Apr 05, 2007
How the U.S.A. Sells Democracy.
The recent media release by Hillary Clinton regarding the funds raised within the first quarter year for the 2008 US Presidential Race has raised a few eyebrows. The Democrat claims to have broken records in raising a mammoth $26 million, 18 million more than what Al Gore could manage the last time around. With Barack Obama hot on her heels within $1m of her fund amount, the obvious question that pops up needs to be answered; why's the money attributed such import for the 2008 election?
It would be truism to state that canvassing operations, advertisement, campaign infrastructure and other components to a candidate's election paraphernalia will cost a bomb.Gone are the days when the Democratic or the Republican party used to support their candidates; now that the ranks are divided among themselves, its every President-to-be for himself/herself. It is estimated that the front-runners to 2008 will raise an almost unbelievable $1 billion cumulatively. This leaves me with an interesting topic to blog. America's democratic process seems so horribly inclined to he/she who can rake up the most; atleast enough to face the heat. One wonders what such a disastrous tendency might have on institutions of democracy.
Firstly, the campaign to the U.S Presidency begins a year in advance. Public opinion in the U.S can be virtually "bought" through a well-organized agenda and enough moolah to publicize the agenda through expensive advertisements, massive publicity campaigns etc. Secondly, the election limits to contribution have been increased progressively; this would mean that those contributors with a fat wallet - Marx called them the bourgeoisie,Social Scientists called them the oppressors, Classical Economists call them the entrepreneurs - get a major say, albeit indirectly, in deciding as to who the President should be. Even Post-Election decisions will be influenced by them. By banking immensely on private entities, the process of 'democratic' election is giving an option to America's elite to make a choice for the entire nation. Not to forget the fact that the head that wears the crown will occupy one of the most influential posts in International Relations.
It would be truism to state that canvassing operations, advertisement, campaign infrastructure and other components to a candidate's election paraphernalia will cost a bomb.Gone are the days when the Democratic or the Republican party used to support their candidates; now that the ranks are divided among themselves, its every President-to-be for himself/herself. It is estimated that the front-runners to 2008 will raise an almost unbelievable $1 billion cumulatively. This leaves me with an interesting topic to blog. America's democratic process seems so horribly inclined to he/she who can rake up the most; atleast enough to face the heat. One wonders what such a disastrous tendency might have on institutions of democracy.
Firstly, the campaign to the U.S Presidency begins a year in advance. Public opinion in the U.S can be virtually "bought" through a well-organized agenda and enough moolah to publicize the agenda through expensive advertisements, massive publicity campaigns etc. Secondly, the election limits to contribution have been increased progressively; this would mean that those contributors with a fat wallet - Marx called them the bourgeoisie,Social Scientists called them the oppressors, Classical Economists call them the entrepreneurs - get a major say, albeit indirectly, in deciding as to who the President should be. Even Post-Election decisions will be influenced by them. By banking immensely on private entities, the process of 'democratic' election is giving an option to America's elite to make a choice for the entire nation. Not to forget the fact that the head that wears the crown will occupy one of the most influential posts in International Relations.
23:30 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
The comments are closed.