Download PDF of this full issue: v30n2.pdf (11.8 MB)

Fraggin'

By Bill Shunas

This presidential election captured the interest of Americans more than any other election in modern times. For the five weeks it ran it was better than a soap opera. You had lawyers talking out of both sides of their mouths. A major player had a heart attack. Conflicts of interest. Self-righteous behavior covering all sorts of deceit. Nobody could have written a better script.

In spite of the soaps aspect of it, people did have sincere interest. Some eventually got tired of it, but many people developed strong feelings and emotions and ideas on both sides. Personally rooted in the belief that these were two stiffs, I even began to hope Gore would win. I figured that working-class folks would get stung one or two fewer times with Gore. Also, I like the idea of having a president of a different party than the one that controls Congress. I like that because it's harder to pass somebody's agenda, and the agenda for both parties over the last thirty years seems to have been to transfer more wealth to the already wealthy.

Here's the irony. Most of us know it takes beaucoups bucks to get elected, and both parties accept the money from corporate America, often from the same corporations. That means that the wealthy get to say how things are divided up. Nevertheless, we go and vote.

Voting gives us the illusion of democracy, which is better than letting the idea of democracy die. It is an illusion because, yes, we all got together to choose this person who will be making decisions for us for four years or two years or six years. We don't get to make those decisions. We only get to vote for someone to make decisions. That is the limit of our democratic participation. And it's likely that the people we get to vote for are not representative of the majority of people, who are most concerned about decent health care, education for the kids, a secure retirement, and so on.

In between the times we vote, we have little influence. Large numbers of people mobilized in demonstrations or letter-writing campaigns can have some effect, although less effect than the lobbyists who pass the money around Washington and get paid for doing so.

There are different ideas of democracy. Some people think that we live in a democracy because we get to vote every two years. Real democracy has more to do with participating in the making of the decisions that affect our lives. That we don't have.

One thing this election showed is that people were really interested in participating. Besides emotional involvement with the candidates, there was a mixture of ideas created. In stores, on street corners, and at work, people were talking to each other about the election. One day of voting turned into five weeks of vicarious personal involvement. And your single vote almost meant something in Florida and New Mexico. There was real interest in being part of the decision making, of being part of a democracy. That's what people want. Too bad it's only an illusion.

So now we have Bush. One gets the impression that he is a man who has had his strings pulled by someone else for his whole life. His aristocratic family and wealthy friends got him into Yale even though his academic achievements were dubious. They got him into various business ventures - usually the oil business - where he made his fortune. Then they bankrolled his run for governor and then the presidency where the bankroll broke all records.

During Bush's time as governor, Texas was rated at or near the bottom of all states in many areas of importance, including delivery of social services and money spent for the environment, for police protection, for the arts, for parks and recreation, and for child support collection. Yet Texas rated near the top for states experiencing food shortages. "Where?" asked Bush when challenged with this fact. "You'd think the governor would have heard if there were pockets of hunger in Texas." So this is who we have for the next four years.

While the events of the election month brought some excitement and feelings of involvement, it should be noted that many people did not participate on election day. Bush and Gore each received 24% of the vote of those eligible to vote. Minority candidates received 3%. The majority of votes went to "none of the above" - most people didn't vote.

Most people who don't vote are of middle or lower economic status. Those who make less than $50,000 a year are 80% of the population. More than half of these people did not participate in voting for president. Make what you will out of this statistic, but I think it suggests that those without wealth simply see themselves without a candidate to represent their wishes.

I think one other thing needs to be pointed out. Meaningful changes only come about when citizens in great numbers demand it. The greatest social programs Congress ever passed came during the Roosevelt years. These came to pass after - as even FDR admitted - a lot of angry people took to the streets. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, makes no difference. You need 43,000 angry people outside the White House.