Election and empire
I feel a little impotent sitting here 5,000 miles away from the US in the run-up to an election that is of major importance for the entire world community.
I have cast my vote. I've done what I can to persuade all my voting friends and relations to do the same.
Now I sit here and wait. And think.
I've dared to dream a little about what might be possible if Kerry's elected.... But I don't want to go too far down that road because (a) it might not happen and (b) he might not be nearly as much different from Bush as we would like.
What needs to happen now, it seems to me, is a total rollback of the concept and practice of the US global empire. An equal voice and equal stake for each of God's children. An end to this whole arrogant nonsense about "manifest destiny."
100,000 Iraqi deaths. Let's inscribe that number on our hearts.
(Update: read Scott Ritter's excellent column, The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all.)
Maybe the sheer criminal folly of the venture in Iraq will be enough to persuade Americans of the craziness of the idea of our country trying to dictate everything to everyone else in the world?
I realize this persuasion campaign is not going to succeed overnight. But if Kerry gets elected, at least we can start the conversation.
If Bush gets "re-"elected, the conversation probably won't start right away... But maybe when it does start, it'll be even more serious... Because without a doubt if Bush is elected he's going to create many, many more criminal blunders before we can think about starting rollback.
If the election is close, and long-drawn-out a la 2000, then I guess Bush will continue acting as though he's the boss till it's finally decided.
I have a question. If Kerry gets elected, how can we expect Bush to behave throughout his remaining 10 weeks in office? "Helpfully", from the point of view of easing Kerry's transition into office and easing the move toward a less arrogant, more multilateral stance in world affairs? Or "snittishly", like a little boy who realizes he'll soon lose his chance to play with all those lovely toy weapons, so decides he's going to fire as many of them as he can before the adults come back and take them away from him?
... Just asking...
In some ways, a horribly deadlocked, confusing, re-count filled election might be a good thing, it may lead to deeper reform than what resulted from the previous time. It will also prevent the powers that be (including the major tv networks) from patting themselves on the back and declaring the system "fixed".
-Alex
I can't see how the election could be uncontested, right now. Unless there is a large margin, I think the Republicans will do whatever they think it takes to win.
I agree that a contested result, drawn-out and seemingly unstable, would be an impetus for correcting a number of problems with the electoral process. I'm worried how that would work out, though, given the Republican majority currently in Congress.
Re Helena's question about how Bush might behave as a lame duck. I think he will quack a lot, very self-righteously and be wilfully blind to the savage vindictiveness of his administration which will almost certainly attempt to make sure the incoming Democrats have the worst possible mess on their plates. Why would these people stop acting like vengeful bullies at this late date??
"Why would these people stop acting like vengeful bullies at this late date??"
They won't, because they aren't acting. We have a minimum of four more years to put up with this behavior, regardless of who wins. If Bush wins, they will be the bullies in charge. If Kerry wins, they will make his life (and ours) hell through the media. And if Kerry wins, they will spend the next couple of months preparing to make his life hell.
There is I'm afraid a very strong argument in realpolitik to the effect that in the long run Kerry will be worse for the world than Bush. The essence of it is that Bush is so blatant and crass that another term of him will force the rest of the world to really apply itself to crashing the petro-dollar and defanging the USA, whereas Kerry will wheedle his way back into the councils of Europe and revive the system of broad US alliances, which is sneakier and more lethal than Bushian unilateralism. The best account of this argument I have seen is here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko09132004.html
I do hear the occasional "let President Bush clean up his own mess" about. It would be interesting to see whether U.S. military bases would be quite as welcome overseas when the U.S. populace endorses, in effect, the President's loose approach to the Geneva Conventions. Also economically, Bush has been good for the Chinese, Canadian and European economies, which are benefiting from the ponderous U.S. trade deficit. Another term of this might pop the U.S. dollar's value bubble and get the U.S. industrial heartland back into competitive shape, perhaps with a renewed strength in the unions. A moderate policy might prolong a precarious situation making the final crash worse.
A good solid double-dose of neo-con medicine might be enough to actually wake people up.
"Bush has been good for the Chinese, Canadian and European economies, which are benefiting from the ponderous U.S. trade deficit." -- well, not necessarily : holding vast amounts of US Treasury Bonds, as Japan for instance does, simply locks one into a concern for the wealth of the USA, so it's a vicious circle with no real out. Worse, it leads to a situation where the USA becomes more and more paranoid, and begins to demand assurances that these Treasury Bonds will never be dumped, and this in turn leads the USA to try to stack, in the example, the Japanese government. Look at it this way : it is never good to have the local strong man as your debtor.
My own personal view is that what the USA wishes to do is to borrow enough money to place space borne nuclear weapons above all the countries of the earth, after which none of them will ever be in a position to make awkward financial decisions again.
It appears that Rehnquist is not coming back soon, if ever. Imagine the scenario in which the election is deadlocked. Bush names a new Supreme Court Justice (he can bypass Congress on this one), who then hands him the presidency. TWO contested elections in a row, the second even more shady than the first. I shudder at this "bad Hollywood script" kind of possibility. But,the possibility is certainly there.
Re Bush as the more effective long-run catalyst for an equitable planet ... call it a choice between (a) a foster father who incessantly patronizes the neighbors, and (b) another who starts fistfights with them and beats his own children. You would have to have a mighty and powerful faith in the improving power of social services to choose (b).
I see what you mean, Jassalasca, but the metaphor is bit flawed: it isn't 'social services' which will bring the US imperial project to a close. It is, as everyone from Lew Rockwell to Usama Bin Laden will tell you, financial collapse. I mentioned the project for space borne nuclear weapons previously because that is the only thing which will forestall the natural process whereby the world market switches away from the dollar - and if the US cannot borrow enough money from the nations of the world to pay for this project, which after all will permanently enslave those very nations, then it won't happen, and the dollar will collapse (hint : the dollar is not backed by gold, but by oil).
Point taken. But by the same token, bringing the US imperial project to a close and throttling down rates of needless killing are not necessarily congruent processes.