The most recent Gallup polls all have Obama beating McCain by 8 to 9%. But is that enough? And, I really mean it – though it may seem like the Obama-Biden ticket seems to have wrapped up the election with November nearing, they may need a double digit lead to even come close. Not only is Obama counting on young voters of America – those who have a historic tendency to fail to show up to vote – ,but he is also being potentially misled by the polls conducted day-to-day.This may sound harsh, but it is known as the Bradley Effect – as African-American governor-elect for California learned.
Back in 1982, Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California. He was the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, and though he was up in the polls (early prints of the San Francisco Cronicle read “Bradley Win Projected” on the cover), he was narrowly defeated in the final vote by “The Duke”. The Bradley Effect is the idea that, in a race with a white candidate and an African-American candidate, there is a tendency by some voters to tell pollsters that they are either undecided or more likely to vote for an African-American candidate and then, at the polls, actually vote for the white candidate.
Now, this may be diminishing in American politics, but it interesting to note that the polls may not be as accurate as they seem. Another problem with part of the Obama-Biden constituency is that it historically doesn’t vote. In 2000, young citizens (between 18-35), only 35% of the population voted. In 2004, though, the same group turned out 47%. This is much better – and it will hopefully be much higher in this election. Though the turnout rose 12% in 2004, it still lagged behind adults of all other age groups. In fact, 9% less young people between ages 18-25 vote. And Barack Obama is banking on these votes. Hopefully people our age vote, but chances are we won’t jump over 50% turnout – which is really a sad reality of our society.
What Barack Obama must have hope in is the fact that the Bradley Effect has diminished in this country. Though it is sad that a minority candidate must “hope” that the polls are not biased because of voter tendencies, it is a truth. Luckily, in the 2006 Senate elections, it seems that the Bradley Effect was much less present. Remember Senate-elect Harold Ford Jr. Well, probably not because his campaign lost in Tennessee. But, polling and voter records seem to be in line – white voters who said they would vote for Ford did vote for him. So, maybe it is a moot issue.
And, when we look at the youth, it seems that this election is much different than most. Not only is everyone “Rocking the Vote”, there is a real excitement and giddiness in university settings. People are ready for change, hopefully they turn out to vote for it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Both Got It Wrong
There is an obvious, ever-growing – and increasingly formidable – need to reform the American healthcare system. The problem is that neither Sens. Obama nor Mccain has the solution – in fact, neither party has even come close. Instead, the American people are left with a half-assed, close-minded single-payer system that operates as an institutional “reform” that does little but put a band-aid on a deep flesh wound. While this may be better than no action at all, it is a failure with regard to the preservation of market capitalism in the health-care system. It is, though, a step in the right direction.
The main issue at hand is the question of how our government will subsidize health-care for the masses. To achieve “universal coverage” – as is the idea behind a single payer system – would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing the citizens to buy it. But, because the government is infamous for doing a poor job of improving quality or efficiency, a single-payer system is undesirable. Further, a member of a free society – like ours – should have the right to refuse healthcare. In other words, what right should the government have in your personal medical affairs? Anyone should have the right to refuse forced cooperation in a governmental program. It may be in the interest, for example, for one to spend the funds afforded towards healthcare on other economic ventures – and the government should not have the right to influence individual economic decisions. Also, under a “universal system”, the cost of healthcare is transferred from the individual to the taxpayer – which, also, begs the question of fairness…Is it fair to force a perfectly healthy person to pay for another’s insurance needs? No.
Even without a “universal healthcare” system, there still lives the main principle behind the reform: the idea that health-care policy should focus on making health care of an “ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people”. But, how does the government afford health-care in this country aside from using a single-payer system? Simple -- instead of using such a static and unflexible “universal model”, the government should maximize its options with regard to funding of health-care reform.
If the government desires to subsidize health-care, why should it be limited to subsidizing the program through a single-payer system? In other words, why doesn’t the government consider using cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics and hospitals, uncompensated care payments or even tax exemptions to promote the expansion of health-care for the approximately 47 million uninsured Americans?
With this vast array of options, one can hope that the nation will avoid the problems of a single-payer system – as seen in Massachusetts – while still protecting the principles of our democratic-capitalist nation. A fine compromise.
Massachusetts learned – after implementing a state-wide, single-payer medical care system – that the program still cannot incorporate a portion of the population that is simply too poor to fit into the system. It is a sad reality about our capitalist democracy: there is always a population that is too poor to afford incorporation into the program. This is a direct example of the need for different forms of subsidies for the low-income class. And, through the use of multiple means of subsidizing health-care, the government can engage a growing social issue and, at the same time, maintain a competitive health-care market.
Simply put, it is becoming more and more necessary for the state to extend its arm of influence into the healthcare industry, but government must not do so through a single-payer insurance program has pitfalls and is limited in its scope of coverage. It is time for the American Congress to start thinking outside the box and act in the interests of the American people, not the interests of the health-care industry.
The main issue at hand is the question of how our government will subsidize health-care for the masses. To achieve “universal coverage” – as is the idea behind a single payer system – would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing the citizens to buy it. But, because the government is infamous for doing a poor job of improving quality or efficiency, a single-payer system is undesirable. Further, a member of a free society – like ours – should have the right to refuse healthcare. In other words, what right should the government have in your personal medical affairs? Anyone should have the right to refuse forced cooperation in a governmental program. It may be in the interest, for example, for one to spend the funds afforded towards healthcare on other economic ventures – and the government should not have the right to influence individual economic decisions. Also, under a “universal system”, the cost of healthcare is transferred from the individual to the taxpayer – which, also, begs the question of fairness…Is it fair to force a perfectly healthy person to pay for another’s insurance needs? No.
Even without a “universal healthcare” system, there still lives the main principle behind the reform: the idea that health-care policy should focus on making health care of an “ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people”. But, how does the government afford health-care in this country aside from using a single-payer system? Simple -- instead of using such a static and unflexible “universal model”, the government should maximize its options with regard to funding of health-care reform.
If the government desires to subsidize health-care, why should it be limited to subsidizing the program through a single-payer system? In other words, why doesn’t the government consider using cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics and hospitals, uncompensated care payments or even tax exemptions to promote the expansion of health-care for the approximately 47 million uninsured Americans?
With this vast array of options, one can hope that the nation will avoid the problems of a single-payer system – as seen in Massachusetts – while still protecting the principles of our democratic-capitalist nation. A fine compromise.
Massachusetts learned – after implementing a state-wide, single-payer medical care system – that the program still cannot incorporate a portion of the population that is simply too poor to fit into the system. It is a sad reality about our capitalist democracy: there is always a population that is too poor to afford incorporation into the program. This is a direct example of the need for different forms of subsidies for the low-income class. And, through the use of multiple means of subsidizing health-care, the government can engage a growing social issue and, at the same time, maintain a competitive health-care market.
Simply put, it is becoming more and more necessary for the state to extend its arm of influence into the healthcare industry, but government must not do so through a single-payer insurance program has pitfalls and is limited in its scope of coverage. It is time for the American Congress to start thinking outside the box and act in the interests of the American people, not the interests of the health-care industry.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Between A Rock And A Hard Place
The anti-intellectualism of America is still quite alive and kicking. The Republican party does its best to turn this sentiment into votes as it attacks Senator Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, by calling him “out of touch” with the needs of the American people. Today’s political arena is much different than that of our Founders. Instead of directly engaging in politics, we see intellectuals taking a different route – aggressive avoidance. William Buckley once famously stated that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than the entire Harvard faculty, and his idea seems to have stuck. So, as we see the Republican Party turn away from intellectual leadership – as well as an intellectual constituency – and turn to more radical, rural votes, we also see the development of Election 2008: Class Warfare.
Who would you rather have a beer with, George Bush or John Kerry? Just the simple fact that this question was a leader in influencing undecided voters in 2004 is testament to the notion that America is turning from the intellectual. Though both attended Ivy League universities – and are far from the “common man” – they tried to attract the “average voter” by presenting themselves as “normal citizens”.
Now this is not a bad thing. In fact, it is important that constituents trust their leaders. But, as the political constituency of the Republican Party continues to turn away from the cities and metropolitan areas, it is leaving behind a group of intellectual Republicans as it pursues the rural votes that it has depended on over the past eight years. This can be clearly seen in John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the “maverick” Senator got the nomination, the Bush Republicans began to lose faith in “their party”. So who else to nominate in order to excite these voters than Sarah Palin – a pro-life, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage governor of Alaska. Of course!
But now, where does this leave Republicans like myself? California Republicans are a little different than most. We’re all about leaving the economy alone (even though that’s basically not an option anymore) and we are a lot more lax about social issues. I’m stuck because I don’t want to vote for Obama-Biden because taxing the rich is not the answer, but voting for McCain-Palin leaves me with less hope than I have in Obama.
So today, I think it’s one of the hardest elections for the intellectual Republicans out there. We understand it is time for change – but Obama wants us to pay for everyone else to get in on it and Palin wants us to finally believe that the dinosaurs died 4000 years ago.
We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Who would you rather have a beer with, George Bush or John Kerry? Just the simple fact that this question was a leader in influencing undecided voters in 2004 is testament to the notion that America is turning from the intellectual. Though both attended Ivy League universities – and are far from the “common man” – they tried to attract the “average voter” by presenting themselves as “normal citizens”.
Now this is not a bad thing. In fact, it is important that constituents trust their leaders. But, as the political constituency of the Republican Party continues to turn away from the cities and metropolitan areas, it is leaving behind a group of intellectual Republicans as it pursues the rural votes that it has depended on over the past eight years. This can be clearly seen in John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the “maverick” Senator got the nomination, the Bush Republicans began to lose faith in “their party”. So who else to nominate in order to excite these voters than Sarah Palin – a pro-life, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage governor of Alaska. Of course!
But now, where does this leave Republicans like myself? California Republicans are a little different than most. We’re all about leaving the economy alone (even though that’s basically not an option anymore) and we are a lot more lax about social issues. I’m stuck because I don’t want to vote for Obama-Biden because taxing the rich is not the answer, but voting for McCain-Palin leaves me with less hope than I have in Obama.
So today, I think it’s one of the hardest elections for the intellectual Republicans out there. We understand it is time for change – but Obama wants us to pay for everyone else to get in on it and Palin wants us to finally believe that the dinosaurs died 4000 years ago.
We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Political Tightrope
Many would argue that this coming election is one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history. And, in a time when private interests are running rampant – as seen with both the housing market and oil crises – it is important to play the role of the polis and keep an eye on those with whom we instill political power. The relationship between politicians and their constituents is pretty straight forward. The winning candidate, it would seem, is the one who best supports the wants and needs of the people. Very often, though, the media acts as a political agent by supporting a particular candidate. Fox News and CNN show viewers the “important issues” of the age; for example, the growing energy crisis, grossly large military spending, and corporate misdeeds. The media has grown into a necessary evil as a “political hub”.
In major campaigns today, politicians receive contributions from individuals as well as major corporations. This begs the question: do politicians have loyalty to those that finance large portions of their political campaigns? Further, one must investigate the extent to which external influences influence legislation. If it is, in fact, the case that large campaign donations do influence legislation, then it is important to look for this external influence in three major areas: major corporations, the military, and the media. As long as politicians are dependent on votes, they are subservient to public opinion. As politicians need campaign funds, they are loyal to different individuals – or entire industries – that fund them. And, as long as the United States hosts the beast that is the military industrial complex, so shall politicians have to engage it, and therefore be in close contact with military leaders. Politicians walk a very fine line: they need the media to portray their image in a positive manner, they are constantly influenced by corporate lobbyists and corporate funding, but they also must look back to the American people to fulfill their needs and wants. The big question is whether or not they do treat each vote equally – or if they simply consider lobbying interests, military needs and their media image.
First, let us look at the military influences upon politicians.
President Eisenhower properly notes the problem of the military-industrial complex in 1961. And, as the military-industrial complex grew, it naturally began to consolidate and merge in order to grab a larger share-hold of the market. As Ike notes, after the Second World War, the defense industry was faced with a new issue: influence. Never before in our history had a war ended without the simultaneous breakdown of the arms industry and the shrinking of the military establishment. Because of this new found influence, every branch of the military eventually formed its own civilian alumni organization which worked as a lobbying organization between the industry and Congressional officials (this still occurs today). In other words, the military began to unionize – they began to group together and lobby for their own interests in Congress. Since the military has become its own interest group, we see it rapidly reaching its influence into the realm of the legislature.
Today, the Department of Defense spending – excluding the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan – budget has grown by about $143 billion since 2001 (FCNL). “Adjusted for inflation, military spending has grown by 27% over this period” (FCNL). And, this spending increase is in a post-Cold War country – a country where the military is one-third smaller than it was during that period. In 2006, world military spending totaled $1,158 billion and nearly half – $528.7 billion – was spent by the United States (FCNL). Why does this excessive spending not cause a tailspin within the American economy? Well, there are several reasons for this. The main explanation being that the government has begun to use the military budget as a public works project – it has created a gigantic military-industrial welfare program. Here is a great example of the relationship: Congress chose to pursue the construction of the MX missile based on the claim that it would create an average of 32,132 jobs each year – and twenty-three states would reap the benefits (Sherrill, Robert Why They Call It Politics 139,140). At the time, Representative Charles E. Bennett (Fl.) correctly stated, “That’s not a way to choose a multi-billion-dollar weapons system. To think a member of Congress would be so parochial as to spend money on a faulted weapon because it might produce jobs in his district is awful. Ye gods, that’s no way to do it” (Sherrill 139,140). As long as the military budget benefits the economy, we are truly stuck in a military-industrial-political complex.
On the Congressional side, politicians must focus so much of the budget on military expenditures. It is easy to understand how military leaders can have so much influence over the leadership of the House and Senate. Beyond the lobbying that occurs, all foreign affairs information is gathered by the Pentagon. All wars are fought by the different branches of the military. Further, the military provides more jobs than any other sector in the United States. So, because Congress must open the purse and fund the military-industrial complex (in order to keep foreign affairs and the economy in order), the military has, to a certain extent, power over political leaders. When it comes to leading a country, and when the military is the top hub of foreign political information, politicians must bow to the power of such a necessary “enemy”.
The military-industrial complex is powered by just that – industry. Companies like Boeing, KBR, DynCorp International and others vie for independent control over government projects. Not only does the military-industrial complex have a strong hand in government – through both extravagant funding and continuous political interactions – but the corporate leaders of America also try to extend their influence into the political realm.
A great example of the relationship between corporate America and political leaders is observed through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Much before the act was brought to life, in fact, only nine days after being inaugurated President of the United States, President Bush and his administration created the National Energy Policy Development Group which was chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney (Bruce Barcott, Changing All The Rules p.8). The group had, in total, over 40 meetings with energy industry leaders throughout the year. In contrast, the group only met with thirteen environmental groups through the month of April in 2001 (Michael Abramowitz, Steven Mufson Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report). An important fact to mention is that the energy industry leaders that met with Vice President Cheney and his group include CEO’s from companies such as Exxon Mobile, Enron and Duke Energy.
