The End of Big Politics

When news of a new high profile candidate entering the presidential race broke Wednesday, it must have been a little disappointing for all those Al Gore fans to find out it was only Stephen Colbert raising the stakes of his comedic attack on politics. But before anyone nervously heads back to the edge of their seat to pray that Gore lays down his bid for the presidency and sweeps through the primaries like the second coming of FDR, it might be worth taking note of what Colbert is saying.

By announcing his plan to run on both the Republican and Democratic tickets in his home state of South Carolina, Colbert has illustrated better than anyone that there is very little difference between the two parties, at least when it comes to their mainstream candidates.

The Republicans are offering a coterie of conservatives who want nothing more than to embody our current president. The only one with the brass to stand outside of that group is Ron Paul and the party would have to be on its deathbed -- which isn't completely unimaginable -- to toss him their nomination.

Meanwhile the Democrats are led by the big three of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards -- again, none of whom offer a stark contrast to the present leadership. Two of the three voted for the Iraq war, while all three have made it very clear (without much mentioning of diplomacy) that they wouldn't hesitate in starting another war with Iran. On the fringe, but only because the Democratic leadership put them there, are Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- both of whom have strong records of challenging corruption and military growth.

If Gore were to enter the picture, he wouldn't be the knight in a shining white Prius so many people are imagining (e.g. DraftGore.com and AmericaforGore.org). It's easy to get caught up watching a man who had the presidency stolen out from under him slowly earn his revenge against a now hated administration -- culminating with last week's Nobel Peace Prize bestowment -- but there's still a rather sad political track record that's being ignored.

Gore served as second in command to a president that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called "the best Republican president we've had in a while." Clinton may be remembered fondly in these current tough times, but it was his open arms embrace of the "free market" agenda that led to more than two million Mexican farmers being forced off their land since 1993, some six million of America's poor being thrown out on the street without welfare, the slashing of Medicare and Medicaid, and the lowering of capital gains tax for the rich. We also must not forget the half million Iraqi children who died as a result of Clinton's economic sanctions -- a number that deserves as much attention as the more than one million dead Iraqi civilians since the 2003 invasion.

Maybe this all sounds like more anti-Hillary fodder, but Gore was not washing his hands clean of these disgusting policies. He was a major supporter, particularly of the 1998 bombing of Baghdad that killed hundreds of civilians. And when it came to the environment, he championed the "free market" idea of emissions trading to reduce carbon dioxide output, which is about as far as you can get from a realistic solution.

As award-winning environmental journalist Ross Gelbspan explained in his book Boiling Point, "[Emissions trading] assumes that nature will accommodate our economic system. It will not. There is no way that a market-based system can accomplish a global transition to clean energy." But this isn't just one journalist saying so. Anyone who has heard NASA climatologist James Hansen's prediction that there is only a 10-year window to prevent cataclysmic climate change -- and you would have to assume Gore has heard the message because he based most of An Inconvenient Truth on the man's research -- must understand that nothing short of ending our fossil fuel dependence will have an effect. Yet, when Gore testified before Congress this past March, he touted the same cap-and-trade system.

This should serve as evidence that big politicians answer to big business, not the people. It also shows how easily we overlook past offenses and allow these politicians to become spokesmen of specific causes. Take fellow Nobel Laureate Jimmy Cater as yet another example. Much like Gore has become synonymous with the environment, Carter's reputation is largely staked on serving human rights.

Upon entering office in 1977, Carter set out to end the American disillusionment toward government that followed Vietnam by emphasizing human rights in such places as South Africa and Chile. But as historian Howard Zinn wrote in A People's History of the United States, "On close examination, these more liberal policies were designed to leave intact the power and influence of the American military and American business in the world." He then sites Carter's continuing sale of arms to repressive regimes, increase of the military budget, tax reforms that benefited corporations, and governmental aid to brutal dictators like Marcos and Somoza. Yet, just last week, Carter was praised by many for calling Dick Cheney "a militant," who believes "the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world."

The hypocrisy is hard to ignore. But many will still insist that if you hate this war and the way things have gone the past seven years, you should support the Democratic nominee for president, even if that Democrat ends up being a hawk who voted for the war in the first place. Believe that, though, and you're overlooking one very important thing, put best by journalist and activist Robert Jensen: "A kinder and gentler imperial policy designed by Democrats is still an imperial policy, and imperial policies always have the same result: The suffering of millions in support of policies that protect our affluence."

Let's be mindful of the mainstream candidates -- especially with such strong alternative voices also in the race -- and think about breaking the cycle of political sameness that's allowed for the domination of corporatocracy over democracy. That doesn't mean you should vote for Stephen Colbert, but it does mean he's got a point.

Bryan Farrell is an independent journalist in New York, whose work has appeared in many publications, including The Nation. He can be contacted at www.bryanfarrell.com.

Comments

[Tator]

Poor ole Liberals. Hillary will be your girl this time and she may very well win. You will get what you asked for in the form of higher income taxes on the working guy. She can not get it from the rich because the know how to shelter their money from the tax man, because legislators wrote the tax laws that way. I know, I am rich (by my standards-retired at 50 and can buy almost anything I want) and I pay almost no taxes.

When the Republicans won in 94 I knew they would have about a decade to fix things( remember back then the Dems controlled everything and corruption ran rampant) or be forever the minority. As power tends to corrupt, the Republicans morphed into corrupt drunk spending Democrats and were voted out of office by conservatives. I always get a chuckle when I hear a Liberal state they defeated the Republicans, they did not. The Conservatives said "enough, acting like Democrats" and unelected them.

Now if you Liberals desire any hope of controlling your personal financial future I suggest you read up on non-taxable income instruments (where almost all my money is), because if you do not Hillary, Social Security, Medicare, Drug Prescription Program, coming National Heath Care will take almost all your money before you even cash your paycheck. You have to understand (your MSM does not tell you this) with the financial commitment babyboomers (me included)you have empowered your Democrat leaders to take money from the poor working guy and give it to me, a rich person ( a lot of us babyboomers are rich because we grew up in America when hard work and saving was taught to us from birth).

Understand Democrats, you have set up and now support a system that keeps the poor guy poor by taking his hard earned money and giving it to rich people. So please, you can delude yourselves, but don't try to sell me on "you are for the little guy".

[Pdubya]

let us stop masticating over red or blue and realize our trumped up trust in those on the Hill has finally been superceded by their lust for power through the corporate welfare system effected by the lobby system and foreign bodies of politic.

as a blue dog dem atheist, I can support this bill and encourage anyone to write their representatives and have US, the people start participating in our government. The system is still there in place for us to use (for now), so let's use it!

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/storage/afagenda/documents/AFA%20Act%20text.pdf

[Rescisco]

The knowledge, skill, and determination of the American people is the most powerful engine we have for change. Guess that mean's we're screwed unless there is something I'm missing. As you have noted, "politicians answer to big business...." The people show little evidence of really caring about that.

[mommadona]

So, this Independent asks the Democratic voter:

Which is it?
Democratic "Leadership" Council (DLC)-D I N O
OR
Democratic National Party (DNC)- the REAL party?

You can't have them both.
Rahm & Company need to be taken down a buncha notches. NO MORE K-STREET BUSINESS AS USUAL.

They can start their own damn business-supported party if they so choose.

How ANY good Union member could allow the DLC so much power is truthfully beyond me.

[whomung]

How do you run, when BIG money controls the media, that is charged with defining what the Status Quo wants people to consider the "lunatic fringe" --and outside of "sane debate"... in other words a level of thinking above the level of selfishness and greed that created this debacle?

Look at Dennis, or poor Ron Paul as a Independent/republican.... Agree or not... they are Marginalized....

And lets say you do find an honest person........ What are they going to do?... you think the Status Quo interest is going to dry up and blow away? That suddenly they are going to go --oh... we see now, narcissism and socio pathology aren't GOOD.... sorry, our bad... won't happen again?

In the face of Moneys power to create propaganda, and the current American attention span.... Finding an honest man, who is electable, and can actually get things accomplished in the face of the Fascist interest of unbridled greed..... Might as well wait for Jesus....

or take a cue from the French Revolution

[RumiSouth]

And we're RIGHT BACK to November 2000.

Just answer me this: would you prefer 8 years of Gore, with all his flaws, to the 8 years we've had under Bush?

Answer honestly.