The argument, which is usually peddled by Democrats, since they directly profit from it, proceeds like this: Yes, both Democrats and Republicans have their flaws, but surely a difference separates them. For example, one candidate might speak loudly in favor of universal health care while the other remains silent.
Of course, whether distinctions among candidates are ground shaking or are merely distinctions without a difference is a subjective call. For Democratic Party hacks who mingle with these candidates and stand close to them, the differences must truly appear astounding. But for the vast majority of us who, because of our economic status, stand miles away, the differences appear at times almost indistinguishable and will continue to diminish as inequalities in wealth grow.
But a deeper issue is at stake. The above arguments assume that a firm correlation connects candidates' campaign pledges and the policies they actually implement once elected.
For example, when Bill Clinton first ran for president in the early 1990s, his platform included universal health care, tax breaks for the working class, gays to be able to serve openly in the military, and last but not least the return of ethics to government.
As soon as he was elected, the medical industry unfurled a historically unprecedented magnitude of lobbying that successfully derailed health care reform. The working class, rather than enjoying a tax break, was slammed with a regressive tax hike at the gas pumps. Gays in the military were told they could not announce their sexual orientation. And since morality is subjective, we will let the reader rate Clinton's success on this index.
More recently, U.S. Senator, Barack Obama, responding to his Illinois constituents who were outraged that Exelon Corporation did not disclose radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, promised action. While campaigning for president, he later bragged that he succeeded in passing legislation to require immediate reporting of all radioactive leaks, no matter how small.
But here is what really happened, according to The New York Times, February 3, 2008: "While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulations. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulars…."
Of course, whether distinctions among candidates are ground shaking or are merely distinctions without a difference is a subjective call. For Democratic Party hacks who mingle with these candidates and stand close to them, the differences must truly appear astounding. But for the vast majority of us who, because of our economic status, stand miles away, the differences appear at times almost indistinguishable and will continue to diminish as inequalities in wealth grow.
But a deeper issue is at stake. The above arguments assume that a firm correlation connects candidates' campaign pledges and the policies they actually implement once elected.
For example, when Bill Clinton first ran for president in the early 1990s, his platform included universal health care, tax breaks for the working class, gays to be able to serve openly in the military, and last but not least the return of ethics to government.
As soon as he was elected, the medical industry unfurled a historically unprecedented magnitude of lobbying that successfully derailed health care reform. The working class, rather than enjoying a tax break, was slammed with a regressive tax hike at the gas pumps. Gays in the military were told they could not announce their sexual orientation. And since morality is subjective, we will let the reader rate Clinton's success on this index.
More recently, U.S. Senator, Barack Obama, responding to his Illinois constituents who were outraged that Exelon Corporation did not disclose radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, promised action. While campaigning for president, he later bragged that he succeeded in passing legislation to require immediate reporting of all radioactive leaks, no matter how small.
But here is what really happened, according to The New York Times, February 3, 2008: "While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulations. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulars…."
~ more... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment