[Peace-discuss] What the closeness of the election means

[C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss]

Doesn’t it mean that the outcomes don’t make much difference?

If one candidate were offering something that the public really wanted - jobs, free education (like Germany), an end to war, free medical care (like all other developed countries), a guaranteed annual income (as the Nixon administration proposed 40 years ago) - and the other candidate were opposing that, then the former would be elected by a substantial majority, and not a fraction of 1%, as will be the case next week. 

But as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall said long ago, “I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating” - and that’s what the 1% accomplish: no one becomes a Republican or Democratic candidate without passing muster with them. 

See now Martin Gilens 2013, “Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America” (2013), who “points out that the lower 70 percent have no influence on policy, so they're essentially disenfranchised. And then as you move up higher, you get a little more influence. When you get to the very top, they essentially get what they want. Polling results aren't sharp enough for him to deal with the crucial segment of the population - the top fraction of 1 percent - which is where the real concentration of wealth is, and undoubtedly the real concentration of power. But you can't show it, because the polls aren't good enough” [Noam Chomsky].  

By the time the US “election process” reaches election day, the candidate selected by the 1% have done what they could to make themselves attractive to the public - but without promising any of the things that the public really wants. (Lying helps.) And regardless of who is elected, the usual programs will be followed in office. (Note the effect of the presidential peace candidate in 2008 - or 1968.)

--CGE