Political Change

Lois M. Scheel

1993

Published in:

Social Trends Newsletter June 1993, No. 114

The recent presidential election brought people to the polls in droves (if you consider a 57% turnout a successful voter's drive). They were fed up with the way things were going. Clinton and Gore promised change. (So did Ross Perot, but he got straddled on the political fence and couldn't get off.) And change it is. This is the first time a president and vice president have been elected who haven't experienced World War II. This is the first time two men from the ``baby boom'' generation hold the highest positions in the nation. President Clinton patronizes McDonald's, and the White House pet is a cat instead of a dog. No one can argue that this isn't change.

Our new Attorney General made a name for herself right off the bat by supporting the FBI's ``peaceful'' tactics in removing the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, which ended in a fiery hell for those still holed-up in their compound after federal tanks penetrated the building. And President Clinton, quite nobly, took all the responsibility. As usual, the government, the Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hung together, with the help of the news media, even though the facts on this grisly event weren't in yet. But there is change here. The Attorney General is a woman instead of a man.

There is talk about cutting military spending. Will we go into Bosnia with ``surgical strikes'' on another ``peace-keeping'' mission?

Associated Press, April 23, 1993, headlines: Clinton hints at air strikes against Serbs. We've changed from Iraq to former Yugoslavia, although former President George Bush made sure that the new president would inherit his war with Saddam by ordering the cruise missile attacks on Iraq just a few days before Clinton was to take office. So Clinton inherited Bush's war in Iraq. He faced a military policy not of his choosing, one difficult to make decisions on. And he is in a precarious position, considering his anti-Vietnam War stance while in college. He must show his clout on this one. No waffling. Of course, the noticeable change here is in presidents. From Bush to Clinton. Same war over oil.

Now before President Bush left office on a note of grace, he made about the only effective change of his career. After calling his opponents bozos in the debates, he spoke kindly of his successors and urged the people to support their new leaders. The change came when he ordered all white House personnel to quit, walk out right at noon on January 20th. Usually the staff stays on to welcome the newcomers and show them the ropes. Nice guy. Oh well, there is a first time for everything, and we can't accuse Bush of not bringing about change, even if it was at the last minute.

There are changes in our outlook on Russia, too. In 1918, she was our enemy. ``Down with the Bolsheviks!'' But Russia won out and American businessmen, along with other countries that invaded Russia at the time, were foiled in their attempt to get at Russia's resources.

In World War II, we changed our tune, and Russia became our ally, along with France and England, against Japan, Germany and Italy. We secretly hoped that Hitler would beat Russia and then we could go in and beat up the Germans in their weakened condition, and then we could subdue Russia in her weakened condition. (Isn't that the reason we stalled for two years before giving Russia the second front she so desperately needed?) Neither scheme worked. Russia won the war against the Germans; again American businessmen were foiled in their attempt to get at Russia's resources.

Then, after World War II, we did another switch-a-round, and Russia once again became our number one enemy. What would happen to our economy if we couldn't have a cold war against those dirty commies and manufacture arms? So we kept this communist scare thing going until both Russia and the U.S. were up to their eyeballs in debt.

Then we had to find a scapegoat for this terrible debt that was sinking our ship of fortune--and fools. No, not war in Korea or our long, ugly war with Vietnam, or our other little wars here and there. Nor was it the cold war with Russia. Nor uncontrolled government spending. Nor subsidizing the real welfare cheats--big farming (such as tobacco) and the military. Nor the Iran/Contra arms trade scandal. Nor the S&L scandal. Nor leveraged buyouts. Nor uncontrolled government spending. Nor the rape of our environment to accommodate business conglomerates at home and abroad. No, the real reason for our downfall are those social programs that desperate people need because society has passed them by. And then there are those greedy old Social Security geezers who helped bring us to the edge of economic disaster. Never mind that Social Security is an insurance annuity, not a government gratuity. Now we commoners all should be willing to make sacrifices in the name of government over-spending and business exploitation. Ask not what your government and big business can do for you. Keep an eye open for what they can do to you.

Well, we love democracy so much, we want Russia to have it too. President Clinton will go to any lengths--and seemingly any expense--to bring change to Russia. Howard Scott, founder and director-in-chief of Technocracy Inc., once said that if we wanted to ruin Russia, all we had to do was send over 10 astute American businessmen. Once again his predictions are coming true. At last American businessmen have that long awaited foothold in Russia, and events there--they are changing. They resemble the American way more every day: crime, poverty, street people, misery... Three pips and a big hurrah for democracy.

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton promised changes in forest management, health care, gay rights, the economy, the military, child care, foreign relations, jobs, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. The only thing he has been able to change so far is his mind. He inherited a mess. Whatever decision he makes will be the wrong decision for someone, some group, somewhere. If he doesn't shuffle the deck right, he can expect no cooperation from the republicans, who are looking to pad their own security. Politics is not for the people. Politics is for the politicians. And no matter how sincere and intelligent our leaders may be, they fail the people because they can't make a broken-down, outdated system work by using the same methods that are bringing this nation to its knees in the first place. Might as well hitch up your broken-down-car to a mule to get it moving again.

Why keep changing the man? Why not change the system to a viable entity that works for the benefit of all, not just the elite. Only then can we talk about bringing change to the people. Sound impossible? Maybe. But how do we know until we've tried?