Tyree's Tuppence

by Tyree Campbell

Whatifers

They never learn.  They gather power, and abuse it, and gather more power, and abuse that, until finally . . . finally something snaps.  The borders give way, or there are riots and uprisings and food shortages and inflation, or there is a war.  Then others gather power, and abuse it, and gather more power, and abuse that, until finally . . .

That is the seemingly endless cycle of history.  It seems endless, because the same thing happens over and over again. 

[That sounds a bit Marxist, although it's really more related to Hegel.  See, Marx wrote that society is divided into a thesis [those who have] and an antithesis [those who ain't], and that these two divisions are in conflict [which they are].  He wrote that, throughout history, this conflict results in the development of a synthesis [of the haves and the ain'ts], which in turn gives rise to another group in conflict--another antithesis [ain'ts who are excluded from the synthesis].  Marx further defined the conflict as that between the bourgeoisie [haves] and proletariat [ain'ts], and that, if the ain'ts, led by Communists, overthrow the haves, the result--a synthesis--will be a communist society, and will be the end result of the evolution of society.  Marx did not countenance a group in opposition to a communist society--i.e., another synthesis.  Hegel, however, wrote that the process, regardless of the development of a communist society, would continue in its cycles--that there would arise an antithesis in opposition to this communist society--at which point Hegel's road and Marx's diverged.]

[But Marx and Hegel aren't the point here; the cycle is.]

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  So what is it that we do that is so repetitive as to contribute, however unwittingly, to this "endless" cycle? 

Very simply:  we continue to elect Democrats and Republicans to office.

Democrats and Republicans are different?  Their programs oppose one another, and the task of voters is to decide which program they want, and vote accordingly?  Well, so you'd think.  But take a look at the primary issues before us during this national election cycle.

1.  The war in Iraq.

A sizable majority of Americans [67% or more, according to polls] wants the U.S. military out of Iraq.  The reasons vary, and include:  the war was a mistake, or it's costing too much, or it's not in our interests, or it serves only to create more terrorists.  But the bottom line is that you lot [you the people][yes, including me] want us out of Iraq.  Now.

The presumptive Republican candidate for president wants a military presence there virtually indefinitely ["a hundred years," McCain said, though he has now somewhat recanted this time frame].

The presumptive Democratic candidates for president [Obama and Clinton] both want a withdrawal, that's true, but not right away like you the people want.  Both envision a prolonged military presence in Iraq.

So . . . where's the difference? 

It gets worse. 

Both McCain and Clinton voted for the war in Iraq.  Obama has sought to separate himself from Clinton [and McCain] by claiming his opposition to the war in Iraq from the very beginning--and indeed the evidence does suggest that he did initially oppose the war.  However, after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he has voted in favor of every bill that supports the war in Iraq, from overall funding to supplemental funding to the surge.  As have Clinton and of course McCain.

Where's the difference?

Which of these three has consistently represented the viewpoint of this sizable majority of Americans?

2.  The North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA].

A sizeable majority of Americans believes that NAFTA has been either a bad thing or a very bad thing for the U.S.  In point of actual fact, some of the problems have arisen as the result of the failure to develop retraining programs for those who have lost jobs either to other countries or to the increased use of technology in manufacturing, but the overall appearance--to those of us down on the ground, as it were, and not inside a safe corporate office--is that NAFTA has harmed the U.S.

How did NAFTA come about?  Well, the treaty was negotiated in its final form during the Republican administration of George I, and signed into law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat--a joint effort by both political parties. 

Polls from this time frame [roughly 1990 to 1994] suggest that approximately 50% of the population opposed or had grave doubts about NAFTA.

So . . . which party represented your interests?  Which party listened to you?

One of the pro-NAFTA arguments currently in circulation is that . . .

Sorry.  Yes, this is in fact a science fiction/fantasy/horror editorial.  This will be made clear presently.  Please, continue reading.

. . . is that components are manufactured in other countries, but assembled in the U.S., thus creating [assembly] jobs.  But finding a TV set or toaster or frying pan or computer that was "made in the U.S." is rarer than winning the lottery.  Mostly, these items are made in China.  A simple check of labels will verify this; you don't need me telling it to you. 

Of the three presumptive candidates for president, all say only that they will work to institute changes in NAFTA so that trade is conducted more fairly with regard to the U.S.  None of the three has anything specific in mind--a sure sign that, once elected, they will devote little if any attention to the issue.  That's not me talking.  That's history.

3.  Universal Health Care.

This issue is a bit different.  For one thing, it was developed and framed by Hillary Clinton specifically for insertion into her campaign.  To be fair, it stemmed from something she attempted to do during her husband's administration.  Clinton is in favor of it, 100%.  Obama agrees that a massive program is needed, although his coverage proposal is somewhat less than Clinton's.  McCain wants to stick with Medicare and related programs, although it's unclear how he would fund them, given that he wants to reduce taxes.

So with regard to this issue, yes, there are differences. 

Or are there?

The focal point of universal health care is the group of people that have no coverage.  Figures vary, but it's probably fair to say that 40,000,000 people in the U.S. have no health coverage or access to it.  Which means that approximately 260,000,000 people--over 86% of our population--do have health coverage or access to it.  Yet both Clinton and Obama want to include those who have coverage in their programs to cover everyone.  Why?

So, instead of developing a program that will cover those who are at present outside health coverage, Clinton and Obama want to alter the coverage of those who already have it, while McCain wants to retain the coverage of those who already have it, but put the funding for some of it at risk with his tax reduction plan.

Sounds like a lose-lose-lose situation, doesn't it?

It gets worse, at least for Clinton.

It's a simple question, really:  do you want her to handle America's two trillion dollar budget when she couldn't even handle her own campaign budget of about fifty million dollars without having to loan it five million dollars of her own money [because she risked so much money on all those primaries in early February, anticipating a massive victory which didn't pan out].  Yes, she has now managed to raise more money from campaign contributors.  But from whom will she obtain additional funding if the Federal budget has a shortfall or if economic matters fail to proceed as she should have foreseen?

4.  The War on Terror.

Let's summarize.  Iraq is [generously] a bust.  We've put in place a precarious government that is ideologically and philosophically akin to that of Iran, which--along with Saudi Arabia--is the Earth's greatest financial supporter of terrorist organizations.  In other words, our soldiers have died to support a government that represents nothing that Americans believe in.

Afghanistan is a bust.  Prior to our attack, Afghanistan was a country of bits of rubble ruled by warlords.  Now it's a country of smaller bits of rubble ruled by warlords.  The Taliban is gradually regaining control of it.

Osama bin Laden, whom George II swore to get, is now and has been for the past five years safely ensconced in the mountains of northern Pakistan, from where he continues to direct his minions.  Pakistan, our "friend," has absolutely no intention of going to get him, nor will our "friend" allow us to go get him, even if George II were so inclined, which he has now said he is not.

Some war.

The total bill so far for Iraq is two trillion dollars.  George II's stated purpose now is to bring democracy to Iraq.  Once that is done, democracy is to be brought to Iran and Syria, presumably at two trillion dollars a pop.  To pay for this, the United States will . . .

. . . there's no way to pay for it.  But McCain has promised that "there will be more wars" [his very words].  Obama has said he would go into Pakistan if necessary to get bin Laden--and got yelled at by George II for saying so, even though 'twas George II himself who swore to get bin Laden.  Clinton, to be fair, has been short on specifics, other than that she will reconnect with our allies [currently:  Slovenia, Moldavia, and the French Southern & Antarctic Territories] and emphasize diplomacy and negotiations.  Presumably she will deplore further terrorist attacks--I've been deplored before, and I can tell you this:  it is not pleasant.

[What, they don't have sarcasm in your county?]

The war on terrorism is a bust, and we may reasonably expect more of the same, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is president.

5.  Illegal immigration.

As a campaign issue, this one is so murky that it's almost impossible to say what any of the three candidates thinks regarding it.  In fact, as a campaign issue, it pretty much has been swept under the rug.  The reason is simple:  both the Republicans and the Democrats want to assure themselves of a huge block of votes, and don't want to risk alienating any part of it.

McCain has the most public record regarding immigration.  He supported an amnesty program, promulgated by George II, that would have led to the granting of citizenship to some twelve to twenty million illegal immigrants.  Then McCain discovered that a great majority of Americans [something on the order of 70%] did not approve of this amnesty program.  McCain's no fool.  He knew he had to flip-flop, and oppose amnesty, if he wanted to improve his election chances.  So he flipped.  Or flopped.  [Not sure what the actual verb is here].  The question is, will he--if elected--remain flipped?  Or flopped?

Yet illegal immigration is not the primary issue here.  It's border security.  Only one in twenty who cross over from Mexico illegally is caught.  The other nineteen--who might be transporting drugs, who might be Muslim terrorists, who might be farm workers--make it across without impediment.  Polls indicate that a substantial majority of Americans want our borders--and especially our southern border--made secure.  Which candidate has addressed that?

Riiight.

6.  Impeachment.

Polls indicate that a majority of Americans [about 55%] favors the impeachment of George II and Dick I for violations of the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.  A substantial majority [about 68%] favors an investigation that could lead to articles of impeachment being drawn up. 

The Republicans are willing to let bygones be bygones, and thus refuse to speak for the majority of Americans.  The Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table," thus refusing to speak for the majority of Americans.

Instead, Democrats in Congress are pursuing an investigation into the legality of the firing of Federal prosecutors a couple years ago--despite the fact that it is well within the prerogatives of George II [or any other president] to fire any and all Federal prosecutors, whether for ideological reasons or just on a whim.  He has the Constitutional power to do this.  It's stupid, true, but when has that ever stopped George II? 

Instead, both Republicans and Democrats are investigating whether various athletes lied under oath when they denied taking steroids.

Sounds like the Democrats and Republicans are fiddling while Rome burns, doesn't it?

[In fairness to the Emperor Nero, he did not actually play the fiddle while Rome burned.  For one thing, there were no fiddles or violins back then, although there were lyres, and like the Republicans and Democrats of today, he was an accomplished lyre :-D.  Nor did Nero set the fires or order them set.  However, he did stand idly by during the conflagration, because he intended to rebuild the center of Rome more to his liking--which in fact he was doing, up to the time of his murder].

Moving right along . . . here are three questions, one for each candidate.  What do you think their responses would be, if the debate moderator managed to find the courage to ask the questions.

Senator Clinton, throughout your campaign you have touted your 35 years of experience in public life, fighting for causes and so forth.  You have also stated that when you voted to authorize war against Iraq, in 2002, you did not believe that President Bush would abuse the blank check of powers that Congress issued to him.  At the time of this vote, you had 30 years of experience.  Now, at Wellesley you surely studied constitutional law.  You know that the powers of our three branches of government are checked and balanced against one another in order to prevent any one of them from becoming too powerful.  You are also aware that "power corrupts" and that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Can you tell us, please, what in your vast experience made you believe that giving any person in authority a blank check to act as he [or she] sees fit is a good idea?  Oh, and before you answer, please keep in mind that many of us out here who have absolutely zero experience in the ways of Washington and politics know that it's a bad idea to invest any one person with a blank check for power.  So:  your response, please?

Senator McCain, you are on record as supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants--and please do not quibble over the word "amnesty"; your program imposes no penalty for breaking the law; that's an amnesty.  Lately you have gone on record as saying that the "amnesty" program was a bad idea, that you have changed your mind about it.  Your campaign underwent a surge in correspondence to your change of mind, and now, as a result of this flip-flop and other factors, you are the presumptive Republican nominee.  Can you tell us, please, whether--if you should win election--you will change your mind once again to reflect what are perhaps your true beliefs in the matter of amnesty and immigration and not the wishes of the people who voted for you?  Take your time, please.

Senator Obama, you are on record as having opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning.  You made several speeches to this effect during your senatorial campaign in 2002.  Following your election, however, you have voted in favor of each and every bill that supports the war in Iraq, both financially and militarily, and have given George Bush everything he has asked for.  Can you explain, please, how you reconcile your opposition to the war with your very active support for it?  While you're at it, can you explain, please, why you have voted in favor of everything that George Bush has asked for, including confirmation of his nominees or, at best, your abstention from these confirmation votes by your conspicuous absence?

Which leads us to the biggie:  How will voting for and electing any Democrat or Republican, at any governmental level [city, county, state, country] change the direction of this country?

Well, that's the question, innit?  There it is, right there, right in the middle of your living room, big as a hippo.  The Democrats can't move it, and the Republicans can't move it, and it's about to crap all over your rug.  What can you do?

That's where we get to the science fiction bit.  If you're reading this [and clearly you are], then you are likely an aficionado/a of science fiction.  In science fiction--and indeed in all of speculative fiction, including fantasy and horror--the fundamental question is "What if?"  We are, you and I, whatifers, to coin a word.  We speculate on what could be possible. 

So:  what if you lot all voted for third party candidates?

Here's what I suggested in the February 2008 Current Events:

There is a way to bring about change.  Here's the program:

     1.  Register to vote.  Now.  Don't delay another moment.  You cannot [legally] bring about change in government unless you do that. 

     2.  Lie to the media and to the polls--and, by extension, to the politicians [they lie to you, right?].  Tell them you're going to vote for such and such Democrat or Republican.  Keep your fingers crossed behind your back, of course.  But lie to them.  Let them have a nice comfort level, while you plan to shock them out of their Guccis and their perks.  Keep the media and the polltakers [and thus the politicians] complacent, fat, and happy.

     3.  When November comes around, vote for third party candidates in all offices up for election.  That's President, Vice President, Senator, Congressperson, Governor, State Legislature, Dog Catcher--EVERYTHING goes to third party candidates.  Do not, under any circumstances, vote for a Democrat or Republican.  Just don't do it.  Here's what you do instead:  Most ballots in most states will have two or three additional political parties.  Here's what I recommend. 

     a.  If there is a candidate from the Reform Party for a particular office, make him or her your first choice.  Yes, that's the party of Ross Perot.  Why Reform Party?  Well, so far, they have been right on every major and most minor issues facing us--jobs, economy, medical care, war, environment.  That's why.

     b.  If there is no candidate from the Reform Party for a particular office, look for someone from the Libertarian Party.  Why Libertarian?  Because they generally are not fanatic ideologues, but are interested in principles and in the Constitution.  Their allegiance [like that of Reform Party candidates] will be to the country and to you--which is where it belongs.

     c.  Your third option is the Green Party, but only if there is no candidate from the Reform Party or the Libertarian Party.  Why Green?  True, many of them are fanatic ideologues who focus on one genre of activity--the environment--but the fact is that we need some of them.  Global warming may or may not be man-made, but there are many other environmental issues [groundwater pollution, toxic runoff, oil spills, waste dumping . . . ] that have little or nothing to do with global warming.  If I were President, I wouldn't hesitate to appoint someone from the Green Party or the Sierra Club as head of the EPA...and to give the EPA some enforcement teeth that a 40-foot great white shark would envy. 

     d.  If all else fails, vote for an Independent.  But beware:  not all Independents are people you want in authority in this country.  Joe Lieberman comes immediately to mind.

     e.  One last point here:  please check your ballots in advance if possible, and find out who, exactly, is running.  You can do this at the Country Registrar's Office.  If it turns out that for any or all offices there are only Republicans or Democrats to vote for, or a write-in candidate, contact me.  We'll find write-in candidates for that area for you.

     4.  But wait!  There's more!

     It's not enough that you do this.  You have to tell others.  But that's easy!  Most all of you out there have group e-mail addresses that you send information to en masse, as it were.  Right?  Don't you have a group of maybe 50 or 500 people you send things to, like jokes, photographs, links, and suchlike?  Right?  Use these!  Tell everyone you know.  Tell everyone you know to tell everyone they know.  Tell everyone you know to tell everyone they know to tell everyone they know.  And so on.  That's how this can work.  And don't send just one message and be done with it.  Send several messages over the next months.  Send many messages.  E-mails are free, right?  It's only your time . . . and your country.

     Now, you might say that at best maybe only 3, 5, 7 people from third parties will get elected if we do this.  You may be right.  But right now, the two Houses of Congress are fairly evenly divided.  A solid group of, say, 7 votes could swing a bill one way or another--and give enormous leverage to that group of 7.  Enormous leverage.  That leverage can and will be used to pressure Congress to bring about some of the changes we the people want.  At least, it would be a start.

     But I think, if we all get together and do this, we'll get more than 7.  A lot more.  Don't forget, this applies to state and local levels as well.

     So . . . cut and paste this article into an e-mail.  Introduce it with your own thoughts and encouragement, and send it out there into the aether.  Or send people the link to here and let them read it for themselves.

     You want to bring about change in this country?  This is how you do it.  And it will work, if we all pitch in.

     What does all this have to do with science fiction?  Why . . . it's about your future.

And just think of the panic in Washington D.C. and in the state capitals when the Republicans and Democrats discover that they aren't the only game in town.  The expressions on their faces alone is worth the effort we're going to make.

Now to find a digital camera that's made in the U.S. . . .

Past Tuppence:
December 2007
September 2007
June 2007
March 2007
December 2006
September 2006
June 2006
March 2006
December 2005
September 2005
June 2005
March 2005
December 2004
September 2004
June 2004
March 2004
December 2003
September 2003
June 2003
March 2003
December 2002
October 2002
August 2002
June 2002
April 2002
February 2002
December 2001
October 2001
August 2001

Read more from Tyree Campbell in any of the following:

The Dog at the Foot of the Bed
by Tyree Campbell

Wondrouse Web Worlds Vol. 6

The Martian Women
by Tyree Campbell

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 5

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 4

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 3

Sex and the Single Alien
An anthology

Nyx
A novel by Tyree Campbell

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 2