The National Energy Policy findings were published in 2001 and became the leading recommendation among administration officials. So, when Senator Joe Barton (TX) introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the main influence behind the bill was the National Energy Policy. It passed through the Congress with very little difficulty and was signed into law.
Through investigation, it is found that Senator Joe Barton has a history of relations within the oil industry (U.S. Representative Joe L. Barton. Biography). He was an aide to the Energy Secretary in 1981 (Barton). Then, after moving back to Texas, he worked for ARCO as a natural gas decontrol consultant. And, in 2004, he was elected chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. During his reelection campaign in 2004, he received thousands of dollars from political action committees that represent companies including Duke Energy, El Paso Corp., ChevronTexaco employees PAC, and ExxonMobile.
Now, by no means has Senator Barton ever stated that he works to promote legislation for the interests of the oil, gas and energy industries. But, being that he has relationships dating back to the 1980s with oil companies – he has worked on both sides of the “revolving door” – and that he received large sums of money from political action committees that represent energy corporations, it is strong circumstantial evidence that he was influenced by corporate interests to promote the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
So, when influence is considered, it would follow, rationally, that energy leaders would benefit more than, say, environmental leaders with regard to government funding through the act. And this is exactly the case. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed tax reductions of $4.3 billion for nuclear power, $2.8 billion for fossil fuel, $2.7 billion for renewable electricity and $1.6 billion for clean coal (The Energy Policy Act of 2005). Every single industry that lobbied heavily for the legislation came out receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. On the other hand, only $1.3 billion, the smallest sum allotted, was given in tax breaks for research and development of alternative motor vehicles and alternative fuel options.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is only one example of relations between corporate America and political legislation. But it is by no means the last. It is important to realize the key issue that allows for corporate influence in Washington. Campaign financing laws allow Political Action Committee’s (PAC’s) to donate up to $5,000 to candidates whereas individual donations are limited to only $1,000. Now, of course, one can argue that a PAC represents multiple individuals, and therefore should have the ability to donate more money than an individual. And theoretically, this is a good idea. But, in practice, it is used improperly. Instead, it allows corporate PAC’s to donate more money to politicians than individuals. Thus, political finance laws actually work to mute the voice of individual voters, while at the same time they strengthen the voices of corporate America. Mind you, corporate interests include aspects of the military industrial complex as well as the media. The media – a heavily consolidated block of leadership full of partisanship – is led by corporate leaders like Fox News, CNN, NBC and others. Their power lies in the masses.
Now, since it has been argued that politicians are less subservient to individual votes, and that they are more loyal to corporate and military desires, one must wonder the role of the news media. Well, first, the news media is the public’s major source of information – the oil that turns the wheels of government. So, with this in mind, let us investigate some of the major news organizations. FOX News is a subsidiary of News Corp. which is owned by a Republican, Rupert Murdoch. FOX News Channel is chaired by Republican political strategist Roger Ailes. Fox holds the largest audience in the country among news corporations. MSNBC, one of the other large news networks, has been called leftist by The New York Times – one of the more liberal print news providers. CNN is one of the largest broadcast news providers – owned by Ted Turner – and is also considered left (though it is probably the most unbiased of the prominent cable news sources).
Do not forget though, as John J. O’Connor – The New York Times television critic – stated, “Everyone knows the networks operate from a base of undiluted greed.” Though this may be grossly exaggerated, he makes quite a point. The media is a conglomerate of corporations, and the goal of a corporation is to earn profit. For example, no newspaper gives more than 40% of its paper-space to non-advertising material (Sherrill 402). The press is much less free than it may seem. A. J. Liebling correctly jokes that, “Freedom of the press is reserved for those who own one.” In other words, he is arguing that the freedom of press is held in the few hands that control the media – Rupert Murdoch, the Hearsts, the Grahams, so on and so forth. Being that these industry leaders do control the leading broadcast agencies in the country (some are even global) it is not farfetched that they have influence in politics.
Since broadcast media is the most prominent form of news – that such a large population is receiving its news from this source – it is scary that partisanship exists. But regardless, politicians must deal with this fact. The media has the power of the masses. The image of a politician can be controlled for either positive or negative means by the media. So, because politicians depend on the media, a bond is created. And, within this bond, the media leaders have the power – public opinion. A powerful statistic that shows the extent to which politicians go to achieve a positive media image is that during the 2003-2004 presidential election cycle, candidates, party offices and independent “527” groups spent $1.78 billion on campaign consultants, of which 67% dealt with the media (The Center for Public Integrity).
On the other side of the coin, the media is able to use its power to pursue its own agenda. For example, if the media leaders object to a bill in Congress, it is within their ability to persuade public opinion against the legislation. And, visa versa, if the news moguls like a piece of legislation, they will act accordingly. The danger is that their agenda may not coincide with the needs and wants of the people.
The three major powers – military, corporate and media – work to influence political decision making. The power of the military is its foreign policy prowess and military strength. The corporate powers are seen through extensive lobbying and campaign donations to candidates, all with the hope of influencing legislation. The media holds the most important power, the public opinion. It can twist and turn any story as it wants. Therefore, it has the power to make and break political careers. It comes down to the polis – the people. We must be the watchdog that is informed and intellectual.
What is important to note is that these three powers are able to create access. By no means does their presence guarantee an outcome. Rather, they pay a hefty sum to simply have access to politicians – some of whom fall under the non-democratic trend of following corporate interests and bribes. This is the influence that corporate, military and media leaders have. They hire lobbying firms, host campaign fundraising parties and invite Congressmen to golf tournaments simply to enjoy the opportunity to persuade an official.
In major campaigns today, politicians receive contributions from individuals as well as major corporations. This begs the question: do politicians have loyalty to those that finance large portions of their political campaigns? Further, one must investigate the extent to which external influences influence legislation. If it is, in fact, the case that large campaign donations do influence legislation, then it is important to look for this external influence in three major areas: major corporations, the military, and the media. As long as politicians are dependent on votes, they are subservient to public opinion. As politicians need campaign funds, they are loyal to different individuals – or entire industries – that fund them. And, as long as the United States hosts the beast that is the military industrial complex, so shall politicians have to engage it, and therefore be in close contact with military leaders. Politicians walk a very fine line: they need the media to portray their image in a positive manner, they are constantly influenced by corporate lobbyists and corporate funding, but they also must look back to the American people to fulfill their needs and wants. The big question is whether or not they do treat each vote equally – or if they simply consider lobbying interests, military needs and their media image.
First, let us look at the military influences upon politicians.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
President Eisenhower properly notes the problem of the military-industrial complex in 1961. And, as the military-industrial complex grew, it naturally began to consolidate and merge in order to grab a larger share-hold of the market. As Ike notes, after the Second World War, the defense industry was faced with a new issue: influence. Never before in our history had a war ended without the simultaneous breakdown of the arms industry and the shrinking of the military establishment. Because of this new found influence, every branch of the military eventually formed its own civilian alumni organization which worked as a lobbying organization between the industry and Congressional officials (this still occurs today). In other words, the military began to unionize – they began to group together and lobby for their own interests in Congress. Since the military has become its own interest group, we see it rapidly reaching its influence into the realm of the legislature.
