Wondering Where Your Democracy Went?

When President Reagan gave his famous "City on a Hill" speech, he declared the United States the pinnacle of civilization--the city...on the hill. But when John Winthrop said those words he was talking about an America that ought to be. Not that is. Perhaps it is too hasty to assume that we have reached this ideal.

To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.

In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.


Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal

Cynicism for Obamanation

The Obama fervor is fairly strong here on campus, so I thought I should inject a little realism into the conversation by posting the following in our school paper (you may recognize the quote):

Former New York Times reporter recently wrote this forward thinking and realistic assessment of our current political predicament:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

I am voting for Barack Obama, but I know that I should be voting for Nader. I suppose it is the fluffy hope that Obama speaks of in his carefully crafted speeches... the idea that Obama could be a third party in disguise. If the fact that Nader is on 45 state ballots and was STILL restricted from the debates does not set off red flags in your mind, you must be truly blinded. But if there is not radical reform of our government, then this country is going to become a lot more pathetic... maybe even dangerous. The corruption has permeated all aspects of the legislative, executive and judicial. The empire is out of control.

Eventually there will be a call to arms to end the corporatocracy and dismantle the military industrial complex (look it up)... to restore the integrity of the Republic. The people forgot Vietnam and did not feel the Iraq War, but they will feel the next one, and when they start to suffer, they will cry out for another Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. Till then and beyond we must take after the Founding Fathers and be skeptical of those who rule, and take action when they become incompetent.

Later today I'll be seeing Joe Biden speak in Newark, OH... hopefully I'll get to ask him a good question.  Will report later.

Drudge: "BORING"

Immediately after watching the second hum-drum presidential debate last night, I checked out Drudge Report to see if Matt Drudge felt the same way; sure enough, the headline simply read: "BORING."

Why in one of the most turbulent and terrifying times in this country's history can our presidential hopefuls be so uninspiring? It is clear that the public debate format has been carefully crafted in order to keep the candidates within their safe zones, but that is not what we need right now.  We need rules and moderators who will push the candidates and call them out.  We need to break the barrier of generality, and delve into the heart of such important affairs.  But most of all, we need a different perspective.

Yes, I'm back to the third party rant, but after seeing these establishment candidates "duke it out" once again, I do not believe anyone would disagree that there must be another side to these issues.  Independents and third party candidates provide much needed insight, and keep the others on their toes.  It is truly tragic that the rules of the system prevent such a dynamic.  Don't Americans want more choice?  Or does it just not matter?

More Voices, More Choices!

What Palin Proved

Tonight I had the pleasure of having dinner with Norman Ornstein, an esteemed fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think-tank in Washington). His conversation at dinner was interesting, and he provided some good insight on my questions for him, but I'd like to talk a little bit about what he had to say about the first presidential debate, and what he had to say after watching the VP debate tonight (after his lecture with another Political Scientist named Thomas Mann, he watched the debate with us).

He explained that the pundits got it all wrong in their analysis of the first debate. The media's narrative was about who won the most 'debate points.' Many argued that John McCain was a stronger debater, particularly on foreign policy, but that Obama held his own. Ornstein explained that the debate wasn't about John McCain at all in fact. It was all about Obama proving to voters that he could be presidential, and he succeeded. No one doubted John McCain's knowledge on the issues, or even his experience. But Obama had to provide the image that he could be the man to lead the country.

In that respect, Obama won the debate.

Tonight, however, the tables were turned as all eyes turned to Sarah Palin--the great big question mark of this campaign. What Palin had to prove tonight had nothing to do with her in actuality. It had to do with John McCain and his judgment. Did McCain take a reckless risk in choosing the governor? In this respect, John McCain won because Palin held her ground, and even when she was clearly dodging the question, did it with a certain grace. The point is that Palin didn't screw up. She didn't give us that moment we had all been waiting for. Tonight Palin strongly defended John McCain's judgement (by performing well), and certainly provided much relief for the campaign.

However, both Mann and Ornstein projected a handy Obama victory unless something catastrophic happened. There are only 32 days left until the election, but something could easily happen in that amount of time.

With all that said, I'll just point out that the real winners of these debates are the military-industrialists and militarism, nuclear power, corporate crime and the bailout. The losers?