|
||
|
These periodic ramblings are written, produced and directed by Ronald Dale Karr, University of Massachusetts Lowell, who is solely responsible for the content. Obviously, the opinions expressed here are my own, not those of the University. |
|
||
|
These periodic ramblings are written, produced and directed by Ronald Dale Karr, University of Massachusetts Lowell, who is solely responsible for the content. Obviously, the opinions expressed here are my own, not those of the University. |
|
|
BAD GUYS WIN AGAIN  To absolutely no one's surprise, the winners are . . . Al Gore and George “Dubbayu” Bush. Seldom have two candidates so perfectly reflected the wishes of the corporate elites that run this country. Theses guys are Establishment with a vengeance. The few issues that separate them—gun control, abortion, school vouchers, gays in the military—are of little consequence to the people who really matter. To the American elite, the key issues are free trade, labor costs, protection of corporate privilege, military might, inflation, a foreign policy that advances American economic interests, and preventing fundamental change in areas like health care and campaign financing. And on these issues Gore and Bush are of one mind.
MEANWHILE SOCIAL JUSTICEtakes a back seat. You won't hear much this year about fighting racism, ending poverty or the drug wars, suspending the death penalty, or say, cutting the bloated defense budget to finance universal health care. There'll be a lot of posturing about the environment, but neither candidate will support meaningful change. Despite the enormous fortunes created by the recent boom, neither will propose taxing some of this money to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure in areas like public health.
THERE WAS NO SECRET  to Bush or Gore's triumph. Bradley defeated himself. So dull that even Al Gore seemed lively in comparison, he attracted little but yawns from the voters. Even though he raised nearly as much cash as Gore, Bradley was unable to give people any real reason to prefer him to the Vice President. As for Bush, the organization only corporate cash can deliver made quick work of a potentially dangerous rival, JOHN McCAIN. McCain was a threat to the Establishment because of his unpredictability. What if meaningful campaign financing came to pass and politicians once more became independent of corporate interests? As now in place, the primary system virtually makes it impossible for true insurgents to have a chance at capturing the nomination. No more George McGoverns, Jimmy Carters, or even Ronald Reagans.
THE TWO PARTIES still exist, although their roles have been transformed in recent years. The Democratic Party seems little more than a loose coalition of various narrowly-focused special-interest groups, who these days tend to be satisfied with very little, who applaud symbolic gestures while overlooking an Administration that in practice often betrays their principles. A New Dealer or even a Modaler is considered hopelessly radical. There are few if any grass-roots Democrats left. The Republicans, on the other hand, became a mass party under Reagan. Today, there are three wings of this party, each hoping to gain full control. Best positioned are the Country Clubbers, the heirs to the old GOP. Economic issues are the important thing here, especially tax cuts. Not all taxes, mind you. Sales taxes, levies on beer and cigarettes, or the social security tax (as long as its capped) are of little concern. Capital gains taxes, on the other hand, are of major interest. As long as it promotes the interest of big business, the Country Club Republicans (corporate executives, well-heeled entrepreneurs and lawyers, and beneficiaries of trusts) are all in favor of an active government, particularly one that keeps the lid on wages, undermines unions, and protects American economic interests abroad.
THE REAGAN REVOLUTION however, spoiled the fun. The GOP became a mass movement, with two new elements. Both are more concerned with social than economic issues, and both loudly proclaim themselves Conservatives, yet there are crucial differences between the two. The CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES hope to turn America into a Christian Republic. They favor an activist government that will restore what they see as traditional family values by halting abortions, restoring school prayer, censoring the internet, records, and films, outlawing sex education, and supporting church schools through vouchers. The public schools would include moral education based on the Ten Commandments and evolution would be replaced in the curriculum by creationism. Hopelessly outnumbered in a land obsessed with money and the pursuit of happiness, the Christians have seen their influence wane. In recent years, much like the Populists a hundred years ago, they have focused most of their political efforts on a single issue, in this case, ABORTION instead of FREE SILVER.
THE THIRD WING OF THE GOP has a very different agenda from the other two. To these ANGRY WHITE MALES, Government itself is the problem. The Government imposes taxes; tries to take away our guns; stops us from filling in swamps, chopping down forests, and dumping waste in streams just to protect snails and owls; wants to prevent us from driving drunk, beating up women, or bashing gays; and even tries to prevent us from smoking. At the same time the government coddles the real criminals (largely black or Hispanic), discriminates against white males, and lavishly supports the bums on welfare. Unlike the upper-middle-class Clubbers and the sober Christians, the AWMs can be a rowdy bunch lacking in the social graces. Many of them were raised as Democrats in ethnic or rural households. The key issues for them are guns and taxes.
THE GOP CANDIDATEif he wants to win, has to somehow appeal to all three of these wings (much as New Deal Democrats had to simultaneously woo Southern segregationists and Northern blacks). The three camps have very different views of what the government should or should not be doing. At the same time, each has extremists that must be kept in check: economic royalists, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic zealots, and proto-fascists, neo-Nazis, and Klanners. In the recent past, the three wings had difficulty supporting a single candidate with equal enthusiasm. Bush, Sr., and Beltway Bob Dole won the hearts of the Clubbers, while Pat Robinson led the Christians, and Pat Buchanan rallied pitchfork-waving populists, and as a consequence the GOP lost in '92 and '96.
NOW BUSH LITE seems to have found the formula for success. The Clubbers, of course, realize he's one of them who embodies all of their dreams. The Christians have their doubts, but Bush is willing to denounce (although with little fervor) abortion and push school vouchers. The AWMs like the fact that despite his Yale degree he comes off like a good ol' boy from Texas, who wants to protect guns, cut taxes, fry criminals, and end affirmative action. But Bush's secret weapon in all this is BILL CLINTON. For various reasons, not entirely rational, all elements of the GOP loath the President, more than any Democrat since FDR or Truman. Bush will run as much against Clinton as against Gore this fall.
FACING A UNITED GOP Al Gore will have his work cut out for him. Much as Bush, he must hold his party together to win. But despite his personal shortcomings, he should be able to rally the troops by campaigning against the man who isn't here, the Newt. Elect Bush, he'll tell the party fold, and you'll lose affirmative action and the right to an abortion, gays will be kicked out of the military, and the environment will be trashed. Sure, he'll say to labor, we haven't done much to help you with NAFTA and GATT and all, but if Bush comes in with a Republican Congress, expect no mercy.
WITH BOTH PARTIES UNITIED we should be looking forward to a spirited campaign followed by a record turnout at the polls. Instead, this may prove to be one of the dullest campaigns ever with voters staying home in droves in November. Why? With Gore and Bush so close on most important issues, they will be tempted to exaggerate trivial differences (as with product advertising) or resort to pointless negative personal attacks, which quickly grows tiresome. And as more voters abandon the two major political parties it will be difficult for these partisan war-horses to generate much enthusiasm in independents (by taking stands on real issues) without alienating their hard-core party constituency. We'll be watching.
|
Send all comments on the Karr Report to Ronald Dale Karr
Ronald_Karr@uml.edu