The Republican Debates: Can You Feel Their Pain?

It is not only Republicans that can feel the pain involved in watching the party’s presidential debates.  While it may be amusing to many Democrats and independent voters to watch so many wannabes pontificating on issues they know so little about, it is also painful to think that one of them may end up as president or vice president in 2012.  It is painful to watch any one of them tell the “honest truth” only to retract his statement the next day at the insistence of goose stepping party leader, Rush Limbaugh.  The pain is real!  Americans are fickle and distracted enough by the economy to elect another George Bush or worse yet, another Dick Cheney.

It is no coincidence that more qualified individuals such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and especially Tom Coburn won’t even entertain the notion of running.  With the Republican Party deliberately destroying the economy in order to unseat a weak sitting president, only a pleasant but desperate candidate such as Mitt Romney would dare make a legitimate run at his party’s presidential nomination.  Every counterproductive roadblock to however incompetent a Democratic bill, every refusal to help negotiate practical compromises makes it that much more impossible for a Republican president to accomplish anything constructive in his attempt to rebuild our economy.  Why would any qualified Republican want to be known as a modern day Herbert Hoover, that is an automatic and unqualified failure?

What automatically insures the failure of any Republican nominee to achieve significant short term improvements and any long term improvements in our economy or even the security of our nation?  It is their mindless attention to the most cruel and least foreword looking lobbies in our country.  The oil companies, the military industrialists, the bankers and insurance companies, in their hysterical panic to accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can, will continue to destroy our wealth.  Any economist worth his salt must admit that in our modern culture, the accumulated wealth of a country lies in maintaining the circulation of money.  Even with more efficient, more economical production of goods, economies cannot survive without people able to buy their products.

Whether “party line” Republicans advocate vouchers and counterfeit history text books as a means to purposely keep otherwise intelligent voters illiterate and more easily controlled or if they really believe their own propaganda, history tells us that these efforts invariably lead to a stagnant and destructive socioeconomic model.  In fact, they represent the  model of the feudal system, with the states representing little fiefdoms and a corrupt central government with a weak king.  The most powerful lobbies now represent the feudal lords, starting useless wars, accumulating jewels, fallow land, castles and special favors, including prosecutorial immunity, from a central government as corrupt as any medieval despot.  The only difference between the two reigning parties is that some of the “Democratic” leaning lobbies are not quite as grotesquely obvious in their pandering to their political favorites.

The irony lies in the fact that it takes only one truly committed party, not two, to divest the lobbies of their ability to control the entire electoral system in this country.  Despite the blatant and purposeful ignorance of the ACLU and the Supreme Court in allowing unlimited bribes to politicians under the guise of speech, no amount of witchcraft, sleight of hand or even blatant stupidity can convince a rational person that speech and money are the same thing!  That is why 76% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats polled, feel that the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited monetary contributions by corporations to political candidates is an absurd ruling.  Though I believe that an even higher percentage of attorneys would admit the Court’s indiscretion, I believe that only people brainwashed in law schools by the corruption of the ideals of “equity” and “fairness” could be taught to confuse bribes with freedom of speech. Clearly noone can deny the intent behind contributions large enough to sway even the most dedicated politician.  Money paid to someone to act in a certain way is considered a Quid Pro Quo.  As the poet might say, “an unlimited contribution to a politician is a bribe, is a bribe, is a bribe and by any other name, is still a bribe!”


Allen Finkelstein