HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Arnold-ism and Electoralism
by
Seth Sandronsky
Dissident Voice
October
11, 2003
In
California, political power has changed hands with the Oct. 7 recall vote. There’s a new governor in Sacramento with
planetary name recognition, Arnold Schwarzenneger.
But
even with Gov. Davis recalled, economic power is unchanged. The same small group of people owns and
controls the private-sector economy in California.
That’s
how American electoralism works. The
masses get the illusion of change with their vote, but little else.
Their
voting, they begin to learn in elementary school, is an expression of
democracy. First, they choose a
candidate.
S/he
is elected to represent their needs.
This shows that free and fair elections are the best form of government
for the people, upon whom freedom flourishes.
Meanwhile,
market titans remain in control of the economy that decides how people live and
work. These giants pull this stunt off
in big part by dominating government.
They
finance the political campaigns, including Davis’ and Schwarzenegger’s. Then big business lobbies for favorable legislation,
and gets it.
Schwarzenegger
has said as governor-elect that he wants to represent all 36 million
Californians. That statement was
political theater for the state’s working people and their families.
His
campaign contributors will come first, garnering tax breaks, export credits,
and so forth. Most of the rest of the
state population, hourly workers and small entrepreneurs, will likely be the
prey for budget-cutting of an undetermined magnitude.
One
wonders just how many of Arnold’s voters will be the direct targets of state
spending cutbacks. Surely, the ranks of
the targeted will include state workers whose jobs are cut (a process begun
under Davis), plus employees and employers of businesses that depend on state
spending.
These
people will be fortunate to maintain their living standards as fiscal restraint
becomes a tool of social policy to improve business profitability. Big business, that is.
Small
enterprises are on their own. One example
is the mom-and-pop video shops that are being liquidated by the wave of
Blockbuster and Hollywood Video franchises.
Balancing
the state budget with tax hikes for the working-class may slow the downward
mobility of those who voted for the recall and the governor-elect.
Is
that why the LA Times and The Sacramento Bee editorialized against the recall?
On
one hand, this anti-recall stance showed concern for the relatively stable
investment climate under now-recalled Davis.
Despite a boom-turned-bust economy, he provided stability for the
state’s squires.
They
rewarded him handsomely. Crucially,
Davis’ fondness for donors’ dollars was cleverly spun into a liability by
Arnold’s GOP strategists.
However,
investment stability with the Davis administration is not a sure thing with the
governor-elect. Editorials and reports
in mass media are noting that Schwarzenneger, too, can be recalled if his
performance falls short.
Performance
for whom, is the question media should be asking. How in this time of economic weakness does the new governor
propose to spur private business spending?
Tax
cutting? How exactly would that spur
the private-sector to hire new workers, buy new machines, and reap profitable
returns on investment?
On
the other hand, the editorial scriveners of the state’s leading dailies don’t
want increased power distributed downward to the laboring majority who voted
for the self-proclaimed GOP populist. A
top-down populism runs that risk, however slight, since it requires mass voter
mobilization based on the promise of more equal opportunity in the future.
Many
people no doubt supported the thespian turned politician because of his promise
to bring back a prosperous past that, ironically, last existed during the
second term of President Clinton, a Democrat.
That period of positive job creation stands in contrast to now, when
many Californians live in turbulent times of corporate downsizings and
outsourcings.
At
the moment, though, many of the state’s voters have high expectations that this
rich, powerful Republican will make their lives better. But that is an illusion, spawned by spin and
soundbytes, and totally unsupported by American history.
Since
the end of the Vietnam War, voting has been one of the main means for the
downsizing of the American Dream. The
backward policies of elected politicians in both parties of power and wealth
are proof of that.
Voting
has legitimated this economic restructuring.
It has harmed millions of Americans with middle and low incomes.
This
is a nearly three decades-long trend. It has built up no small head of steam in
2003 as the legitimacy of electoralism on American culture continues to hold
sway.
Voting
for positive social change is a little like fasting to gain weight.
That’s
what Arnold-ism is all about.
Seth
Sandronsky is a member of Peace Action and co-editor with
Because People Matter, Sacramento’s progressive paper. He can be reached at: ssandron@hotmail.com.
Other
Recent Articles by Seth Sandronsky
* Arnold’s
California Dreaming
* Under
Bush, U.S. Economy Recovers, Unlike Workers
* Risky
Business: U.S. Borrowing And Foreign Lending
* In
California, The Ballot Box And The Market
* Globalize
That: Capital Flight to China
* In
US, A Job-loss Economy Emerges
* For
Black Teens, Jobs Crisis Worsens
* A
New Day for Affirmative Action?
* In
California, A Racial Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
* In U.S.,
Slow Growth, Excess Inventory and Mounting Debt
HOME