Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The 2nd presidential debate of 2012 – A clash between Three Countercultures?



The 2nd presidential debate of 2012 – A clash between Three Countercultures?

Dear friends,

I was hoping last night that President Obama was going to engage Mitt Romney on two points about which the latter pol continues to brag, regarding his qualifications to replace the incumbent. They are: 1) That Romney has a history in running successful businesses. and 2) That the former governor of Massachusetts has a knack for “reaching across the aisle”, as it were, in getting legislation passed.

To be sure, the idea of running our government as if  it is a business disregards its role as a body that represents the commonweal. After all, at least in this country, many businesses, if not most, are more concerned with collecting profits, than they are with “creating customers”. Hence, there is the, usually, short life of businesses, as either mergers or bankruptcies mark their endings.

On the other hand, governments operate, not on profits, but public funds through taxation and other forms of extortion where budgets are allotted annually to keep its various agencies running.

Therefore, as opposed to a board room, decisions are made, for government, by “elected” politicians who are sponsored by corporations, banks, and other such big businesses.

Nevertheless, talk of businesses, invariably, involves jobs being created for production of goods and services, along with the marketing, distribution, and consumption of same. It is here where the blue collar worker of previous times confronts the knowledge worker of today – called countercultures.

In the US, beginning after World War 2, when US military and economic might roared after dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the blue collar worker acquired both status and a standard of living that was equal to the affluent classes of many other countries. The blue collar worker was a force with whom to be reckoned.

But by the 1980s, the knowledge worker became the more prominent force. From various kinds of teachers to physicians, engineers, and attorneys to professional sales people, the more educated began to dominate the workplace.

Manufacturing jobs were outsourced to “lesser developed” lands, as a larger portion of higher-paid, blue collar labor in the US was no longer needed.

Meanwhile, another sector of knowledge workers through “non-profit” groups arose that were/are largely involved in social services. The concern for “dignity”, instead of profits has become the mantra for this body of people.

My point for saying all of this is: Romney’s insistence upon “creating jobs” as an ends is dishonest! Let’s face it. If jobs were an ends, then why would people ever change them? No. A job is simply a “means” for a person to meet whatever ends – including their needs and desires.

Additionally, Romney’s claim of “reaching across the aisle” cannot be substantiated by his record. As Kimberly Adkins of the Boston Herald shared in an article that was posted just yesterday (10/15/12), “Lawmakers often voiced frustration over a lack of engagement with the governor’s office, a stark change from previous GOP administrations...Lawmakers even at times publicly blasted Romney for taking credit where it wasn’t due — such as on anti-gang violence legislation that Romney touted as his own brainchild in a press release. The bill’s Democratic co-sponsor, former state Rep. Stephen Canessa, among others, told me at the time: ‘We never worked with him.’ ”

The worse part of all of this whole “debate” series/sham lies in the fact that the super-racist mainstream media, both print and electronic, are owned by only a handful of companies who control the opinions that are read and/or heard in our society (which is why the powers-that-be hate the Internet).

I mean, as dishonest and thoughtless as Romney is, if President Obama was European American would Romney receive such generous commentary from the “pundits”? Just sayin’…

G. Djata Bumpus




0 comments: