Демократия и "долларократия" в США

Куртис Купер

■ ■ ■ ДЕМОКРАТИЯ И «ДОЛЛАРОКРАТИЯ» В США

Автор: КУРТИС КУПЕР

КУРТИС КУПЕР - адвокат, доктор права, Член Международной Ассоциации юристов демократов. Балтимор, Мэриленд, США. E-mail: [email protected]

Author: CURTIS COOPER, Esq., National Lawyers Guild, member of the International Association of Democratic Layers ( IADL) Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Аннотация: В статье рассматриваются процессы формирования института выборов в США и особенности современных выборов. Автор останавливается на рассмотрение динамики преобразований в обеспечении гражданских прав США под влиянием политических и экономических факторов, выбор кандидатов (праймериз)

Ключевые слова: президентские выборы, функционирование демократии, неолиберальные преобразования, США, гражданские права

■ ■ ■ DEMOCRACY AND "DOLLAROCRACY' IN THE UNITED STATES

Abstract. This article discusses the processes of formation of Institute elections in United States and features of modern elections. The author stops on consideration of the dynamics of transformations in securing civil rights United States influenced by political and economic factors.

Keywords: presidential elections, a functioning democracy, neo-liberal transformation, United States, civil rights, primaries

It would be fairer to the world if the American president were elected by a global vote, as the United States has a disproportionately large impact around the planet in environmental, diplomatic, military and economic terms. Even better would be a functioning and effective democratic world government through the United Nations, guided by the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter

As in many democratic countries of the world, the United States has experienced some unusual and unforeseen developments in its politics recently, including with regard to the presidential elections which will take place this November. These elections emerge from a background of more than four

decades of neoliberal changes to American society, which have reverberated around the world. Taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations have fallen over this period, although there is still some degree of progressive personal income taxation, in contrast to Russia. Regulations and welfare policies have been rolled back to a significant degree, exacerbating environmental pollution and economic inequality. Unfortunately, US society is marked by a high degree of wasteful military and health care spending. At the same time, much of our basic infrastructure is in hazardous condition, as exemplified by the lead-poisoned water in the depressed city of Flint, Michigan which was discovered this year, and the complete absence of high-speed trains anywhere in the United States. How can these outcomes, which are harmful to society in general, occur in a democratic country of unrivaled wealth?

While many American leaders and citizens pride themselves on the high level of democracy in the United States, in the past forty years the country has moved away from democracy and towards "Dollarocracy." This is a reversal of the golden rule which we learn in school and through religion that asks us to love our neighbor as ourselves. The revised golden rule which applies more now is cynical -- those who have the most gold, rule.

Instead of starting with the question of how socially destructive governmental policies have recently arisen in America's formal democracy, let us first consider a better time for democracy in the US, namely the New Deal period of the 1930s. In the first half of the 1940s, World War II propelled the United States to a position of global power unprecedented in modern history. The decade which led up to this horrible conflict was marked by worldwide financial and political turmoil, including the triumph of fascism in the Axis powers and the entrenchment of Stalinist authoritarianism in the Soviet Union. Fortunately, the 1930s in the United States were marked by the extension of democratic struggles in society. The New Deal enacted under President Franklin Roosevelt included protections for labor unions, the unemployed, and the elderly. Many African Americans and their allies struggled for civil rights and battled against segregation, violence, and economic injustice which had kept Blacks as second-class citizens after the United States officially ended slavery during and after the Civil War in the mid-1860s.

This is not to say that the New Deal era was a democratic paradise. In fact, elites maintained a firm grip on government policies and the broader economy. But perhaps more than at any other time in American history, regular people had an influence on government policy. This was not simply because many of them voted, although that helped. More than that, there were organized struggles and institutions which educated regular people and fought for their interests, such as the Congress of Industrial Organizations formed in the 1930s, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People which greatly expanded in that decade. These groups and others helped to win important concessions for ordinary people.

World War II created a great economic stimulus for the United States, which saw no fighting or destruction on its territory, in marked contrast to the industrialized European and Asian powers, most especially the Soviet Union. With the groundwork laid by the New Deal, decades of equitable economic growth ensued for the United States, creating a figurative rising tide of gross domestic product which lifted all boats. That is to say that income gains were substantial and were more or less evenly distributed between rich and poor

The 1960s were a time of great ferment in American society, as well as in other parts of the world. Massive movements, including a disproportionate number of disaffected young people, opposed the war in Vietnam, and supported equal rights for women and racial minorities. Voting rights were expanded to all adults.

A backlash developed. The elite Trilateral Commission composed of Americans, Japanese and Western Europeans concluded that advanced societies were experiencing a crisis of excessive democracy. At the same time, financial deregulation, neoliberal tax cuts and globalization meant that the rising economic tide which tended to lift all boats in the previous decades now stranded many working class Americans, while the richest Americans saw their wealth skyrocket. Working class whites in particular, who had tended to benefit from privileges under segregation and now saw minorities receiving special treatment, while their own incomes stagnated, were sympathetic to right-wing figures like the Republican Ronald Reagan, even though his policies overwhelmingly benefited the rich. Incidentally, the Democrats, who had pushed the New Deal under their President Franklin Roosevelt and had largely welcomed participation by social groups like unions in forming key policies, changed into a party which supported neoliberal policies and globalization. In fact, in principle, the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, came to pursue similar policies on most key economic issues, and differences between the two parties largely focused on symbolic social issues and disagreements between elite supporters of each party over issues like monetary and trade policy. Labor unions entered a period of serious decline, which continues to this day, and there has been no labor party with a social democratic platform to offer a true alternative to voters in the narrow two-party system.

