone you personally know/trust to serve the people's better interests. Hijack that election. Cancel the game. Bury the racket. Help build the alter-establishment.
The politicians are so fearful of the none of the above option. They love to get in by default.
I like the term Copyleft. Copyright and Patent laws only favor the rich and powerful.
I'm all for voting for the third party!
If US Americans voted in large numbers for a third party, the corporate rulers would redouble their efforts to control public opinion and election results. If a third party candidate won the Presidency, she or he would be killed in a terrorist attack, and martial law would be put in place to protect the American people from their own stupidity.
I don't know what would happen should a third party candidate win but everyone can be certain that person would not be allowed to serve.
I have started writing in names of candidates: My Relatives, favorite philosophers, other world leaders, etc.
Not if that third party was generic....see my comment on NONE OF THE ABOVE (NOTA).
A nihilist NOTA won't get you anywhere. You have to vote FOR somebody, not against everybody. A NOTA is just a more motivated version of staying home on the basis that "voting doesn't make any difference".
So I favor the third party idea. And I don't think you have to vote for relatives or favorite philosophers, etc. There will be at least one third party candidate (Green Party) with a serious platform and eager--though very underfunded--campaign. Support (one of) them. Be positive, vote FOR something you like, and don't worry what others do because you aren't them and what others do is not your responsibility. YOU do the right thing. Then go home with a clean conscience.
In the past, I've voted both lesser-of-two-evils and third party, and have personal experience of how one feels afterward. Voting third party is way better. Lesser-of-two-evils, as the article says, is for suckers, and only perpetuates evil.
And NOTA is just a pointless tantrum.
I think you're naive. I would love to live in a country where voting for a third party candidate might have meaning (other than to make myself feel self-righteous). But in the current climate of media domination and pay to play any third party is going to go almost unnoticed. Heck, look at Ron Paul who's really a third party candidate under cover of being a repub. Even HE barely gets coverage other than as a kook.
No, NOTA is a legit way for Dem and Repub alike to express discontent with the existing system.
a thought: If we are looking to the media for legitimization of our political views, we will never receive it. Why pay attention to what the main media say?
So in the "current climate of media domination", what will NOTA exactly give you?
cicero_confused is either naive or... just confused.
It's important to differentiate between apathy (however well deserved), boycotting as a strategy and the NOTA option.
Boycotting the election, if done with proactive media events, is anything but apathetic - just as a strategic boycott of a corporation or nation is a potentially effective tool, at least for public education if not actual political change.
A None of the Above option is, perhaps, the most effective way of measuring the public's unwillingness to accept the two-party duopoly machine, complete with voter disenfranchisement, rigged voting machines, and a Big-Spender-Takes-All rule. A NOTA option would be most effective if a "win" triggered a followup election with different candidates until one was offered who could receive majority approval.
When I first started voting, back in 1970, I remember telling myself that I would not want to vote for anyone who actually wanted to be president, as that would indicate a level of personal ambition that would portend danger to the republic. Perhaps a NOTA option could be coupled with a Draft-the-Best-Person-for-President write-in line so that We the People could choose who should be leading the nation rather than the personal ambitions of highly-connected people.
First of all, voting doesn't make any difference -- not when it comes to the most important issues of the day, such as war and peace, constitutional rights, and environmental protection. Despite the billions spent on electioneering, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between D's and R's on these matters, and because of the electoral framework of the United States, other parties are unable to compete on a level playing field and have zero chances of winning.
Secondly, the "none of the above" ballot option is considered an important democratic principle in most countries, even in countries considered undemocratic by the USA. If citizens feel that they are not being provided any choices, if they are opposed to everyone on the ballot, they ought to be able to reject the entire election and call for a do-over. The U.S. electoral system is like being given a choice how you want to die: by stabbing or by gunshot. The choice of "none of the above" is essential when stabbing or gunshot are your only two other choices.
You are not confused, cicero. Yours are excellent reasons for voting third party.
We should always follow Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
Hi port_lookout, Good quote, Restated. Act in such a way that if you saw you children emulate your action, it would make you proud. Good Day.
That's it, I'm writing in my dog for president...
The de facto US governing system is a plutocracy, Mr. Scheer, and a mindlessly self devouring one at that.
I don't think we should be trying to make Rule By The Rich acceptable or tolerable in any way at all. But that's exactly what some of us do by advocating tinkering with a few in-house dials and switches.
The entire Control Panel is democratically defective, and needs to be junked NOW.
Easier said than done? You bet...
But a radical junking of our present money-based elections system ought to be at least our AIM and focus -- instead of more interminable baby stepping 'reforms' and useless window dressings of what will remain otherwise a structurally un-reformable machinery of institutionalized privilege and civic rot..
WE NEED TWO THINGS:-
1) We need a democracy that is not controlled by money.
2) We need a media that is not controlled by money.
(1): I WILL TALK ABOUT THE FIRST:-
When we talk about democracy, what we mean is that the parliment
represents the people.
