4 More Wars - Mission Accomplished
Kerry seems to have conceded. Bush is re-elected with a win in the popular vote as well as the electoral college. The maps showing which states went which way are amazingly clearcut. When the US has its next civil war, it will be the edges against the middle.
Given how convincing the win was, it seems unlikely that it was due solely to fraud (unless you regard the entire system as fraudulent...with rigged debates and insane winner-takes-all voting).
But maybe it's not such a bad thing.
The Democrats seemed to believe the way to defeat Bush was to move even further right. They passed over Howard Dean in favour of a centrist like Kerry. Admittedly, this worked for Clinton and Blair, but then they weren't up against the far-right...it was centrists battling centrists. Since the Bush administration has dragged the entire political discourse in the US on moral issues and foreign policy far to the right, the centre is now somewhere around where Margeret Thatcher used to be. Weirdly, the Bush adminstration is the very opposite of conservative on economic issues...boosting corporate welfare, spending their way into a record deficit and imposing trade barriers right, left and centre. Instead of minimising government intrusion into private lives (the way conservatives are supposed to), they have given the government even wider powers over the individual (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Gay Marriage Amendments). Whereas conservatives usually fetishise the US constitution, the declaration of independence and bill of rights - the Bush administration (and John Ashcroft in particular) are busily ignoring the bits that don't suit them.
With an administration restricting personal freedoms, ignoring supposedly incontrovertible laws, breaking away from international accountability, and seemingly bent on occupying countries prior to "installing" friendly democracies (how exactly do you install a democracy?) - they seem to have gone beyond simple right and left and begun moving into fascism. When you add in the fact that dissent is ruthlessly quashed (free speech zones?) and that the whole thing is based on a twisted version of patriotism and nationalism (it's unpatriotic to question our great leader during wartime)...it becomes even more worrying. With the invention of the War On Terror, the neo-cons have hit upon one of the greatest political strategies of all time. The "war" is almost by definition unwinnable. The "terrorists" and their aims are so nebulous (they want to kill us cos they hate freedom), that they can become proxies for anyone that stands in the way of US hegemony. In addition, an attack every few years won't do too much damage...but will keep the populace terrified. A scared populace is willing to give up freedom for security...however illusory both are. Fear of terrorist attacks was one of the key factors in Bush's re-election.
Terrorists much better than communists, because they are unlikely to embarass you by suddenly collapsing (like the USSR) and revealing that you've been lying about their capabilites all along.
So, an administration that is moving towards fascism and can blame every problem on a group that is hated by everyone.
And the Democrats put John Kerry forward? I'm actually impressed he got as close as he did.
This is why the loss mightn't be such a bad thing. There is little that John Kerry could have changed if he attained office. He might have scaled back some of the more egregious excesses of the neo-cons. But the War On Terror would have to continue, as would the war in Iraq. Much of the machinery that Bush created to limit freedoms (the DHS, the Patriot Act) would have remained intact. With an enormous deficit, he couldn't have done much about the pitiful state of the economy, and cutting back on military spending would have gotten him crucified. His stance on moral issues is fairly far to the right, and aside from dismantling some of Bush's Faith-based initiatives (as opposed to reason-based) - he wouldn't have done much else to keep America from the dark ages of religious fundamentalism. He would have been a lame-duck president and by struggling to hold the centre, he would have gifted the next election to rabidly right-wing conservatives - looking for revenge for Bush Jr. and a return to the glory days of terror, patriotism and corporate welfare.
Perhaps the loss will force the Democrats/left-wingers/liberals to radicalise in the same way that their opponents have. Maybe next time they will present a candidate who has clarity of purpose (the way Bush undoubtedly has - destructive as it might be) and easily distinguished views on policy. A genuinely left-wing liberal candidate.
Or perhaps they will push for changes in the horribly broken electoral system, recognising that the cosy two party system is rapidly turning into a terrifying single party system. Championing instant runoff voting would ultimately weaken support for the Democratic party as votes went to Greens and Liberals...but it would allow the extremists on the other side to splinter as well. The moralists and small-government conservatives are unlikely to want to share a platform. The fiscal-conservatives must be extremely uncomfortable with Bush's economic policy.
If the extremists can be bled off, the traditional parties can return to the centre.
Ultimately, Bush winning a 2nd term might be seen as the point where the bipartisan system broke apart in the US.
...Or that might all be wishful thinking and we're condemned to a constant War On Terror and a US President in thrall to the corporate interests that got him there. And an opposition party that is too damaged and dispirited to care anymore.
Ok, rant over.
Given how convincing the win was, it seems unlikely that it was due solely to fraud (unless you regard the entire system as fraudulent...with rigged debates and insane winner-takes-all voting).
But maybe it's not such a bad thing.
The Democrats seemed to believe the way to defeat Bush was to move even further right. They passed over Howard Dean in favour of a centrist like Kerry. Admittedly, this worked for Clinton and Blair, but then they weren't up against the far-right...it was centrists battling centrists. Since the Bush administration has dragged the entire political discourse in the US on moral issues and foreign policy far to the right, the centre is now somewhere around where Margeret Thatcher used to be. Weirdly, the Bush adminstration is the very opposite of conservative on economic issues...boosting corporate welfare, spending their way into a record deficit and imposing trade barriers right, left and centre. Instead of minimising government intrusion into private lives (the way conservatives are supposed to), they have given the government even wider powers over the individual (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Gay Marriage Amendments). Whereas conservatives usually fetishise the US constitution, the declaration of independence and bill of rights - the Bush administration (and John Ashcroft in particular) are busily ignoring the bits that don't suit them.
With an administration restricting personal freedoms, ignoring supposedly incontrovertible laws, breaking away from international accountability, and seemingly bent on occupying countries prior to "installing" friendly democracies (how exactly do you install a democracy?) - they seem to have gone beyond simple right and left and begun moving into fascism. When you add in the fact that dissent is ruthlessly quashed (free speech zones?) and that the whole thing is based on a twisted version of patriotism and nationalism (it's unpatriotic to question our great leader during wartime)...it becomes even more worrying. With the invention of the War On Terror, the neo-cons have hit upon one of the greatest political strategies of all time. The "war" is almost by definition unwinnable. The "terrorists" and their aims are so nebulous (they want to kill us cos they hate freedom), that they can become proxies for anyone that stands in the way of US hegemony. In addition, an attack every few years won't do too much damage...but will keep the populace terrified. A scared populace is willing to give up freedom for security...however illusory both are. Fear of terrorist attacks was one of the key factors in Bush's re-election.
Terrorists much better than communists, because they are unlikely to embarass you by suddenly collapsing (like the USSR) and revealing that you've been lying about their capabilites all along.
So, an administration that is moving towards fascism and can blame every problem on a group that is hated by everyone.
And the Democrats put John Kerry forward? I'm actually impressed he got as close as he did.
This is why the loss mightn't be such a bad thing. There is little that John Kerry could have changed if he attained office. He might have scaled back some of the more egregious excesses of the neo-cons. But the War On Terror would have to continue, as would the war in Iraq. Much of the machinery that Bush created to limit freedoms (the DHS, the Patriot Act) would have remained intact. With an enormous deficit, he couldn't have done much about the pitiful state of the economy, and cutting back on military spending would have gotten him crucified. His stance on moral issues is fairly far to the right, and aside from dismantling some of Bush's Faith-based initiatives (as opposed to reason-based) - he wouldn't have done much else to keep America from the dark ages of religious fundamentalism. He would have been a lame-duck president and by struggling to hold the centre, he would have gifted the next election to rabidly right-wing conservatives - looking for revenge for Bush Jr. and a return to the glory days of terror, patriotism and corporate welfare.
Perhaps the loss will force the Democrats/left-wingers/liberals to radicalise in the same way that their opponents have. Maybe next time they will present a candidate who has clarity of purpose (the way Bush undoubtedly has - destructive as it might be) and easily distinguished views on policy. A genuinely left-wing liberal candidate.
Or perhaps they will push for changes in the horribly broken electoral system, recognising that the cosy two party system is rapidly turning into a terrifying single party system. Championing instant runoff voting would ultimately weaken support for the Democratic party as votes went to Greens and Liberals...but it would allow the extremists on the other side to splinter as well. The moralists and small-government conservatives are unlikely to want to share a platform. The fiscal-conservatives must be extremely uncomfortable with Bush's economic policy.
If the extremists can be bled off, the traditional parties can return to the centre.
Ultimately, Bush winning a 2nd term might be seen as the point where the bipartisan system broke apart in the US.
...Or that might all be wishful thinking and we're condemned to a constant War On Terror and a US President in thrall to the corporate interests that got him there. And an opposition party that is too damaged and dispirited to care anymore.
Ok, rant over.
posted by batgimp | 5:28 p.m.
<< Home