[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Could Abraham Lincoln Be Elected Today on a Platform of Principle and Equality? Not a Chance. Can you imagine the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln - who beat Stephen Douglas and two third-party candidates - being determined by corporate money spent on television, radio and newspaper ads? The issue of slavery - and possible civil war - were dramatically presented to the nation in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. These occurred in 1858, and - in the absence of television, the radio and the Internet - defined the essential issue of the 1860 presidential race: slavery. Lincoln had, by the time of the presidential race, already created a lofty rhetorical record that helped propel him to the White House. This included his famous "House Divided" speech in which he declared, "a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free." Lincoln later denounced "groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong." With the rise of television a century later, political debates were brought into every home. As the courts allowed more and more money from different sources to be spent on ads, the debates began to take place within the context of the "messaging" (ads) - most of it negative - that had been bought by political contributions. Since the Citizens United decision, the airwaves have been flooded with basically unrestricted third-party ads, many financed by unidentified corporate contributors. The party debates have devolved into "gotcha" moments rather than a serious exchange of opinions on problems facing the US. Lincoln would not have survived such a circus of corporate influence over elections. He would have been derided by the media as too gawky and earnest to be a competitive candidate for the White House. Moreover, he would not have escaped the withering assaults on his character spread across state and national airwaves. Our greatness as a nation and the caliber of our leadership are diminished when literally hundreds of millions of dollars are spent "defining" office seekers on TV. Some studies have shown that most television watchers can't even distinguish between campaign ads and what is on the news. It all blends together to create a candidate's image. We end up voting on political consultant and ad agency caricatures of candidates. When money is legally determined to be equal to speech, without financial limitations, and corporations are determined to be legally people, then the ability of people to control the destiny of a "democracy" is dramatically diminished. A new book (which you can get from Truthout), "Corporations are not People," lays out the case for restoring our nation's future to the citizens of the nation, uninfluenced by big money and corporate financial interests in elections. We deserve leadership the likes of which Abraham Lincoln brought to the US. Unfettered corporate and big money campaign influence shouldn't be allowed to reduce our choices to individuals who are for sale to the highest bidders.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|