Freud considered denial to be one of the most powerful psychological disorders.
The GOP primary debates feature politicians and the debate moderators in a deep state of denial about the most burning issue facing the country -- one that a vast majority of Americans care intensely about: the fact that our elections have become auctions.
How intensely? A recent Rasmussen poll shows that a record 48% of Americans agree that Congress is "corrupt." A CNN poll shows that 86% believe that Congress' priorities are set by donors. Congressional approval ratings are at 9%. And, in polling released yesterday, voters, by a two to one margin say that reducing the influence of money in politics would be an important factor in their votes. This issue cuts easily across party lines, by the way.
Super PACs are outspending the candidates 2 to 1, and manipulating voter views dramatically and often anonymously. Yet of the 17 Republican primary debates, the topic of money in politics has come up a mere couple of times -- and only in relation to the nasty tone of some political ads.
If we had a truly representative democracy and an accountable media, this would not be the case. A topic this big, that burns this hot -- from the Tea Party to Occupy to everyone in between -- must be at the center of the conversation. Money's control over politics is at the root of the rip-off Wall Street bailouts, the never-ending jobs crisis, the yawning wealth gap, our ancient energy policy, inflated health-care costs, and the list goes on and on.
This year's political campaigns are expected to spend a total of $6 billion dollars, and it's going to be a mess that often times will have little or no connection to the huge, structural problems our country faces. People are going to continue to be cynical and nauseated by the attack ads and the robo calls and the utterly disingenuous poll-tested messages that are going to be sprayed around.
This weekend marks the second anniversary of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that flung open the floodgates of corporate and billionaire political spending. And on Monday the first televised Florida primary debate will be held.
So what better time than now to spark a great conversation about the routine buying and selling of our government?
We just produced a funny video that illustrates the problem with the debates so far. Take a look.
Alcoholics and addicts are masters of denial. There is no better metaphor for our money-flooded politicians than that - utterly dependent on a substance (big money) that is ultimately destroying them and everything around them. But incapable of admitting there's a problem. It's time to yank our elected officials out of their collective state of denial.
Starting today, and throughout this year's elections, we'll be helping end the denial and force the real debate that we all - left, right and center - are hoping to have. Let's do it together.
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Robert Weissman: We the People
Mark Jeffries: What Business Folk Can Learn From Presidential Debates
This if the age of the internet, for crying out loud, where they can go online to find the facts about candidates going back years, just for starters.
Or are these voters so dense that they permit themselves to be led by the tv media which puts on the debates into actually believing that the debates matter all that much? That all that's necessary is for them to sit back in their easy chairs, popcorn in hand, and watch the show in order to decide on how to cast their vote?
Dense voters?
Perish the thought.
So we cut PAC money for ads; but the respective parties will continue to advertise with the same sort of misleading sound bytes that are designed to alarm the uninformed.
Maybe the country needs a good AAA type encounter session. Soon enough we will hit bottom. It really isn't up to you or me any more to try to forestall the inevitable--and maybe, in the great chess game of life, the inevitable has to come around every so often.
As I said in my post above, it may not entirely be about money. It may be that we citizens are unfit for democracy because we can't think past sound byte advertisements that big money pays for.
Individual contributions are not the problem. It's the PACs, the corporations, the unions, all the anonymous millions that corrupt the system. It's the media favoring one candidate over the others, and using their clout to push their own agenda. If we, the people, could access contribution info on the internet, sorted by contributor, amount, party, date, and any other way to help cut through all the toro kaka, we would KNOW who supports whom and be able to decide for ourselves who should be elected. While the contribution laws allow the Koch and Soros types to give millions without disclosing they did so, the system will remain corrupt.
And, while I'm pontificating, ANY election fraud should be a capital offence.
someone with more means should not have more say, period; and if we only take PACs, corporations, and unions out of the picture in order to leave contributions up to the people, it will be exactly that -- more means would equal more say.
How about if one guy got two percent of his money from each state and the other guy got ten times as much as the other guy, all from one city?
Money is a tool; the more of it you have, the more you can do. People who demonize wealth are fools.
But Im sure this realization will not change minds in the media for a generation, as the media has invested to much time and money in being devisive.
Im happy that part of this realization (in the medias mind) has been brought about by Newt, which is part of the reason for his success. He has already changed the media environment in this country, as will be apparent in the line of questioning used in the next debate.
Hopefully we can now conecentrate on the real issues moving foward.
Such questions would simply be ludicrously over the top hyper-combative BADGERING, from an imbecilic hyper-partisan like YOU.
And btw, relevant to your proposed ridiculous first badgering question [actually not an actual question at all, but simply a badgering HARANGUE] you'd have your "intelligent moderator" ask, the utter logical absurdity, of such a badgering harangue, links to the fact there was simply no parallelism whatsoever, between the "crime" you implicate Speaker Gingrich in, and the ACTUAL alleged crimes President Clinton was in fact impeached for.
President Clinton was of course in no way impeached for "adultery", but instead for the most serious crimes of suborning perjury [trying to get Monica Lewinski to lie on an affadavit in the Paula Jones legal case]. as well as the crime of perjury itself for his own lying directly to a grand jury, as well as the crime of "obstruction of justice".
Not only was Bill Clinton never in any way impeached for "adultery", but of course NO President could ever be impeached for such a thing as "adultery", which of course happens to be PERFECTLY LEGAL !
In any court in America, "adultery" not only isn't a felony, it isn't even a misdemeanor: It's simply totally LEGAL !