Friday, June 15, 2012

When a politician tells you exactly what you want to hear...

Yesterday ran an article detailed some of the lie-tmotifs the Democrats and Republicans are saying about each other, over and over--in general describing the differences between the parties as being bigger than they are.

They aren't as big as the parties make them out to be because neither wants you to know how beholden both parties are to America's richest people, whose political purchasing power has been amped up massively by the Supreme Court's decision to let a billion bouquets of bucks bloom anonymously in each and every upcoming political campaign.

There's still a difference. True, Romney and Obama are both servicing the designed of the Masters of the Universe (neither Obama nor Bush had/have started criminal actions against any of the bankers and investors who kicked over the pillars of our economy).

However, Romney has skin in the game. If he wins, he will personally and hugely profit in his own personal taxes. And philosophically he's totally on board with the GOP's rich patrons. Obama does not have skin in the game--he would personally lose money in his own personal taxes if he got his way. And philosophically he's a pragmatist focused on the art of the possible, and in our money-dominated politics he's holding his nose and playing along with the billionaires as much as he must.

In 2008 this resulted in the billionaires apportioning their patronage between the GOP and the Democratic candidate. Now, in 2012, those who were hedging their bets by donating large amounts (by normal mortal standards) to both parties are now stiffing Obama and donating hugely to Romney.

So if Obama wins he won't be beholden to them, both because it'll be his last term, and because he won't have made the promises to them Romney will have.

This isn't a reason to worship Obama. He's a politician who's less seamy than Romney, is all. But it sure is a reason to vote for him.

It is not, however, a reason to believe everything he says. I check every major claim against and, and you should too.

To quote the bottom line paragraph of yesterday's article:

"Sensible voters can still decide elections – but they shouldn’t expect the unbiased truth from 30-second TV spots, or partisan talking points repeated endlessly on cable networks. But to be sensible, a voter must first ask, 'Does that claim sound too good – or too much like what I want to hear — to be true?' That’s where the search for the sometimes unwelcome truth begins."

           – Brooks Jackson

No comments: