In the past year, up until recently, I was seriously into politics. The impetus was a political science class which awakened me to more of the specifics of the US political process and the kind of bullshit that goes on beneath the radar. However, once you’ve read enough political philosophy – and it doesn’t take much – then realize the huge difference between ideology and practice, the disparity is depressing. Despite that, and with the presidential election only four days away, I figured it was necessary and appropriate to state my views. Let me start by coming right out and saying that I am ardently against Bush being re-elected, and honestly, I don’t see how anyone who is socially conscientious can advocate his return to office.
It’s really interesting to see how different people prioritize the issues, and simply baffling how many would be willing to choose a candidate simply due to common beliefs on ONE of those issues. For example, I went to a school out in western PA, in an area where hunting was a major pasttime, and for some, a way of life. To them, gun control is high on their list of priorities, and so chances are they will support a right-wing candidate on the strength of his position with regards to the second amendment. They would be willing to completely overlook a candidate’s track record on issues that I would not only consider important to me, but of importance to humanity. That’s an important distinction to be made. Issues such as health care and education should be of utmost importance to everyone, and yet it can be allocated to a spot of secondary importance if a person feels strongly enough about subjectively significant issues – like gun control.
People are really so easy to read. As Mazlow said, people perceive the world through a filter of their needs, and act accordingly. So, it’s no wonder that right-wingers – who tend to be better educated and wealthier can overlook issues of vital importance to the majority (of which they are not a part) such as education and healthcare. The systems that are in place have provided just fine for them, so why change them? Who cares if poor people in urban areas are trapped in a socioeconomic quagmire due to lack of education. Surely they’re just not working hard enough. And welfare? Clearly that’s only for people looking for handouts from the government. “I made it, so why can’t they?” The number of things people take for granted is staggering.
Another large part of the Republican constituency is composed of devout “Christians”, most notably those of the far right. It is easy for them to take a pretentious position of moral righteousness, because they already have all the answers; they’re in the Bible, afterall, the words of God almighty right there in print. Same-sex marriages? There is no debate, because homosexuality itself is a sin, and the institution of marriage represents the sacred union of man and woman under God. How could anyone think otherwise?
Abortion? Life is precious – a gift from God – and for us to take it into our own hands is to claim divinity for ourselves, a sin amongst all sins, for sure. But be careful not to present these fine Christians with their own rhetoric when the issue of the death penalty arises, because they might not appreciate being confronted with their own hypocrisy.
School vouchers? Why, that George Bush is a champion of the people for coming up with the idea; nevermind that he probably didn’t think of it himself. You see, because if people are presented with a choice of either sending their children to public schools – those havens for liberal depravity – or a nice private school, of course they’ll choose the latter. Hm, and it seems a curious coincidence that the majority of private schools are parochial – fine institutions, those – where a nice wholesome dose of the gospel can be served up at every turn. Afterall, that’s what the people need – a return to those “basic moral values”, as taught by the good book.
Now is it just another coincidence that the money for these vouchers is drawn from the general education budget, the same one that is supposed to fund the renovation of the public school system? Also, is it admissable that money is indirectly being used to support religious institutions, which goes completely against the constitutional mandate of church and state separation? If you haven’t gotten the picture yet, the goal there is the complete destruction of the public school system. The picture starts to become more clear. Who are the primary attendees of the public school system? Where are the funds for education needed the most? Minorities, of course, and in urban areas. How much do you think the right cares if “those people” are further crippled by the socioeconomic divide?
Finally, this brings up “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB), an act whose name represents the kind of lofty rhetoric that keeps the goals of the Christian Right and the administration they advocate afloat. The general terms of NCLB are that students will be given aptitude tests, and where scoring is the highest, funding will be provided. Schools that score low will be punished by a withdrawal or withholding of funding. The logic here is as flawed as only providing fat people with food because they have the larger appetites, and withholding it from the malnourished because they cannot eat as much, resulting in food going to waste.
To hear supporters tell it, NCLB will encourage teachers and administrators to push their students harder, to make sure they perform admirably on these tests. Surely that can only be better for the children. This kind of thinking goes hand in hand with the ideology behind the laissez-faire capitalism supported by the right, because after all, America is a nation built on the backs of hard workers (slaves, mostly, but keep that to yourself). The American dream can only be reached by those with the drive and the determination to see it realized. That point of view, of course, is contigent upon the false pretext of all things being equal, which regardless of what the constitution says, is NOT the case. Many children in poor (and generally urban) areas have not had and still do not have access to the best education, and therefore are ill-equipped to meet the arbitrary standards set by NCLB.
No matter how much teachers pressure their kids, it is likely that the schools that already have the best resources, i.e. those with the most money (upper class and suburban), will score highly while those with meager resources (urban) will score lower. Is it too difficult to see the glaring flaw in this plan? It is actually quite possible that this is a provision of the act, rather than a flaw, although its creators would never say as much explicitly. Now, do you think there could there be a connection between the public school sabotage agenda of the Christian Right and No Child Left Behind? Gee, I wonder.
It is only through this social Darwinistic filter that No Child Left Behind can be foreseen as plausible. If it is meant for the people of lower status to free themselves of their plight, then they will put in the hard work necessary to do so. As for those who can’t, well clearly nature – and as a corollary, society – has deemed them “unfit”, so fuck ‘em. It is no secret that Bush aligns himself with conservative Christians and with the “haves” and “have-mores” (his words), and in a sense, it’s just smart. These are the people who pour money into his campaign coffers, the people who in the past have bailed him out of embarrassing business failures, the people who he and his family have identified with probably for as long as he’s been alive. How could he do otherwise? Oh, I know – because those few do not represent the interests of the vast majority of AMERICANS – you know, those 300 million for whom he is supposed to be (at least symbolically) responsible? But then again, if the under and non-represented majority only comes out to vote in small numbers and doesn’t have any money to contribute to the campaign, what good is it to attend to their needs? Because it’s just? Because it’s the RIGHT thing to do?
Next I’m going to comment (briefly) on the glaring flaws in our political system, which so many people have mentioned and written about before that it almost seems redundant. In this election, it seems that people are going to be voting against the candidate they don’t like, instead of FOR the candidate they do like. It is pretty clear that the strength of John Kerry’s campaign lies in the plethora of little grassroots groups who are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that Bush is not re-elected. Kerry is a democrat, which at least ideologically (and rhetorically, to hear him speak about it) means that his interests lie with the aggrieved and under-represented majority. He’s the “people’s candidate”, but perhaps only by default since he’s the opposition to Bush, who clearly is not that candidate.
Now, I don’t give a fuck about Ralph Nader, and I think that anyone who votes for him is a fool, but his candidacy raises an important point. Our political system is such that we only have two choices, as if all the people in the country fall perfectly on opposite sides of some imaginary ideological line. So whether we who hate Bush like Kerry or not is virtually irrelevant because he is the only man that stands a chance of defeating the president. Now Kerry realizes this of course, and it is probably why he has been so painfully cautious in choosing his words and riding the fence. That he is Bush’s opposition is enough for many people, including myself, until such a time that he proves to be a bigger asshole, which I can only hope never comes.
Since this is becoming long-winded, I’ll close with something that I should have mentioned earlier. One of main bullet points of the Bush campaign is his “record on terrorism”, and the apparent “fact” that he has made us safer. I find it extremely unusual that Bush would be touted as the “safe” candidate, since it was under his watch that the worse attack on U.S. soil occurred. Are we supposed to feel safer because of the reckless wars he started against our “enemies” after the fact? Or is it because ONLY 3000 people died, and no weapons of mass destruction have wiped out half the country yet? Bush would have us believe that under Kerry the terrorists will suddenly go wild, and be encouraged to blow up the whole country. After all, since Bush is the “safe” candidate, and provides us with strong “national security”, his opposition must be the complete opposite – a wimp who will “liberally” allow terrorism to run rampant and put us all in danger.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, reality is not so black and white, and it is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans (or perhaps a testament to the idiocy of many) to think that rhetoric is going to fly. I’m not even going to touch the Iraq war, with all of its ill-conceived motives, poor planning, and sustained incompetence, because the evidence speaks for itself, and I would have to write another five paragraphs. In closing, I’m officially endorsing John Kerry for President, and insisting that all you other socially conscious voters out there get to the polls and make the right decision as well…