Who
can blame the American electorate if it can�t distinguish
between the two parties?
For
a long time, it has been said by some of the more astute
observers of the political scene that there is not much
difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
It was third-party candidate, Ralph Nader, who said there
wasn�t �a dime�s worth of difference� between the two,
and that drove the liberals crazy.
Our �leaders� seem to be afraid
of coming out from under the protective wing of Corporate
America.
Even
though that observation did not garner Nader too many
votes, it did win him the enmity of many voters who clung
desperately to the Democratic Party and who blamed him
for losing two presidential elections (even though Al
Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and John Kerry likely
took the deciding Ohio vote in 2004). Those outraged at
Nader firmly believed that the Democrats would drag the
country back from the economic and political chasm it
seemed to be falling into. As for the Republicans, in
recent memory, their only reason for existence seems to
be bringing to a halt any possibility that Congress will
take any action to benefit the people. Their plan seems
to be working.
No
one who reads a newspaper or spends time on political
websites is unfamiliar with the brouhaha over President
Obama�s commercial on the GOP presidential nominee Mitt
Romney�s way of doing business through his founding and
directing of Bain Capital, a company that made hundreds
of millions of dollars buying companies, stripping them
down to their essentials, firing workers, then selling
the firm or, at least, bankrupting them. Thousands of
workers and their families were shunted to the unemployment
lines as a result of Bain Capital�s species of capitalism.
One
can quarrel with most campaign ads, but this one seems
pretty straightforward and it stung the Romney campaign,
which cried foul and said that the former Massachusetts governor did nothing wrong and his spokespersons explained
carefully that Bain Capital�s way of doing business is
nothing short of The American Way. In that, they
can�t be faulted. It is the way Corporate America does
business.
If
there ever was a perfect example of the way America
does business, it is Bain Capital, for the firm is in
business to make a profit, not to make a product or provide
for the common welfare. And, Romney and his cohort at
Bain made no apologies about it: they were in it to make
money. According to Bain�s website, it handles some $60
billion of other people�s money, keeping some of it for
themselves, of course. The companies and workers falling
by the wayside were just so much collateral damage.
So,
there were the usual charges of unfairness from the Romney
and GOP operatives, since no laws were broken and it is,
after all, the way business is done in America. That was all to be
expected and, in the meantime, the GOP and its tricksters
were dreaming up attack ads that will show Obama to be
a foreigner operating out of a suitcase in a room next
to the airport.
They stand firm in their effort
to fill the coffers of Corporate America, slashing government,
and letting working men and women fend for themselves.
The
surprise came within the past week, or so, when Newark,
N.J., mayor, Cory Booker, who is scheduled to act as a
surrogate for Obama in campaign stops between now and
November, said that the president�s attack ad against
Bain was �nauseating� and, covering all bases, said that
such ads should be eliminated by both sides. Booker, quickly
continuing to cover tracks, reassured Democrats and others
that he was fully behind the president�s reelection, gave
Obama high praise, and promised to campaign for him.
A
quick follow-up to Booker�s attack on the attack ad was
fired off by Bill Clinton, former president and husband
of Obama�s secretary of state. Clinton took issue with the ad�s main thrust and said that Romney had
had a �good business career� and that his work had been
�sterling,� in operating Bain, which brought him some
of his net worth, said to be about $250 million. The former
president made his comments on the Piers Morgan Tonight
television show, in which he predicted that Obama would
win reelection by at least five points. He has not seemed
inclined to make any apology or further explanation of
his comment. Booker did apologize�sort of.
It
could not have been a coincidence that two very high profile
Democrats (who are expected to be heavily involved in
Obama�s campaign) would so openly and vehemently criticize
Obama�s reelection plan. Clinton
even went out of his way on the same show to praise Romney,
saying that his operation of Bain Capital was �good work.�
They would not so openly criticize the president�s campaign,
would they?
Rarely
do we get to see the agony of the 1 percent displayed
so clearly. Both Clinton, who has become very rich since
he left the White House, and Booker, who can be expected
to do very well in politics and, through that, become
very wealthy, have been the beneficiaries of association
with the folks who own the political and economic system.
They want their guy, Obama, to win in November, but they
are loathe to turn their backs on those who have been
very, very good to them, so their conflict is out there
for all to see. Booker, it has been reported, received
heavy campaign contributions from the likes of Bain Capital,
and Clinton has been rubbing shoulders with the Bush family
(which contains two living ex-presidents), as well as
people like Bill Gates and world movers and shakers in
politics and world trade.
Once
they have run in what they consider to be �elite circles,�
it�s hard for politicians to endanger that heady position
in any way. They are left with a delicate kind of fence
sitting and it�s not a pretty sight. And, it makes them
less effective as politicians. That could explain recent
polls, which show that American voters who consider themselves
independents outnumber those who register in a political
party.
Rarely do we get to see the agony
of the 1 percent displayed so clearly.
President
Obama finally has been taking his campaign on the offense,
to a small degree, claiming that the GOP in both the House
and Senate are obstructing development of programs that
will jump-start the economy and create jobs. He still
appears, though, to be hesitant to mount a full-scale
assault on the refusal of the GOP leadership to participate
in governing the country. He wants their participation
or approval, or both.
He
wants a small increase in the top marginal tax rate, from
35 percent, to 39.6 percent and the Republicans, stonewalling
to the end, refuse to consider. They prefer to continue
to cut social programs and cut taxes on corporations and
the rich, while whittling government down to providing
nothing more than defense and some infrastructure maintenance.
GOP
resistance to the small tax increase he is suggesting
ignores history: Under (Junior) Bush, it was 35 percent;
under Ronald Reagan, it was 50 percent; under Richard
Nixon, it was 70 percent, and under Dwight D. Eisenhower,
it was 91 percent. They stand firm in their effort to
fill the coffers of Corporate America, slashing government,
and letting working men and women fend for themselves.
And, they blame Obama.
Most
Americans never wanted it to come to this pass, in which
the people are divided against one another, groups are
against one another, divided by class, region, race, religion,
and myriad other factors. Politics was the (usually) bloodless
way of settling differences and living in peace with one
another, but that avenue seems to have been cut off as
a solution. In the end, we are, indeed, divided among
the wealthy and the rest of us. It�s the 99 percent versus
the 1 percent. You can fiddle with the numbers, but, in
the end, it is the overwhelming majority of the people
ruled by a very small elite.
The companies and workers falling
by the wayside were just so much collateral damage.
Over
the past generation or two, the two major political parties
in our two-party system have inexorably moved toward the
same policies, domestic and foreign, and the globalized
economy, supported by continuous wars, is the way we do
the business of America. Unfortunately, one thing has
not changed: When the politicians of both parties decide
that the nation will go to war, it is the sons and daughters
of the working class and the middle class and the poor
who do the sacrificing and dying.
And,
when they get home, if they are not too injured or psychologically
damaged to work, they find that there are no jobs and
little prospect of job creation, because the politicians
of the �two-party� system have their well-paying jobs,
nepotism takes care of their families, and the rest can
fend for themselves.
Criticism
of Obama by members of his own inner circle is merely
a symptom of the political problems of the nation. Neither
party seems to be willing to solidly stand and say that
government is for the people, freedom is for the people,
and the people�s welfare comes first. Our �leaders� seem
to be afraid of coming out from under the protective wing
of Corporate America and its rulers. Until that changes,
we�re in for a rough ride.
BlackCommentator.com
Columnist,
John
Funiciello, is a
labor organizer and former union organizer. His union
work started when he became a local president of The Newspaper
Guild in the early 1970s. He was a reporter for 14 years
for newspapers in
New York
State. In
addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers
as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure
from factory food producers and land developers. Click here
to contact
Mr. Funiciello.
