Change, or more of the same?

If anybody believes that John McCain will not continue the Bush policy of lying, warmongering and making the rich richer, then they certainly have missed the oddest accusation that McCain has leveled against Obama: that Obama should be condemned for wanting to “spread the wealth around.” In keeping with this theme, McCain and Palin have even tried to resurrect the spirit of the “socialist” bogeyman to attack Obama’s economic policies.

But, according to many economists, ninety-six percent of the wealth is held by only four percent of the population. In such a milieu, it seems strange that a presidential candidate would believe his opposition to “spreading the wealth” would somehow appeal to the masses.

It would be even more ironic if this strategy actually worked. But it would not be surprising. American history has shown that with the right blend of prejudice, fear and uncertainty, Americans have frequently “cut off their noses to spite their faces.”

Of course, McCain attempted to rationalize his remark by contending that the creation of “new wealth” is more economically beneficial than redistributing wealth already created.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

But where will the overwhelming majority of this “newly created wealth” go? Right into the hands of the wealthiest four percent, because “trickle down” economics is really “trickle across” economics.

Of course “trickle down” theorists will say “Not so!” They will argue that when the rich acquire more wealth, they will be more inclined to invest that wealth, which in turn will lead to the creation of more jobs.

What these theorists neglect to mention is where this wealth will be invested, and where these jobs will be created. How much of it will be deposited in overseas bank accounts exempt from American tax laws, how much will go into building and maintaining factories in third-world countries where workers labor for pennies in dangerous and environmentally hazardous conditions; how much will go into the paychecks of foreign workers whose jobs were created because American jobs were “outsourced.”

In several previous Pravda.Ru articles I endorsed the axiom that evil is the principal motivating force in the world. But I also stated that the benefits one reaps from doing evil are constrained by one’s own mortality—hence the old adage, “You can’t take it with you.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

I also expressed the belief that evildoers will ultimately have to pay for their deeds, while the good, who often spend their entire lives toiling in obscurity and poverty, will eventually receive their reward. This is the foundation for most of the world’s religions, and a just and balanced universe demands nothing less.

But I must admit that at times I’ve begun to wonder whether these contentions are little more than rationalizations or naïve optimism on my part, to avoid the thought that there really is no justice, that honesty is for the foolish, and that wealth and power far too often go to those who not only do evil, but who awaken evil in others.

Perhaps the upcoming presidential election will justify or refute my suspicions. America currently has an evil, ignorant president and an evil, warmongering vice-president. A McCain/Palin victory would simply reverse these roles, giving America an evil, warmongering president and an evil, ignorant vice-president.

Can the world stand four more years of that?

Share this article: