FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA Topic: NORTH AMERICAN AFFAIRS
PHOENIX, Nov. 11 - The Nov. 3 U.S. mid-term elections were a big yawn; much ado about nothing. Well not quite nothing. But close. Only 38% of adult Americans eligible to vote bothered to cast their ballots, according to a New York Times Nov. 5 report. And so, there was only one clear winner in the latest chapter of the American "demo farce" (see my WASHINGTON TIMES column, "Demo Farce and the American Century," Nov. 17, 1996). And her name is Ms. Apathy.
But there were some losers. Newt Gingrich is one of them. Of course, he was a loser even before he became a Speaker. His losing streak started when he threw his lot in with Wall Street multinationals bent on wresting the U.S. Constitution from the American people. Little did the now "Newtered" Gingrich know how fast the Wall Street piranhas can devour Speakers if they don't deliver the goods.
Remember the failed globalists' "fast track" legislation, for example, debated in Congress exactly a year ago? Remember how the globalist Piranha-in-Chief, David Rockefeller, made the unusual move of publicly advocating support for the "fast track" in a letter to the New York Times? (see TiM GW Bulletin 97/11-4, 11/07/97). Remember how Newt got muted by the House after supporting Bill Clinton on "fast track?"
In short, Newt-the-Mute sold his heart and soul to the heartless globalist piranhas, while selling the American people down the river. But when he didn't deliver, he became a meal himself. Just as Clinton's ass became grass when he failed to deliver on the "fast track" (see the photo).
Nor was he the only one. Everywhere one looks these days across the political spectrum, one sees two front runners racing for the same stable owners - the Wall Street "piranhas." Take Bob Dole, for example. Starting with the 1995 Wall Street bailout in Mexico, Dole supported Clinton on just about every foreign policy issue. As is Trent Lott now doing. With "conservatives" like that, who needs the "liberals," like Al Gore?
The post-Cold War political system is, in fact, evolving into a global "demo farce." Today's democracy is a fool's "democracy." It is a fig leaf covering up a naked global plutocracy, with New York's financiers being the plutocrats, and the Washington (and other countries') politicians acting as the bureaucrats who facilitate the transfer of power from the "demos" to the "plutos."
For example, I happened to be in Australia when that country held its elections (Oct. 3), exactly a month before America voted. I remember driving in my car the day after, and listening to some radio talk show host. He lamented the fact that Australia supposedly turned right when everybody else in the world was turning left.
I laughed out loudly even though I was alone in the car. For, nobody turned anywhere. Only the smoke and mirrors turned, as the globalist-controlled ruling parties' turned another trick.
Just consider how both the Liberal (supposedly "conservative" in Australia) and the Labor (ostensibly "liberal" in Australia) parties united in turning on Australia's only grass roots party (One Nation - "nationalist, populist"). And then think about how the Dems and the GOP united in turning on Pat Buchanan in early 1996, for example, after this American populist had beaten the pants off the Republican Party's establishment poster boy (Dole) in some early primaries.
And now, we are all similarly being treated to the globalist gibberish by the establishment media that America is supposedly turning "left" after the Nov. 3 elections. As had also Europe, we are told (e.g., Blair-U.K.; Schroeder-Germany; etc.).
In fact, not much has changed. Not much ever changes in plutocracies. But we'll let the numbers tell the rest of the tale. We'll let the Election '98 statistics help you separate the establishment claptrap from fact. And we'll do it using the establishment media's own data as source (the New York Times, Nov. 9). And we'll do it for the last 18 years (House of Representatives votes 1980-1998) in order to prove the point that not much ever changes; that our Republic has become a "demo farce."
Greater Racial Polarization
The establishment media headlines and stories are telling us that the Republicans supposedly lost. And they point to a Newtered head on the silver platter as proof of it. Looking at the 1998 vote, however, and comparing it to the 18-year averages by race, for both Democratic and Republican parties, we have found that there has been only one discernible shift. In 1998, Republicans GAINED four points among the white American voters (from 43% to 47%).
The blacks, the Hispanics and the Asian-Americans all voted according to their traditional patterns: 89% of the blacks voted for the Dems, as did 63% of the Hispanics, and 56% of Asian-Americans.
But within these racial groups, it is worthy of note that the Dems have lost full eight points of their Hispanic vote (63% of Hispanics who supported the Dems in 1998 compare with the 71% 1980-1998 average). On the other hand, the Republicans have also lost 2% and 3% respectively of the black and Asian-American votes.
Which means that there is a greater political polarization today between the different racial groups in America than ever before. And why should one be surprised with that, given the rampant immigration which our country has experienced in the last three decades?
Greater Ideological Polarization
A trend toward a greater political polarization of our society is also discernible when it comes to ideology. Participants in the New York Times survey, conducted for it by Voter News Service on the election day, declared themselves as either Liberals, Moderates or Conservatives. Naturally, the greatest number (50%) were the Moderates. Some 19% of the electorate thought of themselves as Liberals, while 31% saw themselves as Conservatives.
About 84% of the Liberals voted for the Dems, up seven points (1) from the 1980-1998 average of 77%. But 13% more Conservatives embraced the Republicans in 1998 - 82%, as compared to only 69% as the 1980-1998 average. As for the Moderates, they shifted moderately (two points) - to the RIGHT! (assuming that the GOP stands to the right of the Dems). Some 45% of the Moderates voted Republican in 1998, versus a 43% 1980-1998 average. Which puts another crimp into the establishment media contention that America has moved to the political left.
Greater Religious Polarization
Election '98 also provided new evidence of a greater religious polarization of our society. Among those who declared themselves as Protestants (55% of the 1998 electorate), 58% voted Republican, up four points from the 54% 1980-1998 average. The shift to the right was even stronger among the white Protestants - GOP was up seven points, from a 1980-1998 average of 59%, to 65% in 1998.
