Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Norman Madarasz: Against John Kerry

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Against John Kerry By Norman Madarasz International relations/economy 14/10/2004 IslamOnline.net Kerry: The anyone but Bush candidate The 2004 US
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 22, 2004
      Against John Kerry

      By Norman Madarasz
      International relations/economy

      Kerry: The "anyone but Bush" candidate

      The 2004 US presidential elections are international in every sense
      of the word. This does not mean that the concept of nation-state is
      over, much less that the international stage has become democratic.
      The United States is still somewhat of a democracy, though its edges
      have frayed substantially. As for countries refusing democracy, far
      too many of them still tend to do so under the most brutal
      infringements and abuses of its citizens' basic freedoms and civil

      Unlike countries such as North Korea or Myanmar, however, the United
      States de facto runs a large part of the world, either directly or
      indirectly. Needless to say, this has many repercussions on what the
      citizens of the world expect from an American leader. That is also
      why, when elections are merely limited to its national borders, it
      only covers part of the political equation that adequately describes
      American rule.

      As "Commander-in-chief," the American president exercises power over
      a considerable part of the world.1 But the world has no voting rights
      over the American president who will be leading it. That's why the
      United States is both democracy and dictatorship, since its political
      system is international in scope.

      Internationally, the Bush administration's foreign policy is the most
      unpopular of any American administration in recent memory. It was not
      very surprising, then, to see a recent poll showing the international
      mood to be overwhelmingly aligned against the prospect of George W.
      Bush's re-election, at 76 percent of those polled by the German
      Marshall Fund.2

      As it has developed, the United States' self-proclaimed "war on
      terror" has struck out in a fury of revenge at the families and kin
      of those surmised to have dared attack America. That the US command
      is unsure who it is killing is borne witness to by its usage of the
      term "illegal combatant." What is otherwise certain is that the
      deaths caused by this "war" have mounted into the tens of thousands.
      Naturally enough, those who see innocent civilians paying for the war
      on terror with their lives favor Democratic Party candidate Senator
      John Kerry as the next president. At home and abroad, their banner is
      now familiar: "Anyone but Bush."

      It is true that for many American voters, political activists, and
      citizens, Kerry's persona exudes a breath of sanity over the future
      of international affairs. He fought hard in "Nam," got injured and
      won medals. Then he turned against the generals and war masters by
      denouncing the entire endeavor on humanist and moral grounds. More
      than ever before in recent memory, however, what the persona utters
      and what it represents on a television screen e automatic nature of
      political opposition in the United States seem moot at best.

      This has less to do with the uncertainties, ambiguities, and
      confusion of Kerry's campaign that so many astute Republican pundits
      have festively observed than it does with the fact that one of
      Kerry's functions, as it were, is to calm the anti-Bush resistance in
      the United States itself. That job was reflected in his choice of an
      east- coast, white boy campaign set up, with John Edwards named as
      his vice-presidential running mate.

      Kerry's VP choice has all but extinguished the flame of resistance
      simmering in the "other America," with all of its cultural,
      religious, linguistic, and economic diversity. This is why any
      prescription to vote in favor of Kerry, if only to block Bush,
      amounts to an ill-conceived gesture in which something akin to hope
      in the goodness of the afterlife ends up replacing political wisdom.

      Bush's foreign policy is the most unpopular in recent memory


      Let me explain. "Anyone but Bush" is an election fraud based on the
      misguided belief that voting actually matters in the United States.
      Convincing oneself of the legitimacy of voting for Kerry, even
      as "reluctantly" as did Naomi Klein in a recent advocacy piece
      published by The Guardian, is an act of political nihilism, a dead-

      Klein opines that under the Democrats, Americans will be led to think
      about "politics, economy and History" again. She seems to have
      forgotten that the whole battle being waged by both the Republicans
      and Democrats aims at hammering the legal and moral facts surrounding
      the Bush administration's actions into a perpetual present, as if
      nothing the "enemy" does had a legitimate cause. Both the Republicans
      and Democrats picture the invasion of Iraq in the instrumental terms
      of managing a rowdy company, and breaking up its employees' trade

      A recent article in the New York Times claims that, in a bid to
      rekindle his flaccid presidential campaign, Kerry's Senate colleagues
      are pressing him to take up broader issues.4 The Senate, however, has
      long been a thorn in the side of US democracy.5 As proof of its great
      concern for the fate of Americans, the Senate Armed Services
      Committee voted to repeal a prohibition on "mini-nuclear bomb"
      research in May 2003. Only two Senators, Kennedy and Feinstein,
      sought to block this motion, realizing it would be a spark to
      building bombs whose purpose would not be deterrence, but actual use.
      They lost their battle.6

      As a Senator, John Kerry never distinguished himself by opposing what
      has been an essentially war-mongering Senate, whether controlled by
      Democrats or Republicans. This is why the problem with the US
      government is as much the Senate as the Presidency.

      There is nothing "vague" about the candidate's positions. It's just a
      matter of opening one's eyes—and preventing them from being shut. In
      the best of worlds, Kerry would have proven his worth by engaging
      Bush only in indirect battle over Iraq. Instead, he suggested
      escalating the war on terror until some supposed victory is achieved.
      Kerry should have strived to rally a majority of the roughly 55% of
      Americans who have effectively dropped out of the "world's greatest
      democracy" by simply not voting. Recall that recent presidents have
      been elected with "landslide" victories that barely accounted for a
      third of the American voting population. There exists a wealth of
      voters just dying for a proposal, had Kerry known how to speak the
      language of those heterogeneous masses.

      That is no easy task, especially when the language to be spoken
      involves terms that have now been deemed unsavory for the American
      media to voice. These terms involve higher taxation of corporations
      and the rich, not just in exchange for quality universal health and
      education services, but for something much more astonishing: food and
      housing for America's growing numbers of underprivileged and

      America's poor have no active voice by which to bolster their vote.
      In addition to losing political and purchasing power, most Americans
      have also lost the right to a representation-form that deals with the
      most basic necessity of their lives: their jobs. Today, trade union
      representation in the United States is not merely a dirty word; In
      many industry sectors it has all but become illegal. Why would the
      disenfranchised then want to participate in a process that strips
      them of their most basic rights?

      Outside of political action, there has been a long process of
      translating social ills into religious solutions. At times, they have
      culminated in salvationist visions of UFOs. Meanwhile, real
      grassroots from-the-people-by-the-people political solutions and
      reforms have been swiftly side-lined by the ruling establishment
      as "contrary" or "foreign" to the American way.

      The Dems Blew It

      In the run-up to the Democratic Party primaries, the media had ample
      time to rally progressive voters. Instead of tapping into this wealth
      of opposition votes, internal doings twisted Howard Dean's ascension
      into humiliation after he skyrocketed to prominence on an anti-war
      ticket. Since then, Dean has proved to be the imposter he always was.
      More seriously, his disgrace has left the anti-war ticket with a
      severe blow to its credibility, which has allowed Kerry to ape Bush's
      war-mongering in speech after speech.

      The US president exercises power over a major part of the world

      In the campaign Kerry has since led, blind faith is expected from a
      population reared on a local media that feeds them obscure
      explanations and guts history of critical consequences. Love of
      country should never be an excuse for blind rage and revenge.
      Understanding economic disparity as the single driving force behind
      the United States' military might has fared even worse.

      The bitter irony for Kerry supporters is this: After decades of
      chastising the shift in television news to a parade of talking heads
      and pundits, that is, to empty-headed fashion model look-and-sound
      alikes, opponents to Bush are now consolidating the idea that all of
      our politicians and pundits are and always have been those vacuous
      head-body assemblages. Their primary task? To keep the President on
      the tube day after day, night after night.8 There is a word
      associated with this thought: personality cult.

      Narcissism is the dominant mood in the developed nations. Not self-
      love, as it is simplistically understood, but the love of a group-
      self in the midst of desperation. Until recently, only America's
      sternest critics have seen non-democratic societies as more desirable
      to live in. These political analysts bore out the deep,
      irreconcilable contradictions between the kind of life the American
      system provides for most of its citizens, and the hell it has often
      imposed on those unfortunate enough to live in nations falling within
      America's zone of economic and geostrategic interests.

      The hell of US invasions and occupation is an ever unfolding list. At
      times, it has taken root in Iran, at others in Guatemala, the
      Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam of course, Haiti, El Salvador,
      Nicaragua, East Timor, Cuba, Chile - and Afghanistan. Ronald Reagan's
      death was marked in the rightwing neo-liberal press as the passing of
      the man who "beat communism." But it was Jimmy Carter—a Democrat—who
      sparked the final battle, providing the USSR with its own Vietnam in
      Afghanistan. And it was Bill Clinton who led the incessant bombing
      and UN embargo of Iraq that bled it for eight years. Under his
      presidency the US decided to assume the right to wage preventive war,
      all without Bush's hoopla.9 The Democratic Party is no ally of

      Being against Kerry is not tantamount to opting for Bush. I would be
      the last to suggest one actually vote for Bush—although we might all
      have some stakes in letting him win.

      Consider some of the hypocrisy around so-called
      Democratic "opposition" in the United States. You've heard the noise
      being made about the heroism of those who fought in Vietnam. There's
      still the old bitterness around, of course, for those who fought and
      then went on to publicly denounce the United States' criminal
      invasion of that country. But what of the many, many others who took
      risks to their lives and careers by rejecting the war, and refusing
      to go? In the American way, they demonstrated against Washington and
      organized. They interpreted Vietnam as being a political desire for
      world dominion. But these heroes have not been given space to voice
      their position. These heroes are still considered traitors for
      putting their finger on what both Kerry and Bush stand for: a
      political formula in which economic disparity is equated with
      political liberty. America's future lies in the hands of the anti-
      Vietnam war heroes—those who refused to go.

      The upshot is that it is impossible to trust either of the two
      parties to stand for the kind of "freedom" that is harmonious with
      economic equality and a long term plan for international diplomacy,
      one that will set up a legal framework enforcing a moratorium on
      American military interventions. Where real change at home can take
      place is in a solid restructuring of the House of Representatives,
      and especially of the presidency and Senate. These days, the latter
      two are merely the windows through which America's wealthiest are
      able to rule, irrespective of the party.

      Conservative America accuses the free spirits who set out on
      professional careers that have nothing to do with becoming the
      technicians of the petroleum-pollution-war society. When these free
      spirits refuse to surrender real liberty and submit to the State's
      will, the State refuses to help them, leaving them with no health and
      retirement plan, and no means to pay for a quality education for
      their kids.

      Bill Clinton had eight years to change the plight of those who
      refused the conservative agenda, and he did nothing. His successor,
      John Kerry, is even less inclined to. We should bear that in mind
      instead of the delusion that a "boring guy" like Kerry will guide us
      to smoother ground, let alone suggesting that it is "thanks [to
      Clinton that] the `progressist' movements from the West began to pay
      attention to systems again."10

      Surely foreigners would object: America's streets are superbly paved,
      their hospitals are the best in the world, their cities glimmer as
      though the Conquistadores' vision of El Dorado was a premonition of a
      future four hundred years after their invasion of the Gulf of Mexico,
      in the future states of Texas, Florida and Georgia. But the tourists
      do not know Pine Ridge, the Reservation of the Lakota Oglala Sioux.
      They remain oblivious of Oakland and the tattered remains of the
      Black Panther Party, while the South Bronx and South Central remain
      off limits due to high crime rates, attributed to "Blacks." The
      justice that rules in such economic disparity is uniformly built upon
      violence and subjection. The difference between rich and poor is the
      gleam and power of one's weapons.

      As for the tiring question of Ralph Nader stealing votes from Kerry,
      it's simply that Kerry has not catered to Nader's voters. Judging by
      his campaign, it often seems as though Kerry's task has been to avoid
      them outright. What's most likely is that many Americans will simply
      skip the elections instead of voting for an impostor. This is the
      presidential election's greatest failure.

      So for those who can actually vote in this dictatorial world system,
      some meager advice: Don't vote for Kerry; just don't vote.


      Norman Madarasz, Ph.D., is a Canadian philosopher residing in Rio de
      Janeiro, Brazil. He teaches and writes on international relations,
      political economy and philosophy. He is also a regular contributor to
      Counterpunch. You can reach him at nmphdiol2@...

      1- As of February 2004, the US had military bases in 153 countries,
      involving some 350,000 personnel, with 250,000 deployed in combat,
      peacekeeping and counterterrorism operations. Its naval armada
      patrols all of the world's oceans. James Sterngold, "After 9/11, U.S.
      policy built on world bases," The San Francisco Chronicle, March 21,
      2004. (www.globalsecurity.org)

      2- "La Fracture s'aggrave entre les opinions européenne et
      américaine," Le Monde, September 9, 2004.

      3- Naomi Klein, "Elections in the U.S.A.: Anyone but Bush," The
      Guardian, August 7, 2004.

      4- Suzanne Goldenberg, "Bush's Foes want to back Kerry but he's just
      too vague," New York Times, September 20, 2004.

      5- Richard N. Rosenfeld, "What Democracy? The Case for abolishing the
      United States Senate," in Harper's Magazine, May 2004, pp. 35-44.

      6- "The Senate defeated the Feinstein-Kennedy initiative by a vote of
      fifty-five to forty [on June 15, 2004]. How many readers recall
      editorials condemning the Senate's action or news stories about the
      vote?" Arthur Schlesinger Jr., "The Making of a Mess," New York
      Review of Books, September 23, 2004.

      7- Recent estimates put the number of "working poor Americans" at
      roughly 60 percent of the population, if one uses a benchmark of $15
      minimum hourly wage for a full time job as the income allowing a
      family to survive without going into debt. Barbara Ehrenreich,
      Entrevistada no Milênio (GloboNews), Brazilian Television, September
      20, 2004. Cf. Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting
      by in America, Henry Holt, 2001.

      8- J.F. Kennedy is reported to have said, "I want the world to wonder
      not what Mr. Khrushchev is doing. I want them to wonder what the
      United States is doing." Cited by Eric Hobsbawn, The Age of Extremes,
      Vintage Books, 1996, p. 237.

      9- Shoji Nuhuru, "Struggle against US Military Bases," Dateline
      Tokyo, no. 73, July 1999, p.2. (Cited by Istvan Meszaros, The 21st
      Century: Socialism or Barbarity, Monthly Review Press, 1999.)

      10- Naomi Klein, "Elections in the U.S.A.: Anyone but Bush," The
      Guardian, August 7, 2004.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.