|
by ROBERT ZIMMER, JR.
|
. |
When times are good, most Americans are unconcerned with their government. When there's little to worry about, they either see no need to participate in the political process, or if they do, they approach it casually, not wanting to delve too deeply into issues that might be of grave concern to them if times were tough economically or culturally. So -- times were good. Strategizing for the 2000 campaign began. The Republican machine knew that a booming economy meant they essentially had nothing to run on, save President Clinton's character flaws. However, the American people had already resoundingly rejected playing that card too much for political gain. So the Republican chiefs instead twisted economic prosperity into a tool to exploit American political apathy. They shrewdly recruited an intellectual lightweight (and that's being polite), with good-ole-boy charm whom they could easily control. More importantly, they chose someone who would place a benign face on their shockingly conservative agenda -- an agenda that has for over a decade been out of step with the will and welfare of the nation. And then they framed this election as, essentially, a question of the role of government in our lives. Al Gore = more government. Bush = less government. It's a brilliant strategy. When you're fat with an overabundance of food, who wants the government stepping in and yanking the tablecloth? And Al Gore's campaign never knew what hit them. In fact, I'd hazard, Gore's team still doesn't get it. Something almost any voter can agree on: that the government must play at least a few essential facilitating roles in a democratic society. I believe three of the most important things are these: economics, social programs, and civil rights. And here's the heart of the Republican scam: easygoing George W. Bush and his compassionate conservatism -- they'll leave you alone to live your prosperous life, and keep the government from meddling in it. But don't you believe it for one second. Underneath W's crooked grin are the Republican right-wing machine's plans to place its distinct stamp on all three: economics, social programs, and civil rights -- namely, by unraveling most of the progress made on these fronts under the Clinton-Gore administration, and indeed, by other heroes in the past 70 years. ECONOMY One of the biggest crimes the Bush campaign has gotten away with is their assertion that the stellar economy of the past several years is some kind of random piece of luck. In the third debate, Bush said he didn't think government had anything to do with the last eight years of prosperity -- it was the hard work of the American people that created it. This, of course, was a delicious piece of ear candy (which Gore stupidly let pass by). However, by the same logic, we cannot blame the $300 billion a year deficits, and the creation of $1.3 trillion in cumulative national debt, on the government as steered by Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. for twelve years. Yes, it must have been hard-working average Americans who spent the country into the ground. Puh-leeze. Of course the economy is made up of individual and business efforts. But the steward of this great collective ship is the Federal government, and guided poorly, the ship can sink like a fiscal Titanic -- and if you'll pardon the extended metaphor, there have never been enough boats. Supply-side economics, a.k.a. trickle-down economics, a.k.a. let-the-rich-get-richer-and-cross-your-fingers-that-somehow-the-poor-will-benefit, was the game as played from 1981-1988. It was a great way to kickstart the moribund economy, but Reagan's economic goons neither stopped while they were ahead, nor were bothered that a combination of upper-class and corporate tax cuts, combined with massive new defense spending, would send the country into staggering debt. Al Gore has astutely pointed out that one of the largest items in the federal government's annual budget is paying on interest -- interest alone -- on the national debt. (The pattern of deficit spending was eliminated under Clinton-Gore stewardship, and paying down the gargantuan national debt is one of Gore's priorities.) W.'s economic plan is straight out of the supply-side playbook -- excessive upper-class tax cuts combined with spending that completely eats up any projected surplus. "Less" government intervention the Republican way = more deficits. We've already seen the disastrous results of this policy. Voting it in again would be one quick way to ruin your prosperity, America. Wake up and smell the anesthetic. SOCIAL PROGRAMS W.'s plan to allow for withdrawals from the Social Security trust fund, for investment in the stock market, is not only lunacy (Black Monday 1987, anyone? Market crash of 1929?), but a stealthy way to start unraveling the societal safety net conceived of and engineered by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. We've barely been able to keep one step ahead of the specter of Social Security insolvency, due to Congress borrowing money from it (for example, to pay interest on the national debt -- natch!). And now Governor Bush wants to take money out and invest it in the stock market? You thought Congress was idiotic with money? Watch the stock market with billions of social security money gambled. Sure, there ought to be a better rate of return on social security money pay. But how about we fix the current Social Security situation first? That's the smart and -- gasp -- conservative thing to do. Furthermore, powerful Senator Phil Gramm of Texas told an audience that "the safety net has become a hammock for the lazy." The Republican Party is not interested in clever new ways to help you build your nest egg. They want to eliminate the concept altogether, because, naturally, if you haven't gotten rich enough to retire by the time you're 65, you must be lazy and worthless, and you don't deserve any handouts from a bloated government bureaucracy. And you certainly don't deserve affordable