Less than three weeks from election day and both parties are trying to outdo each other in terms of promoting a massive realignment of the legislature. We all are assured regularly that the mass media are not biased to one side or the other of the political spectrum. We accept that as truth as surely as we have confidence that the beachfront property we’ve been offered in Florida will be a great home site and the bridge we are being sold over the Hudson in NYC is actually for sale. The press has told us that the voters are “mad as hell and aren’t going to take it any longer.” They’ve got the proof in the polls and the Dems are eager to agree with that view. What’s really surprising is the parallel eagerness of the Republicans to forecast defeat as well.
What ever happened to optimism, confidence and that “bright city on the hill”? It looks as though Karl Rove, the Wizard behind the curtain, is the only one who seems willing to predict victory.
Voters Dissatisfied
Time Looks Left
Rove Upbeat
The question you’ve got to ask yourself is, “do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?”
I’ve been a pessimist about democracy as a means of governing for a long time. There’s too much evidence of blatant apathy and ignorance among the masses. They don’t know and they don’t care about issues. They do respond with some drooling and lip-smacking to Pavlovian stimulation with some scandals. And, if you aggressively keep repeating catchy sound-bites they will be able to repeat them on signal.
Let’s take a look at what an intelligent voter might consider in making election choices this cycle. It is about the issues, isn’t it? Remember the George Carville mantra from the 1992 election that gave us Bill Clinton? “It’s the economy, stupid!”
Well, how’s the economy doing? Man on the street has been conditioned to reply something about rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent and jobs being outsourced. What do we see in hard facts? Well, the Dow-Jones has skyrocketed into new territory over 12,000. That, despite the incredible impact on the economy immediately after the 9/11 attacks. So, the market is good.
Interest rates have been steady for consumers. Sure the fed rate has been adjusted upward regularly to keep a throttle on inflation, but anyone would have to confess that quarter of a point interest was not a realistic long-term strategy. For Joe Bagadonutz in the street, the mortgage rate is fairly constant around 6%; bank interest has been creeping steadily upward—I saw some CD rates recently for reasonably short terms in the mid-fives; and cars are still being sold for no-interest loans. Monetarists will have to feel comfortable. Oh, and increases in cost-of-living indices are remarkably low. In other words, the economy is booming. Housing starts are up. Unemployment is down. Consumer confidence is up. Productivity is up. And, how about the price of gasoline?
So, is there a problem reflected in what the current administration is doing economy-wise? Doesn’t seem so, but then do the voters know all of this?
What about security? Do you feel less secure now than before 9/11? Of course you do! Who wouldn’t feel less secure after that day that made us all painfully aware of our vulnerability? We woke up and now we know that there are people who wish to kill us for simply being Americans. What would a change in administration do on that front?
We know what the current administration has been doing. They’ve been killing terrorists and attempting to build democracy in the volatile Middle East. They are the ones who recognized and warned us about an “Axis of Evil”. Well, duh! How has that evolved? Apparently the administration had pretty good info that the nuts in Iran, N. Korea and Iraq were pretty well committed to doing us harm. Has this been demonstrated satisfactorily for the man in the street? One would think so, but somehow the message gets convoluted and the conclusion seems to be that we should make nice with Kim and Osama and Ahmadenijad. Don’t you have to be a bit off-center to honestly believe that resisting these people is the right course of action? Would withdrawal from Iraq leave the world a better place? How long would it take before Tel Aviv became a green glass glowing parking lot?
So, we know that the current administration sees evil and seeks to take firm action to minimize the danger to America. We know that the opposition seeks to withdraw from Iraq, negotiate with Kim and pacify Ahmadenijad with nuclear power plants. That, they assure us will make the rest of the world love us again. Bad assumption—they didn’t love us in the first place.
Are taxes your problem? The folks seeking to replace the Republicans keep telling you about tax cuts for the wealthy. The problem is that in America, it is the wealthy that pay taxes. If you don’t pay tax, you can’t get much of a cut. They want you to believe that we’ve got to restore those taxes that were cut a few years ago so that we can raise revenue. The problem here again is that facts don’t support that premise. The tax cuts have fueled the economy and given us higher revenues, more jobs, and a better business climate.
Maybe it’s the scandals. Yes, that’s got to be it. The corruption is cause for change. Yet, we don’t see a monopoly on corruption. While Mark Foley is the disgusting poster boy du jour for deviance, we’ve got the mourning for Gerry Studds who is lionized for his flamboyant lifestyle. Cunningham is in prison (deservedly so) and DeLay is out of office while Congressman William Jefferson is still serving after his freezer full of marked money was discovered by a federal search warrant and Sen. Harry Reid is handing out campaign contributions as tips to his residence staff at the Ritz-Carlton. Seems like corruption should be abhorred, but it isn’t exclusive to either party and really shouldn’t be extended to paint other candidates.
What about the timely (coincidence?) release of the smoking gun books of Bob Woodward and Frank Rich? If one needed to refute the arguments that there is no left-wing bias in the major print media, it would be hard to avoid throwing these tomes on the table. They cater to the lowest forms of political debate tending more toward vitriol and villianization than rationale, well-reasoned argument. More importantly, they seldom get read by voters who merely absorb the occasional sound-bite or reviewer nugget as a synthesis of the entire work.
It is devilishly difficult to predict what is going to happen on election night. I’d like to think that the knee-jerk liberals who don’t delve very deeply into the issues will not follow through on their rhetorical assurances of voting. I’d like to believe that those who do vote will ask themselves what is important in their life for government to accomplish. I’d like folks to consider what they’ve heard regarding positive policy alternatives from each of the parties rather than the name-calling and mud-slinging. If that were to happen, the outcome of the election would be satisfactory to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment