Through the Lenz

A post-Demdebate truth check

2007-08-22T15:52:27Z

Through the Lenz

The Transcripts from the recent Democratic presidential debate held in Chicago,
Illinois, are comically entertaining at best and downright horrifying at worst.
One gets the sense after reading the transcripts of this debate that the top
tier Democratic candidates are willing to say just about anything to get
elected. Reading the very much-rehearsed scripts of Hillary Clinton and Barrack
Obama reminds this writer of recent episodes from a college bar, in which two
men battled desperately for the rights to bring home one girl. One man fed
her those types of pre tape recorded compliments like “baby you’re the
hottest girl in this bar” that every woman knows are insincere. The other man
just resorted to attacking his opponent’s personal integrity telling the
girl that he heard rumors that his opponent was a lousy lover in the bedroom and
hence could not get the job done. While the candidate’s animal instincts
may not have been quite as raw as those expressed by the two men at the bar,
the concept is still very much the same.
Like the man at the bar hurling disingenuous compliments in order to
get into the woman’s pants, Clinton likewise sweet talked the audience in
order to get into the voters’ pockets. Clinton said things like “who has stood
up to the right-wing machine for years.” She was also responsible for such
clever ditties as “I’m your gal” when emphasizing her “support” for
organized labor over the years. What Clinton failed to mention was that the very
interests that comprise the “right wing machine” (see the banking,
pharmaceutical and oil lobbies) that she has taken credit for fighting against have also
played an instrumental role in financing her campaign. As for being organized labor’s “gal” Clinton might have some serious explaining to do for her fervent support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) passed back in 1993 under her husband’s administration. Obama, on the other hand, played the man at the bar who could “seal the deal” by attacking his adversary’s character. Obama criticized Clinton for being “vastly influenced” by corporate interests. He pointed to the large contributions she has received from the corporate lobby. If Obama was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul (2 candidates who have refused donations from
corporate political action committees) his words might have carried some moral weight.

However, Obama is hardly the man of integrity that he describes himself
as being. He too failed to mention that while he was painting Clinton as a
servant of corporate power he himself had received the largest campaign
contributions from Wall Street to date. In the second quarter alone, Obama ledthe entire field of both republican and democratic candidates in campaign contributions from employees of the top ten investment banks. He raised
$739,579 compared to Clinton’s $ 424, 545 and Rudy Giuliani’s $330,000; almost as much money as Clinton and the top republican candidate combined!

Even John Edwards got into the act reminding the audience of mostly
organized labor supporters that he “stood with them in crunch time.” But when
asked a question later in the debate about possibly repealing NAFTA, Edwards
stopped short of saying it should be repealed.
The “players” have arrived at the bar and they all want to take you
home!

Richardson: Serious on boosting teacher salaries?

2007-08-07T18:03:00Z

Citizen Responds to Bill Richardson’s proposal to boost teacher salaries

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Mary Myers, a resident of Brentwood about Bill Richardson’s proposal to boost teachers’ salaries. Richardson vowed that if elected president he would move to establish a starting minimum wage of $40,000 for every teacher in America. Presently, the national average salary for all teachers is about $ 48,000. Richardson’s rational is that the implementation of a starting minimum wage would both draw better qualified teachers as well as boost the general morale of existing faculty.

]]> Mike Lenz: Do you support Richardson’s proposal for a minimum starting wage for teachers of $40,000?
Mary Myers: Yes, today teachers starting out are definitely underpaid.
ML: Why should teachers be valued by our society?
MM: Because the profession is very important. My son is a teacher in the Bronx so I can personally relate to all the responsibilities that teachers have.
Unfortunately, teachers have to put up with a lot of things that the parents are unable to do. Not to mention that they have to do these things on top of teaching of course.
ML: In comparison to say the Western European nations where teachers are compensated generously, why are teachers in America paid so little?
MM: I think that in America teaching started out as a woman’s field. And since women have been historically underpaid maybe there has been a lag in wages.
ML: Would you support a presidential candidate who was outspoken on raising teachers’ pay?
MM: I really like Richardson’s proposal, but I haven’t decided whom I’m going to vote for yet.

Edwards and healthcare: The genuine populist or populist in disguise?

2007-07-31T17:08:05Z

Continuing the theme of health care....

