Home > Anybody but Bush - and then let’s get back to work

Anybody but Bush - and then let’s get back to work

by Open-Publishing - Friday 30 July 2004
2 comments

Edito


With Kerry at the helm, the left might focus on the real issues again

by Naomi
Klein


Last month, I reluctantly joined the Anybody But Bush camp. It was "Bush in a
Box" that finally got me, a gag gift my brother gave my father on his 66th birthday.
Bush in a Box is a cardboard cut-out of President 43 with a set of adhesive speech
balloons featuring the usual tired Bushisms: "Is our children learning?" "They
misunderestimated me" - standard-issue Bush-bashing schlock, on sale at Wal-Mart,
made in Malaysia.

Yet Bush in a Box filled me with despair. It’s not that the president is dumb,
which I already knew, it’s that he makes us dumb. Don’t get me wrong: my brother
is an exceptionally bright guy; he heads a think-tank that publishes weighty
policy papers on the failings of export-oriented resource extraction and the
false savings of cuts to welfare. Whenever I have a question involving interest
rates or currency boards, he’s my first call. But Bush in a Box pretty much summarises
the level of analysis coming from the left these days. You know the line: The
White House has been hijacked by a shady gang of zealots who are either insane
or stupid or both. Vote Kerry and return the country to sanity.

But the zealots in Bush’s White House are neither insane nor stupid nor particularly shady. Rather, they openly serve the interests of the corporations that put them in office with bloody-minded efficiency. Their boldness stems not from the fact that they are a new breed of zealot but that the old breed finds itself in a newly unconstrained political climate.

We know this, yet there is something about George Bush’s combination of ignorance, piety and swagger that triggers a condition in progressives I’ve come to think of as Bush Blindness. When it strikes, it causes us to lose sight of everything we know about politics, economics and history and to focus exclusively on the admittedly odd personalities of the people in the White House. Other side-effects include delighting in psychologists’ diagnoses of Bush’s warped relationship with his father and brisk sales of Bush "dum gum" - $1.25.

This madness has to stop, and the fastest way of doing that is to elect John Kerry, not because he will be different but because in most key areas - Iraq, the "war on drugs", Israel/Palestine, free trade, corporate taxes - he will be just as bad. The main difference will be that as Kerry pursues these brutal policies, he will come off as intelligent, sane and blissfully dull. That’s why I’ve joined the Anybody But Bush camp: only with a bore such as Kerry at the helm will we finally be able to put an end to the presidential pathologising and focus on the issues again.

Of course, most progressives are already solidly in the Anybody But Bush camp, convinced that now is not the time to point out the similarities between the two corporate-controlled parties. I disagree. We need to face up to those disappointing similarities, and then we need to ask ourselves whether we have a better chance of fighting a corporate agenda pushed by Kerry or by Bush.

I have no illusions that the left will have "access" to a Kerry/Edwards White House. But it’s worth remembering that it was under Bill Clinton that the progressive movements in the west began to turn our attention to systems again: corporate globalisation, even - gasp - capitalism and colonialism. We began to understand modern empire not as the purview of a single nation, no matter how powerful, but a global system of interlocking states, international institutions and corporations, an understanding that allowed us to build global networks in response, from the World Social Forum to Indymedia. Innocuous leaders who spout liberal platitudes while slashing welfare and privatising the planet push us to better identify those systems and to build movements agile and intelligent enough to confront them. With Mr Dum Gum out of the White House, progressives will have to get smart again, and that can only be good.

Some argue that Bush’s extremism actually has a progressive effect because it unites the world against the US empire. But a world united against the United States isn’t necessarily united against imperialism. Despite their rhetoric, France and Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq because it threatened their own plans to control Iraq’s oil. With Kerry in power, European leaders will no longer be able to hide their imperial designs behind easy Bush-bashing, a development already forecast in Kerry’s odious Iraq policy. Kerry argues that we need to give "our friends and allies ... a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs", including "fair access to the multibillion-dollar reconstruction contracts. It also means letting them be a part of putting Iraq’s profitable oil industry back together."

Yes, that’s right: Iraq’s problems will be solved with more foreign invaders, with France and Germany given a greater "voice" and a bigger share of the spoils of war. No mention is made of Iraqis, and their right to a "meaningful voice" in the running of their own country, let alone of their right to control their oil or to get a piece of the reconstruction.

Under a Kerry government, the comforting illusion of a world united against imperial aggression will drop away, exposing the jockeying for power that is the true face of modern empire. We’ll also have to let go of the archaic idea that toppling a single man, or a Romanesque "empire", will solve all, or indeed any, of our problems. Yes, it will make for more complicated politics, but it has the added benefit of being true. With Bush out of the picture, we lose the galvanising enemy, but we get to take on the actual policies that are transforming all of our countries.

The other day, I was ranting to a friend about Kerry’s vicious support for the apartheid wall in Israel, his gratuitous attacks on Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and his abysmal record on free trade. "Yeah," he agreed sadly. "But at least he believes in evolution." So do I - the much-needed evolution of our progressive movements. And that won’t happen until we put away the fridge magnets and Bush gags and get serious. And that will only happen once we get rid of the distraction-in-chief. So Anybody But Bush. And then let’s get back to work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1272503,00.html

30.07.2004
Bellaciao Collective

Forum posts

  • This argument makes no logical sense. Yes, Bush is the most corrupt president ever. So how is it that John Kerry is neck and neck in the polls? Because his stance makes no sense and sways no voters. Not to mention he is the living incarnation of hypocrisy. ANYONE can BEAT BUSH, anyone who speaks the truth and is against this mindless killing in Iraq. The majority of the american people are against the war and John Kerry is helping to disinfranchise the majority of american voters. You have no choice suckers! Some election, some democracy! 0nly John Kerry can keep Bush in this election. He should not even be in the running. This is the easiest time in american history to win an election. Look at what this administration has done to our country, the lies, the killing, the madness.....why is this election even close?

    This article spells it out

    "Anti-war views were by no means rare at the Convention. Even within the narrow spectrum of the Democratic Party, ninety percent of delegates oppose the war in Iraq (according to a recent CBS/NY Times poll). Their views were barely reflected in the choreographed speeches of their elite "representatives." Outspoken anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich justified ignoring the divide: "we’re going to unite our party to elect John Kerry and then we’re going to continue the debate within the Democratic Party." (PBS Interview) So, ninety percent of the party’s rank-and-file have to compromise their position on the war to comply with the 10 percent who are represented by the powerful elite of the party. Instead of the party taking a stand based on the majority sentiment, the crucial debate over war has been relegated to internal party discussion, where it will probably fizzle out. Those on the left who advocate blind support for Kerry hand responsibility for the debate over war and occupation to the Democratic Party, whose elites have more in common with Republicans than with their own rank-and-file."
    http://www.counterpunch.org/sonali07302004.html

  • Bush and Kerry are Both corupt. Kerry is purging his website from any anti war positions or positions considered too far left.

    There is a real choice for people on the left and right and that is Michael Badnarick. He has stated that he will be the Peace president and bring the troops home.

    Voting for Kerry or Bush is like eating a rotten Apple or rotten Orange. Why poison yourself when you have a fresh choice who will restore Liberty?

    The Libertarians would end the drug war and the billions wasted there. They would repeal the Patriot Act and restore freedom. They believe all of America is a free speech zone, as opposed to Bush and Kerry.

    The best choice for change is www.Badnarik.org