THE NUMBERS GAME
By Loise Neville
Washington DC watchers declare that there is a price on everything in the
halls of government today. Laws passed by our legislature are bought and
paid for by corporations, and even visits by citizens to their congresspersons
carry a price list.
Well, after all, "time is money," as we say, but that "contribution"
ploy does not come up to the one Republican President Reagan made when he
offered a diplomatic post to anyone paying $250,000 for his campaign. I
remember reading at the time that Reagan had run out of diplomatic posts
and an irate woman left out in the cold reported her loss to the press.
Jim Hightower pointed out that a member of Congress must, from the first
week of his tenure to the last, earn an extra $20,000 a week in order to
keep his temporary four- or six-year job by assuring election for another
term. After all, our congresspersons are only temp workers and suffer the
insecurity expressed by all temporary job holders. But what do you suppose
they must promise in exchange for this $20,000 a week? And who do they get
it from? And why the high cost? Could it be that voters are not paying attention
and base their judgments on TV coverage and heavy mail pleas instead of
watching to discern whether or not our "representatives" are actually
representing us and therefore deserve to remain in office?
The bills that make our laws are even more expensive and even less created
out of public need, as corporate representatives are now literally sitting
in the halls of Congress, "advising" on legislation, even writing
legislation themselves for those said to represent the voters. When a bill
is written that pleases the corporations, they respond by offering each
of our two political parties hundreds of millions of dollars to assure that
the bill will be passed. Forget about the maximum bribe allowed to be given
to an individual legislator. Members of the corporation pay the party itself
in what is called "soft money," over which there is no legal limit.
The party itself can then distribute the cash to its members-no law against
that. Our government has now become a "numbers game" in which
the highest number wins the prize!
Let's look at this objectively, shall we? Isn't it the democratic process
a matter of choosing a candidate who will represent our interests, donating
to that candidate's campaign, advertising him or her as widely as possible
to others, then going to the polls and voting her/him in? Isn't this exactly
what the corporations are doing? First they choose the candidate who will
represent their interests, assuring him/her that the money will be there
for advertising; then they furnish through their own media the means to
attract public attention. The candidate is given a good public relations
company to design the campaign, good speechwriters to write the speeches,
a speech coach to teach persuasive TV delivery, a good hairstylist, etc.
In short the candidate is given TLC, tender loving care, so that voters
will perceive him/her as the best.
But what, dear reader, do we do? We vote for one of these corporate candidates-the
one we decide is "least bad." We are inevitably disappointed or
enraged to note that the chosen one does not work for us, but for corporate
interests! This is how the numbers game happens. Corporations are practicing
democracy, using the democratic system, and we are not!
Why can't we choose a populist candidate who will work for us, then contribute
our small monies in force, advertise that candidate by word of mouth through
our telephones, e-mail, or other low cost methods, then have the courage
to "throw away our votes" by voting for him/her? And if our candidate
got into office, would we take the trouble to monitor his voting record
in order to make sure that he was really working for us?
If Americans would take a little time from their daily lives to practice
democracy in this manner, we might be able to win the numbers game. After
all, where are the really big numbers? In the number of voters, that's where!
We have the advantage on our side if we will but use it.
Are You Destroying Your Vote?
Americans habitually vote for "the lesser of two evils," disregarding
that the lesser of two evils is nevertheless an evil. Some vote Republican
for fear of the Democrats. Others vote Democrat for fear of the Republicans.
But any long-time observer of U.S. politics will note that, with the exception
of the Roosevelt campaign of the '30s, neither party fulfills the needs
of the people. Populist campaign promises are never kept by the politicians
of either side. When a smaller third party arises, Americans are afraid
to vote for it for fear of "throwing away their vote." Furthermore,
when we are offered a third party, such as the Perot Party of the '80s,
careful examination discloses that it is not a true populist party at all,
but in some way corporate-backed. As Gore Vidal describes it, Perot, a billionaire
corporate CEO, is running against the other corporations.
To pile irony on ironies, American voters don't seem to realize that we
already have a number of populist parties that have been struggling mightily
to get into the national arena for many years, and even when they succeed,
Americans don't vote for them for fear of "throwing away their vote,"
so they throw it away by voting for one wing or the other of the Republican/Democratic
corporate party.
Why doesn't the U.S. have a successful national populist third party? The
funding to register a small party in every one of the fifty states is a
problem early in the game, but an even greater problem can be the Federal
Election Commission, which has the right to determine whether or not a projected
political party is designated "frivolous." If considered frivolous,
it will not be allowed to enter a national political race.
Who comprises the Federal Election Commission? Republicans and Democrats!
According to Christian Parenti, "frivolous" campaigners and their
national candidates are harassed and can be taken to court for their effrontery:
"Two private Parties have been given the authority to harass all other
Parties. We have accepted laws that in effect make the Democratic and Republican
the official State Parties, and at a time when they are less popular and
less accepted than ever."
When a small party has overcome the Commission hurdle, the next problem
is funding. Public funding is given to national political parties, but only
after the election and only if they have achieved 5% of the vote-about 4
million votes. As small parties cannot afford the huge advertising costs
to get their candidate before the public, especially in TV appearances,
this is a problem.
National conventions are attention-givers usually worthy of TV coverage.
Taxpayers' money is offered by the millions to Republican and Democratic
Parties to conduct these campaigns. Small parties that accumulated sufficient
votes would be accorded the same. But the initial outlay of funds in competition
with the Republican and Democratic Parties is tremendous because corporations
not only lavish money on Democrats and Republicans but find ways to offer
funds over the so-called legal limits. A populist party without such corporate
appeal can find itself seriously short of the funds needed to attract voters.
What would happen if Americans voted their conscience instead of voting
for the lesser of two evils? First, if Americans were politically aware
enough to discover a small populist party and if enough such citizens were
to each offer it funds, then if they were brave enough to "throw away
their votes" by voting for what they actually wanted, such a party
might even get into office. Failing to get into office, this small party's
collected votes would open the eyes of the monolithic Republocrat Party
and make it realize that we are not a nation of sheep out here and cause
it to modify its own legislative agenda. Anyone tired of throwing away his/her
vote on the Democrat or Republican parties and not inclined to vote for
Perot, might be interested in investigating one of these nationally organized
political parties:
·American, Box 25940, Richmond, VA 23260.
·Communist, 239 W. 23rd Street, New York, NY 100112
·Grassroots, Box 8011, St. Paul, MN 55108
·Green, Box 30208, Kansas City, MO 64112
·Independent, 135 Corporate Woods, Rochester, NY 14623 (May change
name to Patriot)
·Libertarian, 1528 Pa. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003
·Natural Law, 51 W. Washington Street, Fairfield, IA 52556
·New, 227 W. 40th Street, #1303, New York, NY 10018
·New Alliance, 200 W. 72 Street, #35, New York, NY 10027
·Populist, Box 15499, Pittsburgh, PA 15237
·Prohibition, Box 2635, Denver, CO 80201
·Socialist, 516 W. 25th Street, #404, New York, NY 10001
·Socialist Workers, 410 West Street, New York, NY 10014
·US Taxpayers, 450 Maple Ave. E., Vienna, VA 22180
·Workers League, Box 33023, Detroit, MI 48216
·Workers World, 55 W. 17th Street, New York, NY 10011
--This list of alternative parties was taken from Ballot Access News, October
17,1993, Box 470296, San Francisco, CA 94147-reprinted from Western Review
Institute, December, 1993, P.O. Box 806, Chino, CA 91708.
Oct-Sep 96 - - Archives
- - HOME- - Electrons
to the Editor
