Posted by: CS | October 25, 2012

Presidential Debates and Bi-partisan Mendacity

The media attention to US Presidential debates mainly focuses on the appearance and emotional state of the contestants. This is understandable in view of the absence from the debates of substance relevant to the general public.

Thus, during this year’s debates, it was generally agreed that Obama displayed a diffident and even defeatist stance during the first confrontation, roused himself to a punchy insolence in round two, and achieved in Debate three a state of such exhilaration as to suggest the use of a banned substance. Romney, in contrast, seemed calm and at ease during the first debate, but declined in energy level during the following rounds, so frequently licking his lower lip during the final debate as to suggest he might at any moment flick out a lizard tongue and snag a passing fly.

That the public is compelled to rate the candidates on their physiological state rather than any policy differences of substance is not necessarily a bad sign. In a democracy, the major parties must fight for the middle ground, which means that there will be little difference between them in their proclaimed objectives. Then debate will inevitably come down to nitpicking about inconsistency, or charges of incompetence.

What is remarkable about US politics and the politics of the Western democracies in general is that public policies do not converge on the middle ground, which is to say the ground dictated by the public interest. On the contrary, the Western democracies are governed very largely in contempt of public opinion. Mass immigration, endless wars, political correctness, TSA groping and humiliating millions of Americans and foreign visitors to the United States, the destruction of family values through state education. All of these aspects of public policy are opposed by the majority of the people.

What the West has, then, is clearly not democracy, yet the political parties nevertheless cleave to a common line in almost all policy areas. The reason for this is easily perceived if one relates the sources of party political funding and of after-office rewards of political life to the policies pursued.

To hear Obama and Romney out-Zionisting one another during the debates leaves no question as to one of the major determinants of Western government policy: Zionist campaign funding including, in Romney’s case, $35 million from a single individual. David Cameron’s recent groveling expression of unfailing allegiance to Israel, while 590,000 immigrants entered Britain during the first nine months of last year in the face of overwhelming public opposition, tells the same story of treason in high office.

On the economy, Obama offers his pathetic record in job creation against Romney’s almost equally pathetic promise of twelve million jobs in four years, at a time when there are several tens of millions unemployed and several million new jobs are needed each year merely to keep up with population growth.

Neither candidate will discuss the reason for the current depression, which is globalization and the off-shoring of jobs and the outsourcing of supply both of goods and services that puts Western workers in direct and impossible competition with billions in the third world working for pennies an hour under often appalling conditions. But globalization has been immensely profitable for the international corporations and we know how much funding the candidates receive from Wall St.

On foreign policy, other than overt subservience to the interests of a shitty little, racist, apartheid state with nukes, the candidates contested mainly on the degree to which they are ready to pursue the war-criminal drive for global hegemony. Obama continues to threaten Iran with nukes if they dare to continue enriching uranium that might be used to build a nuke that might very well deter an American or Israeli nuclear first strike. Romney, regrets Obama’s reluctance to pour gasoline on the flames of civil war ignited by US proxies in Syria. Bot men agree on the merits of killing people in countries, allied or enemy, using drones operated by techies in Virginia often unable to distinguish women and children from terrorists planting bombs and, apparently, not caring.

What we saw was bi-partisan mendacity to make sure the cattle go on voting, while the interests of the money power continue to be served.

See also
Noonan: When Americans Saw the Real Obama

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: