|
|
Updated: 24. Aug. 00 |
Commentary on Politics, Sports, Society |
||||||||||
|
It's as important as any politics. A New politics based upon Compassion: Endorsements This is not a team endorsement at all. I'm pretty sure we have players who would disagree with me on this endorsement. I whole-heartedly throw my support behind Green Party-candidate Ralph Nader. This should shock few people, but does need clarification. Nader and the Green Party don't have a shot in hell of winning the Presidency. However, their concerns and issues are those I believe require immediate attention. A vote for them should serve as an alarm to the Republicrats. In particular, it should be seen by the Democrats as a sign that the party cannot continue to appeal to conservative values, empty promises, and vague notions of bridges and win. The People of the United States are not stupid; just fed up. Why vote Green? Democrats are upset at Nader's candidacy. Rather, I should say that the Democratic leadership is upset. According to The Nation, Nader is running at around 7 to 10 percent in California. The sense there, as around the country, is that votes for Nader will ensure a Bush victory in November and that the United States cannot endure another Bush in the White House. Look: there ain't a dimes diff'rence between 'em. Bill Clinton has shown this only too well. Cuts in programs such as Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC) came not under the Reagan-Bush era, but under Clinton. Environmental protections have been reduced to a joke, workers cannot organize and fight their employers without the wrath of their social betters, and military spending has only increased under the current administration. Bill Clinton needed the Unions to win in 1992 and 1996. He needed young people to buy into a vision of a future built upon compassion. He needed people to believe in the fear of a Republican White House-the same fear on which Al Gore now must rely his campaign. Vote Democrat, because it's better than voting Republican. When I voted in 1992, my first presidential election ever to have, I was ecstatic at the possibilities that seemed to open up. I grew up regrettably during the Reagan-Bush reign. I saw first the prosperity as an upper-middle-class boy in conservative Richmond, Virginia. I believed, or wanted to believe, in the boundless wealth that was hidden behind government regulations-deregulate, and the world will rejoice. Life at the College of William and Mary changed that. Poverty is real, and only a pink slip away for the vast majority of Americans, even for the vast majority of the middle class. Back to Top Disillusionment I stood in the party room at Sig Ep and watched the election returns with my girlfriend Virginia Stevenson and with my fraternity brother Brian Hunter. We cheered with every percentage thrown behind Clinton. We bought his vision of a politics based on compassion: the belief that the country was only as strong as its weakest link, that government was absolutely needed to protect the environment, to intervene on the behalf of workers. I cannot speak for either Virginia or Brian, but I have since become entirely disillusioned with Clinton, the Democratic Party, and American politics. In summer 1996 I was living in Richmond, Virginia. I remember reading about Clinton's cuts for AFDC. That was the last straw. I had been giving money to the Democratic Party and was a member. I did not give nearly as much as others in the party. Far from it. But as percentage of income, mine being below the poverty line, I was giving much more than the millionaires who had bought the party from the People. That generosity stopped the moment I read about these cuts. Aid to FAMILIES with DEPENDANT CHILDREN. These were not 'loafers on welfare.' These cuts directly or indirectly meant taking basic necessities from those who need it the most. Budget money could have been found elsewhere (read: defense), but Clinton and the party did not. Their justification was entirely contemptuous of what politics should be: this was a compromise. What has happened? The Democratic Party was the party representing the People: workers, women, minorities, immigrants. Today, the Democratic Party is nothing more than the Party of Compromised Promises, of Compromised Politics, of Compromised Ethics. It is the Party of Corporate America. Back to Top What is to be done? A helluva question. To begin with, Vote Nader in November. Why should we care whether Bush wins? Does Al Gore seriously worry about the rights of workers in America and elsewhere? Does he care whether every child in America receives the best possible education in the world, that they receive decent nourishment? That they get the opportunity to grow up healthy, secure, and able to achieve whatever their dreams may be? That they will be ensured of clean air, clean soil, and clean water? On one level, I do not doubt the Vice President's care for the weakest link; nor do I doubt the Texas Governor's. The question is whether either will ever do anything constructive to achieve these and other goals. If we worry about the fear of another Bush in the White House, we run the serious risk of overlooking what truly should be important in politics. Back to Top The Green Party and November 2000 The Green Party doesn't have a chance. So what. If you do fear W. Bush and an anti-abortion court, go ahead and vote Gore. If your concerns about the future of America go further than fear, vote Green. As Michael Moore argues it, a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. If you live in Texas, your state almost already has gone to Bush. Go ahead and vote for Nader, because you are not taking votes in the Electoral College from Gore. Do not be ashamed about voting your conscience. Nader's success at the polls will not mean that the nation will be painted Republican. Most who will turn out in November for Nader will not be able to vote Green in congressional elections, much less senatorial. Do you believe they will vote Nader for president and then a Republican for congress? Hardly. If Nader's candidacy does get new voters out in November, it will mean a victory for the Democrats in the House and Senate. Even if Bush wins, he would need votes in the Houses of Congress to pass legislation-and to appoint his Supreme Court Bench. That is a possibility we as progressives should be willing to live with. Success at the polls for the Greens will be a message to all Democrats that they must shift their attention away from what has become a ridiculous obsession. For years now the Democrats have attributed their electoral successes on their ability to steal Republican issues. In the process, they have dragged the center of American politics to the right. It has been under Democratic forces that the United States has increased military spending, cut back the welfare state, undermined the strengths of unions, created an insanely insecure world political system, and assisted in the export of neo-colonial economics through the World Bank and IMF. How long can the United States continue along this path before something collapses? Can we continue to prop up fragile currencies in Asia and Latin America? The longer we insist on neo-colonialism, passing as 'neo-liberalism' or the 'third way', the deeper the next crisis will be. A vote for Nader will ring loudly that there is a large segment of the American population upset with the current direction of their national government; it will force both wings of the Republicrats to scramble for new techniques to secure their votes. That is precisely why we as progressive Democrats should be enthusiastic about Nader. His candidacy will, we hope pull the Democratic Party back to the politics that made it so strong. Or, his candidacy will construct the foundations of a new, perhaps viable, party with the Greens. With the structure of American politics as they are, we should never for a minute consider whether one or another event builds or destroys a party. We should return our focus back to what were the basics-that politics and ethics do matter and that we place our faith not in parties, but in the politics. Back to Top Personal Politics: A Politics built upon compassion If this endorsement seems a bit personal, it is. Politics is not some abstract interaction between theories-or as a game. What is political is personal. And what matters is not this or that theory about political structures or even political success; but rather the people involved, the humanity affected by our leaders' choices. I believe that politics should be based first and foremost upon the welfare and happiness of the whole of the People. Anything short of that is not living up to the standards we can achieve. Billy Bragg once spoke about building a politics based upon compassion for other human beings. Compassion is not some wishy-washy abstract love for other people, but a recognition that if we can alleviate the suffering of others, it is our duty to act. My politics are based upon certain first principles: 1. Children and Politics. Politics should reflect the promise of children and all future generations. Free, quality, secular education should be available to all children. Since desegregation, we have witnessed the proliferation of poverty in inner cities. The flight of middle-class and upper-class whites from the cities to the suburbs has meant the reduction of city government budgets to provide the quality education that is the right of every child. The Federal government and its agencies have assisted this transformation through various projects aimed at benefiting the middle classes. The construction of new highways has facilitated the ability of the middle classes to live outside of cities, loans for first-time house buyers create markets for new housing in undeveloped areas, and the existing wealth in these suburban communities ensure better schools and facilities than available for those left behind in the cities. At the same time, the government has slashed its support for public transportation upon which many poorer Americans rely. They have no equivalent program of housing benefits for those renting apartments, including those already too poor to take advantage of buying a house for the first time. Finally, the Federal government and the courts have done little if anything to correct the downward spiral of inner-city schools. Borders drawn between school districts, between city and county, are virtually absolute. Money (and students) from one municipality to another rarely cross over. As a result, poor schools remain poor, rich ones get richer; poor schools rely on businesses to turn over old-model computers, rich ones establish entire computer labs. A high school degree from one school means that the student is qualified to do little in this 'new' economy; a degree from the other opens up doors to better universities and better jobs afterwards. This is but one basis, but an