Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
If America Declines, Don't Expect Anyone to Talk About It
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Unemployed and on the Verge of Losing Everything: "I Don't Know How I'll Make It"
Rachel Neumann
DrugReporter:
This Is Your Country on Drugs: How the DARE Generation Got High
Ryan Grim
Environment:
Wildfires Are Linked to Global Warming -- But Media Obscure the Relationship
Sam Kornell
Health and Wellness:
Labor Rallies for Health Care, But Keeps it Vague
Jane Slaughter
Immigration:
Meatless Mondays: Do Something Good for the Earth and Your Health
Kathy Freston
Media and Technology:
Will the Tragedy of Michael Jackson's Life Be Inherited By His Kids?
Patricia J. Williams
Movie Mix:
This Time, Pixar Has Gone Too Far
Eileen Jones
Politics:
Breadline USA: Why People Are Going Hungry in the Land of Plenty
Sasha Abramsky
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Are People Obsessed with Their Kids?
Vanessa Richmond
Rights and Liberties:
In Iran, Fears That a Prominent Prisoner Detained In Election Upheaval Could Die in Jail
Katie Mattern
Sex and Relationships:
Why the Left Looks Like a Big Hypocrite in the Sanford Affair
JoAnn Wypijewski
Take Action:
Pressuring Obama to Make the Right Decision on Health Care is AlterNet's Top Campaign of the Week
Byard Duncan
Water:
David v. Goliath: Help Michigan Citizens Protect Their Water from Nestle's Bottling Operations
Leslie Samuelrich
World:
High Noon in Honduras
Laura Carlsen
The following is an excerpt from Kevin Phillips' newly-released book, "Bad Money" (Viking, 2008).
Rarely in U.S. history has a president, especially a two-term president, been so unpopular at a time when the Congress, captured in the midterm elections by the opposition, is held in no greater regard. In such a case, the norm is for the two to fight, with one side gaining the edge. But that has not been true of George W. Bush and the Democratic Congress elected by running against him in 2006.
The two sides have gone after each other in a fashion, but more often they have simply talked past each other to their separate party constituencies, repeating familiar commitments to keep the true believers on each side somewhat more contented than the unimpressed independents -- those who bulk so large in the 60 to 70 percent of voters convinced that the country is on the wrong track. Most office holders on both sides seem to rest easier if everyone stays away from uncomfortable themes, even ones in the headlines, like costly U.S. overreach in the Middle East; the reckless expansion of private debt, as well as the federal budget deficit variety; the new economic (and political) dominance of the financial sector; and the mounting probability that the nation will have to choose between desirable energy supplies and global warming measures. After all, what you can sidestep today might go away tomorrow.
True, the public is not impressed -- "no guts" and "living in a dream world" are frequently heard descriptions of politicians. However, most big party contributors tend to donate based on established relationships and sympathies or on nonideological desire for access, not on philosophical engagement. No parallel to the simultaneous public distaste for a president and his opposition Congress comes to mind, but then modern polling goes back only to the 1930s. Let me stipulate: despite the obvious salience of predicaments like oil, climate, the volatile dollar, run-amok debt and credit, the housing bubble, and imperial overinvolvement in the Middle East, I would be the last to say that any more than 5 to 10 percent of the electorate would favor a 2008 debate over American decline. Average voters do not.
In these matters, history does not merely urge caution; it demands skepticism -- and about both public attention and likely governmental achievement. It is necessary to consider two other symptoms of weak, even failed U.S. politics: the entrenchment in Washington of a staggering array of interest groups, which has engendered a soulless political dynamic of perpetually raising and dispersing campaign funds; and the further, bipartisan trend toward what can only be called a politics of inheritance and dynasty.
Money politics and entrenched interests
The English-speaking peoples, when filling in new lands, had a certain naviete about the power of entrenched interests and how these could be subdued by locating a political capital in a remote federal preserve far from the existing centers of (corrupting) urbanity and wealth. The capitals were thus located in backwaters at a time when geography trumped media (Washington, D.C., Ottawa, and Canberra); but today, those names have become shorthand in their respective electorates for (1) metropolitan areas with strikingly high (and recession-resistant) per capita incomes; and (2) hothouses of seething interest-group concentration where elected representatives, shedding whatever grassroots fealty they may once have possessed, often train to retire after ten or twelve years to triple or even quintuple their salaries by becoming lobbyists.
As an aspiring theorist four decades ago, I developed a belief that the realignments seen in U.S. presidential politics every generation or so had an (idealized) cleaning-up component. The victors, with a mandate of sorts from an annoyed electorate rearranged in new party coalitions, came to the capital city and purged it of the used-up elites of the crowd that had just been voted out. Some of that occurred after Thomas Jefferson's election in 1800, Andrew Jackson's in 1828, Abraham Lincoln's in 1860, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's in 1932.
See more stories tagged with: america, decline
Kevin Phillips is the author of many books, most recently, "Bad Money" (Viking, 2008).
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »