|
|
||
|
|
The Morning After - The Making of the President 2000 - What Do We Have to Look Forward To? By Robert E. Martin 24 Hours from now the polls open and by the time you are reading this we will have a new President. Insofar as this entire election has been so close, with Michigan playing a pivotal role as a 'swing state', in the spirit of the great American historical journalist Theodore White, allow me to sketch a portrait that hopefully lends insight into the Making of The President, 2000. The determination of whether George W. Bush or Al Gore is our next President will be a litmus test of whether 'issues' or 'personality' fueled the action of voters. Issues are fashioned through the use of facts to form positions, which of course are a matter of opinion. Yet, to see Bush on Saturday Night Live two days prior to the election poking fun at his own inability to competently use the English language to articulate his positions perhaps moves beyond opinion to underscore that Gore knows, understands, and has thought more about virtually every aspect of public policy, domestic & foreign, than Bush has. In terms of fiscal responsibility, Gore proves stronger because he proposes to spend less of the budget surplus than Bush does and intends to devote it towards socially responsible needs such as education and health care and divert less of it to individual consumption. Gore is also fairer because his plans for addressing the tax code would reduce inequalities of wealth & income while Bush's would widen them. Similarly, in terms of foreign policy, Gore has been clear about promoting democratic values while Bush has been fuzzy, except to say that he opposes the American military presence in Haiti, where we currently have 29 soldiers stationed, and that he would consider withdrawing from the Balkans, a move that would weaken the Western Alliance. In terms of experience, Gore also should have Bush beat hands-down. For all but six years of his adult life, Bush has done nothing more than run a failed Texas oil concern and then take on a professional baseball franchise, where his role was largely that of a spokesperson. As stated at the outset, if G.W. Bush is indeed our next President, it will be due to the fact his 'personality' somehow struck a stronger cord with the American public. Known for his methodical precision, Gore strikes many as being too 'stiff' and 'calculating', whereas the clueless Bush strikes an odd populist chord of 'being one of the masses', right down to his DUIL offense and battling with his drug addictions, which given the Bush call for source eradication in the 'Drug Wars' is truly as bizarre a connection as any that has been made in the popular political process. And what of Bush's drunk driving arrest? Many in the major media downplayed the significance of this revelation, but in many respects it was both 'telling' of the candidate and even more revealing of the nature of the media. Granted, one DUIL committed 24 years ago is nothing necessarily 'major', unless like Bush you make the issue of 'character' a key playing card. What few people understand and what the media failed to report is that the 1976 conviction of Bush for drunk driving was actually his third arrest. The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft in a hotel, the second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game. Yet, why has this entire behavior been covered-up? Indeed, there is a difference between a 'youthful indiscretion'; especially when Bush admittedly had 'substance' problems until the age of 40, relying upon his father's connections to allay the repercussions. It will be interesting to see if after Election Day, this man actually has his finger on the 'button'. As Hendrick Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker, "Personality apparently excludes, if not intelligence itself, then such manifestations of it as intellectual curiosity, analytic ability, and a capacity for original thought, all of which Gore has in abundance and Bush not only lacks but scorns." Indeed, one can only speculate as to why Bush declined invitations for interviews on MTV, BET, and The Today Show, while Gore gladly accepted; but his absence does indicate that Bush will rely more upon his 'advisors' for assistance than a Gore presidency - a disquieting notion given the oil and insurance industry lobbyists that have bankrolled his campaign. From the Horses Mouth: The notion of a Bush Presidency is scary for a number of reasons, but nothing makes it clearer than the candidate himself does. The following are actually verbatim 'quotes' made by G.W. Bush - the 'Education' President. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" Florence, S. Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000 "I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking." Salinas, Calif, August 10, 2000 "I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together." Bartlett, Tennessee, Aug. 18, 2000 "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." Reuters. May 5, 2000 "Reading is the basics for all learning." Announcing his 'Reading First' initiative in Reston, VA, Mar. 28, 2000 In ABC News interview with Diane Sawyer on the RATS controversy Bush four times mispronounced the word 'subliminal' as 'subliminable'. Sept. 12, 2000 "There is Adam Clymer - major league asshole from the New York Times over there." "Yeah, he is, big time," replies Cheney. Naperville, Illinois. Sept. 4, 2000 Why Such a Close Contest? I read with interest how the Republicans were booking a 'Victory Party' at Horizons Center in Saginaw, amazed at their confidence especially given that Bush couldn't even win his own Republican primary in Michigan. But throughout this election, the fact that the race has been so close should be a lesson to Democrats. Forget blaming Ralph Nader, for he is merely symptomatic of the overriding fact that in many significant ways, Democrats have 'abandoned' the core of their party. A strong case can be made for the notion that Al Gore, similar to the 'New Democrat' politics that got Bill Clinton elected, abandoned the heart of Democratic ideals in order to get elected in the Brave New World of the American political landscape. Gore's support for NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of people - Gore's very supporters - their jobs. In Flint, Michigan, 32,000 GM jobs have been lost since Gore & Clinton took office, which is 5,000 more than were lost during the entire 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administration. Moreover, the very important issue of future appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court looms heavy over our country. Gore has cautioned repeatedly about the danger of placing right wing ideologues such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the bench, yet Gore himself voted to confirm Scalia to the Court as a Senator from Tennessee. Additionally, 11 Democratic Senators voted to put Thomas on the Court, giving him the 52 to 48 majority he needed. While Gore says he will act responsibly and make viable Campaign Finance Reform the first bill he signs in office, this downplays the fact that both of the established parties have been bought & paid for. Genetically engineered foods are already loose in this country. Persistent toxic chemicals are discharged into our air to rain down upon us with adversities we are not even aware of, and public owned natural resources are given away to logging, mining, grazing, and oil interests way below market value, not even considering how priceless they are. Public funds continue to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power and $300 billion of our valuable public tax dollars are spent on the military instead of renewable energy, education, and health care. Deregulation and merger mania have created unregulated monopolies, higher costs to consumers, less privacy, and no accountability to giant corporations, which also owns and controls all mainstream television stations and the highest watt radio stations, all of whom gladly take campaign advertising but rarely conduct informative debates or provide true investigation into the claims made by candidates. Funny thing - why is it you never see anything but newspapers listed on candidate endorsements? Perhaps because they are the only credible media left. We now have the greatest number of people incarcerated per capita than any other nation and people work longer hours and have less savings and greater debt than anytime since the depression. And, of course, we have the Federal government pre-empting local control and allowing Toronto's garbage being imported into Michigan. And all of these very real 'core' concerns have been accomplished with the consent of both the Major Parties. No, Ralph Nader is not to blame. What Will Happen? Despite the convergence of the two parties into 'one' that I like to term the Republicrats, there are significant differences between Bush and Gore, especially in terms of environmental protection, which Gore has taken the key initiative to address in terms of global warming and reduction of toxic discharge. Bush, on the other hand, has an environmental and natural resource policy that is being authored by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. There was a throwaway line to that effect in the Eugene paper. This agency is the creation of one Ron Arnold, who calls himself the "Darth Vader for capitalism" and terms environmentalists as pests that should be eradicated. Even more disquieting is that CDFE is closely allied with the 'Moonies' of Rev. Moon fame. Hmm. Is there any doubt about who is the more radical candidate? Regardless of what happens in the general election, one thing we all need to address is the national debt. At this time the nation is almost five trillion six hundred billion dollars in the red. That's $5,600,000,000,000. Over the past ten years we have paid over three trillion dollars in interest. This year we will pay an estimated three hundred and sixty-two billion dollars in interest, or about $1,400 for every man woman and child in this country. And the simple fact remains that until we address this hemorrhage of financial resource, neither social programs nor tax cuts loom as viable options for our future. So where does that put us? In many ways, it places us exactly where we do not want to be, on the cusp of promise that is truncated by exasperation, and hopeful that whomever is our next President, that the political process can bridge something that it has been unable to attain for many decades, and truly 'bring us all together.' As Thomas Jefferson said, "No man will ever bring out of the Presidency the reputation which carries him into it. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves." |
|
|
|
Enable frames | |
|
home | out/about | events | personal | store | classified | real estate | forums | archives | contact |
||
