by
UnholyTancred
@ 05/09/08 - 10:34:53 pm
Below is a paper I wrote for an assignment I had due today for my American Presidency class. It was a short, 2-3 page, double spaced simple essay on your thoughts about the current election. The professor just wanted to get to know the students and their beliefs better. My paper ended up being 4 pages and I wanted to write more but I didn't want to annoy the professor. He's a socialist, he agrees with me on numerous points, so it'd just be a waste of our time.
1 thing that I did want to include was a radical thought that I have which I'll sum up right now. I believe McCain is the better option. Things are guaranteed to be worse with McCain is in office.
"Wait a sec... so if things are going to be terrible, how is this going to be good?"
Social change doesn't happen when things are peachy keen and everybody is happy. You think the Bolsheviks would've led a revolution if things were so good under Imperial Russia? You think Mao and the Chinese Communists would've fought constant civil wars, drove out Japanese imperialists, kicked out Western powers if things were so good under semi-colonial China? You think Che and Castro would've went on a leaky small boat to topple over an American puppet regime if things were so good under Batista?
Hell no.
McCain is 72 years old. He has skin cancer. If he dies, Sarah Palin becomes President and things will become EVEN WORSE which is wonderful! She is pro-life. She is against science. She doesn't believe in Global Warming and is in bed with oil companies. She'll drill for oil as much as she wants ruining the already destabilized environment. She also wants to teach creationism in schools.
Things are going to be absolutely abysmal, which is great because that is when the working class can be organized, educated, and led by the vanguard to topple over this cesspool of tyranny.
And now, onto my essay (I use asterisks here as sources, they are listed on the bottom):
The 2008 Presidential Campaign
It’s that time again. 4 years have passed. It’s time for America’s sheep to flock to the voting booths and take part in what George Bush loves most; democracy. The college campus is littered with posters and billboards exclaiming
“VOTING IS FREEDOM!” and conservatives and liberals are at each other’s throats.
“VOTING IS FREEDOM!” is an interesting statement. This would mean that the North Korean people are truly free because they are allowed to vote, granted there’s only one candidate on the ballot but it’s still voting. Let’s buy the flawed and general statement of “VOTING IS FREEDOM!” and take it as fact. So who can we vote for this year? Since America has the right to go around bombing and invading other countries to spread democracy, this obviously means that America is the world’s leading authority on democracy. This makes the most amount of sense when it comes to analyzing America’s political structure. We quickly realize that America is a 2 party state. This means when it comes down to election time out of a country of a little over 300 million people, only 2 are qualified to represent the entire population. That’s right.
2.
It gets worse. All these campaigns and these candidates are funded largely by lobbyists. Obama can deny accepting money from lobbyists for as long as he wants to. Actions speak louder than words.
"He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," Weissman said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."
“In the first quarter of 2007, he accepted a combined $170,000 from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, two financial services giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington and spent a total of $4.6 million on lobbying in 2006…. Lobbyists from other states also gave Obama money. In California, Obama accepted $2,300 from a partner whose lobbying firm represents AT&T, United Airlines and the Recording Industry Assn. of America in Sacramento." *
The end result is that both candidates that are running to represent 300 million people are soaked with corporate money. One candidate may be richer than the other, but they’re still both rich men. Can a man who had a middle-class upbringing, a man who is incredibly proud of his African American roots (even though he is half white), votes inconsistently on the same issue, is an upper class man, can such a man represent 300 million people the majority who are working class? Yes this is an attack on Obama. McCain, I’m not worried about. The situation is practically guaranteed to get worse if McCain is elected. But the sad thing is the amount of support Obama is getting.
Do people even know who Obama is? I don’t think they do. I think they’re so sick and tired of the destruction and chaos the Bush administration has caused that they would eat anything up that is different. Obama says “change” and that’s pretty much all he says. It’s so vague and bland but the sheep do not care. To them “change” means something different from this administration and frankly, some people don’t think it could get any worse.
But what is this “change” that Obama speaks of? I view McCain and Obama as incredibly similar candidates. Both of them support the terror state Israel. Both of them support the Patriot Act, although in 2003 Obama voted for the repeal of the Patriot Act and then in 2006 he voted to reauthorize it (what?). Both of them support stem cell research. Both support network neutrality. Both of them obviously condemn Russia’s “invasion of Georgia”. I cannot see how this is possible. This position is so recent but is already almost universally discredited. Even the organ of the propagandists and imperialists, Faux News (FOX News), themselves became further of a laughing stock when interviewing a young Ossetian girl and her aunt. The family stated that they were being attacked and bombed by Georgians and thanked the Russian soldiers for saving them. Of course the propagandist attempted several times to cut them off and at the end of this interview stated that “there are gray areas in war.” **
The list goes on and on. The only difference is that Obama wants to create universal health care which will further drive the country into bankruptcy and he supports equal pay when it comes to genders. That’s pretty much it.
With McCain we’re guaranteed to remain in Iraq for as long as possible. Obama on the other hand wants to pull troops out of Iraq. This is the only “change” that I see in Obama. These troops aren’t going home. He wants to send them to Afghanistan. And don’t forget the bold statement towards the Pakistani government where he basically threatened the country that if they don’t get rid of the terrorists, he will invade them and do it for them.
“And he chastised Mr. McCain for trying to portray him as a celebrity, an attack aides say has been particularly damaging, offering a list of people who he said had inspired him, from his grandmother to an unemployed factory worker he met on the campaign trail.” ***
How touching. Does anyone actually buy this? Seeing the huge amount of supporters he has, unfortunately it appears that people do believe this to be truth.
McCain’s and Obama’s stances on so many issues are incredibly similar. This is not a democracy. If Obama is elected, I guarantee that change will be minor. He will have public support, but in reality he will be scheming for his own gains and purposes just like every president before. What kind of a society are we living in? The same society that has replaced feudalism; the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Politics, elections, etc are all fraud. “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them.” **** That is reality and anybody who sees it otherwise is incredibly naïve. And society will remain in this stagnant course until a dictatorship of the proletariat is established.
“The dictatorship of the proletariat alone can emancipate humanity from the oppression of capital, from the lies, falsehood and hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy — democracy for the rich — and establish democracy for the poor, that is, make the blessings of democracy really accessible to the workers and poor peasants, whereas now (even in the most democratic — bourgeois — republic) the blessings of democracy are, in fact, inaccessible to the vast majority of working people.
Take, for example, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. The Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners assure the workers that the present elections to the Constituent Assembly in Germany and Austria are "democratic". That is a lie. In practice the capitalists, the exploiters, the landowners and the profiteers own 9/10 of the best meeting halls, and 9/10 of the stocks of newsprint, printing presses, etc.. The urban workers and the farm hands and day laborers are, in practice, debarred from democracy by the "sacred right of property" (guarded by the Kautskys and Renners, and now, to our regret, by Friedrich Adler as well) and by the bourgeois state apparatus, that is, bourgeois officials, bourgeois judges, and so on. The present "freedom of assembly and the press" in the "democratic" (bourgeois democratic) German republic is false and hypocritical, because in fact it is freedom for the rich to buy and bribe the press, freedom for the rich to befuddle the people with venomous lies of the bourgeois press, freedom for the rich to keep as their "property" the landowners' mansions, the best buildings, etc.. The dictatorship of the proletariat will take from the capitalists and hand over to the working people the landowners' mansions, the best buildings, printing presses and the stocks of newsprint.
But this means replacing "universal", "pure" democracy by the "dictatorship of one class", scream the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners (together with their followers in other countries — the Gomperses, Hendersons, Renaudels, Vandervelde and Co.).
Wrong, we reply. This means replacing what in fact is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (a dictatorship hypocritically cloaked in the forms of the democratic bourgeois republic) by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means replacing democracy for the rich by democracy for the poor. This means replacing freedom of assembly and the press for the minority, for the exploiters, by freedom of assembly and the press for the majority of the population, for the working people. This means a gigantic, world historic extension of democracy, its transformation from falsehood into truth, the liberation of humanity from the shackles of capital, which distorts and truncates any, even the most "democratic" and republican, bourgeois democracy. This means replacing the bourgeois state with the proletarian state, a replacement that is the sole way the state can eventually wither away altogether. “ *
* Dan Morain, Obama's Refusal of Lobbyists' Money Has its Limits, LA TIMES, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/
** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
*** Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny, Campaigning Starts With Running Mates In Tow, New York Times
**** Vladimir Lenin, State And Revolution, 1917
* Vladimir Lenin, “Democracy” And Dictatorship, 1919