[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: What Happened in Wisconsin...Won't Stay in Wisconsin Armando Chapelliquen With a few days to separate us from Tuesday’s Wisconsin recall election, I cannot say I am terribly surprised by the outcome of the race. Even more unsurprising though is the media’s coverage of the race. Yes Walker won the rematch against Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett by a comfortable margin. Yes Walker outspent Barrett 7 to 1. Yes Barrett was not necessarily the bold progressive Wisconsinites necessarily wanted. Yes this paints a terrifying picture of how November is going to play out. Wait what? It should be no secret that I personally considered the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall to being the biggest race of the year. However, I am not the only person who feels this way. Before there was an Occupy Wall Street, Wisconsin’s protests quite clearly resurrected American protest politics. Keep in mind that it was under a Democratic president that the systematic shut down of the various Occupy encampments has occurred. Follow that up with the increased police presence at protests since, the NATO protests in Chicago last month provide the most recent memory. But how is this related to Wisconsin? There is an assumption that can be made at this point that seems easily proven upon further examination of the facts. The assumption is a simple one: The outcome of the gubernatorial recall would have long-term effects on the national political arena. Why? Because if a relative nobody like Scott Walker can find a way to grind his axe against major parts of the old progressive movement and survive a recall, it stands to reason that the Walker strategy will be employed in other states (perhaps eventually at the national level). Some have even suggested the victorious governor should consider a presidential run in 2016. So what is the Walker strategy? How is it that this previously unknown governor could survive the wrath of the many Wisconsinites who assembled to stop him? Perhaps the term “Walker strategy” is incorrect. It gives far too much credit to the Wisconsin governor. The strategy is quite simply “One dollar, one vote.” Even the mainstream media could not ignore the absurd amounts of money Walker had in his war chest going into the recall (the LA Times perhaps said it best: Billionaires buy Wisconsin recall election for Scott Walker). So then what is the problem with the Democrats again? Perhaps the issue is not the Democrats, per se. The major headlines for Walker often revolve around the money, true. However, at what point did the American political system just roll over and accept the more-or-less dictatorial role of money in politics (Was it Citizens United)? If you step back for a second from all of the headlines on money winning it for Walker, it seems as if this is just going to be the new status quo. The Democrats lost not because they had bad ideas, but because they didn’t have enough money. Biases to parties aside, should not our elections be decided on the merit of ideas and policy rather than on one’s bank account? If a politician like Walker, who has been under investigation for corruption leading up to his victorious office defense, can win in a historically progressive state like Wisconsin, how does that bode for the United States in this fall’s presidential election? If our political system truly is morally bankrupt (as many would claim it is), are simply going to accept this as a fact of nature or are we going to do something about it? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: farmfriend (#0)
I'd say they lost due to bad ideas.....
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||