Romney certainly hasn't done much to dispel this perception. In a conference call to the National Federation of Independent Business, the GOP candidate was recorded encouraging business owners to:
"[M]ake it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections."(see link here)
Free elections are only free when we take them seriously and vote. From Wikipedia, we see turnout is low (even in 2008, it was less than 60%). It is easier to capture a country's political system when so many people don't participate. I wonder what turnout will be this year?
This is all very disturbing, but not entirely surprising. On the face of it, employers insinuating that a particular candidate will be better for their employees seems like a valid and potentially useful tactic, but to say the inverse outright is clearly worker intimidation, and undermines our political system. This reminds me of the way that congressional republicans 2008-2010 were so determined to make Obama look bad that they simply prevented anything from being done on the hill. Similarly, employers are in the unique position to actively make things worse for their employees if Obama wins. This sends the message that either you vote for the republicans, and the rest of the country will cooperate, or you vote for democrats and you doom yourself and the country to ineffective politics, and the end of your job. Also, I believe this also shows something about the gulf between employers, who have such comfortable livings, that they could do better by reducing the output of their businesses to make a political point than to deal with egalitarian politics. The thing that perhaps makes me most angry about this situation though, is that there is essentially no legitimate evidence that shows that Romney's "plan" will actually be better for the economy than will Obama's. Employers want Romney to win because he will perpetuate the Bush tax cuts for the super rich, and because they are scared that Obama will move our tax and social policies in a more egalitarian direction which will inherently mean less wealth for millionaires (and especially billionaires).
ReplyDeleteI agree, more or less with all of your statements, Karl. However, I think the phrase "better for the economy" has often been used synonymously with "best for the company" and for this, I do not necessarily agree. I could easily see how a CEO might be forced to eliminate salaries due to a tax increase, and yes it does sound like intimidation when you put the right spin on it, but could actually have some merit. And yes, one could make the argument that increases in government spending increase overall consumer spending, leading to obvious increases in necessary supply, but the taxes felt have a much greater effect, I think. One other note I find interesting is that the article, to me, implies that the voter has the company for whom they work standing over their shoulder watching them vote, when in fact all the article discusses is free speech in the work place. I'm sure workers who are concerned about their job security, but also want to support a politician different than their employers liking surely can keep their political views out of earshot from the boss upstairs. Just my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAnd I mutually agree with you, but as an employee, I would still be concerned that if my boss's favored candidate lost, regardless of how I voted, my company might lay me off. This implicit threat could be enough to make people not only switch who they would vote for, but even make a concerted effort to get their boss's favored candidate elected because they value their job in the short term more than the country's direction in the longer term. This displays the fundamental disconnect between the public's myopic thinking and the government and economy's much longer reaction time.
DeleteAbsolutely, I firmly agree.
DeleteThis is very upsetting. It goes against the constitution and the freedom of rights that each person should have in this country. It is disturbing to know that entire companies are using this method to help their candidate win, some possibly even threatening with losing jobs. The worst part is that people might be inclined to do as they are told for the sake of their job and steady wage since most can't afford to lose that. I hope the turnout for this year is better than the last time; people need to cast their vote for who they want and who they believe will be a better leader.
ReplyDeleteI am most interested to see how turn-out is different this year, as each demographic has aged four years since the previous election. Theoretically, each sub-sector is now composed of entirely new people. The 'college crowd' for instance, is entirely different today than it was four years ago.
ReplyDeleteIn recent reports from swing states, I've heard that there's been a higher turnout of voters from women and student groups (two previously notoriously absent groups). The power of the internet can only grow as more and more people harness the power of social media as well. Hopefully we will see the highest voter turnout, ever...but I doubt it. A lot of people will feel apathy about either candidate, and choose not to vote, because they don't feel compelled about any issue enough to take a stand.
Also pivotal to note, is how Hurricane/'Superstorm' Sandy will affect voter turnout. The groups that stay in, in bad weather are notoriously democrats, with the elderly and young people leading this. If the weather is bad enough, it will undoubtedly keep a certain number of people in.
I agree with Karl, this is not too surprising. In a country where private corporation have such an influence over the government, the corporation can easily influence the voters as well.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, there is the system of secret ballot. So how are they going to know about who did the employee vote for? Or are they going to take action on all employees if one candidate wins?
The article about Romney tells employers to encourage their employees to vote for him is really interesting. I find it interesting because my family is dealing with this exact situation. My father is a COO of a private sector company in Wayne, Michigan. I am constantly hearing from him, and my mother, that "if Romney isn't elected, we're screwed." I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing that Romney is encouraging these people to say this to their employees, because I know my dad is. I think its a strategic way to help his business, but I also feel as though he may be impeding on his employees personal views. Undermining? I don't think its to that extent, because all in all the employees still can choose who they want to vote. I am also biased in this position because if my father looses his job, it directly effects me and the well being of my family. It is unfortunate that because of this, I am limited. But can you blame me? Should I just accept the fact my dad might loose his job?
ReplyDelete