Month: November 2004

This article has much food for thought:

After September 11, America basically wrote off the rest of the world as a reliable partner. The ultimate goal was no longer the Fukuyama utopia of expanding universal liberal democracy, but the transformation of the United States into “Fortress America,” a lone superpower isolated from the rest of the world, protecting its vital economic interests and securing its safety through its new military power. This new military not only includes forces for rapid deployment anywhere on the globe, but also the development of space weapons that enable the Pentagon to control the global surface from above. This strategy throws a new light on the recent conflicts between the United States and Europe: It is not Europe that is “betraying” the United States. The United States no longer needs to rely on its exclusive partnership with Europe. In short, Bush’s America pretends to be a new global empire but it is not. Rather, it remains a nation-state ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if U.S. politics is now being guided by a weird reversal of the ecologists’ well-known motto: Act globally, think locally.

Within these coordinates, every progressive who thinks should be glad for Bush’s victory. It is good for the entire world because the contours of the confrontations to come will now be drawn in a much starker way. A Kerry victory would have been a kind of historical anomaly, blurring the true lines of division. After all, Kerry did not have a global vision that would present a feasible alternative to Bush’s politics.

I’m beginning to see that the Democratic party is doomed. If a Kerry victory would have been a historical anomaly, then one must conclude that the Clinton years, and the Carter years, were also anomalies, mere distractions from the aggressive forward advancing of the neoliberal agenda in place since the mid-70s. If you examine the past 30 years, each Republican regime pushed the line, and each Democrat regime held the line where it had been drawn. Almost a collective good cop, bad cop act.

It seems to me that until the Democrats rebel against the neoliberal status quo, and embrace real, progressive, even radical agendas, they will be nothing more than the whipping boy of the neocons. The “election results” from Tuesday only reinforce this notion.

I’ve just been reading Terrorising Dissent: the Neoliberal ‘Anti-terrorist’ Strategy. In light of the BuShite’s seizure and consolidation of power in the US this week, articles like this will become more and more important. From the abstract:

How does political protest become terrorism? Answer: whenever governments say that it is. They increasingly do so because capitalism has no alternative to neoliberal globalization and new enclosures. This agenda can be imposed only by terrorizing dissent — in the name of protecting the public from terrorism, of course. In this way, ‘counter-terrorism’ is redefining or even replacing politics. As this article argues, effective resistance becomes inseparable from a struggle against new enclosures and for new commons.

This notion that anyone who is against the aggressive tactics of the neocons will be labelled a Terrorist™ is the sine qua non of understanding the BuShite worldview. “You’re either with us, or you’re with The Terrorists™” is the embodiment of this policy; it means that there can be no resistance or disagreement with BuShite politics. Look at the logic of the BuShites:

• They say that The Terrorists™ are Evil™, and need to be defeated, destroyed, and killed through violent means, up to and including outright warfare.
• They also say that if you are not with them, then you are with The Terrorists™.
• Therefore, if you disagree with the BuShites, you need to be defeated, destroyed, and killed through violent means, up to and including outright warfare.

This is simple logic, and it exposes the dangers of the BuShite policy in a most elementary way. Nothing is open to negotiation. Nothing is open to discussion. The BuShites will not admit to even the possibility that they are wrong, and they are in command of the largest military machine in the history of the planet. Does anyone else find this worrisome? Is it any wonder that rational, sane political dialogue in this country is all but impossible?

Apparently, the 59 million people who allegedly Voted™ for Bush don’t see this. What concerns me is that, as I said, this is elementary logic. What does that say about the American people, or at least 59 million (about 20%…hardly the majority mandate claimed by the BuShites) of them? I’m not sure I can use “us,” even though I am part of the American people. The American people are deeply divided right now, with tens of millions of people on each “side.” If this were any country other than the richest, most comfortable country in the world, I believe we’d already be in a civil war.

Perhaps we are, with The BuShites shaping it as Good Americans™ vs. The Terrorists™.

Greg Palast has been on top of election fraud since the 2000 election. He has a new article out, called Kerry won … In the article, he outlines the now-familiar pattern of voter fraud, specifically in Ohio and New Mexico. But perhaps the most salient observation is the last paragraph:

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure — a second time — to count all the votes, that won’t be necessary. My country has left me.

Brilliant. I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t considered leaving the country since the election. The European Union is looking particularly good; this interview suggests that the EU is becoming the next superpower, being a larger market with a larger population than the US. Additionally, they tend to spend their government funds on social services rather than an ultra-high military budget, thus providing some stability. I really believe that America’s days as a superpower — let alone the only superpower — are numbered.

Well, I voted yesterday. Kerry took Maine. Cobb got less than 1%.

I voted, but I feel disenfranchised. The establishment would tell me that I’m contradicting myself here. After all, I voted; by definition my voice was counted.

However, voting has nothing to do with my voice, unless I learn to say “Bush” or “Kerry”. My own ideas and desires for an American political reality were nowhere on any ballot I saw, with the possible exception of several Green candidates for local offices (they averaged about 10% of the vote, except for John Eder, who was re-elected despite some pathetic attempt at Gerrymandering by the Democrats and Republicans).

This can be nothing but Disenfranchisement. My voice is not among those who will be heard.

“We’re gonna hunt him down, and kill him. He’s a murderer.”
–General Wesley Clark on Osama Bin Laden, Real Time with Bill Maher, Halloween 2004

…at least according to this Reuters story from the UK. I always find it interesting which stories make it to the American media and which ones don’t. Is it any big surprise we haven’t heard about this in the US?