Download PDF of this full issue: v11n1.pdf (8.2 MB)

No Vote Beats Candidates: Reagan Wins, People Lose

By Pete Zastrow

It took only a couple of years of being bombarded by presidential candidates before the American people made a decision: in overwhelming numbers they voted either for a losing candidate or didn't vote at all. Some 25% of registered voters were counted for Reagan and if the number of voting age people who didn't even bother to register are added, the majority not voting for Reagan is even larger—some 82%.

Despite the general disgust with the choice being offered, the Reagan administration moved into Washington. The White House has undergone a transformation into the corporate headquarters of the USA Inc with Reagan as Chairman of the Board. Though angels may fear to tread on the plush boardroom carpets, millionaire businessmen walk with the assurance that their man is sitting behind the big desk with this finger on the trigger. And, that he has surrounded himself with gold plated (and white-faced) male advisors whose latest brush with poverty was attending a United Appeal cocktail party.

Certainly the flurry of activities which went on in the days immediately following the election could only encourage every right-wing nut rampaging the streets and TV waves of the country. An all-white jury in Greensboro, North Carolina, puts its stamp of approval on the murder of people protesting racism by Nazis and the KKK when, despite TV films of the actual murders, they found the killers innocent. Congress decided to forbid use of government funds for integration brought about by school bussing. Jerry Farwell's "moral majority" announced plans to clean-up TV programs and, in anticipation the Public Broadcasting System began to censor potentially objectionable political comments from its programs. And the KKK proudly publicized its camps (previously disguised as "Explorer Posts") where white youth are given weapons training for the coming "race war."

All these were little gusts to show us which way the wind is blowing. In the background, more significant signs of things to come are brewing. Auto manufacturers, we are told, are now much less concerned about their large loses over the past year in anticipation that they will be able to make up their bucks when the Reagan administration relaxes the emission control standards (while the people of Los Angeles were smothering from smog in the summer of 79 Reagan distinguished himself by saying that emission control standards had done their job—which was no doubt true on Reagan's ranch, far away from traffic).

Oil executives are licking their chops at the prospect of immediate decontrol of the oil industry so they can charge more for gas so they can use the money to buy more wells to pump more gas to charge us more for and thus cut down our "dependence" on foreign oil. The plan will work, no doubt, for the 2% of the population who will be able to afford more than a thimble full of gasoline. And it will work wonders for the already inflated profits of the oil companies.

Around the world right-wing governments and forces were dancing in the streets—and taking our their joy by mounting increased attacks on any kind of left-leaning group. As feeble as was Carter's commitment to "human rights," his policy served as a brake to some of the more outrageous acts of right-wing governments; Reagan's pronouncement that "moderate repression" was just fine with him took the brakes off around the world.

Back at home there was the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank (as they describe themselves) dedicated to all that's best of the 17th century. They were right off the bock in offering their ideas on the domestic scene to Reagan's transition teams (several of whom are "fellows" in the Foundation already) and were, in response, promised that their ideas would receive careful consideration. Their proposal on dealing with domestic dissent make Nixon's attempts at building an imperial presidency look almost gentle: they would have the government drop all the safeguards that were put in place after Watergate, allowing illegal break-ins, phone taps, mail investigations. While they don't advocate concentration camps for those who dare speak against the regime, they're setting the scene, and people who look back on the days of Joe McCarthy and witch hunts with horror may end up seeing those as the "good old days."

Reagan's cabinet appointments do nothing to dispell the corporate image. From Secretary of State Haig, a corporate general whose career was made by being buddy-buddy with Nixon to Secretary of the Interior Watts who seems to want to cut down every tree in every national park to satisfy the lumber industry, appointees have cozy ties to almost every industry which wants something from the government. Only groups which represent the people of the country have no voice—the elderly (while Reagan's "team" is predominately elderly itself they are hardly people who must survive on social security), the poor, the people on welfare, union members, consumer groups.

One group is being taken into consideration—veterans. Reagan's advisors, lon before the election, saw the value of meeting some of the demands of vets. As on October, ?79 position paper on veterans said, "with more than 30 million veterans of voting age in the U.S., representing a significant inroad into most voting blocks, obviously there is a definite need to place strong campaign emphasis on the needs and desires of all veterans, and to develop and aggressively promote a reasonable, well-balanced and forward-moving veterans policy which will be attractive to all veterans." The American Legion, the VFW and similar groups were, of course, overjoyed by Reagan's win, as much over his plans to nuke anything that moves as by his lucrative campaign promises to veterans.

Veterans for Republicans, a group directed by Bill Avyers, worked as Reagan's advisors on vets' issues during the campaign. Among the vital issues they pushed on Reagan's campaign were:

1. Maintenance of the V.A. as a distinct, independent agency.
2. Re-establish veterans as the first priority of the V.X. hospital system.
3. Vets pensions, disability benefits, vocational rehabilitation and educational assistance are indexed to the actual rise in inflation.
4. "Although the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam vets has yet to be scientifically proven, efforts should be made to determine the possibility of side effects on veterans; pending final determination, it would be appropriate and responsible to grant temporary VA medical care to vets suspected of suffering from Orange toxicity. This is the least we owe to vets who may be suffering irreparable damage due to a government-sponsored program!"
5. There should be active support for upgrading Vietnam-era vets' benefits. "Any media attempts to play on the Vietnam veteran issue as a Vietnam war issue will not carry with the voters, and a strong, compassionate statement by Governor Reagan on the plight of Vietnam-era veterans, issued just before election day, will have a favorable effect on millions of Americans, especially in ethnic and minority groups."
6. Maintain support for vets' preference in all federal hiring.

Not bad as a laundry list of demands of vets, though some items—like job training—are not on the list. But while we hope each and every one of these suggestions goes into effect, there are a couple of problems. First, as made clear in the suggestion about upgrading Vietnam-era vets' benefits, this is chosen because it will play well with the electorate—that it may win some votes. But the votes are in and now what? Vets have lived through campaign promises before and have learned, through hard experience that talk is cheap but action comes much more slowly—it at all.

There is also a more deep-seated suspicion about this particular campaign promise. Reagan already has the traditional veterans groups in his pocket since they love his plans increase military spending and stamp out the communist menace around the world. Vietnam vets are less susceptible to this king of thing—we were already sent off to defeat communism in what Reagan has called the "noble cause" in Vietnam—but we found we were only propping up an unpopular and corrupt dictatorship. If Reagan can win over Vietnam vets with a campaign promises—and even by fulfilling some of them—perhaps he will have less opposition for the next military venture that he and his advisors are already plotting out.

And for Vietnam vets, all the benefits in the world are not worth sucking our children into another Vietnam. Campaign promises we will believe when we see them in action—and not before. And even then we will look closely!