Throughout the campaign season former North Carolina Sen. Edwards has depicted himself as the candidate of the people. While his populist rhetoric which includes his now famous “two Americas’ description of an economically unequal America and his sympathy for the “underdog” who “toils” but receives nothing; may be drawing Newhampshireites into his camp, we have yet to see if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Is he prepared to challenge the “entrenched interests” that he says control the heart and soul of American politics today or is his rhetoric a part of a demagogic ploy to pull on Americans’ heart strings in order to reach the grandest hall of political power.

]]> Unfortunately, while his humble origins, his ability to make a clintonesque appeal to the average man as well as his appropriate description of his chief rivals(Obama and Clinton) as being little better than servants of elite interests draws me to Edwards, there is just something not quite right with him dressed in the economic populist’s cloak.
Perhaps, I am being too hard on Edwards. After all, he has been addressing perhaps the most pressing issue facing our country (economic inequality) that all the other candidates-save for Dennis Kucinich-have been unwilling to touch. However, a brief analysis of Edward’s positions on one policy issue, healthcare, reveals Edwards as the same servant of corporate power that he lashes out at Obama and Clinton for being.
As not to overwhelm the reader with the minute facts and details of Edward’s plan; the gist of it is this: Edwards said he would expand Medicaid a program that now provides coverage to 6 million people, mostly children. He would also provide federal health care subsidies. He said he wants employers to play a bigger role, either by offering coverage or buying into "health markets" that would include a government plan. Edward’s proposal emphasizes the dual role of both the private and public sectors in addressing the healthcare crisis. He would allow for the market –as opposed to government protections- to drive down healthcare costs.
While Edwards reveals that his end goal would be to see universal coverage extended to the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, his proposal is still far short of offering a comprehensive, single-payer healthcare system in place in the Western European democracies and supported by Edward’s democratic rival Kucinich. If Edwards were truly serious about immediately solving the healthcare crisis he might support the full expansion of Medicare, not an incremental expansion through Medicaid.
Edwards’ proposal might be likened to the first time sky diver who enters aboard the plane, puts on his parachute and steps toward the door, only to look down before him and realize that he is far to nervous to jump. The cause of the skydiver’s apprehension is obvious and understandable-a fear of heights. Edward’s expressed caution, especially on such a serious issue is not. What might explain Edward’s caution?
To date, Edwards has received approximately $ 212,200 from the healthcare lobby which includes donations from pharmaceutical companies as well as from large HMO’s. While Edward has hardly received as much money as Clinton ($ 848,872) or Obama($566,638) he has received far more than candidates like Ron Paul ($ 11,000) or Kucinich ($ 7,500). It is a lot easier to make true populist gestures (See Kucinich who refuses money from corporate PAC’s) when you are not beholden to corporate interests.

Part 2: Considering 'Sicko'

2007-07-26T17:15:43Z

Part two of three on the American Healthcare crisis:

Over the past week I had the opportunity to talk with Exeter resident, Caroline Amport about America’s healthcare crisis and the prospects of reform by the presidential candidates.

]]> Mike Lenz: Are you familiar with the release of Michael Moore’s film SICKO?
Caroline Amport: Yeah I saw it last night. It was definitely a typical Moore film. In that the subject material was interesting, horrifying and sad.
ML: Would you support a national healthcare system?
CA: Absolutely, government’s role is to fill in the gaps where the market fails. I think when it comes to healthcare it is safe to say that the market has definitely failed. It is clear that under the existing system the needs of the people are not being met.
ML: Are there any presidential candidates that you think are adequately addressing the healthcare crisis so far in the campaign season?
CA: I am assuming that Hillary Clinton is, but I can’t really say so with any authority
ML: Why should those fortunate enough to afford healthcare care about this issue?
CA: We should all care because it affects all of us as a community. A nation as well off and sophisticated as the United States should be able to supply top notch, affordable healthcare to all its citizens. The fact that we aren’t doing this is just absolutely ridiculous and shameful.

How healthy is 'Sicko'?

2007-07-24T15:19:20Z

Healthcare is a major Issue in the United States. Over 45 million Americans are uninsured, another 80-90 million Americans receive inadequate healthcare coverage and live precariously close to bankruptcy in the event of a health disaster. Strangely, as arguably the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet, the United States is also the only western democracy that does not provide all its citizens with affordable and fully accessible healthcare.

]]> Michael Moore’s latest film SICKO reveals the struggle of America’s working and even its middle class’ to pay outrageous medical bills and compares their plight to the comparatively generous healthcare policies of Western European nations. The film places the blame for America’s healthcare crisis squarely on the shoulders of the pharmaceutical and health insurance corporations.
Unfortunately, while filmmakers like Moore, reveal the extent of this deepening crisis, the presidential candidates –with but a few exceptions-seem unwilling to endorse a fully functioning national healthcare system for fear of reprisal from their large corporate donors in the aforementioned pharmaceutical and health insurance lobbies. It is clear that the private market has failed to provide a solution. How are American politicians going to respond to this market failure? Are they going to allow the crisis to deepen further and exasperate the already shaky financial stature of America’s middle classes? Are America’s politicians going to remain mum on the issue and allow the very real suffering experienced by our working class to continue?
Clearly, our healthcare system must be torn down and rebuilt a new. The flaws inherent within the system are so deeply engrained within the fabric of its power structure(all authority and decision making resides in the hands of powerful corporations) that only the radical transfer of power from the healthcare lobbies to the people in the form of a government funded single payer system will adequately solve this crisis. Perhaps, we could expand Medicare and make it open to all Americans; one pictures the populist politician’s slogan of “Medicare for all.” Or perhaps, we will have to rebuild the system from scratch in accordance with the realities of the 21st century.
One thing is clear, the shared corporate/government partnership being conveyed by the likes of Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney will not address the problem.
Change is always the hope, but short of an economic down turn on the scale of another Great Depression, it appears unlikely that the corporatist liberal and conservative politicians will rush to embrace a national healthcare system.
Listed Below is a breakdown of the amount of campaign funds the presidential candidates have received thus far from the healthcare lobby:

Hillary Clinton $848,872
Mitt Romney $830,285
Barack Obama $566,638
John McCain $409,751
Rudy Giuliani $401,422
John Edwards $212,200
Bill Richardson $185,000
Christopher Dodd$84,900
Joseph Biden $57,775
Sam Brownback $38,050
Mike Huckabee $18,050
Ron Paul $11,000
Tommy Thompson $9,100
Jim Gilmore $7,500
Dennis Kucinich $7,050
Tom Tancredo $5,050
Duncan Hunter $4,250
Mike Gravel $500 source:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

Of the people or the corporations?

2007-07-17T20:59:42Z

This past week I had the chance to talk politics with every day, working class Americans in three separate states: New Hampshire, California and Michigan. My travels which began in Manchester, New Hampshire and took me to San Diego, California and finally to Detroit, Michigan revealed a serious disconnect between the real life issues affecting the lives of the working people of those cities and the political agendas being offered by the various presidential candidates.

]]> For example, an employee of NorthWest Airlines, at Manchester Airport, explained to me that the presidential candidates don't seem at all interested in issues that impact working class people. She noted that her experience as an airline attendant has been like one long rollarcoster ride. She expressed her anger at what she described as the inhumane abuses perpetrated by airline management. She noted that as wages have been slashed and hours increased -a general pattern for American workers since 1973-workers have had no place to turn to. Even the unions, she said, have been co opted and its leaders given a priviliged status within the corporate power structure.
On an over night stay in Detroit Michigan, a black taxi-driver revealed a similar sentiment with regard to the sad state of working America. He noted that Detroit provides for an appropriate illustration of America- extreme poverty on the one hand and extreme wealth on the other. He cited the struggles that he has had to endure in raising two children on his own in a hostile environment. He explained how violence in Detroit has escalated as a result of the perpetual economic underdevelopment and the subsuquent lack of opportunities in the inner city. Finally, the taxi-driver explained that his ultimate goal was to find a way to send his children to college- a dream that many upper middle class Americans take for granted.
In San Diego, California, a convenience store clerk revealed how land in San Diego was parceled out according to wealth. He explained that it was impossible to own property or a house in the city if one did not earn an income upwards of $ 100,000. The clerk-with no fault of his own- seemed to accept the classist propaganda hammered home by American political elites-namely that the poor are rightfully confined to the permanent status of tenant and the rich privlidged to a living style of luxury.
None of the candidates -save for Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul- seem willing to fully address issues such as economic revitilization of the inner cities and workforce housing, fair trade and corporate accountability. America is desperately in search of the candidate of the people.

Voter Q&A: The Iraq war

2007-07-06T16:47:50Z

Iraq War, Accountability, Issues in Political Campaign Season
Larry Coskren, an Exeter native, shared his thoughts about the current campaign season.

Mike Lenz: What is the most important campaign issue for you?
Larry Coskren: The Iraq war

]]> ML: Why is the Iraq war the most pressing issue for you?
LC: I don't have a kid in the military or anything, but I just think the war is a collosal failure. I don't think there is anyway out of this situation. We can take the good way out which is to pull out our troops as soon as possible, or we can lose another 5,000 troops.
ML: Are there any candidates that seem to genuinely care about the war?
LC: I think plenty of candidates care about the war. However, only some are willing to do something about it, which is not to say that I would necessarly vote for those who will do something about it.
ML: What is the state of our political system?
LC: Not real good. It just seems like people don't have an impact on anything.
I'm totally turned off to the whole political system, and have been for the past 20 years. The system seems to promote candidates to the extremes, there are no middle of the road candidates.

CIA: A Campaign issue in the making?

2007-07-05T20:07:00Z

CIA Revelations Should be Issue Among Media and Presidential Candidates

The recent barrage of declassified records by the CIA revealing the agency’s illicit activity in the 1970’s, has received ample coverage from a wide range of media outlets throughout the United States. Not surprisingly, major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, radio news sources like National Public Radio, and television news stations such as MSNBC and Fox News have taken a strictly newsman’s approach to the revelations citing the details of the records which included the agency’s program of domestic spying, infiltration and blackmailing of dissident groups-especially anti-war protesters and anti-colonial movements.

]]> The major news outlets also focused intense coverage on two other significant details of the revelations: the CIA’s lead role in orchestrating the botched Bay of Pigs Invasion (the attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro) and the agency’s role in conducting a series of “unwitting” tests on civilians which included exposing Americans to LSD. The major media outlets, while responsibly reporting the facts of the revelations have not however contributed in any significant way toward making the declassified report an issue that should be treated and discussed as one of the most pressing political issues facing the nation today.
Consider the treatment of the report by the major news outlets with that of a more critical perspective offered by the alternative media. Alternative online websites like Sam Smith’s progressive review blog and Amy Goodman’s news cast Democracy Now! tied the revelations to a systematic and deep rot within the American political system. Both Smith and Goodman linked the report to a deeply rooted, historical fear among US political elites to dissident activity at home and anti-capitalist protest activity abroad. Other alternative news sources like the independent website thirdworldtraveler.com, has responded to the revelations in part by including among the website’s book list John
Perkin’s The Secret History of the American Empire and William Blum’s
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions. Both books provide important insights into the CIA’s historical record of clandestine intervention into other countries’ internal affairs.
Finally, the mainstream media (especially television news sources) have largely excluded the voices of those who treat the CIA revelations as one among many examples of the agency’s abuses as opposed to a one-time affair.
In failing to link the CIA revelations to the deeper political issue of how power is wielded in the United States, mainstream media outlets do the American people a disservice. In a truly functioning democracy, these revelations should be given full attention –including being given priority as a campaign issue- not for any degree of entertainment value or “news worthiness” but for the adverse effects they have on an open and free society.

Early "Primary" observations

2007-07-03T20:17:01Z

With the presidential season heating up here are a few of my observations about the campaign thus far:

First, the media pundits, party elites and the intellectual community seem determined (one might even say desperate) to anoint a front-runner from each party at this early juncture of the campaign season. Clearly, these elites who are beholden to the interest of corporate America, are trying to avoid another Howard Dean from emerging out of the shadows.

]]> If you recall, a grassroots movement that found their voice through a modern medium-the Internet powered Dean’s quick ascent in 2004 from relative obscurity to national prominence. Elites have clearly learned from the “near debacle” of 2004. Both major parties have shifted their primaries to earlier dates(even to the point of threatening New Hampshire’s first primary status) and closer to each other as to prevent a prolonged contest-an advantage for insurgent and money strapped candidates; the national media comprised of the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine and the Wall Street Journal, have appeared to arrive at a consensus number one from each party; and political scientists embracing their roles as the noble “experts” have so far served to lend an air of legitimacy to the prerogatives of the very powerful. From the Democratic Party it would appear that Hillary Clinton has emerged as the front-runner. From the Republican Party, it appears that Rudolph Giuliani has supplanted John McCain as the party’s anointed front-runner. Whoever emerged victorious from a potential battle between these two corporate backed candidates would make no difference. Either way, US elites win.

Second, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, two of the campaign’s underdog candidates, have exhibited an extraordinary degree of spunk. When asked in the recent democratic debate held at St Anselm College, in Manchester, to say what separated him from the other candidates he responded with one word-morality. He said that the lack of a moral spine of some of his colleagues (see the likes of John Edwards, Clinton and Joseph Biden), to vote against the original Iraq War resolution back in 2003 was simply reprehensible. Kucinich then explained his proposal for establishing a Department of Peace and added that a president must be a moral person in order to be a moral leader.

Likewise, Paul differentiated himself from his competition a few nights later on the same stage, when the candidates were asked what the most pressing moral issue was facing the nation. The candidates responded with evidently rehearsed responses listing conservative favorites like abortion and gay marriage. Not Paul. Paul explained that American imperialism and more specifically, Iraq, was the single greatest moral dilemma facing the nation. Keep an eye on both the underdog candidates as we move through the campaign season. Both are sure to hold the establishment candidates accountable to the public for their many distortions and misdeeds.

Q&A: Too Much Money in Presidential Campaigns?

2007-06-28T19:48:37Z

With the presidential election season nearing full blast in New Hampshire, it seems appropriate to test New Hampshire’s long-standing democratic ethos. What are the people thinking? What issues matter to you? How connected do you feel to the people vying for your representation? Once a week, I will sit down with one seacoast resident to discuss an issue of importance.
This week’s issue is money and presidential elections and the spotlight belongs to Kate Johnson, a resident of Hampton.
Mike Lenz: Do you feel that the two major parties represent the interests of the People?
Kate Johnson: No, I don’t think they represent the peoples’ interests at all.
They represent the parties’ interests. The candidates are just trying to win votes, they don’t seem like they care about the people at all.

]]> ML: Would you support a candidate such as Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, who are both pushing for corporate accountability and refuse to accept big business donations?
KJ: I would definitely support that type of candidate, as long as they have the right qualities to be president and if they can somehow win without involving the corporations, then sure.
ML: How engaged have you been with the presidential campaign so far?
KJ: Lately, I have started getting more involved. Just the other day a candidate (John Cox) stopped by here where I work. Right now, I am at the stage of wondering if I should go with a candidate like Dennis Kucinich who doesn’t seem like he has much of a shot or go with someone else like Hillary Clinton who has the money and could win.
ML: Does money control our political system?
KJ: It definitely seems like it does. People who don’t have or who haven’t raised money are out of luck. I don’t think that that is right.

Media Inconsistent with Treatment of Potential Third Party Candidacies

2007-06-28T18:33:22Z

While the media has been in a near frenzy with regard to the prospect of Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, entering the commercial fray that is the presidential campaign season, another potential third party regular has been largely overlooked. Ralph Nader, the 2000 nominee of the Green Party and an Independent candidate in 2004, has received very little media coverage in comparison to his wealthy counterpart.

While Bloomberg has received full-fledged profiles by the likes of the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post in which all three publications highlighted his political accomplishments, his contentious relationship with and recent dramatic break with the Republican party and his views on issues such as gun rights, abortion and gay marriage; Nader, the veteran, consumer advocate, has received scant coverage.

]]> Only one major newspaper, The New York Times, has mentioned at all that Nader is seriously considering a run for the presidency. Even at that, the Time’s June 22nd article titled “Nader Weighs Another Run for President” was largely lacking in key information including Nader’s unwavering advocacy on behalf of the public, his prominent role in exposing corporate negligence and his prime motivation for running for the presidency –to facilitate debate about the major parties’ convergence on key economic issues in order to serve the interests of corporate America.

Instead of focusing on Nader’s past accomplishments and his many difficult stances, the Times chose instead to focus on his role as a “spoiler” in the 2000 presidential election and the likely “wrath” he will face from a still-ticked off Democratic Party.

Compare the US media’s coverage of a potential Nader candidacy with that of a Western European perspective. The Guardian, a prominent British newspaper, described Nader as a “Real Choice” in the US Presidential race and described him as a “familiar figure on American television and author of many influential books.”
Additionally, the Guardian explains why Nader is considering another run for the presidency, citing his long-standing criticism of the corporate control of the political system, US imperialism and the Iraq war as well as the mal-distribution of economic wealth in the United States.

Based on the media’s response to both potential candidacies, it appears that Bloomberg, a wealthy and reliable advocate of the business community, would be welcomed with open arms by political elites. Nader, ever the advocate of the people and a voice of reason in an age of corporate greed and unaccountability surely would not be.

About this Blog

2007-06-28T18:12:10Z

Michael W. Lenz is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Masaschusetts @ Amherst and a long-time contributor to Seacoast Newspapera. Heis a self-described populist and this blog reflects his interest in the
intersect between national and local politics.