The American public is pissed -- and rightly so -- about the dwindling light of the American Dream, and never more so acutely has this anger surfaced than surrounding the recent debt ceiling crisis. The tumult amongst the populace is burgeoning, and the bleak economic outlook this debt bill almost certainly ensures will only stoke the civil unrest.
Unfortunately, this energy is aimed in all sorts of asinine directions. It is not by coincidence that many Americans attribute our current economic calamities to China or undocumented immigrants, while another sect assails the tax-hating tea partiers, a group of working-class individuals who see 30% of their paycheck going into a large sinkhole. The truth is that neither one of these groups is powerful enough to influence the tide of our nation -- they are too small, too poor, and have little influence over the insular D.C. circus. The harder truth to convey is that there are two entities to blame for our country's woes. Neither of them of them pledge allegiance to the United States, but both of them are as American as apple pie.
I've been concerned about the dysfunction of Congress, and by proxy the nation, since the mid-2000s. For some highly tuned policy wonks it's been longer, but most Americans are just now gleaning the very real dangers our stymied political process. People have long turned off to politics; they are working longer hours for less pay, they don't want to listen to the rancor and no longer bother to vote because they have lost faith in the system. It's a sad state of affairs that Americans have become so inured to political disappointment that they feel they can't do anything about it.
Our process has always been flawed, but never this broken. There are certain parts of political life that have always been a reality, and while unpleasant, Congress has still been able to function with their existence. As always, the first goal of a politician is to get re-elected. In the good old days, the best way to accomplish that was to do right by your constituents, and vote how they'd want you to vote. An area might be represented by a Republican or a Democrat, but on the stuff that really mattered, they would vote the same way regardless: In the interest of their district. When re-election time came around they were held accountable and power was truly with the people to cast off someone who did not work for the good of their constituents and country.
I am increasingly convinced that those days have passed.
According to current political wisdom, there are three main ways to gauge the likely winner of any political race: Where the economy is headed, whether a candidate is an incumbent, and how much money their campaign has. There's not much any campaign can do about the first two, but the third is another story. Money is truly the great equalizer in our politics today. Elected officials don't get into office by voting their conscience or their district's interests anymore; they get elected with money, mainly from private donors (corporations, unions, political action committees) or from the two main political parties (Democrat, Republican). In order to get elected, politicians must now pander to these two bases, not to us.
This is not to say that the people with wealth or power are inherently bad, because this isn't about people at all. Instead it's about large financial entities, political parties, and their agendas. Our elections and Congress are driven by lifeless entities with no allegiance to our country, but instead are dedicated to retaining their own wealth and power. Indeed, for many years we've assumed that because they are "American," private donors (corporations, unions, political action committees) and political parties have had our best interests at heart. But these things don't have hearts, they have priorities. And these priorities, often times, are very different than those that benefit the country.
It has been hard for us Americans to see the cause of our malaise because of the apparent dissonance this presents. Corporations, unions, other private donors and our elected officials have done so much to bolster the profile of the United States that it is hard for us to see that in other instances, as with political donations and legislative subterfuge, they also work against us.
The goal of private donors, like corporations and unions, is to get politicians elected who are favorable to their industry or cause, and then pressure them to vote in a manner favorable to their own interests, even if the outcomes are unfavorable to America's future. This is why, for instance, electric (not hybrids, wholly electric) cars have been in existence since the mid-90s, and could have been transformative in weaning us off expensive and politically costly foreign oil, but here we are in 2011 paying $4.00 a gallon at the pump. This is also why we have one of the least comprehensive or effective, yet most costly health care systems in the advanced world, or why it's nearly impossible to fire a horrible teacher in a unionized public school system.
This wasn't such an issue in years past, when a politician could take money, have their ear bent, and still vote in the interests of the people. But private donors are now so integral to electability that politicians simply can't do that anymore. Therefore money (i.e. private donors') ability to influence elections now trumps that of the American voter.
