Today's Rant: Corporatism

I missed "Fair and Balanced Friday" yesterday. I had this post most of the way finished and ready to go, and then-- I was busy. Yeah, I know. Me. Busy. On a Friday. Who woulda thunk it? But I was. Anyhow:

A while back I promised everyone an essay on why we hate Joe Lieberman. I mean, I don't hate him personally, or anything, but a lot of Democrats and progressives vow that they will never vote for Holy Joe, at least not without holding their noses while they do it.

Among the reasons people give are Joe's moralizing and overt religiosity, his monotone, his perceived conservatism, his lackluster performance against Dick "Big Time" Cheney in the 2000 debate, and his rolling over during the Florida recount (he'd won his senate seat; why bother?). My favorite description of Joe compared him to Eeyore, from the Winnie the Pooh books and cartoons: "Oh, bother," in that kind of sad droning whine. There's a very damning article about all of his faults here.

But above all, people were outraged at the image of Joe as corporate toady. He's been described as "one of the most conservative and pro-corporate Democrats in the U.S. Senate." Common Dreams "wonders what sections of the Bible or Talmud he is relying on to justify being a wholly-owned Senate subsidiary of drug and insurance companies, military contractors and the nuclear power industry - all of which contribute heavily to his campaign coffers?" Common Dreams also points out that Lieberman "has also opposed medical insurance reform, except in watered-down industry- friendly versions, and argued against permitting patients to sue HMOs for punitive damages. One of Lieberman's biggest campaign contributors is the insurance industry." Perhaps most damning is the fact that

Lieberman lead the charge to prevent the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from instituting proper accounting of stock options. One of the ways Enron and other corporations are overstating their profits is by not including the stock options that they issue to their top executives against their profits. These stock options do not show up as a cost on a corporation's financial statements. Lieberman with the support of big corporations prevented the FASB from implementing this change. Enron and other corporations used this accounting practice to deceive investors and employees.

Sure, that was a Green Party article, but even the Republicans blame him for that!

It's no accident that I quoted the Greens, though. A lot of people blame the Green Party and Ralph Nader for the situation we're in now. (A lot of other people blame Lieberman.) The Greens claimed that there was no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. That is, of course, a lie. There are plenty of institutional differences that keep me voting Democratic: choice, health care, federal judgeships, affirmative action, and more.

But where it is clear that no real difference exists is in the realm of corporatism. There, the Greens have it right. We Dean supporters have plenty of bones to pick with Lieberman and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) lately. But I personally feel that the worst damage the DLC, Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and their like have done to the Democratic Party is make us too much like Republicans in our reliance on corporate cash and, consequently, on our subservience to corporate wishes.

In no way are all Democrats as bad as Republicans. In fact, I think in general Democrats are nowhere near as bad as Republicans. But the Republicans currently in charge--the "neoconservatives," as they're called--and the establishment DLC types have too much in common in this area.

The neocons, of course, are all about the Project for the New American Century, which relies on the military-industiral complex. The DLC relies much more in the entertainment-industrial complex. But above all, both groups are what could be called Cheap Labor Conservatives (CLC).

The CLCs by and large are interested in letting corporations, who are by far their biggest source of political support, treat workers like crap. They are much more interested in free-trade policies like NAFTA and GATT (passed under Clinton, supported by Lieberman), because these agreements allow for cheap production overseas, than in supporting unions and workers here at home. CLCs are opposed to employment and social programs (Clinton "ended Welfare as we [knew] it" and Lieberman has warned against Dean's plan to repeal the Whopper's tax cuts to provide for those among us in need), since the more we can keep people poor, the less we have to pay them to clean the bathrooms at the Wal-Mart.

The United States has almost totally lost its traditional sources of economic strength. Agricultural and manufacturing jobs are disappearing. (What's really disturbing is how the family farm is being eaten by cheap-labor corporations with the assent of our government!) All we're left with is service jobs. Two-thirds of our GDP anymore is consumer spending. We are a nation now not of production but consumption. This is what screwed Rome, my friends.

It's obvious why PNAC neocons need cheap labor: There must be cheap products to spread around the world under American corporate leadership. But the DLC's support seems suspect. I think it goes back to 1984: Walter Mondale lost, really badly, in 1984, and he lost after opposing Reagan's give-backs to the corporations and wealthy donors. The DLC formed and decided that, since Mondale lost on that platform, the way to win would be to adopt the Republican position vis a vis corporations. The DLC came of age with Bill Clinton, and they often take credit (wrongly, in my opinion) for his victory. But under Clinton and since, CLC policies have taken priority, with DLC complicity.

And this is why Joe Lieberman and the DLC must be stopped. Period.

But beyond that, we need to completely divorce corporate influence from politics. Absolutely. So, in the spirit of not just complaining about the problem but offering a solution, too, I present the Folkbum Federal Campaign Finance Reform Package:

1. Disabuse ourselves of the notion that spending money is the same as free speech. It isn't. And it isn't fair, either, since the poor and those who represent the poor will never be able to afford as much "speech" as the wealthy or those who represent the wealthy. And if influence is purchased through campaign donations or campaign commercials, the the influence advantage automatically goes to the wealthy. One $2000 donor will wield more influence than 1000 $1 donors, and that's not democracy. This means no non-candidate TV or print ads.
2. Outlaw lobbyists. I don't want to outlaw lobbying: You can still call, fax, email, or visit your congresscritter to deliver your personal opinion on things and ask it to vote in a certain way on a certian subject. That's democracy, my friend. But I want to outlaw everyone who works for PHARMA or the Sierra Club or AARP or NEA, basically anyone who asks for stuff while on someone else's dime. That's not democracy.
3. Limit contributions only to those who can actually vote for the candidate being donated to. That eliminates out-of-state contributors, as well as contributions from non-individuals, PACs, unions, and all.
4. Eliminate the caps on individual contributions. Yes, you read that right: If you have a million, donate a million. If you have a nickel, donate a nickel.
5. Have all contributions sent first to a central disbursement center run by the FEC. You can locate this somewhere like Pueblo, Colorado, or wherever you want. But the money comes in there first, and then gets distributed regularly to the candidates.
6. Here's why the last two will work: When campaign funds are distributed to the candidates, they receive an alphabetical list of contributors without any details of how much they gave! It's ingenious, really; I can claim that I donated a million when I only donated a nickel. Those used to buying influence now will be relieved of the pressure to donate such large sums. And candidates will be beholden to all contributors equally! Again, that is democracy.

Of course, it's probably blatantly unconstitutional, but it's worth a shot. And the damage already done by the neocons, the DLC, and cheap-labor conservatives will take a long time to undo, and much of it may never be undone. But we need to try.