This is the most important election of our lives.
That sounds so melodramatic... but it might be right.
It's not because of the candidates themselves. Sure, we know what
Dubya's done - and I talk about that inside. We know his
administration's been working for the elite corporate interests since
day one. We know that under his leadership, terrorism has increased
since 9/11. We've squandered over a thousand lives in Iraq chasing
after WMD's that never existed. We've been given a few hundred dollars
in compensation for slashed social programs, dirtier air, and a
tremendous debt for our kids. All that’s important stuff…
but it’s not the biggest issue.
As of this writing, the two presidential campaigns have been
markedly different. Kerry's campaign has been largely characterized by
a positive message, outlining what he'd do differently instead of
attacking the personal qualities of Bush. While not perfect, Kerry has
spoken more to the populist base than I remember Clinton or Gore doing
during thier campaigns. This is a good thing. During this election
cycle, groups such as ACT and MoveOn have been organizing huge voter
signup drives, recognizing that those who didn't vote in 2000 far
outnumber the splinter "swing vote" of the moment.
The strategists are watching. The people behind the scenes, the
people most of us don't know about.
Nader has, once again, stated that there isn't much difference
between the candidates. I disagree - but this time his observation is
irrelevant. The campaigns are very different in tone, fairness, and
truth. Compared to Bush, Kerry is running a hugely populist, positive
campaign.
The strategists are watching - and taking stock of what works.
I am tired of sound-bite politics. I am tired of attack ads -
especially ones not founded in fact. For all of its faults, the Kerry
campaign has ideas, potential solutions. Something to vote for instead
of just something to vote against. He is providing a significant
difference from his opponent. It is a politics of hope against a
politics of fear.
Would we want to see an America gazing towards the future, or
huddled in fear? Which tactic wins this election will determine what
we'll see more of in the future.
- Steve Saus, 9/19/04
HOW BAD WAS LIBERALISM?
DC GAZETTE, 1985 - We've come across some comments on the
accomplishments of liberalism of the last half century that are worth
passing on. They were made by Alien Ferguson, President of AFE Inc,
before the National Economist Club. Ferguson notes that the real gross
national product rose 546% from 1933 to 1980. Real per capita
disposable income rose 233% during the same period. In 1929, one
percent of non-farm workers took vacations. By 1970, the figure had
risen to 80%. The average work week dropped from around 48 hours in
1929 to around 35 hours in 1980. By 1950, 34 million workers were
covered by unemployment insurance; by 1980 the figure was almost 93
million. Social security, during the same period expanded from covering
46 million to 128 million people. While the share of income realized by
the poorest 20% of the population has not changed much over the years,
the percentage held by the wealthiest 5% has dropped from 30% in 1929
to 15.4% in 1981, indicating a redistribution of income to the middle
class. Similarly, the percentage of total wealth held by the top one
percent was 36% in 1929 and down to 20% by 1969. Between 1959 and 1979,
9% of whites and 25% of blacks moved out of the poverty classification.
And a Congressional Research Service study done in 1982 showed that
without the various liberal transfer programs, 24% of the country would
have been in poverty rather than the 9% that was the case.
“I'm not working under any grand assumptions that my
involvement will change the course of the election My great fear is
that we will wake up on November 3, George Bush will have won and we
will say, ‘What more could we have done?’”
–Moby, musician and activist
LOCAL CANDIDATE: Jane Mitakides for U.S. House
Jane Mitakides (mit-ah-KAI-des) is running this year for the US House
of Representatives. To quote from her website: "Jane knows the first
issue in Ohio is jobs, jobs, jobs. Our state has lost a quarter-million
jobs, and there is no end in sight. Jane is dedicated to reaching out
past partisan politics to find long-term solutions to the issues facing
our families, including secure pensions, truly accessible health care
and real prescription drug benefits." I was able to ask her about some
of these issues, and how they affect us here in Dayton.
ICTH: You'd like to look past partisan politics, but I've seen
the word "partisan" turn into a weapon to attack anyone who disagrees.
How would you strike a balance between being excessively partisan and
the Republican tendency to use "non-partisan" as a way to get people to
shut up?
JM: I want to look at the issues first as Americans, rather than as a
Democrat. The Democrats, as a party, are less inclined to demand that
you're in lockstep with party leaders. That means that my first loyalty
can be to the people I represent, not to the party leadership.
Representatives to the House are supposed to be citizen statesmen -
that's why the terms are only two years. If you're not speaking to the
issues that affect the people you represent, you'll be replaced.
ICTH: Coming from West Virginia, I've seen politicians use "jobs"
as an excuse to trash the environment. That strategy can provides jobs
for a short period of time - but ruins the land, and soon leaves the
people without jobs and no way to support themselves. If you had choose
one of the two options, which would come first - profit or the
environment?
JM: I don't see that you have to choose between them. My personal
business, DRNA, is a great example of this. Dentists have to deal with
a lot of hazardous waste as part of thier job, but much of it can be
cleaned up and reused. My company works with others to close the
environmental circle, providing jobs in recycling and still taking care
of the environment. Government needs to work with businesses to find
more good solutions like this one.
ICTH: I've heard that you want fair, full funding of schools. Can
you give me an example of what that statement means for you?
JM: "No Child Left Behind" was a good idea - but putting those
requirements on schools without funding is just another burden for them
to deal with. Children shouldn't be used as a photo-op; our schools
need to be a vibrant place offering a variety of opportunities - and
that's something that the federal government can help with. Top voter
priorities are jobs, healthcare, and education, and that's not what
budgets from Washington are addressing. We need to make Washington's
priorities match the priorities of Dayton.
ICTH: Your website also mentioned fighting pharmaceuticals and
drug companies. They, and the healthcare industry as a whole, have a
bad habit of influencing legislators through lobbyists, "donations" and
so on. How will you insulate yourself from this to keep yourself
impartial?
JM: First of all, they don't really go after Democrats that much! But
really, that goes to heart of why I'm running. I'm dedicated to idea of
being a voice for people of this district. I have no intention of
growing up and being president; I'm doing this because we need to
return to public service and not politics. I am willing to accept
contributions from people who support me because that's what I already
believe, not because they want to change what I believe. I don't have
the richest campaign out there, but I've turned down tobacco money, for
example, for exactly that reason.
ICTH: You talk a lot about how outsourcing hurts us - like when
the city of Dayton sends data processing overseas. What about unfair
domestic competition - when small local businesses - like Dot's - have
to compete with another Wal*Mart supercenter?
JM: Unfair competition still goes back to unfair trade agreements -
Wal*Mart couldn't compete like this, destroying local businesses, if
they didn't have the trade agreements to outsource production to
Mexico, China, and so on. The thing that troubles me most about the
Wal*Mart philosophy is the treatment of their employees. I don't want
to single Wal*Mart out alone here, but these large companies can be
unfair to thier employees, and they're being helped by this
administration. The new overtime rules this administration passed are
an example of this mindset in Washington that corporate profits are
more important than strengthening local communities and the families
that live in those communities. It's an erosion of the great middle
class of America.
Overall, Jane strikes me as someone who is committed to finding
solutions that work for us here in Ohio - and that’s more
important than anyone's ideology. Stop by her website at http://www.jane04.com , or give them
a call at 937.228.2004!
Please see the errata for this
issue.
It was the third time we’d asked him to clean his room.
“I’ll do it, Dad,” he said, somehow ignoring that
he’d said the same thing before and the room was still a pigsty.
Neither my wife or I said anything, we just pointed to the truism on
the poster. People may not always believe what you say, but
they’ll always believe what you do.
It’s a bit of conventional wisdom that any race involving a
sitting president revolves around that president’s record. Fair
enough. All the quotations below come from George W. Bush.
“If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the
foundation of economic growth.” Less than six months later,
Bush’s budget was going to put us $300,000,000,000 in debt. That
number of zeroes makes our mortgages look like chump change. In
contrast, Kerry wants to cut the deficit in half during his first four
years in office, while making sure that normal people get good paying
jobs – the jobs we’ve lost under Bush.
“We…should and must provide the best care for [our
troops] who [are] willing to put their life in harm’s way.”
That very day, Bush’s administration cut off medical access for
over 150,000 vets. Our veterans sacrificed for our sake – we owe
them. Yet paying them back for their service is
“discretionary”. Kerry will make sure that it’s
mandatory that we repay their service – and take care of our
current servicemembers and their families.
“We’re dealing with first-time responders to make sure
they’ve got what’s needed to be able to respond.”
Bush’s “new” grants tried to get a third of their
money by taking money away from already existing – and needed
– funds. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t convince our
creditors; why should we let Bush boonswaggle us? Kerry will close this
gap in our safety and security by providing direct assistance to police
officers and firefighters to make sure they have what they need to
protect us.
“Clear Skies…will significantly reduce smog and mercury
emissions, as well as stop acid rain.” Bush’s misnamed
“Clear Skies” law lets polluters keep poisoning the air for
another ten years, keeps the states from fighting for our right to
breathe, and allows outdated plants to keep poisoning us indefinitely.
Throughout his career, John Kerry has fought to clean up toxic waste
sites, to keep our air and water clean; he’ll keep protecting our
air and water for us and our children.
Is Bush is strong
on security? Look at the chart. Bush has made us weaker by not giving
enough funding to what we need to keep us safe from terrorists.
It’s a Republican Congress right now, folks – there’s
no excuse. All for the same price as 170 days of Bush’s unneeded
war. A report from the U.S. Iraq Survey Group reports that Iraq
didn’t even have “programs”, let alone WMD. Why not?
Iraq didn’t develop WMD because of the UN inspections and embargo
that Bush bashed before going it alone. Bush’s war has diverted
money from Afghanistan and our troops there. Osama’s escaped, and
Afghanistan has largely turned into a lawless land of warlords,
re-emerging as the world’s leading source of opium and heroin.
Our country has been made more vulnerable to terrorists and drug
dealers thanks to Bush’s war. Kerry will change this by using our
intelligence and troops wisely and by working with our allies instead
of against them. Bush’s bullying bravado has weakened us; with
Kerry at the helm, we will defend ourselves from a position of strength
with the support of our allies.
The poster we used with our son is handy this election, as we look
at what Bush has said… and not done. I’d like to finish by
correcting another truism, or bit of conventional wisdom.
Don’t change a horse in mid-stream – unless it’s
not taking you towards the shore.
-Steve Saus 9/20/04
This work is under a Creative Commons license
