With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama neck and neck, the consensus opinion ?? fueled by the corporate media ? has thus far predictably opted for the banal choices, separated only by rhetoric, gender and the melanin concentration in their skin. One speaks a lot about ?experience? and the other promises (oh, God) ?change,? neither of which amount to anything more than the typical artificial differences that separate establishment candidates.
If you haven?t vomited yet, just remember both of them have a lot of money to fight with, so the race will likely last well into February. We can look forward to more debates about who better fulfills Platonic ideals, minutia about past inconsistencies and louder attacks against the surface of the Bush administration?s crimes, all of which are supposed to constitute a functioning democracy and give voters a real choice.
Excuse me for calling this what it really is: bullshit.
The truth is that neither Ms. Clinton nor Mr. Obama, both mainstream Democrats who have been pushed slightly to the left by the other frontrunner, are reason to hope for any major reversal from the current militarism and neoliberalism. Mr. Obama at least speaks in lofty, progressive terms, but lurking beneath is a set of policies that are something quite different. Ms. Clinton makes no such pretensions ?? all she?s got are the bad policies.
A few examples should suffice:
Both refuse to promise a complete withdrawal of troops by the end of their first term in office. Both are self-described supporters of the ?War on Terror.?
Both support the Patriot Act. Both support the construction of a wall along the southern border to keep out Mexican migrant workers. Both support increased limits on the right to sue corporations. Both oppose gay marriage.
Amid the fumes, both toxic and obscuring, of the corporate media?s role in presidential politics is John Edwards, the one frontrunner candidate who has at least gestured in the direction of real progressive change. Unlike his rivals, he has acknowledged the existence of (gasp!) poverty and class. Mr. Edwards has spoken to the concerns of the working majority ? particularly the most disenfranchised ? and pointed the finger of accusation at American corporations.
What?s more, his policies are excitingly bold, at least by presidential standards. He wants an almost $4 increase in the minimum wage, universal health care, affordable college tuition, an end to torture, a closure of all nefarious detention centers and, per his most recent policy announcement, a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Edwards has vowed not to accept money from lobbyists.
The former North Carolina senator ? though nothing more than the left-wing establishment candidate and far from ideal ? has spoken passionately on behalf of the concerns of the working class and railed against a system that, as he loves to point out, is quite broken. He is a candidate with whom progressives of all kinds can reconcile themselves. Even Ralph Nader, perhaps the loudest critic of the Democratic Party?s failures, has finally found himself an acceptable candidate within the confines of the rotten two-party system.
While Mr. Edwards talks about wrestling with corporate power, Ms. Clinton snuggles with it. Her top campaign advisers are all corporate shills, including her chief strategist, Mark Penn, who heads one of the biggest public relations firms in the world. Her campaign events regularly feature high-profile corporate lobbyists, an indication of the same sickening corporate welfare we have to look forward to in her inauguration. And if the administration of her husband (whose legacy she curiously considers her own) is any indication, we can look forward to more NAFTAs, welfare cuts and bank-mergers.
Mr. Obama grasps at an approach somewhere in between, opining that we need to reconcile our differences and ?unify? this torn nation. Blissfully ignorant of class antagonisms, he preaches that ?we are all one nation? and that it?s time to transcend our differences, whatever that means. Message to Obama: Health insurance companies and other Fortune 500 companies are the problem, certainly not part of the solution; universal health care and economic justice can only be achieved by waging a struggle, not engaging in good-natured negotiation. Then again, these aren?t part of his policy agenda, anyway.
In accordance with ?lesser-evilism,? I suppose I?ll have to force myself to vote for Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton in the general election, even if Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party more accurately reflects my politics. But I will only be able to do so with rubber gloves, a pinched nose and enough decontaminant to rid my periphery of a fashionable, fungal and ultimately futile liberal politics.
Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected])
is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
