Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Real Winner of the 2012 Elections

The Global Electioneering Industry

by STEVE HORN

The pundit class has offered a slew of postmortems in the attempt to extract meaning in the aftermath of the 2012 elections. Missing from the majority of these analyses altogether: the real winner of the 2012 election. No, not Democratic Party President-elect Barack Obama nor Republican candidate Mitt Romney, but rather what Portland State University Professor of Urban Studies and Planning called the “Global Electioneering” industry in his 2005 book by that namesake.

“Corporate domination, centralization, and professionalization of political space have eliminated almost all but limited symbolic participation of ordinary people” in the electoral politics, Sussman explained in the first chapter of his book.

Political campaigns are seen as a marketing opportunity for public relations and political consulting firms, a major space via which they can achieve profit margins.

“Political marketing is the offspring of product marketing. Candidates (and voters) have become commodities in the production of the election spectacle…In a highly mediated and entertainment-oriented public culture, political marketers have to work assiduously to capture the attention of likely voters,” Sussman explained.

“Commodities” is a good way of putting it. For example, in 2008, the Obama campaign was rewarded with Ad Age‘s “Product of the Year” award.

A Growth Industry and Export Commodity

The American economy is suffering badly, with an unemployment rate of 7.9-percent and many more not included in the official bean count, amounting to a real unemployment rate of 14.7-percent. Global electioneering, on the other hand, is a booming sector, growing hastily in the post-Citizens United era of “dark money.”

“The number of political consultants over the past twenty years has grown rapidly,” wrote Sussman in “Global Electioneering.” “There is a symbiotic, mutually constituting and benefitting aspects of the money-driven election system…[T]here are certain groups such as consultants…that always stand to benefit from money-driven elections.”

Importantly, the “electioneering industry” knows no boundaries and has been exported around the world.

The best example of this – but far from the only one – is Bolivia, as featured in the film “Our Brand Is Crisis.” As the film documents, in the run-up to the 2002 election, Democratic Party consultants James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, Jeremy Rosner and others out of  Greenberg Quinlan Rosner took their product to Bolivia and helped the right-wing candidate Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (“Goni”) defeat the leftist candidate, current President Evo Morales.

Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian explained what happened after “Goni” prevailed in a recent post:

In October 2003, the intensely pro-US president of Bolivia, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, sent his security forces to suppress growing popular protests against the government’s energy and globalization policies. Using high-powered rifles and machine guns, his military forces killed 67 men, women and children, and injured 400 more, almost all of whom were poor and from the nation’s indigenous Aymara communities. Dozens of protesters had been killed by government forces in the prior months when troops were sent to suppress them.

Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” by William Blum also points to a wide array of instances in which the CIA stepped in and inserted “dark money” to influence the result of an election in favor of the more right-wing candidate – often but not always – at the 11th hour.

“Dollarocracy”: Not what Democracy Looks Like

Despite the months theatrical performances, when push comes to shove, as Robert McChesney recently concluded in an essay appearing in the Monthly Review, “this isn’t what democracy looks like.”

“The most striking lesson from contemporary U.S. election campaigns is how vast and growing the distance is between the rhetoric and pronouncements of the politicians and pundits and the actual deepening, immense, and largely ignored problems that afflict the people of the United States,” wrote McChesney.

Paralleling the concept introduced in Sheldon Wolin’s book “Democracy, Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism,” published in 2010, McChesney introduced the concept of “Dollarocracy,” which he defines as “the rule of money rather than the rule of the people.”

Dollarocracy, and not democracy, prevailed on Nov. 6 and once again, it was electioneering elites that came out ahead.

“The carefully cultivated belief that we live in a society governed by the demos (the popular classes) is patently absurd in the face of the reality of Dollarocracy,” concluded McChesney.

It’s not a stretch of the imagination to say that no one understands this better than the profiteering electioneers cashing in on Democracy, Inc.

Steve Horn is a Research Fellow at DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist based out of Madison, Wisconsin.