THE ELECTION FARCE IN THE UNITED STATES
THE MANIPULATION OF VOTERS BY INTERNET OPERATORS
-
Candidates turned into spokespeople for a
marketing attempt:
- The convictions expressed by the candidate are
a reflection of big data research into probable preferences and prejudices of
individuals.
- The decisive vote is of the undecided:
Electoral
campaigns have files on tens of millions of potentially independent voters.
Extracted from social networks, from publicly available files and from medical
records, these files offered a profile probably more precise than the one that
the person involved could have made from memory.
The above
is from Henry Kissinger, as will be seen below, but where it is expressed as a
possibility, because these reactionaries present themselves as prophets of the
past, we have given it its true meaning, which is that it is already underway.
- - The main role of the candidates is to raise
funds rather than to develop programs.
We ask: In
the face of the power of the monopolies engendered by financial capital, what
is left of the freedom and privacy of individuals to choose? That is their
freedom, that is their “free elections,” that is the exercise of the “right to
choose and be chosen,” that is their electoral farce, as established by Lenin,
in the quote that we record at the end of this post.
In the
elections of November 4 of this year, the candidates for the presidency and
vice presidency will compete as always for the two political mafias that take
turns in the government of the United States, plus candidates for the House of
Representatives and the Senate, as well as for governors of the federated states.
At all
levels of the elections, as an expression of the increasingly advanced process
of decomposition of Yankee imperialism, in this electoral campaign even more
than in previous ones, the candidates will not position themselves by their
political programs or by “the content of the government's activity,” but as
“spokesmen for a marketing attempt pursued by media whose intrusiveness would
have been considered science fiction just a generation ago.”
What is
happening in the current electoral process in the United States shows what
Henry Kissinger himself had already suggested, World Order, Reflections on the
Character of Nations and the Course of History, 2014, where referring to the
effects of the “computer revolution” he says:
“The
corporations that aggregate and monitor the data exchanged by these individuals
have a power of influence and surveillance that exceeds that of many
contemporary states and even that of more traditional powers.”
That is the
power that the big internet monopolies have, and among others, the so-called
“Magnificent 7” are located there. One of the disastrous effects of which we
have experienced a few days ago, when an error in the update of a program of a
monopolistic security company linked to Microsoft paralyzed airports,
hospitals, different service companies, etc. throughout the world.
The
manipulation of elections is not new in the USA or other imperialist countries,
nor is it new in backward countries or in the Third World. What has changed is
the form and technological means to manipulate citizens as laboratory guinea
pigs.
Market
techniques to manipulate citizens as consumers have been used since the
appearance of capitalism and much more so with imperialism, marketing
techniques to induce consumerism using what was called “rat psychology,”
because they conditioned the responses of consumers. Market or marketing
techniques, which were later transferred to electoral campaigns.
Today, what
is new is that they are based on a greater manipulation of individual preferences
and reactions to the stimuli provoked by the great campaigns of manipulation of
public opinion, which the genocidal Henry Kissinger does not speak of. The
following can be extracted from the quoted part of H. Kissinger:
The main
role of candidates could become fundraising instead of developing programs.
H.
Kissinger says:
To a
certain extent, the computer has solved the problem of acquiring, preserving
and retrieving information. Information can indeed be stored in unlimited
quantities and in a manageable form. (…)
But it also
impoverishes perspective. Since information is so accessible and communication
is instantaneous, it diminishes the focus on its importance, or even on the
definition of what is important (…) the manipulation of information replaces
reflection as the main political tool.
(…)
Information so close at hand stimulates the researcher's mind, but it can
diminish the reader's mind.
(...) our
era is on the verge of a shift in the conception of the nature of truth. Almost
every website contains some kind of personalization function based on a
scanning of internet codes intended to establish the user's background and
preferences. These methods want to encourage users to "consume more
content" and, in doing so, become exposed to more advertising, which is
what ultimately sustains the internet economy. These subtle orientations
fit with a broader tendency to manipulate the traditional understanding of
human choice. Products are ranked and prioritized to offer those that one
"would like" and online news is presented as "the news that may
interest you the most." Two different people who turn to the same search
engine with the same question do not necessarily receive the same answer. The
concept of truth is relatized and individualized: it loses its universal
character. Information is presented as if it were free. In fact, the
recipient pays for it by providing data that will be exploited by people he
does not know, in ways that will then shape the information offered to him.
Whatever
the utility of this approach in the consumer realm, its effect on policymaking
may be transformative. Difficult choices in political decision-making are
always lonely. (…)
The US
election, especially the presidential election, represents another aspect of
this evolution. It has been argued that in 2012, election campaigns had
files on tens of millions of potentially independent voters. Drawn from
social media, public archives, and medical records, these files offered a
profile that was probably more accurate than the individual involved could have
compiled from memory. This allowed campaigners to choose the most
appropriate technology in each case: a personal visit from friends already
affiliated (also found via the Internet), personalized letters (drawn from
social media), or group meetings.
Presidential
campaigns are about to transform into media competitions between internet
operators. What
were once substantive debates over the content of government activity will
be reduced to candidates becoming mouthpieces for a marketing effort pursued
by media whose intrusiveness would have been considered the stuff of science
fiction just a generation ago. The primary role of candidates may become
fundraising rather than program-building. Is the marketing effort intended to
express the candidate’s convictions, or are the convictions expressed by the
candidate a reflection of big data research into individuals’ likely
preferences and biases? Can democracy avoid evolving into a demagogic
outcome based on an emotional appeal to the masses, rather than the
reasoned process envisioned by the Founding Fathers? If the gap between the
qualities required for election and the qualities essential to holding office
becomes too wide, that conceptual knowledge and historical sense that should be
part of foreign policy could be lost, or the cultivation of these qualities
could take up so much of a president's first term as to prevent him from
fulfilling his role in leading America” (World Order, Reflections on the
Character of Nations and the Course of History HENRY KISSINGER, 2014)
NEWS ABOUT
THE REAL TASK OF THE CANDIDATES:
FUNDRAISING
Kamala
Harris smashes fundraising record with stunning $81 million haul over 24 hours
BY STEVE PEOPLES
Updated
10:23 PM MESZ, July 22, 2024
Share
NEW YORK
(AP) — Kamala Harris is smashing fundraising records as the Democratic Party’s
donors — big and small — open their wallets for the vice president in the
immediate aftermath of President Joe Biden’s stunning decision to step aside.
In total,
Harris’ team raised more than $81 million in the 24-hour period since Biden’s
announcement, campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said Monday.
The massive
haul, which includes money raised across the campaign, the Democratic National
Committee and joint fundraising committees, represents the largest 24-hour sum
reported by either side in the 2024 campaign. Harris’ campaign said it was the
largest single-day total in U.S. history.
“The historic
outpouring of support for Vice President Harris represents exactly the kind of
grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections,” Munoz said.
Hours
earlier, Future Forward, the largest super PAC in Democratic politics,
announced it had secured $150 million in commitments over the same period from
donors who were “previously stalled, uncertain or uncommitted,” a senior
adviser said.
Taken
together, the fundraising explosion puts Harris in a dominant position to
secure the Democratic Party’s formal presidential nomination at next month’s
national convention — if not sooner. The donor class’s embrace comes as she locks
up endorsements from the vast majority of Democratic governors and members of
Congress.
Trump had
finally closed the fundraising gap in the election—then came a $100 million
blue tsunami
BYSEAMUS
WEBSTER
July 22,
2024 Fortune
Last month,
Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee seemed to have gained a firm
financial advantage over Democrats after trailing earlier this year. Following
Trump’s felony conviction on May 30 and President Joe Biden’s rocky debate
performance on June 27, money came pouring into his and the R.N.C.’s war chests
while Democrats burned through cash. As of the end of June, the Trump campaign
had nearly $45 million more cash on hand than the Biden campaign did, according
to filings with the Federal Election Committee.
But
following Biden’s announcement on Sunday that he was backing out of the race
and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris, a historic wave of fundraising may
have tipped the scales back in Democrats’ favor.
As of
Monday afternoon, the Democratic fundraising website ActBlue reported it
processed more than $100 million in donations online since the president made
his announcement, according to the site. Harris’ campaign alone announced that
less than 24 hours after launching, it had raised nearly $50 million for the
new candidate. On Sunday night, ActBlue posted on social media that it was the
biggest fundraising day of the 2024 cycle.
