It isn\\\'t pretty: Money and race in US politics

A number of recent incidents in the United States have yet again underscored the vital role race perceptions play in this society in spite of many attainments in this sector over the decades. Obviously, even President Barack Obama isn't spared enormously unsavoury barbs and arrows because of his ethnicity. The recently concluded midterm elections were also greatly influenced by this factor---and the funds that shored it up---regardless of whatever some commenters may declare. And of course, some of the candidates didn't even bother to put any sheen on their prejudices.
As is the practice with some news outlets, Time magazine for one instance, they often indulge in praising to high heavens anyone who is successful. In this case it was the success of the Republican Party in the midterm elections that received fulsome kudos. The truth, however, in short is this: rarely in history has a majority of an electorate walked so ferociously backward to the future. As already stated, with substantial assistance from unabashed expressions of bigotry, and a large helping of paranoia and an assortment of reckless politicians whose primary weapon was regression-at-any-cost the voters apparently decided to chose regression.
And all this when the country's economy is demonstrating a modicum of progress. Some indicators here as examples: When the Obama administration entered office unemployment was 7.8 per cent, today it's 5.8 per cent. Likewise, GDP (gross domestic product) growth was a negative 5.4 per cent, now it's a positive 3.5 per cent; the national deficit as a percentage of GDP was 9.8 per cent and now it stands at 2.8 per cent; consumer confidence was 37.7 while now it is at 94.5; and the Dow Jones had dipped to 7,949 and now it has attained 17,830. This contradictory facet evidently also underscores one vital element as well, as has been noted, "Republicans across the country largely reasserted the historic pattern that the political party that does not hold the White House wins big in non-presidential election years."
The ultimate element and of the greatest impact in the mix was, you guessed it, money---with ample help from the Supreme Court's decisions. Or as the Daily Show's Jon Stewart commented, "Quite a success story tonight for money," while its correspondent Jason Jones lamented, "I still remember the days when people spoke openly about banning money from the political process. Well, tonight, $6.5 billion later, those people aren't talking. Money is." That succinctly and marvellously sums up the reality of politics, elections, politicians and business in the United States in these times of trials and tribulations with the White House feeling the most unbearable discomfort.
Certainly not all was well with and within the Democratic Party: President Obama has morphed into a hugely unpopular person on both sides of the political divide, unable to satisfy any group; the party machinery was largely unable to transmit the vital message of the administration's achievements to the populace who, in any case, were reluctant to listen to any success story as they had already soured on the perennial gridlock in their nation's capital; the party wasn't seen as being able to provide robust leadership mainly due to the dithering of the president especially in foreign affairs; and his failure to reform immigration laws didn't help either. Barack Obama's style has often been described as professorial; and it is an obvious drawback in politics where someone like Bill Clinton with his affable mannerism has the ability to connect with the electorate more effectively.
Don Hazen of AlterNet eloquently described the mayhem: "We live in a society where fear is pervasive. Sometimes it's very real, especially when it comes to climate change, joblessness, racism, violence against women and more. But in the context of this election, fear was often manufactured, transmitted zealously by the corporate media, pushed relentlessly by Fox [TV network] and other right-wing outlets. Messages of fear dominated many of the campaign ads that led to Democrats getting crushed in many elections. In this environment of fear, compounded by massive amounts of unregulated political spending … the Democrats seemed lost, despite having lots of money of their own. Given their current confused approach to politics, their general inarticulateness, and their need to run away from the President and Obamacare, most Democrats didn't stand a chance against the onslaught."
Here's only one example, as reported by PolitiFact, of how outright falsehoods were utilised by the rightwingers to instil fear among the voters: "In July, [Republican member of the house of Representatives] Phil Gingrey wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claiming that people are crossing the southern U.S. border carrying Ebola, citing 'reports.' But none of the reports were credible, and the experts we talked to said Gingrey was wrong." Similarly, "Senator John McCain … claimed recently that the isolated cases of Ebola in the United States directly contradict the assurances of President Barack Obama and his administration. 'We were told there would never be a case of Ebola in the United States,' McCain said." But as PolitiFact asserts, Americans were never told that. And so it went, relentlessly.
As a sort of footnote it needs to be recorded that in whipping up fear some of the efforts were absurdly ludicrous while some facts were indeed alarming. One Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Duncan Hunter, in an interview on Fox (read Faux) News, asserted that members of the Islamic State had been caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. "ISIS is coming across the southern border," declared the Hon. Mr. Hunter, adding, "I know that at least 10 ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas." In this kind of environment commentator Tom Engelhardt, talking about the massive build-up of the security machinery and explaining the paranoia said, "In the post-9/11 era, in a phony 'wartime' atmosphere, fed by trillions of taxpayer dollars, and under the banner of American 'safety,' [the security apparatus] has grown to unparalleled size and power. And in 2014, the expansion is ongoing."
While elaborating his point Engelhardt states, "Meanwhile, the 17 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community -- yes, there are 17 major intelligence outfits in the national security state -- have been growing, some at prodigious rates. A number of them have undergone their own versions of corporatisation, outsourcing many of their operations to private contractors in staggering numbers, so that we now have 'capitalist intelligence' as well. With the fears from 9/11 injected into society and the wind of terrorism at their backs, the Intelligence Community has had a remarkably free hand to develop surveillance systems that are now essentially 'watching' everyone -- including, it seems, other branches of the government." Not a matter to be kidding about, clearly.
As the nation stumbles backward---while simultaneously police transgressions all across the country are seemingly unhindered to the extent that the president of the country had to convene a national conference to discuss the burgeoning discontent---mystifyingly five key developments appear to have gone unnoticed, at least by the major news distribution networks: 1. Each year since the recession, America's richest 1.0 per cent has made more than the cost of all U.S. social programmes. 2. Almost none of the new 1.0 per cent wealth led to innovation and jobs. 3. Just 47 wealthy Americans own more than half of the U.S. population. 4. The upper middle class of America owns a smaller percentage of wealth than the corresponding groups in all major nations except Russia and Indonesia. 5. Ten per cent of the world's total wealth was taken by the global 1.0 per cent in the past three years. (As enumerated by Paul Buchheit in Common Dreams.)
Against that backdrop comes this not totally unexpected news. As Brett Arends in MarketWatch tells it: For the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, America is no longer the leading economic power on the planet. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently released the latest numbers for the world economy. And when you measure national economic output in "real" terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6 trillion - compared to $17.4 trillion for the US… "To put the numbers slightly differently, China now accounts for 16.5 per cent of the global economy when measured in real purchasing power terms, compared to 16.3 per cent for the U.S. Make no mistake. This is a geopolitical earthquake with a high reading on the Richter scale. Throughout history, political and military powers have always depended on economic power."
So there you have it: As the extremists react adversely to a mixed-race administration and lurch backward, as they're wont to, the United States stands at the crossroads of early twenty-first century history as it attempts to locate its bearings.
 [email protected]