Alexis de Tocqueville on Equality in America

Drawing of Alexis de Tocqueville by Theodore Chasseriau, December 31, 1843

AMONG the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people. I readily discovered the prodigious influence that this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society; it gives a peculiar direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed.

I soon perceived that the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the country, and that it has no less effect on civil society than on the government; it creates opinions, gives birth to new sentiments, founds novel customs, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that this equality of condition is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated

From the author's preface to
Democracy in America, 1835

Money in American Politics: Its Effect on How We View One Another

In his commencement address at Syracuse University on May 13, 2012, Aaron Sorkin said.

"Don't ever forget that you're a citizen of this world, and there are things you can do to lift the human spirit, things that are easy, things that are free, things that you can do every day. Civility, respect, kindness, character. You're too good for schadenfreude, you're too good for gossip and snark, you're too good for intolerance—and since you're walking into the middle of a presidential election, it's worth mentioning that you're too good to think people who disagree with you are your enemy."

Unfortunately, the direction of American political dialogue in the age of the Internet is towards more schadenfreude, gossip, snark, and intolerance, not less. The question is, "why?"

Much has written about the corrupting effect of money on democracy in America. Less is written about how all this money effects the way we Americans view one another. Foreigners seem to come away from a visit to America with the view that Americans are a friendly bunch, quick to say thank you, hold the door open, and prone to say, "Have a nice day," to just about anyone. But how friendly are we to one another? And has that changed?

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision dramatically increased spending on campaigns and spawned a new wave of political organizations funded by wealthy individuals. Then, in 2014, SCOTUS struck down the limit on the total amount of money wealthy donors could contribute to candidates and political committees. The result of these decisions should be no surprise. According to the Brookings Institute, “When candidate and independent spending are combined, 2014 ranks among the most expensive, if not the most expensive, in history.” And recently the Koch Brothers announced that they plan to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 election. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

Because of all this money flowing into the coffers of congressmen, and candidates, there is a growing sense among everyday Americans that their government does not truly represent their needs, values, nor aspirations, but rather the special interests of those who contribute the most money. Naturally, views differ on whether the result is a government that interferes too readily in the affairs of the public -- is too intrusive, too protective, too burdensome -- or a government that is too permissive of corporate practices that harm people and the environment.

The political parties and their supporters exploit this dichotomy of views in an attempt to wring more money out of contributors like you and I; everyday Americans, who can't compete with the Koch Brothers and their ilk, but feel we have a dog in the fight.

Using TV ads, direct mail, email, social media, and townhall meetings and the like, we are bombarded with the stock and trade of campaign fund raising memes: anger and fear. We are told by the Right that the president is a socialist hell bent on "redistributing wealth" and turning America into a communist state. The Left rails against Republican efforts to turn back the clock on civil liberties, the social safety net, and women's reproductive rights. The campaigns orchestrate outrage over this or that congressman's hypocrisy when their infidelity or insobriety surfaces. If real failings fail to be real enough, elaboration is used, with just enough ambiguity to make allegations juicy without being libelous.

To make matters worse, campaigns and their associated PACs and Super PACs have been collecting massive amounts of data on voters and crafting their messages to push the hot buttons of the demographic most likely to be convinced and to contribute. Workers in the oil and gas industry are told that Al Gore has a huge house, drives an SUV, and flies in his private jet to speaking engagements where he laments global warming. Women collecting food stamps are told that the congressman who demanded they be drug tested was arraigned for possessing cocaine. PETA members see "Sponsored Ads" show up on their Facebook page showing pigs confined to cages, with a link to an article on a Republican-sponsored bill to remove "burdensome regulations" on the treatment of livestock, while ranchers get push notifications about Democratic sponsored legislation that would require eggs be from free range chickens. It's all carefully choreographed to raise your ire and their coffers.

 Campaigns spend a good chunk of the money they collect from donors on "Big Data" and the algorithms that turn it into big propaganda. Frank Pasquale, in his recently published book, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, has written that,

"Every day, corporations are connecting the dots about our personal behavior—silently scrutinizing clues left behind by our work habits and Internet use. The data compiled and portraits created are incredibly detailed, to the point of being invasive."

But more than invading our privacy, an invasion made easier by how wide we fling open the pages of our digital books, these corporations, PACs, Super PACs, campaigns, and candidates are invading our psyche. By telling us that our political opposites are bent on wresting from us no less than our, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," they are setting us one against the other as not just as political adversaries, but as sworn enemies.

Among the more strident agitators, the National Rifle Association stands out as the best organized, most effective in their narrow issue area -- gun rights -- and most divisive, with their inflammatory rhetoric and wide-ranging attacks on "jack-booted government thugs," and "anti-gun, left-wing activists." As much as anything, the NRA has promoted a 'fear thy neighbor' mentality, and a shoot first, "stand your ground" ethos. But they aren't alone, polemicists on both sides of aisle use hyperbole like a magic wand, turning Americans against each other for the simple purpose of extracting contributions for campaigns. And it never ends.

The enormous amounts of money flowing into the political coffers of campaigns, candidates, PACs, and Super PACs generates a whirlwind that swoops down on Americans, wrests ever more money from them to 'offset the other sides money,' and leaves them twisted against each other.

Mao Zedong (it may have been Sun Yat-sen originally) is credited with saying, "Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed."One wonders how long the distinction will hold.

Speaking Up For Democracy

It was a small gathering of people willing to assemble at the offices of Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) to voice their opposition to the Republican government shutdown, and Republican efforts to sabotage democracy. Hastings wasn't there, but NBC/KNDU "Right Now" News was there, took video, and interviewed a few people, including me. I spoke about the Republican-led House passing House Resolution 368, which prevents anyone but Eric Cantor or his designee from bringing a Continuing Resolution bill to floor. My little speech didn't make it off the cutting room floor, but a young man named Nik Foster gave a very good interview on the absurdity of Republicans shutting down a government that essentially keeps the Tri-Cities humming.

Mary Wilcox (with sign), who organized the event on behalf of Moveon.org

Nik Foster speaks about how the Republican shutdown effects Hanford and the Tri-Cities 

Mary Wilcox, the woman who sponsored the event, admitted that she was out of her element as a political organizer, but she overcame whatever trepidations she may have had and soldiered on. She did her civic duty because she felt strongly about how democracy should work, and about how the Republicans in congress were undermining the democratic process. Good on her!

People at the event talked mostly about the shutdown, but there were also comments about Senate Republicans abuse of the filibuster. One held up a sign saying, "Let Them Vote," and another saying, "Stop the Madness."

One man spoke angrily, characterizing Republican tactics as "sedition," a view expounded upon recently by the journalist, Andrew Reinbach of the Huffington Post. Whether Republican actions are sedition or not would have to be argued by someone more versed in law than I am, but what they're doing undoubtedly falls under the definition of extortion, i.e., "an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer."

We cannot allow this abuse of power to succeed. And come election 2014, the people that did this must be held accountable, including "What's Up Doc" Hastings.

This Shameful Video Speaks for Itself

Voter ID is Common Sense -- Isn't It?

Let's be honest. Republicans have never been keen on extending voting rights to all the citizens of this nation. Their reasoning is straightforward. If the poor, the elderly, and the disabled are allowed to vote, they'll vote themselves a big piece of the treasury pie. This will require raising additional revenues to pay for the government services and handouts that this demographic of the citizenry will demand. That, in turn, will cause taxes to go up, and as we all know, only about half of all Americans pay taxes, those being hard-working Republican businessmen -- the job creators -- who need tax breaks for outsourcing jobs overseas.

To claim, as some do, that Republicans are racist because their attempts to disenfranchise poor voters tends to discriminate against African-Americans and Hispanics, is just plain unfair. No one made minorities poor. They made themselves poor by failing to be white.

"Voters were turned away from the polls because their race didn't match the election supervisor's records. But race isn't even on our identification cards, so why would this be an issue at all? I personally had a problem at the polls - I had to be very insistent that I could vote. That happened to me, and I consider myself pretty informed” (Adora Obi Nweze, President of the Florida NAACP, November 4, 2000).

Elderly people have had their chance to vote and now that they've reached an age where they're eligible for Social Security and Medicare, they should stop voting, because they no longer contribute to a vigorous economy. They are on the dole and it's only right that they let people who are still working make the decisions about what elected official is going to eliminate their entitlements.

Now Republicans have nothing against the disabled, per se, but letting them vote seems imprudent, as many of these people are demonstrably challenged when it comes to intelligence, which is demonstrated by them voting Democratic. Furthermore, they are also dependent on things like health care, which hard-working Republicans strongly believe should be the right of everyone to pay for.

It would be difficult for Republicans to pass a constitutional amendment limiting the right to vote to people making over $250,000 per annum, or to simply deny the right to vote to certain select members of society (see above), and so Republicans are ramming voting laws through Republican-controlled state legislatures that accomplish much the same thing, although with some inevitable leakage. These laws require people wanting to vote to produce a government approved identification, preferably stamped with their party affiliation, which would allow precinct workers to quickly determine which IDs are likely to be fraudulent, i.e., those produced by Democratic voters.

In order to assist those intrepid soles attempting to obtain said government approved ID, states passing voter ID laws have issued on-line information for all the poor, elderly, and disabled would-be voters with access to and technical know-how on computers and the Internet. For example, Floridians must show:

• Florida driver’s license showing that you are an organ donor and have donated an organ to a Republican candidate.
• Florida identification card issued by an office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which if you live in a predominantly Democratic district, has been closed.
• United States passport showing that you have not visited any socialist countries, Muslim countries, or countries whose national debt is less than ours.
• Debit or credit card, that can be verified as having been used for a contribution to a Republican candidate.
• Military identification accompanied by a statement that you do not have PTSD and oppose repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
• Student identification with an expiration date, and with confirmation that you are a business major and have never taken a social sciences course.
• Retirement center identification, with a stamp certifying that you have met a death panel.
• Neighborhood association identification for any neighborhood in which the medium income is $250,000, or above.
• Florida public assistance identification that includes a photo of you in the nude.

Florida Governor Rick Scott is going a step further and "purging" the state's voter registration rolls of questionable registrants, despite the Department Justice’s concerns that his plan might actually disenfranchise legitimately registered voters. Apparently, the risk of dropping a few thousand questionable (read Democratic) voters is worth the reward -- delivering the state to the GOP in November.

Although in-person voter fraud, the type of fraud photo ID is meant to curtail, is vanishingly rare (.0004%, as measured), Republicans believe strongly that prophylaxis in our voting laws, if not in our bedrooms, is absolutely necessary. Thus, the plethora of voter ID laws, which Republicans feel are especially important in swing states, like Florida and Michigan. They feel that if they can suppress the vote there -- I meant to say, authenticate the vote there -- and perhaps in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, well who knows what might be achieved? A one-term Obama presidency?

Hasn't that been the objective all along?

Corporations Framing the Debate

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) used to be known as, "The supermarket to the world," thanks to its ads on political talk shows. But after an FBI investigation in the 1990s, ADM pleaded guilty to fixing international prices on citric acid and lysine, paid a $100 million fine, and saw three of its top executives convicted and sent to prison. You can read the Department of Justice indictment here.

At a 1992 meeting, when lysine was under 80 cents per pound, ADM Corn Processing Division President Terry Wilson proposed "friendly competition" to raise the price to 80 cents, then 95 cents, then $1.05 and then $1.20. As Wilson told the other lysine makers in a secret meeting recorded by Mark Whitacre, "You're my friend. I want to be closer to you than I am to any customer 'cause you can make us money." ADM president James Randall told the group, "We have a saying here in this company that penetrates the whole company. It's a saying that our competitors are our friends. Our customers are the enemy" (from the article, Price Fixer to the World)

The recently released Warner Brothers movie, The Informant dramatizes the incident, focusing on Mark Whitacre, the insider who blew the whistle on ADM. He is, to say the least, an interesting character.

ADM is today the world's largest corn processor and has the largest market share in two corn-based products: high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener, and ethanol. ADM is a big booster of bio fuels. It remains one of the world's largest and most influential corporations.

I do not believe that ADM's misconduct over the years was the exception. In my view, corporate misconduct is pervasive and far more insidious than price fixing. What's interesting to me is that the public seems to accept this state of affairs far more readily than they accept government "interference" in attempting to correct it. This is a testament to the political clout and public relations savvy of corporations, not just in America, but around the globe.

Perhaps the very worst example of corruption and despoliation occurs in the oil industry and interestingly, the WSJ recently featured the review of a book by Peter Maass on the subject.

Industry and their corporations manipulate politicians and public perceptions regarding touchstone issues effecting the quality of our lives on everything from the air we breathe, the water we drink (like Coke's "Eco-Friendly" DaSani bottled water, which turns out to be tap water) and the [salmonella-tainted] food we eat, to the health care we receive to overcome the effects of what we breathe, eat and drink. In the absence of government regulation, corporate power and influence grow unchecked, becoming the real threat to democracy. Corporations frame the debate on health care, on energy policy and global warming, and on war and peace. Given public ignorance and/or apathy, they will determine the world in which we live.