Despite the fervent wishes of many to the contrary, politics is just a game. Some play it well, others don’t. The democratic political reality of the new century is really no different than that during the industrial revolution – promise is paramount, change is not. That is the truth of our democratic façade, or, more succinctly, the plutocratic reality of all democracies.
I have employed the term plutocracy in numerous entries in the past in the pejorative, but for those that are unfamiliar with the term’s base definition, it is as follows: Government by the wealthy. A country or society governed in this way. An elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
Early European political transformations from the wholly Monarchial to the democratic were, in truth, steeped in the plutocratic, a reality that would also be extremely prevalent in foundling democracies, such as the United States. The upper classes, because of their societal influence, largely became the representative foundation within democratic societies because of their education and wealth, leading to a schism between their primary interests, the stability and growth of commerce and self protectionism, and those of the majority who were routinely viewed as too uneducated or untrustworthy to have any serious input into the mechanics of government. The inclusion of the protection of civil liberties as a base democratic tenet can certainly be viewed as a mechanism to placate the masses, rendering it one of the most ingenious cons in modern human history. Of course, the assurance of those civil liberties extends only so far as those who govern deem them acceptable or unthreatening. An example of that reality would be the refusal of the American Continental Congress to seriously confront the issue of slavery – the politics of wealth trumping civil liberties to protect the formation of a united republic by appeasing those member states that relied on slavery to sustain a commercial equilibrium.
While there are certainly examples of politicians that have attained high office that sprung from the ranks of the lower classes, the truth is that the amount of money a politician has at their disposal is indicative of the support that they enjoy from those of means and influence. And while it cannot be said that without such support it is completely impossible to successfully achieve ascendance to high office, Jimmy Carter being a modern example of that reality, the vast majority of those that do are significantly backed by those whose fundamental financial interests remain their foremost concern. Put into recent context, in September of 2008 alone the Obama campaign raised $150 million dollars. In fact, the 2008 Presidential race was the most expensive in the nation’s history.
That said, it should be pointed out that the plutocratic infestation of the democratic system is something that, during elections, often fades into the background – as it is promise, not the actual introduction of change, that is in continual focus during the process. But once that process is concluded, and a candidate is chosen, the realities of the plutocratic return, leaving even those that do not support its presence trapped within its impregnable, well established walls.
The public has a short attention span. Promise them enough and they will, like Buffalo, charge off a cliff en mass if convinced that it is in their best interest. A plethora of historical examples proves this phenomenon true despite widespread public belief that it is an impossibility – which, of course, makes it entirely possible.
Barack Obama’s historic run for the Presidency is a perfect example of the afore mentioned, the Bush legacy providing his campaign enough ammunition to cast him in a light of necessity. And while it should rightly be pointed out that he has taken the initiative with regards to several campaign promises, it cannot be said that his administration has, in any way, shape, or form, even remotely nudged the political reality of the United States towards the truly democratic, dispelling, even in the slightest, the plutocratic claws that affixed themselves to American democracy at its inception.
In truth, it would take a revolution to do so.
My reason for broaching this subject this morning is to hopefully open some eyes with regards to what I consider to be the entirely ridiculous left-right political dichotomy that has increasingly gripped this continent – and nations beyond it. To disregard our own fundamental illusions regarding what we view as a the most just of political systems is to propagate the myth of true democratic existence. Left, right, purple, orange, or whatever you may be – you remain a cog in a machine that will continue to operate without significant disruption until such a time that it is torn down and reconstituted to better represent the modern condition. To do so means to question without partisanship or self interest – an undertaking that, up until this point in our shared history, remains something that has never been widely accomplished. Many might claim there is a reason for that, and they’d be right. Then again, being right doesn’t preclude the possibility that being wrong might yet become the new right.
As I’ve said in the past, I have absolutely no clue whatsoever why I wake up thinking about shit like this.