For the past couple of months, one topic has consumed the attention of the nation. One topic has made it impossible to pick up a magazine or a newspaper, to turn on the television or the radio, to even go to the store without hearing somebody’s opinion on the biggest political story in years. I think that I speak for many when I say: Enough already about Clinton’s trip to Vietnam! America is sick of it. But while all of you were focusing on this overexposed historic act of diplomacy, you may have overlooked the small debacle known as the 2000 Presidential Election.
For both the Democratic and the Republican parties, this election had more ups and downs than Dick Cheney’s EKG. A battle between two bland sycophants selling us their own ornamented partisan version of the status quo ended in the usurpation of the now far-off concept of “democracy” and the politically convenient decisions of the Supreme Court of Oligarchs. By now every analyst, columnist, pundit, talking head, politician, lawyer, professor, hot dog vendor, and mime, has opined profusely about the election. “Butterfly ballots” and “pregnant chads” are now part of everyone’s vernacular. The election was a complete circus. Combine November 7th’s comedy of errors, the juggling acts of Warren Christopher and Jim Baker, the Courts’ Three-Stooges approach to the legal process, and Katherine Harris’ makeup, and you have yourself a first-rate clown.
Because this is a particularly political edition, I was asked by the Editors to write something about the 2000 Presidential Election. But really, is there anything left to say? I could comment upon uncounted votes, confusing ballots, incompetent media, constitutional breaches, or the Supreme Court’s attempt to preserve the “legitimacy” of the Bush administration, an argument with more gaps than Michael Strahan’s teeth. But because of the timing of this publication, there is little to be said about the election that would convey a new perspective. Many have lambasted the election as a blow to democracy, as an undermining of what America stands for, as a subversion to the holy American concept of “one man, one vote.” These people are mostly Democrats who are upset that Al Gore isn’t in the White House, not patriotic zealots placing their love of democracy over their feelings towards a specific candidate. Had the roles been reversed and had George W. Bush needed the “uncounted” Floridian votes to secure victory, the sentiments of these outraged Democrats and these content Republicans would be radically different. There is a better chance of Bob Dole adopting Bob Seger’s “Like A Rock” as his theme song than of the Supreme Court judges voting identically to how they actually did if the candidate’s roles were reversed.
It comes as no surprise that the election ended up as it did, having so little to do with “we the people.” Candidates are elected not because of their views or their ability to progress society, but because of how much money they spend. More than 90% of all national election campaigns are won by the candidate who spends the most money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics Our current President, George W. Bush, spent more money than any candidate in history, and data from the Federal Election Commission shows that the amount of money spent on elections doubles during every four year cycle. In America, all people are equal, but those with a lot of money and powerful daddy’s are more equal.
The necessity for a candidate to have large amounts of cash presents the problem of attaining that money. Some candidates can finance their campaigns with their own wealth, such as New Jersey Senator John Corzine, who outspent his opponent, Republican candidate Bob Franks, by $56,700,417. Amazingly, Corzine, who probably has enough money to buy the state of New Jersey in addition to his Senator position, also had $3,045,518 donated to him. Giving a charitable monetary donation to a guy like Corzine is like taking Jerry Falwell to a soup kitchen for a free lunch. Some candidates, however, need to raise a lot money for their campaigns. This is where big corporations get to trade their money for favors. And, of course, it doesn’t make much of a difference where the money comes from. You have a better chance of seeing John Ashcroft out on the dance floor doing the YMCA with Barney Frank than you do of seeing a presidential candidate turn down a campaign contribution. It isn’t much of a surprise that W. would want to overturn the federal indictment of the Microsoft Corporation when Bill Gates is giving $2,327,322.24 to the Republican party for the Bush campaign or that Al Gore would be sympathetic to labor unions when he and the Democratic Party are getting a combined $17,464,000 from the Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Carpenters and Joiners Union, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Why would a Democrat favor tort reform when he is receiving $2,667,060 from the Assn. Of Trial Lawyers of America? Clinton may harshly criticize cigarettes in his speeches or may put tax money towards anti-smoking commercials and billboards, but that doesn’t stop him from accepting $622,836 from Philip Morris. It is a direct conflict of interest to have the NRA donating $2,885,377 to the Republican Party and Bush’s campaign. Vice-President of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, may have a point when he said that when Bush wins “..we’ll have a President where we work out of his office.”
Corporations have more power than ever before, a power that will increase with Bush’s term. Corporations are the hand flicking the hollow, plastic, cartoon head of our Pez President; they are the arm shoved deep into the puppet’s rear end; they are the old, fat, creepy rich guy behind the boy band. Such a chaotic election is a result of an increasingly corrupt plutocracy with oligarchic leanings and democratic pretenses. This may seem to be a cynical point of view, but the real cynicism comes from those who see our nation irrevocably mired in an unanswerable problem, who see no possible remedy for a government that has more to do with Citigroup than citizens. I hope that some people out there are working hard to fix the situation. I would join them, but I am too busy saving enough money to buy the U.S. government on eBay.