Conghaileach
16th November 2002, 16:04
Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Nov. 21, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
$1 BILLION BUYS A LOT OF VOTES BUT ELECTION WAS NO MANDATE FOR WAR
By Deirdre Griswold
The election that just gave the Republicans a majority in the House
and Senate also put more advertising revenue in the pockets of the
media giants than ever before: $1 billion was spent on political spot
ads on television. This was twice the amount spent during the last
midterm election four years ago--and even far exceeded the $771
million laid out during the 2000 presidential election. What is now
called the "political market" way outperformed the rest of the
advertising business.
At the same time, coverage of the candidates and their platforms by
the networks on their nightly news programs declined to just 2.3
minutes a night, compared to eight minutes in 1994.
So while news coverage of the midterm election was dropping by 72
percent, paid ads were taking over, according to the Center for Media
and Public Affairs.
Many of these ads were funded by big corporations, especially in the
pharmaceutical industry. They used deceit to confuse the voters. For
example, "The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and
the deceptively named United Seniors Association--largely funded by
the big drug companies--spent more than $12 million on television and
radio ads such as one that lauded GOP nominee Jim Talent, who won the
hotly contested Missouri Senate race, for backing a market-based
prescription drug program." (Washington Post, Nov. 10)
What is a "market-based prescription drug program"? It's no program at
all. There's a real crisis, especially among the elderly, over the
high price of prescription drugs. The only thing that will help is a
program that puts people's needs over the profits of the drug
companies. "Market-based" means guaranteeing the pharmaceuticals fat
profits.
If the older people in need of medicine who were induced to vote
Republican by this kind of deceptive advertising were given a real
choice, wouldn't they take it? What if they could vote for a program
to provide drug items to seniors for no more than $2 a prescription?
That would certainly enliven the election.
But the supposed "alternative" to the Republicans--the Democrats--dare
not propose any such thing because they, too, are a party of, by and
for the capitalist profit system.
The small country of Cuba has reduced infant mortality to the lowest
in this hemisphere and has more doctors and nurses per person than any
other place on earth, thanks to its truly socialized health system,
which provides care to the people free. If, in the wealthy United
States, the profits were taken out of the health-care industry,
including prescription drugs, there would be no health-care crisis.
BLAME WAR ON THE PEOPLE
The Bush administration immediately claimed the vote in this election
was a mandate for its planned war against Iraq. Tom Daschle, leader of
the Democrats in the Senate, agreed with them.
It was a shameful effort on his part to cover up his own party's
capitulation to Bush in the congressional vote for war that had
preceded the election. Blame the war drive on the people.
Most of them are so weary and turned off by capitalist politics that
they don't vote at all.
Even with all the money spent on this election--the California
governor's race alone cost $90 million--only a little over 39 percent
of the voting-age population voted. This was slightly more than the
last midterm election, reflecting a well-financed and vigorous
Republican campaign to get out the vote. However, among workers,
especially from oppressed groups, the turnout was down.
The turnout of voters in wealthy areas was often twice that of
working-class communities.
The traditionally low proportion of voters in the United States
reflects many factors. One is that millions of people in the United
States are not eligible to vote because they are not citizens.
Millions more are excluded--sometimes falsely, as was shown in Florida
in 2000--because of felony convictions. In 2000, this kept 4.2 million
people off the voter rolls. One-third were African American men.
The racist injustice system has replaced the poll tax as a mechanism
for disenfranchising Black people.
Only about 12 percent of college students vote. Because they often
live somewhere other than where they go to school, they would have to
return home or cast absentee ballots--a cumbersome process. Most
states do not have direct voting- day registration.
Millions of workers now move frequently to look for work as stable,
full-time jobs become harder to find. They also are less likely to be
registered.
BLACK TURNOUT WAY DOWN IN FLORIDA
Turnout was down in Jeb Bush's Florida in those communities most angry
over the Democratic Party's capitulation to the Bush forces in the
2000 election. The statewide turnout of Black voters, most of whom are
registered Democrats, dropped from 72 percent in 2000 to only 43
percent this time, according to newspaper exit polls. The turnout of
Republicans was up, however.
Many people who are against Bush's war but have habitually voted
Democratic are angry that their party failed to put forward a program
very different from the Republicans. They know that there is a growing
anti-war movement in this country, and think the Democrats should lead
it, or at least make a bid for its votes.
The Democratic Party, however, has never been an anti-war party. On
the contrary. It was Democratic presidents who started the Korea and
Vietnam wars, the covert war the CIA waged against Afghanistan
beginning in 1979, and the CIA- backed invasion of Cuba in 1961.
On closer look, it is clear that the vote, even while it favored
Republicans, was not a mandate for war. Take the Senate race, for
example. Four Senate seats changed hands from one party to the other,
three of them moving over to the Republican side. Of the three
Democrats who lost their seats, only one had voted against the war--
Paul Wellstone of Minnesota--and he died in a plane crash just before
the election. The other Democratic senators who were up for re-
election and had voted against the war resolution all retained their
seats.
The manipulation of the public for election purposes has never been
greater or cost more money. That will not change the fact, however,
that the vast majority of the population in no way participated in
ratifying the Bush administration's war drive. There is every reason
to expect that the grassroots anti-war spirit, seen in mass
demonstrations in October, will continue to grow.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [email protected] Subscribe wwnews-
[email protected] Unsubscribe [email protected] Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
$1 BILLION BUYS A LOT OF VOTES BUT ELECTION WAS NO MANDATE FOR WAR
By Deirdre Griswold
The election that just gave the Republicans a majority in the House
and Senate also put more advertising revenue in the pockets of the
media giants than ever before: $1 billion was spent on political spot
ads on television. This was twice the amount spent during the last
midterm election four years ago--and even far exceeded the $771
million laid out during the 2000 presidential election. What is now
called the "political market" way outperformed the rest of the
advertising business.
At the same time, coverage of the candidates and their platforms by
the networks on their nightly news programs declined to just 2.3
minutes a night, compared to eight minutes in 1994.
So while news coverage of the midterm election was dropping by 72
percent, paid ads were taking over, according to the Center for Media
and Public Affairs.
Many of these ads were funded by big corporations, especially in the
pharmaceutical industry. They used deceit to confuse the voters. For
example, "The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and
the deceptively named United Seniors Association--largely funded by
the big drug companies--spent more than $12 million on television and
radio ads such as one that lauded GOP nominee Jim Talent, who won the
hotly contested Missouri Senate race, for backing a market-based
prescription drug program." (Washington Post, Nov. 10)
What is a "market-based prescription drug program"? It's no program at
all. There's a real crisis, especially among the elderly, over the
high price of prescription drugs. The only thing that will help is a
program that puts people's needs over the profits of the drug
companies. "Market-based" means guaranteeing the pharmaceuticals fat
profits.
If the older people in need of medicine who were induced to vote
Republican by this kind of deceptive advertising were given a real
choice, wouldn't they take it? What if they could vote for a program
to provide drug items to seniors for no more than $2 a prescription?
That would certainly enliven the election.
But the supposed "alternative" to the Republicans--the Democrats--dare
not propose any such thing because they, too, are a party of, by and
for the capitalist profit system.
The small country of Cuba has reduced infant mortality to the lowest
in this hemisphere and has more doctors and nurses per person than any
other place on earth, thanks to its truly socialized health system,
which provides care to the people free. If, in the wealthy United
States, the profits were taken out of the health-care industry,
including prescription drugs, there would be no health-care crisis.
BLAME WAR ON THE PEOPLE
The Bush administration immediately claimed the vote in this election
was a mandate for its planned war against Iraq. Tom Daschle, leader of
the Democrats in the Senate, agreed with them.
It was a shameful effort on his part to cover up his own party's
capitulation to Bush in the congressional vote for war that had
preceded the election. Blame the war drive on the people.
Most of them are so weary and turned off by capitalist politics that
they don't vote at all.
Even with all the money spent on this election--the California
governor's race alone cost $90 million--only a little over 39 percent
of the voting-age population voted. This was slightly more than the
last midterm election, reflecting a well-financed and vigorous
Republican campaign to get out the vote. However, among workers,
especially from oppressed groups, the turnout was down.
The turnout of voters in wealthy areas was often twice that of
working-class communities.
The traditionally low proportion of voters in the United States
reflects many factors. One is that millions of people in the United
States are not eligible to vote because they are not citizens.
Millions more are excluded--sometimes falsely, as was shown in Florida
in 2000--because of felony convictions. In 2000, this kept 4.2 million
people off the voter rolls. One-third were African American men.
The racist injustice system has replaced the poll tax as a mechanism
for disenfranchising Black people.
Only about 12 percent of college students vote. Because they often
live somewhere other than where they go to school, they would have to
return home or cast absentee ballots--a cumbersome process. Most
states do not have direct voting- day registration.
Millions of workers now move frequently to look for work as stable,
full-time jobs become harder to find. They also are less likely to be
registered.
BLACK TURNOUT WAY DOWN IN FLORIDA
Turnout was down in Jeb Bush's Florida in those communities most angry
over the Democratic Party's capitulation to the Bush forces in the
2000 election. The statewide turnout of Black voters, most of whom are
registered Democrats, dropped from 72 percent in 2000 to only 43
percent this time, according to newspaper exit polls. The turnout of
Republicans was up, however.
Many people who are against Bush's war but have habitually voted
Democratic are angry that their party failed to put forward a program
very different from the Republicans. They know that there is a growing
anti-war movement in this country, and think the Democrats should lead
it, or at least make a bid for its votes.
The Democratic Party, however, has never been an anti-war party. On
the contrary. It was Democratic presidents who started the Korea and
Vietnam wars, the covert war the CIA waged against Afghanistan
beginning in 1979, and the CIA- backed invasion of Cuba in 1961.
On closer look, it is clear that the vote, even while it favored
Republicans, was not a mandate for war. Take the Senate race, for
example. Four Senate seats changed hands from one party to the other,
three of them moving over to the Republican side. Of the three
Democrats who lost their seats, only one had voted against the war--
Paul Wellstone of Minnesota--and he died in a plane crash just before
the election. The other Democratic senators who were up for re-
election and had voted against the war resolution all retained their
seats.
The manipulation of the public for election purposes has never been
greater or cost more money. That will not change the fact, however,
that the vast majority of the population in no way participated in
ratifying the Bush administration's war drive. There is every reason
to expect that the grassroots anti-war spirit, seen in mass
demonstrations in October, will continue to grow.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [email protected] Subscribe wwnews-
[email protected] Unsubscribe [email protected] Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)