Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Aug 07, 2008, 05:36AM

The Return Of Stupid

The appearance of Paris Hilton in our electoral discourse is an unfortunate sign of returning stupidity in the political process, according to one writer. The reason? Banking on stupid's helped the Republicans mismange the country for so long, and they're too obtuse to change tactics.

Eight years of George W. Bush have shown conclusively that the entire raison d'être of the Republican governing machine was to steer federal money to private industry, enriching the few at the expense of the many. Six tax cuts in as many years left the nation's infrastructure crumbling while corporate profits soared. Two wars accompanied by hundreds of no-bid contracts siphoned billions of dollars out of the treasury and into politically connected companies like Blackwater and Halliburton before draining into the sands of the Middle East. Year in and year out, the Bush administration predicted that tax cuts would stimulate the economy, leading to the end of deficits--and yet the budget bled more and more red ink each year, culminating in a administration-projected deficit of $482 billion by the time the president leaves office.

Now, the same oligarchy that has been the beneficiary of the Bush largess is starting to see the writing on the wall: The good times may be coming to an end. Large Republican-leaning corporations like Wal-Mart are reportedly calling managers and supervisors into meetings featuring dire warnings ab0ut what might happen if a Democratic administration takes over. A Wall Street Journal article states, "The actions by Wal-Mart--the nation's largest private employer--reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership."

Imagine an administration without a toothless Department of Labor corrupted by years of corporate complicity. Imagine an administration that believes government exists to do more than privatize federal assets for corporate gain.

Discussion
  • I agree that the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad was really stupid, completely obscuring the message McCain's marketing team wanted to send, that Obama isn't experienced. McCain is a really lousy campaigner, but he's fortunate that the election's all about Obama. This writer does stretch credulity when he suggests, with only a hint of hyperbole, that 99 percent of the voters--those who haven't had their pockets lined during the Bush tenure--will vote for the Democrat. And he takes that Wall Street Journal article about Obama's weight--and whether overweight Americans will resent his lack of body fat--out of context. If you continue into the article, it says that while Obama would be the most fit president in modern times, this may or may not elicit jealousy, and, if so, only at very slightest margins.

    Responses to this comment
  • What confused me about the Paris Hilton ad was its political ambiguity. I couldn't tell if she was gonna vote for O or Mac in the fall, or at all even. This is a four day story, a week tops; this is the kind of thing that gets everybody riled up for a while and then quickly dies (see the New Yorker Obama cover, Obama presidential seal, the original McCain ad itself, etc.), not something that will carry over into November in the general election. Besides, the ad's ambiguity completely destroys the writer's point. I certainly couldn't tell whether or not Paris Hilton was for McCain, could you?

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment