The Power of the People

Rob Portman (R- OH) became the first GOP senator to support Gay Marriage. He states that it was because his son came out as gay. Let's not forget that he comes from Ohio, a swing state. Would he have done the same thing if he were from Alabama?

I have talked before about strategies that I would recommend for both major parties, but the more I think about politics and politicians, the more that for real change to occur the demand has to come from the people. The recent gay marriage debate have exemplified this. Everyone knew that a lot of Democrats, possibly a lot of Republicans, supported gay marriage but as long as the majority of voters in their districts did not support gay marriage, very few stepped forward. Public opinion has shifted rather quickly, and so have politicians. Some may see this as wavering; I take the more optimistic outlook that this shift demonstrates the power of the people.

It is easy to get caught up in the cynical mindset that we are powerless. Campaigns cost a lot of money. Candidates have to pay a staff, conduct polls, travel around and speak to voters, and most importantly, run ads on TV. Candidates get elected with the help of donors, but campaign donors always want to see something in return. Though they may claim to be unbiased, representatives will vote in the interest of those that gave them the most money. So yes, it's easy to think that unless we are able to donate hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars to candidates or Super-PACs, we are powerless except for our one vote. And if large corporations and the super wealthy appointed the candidates on both sides, aren't we really just voting for the lesser of two evils?

The only way that poor and middle class will exercise our power is if we unite under common economic interests. The Occupy Wall Street movements, with their notion of "We are the 99%" tapped into this, but political powers have kept us apart by deliberately driving wedges into the 99%. Both major parties have done this, as they both have a vested interest in keeping us polarized.

Let's start with the Republicans. It has been a much talked about phenomenon that Republicans have made a base out of rural America, the geographic majority of our country. Many of these people are poor or lower middle class, yet they have consistently voted against their own economic interests. One explanation is that they are just gullible; easily fooled by misleading TV commercials about candidates. I give these people a little more credit than that. Part of it is social issues. Rural areas tend to be more religious (Christian), and Republicans have done a better job aligning themselves with the church. At the end of the day, we have faith in our representatives and trust that they have our best interests in mind. So if you are a person of faith, it's a no-brainer that another person of faith would be easier to have faith in. Then there are the specific wedge issues such as abortion. Nixon was the first to realize that he could incorporate a lot of Catholics into the Republican base by reversing his stance on abortion and taking a pro-life stance. Perhaps the most brilliant and impressive political tactic that Republicans have employed over the past 40 years is how they have used the insecurity and resentment of the "Northern Elite" to win elections. This notion goes back before the Civil War but it has made a resurgence recently. Watch this video of Palin and McCain from 2008:



The basic idea is that it's a group of grad-school educated, fine cheese eating, liberal yuppies living in New York and San Francisco have all the power and they don't represent "real America". Really, it's a distraction from the fact that it's the richest 1%, or maybe even the 0.1% of the 0.0001% that really have all the power. Republicans have done a much better job making themselves the party of the "good old boys" even though the truth is the opposite. Remember that when asked how many houses he owned, John McCain didn't even know. Of course, as a black man and the son of an Afircan immigrant and a single mother, Obama had an easy time capitalizing on this quote during his campaign and positioning himself as the true "man of the people", ignoring the fact that he has a net worth of almost $12 million.

So much has been made of Republican failures in the 2012 election that few people have thought about the failures of the Democrats. In truth, Democrats coasted to victory in 2008 because of the horrendous failures of the Bush presidency and they would not have won in 2012 were it not for demographic changes. But Obama has done just as much, if not more, to provide tax breaks for big business and grow the military. Though in principle the Democrats represent the interests of the 99% much better, what have they done? They gave up on the public option in the Affordable Care Act without much of a fight, they haven't done anything to regulate Wall Street and fix the problems that caused the crash, and the social safety net continues to be dismantled.

Why don't Democrats do more to bring rural and socially conservative voters into the fold? Well, perhaps it's because they don't need to, and if they did that they might actually have to do something to help the poor and middle class. I don't think it would be that difficult to reach out to the poorer 99% of what is now the Republican base. All they have to do is shine the light on the fact that the real "elite" are the rich. As for social conservatives, most Democrats are just as religious. Democrats would not be able to come out as pro-life because they would alienate their own base but they might be able to do something to reduce unwanted pregnancies with better sex education and better, more easily available birth control. The truth is, both sides would rather argue about the philosophical fundamentals or the most divisive part of this issue than actually do something about the problem both sides agree on.

The Tea Party: protesting against the corruption of the corrupt minority in power

Most of all, they could address the fear of external power that many in rural America, in particular in the south have. It is tempting to ignore the Tea Party movement, but Democrats do this at their own peril. This movement was brought about by the same ideals that brought about the American Revolution: the fear that we are ruled by a distant and corrupt power. This is not a ridiculous fear. Time and time again we have been misled by a Federal government that was supposed to represent us and protect us. Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq, Katrina and the Financial collapse are all examples. It is not a crazy idea that more localized government would represent our interests better.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement: protesting against the corruption of the corrupt minority in power

I don't think that either party wants to represent the 99%. Both parties would rather find a way to get just over 50% of the vote but represent the interests of the 1%. My bottom line is a hopeful one though. We are the people. We still have the power. Politicians will not represent our interests unless we demand it. So we have to look past the ways that we have been polarized and look for what unites us. United we stand, divided we fall.