POLITICKIN' IN THE FREE WORLD

OK, so you've already been bored senseless by the race for the US Presidency, a contest so finance-driven and fundamentally undemocratic it might be funny if it wasn't so serious. Any observer with the faintest trace of radical savvy is well aware by this stage that the two main candidates are no more than mouthpiece representatives for coalitions of various megabuck special-interest groups - and the stunning lack of personality both would-be Prezzes have displayed over the last ten months or so has often left one with the impression that they are, in fact, the same person.

In the circumstances, it's reasonable to conclude that the event sorely deserves to be boycotted, and increasing numbers of Americans are leaping to the same conclusion: turnout in US Presidential elections has been declining steadily for several decades now, and both parties readily admit that this year's turnout is unlikely to exceed 50%.
In total, the likely figure of eligible non-voters is estimated at 100 million. The more astute/cynical of these have even taken advantage of a perfectly legal online racket whereby you can 'sell' your vote to the highest bidder: over 8,000 citizens have already sold their vote (total bidding price: $90,000) by registering with voteauction.com, a website which boasts the charming slogan 'Bringing Capitalism and Democracy Closer Together'.
Without doubt, then - as the funding figures below might serve to demonstrate - the battle on November 7 is entirely devoid of any genuine democratic legitimacy. The winner will have been chosen by about 25% of the American electorate, from an approved list which by its very nature excludes any contender intent on challenging the status quo. Nevertheless, the thoroughly distasteful nature of the event should not deter us from recognising its importance: even minor policy differences can and will make a significant impact on millions of lives, and though the words stick in the throat, here are a number of reasons why we should breathe a short prayer of mercy if Gore triumphs on polling-day.
Very loosely, White House 2000 could be described as a battle between hard-right, welfare-state-for-the-rich Reaganomics, and federalist-friendly middle-class-yuppie neoliberalism. The candidates are both massively funded by a variety of special-interest groups (oil, drug companies, trade unions, the legal profession etc.) - all of whom have hedged their bets by donating heavily to both camps, thus ensuring that corporate concerns will triumph irrespective of who wins. Nevertheless, it's obvious from the figures that most of said fat-cats have a very clear preference for our Republican avenger: as of late August, the Bush campaign had been bankrolled to the tune of $177.6 million, which compares very favourably to Gore's paltry $96.4 million.
Further breakdown reveals:
The financial, insurance and real estate sector is firmly backing Bush (donations $39.7m, to Gore's $17m). This happy little bunch will, for their investment, demand effectively unrestricted free trade, with continued deregulation of domestic financial markets, and do their best to block what they see as the outgoing administration's movement towards a 'new world financial architecture'.
The legal sector, as expected, favours Gore ($11.9mn to $8.1mn) - fearful of Bush's intention to introduce 'tort reform', which would, among other things, curb class action lawsuits against corporations. The benefits that Bush's proposed legislation would entail for, say, the tobacco companies, or gun manufacturers, or toxic waste exporters, are quite 'self-evident'.
The health - or, more accurately, the pharmaceutical lobby - incline towards Bush ($7.7m to $3.4m). They are best-known to the American public for their incessant transmissions on TV warning against 'big government in our medicine cabinet', which they issue under the flag of convenience 'Citizens for Better Medicare'. Bush, naturally, is their main man. (Unlike Gore, whose sinister federalist ways could put caps on the cost of medicine and suchlike.)
The oil and energy brigade, unsurprisingly, have plumped for Bush ($12.7m to $2.3m). The pseudo-liberal, environmentalist wing of the Democratic party (with which Gore is closely associated) certainly wouldn't countenance such recklessness as the unlimited mining of Alaska, which can be considered an eventual certainty under any Bush administration.
The computer industry are marginally in favour of Gore ($5.6 m to Gore, $4.3m to Bush). Hardly surprising, considering Bush's remark in round two of the televised 'debate' regarding teenagers whose "hearts turn dark as a result of being on the internet". It was a misguided remark, and one likely to lose more votes than it wins.
The less high-profile, but nonetheless significant construction lobby comes down firmly on the Republican side ($6.1m to $2.4m). They favour severe curbs (if not absolute reversal) of what they perceive as the draconian environmental-zoning legislation which currently applies. More importantly, George W.'s promises of 'tort reform' would considerably lessen the importance of employee safety.
Agribusiness (no-one any longer bothers to call it 'agriculture') favours Bush massively ($7.8m to $1.5m). Although the farming community have, since FDR's heyday, had a traditional affiliation with the Democrats, the average farmer nowadays is unlikely ever to have touched a pitchfork. Their primary aim is for absolute free trade (cornbelt America's chief concern) - as well as the promotion of GM foods, and rabid opposition to any GM labelling.
The transport lobby (more accurately, car manufacturers) are overwhelmingly in favour of good ol' Bush ($7.1m to $1.9m). The issue can be summarised in two words: big cars. Their main domestic concern is to prevent stricter legislation on emissions control, but keeping fuel prices low is also of paramount importance. The success of this lobby's efforts may usefully be judged by the degree of Middle Eastern intervention applied by the next regime.
The one lobby which unanimously favours Al Gore is the trade unions. Their power has been massively eroded at a steady rate since Joe McCarthy s 50s witch-hunt, and they ve backed the Democrat ($5.8m to $0.2m) in order to prevent further erosion of whatever tenuous rights trade unions still enjoy. The unions drastically limited sphere of influence is illustrated by the dogmatic corporate refusal to negotiate with even prominent, media-friendly unions such as the Screen Actors Guild (see this fortnight s Moviehouse).
But wait for it, here comes the anomaly Hollywood, the Democratic safe haven, is going with the Bush stable ($5.7m to $3.5m). There can only be one explanation the Tipper factor. Gore s wife and political soulmate was the brains behind the infamous P.M.R.C., whose relentless persecution of the music industry led to the introduction of parental guidance lyrics stickers.
It doesn t do to overplay the differences between Messrs. Bore and Gush. The televised debates between the pair were chiefly notable for the astonishing number of issues on which they effusively endorsed one another s policies. As the distinguished film-maker and shit-stirrer Michael Moore has noted:

They agree on Israel.
They agree that responsibility for the recent bloodbath in Palestine lies squarely with Yasser Arafat
They agree that the Yugoslav war was a just cause
They agree on more money for anti-ballistic missiles
They agree it was right not to intervene in Rwanda to stop the genocide
That, however, it was right to invade Grenada
And that it was right to invade Panama
That the Gulf War was a great idea
They agreed to train Nigerian troops
They agreed to train Colombian troops in the drug war
They agreed to support Australia in East Timor
They agree that gays must not be allowed to marry
They agree that hunters and homeowners must be allowed to carry guns, as if America s current domestically-owned gun population of 240 million (excluding illegal ones) is somehow inadequate.
They both agree that the environment should be cleaner for our grandchildren.

At the time of writing, poll leads for either candidate remain largely within the pollsters margin of error. Our personal hunch is that, by virtue of seeming slightly more like an actual human, Bush will sneak the win by a nose-hair. Doom really could be round the corner this outcome would leave the world s most powerful nation safely in the hands of a politician whose first $100 million was provided by a grand total of 739 people.
If, armed with this knowledge, you regard the notion of a ruling elite as paranoid or fanciful, we would refer you to the phrase the real world . Enjoy this great pageant of democracy, while it lasts, and mark down the victor as your enemy and mine.