Today, the Department of Defense spending – excluding the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan – budget has grown by about $143 billion since 2001 (FCNL). “Adjusted for inflation, military spending has grown by 27% over this period” (FCNL). And, this spending increase is in a post-Cold War country – a country where the military is one-third smaller than it was during that period. In 2006, world military spending totaled $1,158 billion and nearly half – $528.7 billion – was spent by the United States (FCNL). Why does this excessive spending not cause a tailspin within the American economy? Well, there are several reasons for this. The main explanation being that the government has begun to use the military budget as a public works project – it has created a gigantic military-industrial welfare program. Here is a great example of the relationship: Congress chose to pursue the construction of the MX missile based on the claim that it would create an average of 32,132 jobs each year – and twenty-three states would reap the benefits (Sherrill, Robert Why They Call It Politics 139,140). At the time, Representative Charles E. Bennett (Fl.) correctly stated, “That’s not a way to choose a multi-billion-dollar weapons system. To think a member of Congress would be so parochial as to spend money on a faulted weapon because it might produce jobs in his district is awful. Ye gods, that’s no way to do it” (Sherrill 139,140). As long as the military budget benefits the economy, we are truly stuck in a military-industrial-political complex.
On the Congressional side, politicians must focus so much of the budget on military expenditures. It is easy to understand how military leaders can have so much influence over the leadership of the House and Senate. Beyond the lobbying that occurs, all foreign affairs information is gathered by the Pentagon. All wars are fought by the different branches of the military. Further, the military provides more jobs than any other sector in the United States. So, because Congress must open the purse and fund the military-industrial complex (in order to keep foreign affairs and the economy in order), the military has, to a certain extent, power over political leaders. When it comes to leading a country, and when the military is the top hub of foreign political information, politicians must bow to the power of such a necessary “enemy”.
The military-industrial complex is powered by just that – industry. Companies like Boeing, KBR, DynCorp International and others vie for independent control over government projects. Not only does the military-industrial complex have a strong hand in government – through both extravagant funding and continuous political interactions – but the corporate leaders of America also try to extend their influence into the political realm.
A great example of the relationship between corporate America and political leaders is observed through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Much before the act was brought to life, in fact, only nine days after being inaugurated President of the United States, President Bush and his administration created the National Energy Policy Development Group which was chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney (Bruce Barcott, Changing All The Rules p.8). The group had, in total, over 40 meetings with energy industry leaders throughout the year. In contrast, the group only met with thirteen environmental groups through the month of April in 2001 (Michael Abramowitz, Steven Mufson Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report). An important fact to mention is that the energy industry leaders that met with Vice President Cheney and his group include CEO’s from companies such as Exxon Mobile, Enron and Duke Energy.
The National Energy Policy findings were published in 2001 and became the leading recommendation among administration officials. So, when Senator Joe Barton (TX) introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the main influence behind the bill was the National Energy Policy. It passed through the Congress with very little difficulty and was signed into law.
Through investigation, it is found that Senator Joe Barton has a history of relations within the oil industry (U.S. Representative Joe L. Barton. Biography). He was an aide to the Energy Secretary in 1981 (Barton). Then, after moving back to Texas, he worked for ARCO as a natural gas decontrol consultant. And, in 2004, he was elected chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. During his reelection campaign in 2004, he received thousands of dollars from political action committees that represent companies including Duke Energy, El Paso Corp., ChevronTexaco employees PAC, and ExxonMobile.
Now, by no means has Senator Barton ever stated that he works to promote legislation for the interests of the oil, gas and energy industries. But, being that he has relationships dating back to the 1980s with oil companies – he has worked on both sides of the “revolving door” – and that he received large sums of money from political action committees that represent energy corporations, it is strong circumstantial evidence that he was influenced by corporate interests to promote the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
So, when influence is considered, it would follow, rationally, that energy leaders would benefit more than, say, environmental leaders with regard to government funding through the act. And this is exactly the case. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed tax reductions of $4.3 billion for nuclear power, $2.8 billion for fossil fuel, $2.7 billion for renewable electricity and $1.6 billion for clean coal (The Energy Policy Act of 2005). Every single industry that lobbied heavily for the legislation came out receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. On the other hand, only $1.3 billion, the smallest sum allotted, was given in tax breaks for research and development of alternative motor vehicles and alternative fuel options.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is only one example of relations between corporate America and political legislation. But it is by no means the last. It is important to realize the key issue that allows for corporate influence in Washington. Campaign financing laws allow Political Action Committee’s (PAC’s) to donate up to $5,000 to candidates whereas individual donations are limited to only $1,000. Now, of course, one can argue that a PAC represents multiple individuals, and therefore should have the ability to donate more money than an individual. And theoretically, this is a good idea. But, in practice, it is used improperly. Instead, it allows corporate PAC’s to donate more money to politicians than individuals. Thus, political finance laws actually work to mute the voice of individual voters, while at the same time they strengthen the voices of corporate America. Mind you, corporate interests include aspects of the military industrial complex as well as the media. The media – a heavily consolidated block of leadership full of partisanship – is led by corporate leaders like Fox News, CNN, NBC and others. Their power lies in the masses.
Now, since it has been argued that politicians are less subservient to individual votes, and that they are more loyal to corporate and military desires, one must wonder the role of the news media. Well, first, the news media is the public’s major source of information – the oil that turns the wheels of government. So, with this in mind, let us investigate some of the major news organizations. FOX News is a subsidiary of News Corp. which is owned by a Republican, Rupert Murdoch. FOX News Channel is chaired by Republican political strategist Roger Ailes. Fox holds the largest audience in the country among news corporations. MSNBC, one of the other large news networks, has been called leftist by The New York Times – one of the more liberal print news providers. CNN is one of the largest broadcast news providers – owned by Ted Turner – and is also considered left (though it is probably the most unbiased of the prominent cable news sources).
Do not forget though, as John J. O’Connor – The New York Times television critic – stated, “Everyone knows the networks operate from a base of undiluted greed.” Though this may be grossly exaggerated, he makes quite a point. The media is a conglomerate of corporations, and the goal of a corporation is to earn profit. For example, no newspaper gives more than 40% of its paper-space to non-advertising material (Sherrill 402). The press is much less free than it may seem. A. J. Liebling correctly jokes that, “Freedom of the press is reserved for those who own one.” In other words, he is arguing that the freedom of press is held in the few hands that control the media – Rupert Murdoch, the Hearsts, the Grahams, so on and so forth. Being that these industry leaders do control the leading broadcast agencies in the country (some are even global) it is not farfetched that they have influence in politics.
Since broadcast media is the most prominent form of news – that such a large population is receiving its news from this source – it is scary that partisanship exists. But regardless, politicians must deal with this fact. The media has the power of the masses. The image of a politician can be controlled for either positive or negative means by the media. So, because politicians depend on the media, a bond is created. And, within this bond, the media leaders have the power – public opinion. A powerful statistic that shows the extent to which politicians go to achieve a positive media image is that during the 2003-2004 presidential election cycle, candidates, party offices and independent “527” groups spent $1.78 billion on campaign consultants, of which 67% dealt with the media (The Center for Public Integrity).
On the other side of the coin, the media is able to use its power to pursue its own agenda. For example, if the media leaders object to a bill in Congress, it is within their ability to persuade public opinion against the legislation. And, visa versa, if the news moguls like a piece of legislation, they will act accordingly. The danger is that their agenda may not coincide with the needs and wants of the people.
The three major powers – military, corporate and media – work to influence political decision making. The power of the military is its foreign policy prowess and military strength. The corporate powers are seen through extensive lobbying and campaign donations to candidates, all with the hope of influencing legislation. The media holds the most important power, the public opinion. It can twist and turn any story as it wants. Therefore, it has the power to make and break political careers. It comes down to the polis – the people. We must be the watchdog that is informed and intellectual.
What is important to note is that these three powers are able to create access. By no means does their presence guarantee an outcome. Rather, they pay a hefty sum to simply have access to politicians – some of whom fall under the non-democratic trend of following corporate interests and bribes. This is the influence that corporate, military and media leaders have. They hire lobbying firms, host campaign fundraising parties and invite Congressmen to golf tournaments simply to enjoy the opportunity to persuade an official.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
