.

The Selling of America on Election Day

Think you are represented when either candidate wins?

May we conclude that, whatever happens by day's end, our political system is defunct?

The buyout by super pacs and corporations of what was once your freedom to cast a meaningful vote for representation ... a buyout, by the way, spun as freedom of speech itself (!), has left us with a poor selection of viable highly processed candidates and an election season that becomes a bubbling tar pit of spin outright lies and fear mongering.

Increasingly the process results in huge division. The states aren't UNITED by our free elections ... The country is not healed or strengthened by the process ... the dynamic is like a body trying to saw itself in half. The current process is lethal to real progress or even simple well being. Citizens either become ardent disciples spouting the latest dogma produced by highly paid pundits and propagandists or are ignored as they find central questions are left unanswered, depth or detail is never reached, etc.

The elections in the USA is an exhorbidantly expensive puppet show and we line up to clap for or boo the hero and villain of the day, while the puppet masters, the Soroses and Koch Bros and Adelmans of the world, arrange our next decade according to unspoken and veiled agendas. Political thought in free societies can not be represented by two choices.

This is the least number of options one must have to even call your decision a choice and this is how we are supposed to select the leader of the "free world?" The speeches we hear are so overcooked, strained, purred, they resultant language is like a toddler's board book ... lots of four to six letter words, short emphatic sentences, huge undefined abstractions. The death knell for individual representation wa s the Supreme Court's decision for Citizens United, a decision that exploded the last seawalls holding tsunamis of corporate money in abeyance....and we see a six BILLION dollar election.

Is there anyone reading this blog who thinks their vote will result in even a modicum of representation when super pacs are dropping this kind of dime on our candidates? Can you imagine they are not "owned," by the money that keeps their spin on your laptop and tv screens? Money IS NOT free speech. It can't be because it isn't free to begin with. Free speech is something each citizen has thepotential for in equal amounts regardless of their bank accounts, their social standing, class, race, gender, religious or political belifs, or other characteristics. If money is held to be free speech, as it was in this epic catastrophic decision, then billionaires get to speak the loudest.

The bellow of their voices will drown any individual cry. The White House should put a "for sale" sign in the front yard at Pennsylvania Avenue every four years to be honest about the nature of the present system. The jobs of these "elected" officials, from the highest on down, could be poste on eBay. I cant buy them....i am a poor man...but there are people who can....and do. How does that sit with you this election day?

