archived: 09 - 15 Mar, 2008         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  MAR 12, 2008 

“MONEY, POLITICS, AND POLICY” 

The late 19th century Republican equivalent of Karl Rove, Mark Hanna, once made a statement about money and politics that became famous.  It sounds best when it is put in the form of the quote about winning in sports that for years has been attributed, perhaps incorrectly, to the legendary Green Bay Packers pro football coach, Vince Lombardi: "Money isn't everything; it's the only thing."

Yes, indeed, if you've got the money in politics, you're going win, so goes the conventional wisdom. If you ain't got the dough, just don't bother to show (up). Well, that rule has a lot of wisdom behind it, and that is why I support public financing for all elections. But every rule is made to be broken, and boy it has been shattered by this year's presidential primaries in both parties. For once, positions, real or manufactured for the moment, do matter. Let's take a look.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul, who has run a relatively inexpensive campaign, has raised oodles of money.  Yet he has managed to finish in the single digits in almost all of the Republican primaries. Why? His positions form an incomprehensible stew of libertarianism on the economic side and total control of free-thought on such issues as the right to choose. And oh yes, he is an isolationist in general and against the War on Iraq in particular, a position not all popular with most Republican voting in their primaries.  Positions do count.

Mike Huckabee has "no money" (or at least we are told he has none. My suspicion is that somewhere, somehow, his base of support in the Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionist movement is funneling money to him, off the books. For sure he is receiving "independent" support from such groups as "Americans for the Preservation of American Culture," "Vietnam Veterans Against McCain" [which has distributed a leaflet that accused McCain of collaborating with the Vietnamese during his years as a prisoner of war] and "Common Sense Issues" [January 18, 2008 - from ABC 7 WJLA Washington].)

However, he is gregarious, quick-witted, smiley-faced, would make a very good late night talk show host (and would be able to supply, apparently, a nice set of non-union writers -- that is unless he really thinks up all those one-liners himself).  He gets on the TV political talk-fests all the time because he is such a good talker. But his positions, Far Christian Right, have brought him a strong following among the incorrectly labeled “Evangelist” voters (many Evangelists are not right-wing, but what the hey?): that is setting the Ten Commandments (in his preferred English translation right up there alongside the Constitution); strongly "pro-gun" with total freedom in the ownership of guns (how many bazookas and machine guns are the limit, Gov?); repealing the 16th (income tax) Amendment along with passing the "homosexuals are second-class citizens" and the "belief that life begins at the time of viability is hereby criminalized" amendments; let’s destroy the public school system; and hey, you know, the World is 6000 years old. Positions do count.

Mitt Romney had tons of (his own) money. He's gone. His flip-flopping, especially on the issues dear to the hearts of Republicans who vote in the primaries, made John Kerry look stiff as a board.  And Romney himself came across as rather stiff, too, especially his hair. Positions do count.  

John McCain was literally out of money last summer. He now apparently has the Republican nomination locked up. While the Republican establishment, for reasons that have yet to become truly apparent, characterize him as some kind of liberal, his totally manufactured image of being the "Straight-Talker" (see my three previous TPJ columns) and what is truly a mostly straight right-wing track record, with a few anomalies in his record, attracted enough votes in a very weak Republican field to apparently get him the Republican nomination. Positions do count.

And then there was Rudy (who I thought would get the Republican nomination, with Huckabee as his VP candidate. Can't be right all the time, although Huckabee now stands a very good chance of being VP nominee with McCain.) Tons of money. Far-Right on everything except the mind-control issues so dear to the hearts of the Republican base. Fuhgeddaboudit. Positions do count.

Let’s go on to the Democratic side, more briefly. Hillary Clinton began with tons of money. Back in February Clinton had to "lend" her campaign $5 million. (Just where the heck did a U.S. Senator and former First Lady get that kind of money is another question I hope somebody starts asking.)  By the time you read this (it is being written on Feb. 18) it may be all over for her but the counting.  Barack Obama began with none. Obama has raised tons, mostly from small donors. Thus at least until recently, both campaigns have been very well funded. But Obama has come from nowhere to his current position (again as of Feb. 18) of being in a virtual tie with the former frontrunner. Positions, or in Obama's case mostly so far, the message (of Hope, with more specifics coming out), do count.

Further on the Democratic side, the case of Dennis Kucinich provides the exception to what is happening this year. If he had had at least some money, he might have done better because of his positions, which do count so much with an important part of the Democratic base. On the other hand John Edwards had some money and has a series of positions popular wit the Democratic base.  I think that he mainly proved that on the Democratic side, at least, anger doesn't sell.

This is a vital lesson to learn as we go into this election. Money is not the only thing in politics. You've got to have it, but this year especially, with the future of U.S. Constitutional Democracy as the most important issue facing our nation (even as yet in most unrecognized as such), positions are front and center.

The partisanship seen in Washington and elsewhere is not equally the responsibility of the two major parties. It is the Republican Party that has, since the days of Goldwater, gradually abandoned the bipartisan agreement about the bedrocks of the New Deal that Dwight D. Eisenhower himself said would never disappear from American life. It is the Republicans who have lied us into war; saddled us with a national debt that we could conceivably never be able to pay off; who are well on their way to destroying Constitutional Democracy in the United Sates; who want to break down the barriers between church and state; who run on hate of gays and immigrants, the fictional "Islamofascists," and misogyny.

And so both Senators Obama and Clinton, despite their pleas/claims to “reach out across the aisle" do have positions that are diametrically opposed to those of the Republicans on such issues as: the war (you are either for withdrawal by a certain time or you are not); abortion rights (you are either for freedom of choice in the outcome of pregnancy based on your personal belief as to when life begins, or you are not); the preservation of Constitutional Democracy; a balanced budget for all governmental functions including war-making; a fair taxation system; a Federal government that works; fair elections and the expansion not the contraction of voting rights.

They both have money, although Obama seems to be bringing evermore of it while Clinton brings in ever less.  But whoever wins the nomination is not going to win just because they have money.   It will be due to their positions and how they present them that garner the nomination and, hopefully victory in the general election, for them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This column is based in part on “Dr. J.'s Commentary: Money and Politics” that appeared on BuzzFlash on Mon, 02/11/2008 (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/100), and “Dr. J.'s Commentary: Iowa, Policy, and the Democrats that appeared on BuzzFlash on Thu, 12/27/2007 (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/091).

________________