The 2006 Elections: Much Ado About Nothing

By Thomas Naylor

It's hard to imagine the possibility of a kid-term election ever attracting as much national media hype as did the 2006 election. Not only was Mr. Bush's military strategy soundly rejected, but the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned.

So elated by the news that Nancy Pelosi would be the new Speaker of the House, one of my former Duke University colleagues wrote to me that, the morning after the election, she “burst into uncontrollable tears, not realizing how deeply grateful I feel that the American public actually seems to be coming to its senses.”

She then added, “It indicates a real revolution in this country.”

But is this really so?

“The upshot for me,” she continued in her letter, “is a strong feeling of hope and re-connection to my countrymen and women. While I might have been inclined to join your secession movement before the election, I am now absolutely committed to the national process, and long for the day when Barack Obama is president.”

But will the 2006 mid-term elections make any difference whatsoever?
Or were they simply much ado about nothing?

The problem is that the U.S. Congress is still owned, operated and controlled by multinational corporations who care little about the health and well-being of the American people, beyond the average U.S. consumer's indefatigable ability to spend beyond his means. Congress itself, as new Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders continually admits over and over again, is corrupt to the core. We have a single political party – the Republican party – disguised as a two-party system. It makes not one iota of difference which of the two major political parties is in power.

The results are and will continue to be the same.

Take Congressman John P. Murtha, for example, who was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's choice for House Majority Leader. Praised by mainstream liberals for his opposition to the war in Iraq, Murtha is one of the sleaziest members of the House, best known for his cozy and intimate relationship with big defense contractors. (Don't take my word for it – simply google “Abscam”).

And then there is the articulate and charismatic Barack Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and the rising star of the Democratic party. Although not a political ideologue, Obama embraces many of the same positions as former president Bill Clinton. He is pro-military, pro-globalization, pro-tort reform, and pro-corporate. A political pragmatist, Obama decries income inequalities, but hedges on income tax reform and immigration.

The Democrats as a party, meanwhile, are clueless as to how to deal with a whole range of pressing national issues: the moribund social security system, the ballooning federal deficit, the kaput health care system, the staggering trade deficit, the imploding pension system, or the cheap oil endgame.

While some Democrats do appear to be committed to ending the war in Iraq, their strategy for doing so is vague and unclear. Not unlike that of the Republicans, D.C.-based Democratic support for the state of Israel is unconditional and knows no limits. The plight of the Palestinians, meanwhile, is fundamentally irrelevant. As for Iran, the Democrats march in lockstep with the Israeli lobby, which portray Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Great Satan. Nancy Pelosi is no exception to the rule.

Although the Democrats' take on the underlying causes of terrorism is not quite as simplistic as George W. Bush's – “they hate our freedoms” – they have shown little inclination to delve very deeply into “terrorism's” root causes, which include the U.S. government's decades-long support for Israel, U.S. intelligence's sponsoring of so-called “freedom fighters” and “false flag” operations arounf the globe, the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the U.S. military/industrial complex's attempts to establish hegemonic control of Middle East oil. They also have shown no inclination to challenge the tortured conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.

And, like the Republicans, the Democrats have no geopolitical strategy for solving either the global peak oil or climate change problems, beyond “blank checking” the Executive Branch's continued spending of $1 billion a week fighting wars overseas.

In the wake of the much-hyped 2006 elections, then, a few inescapable facts remain. First, our national government has lost its moral authority. Second, our nation is unsustainable and ungovernable, and therefore, unfixable.

The only thing that has changed in Congress is the name of the party in power.

Otherwise, it is business as usual, and last November proved to be much ado about nothing.

Free Vermont.