Aided by the United States Supreme Court, which has ruled in cases in the 1970s and within the last ten years that corporate spending in politics and political advertising cannot be subject to significant regulation, politics and elections have been flooded with money from wealthy corporations and individuals. Politicians in contested races must constantly raise funds to remain viable. Political discussion for the general public has devolved into shallow spectacles and so-called "attack ads." A memorable example from the 1988 presidential election was an advertisement orchestrated by George H.W. Bush's campaign manager. The ad showed an image of a scary dark-

skinned man who had been released from prison in Massachusetts, where Bush's opponent Michael Dukakis was governor. This man raped a fair-skinned woman after his release, as the advertisement related. Although Michael Dukakis was far removed from these circumstances and there were many other issues in the elections, this advertisement helped to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of many voters. Now most ads in major political campaigns portray opponents in a light that is meant to be shockingly negative. Billions of dollars are spent on these kinds of attack ads in an American election year such as this one.

The state-by-state presidential candidate selection processes, or primaries, have been interesting this year for the two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Let us start with the Republicans. The initial pick of the Republican establishment was Jeb Bush, brother of former President George W. Bush, and son of President George H. W. Bush. He raised hundreds of millions of dollars, far more than any of the many other Republican candidates running for president. And he did not win any primaries. The man who fairly certainly will be the Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, was thought by most people to have no chance when the campaigning got under way.

How did Trump triumph so far? Is this an ironic challenge to Dollarocracy [1 ], in that a wealthy candidate and businessman with no record of government service has defeated experienced opponents who were better funded? Trump's patriotic, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment, arrogant and successful persona do resonate particularly well with many conservative White men, who are fed up with the usual money-driven politics and who feel they are not treated fairly. They see Trump as someone who speaks his mind and will challenge business as usual in Washington. In fact, in the eyes of his supporters, Trump's wealth gives him a degree of independence from the thoroughly corrupt political process as it now exists because he cannot easily be bought. But there is an interesting twist here, because Trump and the private news media, concentrated into a few corporations, have had a symbiotic relationship. Despite his wealth, Trump's campaign has actually spent relatively little on advertisements at this point. However, news coverage of Trump, and there is lots of it, generates a lot of sensational interest among the population, which brings in revenues from advertisers to broadcast television. In February, the chief executive of the CBS broadcasting company remarked to investors at the Morgan Stanley bank Technology, Media and Telecommunications conference in San Francisco, that Trump's presence in the presidential race "may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.... The money's rolling in and this is fun.... It's a terrible thing to say, but bring it on Donald. Keep going" [2].

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite from the beginning, with vast establishment support and funds. Bernie Sanders

has mounted a remarkable challenge to Clinton, which galvanized many young people in particular in a campaign calling for curtailing the influence of money in elections and many social democratic policies. It will be interesting to see what effect Sanders' campaign will have in the future, but Clinton is poised to prevail.

So we will almost surely have Trump, a billionaire offering anti-establishment rhetoric, facing Clinton, an establishment Democrat trying to offer populist appeals, in the general election. Both of them are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the US population eligible to vote at this point, and the attack ads that will proliferate may increase negative perceptions of each even more. Unfortunately, American society is very fragmented, without strong social institutions and bonds to enable effective participation by the lower and middle classes in government. In their fragmented state, Americans are marinated by the private news media in crass commercialism without substantive reporting on important issues. We are drawn to spectacles which attract viewers and advertising dollars.

There are some pretty important issues to address in the elections, but you should not count on most of them to receive much constructive attention. Two such issues, which resonate here in Moscow and around the world, are matters of survival for ours and many other species on this planet. I am speaking of global warming, which Donald Trump says is not a very important issue, and nuclear war. With regard to the latter, both candidates point to Iran as a major nuclear threat among nations, and Clinton vocally supports extension of the dangerous policies implemented under Obama of destabilizing Ukraine in order to bring it firmly within the Western orbit, and placing so-called missile defense installations in Romania and Poland.

Instead of addressing these and other issues of vital importance in a thoughtful way, money, lots of money, will talk, and it will continue to influence voters through distractions and negative campaigning. This is not what democracy looks like. The New Deal era, when movements and struggles changed American society from the Dollarocracy of the early 20th century to a more egalitarian system with strong institutions and bonds among the general population, offers a hopeful precedent in these unsettling times. The world, however, cannot withstand another World War. Rather than preparing to fight with nuclear weapons and other instruments of mass destruction, we need to combat challenges like climate change.

At our best, America can be a resourceful, humane and democratic nation. We can make a better society for our children and the world, but it will take a lot of change, and a lot of work.

Thank you for your attention. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you here at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, to listen to other speakers in this and upcoming sessions, and to learn more about elections in Russia.

Демократия и "долларократия" в США Текст научной статьи по специальности «СМИ (медиа) и массовые коммуникации»

Аннотация научной статьи по СМИ (медиа) и массовым коммуникациям, автор научной работы — Куртис Купер

Похожие темы научных работ по СМИ (медиа) и массовым коммуникациям , автор научной работы — Куртис Купер

DEMOCRACY AND “DOLLAROCRACY” IN THE UNITED STATES

Текст научной работы на тему «Демократия и "долларократия" в США»