[Islam-Online- Europe]

Cay Von Rohers of Kawin Bank in Boston has stated that the presidential electoral campaign only marginally affects the stock market.

Matthew Kasmar of Douchette Bank in New York also says that presidential elections do not remarkably affect the stock market.

"There are no basic differences between the economic policies of Bush and Al Gore," said Peter Louchimi, American affairs expert in Gouting University, Germany.

These statements were made in late August 2000 following the Republican and Democrat National Conventions. And nominees are not expected to provide substantial or additional detail in their policies when they meet for televised debates next month.

We will take a look at four aspects of the upcoming elections.

Low Voter Participation . Campaign analysts for the Arab media are searching for an indication that there is a significant difference between the policies being advanced by the two parties.

There is a general view that Al Gore is more critical of corporate America, and is focusing more than Bush on social issues - making him the best candidate for the working and lower classes. Bush, on the other hand, supports restricting government regulation of the private sector; thereby, he is their favored candidate.

We might ask then, are the above statements accurate?

To answer this question, we must first look at several factors: America's party system, the structure of American government and its decision-making process, and the role of lobbying in American politics.

One of the things we might note is the decreasing participation of American voters, particularly in comparison to other western democracies. It is commonly said that the apathy with which many Americans regard the political process is a reflection of their materialistic and luxurious lifestyles. However, a review of history points to the contrary. Typically, those belonging to the upper classes vote more often than members of the lower classes. The despair felt by those living in poverty is actually one of the main factors that impede them from voting - they do not have faith that things will change. Outside of economics, voter participation is related to the political mobilization, or immobilization, of some segments of society, obvious among minorities.

The percentage of the U.S. population that is eligible to vote scarcely reaches 50%. Again illustrating the higher voter participation among upper classes, is the fact that analysts consider only 4% of the population as "real voters" (those who financially support either party in covering election expenses). Within this category, there are the main voters who cover 90% of expenses; they represent less than half a percent of the population.

Employing these criteria, we find no significant difference in the level of support from businessmen and investors to the presidential candidates. Through June 2000, Bush received $138 million and Al Gore received $119 million.

In attempting to determine the degree of satisfaction of America's private sector with candidates' economic policies, we might note that the level of financial support provided in the 2000 elections is double the amount received four years ago.

Common Ground Between Parties. The media and election analysts are not the only ones looking for points of difference between the two parties. Rather, individual voters are also searching - and they too are concluding that differences are minor, except for matters such as how they plan to spend the budget surplus. There are no major differences when we consider the major pillars of economic policy.

The main reason for their common ground is a fact that we may ignore sometimes - despite its obviousness - and that is that both Democrats and Republicans are clearly capitalists. We should not expect to find such major differences between them as we might find between the rightist and leftist parties in European countries - and even they have begun to meet in the middle of the road.

There are also historical factors which have bridged the differences between the parties. While Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Bush are radical capitalists, Clinton is significantly more moderate. His policies are being referred to as the Third Road, better described as reformed capitalism. Al Gore's views are not astray from those of Clinton, and, notably, Bush is leaning towards moderation. Consequently, the gap between parties is closing.

In addition, considering that voter participation is highest amongst the segments in society that have particularly benefited from current economic policies (which have led the American economy to its present superior status), it is not in the best interests of either set of candidates to depart substantially from those policies.

Clinton's Legacy . Given his promises in the 1992 elections regarding tax cuts for the middle class, upgrading schools and reforming social security, Clinton's economic policies as a Democrat have been closer to those of Reagan and Bush, Sr. than we would have expected. This has been repeatedly justified by the large number of Republicans in the Congress, and the fact that his elections coincided with the end of the Cold War amidst the Republicans' preoccupation with expanding the military budget. However, these justifications are not convincing, and it is evident in his move towards globalization that his policies stem more from his own convictions than from external pressures.

Should Al Gore succeed Clinton in power, he is not expected to substantially increase social spending. And Clinton's failure to realize his 8-year-old promises has robbed Gore of the credibility of any future promises. Examining his track record, we find that:

Eight years ago, reforming healthcare was on top of the Democratic agenda. This issue is being ignored in this election - except by Al Gore on occasion. Gore and Bush basically agree regarding the importance of reforming the social security program, but differ in the means by which to do so.
Improving the quality of education available to American children was also a promise made by Clinton. The only noticeable improvement has been the increase in the use of computers and the Internet in American schools, primarily because of the resulting profits for corporate America. The main problems being faced by schools remain unsolved, and the number of children who are home schooled has increased to 1.5 out of 50 million students. Gore has not proposed to do substantially more than his predecessor or his Republican rival. While his plans include allocating part of the budget surplus to improve schools in poorer communities, Bush, on the other hand, wants to allocate increased funds to permit lower-class families to send their children to private schools.

Regarding unemployment, the Democrats have not focused much on this topic in the electoral campaign, feeling that their accomplishments speak for themselves. However, Gore is not expected to follow in Clinton's footsteps. The Republicans have not spoken much about this issue either as they represent the corporate world - the employers - and not the workers. We certainly cannot expect this issue to become prominent after the elections. Looking back, we see that:

During the Reagan era, unemployment first peaked when more than one million jobs were lost due to corporate and government downsizing.
During the Clinton era, this number actually increased to 2.5 million.
While it is agreed that the economy has steadily improved during the Clinton era, it is also true that unemployment has decreased. Therefore, it is not true that working to lower the unemployment rate is to the detriment of the economy.
The economic growth of recent years has dramatically increased the profits of American companies and banks, both domestic and abroad, and secured their position as centers of power that influence political and economic affairs throughout the world.
The book, "The Future of Capitalism," by Lister Throu, has drawn a real picture of unemployment. The author has quoted 1995 unemployment rates of 7.5 million or 5.7%. Legislation during the Clinton administration has greatly increased the chances of finding employment; however, many still face the dilemma of working for minimum wages that barely sustain them, and certainly do not permit them to move out of poverty. When you add these persons and part-time workers, referred to as the underemployed, to the ranks of the unemployed, the number becomes 18 million, or 14%.
Worth mentioning, official U.S. sources announced in early 2000 that economic growth is expected to decline, and unemployment will increase once again.

Losers and Winners. Nor are Bush and the Republicans proposing to substantially address the concerns of the poor. Their approach to fighting poverty and helping the working class, deeply rooted in capitalist principles, is to further exempt companies from taxes so as to double their profits so that they can invest more into creating job opportunities. The Republicans are not, then, expected to initiate or greatly support the passing of legislation that favors the lower classes unless it greatly favors the rich.

The Democrats are not as explicit in verbalizing this perspective, but theirs does not differ significantly. Clinton's second term has not changed things much - except for the private sector. And Gore will continue in the direction of the Third Road.

Thus, those economic and social situations that are not expected to improve are as follows:

Homelessness. The number of homeless is expected to amount to 7 million by 2005 - in the richest country in the world.
Spread of crime and its consequences. About 40% of the homeless have been convicted of crimes, and 1.5 million children have an incarcerated parent.
Poverty has climbed to include 20% of U.S. children and 30% of the total population in the richest country in the world. As poverty continues to spread and worsen, wealth is increasingly magnified in the hands of a limited number of people.
The New York Times newspaper reported that the number of American families whose wealth exceeds $10 million increased to 275,000 in the 90's decade.
It also reported that the children of these families comprise an independent economic sector in and of themselves given their consumption habits. Drug overdoses and deaths are also increasing within these families.
Jean Harvy Pirono, professor of nutrition science at Vermont University, said that digestive disorders and diseases are spreading within these families, in addition to age-specific diseases, such as some types of diabetes. Health problems are expected to emerge amongst this group 20 years down the road, requiring billions to treat them.
The U.S. National Health Institute states that there are 4 million persons in the U.S. who suffer indigestion and obesity by an average of about 100 pounds. Death rates in this group are 10 times the average rate .

The beneficiaries of the policies being advanced by both parties alike are the affluent who finance the elections. They dominate American wealth, and control political and economic decision-making. They are the winners - in this election and those of the past. And the poor continue to be losers.

The American elections have become a decisive event for several countries. America's allies, such as those in western Europe, are searching the campaigns for strategies by which they too can dominate the global market.

In closing, it can be said that, regardless of the positive aspects of the American way of democracy, the reality is that money has more influence over the ballot boxes than the principles for which the Statue of Liberty at the entrance of New York stands