Another very real enemy of American interests is the contentious relationship between the two political parties that govern our land. While a politician's duty is to his or her constituency, the political party's interest is solely in aggrandizing itself, usurping as much power as it can. Ostensibly, from what I can glean of this intransigent Congress, the thinking is that if the minority can water down, slow, or stop the passage of any legislation, then the majority party will become unpopular for not addressing critical problems and be voted out of office. Then one day there will be enough power on the former minority's/new majority's side of the aisle so that they can pass a piece of legislation, apparently with little or no help from the other side who will, of course, be united in opposition. If this means thwarting the oppositions' bills, refusing to compromise, and bringing the American and world economies to the brink of disaster, so be it. As Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell openly stated, defeating Obama in 2012 is the single most important goal of the Republican Party. While Harry Reid may not be quoted, you can be sure he's thinking the exact same thing about the GOP. These parties, and the insular groupthink they adhere to, truly believe that there is only one way to win: Not by doing right by us, but by defeating an opponent.
Unfortunately, the consequences of such foolish leadership go far beyond the halls of the Capitol. While the debt ceiling "debate" was an ugly affair, it pales in comparison with what is coming next should our leaders continue to focus on winning versus addressing the real problems and threats to our country. There are problems we knew about and should have addressed years (or decades) ago: Globalization and the shifting job markets, global warming, an aging population and it's impact on social security, health care and taxes, and a crumbling infrastructure. But we didn't, and likely won't anytime soon.
Instead, it looks like the United States is in for a lost decade and an era of austerity, where we simply cut back on public spending without addressing our stagnant economy or the mass exodus of jobs to Southeast Asia and Latin America. But it doesn't stop there. The inability of Congress to pass meaningful legislation could very well end the American Dream as we know it, and signal the first and final decline of our country. Our leaders need to put the games aside, be honest with the American public and admit that urgent reform is needed.
The very real benefits that corporations, unions, political parties, and the individuals within them have brought to our country, these are the ties that blind the American people from the true cause of our unrest. I do not believe I am un-American, anti-capitalist, anti-worker, ultra-liberal or neo-conservative for pointing out that, at this moment in our history, these are the true opponents of the People of the United States of America. Their deleterious impact on the political process is evident, and if those in control of the aforementioned entities cannot take it upon themselves to reform the system quickly, I hope that Americans will stand up and demand change.
Pete Subkoviak is a freelance writer and a policy coordinator at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC) where he works on several legislative and advocacy initiatives. He coordinates the Midwest AIDS Policy Alliance and the Illinois Alliance for AIDS Policy, as well as AFC's online advocacy efforts. He also works on HIV-prevention programs that target gay men, transgender individuals and other at-risk communities. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Pete's editorials are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago.
The gravest mistake voters have made is giving republicans control of congress in 2010.
Some will pay with their lives and the rest will pay for a very long time for that mistake.
When I read articles like this, I am 'inclined' to believe even if Obama wanted to do the right thing for the country, he doesn't have the power to do so.
One problem that exacerbates all others is the necessity for equivalency in the modern media. If you quote a leader of one party as saying something disgraceful, you have to attribute similar sentiments to a member of the other party, even if you have to pull it out of your butt. There is exactly no evidence that "While Harry Reid may not be quoted, you can be sure he's thinking the exact same thing about the GOP."
The multinationals are running the Global world now; they are making their own rules as the go.
We are now living through the hyoperglobalization period of time---It can not continue on this level without national governments to work on the national concerns of their citizens. If they do not address the problems of unfair trade practices if will have a backlash of the open market system. .
The first round of globalize in Europe's nineteenth century did not end well------World War 1- below is the speak of Roosevelt on monopolies.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies.
To the Congress:
Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.
Both lessons hit home.
Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.
the corporations will find new hosts
Along the way to this surrender, virtually every systemic institution in the country has been starved, severely crippled, or broken: education, transportation, energy (all utilities), health care, finance, the electoral system, labor, all levels of Government, and basic industry. The decline of these systems has occurred gradually over time due to our collective pursuit of wealth, the self serving interests inherent in all such institutions, and our inability to forecast or respond to the need for systemic change..........we are simply victims of our own inertia in most every critical aspect of our society. 2008 is a significant forewarning of the pan-systemic breakdown of our critical institutions.
Continued below
Until we gain critical mass in recognizing both the nature and the scale of the problem, we will not be able to debate and formulate a clear vision for the future. In the meanwhile, we seem to be arguing over the symptoms, and fighting among ourselves about who has the best hypothetical cure, even while ignoring the diagnosis of the disease.............a forest and trees problem of the highest magnitude.
Debt, taxes, entitlements, jobs, infrastructure, and Government dysfunction are all external symptoms. Alleviating any one or even all of those symptoms may delay the cataclysmic effects, but will not cure the disease. We need to stand back and insure that we fully understand the disease, and then design our treatments to both alleviate the symptoms and cure the disease based on a comprehensive strategy with clearly defined priorities, timelines, and resources. ASAP please!
Great article, Mr. Subkoviak.
I would be interested to see you add a blog that establishes the similarities and differences between these two categories as they pertain to your thesis. You should be able to show how, because of their similar lack of fealty to the interests to "America," they both result significantly in the corruption of democracy. Myself, I see a different picture. one that has changed significantly since the heyday of the Labor movement.
However, there is a vital difference between corporations and unions. Unions have direct elections of their leadership, analogous to our current ability to directly elect our Congressional Representatives and Senators; furthermore, each union member has one vote. By contrast, shareholders vote on a Board of Directors of a corporation and the Board of Directors nominally appoints/hires the executives of the corporation. (The reality is significantly more complex, because the Boards of Directors are quite frequently involved in many close relationships with the executives, and the executives frequently have almost complete control of who is nominated for the Boards.) Most importantly, voting is done by share and not by individual, so single individuals can often completely control a corporation by voting enough shares and/or managing to get the right to vote enough shares by proxy. (I'm not saying that's necessarily unfair -- corporations are property and the largest owners should have the greatest influence over that property.)
F&F for a great response!
Fanned back.
1) race them to the bottom. Rip out pollution laws, drop wages, worker safety and retirement funds. Average wage in China is something like $1.68/hr. Surely we can do $1.50.
2)Stop consuming cheap chit_. We all want to live large, have flat screens and new furniture even when we don't have any money, but this means accepting goods made under conditions we'd find deplorable. One solution is this: No goods are allowed to be imported into the country if they are not made with the same regulations/safety/laws that American goods have to be made with.
But you know they have a sale on at Walmart and I can get an entire patio set for $399....
I am completely bewildered by people who are barely getting enough food to eat but who are screaming their heads off about other people in the same situation making too much money -- and defending multi-billionaires as needing even more.
You had to make sure you included the unions? Not only CAN bad teachers be fired, but the main jist of your diatribe is that Politicians aren't listening to their constituents. You CANNOT say the unions are fightng AGAINST the needs and desires of their members, so you throw in the 'bad teacher' bit.
While I agree that there are Democrats that have kowtowed to the demands of the Tpubs, they wouldn't dare do so if the Tpubs weren't threatening to shut down the government if they didn't agree, so look who is ignoring the wishes of their constituents.
The vast majority of voters in the US want an end to the tax breaks for the wealthy. Stop me if you have heard this, but the ONLY GROUP that DEMANDS the tax breaks stay in effect is the Tpubs. Go down the list of their demands and you get a whole litany of anti-voter agendas.
Deregulation, like the ones that led to the housing fiasco. Cuts in Education, in a bald faced attempt to dumb down America, and Social Security, which is paid for by the tax payers and hasn't contributed one red cent to the deficit. And the list goes on.....
In the meantime, less charitable billionaires are still paying less in tax percentage than his secretary, or anyone else in the middle class pays. Like the Koch Brothers who amassed their billions by STEALING from Indian Tribes, and purchasing Politicians.
And don't ask me to prove it. Google it yourself and do your own footwork. I'm getting tired of doing some of you guy's homework for you.