Who Should Get My Vote?
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 the American political system hinged on money, 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, the Jews in particular, who had for centuries sought security in hoarded wealth that in its turn invited jealousy and animosity.
The freedoms enshrined into the US 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 virtually 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 modern-day 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. Fact of the matter is that Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries of world, was almost a rubble when the US launched the attacks. The country has since been sporting 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 since then expounding the raison d’etre 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 UN having already been labeled as “irrelevant”, its plea for moderation and sanity was ignored. The Bush administration had as little regard for the UN as a tomcat has for a marriage license.
Reverting to my predicament concerning the choice between the two major contestants - Democrats and Republicans - I could not be swayed to any side. Both suffer from a diarrhea of words and a constipation of inspiring thoughts.
I thought then of benefiting from the research of Andy Rooney, the wit 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 Republicans too look like the Democrats used to be.
The above findings of Mr. Rooney having made me no wiser as to which party 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.
The words of my professor keep ringing in my ears even half a century after he had uttered them. As if to illustrate his point, I keep hearing the vociferous support of Hillary Clinton, who wears her Democratic credentials on her sleeve, for the war in Iraq launched by a diehard Republican President.
(arifhussaini@hotmail.com)
