The Illusion of Choice

With respect to the political compass, I would like to comment on the political landscape of the United States. Every few years in our country, normal citizens are a given a choice between essentially two candidates for public office, either Republican or Democrat.

Our spectrum of choice is a very narrow selection of what in reality are two factions of the same business party that dominates American politics. Each viable candidate in the running for public office relies on a large backing from American corporations, to which they are expected to serve specific financial interests. The main candidates may differ on a few social issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc.), but their economic and foreign policies are often very similar.

Election campaigns are run by a public relations industry looking to sell their candidate to an audience, avoiding real issues and relying on image to market their product. Third party candidates are usually excluded from debates and do not receive media coverage.

Take a look at our options in the 2004 Presidential Election:

2004 Election

The names most widely recognized in this chart are George W. Bush and John Kerry, the Republican and Democratic nominees. The third party candidate with the most support behind them was Ralph Nader; he was not allowed to participate in debates, did not have the financial backing of large corporations, and was even left off the ballot in some states.

Now take a look at the political compass of our upcoming Democratic and Republican primary candidates :

2007 Election

The names most popularly recognized (Clinton, Edwards, Guiliani, McCain, Obama, Romney) all lean to the Authoritarian Right. The two candidates of the Democratic party that lean slightly to the Libertarian Left (Gravel & Kucinich) have been essentially ignored by the corporate media. Neither were invited to attend the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, Gravel was recently excluded from a debate by NBC, and when they do debate they are often given less time than their political counterparts.

So ‘we the people‘ do have our choices every few years, but those choices are severely limited by the PR industry running the campaigns and the corporate media that provides coverage to the mass audience. It is quite revealing to contrast either of these presidential election choices with the political compass of my family, as revealed in the previous post.

Nearly all of my family falls somewhere between either Ralph Nader and John Kerry (2004) or Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards (2008). So how is it possible that members of my family cast their vote for Bush in the 2004 election?

The PR industry running election campaigns tend to focus on qualities, rather than on real issues. It is often very difficult to tell where a specific candidate stands on the issues. I don’t think it would be possible to vote for John Kerry if you were basing your vote on charisma – he has about as much as a door stop.

Anyhow, it is this illusion of choice (Authoritarian Right vs. slightly less Authoritarian Right) that needs to be repaired if America is going to become the democracy it claims to be.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. Jimmy, I share your distaste for political campaigns. Something I lack is the ability to quantify this distaste with examples of abuse by the PR industry (though I have little doubt of its existence).

    About policy, I’d like to know specific examples of laws passed by Congress that are influenced by lobbyists, and I’d like to know actual numbers of how much money the different sides payed out to different players, and how the law is now different than what is really in the best interests of most citizens.

    About elections, I think it is important for everyone to know what issues the president really influences. I don’t know as much as I should on this, but I think education is one in which the president is fairly impotent. As I understand it, school systems are funded almost entirely by local and state taxes, so talk about leaving or not leaving children behind is pretty much BS at the federal level. I’d like to see info on what the candidates spend their time debating compared with what issues are ‘real issues.’ I highly doubt the president’s view really affects whether or not women can abort their pregnancies.

  2. Your political compass of 2008 candidates is incorrect regarding Ron Paul. If you had taken the time to research the candidates, you would see that Paul is a conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a libertarian. He advocates non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations (UN); supports free trade, while rejecting NAFTA as “managed trade”; and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe v. Wade, and affirms states’ rights to determine the legality of abortion.

    This information was found using doing about 3 seconds of research. Check your sources before making blanket statements.

  3. Firstly, I have not made ANY statements regarding Ron Paul. The political compass result is from their website and they plot the candidates based mostly on their voting records.
    I commend Ron Paul for being the one Republican candidate to speak any sense…he even mentioned ‘blowback’ in a debate! I support his non-interventionalist foreign policy. I can understand the excitement of some conservatives of actually having an anti-war candidate…and the excitement behind Paul on the internet by many liberals wanting to get out of NATO, WTO, etc. But he is a free-market conservative that does not support workers rights.
    For a good article deconstructing Ron Paul, check http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=14282 or http://www.alternet.org/rights/69139/?page=entire

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: