open Democracy News Analysis - America’s change election: reality or mirage?, Godfrey Hodgson - Comments

pendragon.jay on "America’s change election: reality or mirage?"

pendragon.jay — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:30:48 +0000

Western democracy is touted as the primary solution to the world’s ills and that every race, colour and creed, in not adopting this paragon of virtue, is denying itself the tool with which to support a liberated and meaningful life.

Today the attempted “democratization of the world” has led to more unrest and violence than at any other time since the end of the last world war. Why, when it seems a laudable desire to empower the people, enabling them to have a say in how they would like to shape their own society?

Democracy has undergone a radical change in the West with the rise of a new style of government run by a new breed of “professional” politician.

This was experienced in Britain in 1997 when the traditional left of centre Labour Party was repackaged by a new leadership seeking power. “New” Labour was conceived by adopting many of the right wing strategies of the Conservative party, effectively distancing itself from its traditional support/elector base of blue collar workers and the trade unions.

Shifting the party’s support away from the trade unions, and increasingly towards the private sector dramatically changed the democratic balance in the UK. The Labour party had effectively transferred its traditional political allegiance from the worker to the employer.

With both main political parties effectively focused upon corporate considerations, and the electorate coming a pretty poor second in the ranking, a true democratic process has been considerably weakened. Indeed the only effective opposition that both main parties now face is the media.

What is particularly interesting is that in spite of this shift in allegiance, New Labour has been successful in maintaining the support of the electorate, for a decade. This has been achieved by not only seeking corporate support but also adopting corporate marketing disciplines to maintain credibility.

From the first day of gaining power, New Labour instituted daily opinion polls to elicit the mood of the people and then produced new policies and intents that reflected the results of these polls.

But as time has passed it has become evident that many declarations of intent, policy moves or political decisions have been ill thought out and inadequately resourced to succeed, because they have come from knee jerk reaction to opinion polls.

The sheer scale and rate of change of political initiatives makes it impossible for effective judgment or accountability to be carried out, lowering the credibility of the parliamentary process to a level that makes the democratic process inoperable.
Another mighty nail in the democratic process is the huge financial resource now necessary to mount a political campaign. It is even seen as a political “plus” to have such vast funds available, without thought to what those funds have actually bought.

These financial requirements also constrain the democratic process by making it impossible for someone with something to say from even getting heard, let alone mounting a credible campaign.

In business this monopoly situation would not be allowed, but at the very heart of the crucial decision making process that directly affects the quality of our lives it is sadly lacking, and we are the poorer for it as a society.

If you add to this the frenzy that the media are capable of generating out of even the most mundane of news items, let alone terrorism and global warming, and is it any wonder democracy cannot function effectively?

People can no longer trust the traditional establishment to provide information that is not spun to boost circulation, protect poor decision making, or even corruption. Time and time again sincere declarations of denial and accusatory headlines are found to have little or no substance.

It was the late Robert Maxwell who said that “Trust is like virginity – once lost it can never be retrieved”. Loss of trust alone is responsible for “voter apathy”.

What we are now witnessing in the growing civil unrest and changing climate, is as a direct result of the movement of the democratic emphasis away from meeting the real needs of people.

Leadership has been replaced by “demand and supply”. Laudable and “democratic” as this sounds, true democracy has been rechanneled into creating a “sweet shop society”, where our every want, (not need), is met by business and government.

Both are utilising the marketing doctrine – “find out what people want and give it to them at a profit”, (or political point to maintain power) – without recourse to any ranking in importance of the products or services being provided, and their impact upon our fundamental quality of life - Processed food and personal debt – to name but only two, and without even thinking!

The unrest and violence in other parts of the world comes from those who can see what the West cannot – that we are touting capitalism in the guise of democracy, and the resultant, and some would say decadent secular society created through the financial doctrines used to “manage” people.

Some 500 years ago in the UK “true” power was wrested away from the monarchy by parliament, and now it is being removed once again.

Originally it made good sense to take the power away from a single individual and place it in the hands of elected representatives of the people, thus broadening the application and influence of that power for the greater benefit of all. However we are now beginning to return to this restricted process again as we bow, not to the whims of a single monarch, but the demands of a single doctrine – profit.

Any application of power by a single source is neither democratic nor healthy, by the very nature of the narrowness of the criteria that need to be satisfied – be that human ego, or financial goals.

Life is not about narrow confines, but balances and checks against a broad spectrum of aspects of the human condition, which also have to take into account our ability to cohabit with the natural world – a far mightier force than all the governments and multinationals put together, or anything else we might evolve.

By the very nature of the human condition there will always be abuses of power, and true democracy provides the means with which to manage that abuse through the demand of proper accountability by those exercising the power.

“The will of the people” may sadly be sniggered at in this current environment but there
is no other way of effectively managing society. We have tried communism and
dictatorship, both of which have failed the test of time.

The advent of Globalisation has heralded in a fundamental change in the way we interact as a species. We can now communicate directly with each other through the internet in a manner never before possible. Perhaps this will have a positive affect upon democracy.

The political and religious boundaries that previously contained our actions and directed what we thought hold less sway, liberating us to a realization that democracy should be more personally empowering than that which we have previously experienced.

We are not just “consumers”, nor are we “profit centre’s”, “units of cost”, “workers”, “punters”, “modules”, “subjects”, “the great unwashed” or any other of the myriad of pigeon holes used to define, target and label us.

Globalisation is offering business untold opportunities for growth, and good luck to them all for seizing those opportunities, that is what they are there to do. However within this environment we are seeing multinationals growing larger and more influential than governments.

This begs a fundamental question for us all – is it now the shareholder who holds the reins in dictating our quality of life? And if it is, we are already aware that it doesn’t work so why pursue it to its painful conclusion?

After all we have seen traditional school text books “edited” to fall in line with corporate policy, and private health fail the very people who need it - because they can’t afford it.

So let’s stay with fundamentals and define what democracy needs to manage.

We come into this life for a period of “three score years and ten” – or longer now. So what are we supposed to do during this time?

I would suggest that the very basics are:

1. An education in our formative years that prepares us to make informed
decisions about the future management of our lives.
2. The ability to find and nurture mind, body and spirit in our own way.
3. A working life that is nurturing as well as financially rewarding.
4. A social infrastructure that protects us, and supports us in times of ill health.
5. The sacrosanct right to reap the fruits of our labours at retirement.

From the time of living in caves right up into this 21st Century we have made stratospheric leaps in what we surround ourselves with, whilst remaining seemingly incapable of interacting with each other without resorting to violence and abuse.

Our corporate endeavours have been primarily responsible for leading our expansion across the globe and introducing us to each other - hopefully they will assume their vanguard duties with our sorties into space. In a similar fashion democracy offers the opportunity for us to interact in a manner that is conducive to the human condition, and could spearhead our evolution to a new level as a species.

Surely the time has come to find people to lead us who recognize who and what we are and how we truly function as a species. To this end the following characteristics are what we should be looking for in suitable candidates in my opinion:

1. A genuine care about people
2. The nurturing application of love of our fellow men and women, rather than the judgmental containment of Political Correctness.
3. The ability to lead and inspire first and foremost, rather than react.
4. The ability to manage all aspects of government for the general wellbeing of the electorate, by ensuring broader criteria for decision making than primarily financial – “Let’s decide what we want and then find the money!”
5. An emphasis in all of the above upon assisting people to realize their potential rather than restricting and containing them.

For our part as electors we need to accept that low taxes breed corruption in government, as it tries to provide all that we demand with reducing resources, whilst desperately holding on to power. An environment of true democracy breeds trust and confidence in which electors will pay more because they can see how their money is being managed.

It is not naïve but incredibly simple – there is no substitute for integrity, and we are all challenged in this respect. Indeed let’s not lose sight of the fact that the worlds financial systems have been brought to their knees in just a few months by a lack of integrity that will affect every living creature on this planet for years to come. And if Maxwell is correct, how will that trust be regained?

The “change” being talked about in America at present may see the beginning of something new and inspiring, or a return to frustration six months after the Presidential swearing in – I personally wait with positive anticipation, but only time will tell.

joe_11 on "America’s change election: reality or mirage?"

joe_11 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:01:03 +0000

Far too many Americans ARE too invested in and too satisfied by the half truths and pandering offered by conservative ideology. Another frighteningly large segment of the population is completely alienated from democratic politics. And then there are those of us who try to be engaged, but feel overwhelmed by these challenges combined with the more dangerous threats presented by the current administration -- along with a host of other complexities that cannot be ignored.

It might be irresponsible to "have faith" in the US's ability to regenerate itself sufficiently to preserve the possibility of a constitutionally constrained and democratically accountable government. Maybe it's even more irresponsible not to have that faith.

We have to BE what we want our nation to be: brave enough to acknowledge our failures while responsible enough to work hard to correct our mistakes and build a better world.

abuelita42pj on "America’s change election: reality or mirage?"

abuelita42pj — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:27:18 +0000

Some items everyone has to remember no matter who get into office January 2009--The Congress determines what items will be discussed and/or voted upon. Some of that will depend on how many new ones are Democrats and if they are Republicans, will they cross the aisle or march lock step against any thing he puts up. Obama can plan and re-write and veto or sign but most of the work must come from Congress. Right now with their non-existent backbone and jellyfish legs, we will spend most of Obama's time, cleaning up the mess Bush put in to being--such as today's 69-29 vote for allowing him free access to wiretapping without warrants and the telephone companies can now help him out even more. If it was legal then, they will argue it miust legal in 2010. So everytime I write to you or to London Review of Books or Times Literary Supplement, I will get tagged, just like the Arab-sounding names were tagged for calling Pizza Hut.

Hope and pray these court proceedings against the 6 major terrorists blow up in Bush's face and whoever comes in must make it Constitutionally sound and in Federal Courts. Your Mr. Brown would help too by pulling back on some of his demands for longer times before court and long jail sentences. He says he doesn't like Bush but he's acting just as Bush has. One Bush is more than enough.

macturna on "America’s change election: reality or mirage?"

macturna — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:39:02 +0000

Alan MacDonald

First to the issue of change:

No! There will be none in 2008.

Second, as to the reason for no change:

America is not in the grips of a "conservative ascendancy" (as Hodgson incorrectly ascribes), but rather in the grips of an "imperial ascendancy" --- or to be blunt, of the completed ascendancy of a corporatist EMPIRE.

Change (or restoration) from something, and restoration 'back to' something else (in this case from Empire back to democracy) can certainly not be effected without even daring to name the thing a country is getting away from (Empire), and back to (democracy).

During this entire 2008 election campaign charade (or distractive entertainment spectacle) none of the corporate vetted candidates have mentioned anything about this seminal issue of overcoming our hidden Empire disease, nor of restoring of anything remotely like the original anti-empire American democracy.

This is not to say that there has been no talk, outside the vetted candidate field, about the need to at least repair and restore democracy. But such revolutionary talk (and writing) has been judicially outside the 'entertainment and faux-excitement' of the imperial presidential campaign.

Al Gore, for one, has raised the issue of a compelling need for America to restore its faded democracy, and he has made this point most strongly in his fabulous 2007 book, "The Assault on Reason". Gore correctly notes, in language much stronger than Hodgson, that a radical, conservative, corporatist "faction" has essentially taken over the American government, and needs to be overcome by exceptional popular and political means, in order to restore a truly democratic balance. Gore correctly asserts and actually demonstrates how this corporatist "faction" has leveraged overwhelming "economic power" over government and media in order to distort reason and establish a virtual lock-hold on American political democracy.

Unfortunately, for Gore and the country, his assessment (written in early 2007) asserts/wishes that the November 2006 Democratic election successes in Congress would lead to a 'restoration' (or re-balancing) of this political-economic dominance by the corporate "faction". Of course, recent history has shown that the Democratic ascendancy in Congress had no such effect, despite Gore's wishful thinking that it would apply firm oversight, checks and balances, and exceptional political means (like filibuster in the Senate). Instead the Democratic Party, now with Congressional majority and 'leadership' (sic) in its hands collapsed like a cheap suitcase --- and 'changed' absolutely NOTHING.

Many in the liberal/progressive camp have excoriated the Democratic Party as being 'gutless' in the face of what Gore called a "radical corporatist (conservative) 'faction' that does not even acknowledge the existence of anything called a 'public interest'." However, I strongly beleive that such criticism of the Democratic Party not only understates its real collapse, but actually helps the Democrats hide the real pathology of their party; namely, overt complicity with the radical corporatist "faction" that Gore describes.

However, the level of deceit, complicity, and (some would say) treason of the Democratic Party in its collapse would be much better explained (and could have been predicted by Gore) had he himself used the more accurate description that a 'radical, conservative, corporatist Empire' (as opposed to simply a "faction") had taken over the American government via its economic power over the political sphere.

Since I most strongly believe that it is precisely a 'corporatist Empire' that has taken over the former democratic nation-state of America, and it is an overt 'corporatist Empire' that is hidning behind the facade of this 'Vichy American' two-party, faux-government, I can predict with 100% accuracy that absolutely NO CHANGE will occure in this 2008 election circus --- since none of the corporatist Empire's fully vetted and pre-selected 'Vichy' candidates have even whispered the word "Empire".

One can certainly not expect any 'change', any 'restoration', any 're-balancing' away from something onerous and destructive, if the supposed agents of change do not even dare to mention the name of the Empire, which is the seminal affliction, pathology, and cancer that is this very moment destroying the democracy ----- which they also do not acknowledge as being in any danger!!!

lesp on "America’s change election: reality or mirage?"

lesp — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:08:59 +0000

Godfrey Hodgson touches on the key question that we, the marinaded, are asking ourselves. Will our fellow Americans have the balls to take the big step and really break with the conservative mindwash? Recently at a caucus in Minnesota, I heard young voters referring to themselves as Millennials and discussing the idea that they were part of the realignment generation.

I don't know if that was real movement or idle chatter, but the ideas are afloat in our marinading sauce.

Good article.

America’s change election: reality or mirage?, Godfrey Hodgson

godfreyhodgson — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:03:39 +0000

The cumbersome calendar and complex arithmetic of the race for the party nominations in the United States presidential election - particularly on the Democratic side - present two fascinating questions to analysts attempting to make sense of it all. The first is, clearly, who will be the Democratic candidate: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? The second will come to the fore only after their absorbing contest is settled, but is worth posing now: is 2008 set to be a year of "realignment" in American politics - and if so, of what kind?

The much-heralded "super-duper Tuesday", 5 February 2008, did much to clarify matters on the Republican side (where it is now all but certain that John McCain will be the nominee) but left the Democratic race finely poised between the aspirant "first woman" and "first African-American" president. The decisive victory of Obama in the four caucuses (Washington state, Nebraska, Virgin Islands, Maine) and one primary (Louisiana) on the weekend of 9-10 February confirmed his ownership of the precious "momentum", but left both the delegate count and the balance of advantage almost exactly even.

The identity of the Democratic candidate is now likely to be settled only after the Pennsylvania primary on 22 April, and perhaps even later than that (the emerging pattern of the delegate count has even led to suggestions that the Democrats' gathering in Denver on 25-28 August will become a rare "brokered convention"). As a result, the direct campaign between the presidential candidates will be far from the grinding and expensive gestation of nine months that had in late 2007 been widely anticipated (if still far from the usual intense two month-campaign from Labour Day in early September to polling day in early November).