I would like to propose a system where eligable people (all adults) have
a social security number, and the representatives are chosen by means of
a televised lotto on a weekly basis. The digits of the lotto will form
a social security number, and hence choose a person. That person will
be asked to become a politician for 3 years. The position must be paid
well enough to make it attractive.
Hence, our politicians will be chosen from our population at random,
with no chance for indoctrination or arm twisting by the big money or by
AIPAC, and with no need for popularism or raising of funds. By the laws
of mathematics and random numbers, a randomly chosen selection of people
WILL be completely representative of the people. The peoples
representatives will of course need access to experts.
(2): I WILL TALK ABOUT THE SECOND:-
Having the private sector running the media eventually means media
monopoly by the elite. It means having a brainwashed population, that
will then permit the bending or breaking of the laws to benefit the
rich. But having a government owned and controlled media is quite
possibly even worse.
I would like to propose limited private media ownership. Each media
outlet (TV station, newspaper, etc) needs to have a given number of
shares, according to the count of its readership, or audience size. The
proposed limitation is simply this:- No one person may own more than a
single media share. This way there will be no media power brokers, and
Monsanto or rich bankers will not tell the media what it has to say.
Jackanapes, swindlers and scoundrels abound in Washington. The system has evolved to a point where the needs of the people are no longer even a secondary consideration.
Witness Rick Santorum- bloviating about how contraception is wrong (I saw this in a clip today). It really makes me wonder about the sanity of these people.
Then there's Romney singing "God Bless America".
I think the choice of talking points is a real slap in the face of every thinking human being in the country. The question is: who are these people talking to? How many Americans think attacking Iran is a good idea?
I'm just dumbfounded at the blatant ignorance of the electorate.
Rick Santorum doesn't have one functioning brain cell in his vacuous head. It is a tremendous insult to real thinking Americans of every stripe that it has come to even having to listen for one minute to mindless Neo-con Troglodytes.
Amen to that!
I'm afraid that in most States a third Party candidate will not appear on the ballot.
If Stalin had had a clone of himself, he could have ran against the clone in Soviet elections thereby aping our sorry excuse for a democracy. The corporate mantra is... "we don't care who you vote for, as long as its a Democrat or a Republican!" Until the majority of Americans can grasp this simple reality, nothing will fundamentally change.
The United States died in December 2008. The democratic process cannot bring it back to life. 300 million people are wasting their physical and mental powers flogging a dead horse, all the while yelling: THIS is NOT a dead horse. Get UP, get UP!"
It's a dead horse. To day we have no legitimate government in the former USA. And unless we soon start thinking outside-the-box for survival solutions, we'll be toast as a People as well as a former nation.
Trylon
No, Trylon, we don't have a legitimate government, but where was this wonderful country you're talking about before 2008? When in the entire history of this country is the period that you want to return to? Name it and it will be easy to find all sorts of horrendous features, like huge proportions of the population being denied basic rights, imperialist wars wreaking havoc on other countries, a small minority of the population exploiting all the rest. *That*'s our history.
The goal should not be to return to some fictitious past but to create a new USA (hopefully with a different name), building on all of the positive things that are now going on outside of the mainstream.
If you mean the idea of a free country governed by a loose collection of states with the view that the government that governs least, governs best, well, then that United States died in 1789.
As long as money buys votes, more money buys more votes. It's a reflection on the electorate. If a candidate has huge money, as evidenced by big slick ads, it tells me that that candidate is likely corrupt. Am I alone in this?
Good article! Back to Rick the insane's victories! Now today the mainstream press in the form of today's issue of USA Today does finally get to the factor of low voting turn out in the GOP contests, but absolutely refuses to look at what might have caused it and whom it clearly benefits. The fact is clear in Minnesota, that the last moment notice given to all about the exact schedule and location of caucuses favors those with looniest of the loony right backers-- Rick the insane. This the media surely does approving this weirdo's far right agenda. They know whom they've been for all along. They want the fruit cake in the White House. A large turnout would be his political death and he and the press know it. He won't stand a snowballl's chance in hell likely of beating the current president. Small comfort though to progressives! This president's defeat by the Mitt coud reset the whole political system back to where we actually have two distinct parties. Best hope is Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate opposing the president! Then Romney wins, thus ending all the one party system now in effect. Dems have to go back to being Dems to get the White House back. The OWS movement takes off big time.
I'm not a nihilist. I believe in democratic elections.
I just don't believe in rigged elections. I don't believe in black box computerized voting machines rigged to go violently Republican if the election is anywhere near close. I also don't believe in the two candidate version of elections, where both candidates are already bought and the third candidate is the "spoiler" that no one dares vote for.
It's incumbent on ourselves, as citizens, to design and to run our own fair elections.
It would be nice to identify exactly where and when the computerized American election thieves are going to strike next, to watch the movements of the expected election felons day and night, to take careful polls as evidence of wrongdoing, and to identify ways of redesigning election equipment to stop insider fraud.
However, we also need a confession of the citizens that our elections are rigged by huge money, which causes huge government graft, in a positive feedback cycle.
I can name two clear avenues to a less corrupt government. First, if you elect ten times as many government officials then you dilute their power. Then a typical bribe won't buy what it used to buy. Ten times the representatives might mean a lowering of the power of money to 1/20 of its former power.
