An Election of Superlatives

Consider the unprecedented nature of the decision we have to make on November 6th between the two major-party candidates.

On the one hand, we have an incumbent President who is also a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  This man, lauded for his efforts to bring “peace” to the world by the perhaps-naive Nobel Committee, is also presiding over the expansion of apparently perpetual secret/shadow wars to kill “terrorists/enemy combatants” on what appears to be a virtually unlimited battlefield through the use of unmanned drone strikes.

Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.

“We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us,” a senior administration official said. “It’s a necessary part of what we do. . . .We’re not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, ‘We love America.’ ”

On the other hand, we have a fabulously wealthy financier whose belief in “American exceptionalism” is so great that he made (and continues to make) quite a bit of his money through offshoring American jobs to foreign nations, including China, a country that he has vowed to “get tough on.”

Right now a company named Sensata is moving equipment out of a factory in Freeport, Ill., and shipping it to a factory in China. Sensata will be laying off all of the American workers, but first they are making the workers train their Chinese replacements. The workers' last day is the day before our election. Here's the thing: This company is owned by Bain Capital, and Mitt Romney -- who says he is against shipping jobs to China -- will make a fortune from the move to China.

The Sensata employees have set up a camp outside the factory that they call Bainport and are trying to stop the Bain trucks that are moving the equipment out for shipment to China. These soon-to-be-jobless workers have asked Romney to come help them.

This is a tremendous opportunity for Mitt Romney. As the former head of Bain Capital and with all the visibility of a presidential campaign, he could step in and help these workers. It offers him the chance to demonstrate to voters that he means the things he says on the campaign trail, and is not just saying these things to get votes. But Romney has refused.

And one more bite at this bitter offshoring apple:

"Romney's campaign did not deny that he profited from the auto bailout in an email to The Hill, but it said the report showed the Detroit intervention was 'misguided.'"

The truth? On June 1, 2009, the Obama administration announced that Detroit Piston's owner Tom Gores, GM and the US Treasury would buy back Delphi.The plan called for saving 15 of 29 Delphi factories in the US.

Then the vulture funds pounced.

The Nation discovered that, in the two weeks immediately following the announcement of the Delphi jobs-saving plan, Paul Singer, Romney's partner, secretly bought up over a billion dollars of old Delphi bonds for pennies on the dollar.

Singer and partners now controlled the company - and killed the return of Delphi to GM.

These facts were revealed in a sworn deposition of Delphi's Chief Financial Officer John Sheehan, confidential, but now released on the Web.

Sheehan said, under oath, that these speculators threatened to withhold key parts (steering columns), from GM. This would have brought the auto maker to its knees, immediately forcing GM's permanent closure.

The extortion worked. The government money that was supposed to go to save jobs went to Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management Corporation and its partners, including the Romneys.

Once Singer's crew took control of Delphi, they rapidly completed the move to China, sticking the US taxpayers with the bill for the pensions of the Delphi workers cut loose.

Dan Loeb, a million-dollar donor to the GOP, who made three-quarters of a billion dollars off the legal scam, proudly announced that, once he and Elliott took control, Delphi kept "virtually no North American unionized labor."

In all, three hedge funds run by Romney's million-dollar donors have pocketed $4.2 billion, a return on their "investment" of over 3,000 percent - all care of the US taxpayer. The Romneys personally earned a minimum of $15.3 million, though more likely $115 million - a range their campaign does not dispute.

So there you have it.  Perpetual war from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and a history of profiting off of job offshoring from the man who claims his business acumen makes him uniquely qualified to lift the American economy out of its doldrums and create jobs.  These are the two candidates who will receive the vast majority of votes in less than 2 weeks’ time.

There are other candidates out there, of course.  There is Gary Johnson, the standard-bearer for the Libertarian Party, and there is Jill Stein, the candidate for the Green Party.  And beyond those two (the most prominent of the third parties, due to their being on the ballot in most states) there are countless other candidates to choose from.

It is notable that the two major party candidates would both bring with them more war, and the two primary third-party candidates would both not only end the wars the U.S. is currently engaged in, but cut the military budget and global footprint further than even proposed under the dreaded “sequester”.  Why do we never hear from the third party candidates in the mainstream media (even when one of them gets arrested outside the second presidential debate for “disorderly conduct” for trying to enter the building and participate)?  Could it be that war is always good for business, particularly for the media?  Are Americans not “ready” to hear what these other parties have to say, or is the game rigged to only operate in black-and-white mode, and thus deny a real choice?

I’m certainly not the first person to notice the conundrum that what we view as American “democracy” is truly a carefully-curated pageant that restricts the amount of political choice Americans are presented with.  According to the Commission on Presidential Debates (the CPD, itself a product of a bipartisan agreement between the two major parties) a candidate must receive 15% of support in national polling to be allowed to participate in the prime-time televised presidential debates:

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

And how, one might ask, does a candidate receive 15% of public support outside of being involved with the two major party apparatuses?  MONEY!  It certainly worked for billionaire (and anti-NAFTA economic nationalist, I might add) Ross Perot, didn’t it?  He ended up with 18.9% of the vote in the 1992 election, to Bill Clinton’s 43% and George H.W. Bush’s 37.5% after appearing onstage with the two major party nominees – having a well-funded 50-state operation can make outcomes like that happen.

“But we have a public financing system for the presidential race!” you might say.  And you would be right, we do.  But again, you get to the chicken-and-egg difficulty of trying to make an impact on the national electorate without the aid of money, which can help one buy media coverage (or without media coverage, which can help one to raise more money):

Minor or third party nominees may also be eligible for federal funding, but the process is a bit more complex.  A minor party candidate's public funding grant is based on a formula subject to the percentage of votes the party received in the previous presidential general election. The candidate is only eligible for general election public funds if the party's candidate received at least 5 percent of the vote in the previous presidential election.

How does one get one’s name and message out to the public without media coverage, so as to achieve polling and electoral support needed to gain access to both the debates (which again, serve to further get one’s name and message out to the public) and to public financing?  How does one raise money without media support, in order to show electoral viability?  How does one get media coverage without money to run ads, which, again, portray a sense of viability? 

Five percent of the national vote may not sound like a high bar to hurdle, but consider that in the 2008 election, approximately 127 million votes were cast.  Thus, you’d need about 6,350,000 votes to make the 5% threshold that would enable your party to access public financing. 

A useful Wikipedia page detailing the 2008 Presidential election fundraising totals shows the overall fundraising and spending breakdowns for the candidates (I’ve only left in the two major party candidates and the Libertarian and Green Party candidates for brevity:

 

Candidate (Party)	Amount raised	Amount spent	Votes	Avg $ per vote
Barack Obama (D)	$778,642,962	$760,370,195	69,498,215	$10.94
John McCain (R)	$383,913,834	$358,008,447	59,948,240	$5.97
Bob Barr (L)	$1,383,681	$1,345,202	523,713	$2.57
Cynthia McKinney (G)	$240,130	$238,968	161,680	$1.48
*Excludes spending by independent expenditure concerns.	Source: Federal Election Commission

To say that the third parties were outgunned in 2008 is a massive understatement.  The Libertarian candidate received about 8% of the 6,500,000 votes he would have needed to cross that 5% threshold to achieve public financing for the next election cycle, and the Green party candidate received about 2.5% of the number of votes needed to achieve 5% of the national vote.  Clearly there is a lot of ground to be made up!

If you view the realm of politics as a market, you will notice that the choices presented by our media and the official apparatus that governs presidential debates comprise a duopoly – there are only two choices, we are told. 

And yet, are there no worthwhile policy ideas beyond the Democratic and Republican 2012 party platforms?  If you care about enhancing the peacefulness of our world, it does not appear that you have a great option among the two major parties this year.  If you care about holding Wall Street accountable for the massive frauds perpetrated on the American public, and want to see the perpetrators go to jail, well you’re not going to find your candidate in the major parties this cycle either. 

Let me be clear: I am in no way, shape, or form arguing that there are not differences between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president this year; such arguments are a frequent meme among political cynics, but they are without merit.  The differences are stark, in terms of foreign policy, fiscal policy, social policy, etc.  Those differences ought not to be glossed over.  I am also not arguing the relative value of one or the other side’s polices at this point, despite my fairly obvious leanings.  Those arguments are for another time.

My point is simply that there are other ideas out there, other voices, and other constituencies that our political system, our democracy, is at present set up to exclude, rather than include.  This amounts to an undermining of free speech, of the free flow of ideas that theoretically characterizes the superiority of a representative democracy over other forms of government.  Let the two major parties have their ideas and policies challenged in an open debate; let the American public be offered something more than a two-party choice. 

Such changes clearly will not happen this election cycle, but through organizing and building constituencies, positive changes can be made for the future to break the two-party hold over political discourse in this country.  I have some ideas on this topic to expand upon at a later date, given the time.