In lieu of Tuesday's election, in which only a third of registered voters even bothered to vote, I wanted to make some observations about what our place in is in the political system as American voters versus what it could be. Since I made a promise of sorts not to talk much about these things on my personal Facebook page, I'll do it here instead - yet, I would like to still try to be as UN-partisan as possible so as to reach and make as much sense to as many as I hopefully can.
It is an undeniable fact that whatever politicians say on the campaign trail, they ultimately wind up with campaigns funded almost exclusively by the government and, to a greater extent, wealthy individuals and private corporations. The concern that this prevents policy makers from listening and responding to the needs and desires of most outside of the single digit percentage of wealthy people, groups and businesses is legitimate. However, I do not believe that such action should be taken solely by the federal government, itself.
A lot of this phenomena - which has been an issue to some degree since the turn of the 20th century - is due to industrialization and the expanding size of the nation until as recently as about fifty or sixty years ago, give or take. The structure of the government, size of the nation and the diversity of people to represent based on a number of factors make giving even half of them an informed set of choices at all, with information available on both sides (or more) and on a range of issues, a logistical and financial challenge. Increasingly, candidates have two choices: Stick to public funding and donations out of fairness, yet risk an ever-struggling campaigns that might not reach everyone, limiting votes and keeping them from helping those people, anyway - or rely heavily upon private donors that may expect much in return, leaving little time to adequately represent the majority. Though there are no fully justifiable excuses, it's a tough call to make and a tough balance to strike.
A number of people like to use other nations such as Norway as an example of the kind of government that America should have and, specifically, the way America should conduct its elections and allow for their fair funding and carrying out. What I think too many seem to overlook, though, is that they're not immune to the effects of industrialization, either. Norway, itself, has a government and economy comprised of both capitalist and socialist elements - which seem to work well in the country (whose population, though, is literally 1/60'th the size of the U.S.) - but it also benefits from a number of natural resources and valuable exports, including an oil and gas industry that is about the best there is outside of the Middle East. Americans like to say that the oil industry, for example, has too much control and influence in politics, but I would be surprised if a lot of the tax and other monies used by governments such as Norway's to pay for their campaigns does not come from the taxes and fees collected from the very same industries, which the government must be motivated to keep healthy to continue having that well to tap.
However we may feel about the results and for whatever reasons, I think an important takeaway from Tuesday's midterm elections is that the American public is just not as engaged as it should be in its own governance. Many are disenchanted with both parties and distrusting of the government as it is, as a whole, and I share a lot of those sentiments, but if I may set aside what I see as far too varying definitions of "fairness" for just a moment, I think it is wrong of us as voters to allow something such as who gets to contribute to and influence campaigns and candidates more than others to keep us from exercising our rights not only to vote, but to donate, ourselves. I remember many a time when I received calls from campaign headquarters asking for donations and had to turn them down. At the time, I had good reasons - and since the recession, I'm sure many with those experiences have, as well - but I keep coming back to one undeniable fact: Until something drastic changes, we all still have CHOICES - if not in how much money we make all the time, then in how we manage our money and what we do or do not spend it on.
I see full well that, to some extent, the government should look after the lower and middle classes and make sure they are at least fairly stable because in some ways, the so-called recreational and luxury spending that generally is the first to get cut in tough times is also what keeps a lot of small businesses open and a lot of people employed. Take that away and, well... you get the picture. That said, my grandmother, at 90, hasn't worked more than a little job at a department store and not in at least fifty or sixty years, I don't think. Having been a widow now for almost 30 years (my grandfather was an insurance salesman), she's been wholly dependent upon a combination of inheritance money and money from Social Security, but she also chose to follow the lead of her husband and invest some of that, however much of it she had, and leave it alone to accumulate while also living a frugal lifestyle. Now, she is arguably the wealthiest on that side of my family, and for reasons having NOTHING to do with specific wages, her education or anything. The same is true of my mother's best friend, whose skill in coding saved her family from bankruptcy and whose relatively uneducated late husband's frugality meant that when he died in 2009, the start of the recession, he left her better off than the otherwise successful entrepreneur to which she recently remarried.
What I'm saying is that it's good that we be socially conscious and hold our government accountable, but no matter what party we belong to, it behooves all of us to take a little more responsibility and at least try to think, "Well, if the government isn't going to do anything or do anything yet, what can I do?" Remember Kennedy's 1960 inaugural address and what he said about asking what we could do for our country? I've seen educated people struggling financially, with families to support, still turning down jobs because they thought they deserved better while continuing to spend regularly on the weekends. They'd pay their taxes, for sure, but talk about actually ponying up money to fund a campaign? I just never heard it. Most of us also act like we don't have time for anything... that is, until it comes down to something we really want to do with whomever we really want to do it. Also, who is it that frequently shows up to campaign fundraising dinners and so forth? The idea that only ONE party is in more or less with the super-wealthy is a myth, too, for while the Democrats may not be cozy with Wall Street, they are with Hollywood and most of the audio-visual media, an industry or combination of industries that make up some of the wealthiest, most powerful and most resilient in existence.
Whatever the state of and validity of issues such as income inequality, lack of political compromise, etc., the fact as I see it is that if we're not more willing to make our own sacrifices here and there in order to, say, make more meaningful campaign donations to our candidates of choice so that they can see that we're serious and we count, too, then I'm afraid that the complaints about the wealthiest 1% and their dominance, for example, will continue to ring relatively hollow. While this doesn't mean that NOTHING should be done about these issues on the part of government, it does go to the heart of the fact that the same politicians with which we may currently be upset have come out of and largely been formed by the society that WE have created or allowed to evolve. I've said this before and I'll say it again. If we, as a people, are in any way lazy, corrupted or lacking in sufficient honesty and transparency, then how can we expect the public servants that we raise, educate and elect to be significantly different or better?