UPDATE: As
of 9pm ET, grassroots supporters have raised $46.7 million through ActBlue
following Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign launch. This has been the
biggest fundraising day of the 2024 cycle. Small-dollar donors are fired up and
ready to take on this election 🔥
— ActBlue
(@actblue) July 22, 2024
To be sure,
the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump also likely sparked a surge in
fundraising for the Republicans, although numbers for July won’t be available
until next month.
The flood
of donations following Biden’s endorsement of Harris throws another wrench in
the fundraising landscape of the 2024 election just as Trump was beginning to
gain momentum. The Trump campaign announced it raised over $52 million in the
wake of his guilty verdict in the hush-money trial, breaking a Republican
record for single-day fundraising. In the second quarter of 2024, Trump and the
R.N.C. outraised Biden and the Democrats $331 million to $264 million.
Although
Democrats outraised Trump and the R.N.C. in June, they also spent heavily on
advertising in a month that unraveled their presumed nominee. The Biden
campaign burned through 93% of the cash it raised in June, compared to just 46%
for the Trump campaign. As of the most recent FEC filing, the Trump campaign
had $128 million in available cash, while Biden had just under $96 million.
It isn’t
just the former president’s campaign that’s seen a donation dump in recent
weeks. The R.N.C has gotten a major boost since Trump became the party’s
presumed nominee leading up to last week’s convention. Between the end of May
and the end of June, the committee nearly doubled its cash on hand to $102
million.
All told,
between the Trump campaign, its fundraising affiliates, and the R.N.C.,
Republicans had $281 million available at the end of June, while Biden and the
Democrats had about $237 million.
The big
question now will be whether Harris—or some other candidate the Democrats tap
to be the nominee at next month’s convention—will have access to the $96
million available for Biden.
If Harris
is the nominee, the answer appears to be a fairly straightforward “yes.”
Because she was the president’s running mate, Harris and Biden already share a
campaign committee, meaning she has access to the existing funds if she’s on
the November ticket as either candidate for president or vice president, according
to a note from former FEC Chairman Trevor Potter.
“It’s very
clear,” Dara Lindenbaum, a current FEC commissioner, told the New York Times.
“If Kamala Harris is the Democratic presidential nominee, she gets to use all
the money in the account.”
If Harris
isn’t the nominee, the fate of Biden’s war chest is less clear. The FEC limits
candidate-to-candidate contributions to $2,000 per election, Potter explained
in the note. The Biden—or rather, Harris—campaign could issue a refund to
donors, or potentially transfer the funds to the Democratic party.
Trump, for
his part, suggested on Truth Social following Biden’s announcement that
Republicans should get reimbursed for the money they’ve already spent
campaigning against Biden as the presumed nominee.
(…)
Lenin on the
farce of universal suffrage “in the present state”
In The
State and Revolution, Lenin states:
“At
present, imperialism and the domination of the banks have “developed” into an
extraordinary art these two methods of weighing and making effective the
omnipotence of wealth in democratic republics, whatever they may be. (…)
The
omnipotence of “wealth” is more secure in democratic republics also because it
does not depend on one or another defect of the political mechanism or on the
bad political envelope of capitalism. The democratic republic is the best
possible political envelope for capitalism; and therefore, by seizing (through
the Palchinskis, the Chemovs, the Tseretelis and Co.) this best of all
envelope, capital establishes its power so securely and firmly that it is not
shaken by any change of persons or institutions. 'nor of parties within the bourgeois
democratic republic.
It must
also be noted that Engels also most accurately calls universal suffrage an
instrument of the domination of the bourgeoisie. Universal suffrage, he says,
evidently basing himself on the long experience of German Social-Democracy, is
"the index of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and will never
go any further in the present state."16
The
petty-bourgeois democrats, like our Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and
their blood brothers, all the social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western
Europe, do indeed expect "more" from universal suffrage. They
themselves support and inculcate in the people the false idea that universal
suffrage is, "in the present state," a means capable of really revealing
the will of the majority of the working people and ensuring its fulfillment.”