The Western Herald - Citizens become worthy only as mass consumers

Citizens become worthy only as mass consumers

by Duane Gundrum
September 21, 2004

The other day I was watching the news on television, and the story was about the Iraqi War, and for some reason I started thinking back about the days when we were debating this action that we took to attack another country. I thought about the many debates, the heated speeches in the halls of the Senate, how Republicans and Democrats spent weeks presenting their cases to the American people with intricate case studies and proof, and I felt a wave of nostalgia run over me as I realized I was remembering what I wished would have happened, not what actually happened. I remember at the time listening to a few speeches from those in our government who pretty much told the rest of the American people that this war was going to take place, and then it did. I remember people trying to create an atmosphere of debate, but for the most part, that’s where it ended. Protesters were called “focus groups.” Fast-forward to today, and we’re embedded in a war that really was the result of a one-sided debate.

Now, the logical next step of an article like this, and I’m suspecting you already suspect it, is to then go on the warpath about the evil Mr. Bush, his personal war to get vengeance against the guy that tried to kill his daddy, the evilness of all things government, and then a diatribe about how the only way to save America is to vote for Kerry in 2004, because only a Vietnam veteran who has been there turning his boat and running away from the enemy as fast as possible is capable of truly understanding the enemy. Well, if that’s the case, I guess I should be president because I think my purple hearts were from running away from the enemy as fast as possible, too; it might come as a surprise to find out that a lot of purple hearts are given out to people for being shot in the behind or anywhere on the backside. But wait, that’s another story, and actually not the purpose of this article.

So, what is the purpose of this article? Well, believe it or not, it’s about consumerism.

I don’t exactly know when it happened, but I feel I stopped being an American, and I became a consumer. Now, if you’re the owner of a big corporation, this is probably a good thing; but because most of us reading this article, including you — that guy who always complains about my articles — are not owners of big corporations, this should come off as one of those little bad-news things that we don’t like to talk about. We all like the idea that we’re all important to the big picture, that each of us contributes in a way to make a difference, but I’m going to let you in on a little secret: You’re only as important as what you can purchase through your existence.

Let’s unpack that a bit. I realize you’re probably thinking: “Duane, does this mean I’m useless?” No, grasshopper, it does not. What it does mean is that as soon as you stop consuming the products that our American system produces for you, then you become useless, and America won’t like you anymore.

Economically, it’s pretty easy to make this argument because in a consumer-based economy, we’re the definition of what our economy stands for. People with large corporations make products for us, and we consume them. We, in turn, work for these corporations, or we provide the supplies or logistical support (by being the eye doctors, the strippers, the newspaper reporters and all sorts of other supporters). Now, we don’t like paying big prices for our products, so the corporations show that they have our best interests at heart, and they fire all of our local producers and go to countries where we can have our products produced cheaper. Understandably, the people who lost their jobs will have to find other jobs, or die, to make room for the rest of us, but under our capitalistic happy system, everything works itself out. In the end, as long as we continue to get those cheap prices at Wal-Mart or Meijer, we’re OK. Sure, eventually we’ll run out of places to exploit labor, and we’ll have to start paying our people here again, but that shouldn’t be too much of a problem if any of them are alive when it finally comes around to getting them back to work again. The point is: We’re happy consumers, and as long as those with economic clout are able to make more money and buy the good things in life, why should we care about those who were “displaced” by this very fair system?

Okay, so how does this translate to politics? Well, I’m glad you asked. As Americans, we are part of the ultimate capitalistic system where everything is part of the consumer package. As a consumer, you buy products, and usually buy the cheapest or most attractive product. Unfortunately, our political products are shrink-wrapped and untested, which means that we’re the guinea pigs for most of what we get in the political process. Political parties “sell” us candidates, and we, as good consumers, “buy” which candidate is packaged most attractively. Our consumer reports usually come from the opposite side, so it’s like shopping for Pepsi and being told by Coca-Cola that Pepsi only wants to kill us. That’s a lot like our political system today.

The problem is that we’re so used to this system, we no longer see anything wrong with it. We have two parties that compete for consumers, and they have so cornered the market that we don’t even know how to look for new products. It’s like Microsoft and Apple telling us all is OK as Linux is screaming in the background for attention. But it’s okay because the market takes care of everything.

I wish I had more space to expand on this further, but I’ll just leave you with the thought that during the next big issue to come up before the country, remember that as a citizen you are guaranteed accountability; as a consumer, you are guaranteed that the market corrects itself only when it stops profiting.

Duane Gundrum, the Western Herald opinion editor, is a Ph.D. student from Santa Monica, Calif., studying political science.

Stumble It!