h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why?

Well because it was the election in the USA. It was fascinating watching all the results They certainly have got them jacked up. As I know absolutely nothing about Anerican politics I wonder if any of our researchers across the pond have any strong view, or in deed any views at all; it would be great if someone could discribe their expedrience......It all seens very adult and diignified - great

I had spent the whole day watching a very difficult debate in our local House of Commons = with the new PM qyuetly escapint it to go and visit the French Prime Minister. The House of Commons and the Lords debates turned oout to be very moving debates.



Go well,

Christiane
AR80

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 8.37 GMT

For me it was quite depressing. The conservatives won for the most part. Folks here voted mostly out of dissatisfaction with the economic situation so they voted for the party that was in power when we went into the "great recession". They also voted based on a lot of anti-Obama propaganda funded by anonymous corporate groups. For example, they often ran campaigns promising to repeal "Obamacare", the health care initiative. While a majority of voters were against health care reform very few were aware of what it actually did. When asked about specific things that were changed by the program, for instance allowing parents to keep their adult children on their insurance policies until age 26, or prohibiting insurers from dropping patients for pre-existing conditions or for reaching maximum coverage amounts most people were in favor of it. Mostly folks voted based on some very ugly campaign advertising so, at least for that, I'm quite happy the election is over.

Basically, I'm of the opinion that we aren't really much of a democracy anymore: the elections are decided more on campaign spending than anything else. Here's a nice little indicator of how skewed things are here:

(California governor candidate) Meg Whitman's personal spending on her campaign: $163 mil. Natl Endowment for the Arts 2010 budget $161.4 mil.

Pretty much what Count Zero said.

Some of the more obvious attempts to buy an election backfired. Meg Whitman did not succeed in her attempt to buy the California governor's office. California voters rejected Texas Oil-backed Prop 23.

But for the most part, big, powerful corporations bought our elections once again.

Now try to get some sleep, Christiane.

Nearly $4 BILLION was spent during this campaign season, a record. Most of that was raised by special interest groups and spent on negative advertising.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-10-28-spending28_ST_N.htm

A lot of that money came from the Koch brothers:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-extensive-funding-climate-denial-industry-unmasked

Dear Count Zero,


Thank you for your reply. I must say that I find the idea of "buying" like the Governor of a state very odd. It seems almost as "corrupt" as when people get promoted in the underdevedloped countries. Has it always been l like that? I must say that I have been watching them since John Kennedy was first elecdted and then was shot in that dreadful crime. They were really a family that had so many tragedies. But today when I watched and actually heard severl people that that lady from Alaska Sarah Palin was quite serious about her wish to be President, I though to myself. Well goodness me, I would have thought that she should have started rather lower down the ladder of ambition.

Thank you again.

Christiane
Ar80

Wed, 3rd Novenber 2010 16.12 GMY

Anyway, I suppose that every country has it's different methods. But I think I would find it diffricult.

Go well,

Christiane
AR80

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 15.02 GMT






dd,

I'm still trying to grapple with the public's hatred for universal health care. Is it standard-issue xenophobia (fear of anything new or foreign)? Is it heightened worry about an overcommitted government spending program that is promising guns and butter? I figure that a part of it is angst on the part of Republicans who see their control of public policy slipping away. But that group is only about a third of the body politic.

The people who are not aligned with either of the two major parties seem to be very unhappy with a government that lets partisan gridlock prevent anything useful from getting done. There is a widespread perception that the financial system collapse caused by the subprime mortgage fiasco was not dealt with in the right way. The bailouts were too big and too sparing of the rascals who continued getting their huge bonuses, and not at all effective in creating jobs for the unemployed. We still have ten percent of our workforce out of work. That is higher than the victory margin in a lot of yesterday's elections.

Unfortunately, the polarization that the Independent vters deplore will only get worse, since moderate Democrats and Republicans had a lot of trouble getting elected.

I'm a bit worried about the next few years. Remember, the U.S. government's bailout of more than 700 billion dollars was a one-time deal. What if more stimulus is needed every year or two? We can't do that again. Obama does not seem to be a gifted economist....

Hi Christiane,

Things went as expected in my part of the country yesterday. We had a huge Republican landslide. Even when my state goes Democratic, my region of the state votes heavily Republican. There are seldom any surprises for us on election night. Most of the local races were unconstested.

The others have given a great overview of the situation in general. Far too many voters base their decisions on misinformation and fear-mongering. It's way beyond frustrating.

We muddle along, though. There have been Republican landslides before, and there will be some again in years to come. Democrats will have their turn again, too.

Is heavy campaign spending good for the economy? Someone reminded me that a candidate for statewide office in California spent $131 million on her campaign. That money provided revenue for TV stations and newspapers, and it gave employment (albeit temporary) to campaign workers. I might add that many newspapers have trouble staying alive these days. Might the spending have been a good thing? Just wondering. And who were the people who gave the money to the candidates? If a candidate has 131 million dollars of his/her own money to spend like that, and spends that money to hire unemployed people for campaign work, and prop up failing newspapers, might this been seen as useful economic stimulus?

Misinformation and fear-mongering, I believe, are the main reasons so many are against the Health Reform Act. Basically I saw a huge propaganda campaign against it. Part of it was fueled, no doubt, by a republican attempt to make it Obama's Waterloo. So many democratic presidents before him tried to reform health care and failed quite notably. Also, I'm sure much of it was fueled by the industries that it targeted, specifically the insurers and the drug companies. They made it a starring issue on Faux News and they also wrangled the other networks in on it by charging them with bias. Fox resorted to the most blatant propaganda by giving credence to the "Death Panel" narrative. The republicans in the legislature made their stand on opposing it at every step even if that meant voting against their very own proposals and then trumpeting their self described triumphs against it on Fox. The democrats, while focusing on just getting it passed could have done a much better job on explaining why it was a good thing to do. Unfortunately many liberals, including myself, thought it was a half measure at best and would have preferred true reform in the form of at least a single payer system. Hopefully what was passed will make a good basis for future reforms similar in a way to how Social Security was built on after the very limited original act which mostly just covered widows and orphans.

Basically the country was exposed to the gritty details of Congress in action which has often been described as similar to watching how sausage is made. During that debate there was a lot of anger and enmity in the public discussion as well as in Congress. It wasn't pretty and left people on both sides of the issue quite disgusted. I'm sure some of that disgust was still present for this election.

As to whether the unprecedented campaign funding was good for the economy, I'd say it wasn't. I'm sure it was very good for some folks, but it generally doesn't leave much to show for it.

Did anyone see that Richard Pryor film, Brewster's Millions? The premise is that Richard Pryor's character has inherited a huge fortune. He looks to inherit $300 million but only if he can waste $30 million in $30 days and have nothing to show for it. He struggles a bit at first because almost everything he buys has some value. He finally realizes that the best way to truly waste his money is in a political campaign. (He runs a campaign for a "none of the above" vote, he won't receive an office.)

I've heard of "Brewster's Millions," but I don't think I've seen it. Sounds like a good premise, though.

Funny film. I recommend it.

Thank you all for your thoughtful and unbiased replies, I have heard of Brewster's Millions, but have not seen the film, I do not often go to the cinema but I think that if I can get this on a DVD it might be a very good and painless exercise to try and understand the democratic way of electioneering in the USA.

|
I am practically certin that I was one of the very few peopole living in this very large block of flats who watched the whole night. !! Politically adicted I think I am and I shall enjoy going back to all those excellent replies to my sleepless night.

Quite honestly as a serious student of Political Philosophy during my University life I think that all your expositions were truly remarkable. They are a wonderful tribute to our founder...

With a great many thanks for the thoughtful, patient and clear expositions of your democratic system.

Sincerely,

Christiane
Also Ran80 (now 82 and a half),

Wed. 3rd November 2010 18 17 GMT

Christiane, Brewster's Millions will probably not provide much illumination regarding politics as they are here in the States, but it is good for a laugh. Most Richard Pryor movies are. (Just avoid Moving and The Toy... truly cringe-worthy.)

Two other cringe-worthy movies were "Stir Crazy" and "See no evil, hear no evil."

I liked Stir Crazy... but then again, I was just 13 when I saw it.

Some movies about American politics which I found enjoyable:

Wag the Dog
Swing Vote (Kevin Costner)
Dave (Kevin Kline, Sigouney Weaver)


HN

I finally got around to watching The Candidate a few years ago. That film still has a good lesson for how politics truly work today. Recently a long standing senator or congressman, who's name escapes me at the moment, decided not to run again mainly because he says that getting campaign funding has become the priority over all else. He said politicians spend the vast majority of there time soliciting and too little time doing the jobs they were elected for.