November 02, 2012

Who Should Get My Vote?

I have had to face this query before the past two Presidential elections. I wouldn’t have been in this quandary had I belonged to the category of ABB -- Anybody But Bush. Some of my acquaintances do. For them it is not an issue at all. They had voted for Bush in the 1999 election and his performance has fallen far short of their expectation. It has affronted their sensibilities. Their perspective is therefore almost identical to that of Michael Moore (rhymes with ‘bore’) in his film Fahrenheit 911.

Unlike them, I felt that I ought to study in depth all significant aspects of the matter and arrive at a well-considered opinion. But, that is where the root of my dilemma lies.

Half a century back when I was a graduate student at the University of Ottawa, my professor drilled into my mind his view that every thing in American political system hinged on money; it is the chief factor in the political system too; and, the country would continue to be ruled, directly or indirectly, by the moneyed classes.

My subsequent studies of American history taught me the value of ideas, tenacity in the pursuit of those ideas, strength of character, and sincerity of purpose. Money became a significant factor mainly after the WWII with the influx into the country of the persecuted people of Europe who had for centuries sought security in hoarded wealth that in its turn invited jealousy and animosity.

The freedoms enshrined into the Constitution have turned America into an exemplary land of opportunities. Starting with a small Ma+Pa grocery store, a couple could expand their business in their lifetime into a big discount house or even a departmental store. The business could then grow of its own momentum into a multinational corporation holding commanding heights in the post-Soviet Union period.

The ability of political leaders to think objectively and influence major world trends, even on the issues of war and peace, has been abridged by the vast corporate sector. The extent of this constraint may be gauged by the statement of an erstwhile Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, that “tobacco is not habit forming”. Soon after the assumption of office, president Bush stayed all action on the Kyoto international decisions on global warming to please the mighty automobile corporations.

Modern day American politician is an elated attorney working tacitly for the corporate sector. If someone like Howard Dean starts rubbing the system on the wrong side, he is dispatched to the arch of oblivion within a few weeks.

The politician is more like Christopher Columbus. He didn’t know where he was going. He didn’t know where he was when he got there. And, he did it all on somebody else’s money.

Prince Henry of Spain, who was the financier and supporter of Columbus, had never been on high seas despite being remembered by history as Henry the Navigator. He was the equivalent of the CEO of a present day corporation. Like Prince Henry, the CEO finances the ascension of a politician, irrespective of his party, to the seat of power. The clout the corporate sector thus gains is referred to in political parlance as “special interest”.

The catastrophe caused by the terrorists on 9/11 invited the wrath of the sole Super Power on Al Qaeda and Taliban who were blamed for it. The attacks on Afghanistan turned many parts of it into rubble and caused the exit of Taliban from power. Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries of the world, was almost a rubble when the US launched the attacks. The country has since been sporting a monumental rubble.

Instead of pursuing further the fanatic Taliban and their Afghan-Arab cohorts till their total elimination and replacement by an elected government, the Bush administration swiftly turned attention towards Iraq and its dictator Saddam. Apart from Michael Moore’s film, several books have come out recently expounding the raison d’eter of this diversion. Of these books, I found “Against All Enemies” by Richard Clark, the chief for years at the While House of the counter-terrorism wing, to be well-documented and quite convincing. Mr. Clark had presented a forceful case against the invasion of Iraq as no weapons of mass destruction had been found and there was no evidence supporting Saddam’s links to Osama. He had likewise warned in no uncertain terms before 9/11 against Al Qaeda’s likely attacks on the US. His warning was ignored with an arrogant disdain, as the Bush team was focusing on Iraq. His warning against the invasion of Iraq was similarly ignored.

Why? Was it the oil? Or, was it the threat of Iraq to its neighbors, particularly Israel with whom the US has, in the words of President Bush “unique relationship.” It was perhaps a combination of both. Two-pronged pressure might have thus been brought to bear on the Administration by the invisible corporate sector. Worldwide anti-war demonstrations were simply ignored; the UN was labeled as “irrelevant” in the case.

The unilateral action is equated by some extremists with the purchase of Louisiana by Thomas Jefferson from the French for $15 million in disregard of the Constitutional provisions. The simile is however inappropriate in that there was no valid opposition to the Louisiana deal, neither before nor after it was made. The continuing loss of life on both sides in Iraq presents an entirely different picture.

The Bush administration had as little regard for the UN as a tomcat has for a marriage license.

Reverting to my predicament of choice between the two contestants, I could not be swayed to any side despite watching closely the two conventions. Both suffered from a diarrhea of words and a constipation of inspiring thoughts.

Considering the reign of death and destruction in Iraq, each presented himself as a great fighter, cut out for the war on terror. To keep the war hysteria alive, terror alerts were sounded often. No one talked of replacing the massacres with sincere overtures for peace. Defense industries must be celebrating the war-mongering milieu and even causing its flames to be stoked.

Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate, who had earlier supported the war and its financing, has now discovered it to be a wrong war at a wrong time and for a wrong purpose. Soon after, his ratings went down. He has intensified efforts to paint himself as a war hero better qualified to pick up the cudgel from his rival. His ratings picked up but not much. To find the right answer to my query, I thought of benefiting from the research of Andy Rooney of CBS’ 60 Minutes program, who has described the differences between the two parties. Some of his findings are as follows.

• Republicans think taxes are too high because of the Democrats.

• Democrats think taxes are too high because of the Republicans.

• Democrats are baseball fans. Republicans follow college football.

• Democrats usually write with a pencil. Republicans use pens.

• Republicans have dinner between seven and eight. Democrats have supper between five and six.

• Democrats leave the dishes in the drying rack on the sink every night.

* Republicans put the dishes away every night.

* A lot of Republicans are more like Democrats used to be, and a lot of Democrats are more like Republicans used to be.

The above findings of Mr. Rooney having made me no wiser as to which candidate I ought to vote for, I have elected to flip a coin just before entering the voting booth. And, soon after voting I shall commence praying, not for the success of the candidate that I had voted for, but for this nation of honest, decent and hardworking people so that the winner hoodwinks them a little less in the service of his invisible masters and does not add further to the weight of public debt to be borne by our grandchildren.