Selling Weapons and Killing Children in “The Drone Wars”

As yesterday afternoon brought the news of yet another crippling blow being dealt to the Al Queda network once spearheaded by the now-deceased Osama bin Laden, it may behoove us to stop and consider the means by which this network is being systematically eliminated.

According to cnn.com, “Monday’s strike represented the third such deadly attack [by CIA drone] in as many days and the 21st suspected U.S. drone strike in Pakistan this year.”[1] Now admittedly, on the surface of things, this would appear to be good news for the American people.  For as has been widely reported, drone strikes have been so effective that internal memos recovered from Bin Laden’s compound suggest that “drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.”[2]

But is that all there is to the story? 

 

Rise of the “Independents,” the “Apathetics,” and the “Openly Disgusted”

Click to enlarge the image

In a recent survey conducted by the Gallop Poll, Americans were asked to identify themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 – with a score of 1 being very liberal and a score of 5 being very conservative.  On average, the respondents rated themselves as a 3.3, which is just to the “right” on the moderate middle ground.  In the same survey, these  respondents evaluated Obama as a 2.3 and Romney as a 3.5, which suggests that most Americans view Romney as being a far better ideological “fit” for themselves.[1]

But this means nothing.

Four years ago, in December of 2007, Gallup surveyed Americans using the same scale and the same questions.  At that time, Americans evaluated themselves as a 3.2,  while giving scores of 2.5 to Obama and 3.4 to McCain.  But as we all know, President Obama beat McCain in the election by 7% of the general vote and by 192 votes in the electoral college.

What this means is that Americans do not choose their President on the basis of a perceived “fit” between their own ideological views and their perceptions of the candidate’s views.  And this, of course, begs the question: on what grounds do Americans decide to vote?

Further complicating the matter is the rise of the “Independents,” “Apathetics,” and the “Openly Disgusted.”  In a recent article by USA Today, Richard Wolf revealed that more than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 election.[2]  While this is somewhat startling to political analysts, more startling are Wolf’s findings in the eight “swing states” that register voters by political party.  In these eight states, Democratic registration is down by 800,000 voters, while Republican registration is down by 350,000 voters.

So where are they going?  According to that article, only 325,000 voters have taken the time to re-register themselves as political “Independents.”  What this means is that almost one million people in these eight states alone have elected to withdraw from the political process altogether.

This leaves us with a host of pressing questions.  If ideological “fit” does not correlate with voting patterns, on what grounds do Americans decide to vote?  Moreover, if more and more people are willfully removing themselves from the process, what will happen to the nation’s ability to effectively govern the masses?  How does the issue of “power” or lack thereof, fit into these trends?  And have we ultimately, as a nation, become ungovernable?

---

[1] http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11164900#page:showThread,11164900

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1

 

Empire in Decline: Drowning out the “Vox Populi”

2012 is going to be an interesting year.  Assuming the Mayans got it wrong and the world does not end on December 21^st, we are looking at year of ever-increasing instability.  As the Arab Spring shows no signs of letting up, as the economy continues to struggle amidst the euro-crisis, and as the national debt continues to soar, we Americans will be charged with the task of deciding who it is that we believe can best guide us through these tumultuous waters?

Unfortunately, as we approach the November elections, we do so as a people newly crippled by what the New York Times calls the “most conservative” Supreme Court in decades.[1]   Back in 2008, a non-profit corporation called Citizens United fought for the right to air a film called Hillary: The Movie within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.  At stake was the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which sought to regulate the financing of political campaigns.  While the lower courts upheld the 2002 BCRA, the Supreme Court took up the case on appeal in January of 2008 and reversed the ruling of the lower courts.

So what does that mean in practical terms?  Well, in short, the case did not alter the ban on corporations and unions donating to either candidate campaigns or political parties.  Those limitations are still in effect.  But what it did do was make it legal for corporations and unions to pump unlimited amounts of money into politically oriented groups that theoretically operate independently of individuals seeking office.

Still not seeing the problem?  Well let’s take Newt Gingrich as an example.  Prior to this ruling, no one could make a contribution to Gingrich’s campaign that was greater than $2500.  And that is still true.  But now, what someone can do is make a $30 million donation to a theoretically independent group that can invest that money into the election cycle in any way that it sees fit.

So what are candidates such as Gingrich, Romney, Obama, etc. doing?  All of them are creating Super-PACs, which can raise and spend as much money as they want.  Technically, these Super-PACs are not allowed to directly coordinate with any particular campaign.  But what happens is that supporters of each candidate create a Super-PAC on behalf of their candidate of choice and use the money solely to support his/her campaign.  Then, as happened last spring in Gingrich’s campaign, an aide will leave the official campaign to take on a leadership role with the affiliated Super-PAC.  Following that, the candidate will legally begin to raise money for his or her Super-PAC, effectively by-passing the limitations on how much an individual, corporation or union can contribute to the candidate.

Can you see where this is going?  In the past, Big Tabaco was prohibited from contributing money directly to an individual candidate.  Sure, there were other ways that pressure was applied, but there were limitations in place that sought to protect the integrity of the election process.  Now, if Big Tabaco wants a favorable ruling to pass, it has all the power of its bankroll at its disposal.  “Hey Newt.  You want a nice $20 million dollar donation going to your Super-PAC?  This is how you’re going to vote.  And if you don’t, we’ll take our $20 million elsewhere …”

In an interview with Time Magazine, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter had this to say:

“We’re suddenly entering a very different world where people with large sums of money, if they choose, are going to be able to spend it easily in ways that may buy elections.”

This is a problem for all American citizens.  But for those of us who profess to believe in Jesus the Christ – for those of us who are charged with defending the poor – this is monumental.  For the voice of the poor, which is already severely muted in our society, is only going to get weaker when money of this magnitude is allowed to be funneled into politics in this manner.  This is why, we, as Christians, should be on the forefront of the fight to restore campaign finance restrictions.  While I understand the issues related to the first amendment and the protection of free speech, we have to ask the question: whose right to speak is being protected here?  The vox populi or the vox opulenta?

---

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1280031003-IhmBOL5/YE4siKRmrdcX8Q