Choosing
the President:Choosing
the President:
[Denial of Access &
the Need to Know]
As the American presidential election gathers steam (and emits other gasses), it is worthy of a moment or two to reflect upon the unhappy, contemptible travesty that the American election process has become in this 'greatest' of the world's contemporary nations: especially as regards the election for the office of President of the United States, but also as it affects and essentially dictates the terms of American political choice options from that exalted office clear down to the so-called "local" or grass roots level of American democracy.
Although American politics, which has traditionally, inextricably involved the principal mechanism of two opposing, major political parties as central to our system of electing candidates for office (this was at one time appropriate to the challenges that faced a developing post-industrial nation--not now), with the onset of sea changes in the social and political economy of our nation (primarily since the ascendance of electronic communications media and the rise of the powerful international megacorporations) , the hoary old custom of recognizing and legitimizing only the Democratic and Republican political parties has become not just a quaint anachronism, but anathematically contraindicated to preserving and facilitating freedom of political choice for American citizens.
This has again been most clearly and bitterly exposed in the recent 'Presidential Debates' horse and pony show that the codependent media organisations help stage in each presidential election year. Although originally intended to utilise television as a venue to best bring the central arguments and contentions of the candidates into public awareness, at such events nowadays, both the Republican and Democratic candidates play to the cameras with all the sincerity and honesty of pathological liars in their attempts to be all things for all of our nation's people. No blandishment appears too sublime, no distortion of fact too far-reaching, no alleged innuendo of unethical conduct too extreme, and no promise of resolute action too excessive, it would seem, in the publicity and photo opportunities that these public events provide the Democratic and Republican candidates in their staged bids for votes.
Sadly,
and it doesn't take the IQ of a moderately intelligent individual to figure this out, the
so-called presidential debates are simply the tip of an incipient iceberg of deceit,
lurking menacingly just below the surface of public awareness, that are dedicated to
resolutely perpetuating the execrable socioeconomic status quo of a system that no longer
allows for the true airing of vitally important 'alternate' viewpoints; wisely disparate
perspectives, critically focused divergent understanding, and insights provoked by more
objectively centered candor on America's present condition simply are not possible
therein, under current constraints on who is permitted to participate in these 'debates'
and who is not.
Speaking personally, I and many hundreds (probably thousands) of others were absolutely outraged by the refusal of the presidential debates commission to allow the other leading candidates for national office (namely Nader and Buchanan) to participate in the debates. Although the whole selective 'ethos' of the media debates is conveniently contrived (and in fact constitutes about as 'genuine' a reflective offering of fact and sentiment as did Hitler's statements of good feeling for his Soviet partners, just before the Second World War), excluding Nader and Buchanan from this horse and pony show nevertheless presents an inexcusable denial of access to the fullest range of information possible that is needed for basic consideration of the issues by the American public.
While I personally feel that Buchanan's opinions reflect an unacceptably 'Twonk-Zone' fundamentalist Christian perspective (that is in many ways philosophically, socially, and intellectually repugnant to me), there is no arguing the fact that much of what he has to offer is STILL worthy of serious reflection (the same is true, of course, of Rush Limbaugh, that ratchet-mouthed, indefatigable icon of American Rightist oral diarrhea); by any reckoning, Buchanan's views still deserve to be aired at least equally with the 'traditional' party candidate views. In as much as Ralph Nader, candidate of the "Green Party", is concerned, the case is far more compelling in my opinion; Nader speaks as the reasoned collective voice of all of us who are and have always been concerned with the destruction of the entire world by unbridled corporate ambition. Increasingly reduced to mere raw materials to feed a consumer market that grows like a cancer on America and increasingly upon the entire planet, the planet we occupy is increasingly being remade into an unhealthy habitat for life of any kind, thanks to the poisonous waste and toxic waste that are the by-products of current rampant industrial "progress". In my estimation, Nader brings us the sort of vitally needed 'loyal opposition' alternative perspective that our present American political system so alarmingly lacks. As the uniform public blandishments of both Democratic and Republican party candidates continue, they almost seem as if they are both generated from a single, generic 'American Party' line.....a single monstrously homogenized political party that consists of two smaller internal political subsepts that are, but for minor variations on themes and rhetoric, yet one and the same in their end results.
This
sentiment was expressed by an individual at the Headlands Coffeehouse in Fort Bragg
(located on Coastal California, above Mendocino--website: www.headlandscoffeehouse.com ),
whose conversation I recently happened to hear (while warming up braincells over a
luxuriously good 'double cap'). His idea that the two main American political parties are
so similar to each other in their final effects on our nation (insofar as preserving the
disastrous present status quo is concerned) that they might as well be 'splinters' of a
single, larger "American Party" plank, was indeed astute. All the more reason
why failing to recognize the very existence of alternative parties and platforms (by the
establishment) is such a grave injustice, constituting as it does a denial of basic
informational access to these vital dissenting opinions that would otherwise more fully
inform our citizens and better enable them to make wiser choices in selecting our most
important political office holders appropriately.
As it is, the message that such denial of access carries is
that we have ONLY a choice of a Democratic candidate (Gore/Leiberman) or a Republican
(Bush/Cheney) and these choices are indeed of the 'Hobsonian' variety. My own concerns
play out as follows, as far as these two candidates are concerned: Bush's election would
absolutely assure a continuation of the massively over-fed and 
needlessly bloated US
'defense' budget practices of past decades, that have created the world's most expensive
arsenal of needlessly complex hard and soft ware systems that are by their very high-tech
nature extremely expensive and difficult to maintain (thereby creating serious, perhaps
crippling, maintenance and logistics problems in the event of any attempt to use such
systems). The selection of Dick Cheney (ex-Defense Secretary) as GOP running mate is not
mere coincidence in this particular consideration, surely! In a time in which our
massively obese military establishment is searchingly wildly for virtually any means to
justify its continued 'high-fat' diet of appropriations for sometimes seriously silly, but
more often wild-eyed & hare-brained weapons schemes (the 'post-Star Wars' anti-missile
initiative, laser weapons development, 'smart' bombs that aren't as smart as touted,
'stealth fighters' that may be shot down by ordinary radar, and so forth) that are
absolutely unnecessary, the last thing we need is to encourage the bad old habits of our
military to squander money needlessly on shadowy 'national security' projects. US
Militaristic predilections, far from being a formidable threat to be feared by other
nations, ought more properly to be feared by our own citizenry for their massive required
appropriations outlays as being seriously symptomatic of a raging 'defense needs'
identification conflict.
On the other hand, while Gore's attitudes and philosophies
are FAR more appealing to me than the artless and thinly cosmeticized red-neck
conservative Republican attitudes of George Bush, Gore's selection of an avowed Orthodox
Jew as a running mate sets off alarm signals that I cannot dismiss as meaningless and
without possibly serious repercussions for the nation. This is especially the case seen
against the context of the current disintegration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation
set-piece, a recurrent, unending, nay irresolvable, contest between diametrically
divergent religious-political philosophies, that has been permitted to play all 
along
upon a backdrop of largely unpublicized, but iron-clad and continuing, US-Israel defense
rapport. The fact that the Arabs have unceasingly received poor press in the United States
in past decades is clearly attributable to the powerful influence that Israeli-American
partisan organisations are able to manifest through special-interest group influence
pedaling within the USA and through behind-the-scenes string pulling in the Capitol, but
heretofore these powerful national lobbying forces have officially functioned outside
the corridors of elected government. If Mr. Lieberman were to become the elected Vice
President of the United States, I shudder to think of how this situation would change the
current ground rules and I also remain unconvinced that a person who openly and
enthusiastically espouses a theology such as Orthodox Judaism would be able to
carefully maintain the mandated separation of church and state that our constitution
specifies. As a matter of fact, I am apprehensive of ANYONE who manifests an overtly
religious life-philosophy holding public office, but with the current and
long-standing Israeli-American game of "Patticake-Patticake" going on, as it has
in the past (this isn't even to consider the 'legitimacy' of Israel as a state and the
clearly unreasonable attitudes demonstrated by Israel's denial of Palestinian rights and
entitlements, since their 'forced' invasion of Palestine 50 years ago), the potential
escalation of this unacceptable interaction seems especially clear and present to me if
Lieberman is elected to office.
Therefore we have (at least as I see it) two almost equally untenable candidates for presidential office presented by the two traditional American political parties. Buchanan and Nader, on the other hand, have interesting, thoughtful arguments that Americans deserve to hear if they are to be well informed and exercise their right to vote most sagaciously. Thus, when I recently had someone tell me for perhaps the millionth time that a vote for Nader or Buchanan was a waste of a vote that could make the telling difference in a national campaign that for all practical purposes was ONLY among two major contenders for office, I had to respond by reminding this individual that no vote cast in favor of reason, sanity, wisdom, or well-ordered and thoughtful overall humane clarity of perspective was a waste.
What we do need is not more soul-less corporate control over America and the lives of its citizens. What we do not need is even more complex, ever more expensive military systems and hardware. What we do not need is to continue our economic campaign to coerce the rest of the world into believing that the spiritually sick American corporate consumer economy is an exemplary model for the rest of the world to emulate. What we do not need is an America that arrogantly views itself as 'the only force left in the world that stands between right and order, and chaos and disorder'. What we DO need is to get these messages out to the pathetically victimised American 'consumer' who could help to unshackle the iron grip that oppressive American corporate fascism maintains by being given the opportunity to consider other, wiser options. The Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, best exemplifies these alternative options.
As
the candidate of the emerging American Green Party, Ralph Nader stands out as the single
most substantial source of these important ideas and awarenesses that we are so
conspicuously missing in today's America. I have followed the career of Ralph Nader with
much interest over the years, from his first appearance in the 1960s public eye as a
champion for public safety and consumer rights, to his present advocacy of rational
governmental philosophies, moderated international policy, and humane internal
socioeconomic balance. It is sad to me to reflect that due to the rigidly oppressive
institutionalised political party dogma that we are inflicted with (titred and carefully
modulated by the rabidly partisan media), his important views and opinions will not be
heard by the majority of Americans who are about to exercise their right to vote in
November. Access by the people, a process regulated and determined by public exposure
through the instrument of media, has been and will continue to be denied to the thoughts,
ideas, and reflective wisdom of Mr. Nader's considerable and balanced non-partisan
intelligence. Regrettably, in a society in which the hierarchical importance of all
things is determined solely by their intrinsic coefficient of profit potential,
well-informed reflective wisdom and wide-ranging knowledge are not regarded as profitable
investments by monied corporate America.
Hence, the present pathetic political straw vote for straw candidates continues and America is the poorer for it. I myself admit to having been grossly deceived in the last elections. While initially looking upon President Clinton as perhaps the fresh breath of air we direly need, I was just as aghast as everyone else in the nation when the extent of his most egregious indiscretion with the Lewinski person was finally and fully revealed. It is proof, perhaps, that we are after all human (the French, for example would not consider such an indiscretion by a Chief Executive anything more than a momentary exercise of poor personal judgement and would go about business as usual; in America, we must not only deal with such ill considered acts, but with our absurdly hypocritical and complete denial of such things that is demanded by our Puritan heritage)....but it also serves to prove that we have not gotten the formulae down correctly, yet.
Denying access to information--increasingly a standard American military practice after the embarrassing Vietnam debacle--is not going to help resolve the situation. America needs to encourage the promulgation and proliferation of the rich diversity of ideas, thought, outlook, and perspective that have traditionally helped make ours the great nation it has become (just as the US defense establishment needs to get a grip on fiscal reality; unfortunately, rather than understand and acknowledge the message that money for defense purposes is not available on the Carte Blanche plan, our military instead feels that it is an inextricable part of their mission to fend off the public mandate by appearing compliant with this requirement, while behind the great smoke screen of obfuscation the same old cornicopia attitudes maintain as before!).
We do not need to repress and disinform our citizens, by denying them access to information or by any other means......unless we have something other than a democracy lurking under all that red, white, & blue bunting that decorates the Republican and Democratic presidential election band-wagons. We have seen time and time again what the no-result/results of your traditional red, white, and blue GOP & Democratic policies are....perhaps it's time for some greening of America, eh?
16 Oct 00: WAV soundtrack courtesy of Clay Loomis at CLAY'S ATOMIC CAFE. Visit Clay at the following website: http://www.slonet.org/%7Erloomis/acafe.html