important one, to the wide gap that exists between rich and poor. Do not think for a minute that this division exists only between city and suburb. In my native Virginia these divisions also exist between suburb and country. I attended William and Mary, a state-supported university. I was shocked at how few students came from City of Richmond schools, but also at how few came from southwest Virginia in areas that once supported thriving mining communities. Our children deserve better, and we can do better. The differences in spending per student between the richest and poorest municipalities in Virginia alone are astounding; though, I do not today have current statistics admittedly. Without equitable funding between schools, we cannot begin to speak of a level playing field, nor such a liberal concept as meritocracy. Some of the best talent in the United States will never be tapped simply because of the very real class and race divisions that exist. Back to Top 2. All Americans should have the right to free, quality health care. Health care payments made by every American should no longer be seen as a privilege of those who can afford it. In a such a modern society as ours, everyone expects at one time or another to need to visit a doctor. How or how much we pay for it is a different matter entirely. Liberals in America decry the pitiful condition of our health care system, of the manner in which HMO's have reduced care giving to dollars and cents. They seek government intervention to ensure that these HMO's must live up to certain standards. That alone is hardly enough. Comprehensive health care will never be given under HMO's current corporate structures. Government is needed not to enforce standards upon HMO's, but on the conversion of the entire system to one in which every American can visit a doctor without fear of the financial burden and can expect to receive quality attention from their doctors regardless of payment. As it stands, Americans avoid visiting their doctors for regular check-ups and for illnesses at an alarming rate. It is alarming, because without the ability to pay for such regular visits, Americans enter hospitals only when it is too late, when they require emergency care or invasive surgery. This system is expensive to the whole of the economy. Instead of correcting minor problems at lower costs, patients must wait till these minor problems become very serious, if not life-threatening. The United States has an infant mortality rate that is shameful and embarrassing; it is the worst among industrialized nations. Pre-natal care for all expectant mothers should be available regardless of financial situation. Without it, we all pay dearly. Health Care is not just a right, but indeed a regressive tax on the American people. An example: given that the cost of paying for health insurance is constant at a rate of $100 per month for comprehensive care. A person earning $120,000 a year (or $10,000 per month) pays 1% (one percent) in income for health care. By contrast, someone earning $36,000 a year (or $3,000 per month) pays 30% (thirty percent) for the same health care. Health care is a basic necessity in the modern world-just as clothing, food, and shelter are. Paying at rates much higher in relation to income means that those middle class folk (and $36,000 per year is considered dead middle) are paying an extra, regressive tax that ultimately benefits only the rich in America-those who already can afford it. And the situation only gets worse for those who earn even less. 3. Retirement should be lived in total dignity. No person who has worked their entire lives should ever live in want for basic necessities. Social Security is a right of American workers. Back to Top 4. The right to organize is a basic human right. In America, workers in many, if not most, states lose their jobs for organizing a union. Laws should be changed to allow workers to sue their employers for violations of civil rights, including the right to free speech, the right to assembly, and, when applicable, the right to free press. Most people interact with their work more so than with government. Why should business receive exemption from the enforcement of basic rights? Contracts signed between any worker and her or his employer with non-union guarantees should be made null and void. I, myself, had to sign such an agreement to work at Kings Dominion theme park in 1988. That clause in the contract should be made unconstitutional on the basis of First Amendment protections. Additionally, the Taft-Hartley Act should be thrown out completely. Corporations give funds to political parties and candidates; why should unions be treated differently? The federal government is supposed to intervene to certify unions as collective bargaining units. Yet, employers regularly threaten workers before certification elections-in violation of the law. When workers vote in favor of union representation, employers appeal the election and delay the final certification until they have frustrated workers and unions into submission. This is not a level playing field. Rather than enforce existing laws, the federal government and the courts bow to the power of corporate money. Labor law should return to its original purpose and serve as a protection of workers from the retribution of autocratic employers. The current situation is simply thoroughly undemocratic. 5. I cannot go further just now. I'm tired and spent from this weekend. |
|
||||||||||