Second, proportional representation elections crush the power of money to rig those elections. Electing nine city council members instead of one mayor flattens the power of big money to maybe 1/100 of its former strength, in my opinion.
Do you want to be a nihilist? Go get a copy of "angry birds", stick your nose in a screen and don't bother us. Do you want to be a citizen.
Agree with you completely. The fact is we have a broken system, however till the system is repaired it is the one we must operate in. Sometimes wonder how many of the posters on this site are conservatives posing as disaffected liberals. The amount of anti Obama speech would lead me to believe that quite a few of them are.
Here it comes...... If you're against obama then you must be a conservative troll.......
But in reality IF you support Obama and his actions it's in fact YOU who are the conservative troll - or a out and out Hypocrite.
Face the facts - obama has continued the Bush agenda..... From bank bailouts and covered up criminality in the mortgage industry, to endless war, to sucking p to the oil companies etc etc etc.... The list is quite endless.
Oh wait - democrats never let something as inconsequential as the FACTS get in the way of their failed ideology.
Never said that. The problem with the electronic media are that you never really know who you are talking with. My issue with many posters is that as noble and visionary as their aspirations are for a better society they continually seem to ignore the reality of where they are and what they have to deal with. We have, in 2012, a corrupt 2 party system run by and for the ruling 1%. Changing that will take time. So you have to determine for yourself do you think you and your views would be welcomed at the republican table or the democrats table. I really do not see any room for change with a party that proclaims it's desire to revert to a mythical Norman Rockwell America. Therefore that leaves me with the Democrats.
Actually you did say it above. It's still right there.
The problem with the dem vs repub is that it is a game of 3 card Monte..... The repubs move to the right - the dems 2 step right along with them becoming more and more and more conservative....
Until they are as bad - or Worse - than the repubs -
In fact since the left would stand up to a repub but rolls over in compliance with Anything Obama wants to do it is even worse when a Democrat is in office.
No repub could cut Social Security - it takes a democrat to do that as they are seen as the protectors of Social Security.
And Obama is as corrupt and sold-out to the 1% as bush was.
Let's focus on the ACTIONS and not the words of the politicians.
Frankly it's democrats that have No Line they won't pass over to keep their team in office - the politicians know this Hence you still get taken advantage of every single time. You can't get change by accepting it when your guy is in office breaking International Law and the Constitution!
Just like Charlie brown and Lucy yanking the football away - you dems will believe anything if your Supreme Leader wills it.
You are correct. They are here, they are legion, and very loud. They use the same reasoning and talking points as the RNC, and Karl Rove tactics to the letter. I'm sorry but there are other people responsible for the state of things besides POTUS, and they need to be called out too. Boner and Mcconnell in particular. Flame away.
Aipac wins again. Buckle up and bend over, Iran...here comes ol' one eye.
There IS a dime's worth of difference between a democratic president and a republican president.......(i.e. think George Bush vs. Al Gore). Whether we like it or not Obama is just making sure there isn't a $50 million worth of negative advertising difference bewteen himself and Mitt R. To paraphrase Lincoln, I'd love to have a purist..........but we've got to have Obama. (Anarchy or something worse is not a real option.)
Nonsense. There is not a single, meaningful difference between them.
It used to be said that democrats voted welfare while republicans voted warfare. Now, it's all-warfare, all the time. Honestly, I'd rather have George W for president than Obomber but they're both war criminals.
Warfare is the new welfare just as guns are the new sex.
I agree. About a dimes worth, no more.
"Think of George Bush vs Al Gore"
.
You mean Al Gore the right wing war hawk who was a self-proclaimed proud supporter of the original Gulf War and the murderous sanctions that followed ... except for the fact that he believed they didn't quite go far enough (the sanctions caused the deaths of an estimated 1 million Iraqis... mostly children under the age of 5 .. which lead to the resignations of two UN assistant-secretary generals ... one of whom stated that the sanctions amounted to genocide ..... but that just wasn't enough for Al Gore!)
.
When asked at a debate less than one month before the 2000 election if there was any substantial differences between his position on the Middle East/Iraq and Bush's ... Gore said: "I haven't heard any yet."
.
In fact, in one debate in October 2000 Bush and Gore expressed agreement with, or support for, the other's positions 32 times (Michael Moore counted.) The fact is that there was hardly any difference between the two ... especially on Iraq ... which is probably only one of the most important issues defining our time.
.
No one should be surprised, 12 years later, with a "democrat" in office that there's hardly a bit of difference between him and his "republican" predecessor.
.
A purist? Heck, I'd love to have someone who doesn't think it's ok for the US military to go rampaging around the globe. Obama clearly fails to meet even that very low standard ... as did both Bush and Gore.
Both political parties are owned "lock, stock and barrel" by Zionist interests and the military-industrial corporatocracy. Voting is a ridiculous gesture akin to a warden letting prisoners vote on prison rules to placate those that actually believe they have some say in how the prison is run. Delusional idiocy knows no limits.
Real change can ONLY happen outside the political arena.