prescription drugs, do you? That's just another hammock. I would give W some props on his focus on education. He certainly talks a good game. In fact, he does on many social program and education issues. But the rhetoric simply does not match the reality. The entire Bush campaign has been characterized by the compassionate right hand wooing the audience to not notice the savage left hand. Evidence of this abounds in W's (and this columnist's) native Texas. Take a look at these statistics: 50th in spending for teachers 49th in spending on the environment 48th in per-capita funding for public health 47th in delivery of social services 42nd in child support collections 41st in per-capita spending on public education 5th in percentage of population living in poverty 1st in air and water pollution 1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance 1st in percentage of children without health insurance Wow. Gosh, just think what he could do for the whole country! CIVIL RIGHTS The government has been the lone force in the past two hundred years to make any dent in equalizing rights for ALL Americans. Women, African-Americans, handicapped, gays/lesbians -- all these constituencies would still be subjugated and inferior were it not for the noble and courageous actions taken by the government -- in some cases, having to use force to pound the point home that all citizens of this country are created equal. Unfortunately, Governor Bush would prefer to see the government conspicuously absent from civil rights matters, opting instead to what -- hope? -- that everyone will be nice to each other? He claimed in the final debate that he was a tolerant person, that a person's sex life was none of his business. Why, then, did he say that he would never knowingly let a homosexual serve in his government? That being gay would mean the gay person's views on everything -- not just gay issues -- would be in contradiction to his? Make no mistake: W. is that fraternity president interviewed after a date-rape, hazing, or racial discrimination incident, claiming to know nothing about it, vowing not to condone it, and professing the impeccable character of him and his brothers. He vetoed and blocked hate crimes bills in Texas, and was unaware of pending hate crime legislation in Congress. Were the deaths of James Byrd (a black man dragged to death by car) and Matthew Shepherd (a young gay man who barely weighed 120 pounds, beaten into unconsciousness and tied to a fence and left to die) not enough of a wake-up call? Is it not a compassionate thing for a conservative -- or a liberal -- to do, to offer some so-called special protection? Ah, but no "special rights." No "special protection" for anyone. That's the stated Republican policy -- executed (no pun intended) in Texas by the supposedly benevolent Governor. Two quick notes about executions: Health-conscious Governor Bush (his days of alcohol behind him -- though exactly how far, he can't seem to explain) runs for two hours a day. However, the average amount of time he spends reviewing a death penalty case is fifteen minutes. Yes, you read that right. And just last week, a Republican-controlled appellate court reviewed another Texas death penalty case set to go to Governor Bush. A gay man was accused of murder, and despite evidence suggesting another possible suspect, the man was convicted anyway as his lawyer literally slept through the trial. The majority judges wrote, with straight "face," that it was impossible to ascertain which segments of the trial the lawyer had slept through, and that, therefore, there was insufficient reason enough to overturn the conviction. "The system works," W. assures us, but one is left to wonder if the Texas justice system only works if you're trying to accomplish a genocide. It's also worth pointing out that W. is on record as saying his favorite Supreme Court justice is Antonin Scalia, an avowed "strict constructionist" -- i.e., a hardcore conservative who doesn't think much of the idea of judicial extrapolation. Had the Supreme Court been dominated by such types throughout American history, we never would have made it beyond the literal meaning of "all men are created equal," because if one were always being a strict constructionist, then women aren't men, and African-Americans are only 3/5 man. W. may get the chance to appoint three or four Supreme Court justices. That would provoke nothing less than a backwards time warp in civil rights for this country. In the November 3 edition of USA Today, W. said the following: "I have great faith in the people. They trust my judgment. They trust my ability to elevate the office of the presidency." No, Governor, you and/or your campaign masterminds take the people for complete idiots. Part of the blame rests on the people, to be sure, for their wealth-fueled apathy. But the Republican campaign that sold this stunning deception to the American people -- they should be ashamed. If W. and his team told the truth about what a Republican administration would really mean, he'd get lower numbers than Ralph Nader on November 7. Perhaps W. himself doesn't even realize what a Republican administration would mean. Perhaps he is under the illusion that because his face is the facade of the Republican party, he controls its apparatus. But his control is just that - a facade. Turn on the lights, America. Scatter the Republican cockroaches trying to use W. to convince you they've become kinder and gentler. Whether you vote for Gore or Nader almost doesn't matter. Just don't vote for George W. Bush, or in 2004 you can bet you'll be worse off than you were four years before. And -- as we say in Texas -- we ain't just talkin' money, honey. ROBERT ZIMMER, Jr., IS A FILM AND TELEVISION WRITER/PRODUCER LIVING IN LOS ANGELES. HE WAS A DIE-HARD REPUBLICAN FOR HALF HIS LIFE, SO HE CAN CONVINCINGLY SLING A LITTLE MUD. |
Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times pop culture critic Robert Zimmer, Jr.
|
Copyright © 2001 The Coffee Shop Times
Who Not to Vote For
