The President's Necktie

I'm sure you've noticed how poorly the American political system represents its citizens' interests. Bluntly put, our government is broken. But I could never figure out exactly why it didn't work right until I witnessed an election for the student-government's presidency in my first year at a university.

The school wasn't in very good shape. Tuition, increasingly, went to the football team. As many as two-hundred students were assigned to the same class. Most subjects were taught by graduate students. Professors spent the majority of their time working on proprietary studies sponsored by corporations. The city council was thinking about condemning some of our dormitories. And students didn't feel safe crossing the campus at night anymore.

Now, this university's charter provided the student government with the authority to establish and change school policy. So, as you can imagine, most of the students believed they had a lot at stake in that year's student-government election. And, as the campaign heated up, one issue, especially, grabbed everyone's attention.

Would the challenger for the presidency wear a necktie in office?

Sound familiar? It should, because, as the United States begins sliding into an economic depression, and our government's military expenditures and corporate welfare sink it into unprecedented debt, and our expensive, bureaucratic, health-care system pushes more and more of those who have access to it into bankruptcy, and our infrastructure crumbles and is passed off to companies, and corporate globalization taints our food supply and drives employment overseas, the issues that dominate this year's presidential campaign are just as absurd and irrelevant as neckties.

We argue about whether one candidate's Arabic-sounding name means he's, secretly, a Muslim or not, or how another candidate's imprisonment in a POW camp may have either made him an tough-minded maverick or a spiteful imbecile. We marvel at how charming and folksy one of the vice-presidential candidates seems and how outspoken the other one sounds.

Just like the co-eds in that student-government election, we act as though we're voting for a homecoming king and queen instead of electing civic policy-makers. Puzzling, isn't it?

Well, it's only baffling until you realize that the reason political candidates and their constituents spend most of their time talking about neckties, names, and personalities instead of public policy is because American politicians don't forge public policy. People with lots of money do that.

And this was as true at my university as it is in society at large. The school's administration controlled the school's finances, so regardless of what the university's charter said, it set policy for the school. And administrators were much more concerned with what wealthy, sports-loving alumni liked, and what grant-giving corporations wanted to learn, than they were with what meager tuition-paying students needed. The student-government rubber-stamped the administration's policies because they couldn't afford to do anything else.

And, whether we like to talk about it or not, the money American politicians need to mount expensive advertising campaigns for election, and maintain two separate residences, one at the seat of government and one wherever they live, comes, almost exclusively, from corporate lobbyists and campaign contributers. So, if they want to keep getting elected and show up for work, then, yes, they're going to be much more concerned with what makes their corporate sponsors satisfied than with what we tax-paying citizens need.

Don't think so? Think that sounds a just a little too corrupt and conspiratorial? Then take another look at our candidates' quickly- and vaguely-described public policies. How will they handle our economic crisis? They'll both give taxpayer money to reckless, incompetently-run corporations, after they've both already toughened-up bankruptcy laws for debt-ridden citizens. What about all that military spending and warfare? They both think that it just might be necessary to invade another oil-rich country, which doesn't allow Western oil conglomerates to operate in its territory, for Americans' security. How will they deal with a health-care system that's been corrupted by insurance companies and other business interests? They'll both rely on insurance companies and other businesses to do a better job of taking care of us. What about the tainted food and outsourced jobs that have resulted from corporate globalization? They both assure us that further globalization by trans-national corporations will, eventually, be beneficial to all of us.

Well, these policies certainly benefit someone, but it's not citizens. And if these things sound awfully familiar too, then that's because they're the same policies that political candidates always support. In fact, they're the same policies that have caused the problems we're all facing today. They're policies that benefit the business associations and corporate conglomerates whose money candidates depend on to finance election campaigns. Now, if you had to choose between talking about that and talking about whether your opponent seems too young and inexperienced or too old and sickly, then which kind of topic would you choose to emphasize?

I know which kind of topic the incumbent student-government candidate favored. And it wasn't university policy that catered to alumni and big business. Sure, he insisted that football teams and commercial research were, actually, beneficial for students, but, mainly, he wanted us to notice that no one had ever seen his opponent wear a tie. Obviously, if the guy couldn't even commit to wearing a tie, then he couldn't be a serious candidate. After all, how presidential can you be without a necktie?

And, whether or not you wear a necktie, or a lapel pin that looks like a little American flag, how can you represent citizens' interests if you owe your candidacy to your big-business sponsors?