The Catholic voters (27% of the electorate) also shifted to the right in 1998 - by four points Some 47% of Catholics voted Republican in 1998, as compared to an average of 43% in 1980-1998. As we also noted in the 1994 elections, it its curious that a majority of Catholics still support the Democratic Party despite its pro-abortion stance.
On the other hand, the Jewish vote (3% of the electorate), which is already traditionally pro-Dems, swung sharply even further to the left in 1998 -by five points. Some 79% of Jewish-Americans voted for the Dems, as compared to a 1980-1998 average of 74%.
Statistics for other religious groups weren't available.
Greater Economic Polarization
While the overall voting patterns haven't changed much in the last 18 years, Election '98 provided new evidence of a greater economic polarization in some segments of the American society. Traditional political wisdom is that the poor vote for the Dems, and the rich for the GOP. That has generally been true in 1998, too. Only 41% of the voters whose family income was $15,000 per year voted for the GOP. But that's UP from the 37% 1980-1998 average.
On the other hand, 55% of the wealthiest Americans, whose family incomes are $100,000 or more, also supported the Republicans. But that's DOWN 3% from the 1980-1998 average (58%).
And so, go figure! While the poorest Americans are shifting to the right, the richest ones are moving to the left. Have they both lost a sense of direction, or is this yet another proof that there is little difference today between the "left" and the "right?"
And the middle-income Americans? The middle did what the middle has always done - stayed in the middle. There have been no significant shifts in either direction among the Americans earning between $15,000 and $100,000 per year.
All Voter Age Groups Move to the Right
The voter demographics by age also disputed the establishment media theory that the Dems had won, and the GOP has lost. The voters in all four age group categories (18-29, 30-44, 45-59, 60+) moved to the RIGHT! The oldest voters did it the most. Some 55% of the 60+ voters voted Republican, up seven points from a 1980-1998 average of 48%.
The youngest voters, those in the 18-29 age group category, also shifted toward the GOP - by three points. Some 50% of them voted Republican, as compared to an average of 47% in 1980-1998. The movement to the right in the 30-44 and 45-59 age groups was more moderate - 2% and 1% respectively, to 50% and 48% of the total vote.
But since the "baby boomers "(the 45-59 age group) represent the highest percentage of the electorate (30%), and given that the majority of them (53%) has supported the Dems in the last 18 years, this has tended to temper the overall voter shift to the right. Yet even in this category, we saw a one-point shift to the right in 1998.
Voters of All Sorts of Education Levels Move to the Right
An analysis of Election '98 by voter education led to similar conclusions as that by age groups. All but one category of voters classified by their education levels shifted to the right, with those with high school education the most (by four points, from 45% to 49% for the GOP). College graduates also shifted to the right - by two points, with 55% of them voting Republican in 1998, versus 53% as the 1980-1998 average.
What is the one group which defied the trend? Those with the highest education, holding post-graduate degrees. But Americans with masters and Ph.D. degrees didn't move to the left, either. They simply stayed put, giving 46% of their votes to the Republicans.
Which still means, of course, that the majority of the best educated people in this country (18% of the electorate) are supporters of the Democratic Party. Which is where they can join hands with Americans from the opposite end of the educational spectrum - the voters without the high school diploma (5% of the electorate). Whoever said that there is rhyme and reason in politics?
Polarization by Marital Status
A trend toward a greater polarization of America is also evident when it comes to the voters' marital status. Married Americans have always preferred the GOP, but never more so than in 1998. About 56% of the married voters chose the Republican party, up six points from the 1980-1998 average. That's highest percentage on record in the last 18 years.
Conversely, unmarried Americans swung further to the left. Only 40% of such voters gave the GOP a nod, down two points from a 42% 1980-1998 average.
Putting it all together, one can draw three major conclusions from the above figures. First, the establishment media's own statistics have irrefutably debunked the establishment media myth that Election '98 signaled America's shift to the left. It did not. In fact, just the opposite happened. (To the extent that there is anymore the "left" and the right," of course, which is a debatable point, as we said earlier).
Second, what the figures did reveal, is that wider fissures are developing in our society. We are becoming more divided and polarized across racial, ideological, religious, economic, age group, educational and marital lines.
Third, the voter apathy, however appalling, is perfectly understandable, given the Washington's "demo farce," and the emerging plutocracy which are disenfranchising most Americans. Which means that the 62% of Americans who didn't bother to vote is the deepest and widest fissure of them all. And the most worrisome one...
Also, check out... "What's a Trill Here, a Trill There...?", "Services-based Economy Means Cheaper Labor," "Natives Are Getting Restless," "Toward Nations of Obedient Mutts", "Klinton's Amerika: Israel's Tomahawk", "Two Faces of Globalism", "Canadian Banks Speculating Against Canadian Dollar", "Election '98: Much Ado About Nothing", "A Spoof on Goof: ABC Adds God to Its Editorial Lineup," "Taking a Little Bite Out of the 'Big Apple'", "Greenscam's Meriwether Bailout," "Wall Street's Conquest of America," "Yeltsin-IMF Deal: Feeding Drugs to Drug Addict", "Like Watergate, Cover-up Worse Than Original Crime," "Death Merchants 80; U.S. Taxpayers 19" , "The Great American Divide Widens", "Was Buchanan Robbed in Louisiana, Iowa, Arizona?"
Or Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "When Will Wall Street's Bubble Burst?", "Russia, IMF, and Global House of Cards", "Rekindling NATO to Fuel Cold War...", "The Great American Hoover", "Russia, IMF and Global House of Cards" , "Christianity Under Siege: Toward a One World Religion,"