Clinton versus Bush in 1992. Another Bush versus Gore (Clinton's Vice President) in 2000. And now, or rather next year, the very strong possibility of yet another Bush versus another Clinton in 2016.
To quote an anonymous European on the subject, 300 million people, and this is the best we can do?
Well, in one sense, of course it isn't. Inside and outside of politics, there are plenty of people who could be at least a decent President, if not an exceptional one. And yet, next year is shaping up as a choice between two dynasties. Personally, although I have my issues with Hillary (turning children back at the border may be one, unless she "evolves"), it's an easy choice. I'd rather have Clintonian peace and prosperity that Bushian attempts to sacrificing the interests of the country for the sake of appeasing the unappeasable desires of the Tea Party. The 90s versus the Aughts? Is that really a contest? Can you say "Iraq"? A lot faster than you can say "Monica." And it's pretty easy to determine which of those disasters had the greater consequences.
But I agree with former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley. The Presidency isn't a crown to be passed back and forth between two families. So why are we locked into this duopoly?
Money. Or rather, the extent to which money is increasing concentrated in the hands of an increasingly shrinking numerical minority.
We are literally watching greed in the process of watching greed consume itself, as well as the rest of us. First, the playing field is tilted a little bit toward people with money. Then, as those people get more money rolling toward them, they decide to see how much farther they can tilt the playing field in their direction. They succeed in doing so, and then decide to spend even more money tilting the field even further their way.
Until we reach the point at which we are now. One side has most of the money and, although they could buy any leader they want, prefer the superficial security of a known name. It's not a name associated with excellence, but we survived even a screw-up who got "elected" with it, so how bad can another one be? Elect an unknown, and all of your capital gains might go up in thermonuclear smoke.
And the other side? It doesn't have the resources to elect someone who has the courage to advance their interests. It's forced to accept a compromised version of an advocate, one who won't rock the boat too severely for the sake of the moneyed supporters aligned with them. And those moneyed interests have something in common with their political opponents--they love money, and don't want to risk losing it. Sadly, money is the only thing that unites the two parties, not patriotism. But, for now, it seems to be enough to hold them together.
Excessive wealth, contrary to conservative fantasies, does not lead people to take greater risks. It leads them to do exactly the opposite. They become consumed with fear that they may suddenly lose it all. Their thinking becomes risk-adverse in the extreme. This phenomenon is not limited to politics; it's why our movies are remakes of sequels of remakes of sequels ... well, you get the idea. And so it is with our presidential politics. Remakes and sequels.
If you truly care about presidential dynasties, you need to care equally about the income inequality that supports it. Sadly, mere involvement in elections, essential as that is, is not enough. We need to find a way to build a mass movement that cuts through the media-manufactured sideshow that masquerades as our political discourse, and that focuses on a realignment of our national finances. The 1% may feel that's something they can't afford. The rest of us know that the alternative is something none of us can afford.
No comments:
Post a Comment