debatable

As far as I’m concerned, the debates mean almost nothing. It is not the talking points between candidates that are relevant. It’s not even the discussion between parties. It’s how far away from their respective bases the policies have strayed that makes this campaign so interesting. It appears to be a competition for who listens less to public opinion.

The Republicans have come under constant fire. Their corruption has been exposed in many aspects of the political process. They advocate tax cuts and liberties to the richest one percent while a financial bloodletting is taking place among the other ninety-nine percent. Business is given allowances that are proving to be immensely detrimental to the country as a whole. They repeat the mantra, “support our troops,” while leaving them without armor in favor of contracting mercenaries. They redundantly reference nine-eleven—most notably just today—to tap into lingering fear to relinquish control at opportune times. They are ignorant to many environmental issues that are obvious to anyone with a passing interest in the world around them.

The Republican debate—fittingly in the Reagan library—depicted a group of Bush clones. They side themselves with the same policies that have the President at a twenty-eight percent approval rating. They deny the public opinion that stripped them of their advantage in Congress. The same policies that have the country at odds are being tauted as new and unique talking points. Their moderator remorselessly creates a horrific hypothetical situation that exemplified the party’s fear mongering. Their responses reflected the lack of progress our country has made in the years since that tragic attack they speak so tediously of.

Democrats are rich elite trying to connect with a middle class that their policies have killed. They are considered a diverse party, but are more accurately linked to minorities by default against the mono-racial right. They perpetuate a victim complex while creating weak policies. They’ve developed an obsession with environmental issues. They’ve completely turned their backs on the voters that gave them the slight majority. They don’t take the initiative to cut corporate influence or executive power. They lack backbone and are uncomfortable in their leadership roles.

The candidates repeat incessantly the need to get out of Iraq. But, they continue to provide the President with all the monies he requests. Their new proposal has weak benchmarks that will be talked up as a bold step. Their investigations into corruption are stalled and laughable. They avoid the topic, just as the right does, of Iraqis wanting an end to the occupation. This is likely because the oil companies are attempting to weasel into large portions of the reserves there and will have big money to donate to the political party in power.

We need a new party, made up of the people actually affected by the policies put before Congress. The dying middle class, the laborers, those that see corporatism as one of many symptoms in the death of our empire. The soldiers, returned from combat, fresh from their exploitation there. Where they were used as pawns by the administration without compassion.

But, it will fail. The media will ignore it aside from passing derogatory remarks. The campaigns will fizzle without the funding of nervous corporations. They will be dismissed as idealists by the masses. They will be denied the credibility granted those that have worked so hard to lose theirs.

So we’re left with two corporation-backed parties that are putting on an act. They pretend to represent a base that neither remembers. They continue a war of words, over social issues of little importance, to give the impression of opposition. Behind this facade is a well coordinated progression to a shared goal.