Shoot Me Now or Shoot Me Later

In a classically hilarious cartoon, Bugs Bunny gets Daffy Duck twisted in logical knots, arguing whether Elmer Fudd should shoot the duck now, or wait until he gets home—a wretched choice if ever there was one.  Phony debates are a bit like that.  In this election season, Americans are given a “choice”: shoot us now or shoot us later.  There is no other imaginable possibility.  Or is there?  Cutting through the airwaves so replete with empty words and false choices, we present part two of the real debate: socialist, Sydney Solidarity, representing the interests of working people and the 99%, vs. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney of the Democratic and Republican parties, standing up for corporate America and the 1%.

The second presidential debate took place October 16, moderated by Candy Crowley of CNN.  The questions, screened in advance, were posed by audience members.  Below are Solidarity’s responses to each of the debate questions.

A transcript of the actual, more restricted debate between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney can be found here.

Solidarity’s comments in the first presidential debate can be read here.

*   *   *

Question: …[A]s a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can — what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

Sydney Solidarity: Socialists say that a job is a universal right.  No one should ever have to go without a job—a good job, at union wages.  Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney say that they’re for jobs too, but it’s not true.   In fact, they’ve got a big problem.  The so-called free enterprise system, which both men worship, which Mr. Obama called “the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known,” absolutely depends on having millions of unemployed, underemployed and super exploited workers.  Under capitalism, full employment is impossible.  Why?  Because if everyone had a job, the balance of power between workers and employers would be critically altered.  Workers could demand higher pay and the boss would have no choice but to agree.  Workers could go out on strike, and there would be no one to use as strikebreakers. 

In a rational system, if there was anything society required, if there was any public need not being fulfilled, people would be put to work fulfilling it.  And if putting everybody to work full time would result in too much being produced—if full employment at 40 hour per week would produce more than what society needs—then the sensible thing to do would be to reduce the work week with no reduction in pay, dividing the necessary work among everyone.  If you put human needs before profits, it’s easy to have jobs for all.

But if your first loyalty is to profits, as is the case for Democrats and Republicans, then these simple, rational solutions can’t be considered.  Democrats and Republicans are for creating jobs only if it’s profitable to do so.  That’s why their proposals always involve giving money to corporations and the rich.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney point to the current economic downturn to explain why unemployment is so high.  But what they don’t tell you is that regular, periodic crises, such as the one we are currently suffering through, are themselves a direct result of putting profits before human needs.  The way our economy is organized, there’s a recession or depression every five or ten years.  No Democratic or Republican proposal has ever changed that. 

From an early age, we’re taught—and Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney will try to tell you—that these economic downturns just kind of happen, like thunderstorms. But that’s not true either.  These crises occur when the economy produces more than can be sold at a profit. It’s then that businesses cut back, close down, lay off workers, and wait until profit potential improves.  No consideration whatsoever is given to whether there are unmet needs; whether people are hungry, or homeless, or jobless, or poor.  But the most outrageous part of all is that with the current profit-driven system, the system Mr. Obama calls the great “engine of prosperity,” crises and high unemployment occur not when there’s a scarcity of productive capacity or goods that everybody needs, but when there’s too much!

To guarantee jobs for all, we would immediately reduce the work week with no reduction in pay.  Can we afford this?  Absolutely.   While most of us are suffering from the current recession, those at the top are doing quite well.  US Bank, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo have all posted record profits in 2012.  Profits for the Fortune 500 corporations were up 16.4% in 2011.  Jobs for all is possible and practical, but only if we reject the narrow framework of the Democrats and Republicans and instead put people before profits.

Question: President Obama, your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

Solidarity: In a real democracy, the government would be beholden to the working majority and would do whatever it could to improve the lives of working people. But today, the Energy Department and our government as a whole work for the energy industry, Wall St. and other giant corporations because those corporations are rich enough to buy their own politicians and political parties.  To give relief to working people, we need a real sea change.

First, we propose to take some of the billions spent on the Pentagon and on tax breaks for big oil, coal and nuclear, and use the money to build clean, cheap, efficient mass transit, so that people wouldn’t have to be complete slaves to their cars and the energy companies.  At the same time, we would insist that the energy industry open its books and records to public inspection, so that everyone could see exactly how they’re gouging the public and trashing the environment.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney said they support increased drilling for domestic oil and natural gas, claiming that this will bring down consumer prices. In other words, “Drill, baby, drill!”  Where have we heard that before?  Even after the disastrous BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, both parties favor expanded off-shore drilling.  Both candidates favor drilling in the sensitive Alaskan wilderness, as well as fracking for natural gas, which is scarring the landscape and poisoning our water supplies.  Most of these policies have been in force for multiple Democratic and Republican administrations, and though the five largest oil companies made record profits of $137 billion in 2011 and more than $1 trillion from 2001 to 2011, the price at the pump keeps going up, not down. 

