I SOMETIMES wonder what it is like to be a millionaire.
There are so many things one can do with money; but there comes a time in the life of the rich and famous when all the material needs of life are satisfied, and there are still huge wads of money available for spending. One way of spending that money, if you happen to be a citizen of the United States, is to seek political office as is currently the case with the Republican primaries where money seems to be the deciding factor in the race to the White House.
After losing to Speaker Newt Gingrich in the North Carolina primary, Romney went on to win the Florida primary by a significant margin of victory over his Republican rivals. Most analysts attributed his good showing to the fact of his superior organizational network on the ground, and the amount of money spent on campaign advertisements which exceeded by far that spent by his rivals.
The point I am seeking to make is that when it comes to political office in the United States and other western democracies, it is the power of the purse that is the deciding factor. This is why it is so difficult for new parties, in particular those representing the interests of the working class, to compete in the electoral process.
For decades, power fluctuated between the Democrats and the Republicans, which, by and large, represented the interests of the propertied class. The Republicans, in particular, are much more pro-rich, and policy interventions in the main reflect the interests of rich and powerful.
The race for the White House could cost as much as eleven billion US dollars, according to financial analysts. And this is a conservative sum. It is likely to be much higher when account is taken of the unspecified sums spent by interest groups, in particular the so-called Super PACS.
This is why it is often said that democracy in the United States is not genuine or real, since too many people do not turn out to vote on elections day because they are unsure what benefits could accrue to them by a change of administration. Some are so busy eking out a living that spending time voting in their view could be better spent by making an extra few dollars.
The biggest issue facing the average American worker is that of finding a job that could allow them to feed themselves and their families and put a roof over their heads. In other words, bread and butter issues rank high on their agenda. The change of administration from the George Bush to Barack Obama regime has done little to alleviate the condition of lives of the average American. If anything, conditions of life have deteriorated, as the financial and economic crisis stepped into high gear over the last two years or so. The rate of unemployment has reached record levels, with roughly one out of every ten able-bodied American out of work. At the same time, the gap in living standards has increased sharply, prompting the rise of the ‘Occupy Movement’ which has done a pretty good job at bringing to the attention of the American people the high levels of income disparities which have now characterized the American society.
The “Occupy Movement”, which started out on Wall Street, has now spread to other cities of the USA. Its main slogan, “We the 99%”, is in reference to the 1% who enjoyed a disproportionate share of the aggregate income in the United States. In a 1998 Gallup poll, more than half of the American people found the gap between the rich and the poor a problem that needed to be fixed. A recent research conducted by Pew Research for the People and the press found that Americans were concerned over the unfairness of the taxation system in which wealthy Americans were not paying their fair share of taxes. A more recent poll found that about two-thirds of Americans now believe that there are “strong conflicts” between the rich and the poor in the United States.
According to economists Jared Bernstein and Paul Krugman, the concentration of income is unsustainable and incompatible with real democracy. This view was reinforced by political scientist Jacob Hacker, who, quoting from Greek historian Plutarch, warned that “an imbalance between the rich and the poor is the oldest and most fatal of all Republics”.
And in the words of journalist Robert Frank, “Today’s rich had formed their own virtual country. They built a self-contained world unto themselves, complete with their own health care system, travel network, jets, destination clubs, separate economy…….The rich were not just getting richer; they were becoming financial foreigners, creating their own country within a country, their own society within a society, and their economy within an economy.”
One journalist, George Packer, writing about the issue of inequity put it this way: “Inequality hardens society into a class system. Inequality divides us from one another in schools, in neighbourhoods, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, in what we eat, in the condition of our bodies, in what we think, in our children’s future, in how we die. Inequality makes it harder to imagine the lives of others”.
While there is nothing wrong in the accumulation of wealth, I do believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with any system of remuneration where some people can live ostentatious lifestyles, bordering on waste and extravagance, while others are unable to provide the basic amenities of life for themselves and their children.