As others have disclaimed before sending a political post, so shall I. Mostly
because, although
the political debates on this list are fiery and heartfelt, they seem to be about the
same things
that U.S. political debates are always about. What remains surprising to me is how
dichotomized
the list is when it comes to political parties, particularly when the two parties are
more alike
than different on the most important issue - how the legislators represent us, or
rather how they
represent who pays them.
(There's a great web site called Open Secrets - http://www.opensecrets.org. Anyone
effected by
U.S. politics would find what's published there very interesting.)
Suze Cameron wrote:
> Rules for being a good Republican:
I sometimes wonder if the continued drumming of the party differences by our mostly
partial,
corporate media is designed to keep us talking about the differences, rather than
common goals.
Political discussions or debates frequently breakdown to a trading of the media
stereotypes that
are put forward to describe both parties, when the truth is that there is alot of gray
area in
terms of what individuals believe. There's even gray area in terms of what the parties
represent. But perhaps our attention is supposed to be diverted from that so we don't
really
acknowledge what's going on.
The media in our country sucks for the most part. We have been dumbed down by USA
Today type
summary style reporting and sound bytes. Very few outlets are impartial. You can
pick up almost
any paper and by reading an article or two determine the political stance of the
publication.
Broadcasters on the evening news are no longer shy about using words that reveal their
own
political beliefs. I was absolutely stunned by this in the coverage of the election
last year.
We are effected by media language in more ways than we may realize - not only does it
feed our
prejudices but it also feeds our arrogant, U.S.-centric ignorance. If you live in the
States,
watch the local evening news and national news and clock how many minutes are spent on
the rest
of the world and global issues. We live in a global economy yet we are supposed to
remain
ignorant about what goes on outside the U.S. Sadly, most people in the U.S. can't
even answer
basic world geography questions, let alone discuss what happened in Balkans or the
political
history of the Kyoto treaty.
We don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic. And the real groups controlling
the
republic (and the media for that matter) - political action committees (PAC's) and
wealthy givers
are doing so from both sides of the aisle and they don't want things to change. In
fact, most
PAC giving is overwhelmingly directed to incumbents -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/pac/sector.ihtml . And politicians
recognize this
point which is why their policy positions are largely inflexible. (Here's a real
interesting
paper on that very notion - http://econpapers.hhs.se/paper/nbrnberwo/7475.htm )
Politicians are
like huge boats; they cannot quickly change direction, even when the situation calls
for it.
When it comes to political stances, flexibility is not rewarded even if it would be in
the best
interest of the people.
Marian wrote:
> I could even imagine myself joining up on the basis of these things. Two
> things stop me: the conservative religious views of many republicans and
> the fact that most wealthy powerful people are republicans. Why do the
> wealthy and powerful support this party? Because it helps them to become
> more wealthy and more powerful, or at least more easily retain what wealth
> and power they have already accumulated.
You may find this interesting.
Nine of the top ten individual contributors (i.e. wealthy people) in the 2000
elections were
solidly democratic with the 10th person giving almost equally to both parties. In fact
Democratic supporters dominate the top 20 of this list.
http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/storysofar/topindivs.asp
Seven of the top ten overall contributors were strongly democratic. Of the remaining
two, AT&T
leans Republican, Citigroup is on the fence and Microsoft (the company of the
wealthiest man in
the world) is on the fence, giving 47% to Democrats and 52% to Republicans.
http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/storysofar/topcontribs.asp
The top 20 of this list is split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. And that is
the real
story. Wealthy people and groups control both parties, not just the Republicans.
They just do
it in different ways depending on which group they are supporting. Dems seem to have
more
wealthy individual contributors and they own the labor unions (how corrupt are they!)
and
Republicans lead in soft money. The end result is the same.
Take a good look at our Congress. Women are the majority in our country, yet there
only 13 women
in the 100 member Senate and only 61 women in the 435 member House. Our country is
controlled by
older white men of European ancestry (in both parties) - even though that is just one
view.
(Here's another problem I have with the media - ever watch the weekend pundit shows?
How often
do you see women on those shows? Better still have you ever seen an Asian
congressperson on Meet
the Press?)
Think about how exciting it could be if instead of challenging each other over our
differences,
we challenged the media and the politicians in support of our common goals.
Brenda
n.p: silence