Only by investing much more in alternative, clean energy and opening the books of the energy companies can we begin to break their stranglehold, bring lasting relief to working people and consumers, and begin to reverse the damage done to the environment.

Question: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the — these various deductions — the mortgage deduction, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit?  Oh, I remember. The education credits, which are important to me because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important for the middle class?

Solidarity: Our position is that working people should pay no income tax at all since workers’ wages and salaries only partially compensate them for the wealth they produce.  An employer only agrees to pay somebody, say, $20 an hour if every hour of work is worth more than $20 to the employer.  This amounts to a gigantic, hidden tax on working people.  Therefore, only incomes greater than $200,000 should be subject to income tax. 

Education is a fundamental right which should be free and available to all from preschool through university.  We would pay for this and other needed social reforms with the billions currently spent on the military and by taxing Wall St. and corporate profits.

Question: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

Solidarity: Socialists support full, equal rights for women, as well as for African Americans, Latinos, and all racial and ethnic minorities.  We support the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, which states simply, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”  We support equal pay for equal work for all.  And we would go even further.  Free, high-quality childcare centers should be available in every neighborhood to ease the burden on working women and working families in general.  Generous maternity, paternity and family leave must be available to all so that working women and men never have to choose between their loved ones and their job.  We also support the right of all women to control their own bodies, including access to safe, legal abortion for all. 

Question: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?

Solidarity: I think that in many ways, this question gets to the heart of the dilemma that working people have been facing.  As we can all see, the political differences between George Bush, Jr., Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are slighter than they like to pretend.  The Democrats and Republicans are effectively two wings of the same party, and while they differ in style, they are both fiercely loyal to corporate America, Wall St. and the 1%.

Meanwhile, as the two oldest, best funded, and best known contestants in the race, the Democrats and Republicans are adamant about keeping the race to just two runners, stopping at nothing to trip up other would be racers.  Having thus contrived to remove all semblance of true democracy from the process, the Democrats and Republicans smile and tell us, that our only “realistic” choice is to pick our poison and vote for the “least worst” corporate candidate among them. 

Even some spokespersons on the left echo this “responsible” and “pragmatic” view, arguing that now is not the time to break free of the two corporate parties because, they say, the few difference between these particular candidates are decisive; they argue, we must support one bully today in order (somehow?) to be better able to oppose both bullies at some indefinite point in the future.

I disagree.  I think the way to end bullying is not by allying oneself, even temporarily, with one or another bully.  Just say no to bullying!  We need to break free from this abusive relationship.  Working people should never again lift a finger to support corporations, corporate parties or corporate candidates, whose very wealth and power come from our own exploitation.  We need our own party, a labor party, loyal to the 99%.

Question: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.

Solidarity: I agree with the questioner: I don’t think Mr. Obama has done much to earn your vote.  But how could he?  In a game of football, would you expect the quarterback from the other team to go out of his way to help your team?  Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and their parties are playing for the other team.  Could foxes go against their nature and be trusted to look out for the best interests of the chickens?  Not likely. Neither is it in the nature of multinational corporations, nor the parties and candidates they own, to prioritize the needs of working people.  We need our own political party.

Question: President — Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?

Solidarity: Both the Democrats and Republicans say there are two classes of human beings: legal and illegal.  We disagree.  To socialists, no human being is illegal.  With the exception of Native Americans, we are all immigrants.  The attempt to stigmatize Spanish-speaking and other immigrants—to force them underground, into taking the most back-breaking, low paid dangerous jobs, while always under threat of deportation if they complain or protest—hurts all working people and weakens our own fight for justice, better wages and improved working conditions. 

The racist campaign of super exploitation of immigrants seeks to divide us.  The fate of any working person is more closely tied to that of an undocumented worker than it is to any citizen of the 1%.  But Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney will tell you that “illegals” are stealing American jobs.  This myth has been brilliantly debunked by the United Farm Workers’ Take Our Jobs campaign. The campaign invites any US citizen to apply for agricultural jobs traditionally filled by undocumented immigrants.  There have not been many takers so far.  Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central gave it a try, but decided to go back to his old job.  As Malcolm X cautioned, “[I]f you form the habit of taking what someone else says about a thing without checking it out for yourself, you’ll find that other people will have you hating your friends and loving your enemies.” 

Mr. Obama has deported more undocumented workers than any president in history.  Going forward, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney both pledge to outdo each other clamping down on illegal immigrants.  We say: Stop the deportations; full rights for all undocumented workers; full rights to speak and organize for all working people.  No person is illegal. 

Question: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Solidarity: It’s true that the narrative from the White House concerning the recent attack on the US embassy in Libya morphed and changed in the first few weeks after the event.  But the real question is, what are we doing in Libya in the first place?  Sometimes, to see a thing clearly, you have to step back and view it from another angle.

We’re told that US military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria are necessary and just because we’re fighting for democracy and against totalitarian governments which support terrorism.  Terrorism is defined to be anyone who resists imperial power.  Any act of violence committed by our side is, by definition, justifiable and certainly not terrorism.  Applying this standard to the American Revolution and viewed from the perspective of the imperial power of the day, George Washington was a terrorist and the Red Coats were freedom fighters.

U.S. political and military support for various dictators—Mubarak in Egypt; Ben Ali in Tunisia; the corrupt, repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain; Iraq’s Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s; Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi from 2004 – 2009; and even Osama bin Laden in the 1970s and 80s—all demonstrates that, if a consistent thread is to be found woven through US foreign policy in the region, it must be something other than love of freedom, democracy and human rights.

In fact, the true pattern is easy to identify: just follow the money.  Our government’s military and foreign policy in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere is guided by what best serves the interests of corporate America.  In each of these wars, working people from our country are induced to fight working people from another country, for the benefit of the 1%.

We say, bring all the troops home now!  Not one more dollar for Wall St.’s wars.

Question: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

Solidarity: Every mass shooting, like the most recent ones in Colorado and Wisconsin, is an unspeakable tragedy.  Preventing future such tragedies has to be a priority.  On a per capita basis, the US has far more guns than any other country, yet 116 countries have a higher murder rate than we do.  The manufacture of new assault weapons was banned by federal law from 1994 to 2004, when the law expired. It’s not clear whether the temporary ban had any impact on gun violence.  If guns were to be completely outlawed, it is likely they would still be widely available, just as illegal drugs abound today despite the ill advised and oddly named “war on drugs”.

To begin to address violence at the street level, we need to end the culture of violence at the suite level.  We need to end the violence of poverty that is caused by the policies of Wall St. and the 1%. We need to demand jobs, education and healthcare for all.  We need to end the violence to our communities and the environment that comes from putting profits ahead of human needs.  We also need to stop modeling violence with our foreign policy by immediately ending all US wars of aggression and defunding the Pentagon.

Question: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?

Solidarity: All talk of reinforcing our borders notwithstanding, capital flows freely between countries and corporations know no borders.  In order to maximize profits, corporate executives have always tried to pit workers in one region against those of another—whether by threatening to move factories from the unionized north to the less organized south, or by moving production offshore altogether. With the present setup, the marketplace rewards corporations for prioritizing their bottom line over the needs of the people they employ. 

In the long run, the most effective way to prevent the 1% from cutting and running is to give them no place to run—to organize all workers everywhere, and to rearrange our economic priorities to put human needs before profits.  Meanwhile, we should fight companies’ attempts to drive down wages and working conditions through relocation just as we would a lockout or any another type of union busting: by demanding that the corporation open its books, and by organizing the broadest possible solidarity.

It is also worth noting that the public works program we have proposed—to build and repair infrastructure, schools, parks, neighborhood health clinics and mass transit, as well as the hiring of many more teachers—would create jobs that would benefit local communities and could not be outsourced.

Question: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. Each of you: What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?

Solidarity: By far, the biggest misconception is that socialists support totalitarianism while capitalism is somehow synonymous with democracy. The reality is exactly the opposite. 

Socialists support full democratic rights for all and oppose all forms of race, ethnic and sex discrimination. Socialists support self determination for all oppressed nations the world over.  Socialists are for replacing the political and economic rule of the minority 1%, with the democratic, majority rule of working people— the 99%. 

Looking back through history, there are those who committed terrible crimes while calling themselves “socialists” or “communists”.  But just because Stalin and other pretenders labeled themselves a certain way didn’t make it so.  True socialists denounced and fought against Stalinism beginning in the 1920’s, and were hounded and persecuted by the Stalinists for their trouble.  It is that democratic, fighting tradition that I represent.

Supporters of capitalism would like you to forget that Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Pinochet’s Chile, Suharto’s Indonesia, Iran under the Shah and many other blood-soaked regimes were all capitalist countries.

In the US, our political process, far from being democratic, is well known to be open to the highest bidder. We imprison more of our citizens than any other country, and far more minorities than their percentage of the population. Democratic rights and civil liberties are under attack by the most well-known defenders of capitalism.  War after war is waged against foreign populations to spread and defend “free enterprise”, by which is meant the freedom for giant corporations to exploit the resources and workers of other nations without restraint.

The truth about democracy, capitalism and socialism is exactly the opposite of what pundits and politicians like Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney would have you believe.  Again we are reminded of Malcolm X’s caution against being manipulated into “hating your friends and loving your enemies.”