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

J. B. Schmidt November 07, 2012 at 01:08 PM
@Michael I agree that both parties are to blame. but my point is that the money given by the American public to support their candidate is not at issue. This election was won by the candidate that promised the most government handouts. It is the redistribution of wealth that is causing the corruption not the donations of money to superPACs or campaigns.
Luke November 07, 2012 at 01:16 PM
J.B.S. has a point.
Michael McClusky November 07, 2012 at 01:19 PM
J. B. Schmidt Let us look at it in a pragmatic way. Federal spending will not be put under control until we first have campaign finance reform. The two are intertwined. Politicians will not take serious consideration into the budgetary process unless we first curb the under-handed deals that are going on.. As for entitlement spending: this will continue as long as medium household income remains flat or continues falling. The private sector does not want to pay their employees anything. Corporate America is sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars in cash and it wants tax breaks and it cannot afford to give anyone a decent raise. So yeah, we are screwed.
J. B. Schmidt November 07, 2012 at 01:31 PM
@Michael As I stated, the ads we watch on TV have little effect when one a party is offering handouts. Romney could have had $1trillion in superPAC money and still lost if Obama spent $1million and effectively convey to the American people that he would give them more government handouts. The proof of this is the multitude of youtube street interviews where people are asked simple questions regarding Obama that they can't answer, but they do know that he is giving free cell phones, free healthcare, free mortgage relief, free college loan relief, etc. It is similar to black friday shoppers. Regardless of the temp or long lines, people will always stand in line hoping to grab one of two TVs on sale. You could tell those people till you are blue in the face what they are subjecting themselves to or the possibility of not getting anything, but they are only interested what they are told they COULD be given.
Michael McClusky November 07, 2012 at 01:45 PM
@J.B. Schmidt The Roman Empire used to call it bread and circuses. The government fed and entertained the masses to make them complacent. There is no difference here. Our politicians are so weak-willed that they will always seek the easy way out. Did you see 60 Minutes on Sunday night about the US Senate? They are beyond pathetic. They were all re-elected last night though.
Resident of O.C. Paul November 07, 2012 at 01:45 PM
There were 4 other candidates, yeah they were Third Party candidates, but the media kept these candidates out of sight...candidates that knew the issues and had good ideas for getting America back on it's feet, and weren't finger pointing and backstabbing each other or any other candidate. All you saw on TV and internet web pages were ads for Obama and Romney...Pretty sad when the media, which is supposed to be neutral and unbiased, takes it upon themselves to tell people "these are your only choices", and "this is the candidate we are backing"...I could care less who the media is backing, I want to hear from ALL of the candidates.
Michael McClusky November 07, 2012 at 02:16 PM
@Resident of O.C. You are right. I watched the debates between the four independent candidates on C-Span and they were all concise and adult with their views. It was great. The blasted media should be cursed for their rotten attitudes towards our alternatives.
J. B. Schmidt November 07, 2012 at 02:32 PM
@Michael I will agree that the media has hidden from the American public the truth about not only candidates but about the state of America as a whole. I caught a portion of the sit down between Reid and Mcconnell, vomited a little in my mouth and turned it off. Either way, my main argument is that this blog, regarding the the money donated to campaigns, is not the where our concern should lie. This blog falls in line with much of the liberal propaganda that private entity money is the evil of society, while the government can only do good. I think we agree more then we disagree.
Robert B. November 07, 2012 at 02:33 PM
I'm with you Michael, as a member of the Libertarian party, I will always vote for my party. Some day we'll gain enough traction to put a dent in the ridiculous notion of only have two choices of basically the same party. People like Pennypacker can insult us all day long for I care. And yes, it is very insulting.
Michael McClusky November 07, 2012 at 02:42 PM
@JB Schmidt I have stated on other sites that federal spending is not all of what it is cracked up to be. Economists call it an artificial economy. What usually results in these outlays is a short term boost and a long term increase in the costs of goods and services. Think of the college education situation. When the government 'warps' the economy it usually creates more uncertainty. This brings about more conservative spending by the private sector and the people. Government interference also distorts the market. Think of the housing markey.
Resident of O.C. Paul November 07, 2012 at 03:36 PM
I watched the debate too, and sent one of the youtube links to a friend of mine in Texas that is taking a class in American Government for her Sociology Masters Degree, even she liked it, then she sent the link to her professor. It's sad that "word of mouth" is the only way some candidates get recognized.
Resident of O.C. Paul November 07, 2012 at 03:52 PM
I'll backup Michael too. We need to put an end to the 2 party dictatorship that has been locking up the house and senate from doing what they need to do because of their constant bickering back and forth. And to end their fueling this country with fear and hatred. Don't they ever listen to people, read about the economic and social problems that the people see but is ignored by our government, a government that is only worried about putting money into their pockets instead of putting that money to it's intended use, and see how their actions, or rather inactions, are causing this country to go down the drain. Anyone that voted for either of the 2 party dictatorship's candidates THREW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AWAY.
Michael McClusky November 07, 2012 at 04:48 PM
@Resident of O.C. Yes, it is sad, but we have to keep the alternative parties alive any way we can. Just the other day a Republican blogger complained about me criticizing the two major parties. In his view Libertarians should keep their traps shut. Yeah, right!
Brian Carlson November 07, 2012 at 05:50 PM
And who is the MEDIA? If the media is keeping the truth from all of us about how are government is really run, who owns that puppet show? JB...I think that hand outs and promises of creating 12 million jobs do garner votes but I think you are far from accurate in believing that big money is not behind and steering both parties toward its own agendas. You call that liberal propaganda but I am talking about BOTH parites. Why do Soros and Adelman shell out these vast sums if its all wasted, ineffective and brings no tangible results. Do you think these guys are stupid about how they are spending their money?
Brian Carlson November 07, 2012 at 05:53 PM
All for alternative parties but as long as the two parties are driven by huge corporate concerns and mega billionaires.... the small parties have no chance. It is a corporatocracy we live in. It is an Empire and the kings are not the ones sitting on the thrones in the oval office, the senate or house chambers...etc.
Dominic Joseph Radanovich November 08, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Why don't we just send some representatives to the Queen of England, tell her we're sorry, and humbly ask her to take us back!
Brian Carlson November 08, 2012 at 02:12 AM
Dom.... well that is rather brilliant. I like the out of the box thinking. Think they want to do the Empire thing again though? It became kind of expensive.
Brian Carlson November 08, 2012 at 02:14 AM
So most of you believe that no one pulls the strings of our officials nor do they drive these elections? Its all just as presented then? Free individuals choosing from the brightest and best.....
Michael McClusky November 08, 2012 at 01:40 PM
@Brian Carlson Politics today is not about policy but about money. Those that contribute vast sums to the winning figurehead will, of course, have greater say in what is going on. This is one major reason why the federal budget will never be straightened unless we have true campaign finance reform.
Brian Carlson November 08, 2012 at 03:14 PM
I completely agree...hence my blog. The unleashing of torrents of money withthte Citizens United decision, effectively trumped all individual voices, creating an unprecedented vote by the greatest buck scenario. If money is now and forever "free speech," the individual vote, heavily effected by the powerful propaganda puchasedby megadollars, has been all but drowned out. Our choices, either or... Bob or Biff... Barry or Mitt.... Have been provided to us by powers that never lose.
J. B. Schmidt November 08, 2012 at 03:32 PM
@Brian Could the blame not be put on the legislation that limits the amount of money donated to the candidate himself by private citizens? I think the idea of limiting money is a fruitless adventure. If I or any other individual wishes to support a candidate or promote a cause; the avenues by which I can show my support are limitless. By increasing legislation or regulation we are simply creating new and more disturbing routes for cash or favors to be funneled. The only way to limit corruption is to have honest politicians (laughing to tears at that one). Hence, the solution is simply to convince the American people to vote for the guy that is less corrupt. However, that would create a special interest group on its own and require money to promote. It is vicious circle.
Michael McClusky November 08, 2012 at 03:43 PM
@J.B. Schmidtt What is disturbing to me is that the Romney and Obama campaigns ignored the Supreme Court's decisions on full disclosure of the contributors and the separation of the PACS from the campaigns. Pretty darn arrogant if you ask me.
Go Galt November 08, 2012 at 03:45 PM
You place your worry in the wrong areas my friend. Look to the 99% voting precincts in PA and other states that went for Obama.....Vote fraud my friend, that is more disheartening than some law about advertising about candidates.
J. B. Schmidt November 08, 2012 at 03:47 PM
@Michael I don't disagree with that complete, but if it were left to straight personal donation with zero dollar figure limit directly to candidates it would have been easier to track, superPACs would become obsolete and the backroom coordination would be eliminated.
Michael McClusky November 08, 2012 at 05:16 PM
@J.B. Schmidt: I think we agree that campaign finance should be re-examined again.
Johnny Blade November 08, 2012 at 07:14 PM
When you can create money out of thin to juice the legislative and there are NO restraints on this printed money backed by nothing this is a MAJOR FREAKIN PROBLEM .. no wonder both sides can pay off anyone. Another point is the media holds the sham two party debates gets all the advertisment propaganda money .. so there is more wrong than PAC money
Michael McClusky November 08, 2012 at 07:33 PM
You are right. As a public service the media should cover independent candidates more than they actually do. Their corporate advertisers would not like to see that happen, that is for sure.
Jeff November 10, 2012 at 06:22 PM
@Brian Carlson - This article is beautiful small island in a vast two party ocean of bullshit. Glad you're here Brian.
Brian Carlson November 11, 2012 at 04:56 AM
Jeff, thank you. It does feel like a small island at times!!!! Haha.
patchreader 123 November 11, 2012 at 05:42 AM
Yes, Brian, thanks for your article. Many people, including myself, are sick and tired of having the pot stirred every four years - only to have its contents settle into the same sticky mess (or worse) from one administration to the next. This is the very baseline of our current American government. How many years are we to wait, and how many administrations are we to trust, to address and correct the federal deficit? This is but one sad example of the "pass-the-buck and blame others" mentality of our government and bi-partisan political system. Unfortunately, the very citizens that our elected officials serve are almost powerless to truly change it. The SYSTEM, i.e., Electoral College, Commission on Presidential Debates, campaign finance, lobbying and redistricting, ensures the continuation of a stagnant two-party system filled with career politicians who often put self-interest and re-election goals over the interests of a broken middle class. These same politicians will certainly resist any proposed meaningfull change that may jeoparize their own self-interest.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »