Friday, November 23, 2007

The Business Of Politics

Some of the most egregious corporate mergers, those most damaging to consumers, were perpetrated under the Clinton Administration. NAFTA was a Clinton creation and has been the most successful unemployment act in America beside the Great Depression. I mention this not to attack Bill Clinton, but to demonstrate where Hilary’s campaign war chest comes from and the vested interests corporations have in her election to the presidency. As Bill famously pointed out, when you elect him you get Hilary as well, a two for one package. It would be difficult for anyone to deny her intimate involvement in her husband’s administration, especially since she is now campaigning on her experience gained form that period.

Of course, there are myriad examples of similar and even more flagrant acts of graft within the Republican Party. I am not defending that or attempting to mitigate Republican misconduct by comparing them to the Clintons. In fact it is the opposite that should be acknowledged, evident similarities that virtually eliminate perceived differences. This lack of distinction was perfectly articulated by John Edwards when he asked during the last debate “What is the difference of replacing a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats”.

Within that question is an elemental truth which most politicians avoid, evade, ignore or deny. That truth is the extent to which corporations are involved in our political system. To varying degrees we have all acknowledged at least the presence, if not the effect of corporations in politics. And that presence has different effects on each of us often depending on our personal circumstances, in particular our employment status and our dependence on corporations for our livelihoods. As it is true for each of us it is also true for those campaigning for the highest elected office in the nation. For Presidential candidates, who by the very act of running for the office demonstrate advanced levels of personal motivation, competitiveness and self importance, the dependency is on the advantage of an influential corporate sponsorship. It is this dependency at all levels that makes it difficult to achieve a consensus among the electorate to act against corporate monopolization of the political process and its pro-business / anti-consumer impact upon government.

Our elected officials have demonstrated an unwillingness to relinquish the corporate teat they have suckled at for so long and corporations are going to ever greater lengths to ensure their continued dependency. So how, you ask, can we correct a problem that has so infiltrated all levels of government and has so much money and influence behind it? The answer is as simple as accomplishing it will be difficult. The answer is that we, you and I, are the government. Corporations have not corrupted the government, they have corrupted the people we entrusted to run it. To rectify this we must elect new people to replace the corrupt leaders. This is the primary weapon at our disposal but, it is a powerful one because we are the only ones that can elect a person to office. Corporations have no vote and therefore can not elect anyone.

To engage in this type of struggle we must demand honest representation by the people we elect and establish our determination by getting rid of them if they fail us. We have not shown our mettle when it comes to this in the past and because of that many elected officials blatantly represent their own interests over ours. Unless and until we demonstrate our resolve by throwing them out of office for such transgressions, they will continue to smugly do as they please while offering mere lip service to our concerns.

A contemporary example is the actions of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She is attempting to defeat the ability of the American citizenry to expel elected officials which enables us to influence government and have a voice in how the business of government is conducted. It is the very fundamentals of Democracy that empowers individual citizens to act in the best interest of our nation when those within the government do not. Nonetheless, it is this Constitutional principal that has been denied to all Americans by Nancy Pelosi’s selfish determination to shield the Bush administration from any repercussions for their corrupt governance. She has steadfastly opposed any suggestion from members of her Party to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their transgressions.

Accordingly, she should be vilified for attempting to deny our rights. We should work to remove her from office in the most expedient fashion, first as Speaker, then from the House of Representatives entirely. She should be the object of our scorn and revulsion, the recipient of our most loathsome commentary, the icon of our collective distrust, and the effigy of our disrespect.

No comments: