Until a few weeks ago, I had never cared much for Current TV. More or less, Keith Olbermann was the main draw to the channel, and because I never cared for him all that much, I never cared about the television channel. That changed when they began airing The Young Turks, hosted by Cenk Uygur. I like Uygur’s combination of common-sense politics with his brand of humor. While tuning in a few minutes before his show began one day, I was introduced to Vanguard, an award-winning documentary series on Current TV. I was hooked. The very broad and diverse sociopolitical subjects that Vanguard has analyzed over the course of the series’ five seasons is part of what makes me enjoy the series so much. For every episode about broad topics, like the economy, there are episodes about super-specific issues, such as the depletion of lobsters in Nicaragua.
I recently watched an episode entitled “The Two Americas”, episode 12 in the series’ fifth season. The episode was about the large disparity between the lives of the wealthy and the less well to do in America, featuring a family that is very well off (large house, lavish parties, no monetary problems) and a family that is considerably less so (receiving public assistance, overdue bills, uncertain of future monetary prospects). The episode was what you would expect, but one part stood out to me. While watching television regarding the GOP presidential nominees, Paul says the following:
“What I believe is obvious, ok…It’s obvious that government should be limited. If the government wasn’t helping us with the food stamps, or unemployment, somebody out there would be. Government don’t need to be helping. They don’t need to be helping us. They don’t.”
He was asked this, because, during the GOP debate that he was watching, he was agreeing with Ron Paul, who was saying that Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and other social safety net programs should be ended. The interviewer brought up the seeming self-interest disconnect that exists between what Paul says and/or believes, and the reality of the situation that he finds himself in. This immediately made me think of a memorable line written by Stanley Crouch in a New York Daily News editorial column. On July 18th, Mr. Crouch wrote, “The biggest hustle in this country was the one run in the Confederate South when the plantation owners convinced the majority of Southern Whites the defense of slavery was actually an issue central to their own interests. This is akin to what Murdoch and the infamous Koch brothers have been doing for decades.”
Paul, who was gracious enough to allow the Vanguard crew to document his life, and that of his family during lean times, is adamant that the government should not be providing him with unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs that are allowing him to but food on his table and clothes on his kids during his time of joblessness and economic need. I have met other middle/working class Republicans, and/or Conservatives- some gainfully employed, and others relying on the same programs that Paul was- who have echoed the same sentiments. Mr. Crouch’s statement seems spot on. Southern slaveholders- according to the 1860 United States Census, 6% of the population of what would become Confederate states- convinced the majority of Southerners that defending the institution of slavery was an issue central to their own interests, to the point that those Southern states ceded from the United States, and the Civil War was fought. Only 316,632 individuals owned slaves, out of a total ‘free’ population of 5,582,222, yet those 316,632 slave owners successfully convinced those remaining 5,265,590 non-slave owners that defending the institution of slavery was integral to their own interests, despite them having no “hat in the race”. Likewise, Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, and rich Republican politicians, among others, have convinced the general rank-and-file of the Republican Party- men and women similar to Paul- that things that are not in their best interests are indeed in their best interests. Ending Social Security insurance- despite already or possibly needing it in the future- is something they support. Ending Unemployment insurance (despite already or possibly needing it in the future) is something they support. Restricting food stamp programs (despite already or possibly needing it in the future) is something they support. Ensuring that the rich pay less taxes (which would put more of a burden to pay the country’s bills on the less wealthy) is something they support. People are constantly bombarded with the message, come to believe them, and start supporting them, despite the obvious negative impacts they would have (or could have) on their own personal lives. Case in point, Mississippi. Mississippi is the poorest state in the United States per capita. Its residents are more likely to need to apply for unemployment insurance when jobs disappear. Its residents are more likely to need to apply for food stamps, when food needs to be put on the table, but there is not enough to pay for it. Its residents are more likely to need to rely on Medicare, or Medicaid, because they don’t have medical insurance. Mississippi is one of the reddest states in the country, and overwhelming votes Republican- the party that seeks to end, hamper, or limit all of these social welfare programs.
I’ve been told that Republicans/Conservatives who find themselves in this kind of predicament often overwhelmingly vote Republican because of other issues. Some vote Republican, rather than Democrat, because they view Democrats as weak on foreign policy. Or, they agree with social issues (read, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.) that Republicans also agree with, that Democrats oppose. Or, they view the current administration as fundamentally un-American, trying to transform the country into something that it is not (whatever that means). To me, anyway, relying on a copout like that to justify those beliefs is even more illogical. You’d rather be completely without a safety net like unemployment insurance because you think the government should be more supportive of Israel? You’d rather have your kids go hungry at night because you don’t want gays to marry? You’d rather have your own personal bank account dry up than see the government run up an ever increasing national debt, a debt that is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to our everyday lives? You’d rather stave off a flu with cough drops and chicken soup, and pray it doesn’t develop into something worse because you don’t have medical insurance so that millionaires can pay less proportionate taxes than you do?
This is one of the main reasons I overwhelmingly support Democrats. Are they any less corrupt than their Republican counterparts? Of course not. Democrats are just as in bed with interests that are counter to our- as in we 99%- own as Republicans are. Democrats are simply more willing to throw us a bone. As the anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko put it, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”. Convince people that things that are not in their interests are, and they’ll support anything.
