|
||
|
These periodic ramblings are written, produced and directed by Ronald Dale Karr, University of Massachusetts Lowell. 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. Obviously, the opinions expressed here are my own, not those of the University. |
|
|
AFTER THE DEBATES  The 2000 Election is proving to be one of the closest in history, and yet, paradoxically, it's generating little enthusiasm in the electorate. A growing number of voters have caught on that no matter who wins, things pretty much will remain the same. BUSH still has the EDGE: he's nastier, dumber, and yet much more honest than Gore. He promises to take care of the rich and the corporations, and given his record, we believe him; Honest Al pledges to fight for the little guy, campaign reform, etc., but his past shows him to be as reliable a friend of corporate America as W.
ISSUES, ISSUES, ISSUESBoth candidates follow the polls, and the issues they address appear to concern many Americans. Unfortunately, the average voter knows little about the real powers of the president in our political system. The candidates have spent most of their time discussing matters over which the president plays a secondary role, while all but ignoring the areas in which occupy most presidents' time. Why? It's only on the peripheral areas that any REAL DIFFERENCES emerge between the two, since their views on the core responsibilities of the White House are nearly identical.
TAKE EDUCATION  Americans are concerned about the quality of public schools, so this has become the number one campaign issue. Bush and Gore seem determined to visit every school in America, where they explain in great detail how they will improve them. They're counting on the fact that a considerable portion of the electorate has only the foggiest idea of what the president actually does. In reality, there is no other function in American public life for which responsibility is more divided than EDUCATION. The prime responsibility is with the school administration and the local school board; sometimes the mayor is involved; the state legislature and the governor play a key role. The federal government contributes supplementary funds and funds a limited amount of educational research, as authorized by Congress. In no sense is the PRESIDENT responsible for educational quality. If your local school improves or goes DOWN HILL, Bush or Gore will have very little to do with it.
OTHER MAJOR CAMPAIGN ISSUESinclude Social Security, Medicare, and TAX CUTS. Here Bush and Gore have outlined detailed plans with real differences, and thrown a lot of bombast touting the superiority of their approach. But while a president may propose, Congress disposes. The devil is in the DETAILS, and it will be up to the satanic congressional leadership to actually write the legislation in these areas. A strong president like, say FDR or LBJ, might push programs wholesale through Congress, but Al and W are much more likely to be CLINTONIAN and accept Congressional changes. Tax cuts, for example, may start out simple, but Congress likes to take care of its major campaign contributors first, which usually leaves little for "middle class" tax relief. Regardless of which candidate's plan you prefer, we'll probably get more or less the SAME, no matter who wins.
GORE AND BUSH hope the voters will ignore the fact that on many, if not most issues, their views are nearly identical. Interestingly enough, these are the very things over which the president DOES exert a lot of real power. In matters of foreign affairs, the use of military power, appointments, and economic policy the president is given a wide berth by Congress and public opinion. The debates made crystal clear that Al and Dubayu have no real differences in these areas. Both favor wholesale military intervention whenever our "VITAL INTERSTS" (that is, the economic interests of the corporations who pay them) are at stake. Both favor increasing the already obscenely high DEFENSE BUDGET, even though there's nary a viable ENEMY in sight. Both champion global trade agreements that encourage the international race to the bottom at the expense of labor, consumers, and the environment. Both favor economic policies that will continue to shift wealth from the poor and middle-classes to the super-rich, WALL STREET over MAIN STREET. Both have little use for antitrust laws. Both endorse the WAR ON THE POOR: heartless "welfare reform," racist drug enforcement, stingy funding for community programs, and of course, the death penalty. Both will appoint right-of-center "moderates" to judgeships and other posts.
NO WONDER NADER had to be kept away from the DEBATES. On nearly every important issue it would be him against the other two, and the voters might learn they have a real choice after all, a truly frightening prospect to the American corporate ruling class who has invested so much in Bush and Gore. Who knows might have happened? The MEDIA, taking its orders from their corporate owners, IGNORE Nader, and he lacks the cash it takes to reach the voters through paid advertising. (Even when he is willing to pay, who will run his ads? After all, he's a dangerous radical, and TV and radio routinely turn down "controversial" advertising.)
MEANWHILE THE LEFTis being told that despite all of his shortcomings we must support GORE to stop BEAST BUSH from taking the country even further right. Don't believe it. Eight years under CLINTON has not reversed our rightward drift, and may even have enhanced it (remember the Contract On America?) If anything, Al Gore is even more conservative than Slick Willy. That well-meaning folks on the left would even consider voting for him is another sad reminder of how far to the right we've come.
FORTY YEARS AGO Presidential elections once generated genuine excitement. I can remember the fall of 1960, when both Kennedy and Nixon came to the Pennsylvania suburb in which we lived. Myself, 12 years old, and my 8-year old brother carried signs for JFK and proudly wore campaign buttons to school, as did lots of our friends. BUMPER STICKERS and telephone pole signs were everywhere, along with billboards. Each party had busy campaign headquarters in prominent locations where kids came to buy buttons.
FORTY YEARS LATERit's hard to tell there's a presidential race at all. We've been in two hotly contested states, New Hampshire and Florida, recently, and there was scarcely a campaign sign or bumper sticker in sight. I didn't see a single person at Seaworld in Orlando wearing a campaign button, nor at the Nashua mall. In Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, and in my own neighborhood in Massachusetts, the most common lawn signs seem to be candidates for the state legislature--and they almost always omit PARTY affiliation!
|
Send all comments on the Karr Report to Ronald Dale Karr
Ronald_Karr@uml.edu