An American election, however, is not only a device for choosing the chief magistrate, his (or her) vice-president and some thousands of senators, congressmen and other officials (see Laurie L Putnam, "Employment opportunity: President, United States of America", 4 February 2008). It is also rightly taken as a measure of the national mood, a testing of the state of the union. In 2008, many subordinate questions and one paramount question about the national mood will be decided.

What kind of "change"? Also in openDemocracy on the United States election:

Laurie L Putnam, "Employment opportunity: President, United States of America"
(4 February 2008)

Anthony Barnett, "Taking Obama seriously"
(6 February 2008)

It is palpable that the country has had enough of George W Bush. In vain he claims that the military "surge" in Iraq - the sending of monthly deployments of a few thousand additional American troops to Baghdad and environs - has shifted the course of the war in Washington's favour. The events on the ground don't support this view and a majority of Americans don't believe it. The damage done by the Iraq adventure is irreversible. Even less does anyone believe that a muddled meeting in Annapolis and an eight-day yet almost furtive tour of the middle east mean that the United States can bring peace where it has allowed war. The man with "Commander-in-Chief" embroidered on his jacket is now reduced to desperate bargaining with the Democrats in Congress over how to preserve the country from the recession that has in great part resulted from his party's selfish and short-sighted economic policies.

The great question is whether, in rejecting George W Bush, the American electorate will also reject the conservative ascendancy in American politics. That dominance has lasted at least since Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Some indeed would say that the tide turned earlier: in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson, in response to the Selma crisis, introduced the Voting Rights Bill (saying, as he signed it into law in August - so a credible legend has it - "There goes the south!"); or in 1964, when the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater and sent the eastern patricians packing. Others would say that it turned only in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency at his third attempt. But whenever it can be said to have started, the conservative ascendancy has been real enough.

Now there is a good deal of evidence that many American voters want the election to bring "change". Most of the candidates, and conspicuously the two Democrats now left in the race, believe that change, whatever precisely that means, is the key to the door of the White House.Godfrey Hodgson was director of the Reuters' Foundation Programme at Oxford University, and before that the Observer's correspondent in the United States and foreign editor of the Independent. He reported the presidential elections of 1964, 1968, 1972, and 1976 for various British and American media, and was co-author (with Lewis Chester and Bruce Page) of the best-selling account of the 1968 campaign, An American Melodrama (Viking Press, 1969).

But what kind of change do the voters want? And what kind of change to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama think they want?

I have noted before in openDemocracy that a respectable tradition in American political science advances the theory that roughly every generation - for example, in 1876, in 1896 or 1912, in 1932 and in 1968 - a "critical election" has taken place that ended in a "realignment" of the parties and of the ideological kaleidoscope of United States politics (see "America in 2008: the next realignment", 6 November 2007).

So one way of rephrasing the great issue of 2008 might be: is 2008 a critical election", and if so what is the realignment it will bring?

Now some might argue (as Michael Tomasky has done in the Guardian) that the mere fact that the Democrats are now choosing between a woman and an African-American for president constitutes a dramatic realignment in itself. It is certainly true that as late as the 1960s, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama could conceivably have reached the White House; but at this stage of the argument it is surely time to contemplate a possible scenario that offers a different take on this double breakthrough.

There are many, and they are by means all either reactionary or stupid, who believe that a significant proportion of the electorate is not in fact ready to vote for a woman or a black man for president. Perhaps - this theory goes - those people will tell pollsters that they are for Clinton or Obama. But when the moment comes to cast their ballot - in the instant when (as President Kennedy's political lieutenant Larry O'Brien liked to say, "they reach down in their gut and pull that lever" - they will vote instead for McCain.

At this stage of the campaign I do not believe it possible to say with any confidence how much truth there is in that rather depressing theory. It should be said, though, that to vote for McCain is already in a certain sense to vote for change. For if McCain's "Tory" values - old-fashioned patriotism, economic caution and respect for traditional norms of decent political behaviour - make him at least as much an authentic conservative as George W Bush, Karl Rove or Grover Norquist, a McCain presidency would still mark a sharp break with what American conservatism has come to mean.

Among his other books are The World Turned Right Side Up: a history of the conservative ascendancy in America (Houghton Mifflin, 1996); The Gentleman from New York: Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Houghton Mifflin, 2000); More Equal Than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century (Princeton University Press, 2006), and A Great and Godly Adventure: The Pilgrims and the Myth of the First Thanksgiving (PublicAffiars, 2007)

Among Godfrey Hodgson's openDemocracy articles on American politics:

"The next big issue: inequality in America"
(13 September 2006)

"America against itself"
(19 February 2007)

"Democracy in America: the money trap"
(27 March 2007)

"Queen Elizabeth meets President George"
(9 May 2007)

"The politics of justice"
(9 July 2007)

"The United States: democracy in trouble" (30 September 2007)

"America in 2008: the next realignment?"
(6 November 2007)

"Washington discovers Islamabad"
(27 November 2007)

"The United States election: time for ‘change'"
(10 January 2008

One scenario for 2008 that cannot be dismissed - notwithstanding the Illinois senator's clear wins in the five contests of 9-10 February, and his expectation of victory in the next round of voting (Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland) on 12 February - is that Obama and Clinton will fight one another to a standstill, discrediting one another in the process, leaving McCain to come through on the rails to a surprise victory. However, that presupposes that the Republicans will reunite and forget their differences, as they have traditionally (though not infallibly) done in the past. Yet many influential and activist Republicans have still not forgiven Senator McCain for what they consider serious straying from the true conservative path, reflected in his disloyalty to President Bush but more particularly in his stance on immigration. Will fanatical conservatives be able to rally to a man they see as a traitor, while two brands of moderate Democrats continue to tear their party apart?

The great unknown

The great unknown of 2008, therefore, seems to me to boil down to these five linked conundrums:

First, how radical is Barack Obama? Does he agree with the Clintons that as a matter of historical inevitability "the era of big government is over", and that what Edmund Burke called the "reign of sophisters, calculators and economists" - or in modern jargon the age of corporate public-relations men, think-tank pundits and hedge-fund acrobats - has succeeded? Or will he, and can he, reassert the authority of democratically elected government over corporate and other special interests?

Second, if Obama does want to see a rejuvenation of social democracy (on the lines of Roosevelt's "new deal" and Lyndon Johnson's "great society", adjusted for the 21st century), how boldly will he distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton in this respect? After all, Bill Clinton "triangulated" with the Republicans over welfare reform. Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan failed, not because it was too radical, but because it was not radical enough, so that it could be blown away by the clever but crass Harry and Louise campaign. "They choose", said Harry. "We lose", said Louise.

Third, if Obama does frame the policy issues in this way (though not necessarily in this language), will a majority of Democrats back him?

Fourth, if he does present himself as the candidate of substantial change in bold but at the same time practical terms, can he beat John McCain in November?

In other words - the fifth and biggest condundrum of all - does all the talk of change amount to the serious intention to end to the conservative ascendancy - a moment of realignment? What precise groups of voters, what interests, tendencies or tribes, will shift from voting for Republicans to voting for a relatively unknown and untried Democratic candidate with a distinctly exotic political profile and Hussein as his middle name?

At the moment, my instinct, or what Larry O'Brien called my "gut", tells me that there will be no such realignment in 2008. Voters have been so deeply marinaded in the complacent half-truths of conservative ideology and exceptionalist rhetoric, that they are not yet ready for realignment.

I hope I am wrong.

I fear, amid signs that a real recession may be on the way, that I am right.

Average rating

(6 votes)