Home > Ditch the Distraction in Chief

Ditch the Distraction in Chief

by Open-Publishing - Thursday 5 August 2004
6 comments

Edito


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 sixty-sixth birthday. Bush in a Box is a cardboard cutout of President 43 with a set of adhesive speech balloons featuring the usual 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 summarizes 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 W. 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 like Kerry at the helm will we finally be able to put an end to the presidential pathologizing and focus on the issues again.

Most Nation readers 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 progressive movements in the West began to turn our attention to systems again: corporate globalization, 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 privatizing 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 are arguing that Bush’s extremism actually has a progressive effect because it unites the world against 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, let alone 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 galvanizing 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 at The Nation about Kerry’s vicious support for the apartheid wall in Israel, his gratuitous attacks on Hugo Chávez 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.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=klein

Forum posts

  • In spite of all the bitterness of the leftist gallery Americans are in for four more years with Bush, consequently Palestine will continue being the prefered shooting camp and Hugo Chavez will be ousted.

  • Dear Naomi,

    You are obviously very well educated, but you seem to lack common sense.
    You, like Bill Maher, Michael Moore, and Ron Reagan Jr. are all telling us
    Peace lovers that we should vote for John Kerry. Well rotten is rotten, and
    If I was starving and had to choose between a rotten orange and a rotten apple, I’d go looking
    for something else to eat.

    Naomi, you look and sound like a very young woman. Don’t let people bully you
    into an opinion. I’ve been around for a long time and I’m tired of these war games.
    We are talking about human lives here. Bush is for war. Kerry is for war. I am against
    war. Therefore I vote my conscience and vote for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian.

    I’ve already experienced voting for the lesser of two evils, and guess what? I got evil.
    700 some Iraqi people dead in one day, not to mention our young soldiers. War
    is hell. Get off your pedistal.

    Peace, Liberty and Prosperity,

    Jack G.

  • Consider the REALITY that FASCISM, with our stupid American cowboy grinning aggression, has installed itself NOT BY CHANCE, but by a century of careful and RUTHLESS strategizing... into the WHITE Haus with a supremacy even HITLER would have envied!

    US military veterans have long been warning the world, our fellow American are asleep under the wheels of the NAZI COWBOYS from Texas, the same who assassinated JFK, who launched countless wars in the Americas, in Asia, who jam their OIL and DRUGS down our throats, who named the CIA HeadQuarter ""GEorge Bush Center for Intelligence" (damned OxyMorons from Hell!)...

    Not a metaphor, no--- ACTUAL NeoNazism (call the "National Security" state "Nasi" if you like) with the OLD Prescott/Kaiser/Reich investors having gotten their rotten wishes fulfilled from their (still active) communities in Austria, Bolivia, Argentina...

    Now the Nazis have overshadowed any rational discussion with hatred and bombings, beating the citizens into a dull submission thanks to their overlords like Aussie media czar Murdoch...

    Abandon hope, all who have been dragged through the gates of Hell in the bombed out craters of Babylon... their demons have been fed and unleashed to trash your world... Roman Eagles screaming for fresh flesh and flames as the coins drop in countless video blasters...

    • America, as a product, gets elections to change the design on the label.

      The product remains unchanged, the president is no more than an apologist for big business, the "marlboro man", if you like.

      Economic collapse, precipitated by the cold shoulder of the entire world might persuade most americans that they have been chumped, mislead and indoctrinated into thinking somehow that they are living decent lives.

      But then a warmongering, homophobic nation that allows the teaching of creationism, and has politicians that actively participate in the mumbo jumbo rituals of religion, and supports the warring rabbis of israel is perhaps just getting what it deserves.

      Call in at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11BasicQuestions.html

      In all honesty, most of the world has no respect whatsoever for either bush or kerry.

      Both skull and bones, both having participated in the initiation "ceremony", that is that they sat in a coffin, masturbating in front of their chums.

      One could say that being a wanker is a pre-requisite for the supposed ruler of the world.

      Regime change in the u.s., bring it on!

  • I can’t help but wonder if this article is one big gag. Did the author just conclude "that won’t happen until we put away the fridge magnets and Bush gags and get serious." after bemoaning Bush’s stupidity? "It’s not that the president is Dumb, which I already knew..." Don’t get me wrong - I welcome Bush’s opponents embracing the idea of a rational, articulate debate rather then the continuing the ad hominem attacks and fallacious anecdotes. But for the life of me, I can’t understand how she reached that conclusion when this article is full of them.

    So Neomi, if you’d could take the time to explain, I’d be very interested to know exactly what makes the president stupid in your view. In the serious manner that you prescribe because for all the stupid things I’ve seen him do, I’ve also observed some masterful strokes from him as well. I know smart people can do some really stupid things, but I’m not sure that goes the other way too often!

    A final note: one of those ’master strokes’ I think I notice is Bush’s reaction to being thought of as stupid - he seems to do nothing about it. That’s pretty darn smart. I mean, if all my opponents thought me a dolt, why would I correct that? Better them to underestimate their enemy then for me to do the same.

    Thanks for your thoughts!
     Robert Siegmund

    • Robert,

      As amazing as it is, people who I respect have called Bush "bright." Maureen Doud, when talking about her book, "Bush World," and recently, Bill Clinton.

      Clinton said Bush is shrewd. In 2000, when he first heard Bush’s line "compassionate conservative," he told the Dems, "Watch out. He’s good. That’s a great line and don’t underestimate him."

      Turns out, Clinton was right on.

      Bush’s mispronunciations are pretty bad, but he knows it. And I’m sure he likes being underestimated. That’s his edge.

      But, Bush is bad for the country, mostly because of the people he’s put in charge. He’s dangerous and has to go.