Warning: this is lengthy
My wife and I watched the debate on Thursday and were in complete agreement that Kerry completely outclassed Bush in every way. We both think he will make a far better president than Bush, and will appoint cabinet staff that will make a difference in so many areas. He will appoint judges who will protect basic human rights instead of ignoring or eroding them. Unfortunately if the Senate and House remain Republican and therefore control the legislative agenda, he will be impossibly hamstrung from day 1.
That's why, despite the current debate focus, it's so important to support local democratic candidates at every level. Kos gives us all many opportunities to do that.
That all said, the political system in this country, even with John Kerry as president, is still very sick. We watched Bill Maher last night (so consider the source and fact check this as you will), but he was talking about a couple of things that really grabbed our attention:
1. The system is rigged in the house and senate. 99% of incumbents win re-election. Is this because they are better candidates? No, it is actually because there is a dearth of good people running for elective office. Why? Some of it I think is the money barrier to running an election campaign. Some of it is that intelligent, qualified people can make much more money in the "marketplace". But I personally think that most of the reason people don't run for office is for a lack of a feeling of participation in the political system. People feel left out. In a general fashion, the Republican Party connects with corporate interests, business owners, born again Christians, and military. (i.e. the gods of Power) Likewise, the Democratic Party connects with academia, scientists, entertainers (i.e. the gods of Creative Thought). The "worker class" is shared by both parties, depending on which of the gods they believe in. The point is, there are millions of people who straddle both categories, or are completely outside of them. If you take the time to read the platforms of both parties, there are a HUGE number of issues that matter to people's daily lives that are not anywhere to be seen. This is where the mysterious 40-50% of the country who NEVER votes lives.
2. One of Maher's guests was Katty Kay, BBC journalist, who was emphasizing the separation of church and state in Europe vs. the USA. She mentioned that politicians just do not invoke God in public discourse, and if they do, it gets them in big trouble. However, here, in this bastion of freedom, it is necessary to include God in the political discourse, or it seems you are unelectable. George Carlin was also a guest and made the point that our "democracy" is an illusion. People are given an illusion of having choices, (paper or plastic, Crest or Colgate, Democrat or Republican etc).. he was cut off before he finished the point but it was a point I can relate to. The political system in this country says only 2 ways of thinking are acceptable in terms of politics, and only one way of thinking is acceptable in terms of religion. Before you start defending this country's religious freedoms, can you honestly imagine a time when we might have a Hindu president? A Buddhist President? An Atheist or even agnostic President? How about a Muslim president? Nope, Christian is the only acceptable affiliation for high level political office, and while there are high profile Jewish Senators and Congress people, I can't imagine this country electing a Jewish president. There is no one to challenge the "absolutes" that have become written in stone, like the 10 commandments of American Democracy. Here's some of what I see as the absolutes that are framing the political discourse, followed by the illusory choices we are given. I think until some of these absolutes are challenged, we will never be able to call ourselves a TRUE democracy.
In God we Trust.
Our illusion of choice is whether we elect candidates who openly express their religion and intermingle it with state activities, or those who do not.
There is no voice given to those who do not believe in God, or those who believe in the non-Christian or Jewish God. My ideal candidate would be striving to present policies IN THE ABSENCE of religion. Religion has no business being part of the business of running society. In a TRUE democracy, religious beliefs would never be legislated in any fashion, but would instead be a private relationship between an individual and their god. Unfortunately we are spinning ever closer to a society where a certain religious viewpoint becomes the law.
War is Inevitable.
Our illusion of choice is whether we will conduct wars alone, or whether we will conduct them with allies.
In the simplest terms possible, wars are fought to protect wealth or obtain it, or to enforce a religious belief on others. Until we as a society evolve enough to have a debate about our part in creating situations that lead to war and how to alleviate those conditions, we will always be at war. It is unbelievable to me that otherwise intelligent people who quote the "Saddam was a brutal dictator who gassed his own people" line draw no connections to our bombing in urban areas or torturing prisoners. It is incredible to me that otherwise intelligent people who believe that Saddam invaded his neighbors and wanted nuclear weapons can draw no connections to the fact that Israel invaded its neighbors and has nuclear weapons. The beheading of one of our civilian contractors is viewed as horrible disgusting evil, but our killing of civilians is, well, unfortunate "collateral damage". It's all in the intent, as if we have truly fooled ourselves into thinking that dropping a bomb into a neighborhood is any less murderous than slitting someone's throat. Or that the innocents killed in a bombing are any less innocent than our beheaded contractor. My ideal candidate would be talking about disbanding the CIA, ending arms sales, discontinuing covert operations to topple governments, reaching out to the world with the extended palm rather than the closed fist, the carpenter's hammer rather than the sledge.
Your vote is your voice.
Our illusion of choice is which ad campaign worked better on us.
There is no detailed discussion of what any candidate will actually do once getting into office. Political campaigns today are nothing more than a massive advertisement with the candidate as the product. But there is no way to "test drive" this product. Imagine in the 2000 debates, if George Bush had said: I won't do anything about terrorism until we are attacked. Then when we are attacked I will attack another country that didn't attack us. Then I will set up a detention camp in Cuba where we'll hold prisoners indefinitely. Then I will push for legislation that will allow us to trace our citizens' activities. Then I will alienate the UN and snub my nose at our old European allies. Then I will allow our military to torture our war prisoners. Think he would have been elected? People are supposed to make up their minds in elections based upon an hour or two of discussion that they see on TV, and articles they may or may not read online and in the newspapers. This is even worse on the local level, because media coverage of local issues is even rarer. The House and the Senate bring legislation to the floor depending on the personal beliefs of those members in charge of setting the agenda. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the people want or require. It is a simple exercise of personal power on the behalf of the legislator and a complete usurpation of the power of the people.
A true democracy would have regular public referendums on issues. A true democracy would have an election day every week, or at least once a month, during which the country as a whole could express their voice on a whole host of issues and governmental policies. A true democracy would have free and accessible forums for true debates on national issues, rather than the current media focus on campaign processes and personalities.
Capitalism is the only economic system that works.
Our illusion of choice is to elect candidates who think government should stay completely out of the marketplace (every man for himself), or those who want government to regulate it (marginally level the playing field).
There are a huge number of issues under this umbrella, most of which fall under the heading of "domestic policy" and include the current "Hotpoint" issues of Healthcare, prescription drugs, tax reform, and social security reform. Many journalists, politicians and pundits have written tomes that far better convey the details of all the arguments pro and con, but for me this is all just noise to the basic argument. Do we want a society based on production and individual consumption of goods (George Bush's "ownership society")? Or a society based on building communities, sharing resources, and fostering relationships between people? A secondary concern is whether government has the responsibility to help those who fail at capitalism for one reason or another?
A huge illusion in capitalist society is that everyone has the opportunity to become rich. There are certainly those that begin with humble means and turn their talents and raw capital into wealth, but the vast majority of this society supports the wealth instead of obtaining it. Millions upon of millions of people are born into and die in a capitalist society never owning a home, never having health insurance, never passing on any wealth to their descendents. It is a society based upon usury (charging a fee for the use of money-a practice specifically banned in many Bible passages for those who are fond of quoting Bible to condemn homosexuality, and incidentally one of Osama Bin Laden's principal arguments for why we are "infidels" - bet you haven't seen that one in the headlines). We have as a society come up with a whole host of names for those people who make money by doing nothing but let other people use their money for awhile. (i.e. Venture capitalists, Investors, Speculators etc.) Because those that have money can build upon it by letting other people borrow it, over time, a few families become geometrically wealthier and wealthier and an entrenched aristocracy develops. Some of this aristocracy, freed from the burden of work, finds its purpose in politics. This is where we are today, and why I think capitalism will eventually fail in this country, whether through some external or internal factors. The country's wealth and power has become too concentrated in the hands of a few, and eventually the top heavy structure tips over.
Is socialism better? I certainly don't know. But I do know that the debate about whether another economic system may be better for us as a people is not allowed in this country. Why is socialism/communism so deeply ingrained in all of us as "evil"? It's true that many communist countries had criminal leaders who took advantage of their people, suppressed dissent and killed thousands, but do we not have the same thing in corporate executives at Enron taking advantage of their employees? Do we not have the same thing in the current environment, when thousands of people are arrested in NYC for protesting a political convention? Do we not have the same thing in a president who invades a country and kills thousands of people who had no sin other than that of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?. This country is afraid to face the fact that there is evil in every one of us. Our government did not fear communism because we all would lose our freedom. They feared communism because they would lose their wealth. The integrity of (or lack of in) the individual will trump the "system" every time. Any system can work, and any system can be undermined.
Right now all of our economic debates are focused on the wealth, rather than the people. "Where will we get the money" rather than "These are things our people need and deserve"
On the healthcare debate: My ideal candidate on this specific issue was Dennis Kucinich. Healthcare for all, no exceptions. There is no reason why the debate should not BEGIN here. Yet the debate begins from the assumption that this is an impossibility, therefore it will never be obtained.
On the social security debate: My ideal candidate should be looking for ways to REDUCE the retirement age, and INCREASE benefits. Americans are among the hardest working of the industrialized nations, with the fewest benefits. The least we should do for our elderly is to remove as much financial anxiety from their retirements as possible.
On Prescription drugs: This should be part and parcel of the healthcare debate. A truly democratic society takes care of its sick. Prescription drugs for medical and mental illnesses should be covered for all, or at the very least, price controlled.
On Taxes: Perhaps the biggest illusion of all. We have absolutely no choice in how the government spends the money we give them each year. We could easily accomplish all 3 of the above with no change in what we pay into the system, if we instead refocused the debate from protecting the wealth (defense, CIA etc.) to taking care of the people. I don't know the solution, but the FLAT tax being peddled by conservatives is NOT A PEOPLE ORIENTED SOLUTION. It again, only protects a larger percentage of wealth for those that are already wealthy. They like you to think that it is "FAIR" in the same way that Fox News is FAIR. I can't believe I have some Democratic friends who are entertaining the idea of a flat tax. I do think, however, that any tax reform MUST include at least broad stroke choices for how that tax money is allowed to be spent, so that an individual who does not support certain government activities has a lawful method of withholding money that supports those activities.
For those of you afraid of being victims of terrorist attacks, I submit to you that the billions of dollars we are spending on missile defense, homeland security, CIA activities and wars are NOT reducing the already lottery like chances that you will die in a terrorist attack any time soon. But if you did, wouldn't you rather not have spent so much of your life scraping and clawing to save for your retirement, worrying about how you will pay for a child's illness, your own needed surgery, or how you will take care of your elderly parents whose pension has evaporated?
We as a people have allowed our elected officials and our media to make the entire debate this election season about our "security". Dick Cheney embodied this in the biggest false choice of all, which is that we elect Bush or "get hit again". Republicans like to spout their mantra that "9/11 changed everything". It did, at least in one fashion. It brought the fear of sudden horrible death close to us in a way that for some reason, daily auto accidents do not. It also made it far easier for fear to be used against us as leverage to achieve political and economic agendas.
So here is a true choice we all must make this November. Do we choose to live afraid, lashing out from behind our walls of lawyers, guns and money? Or do we face the fear within us and choose to live life as if it could be what we yearn for and dream of?