Election Issues 2006: June 2006 Archives

While many in the lower middle class have to be scratching their heads trying to figure out what they gained by voting Republican in the last three elections, it is the middle of the middle class which has been largely upward mobile since Bush took office, who are likely to cost the GOP seats this November. There are two reasons for this. One is urban flight, and the other is their kids.

But first, the lower middle class. Except for the morality voters and GOP loyalist "patriots" of war, the psychology of this year's election for them is all about jobs, wages, and fringe benefits. Republicans have allowed between 5 to 10 million illegal aliens to enter this country under their watch, to under-bid the lower middle class for jobs. Additionally the lower middle class has watched the export of 100's of thousands of good paying jobs overseas since Pres. Bush took office and Republicans took Congress.

Here, I will put aside any discussion of how or why we are in Iraq except in passing. This discussion focuses on the political positions taken on the Iraq war. Viewed from this narrow perspective, there are some obvious implications and consequences for the November 7 elections this year.

The polls are shaping the politics of Iraq. Wars unsupported by the majority of a nation's population, let alone the troops, will not fare well. Viet Nam is a sufficient example. Republicans are quoted these days making the claim that Democrats have no consistent or unified approach to Iraq. Whether they do or not, the point is, if Republicans believe that, then, Republicans may not blame Democrats for the polls showing Americans favor exiting our troops from Iraq in the seeable future. Hence, logically, it is the American people themselves and the media coverage of the Iraq situation that are responsible for the polls showing resistance to the "stay as long as it takes" policy of the Bush administration.

Many Democrats and Republicans argue a democracy cannot lead to tyranny by definition. But, I would counter with the following current facts and reality demonstrating how wrong they are:

Elect means 'to choose'. Hence democratic elections MUST by definition provide voters with a choice. However, the reality is the voters in America have no choice in vastly increasing numbers of so called elections. Case in point: From the Boston Globe on Massachusett's coming elections:

RESULTS are in from the candidate filings with city and town clerks statewide, and the winners are: the incumbents. And the losers are: the voters.

Only 14 of the Senate's 40 seats, and only 58 of the 160 seats in the House, are being contested this year, raising the question of where democracy has gone.

If you think of it, to "elect" means to choose. If there's no choice, how can there be an election? And if there's no true election, where's the democracy?

And where democracy is weak or absent, tyranny, like a wolf and a stray lamb, is not far off and following the scent!