Who to Blame This Time

[kristine]

Democrats in End Time

Republicans Gain Shattering Victory; Who to Blame This Time?

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

The crusade that George Bush called for in 2001 against terrorism from abroad came to fruition yesterday in a more homely context as Christians flocked to the polls in stronger numbers than in 2000 to battle against such manifestations of post-modernity as gay marriage.

There are many reasons for what is an overwhelming Republican victory across the board. They range from the disastrous choice of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate to delusions about the potency of electronic organizing (that should have been demolished after Howard Dean's implosion last spring), to the fatal deficiencies of Kerry himself.

The strategy of the Democratic Party as formulated by DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe amounted to belief in the simple potency of corporate cash, plus hysterical demonization of Bush and Nader, represented at full stretch by Michael Moore, who began the year backing General Wesley Clarke and ended it as a pied piper for Kerry. They came to the Rubicon of November 2 replete with fantasies, about the unknown cell phone vote, the youth vote (which actually remained unchanged from 2000), the galvanizing potential of Bruce Springsteen and Eminem.

Week after week Kerry and his boosters displayed an unmatched deafness to political tone. The haughty elitist from Boston probably lost most of the Midwest forever when he said in the high summer that foreign leaders hoped he would win. The applause of the French in Cannes for Michael Moore's 9/11 was the sound of the cement drying over the corpse of Kerry's chances of carrying the Midwest. Soros's dollars were like flowers on the grave. After the billionairess Portuguese-American Teresa Heinz Kerry said in mid-October that Laura Bush had never held a job it was all over.

If there was a visual premonition of why George Bush would achieve a popular majority beyond challenge it was probably the photographs of gay couples celebrating their marriages outside San Francisco's city hall. America is a very Christian country. In the regular national survey conducted by the University of Chicago in 2002, 53 per cent of the adult population identified themselves as Protestant, 25 per cent as Catholic, 3 per cent as Christians of some other denomination, 3 per cent as adhering to "other religions", 2 per cent as Jewish and 14 per cent as having "no religion". That's a lot of Christians, and though many of them may have had a mature tolerance for the preference of Dick and Lynn Cheney's daughter Mary, a strong percentage felt very strongly that state sanction of same sex marriage was going way too far.

There was a ballot initiative in Ohio to ban gay marriage and it was probably what helped Bush overcome the smoldering ruins of the Ohio economy and the increasing unpopularity of the war.

October surprises? No candidate was more burdened by them than George Bush. Just in the last couple of weeks, headlines brought tidings of US marines killed in Baghdad and other US troops rising up in mutiny against lack of equipment to protect their lives. The president's brother Neil was exposed as influence peddling on the basis of his family connections. The economic numbers remained grim as they have been all year. And this was just the icing on the cake. You can troll back over the past fifteen months and find scarce a headline or news story bringing good tidings for Bush. History is replete with revolutions caused by a rise in the price of bread. This year the price of America's primal fluid--oil--on which every household depends, tripled.

But Kerry and the Democrats were never able to capitalize on any of these headlines, a failure which started when Democrats in Congress, Kerry included, gave the green light to the war on Iraq, and which continued when Kerry conclusively threw away the war and WMD issues in August. When he tried to a chord change at NYU on September 20 it was too late and even then his position remained incoherent. He offered no way out. More tunnel, no light.

It was like that for Kerry on almost every issue. Outsourcing is a big issue in the rustbelt, yet here was Kerry forced to concede that he had voted for the trade pacts and still supported them. All he offered, aside from deficit busting (which plays to the bond market but not to people working two jobs), was some tinkering with the tax code alarming to all those millions of Americans who play the lottery and believe that if they are not yet making more than $200,000 a year they soon will.

Edwards added absolutely nothing to the ticket. At least Dan Quayle held Indiana back in 1988 and 2002. No one state in the south went into Kerry's column. Gore did better in Florida and West Virginia. Dick Gephardt would certainly have brought the Democratic ticket Missouri and probably Iowa and hence the White House.

The Republicans played, on the ground, to the bedrock members of their party, and got them to the polls. The Kerry campaign conducted an air war from 30,000 feet, bombarding the population with vague alarums and somehow thinking that ABB (Anyone But Bush) would pull them through. There was indeed a lot of popular animosity towards Bush but the Democrats could never capitalize on it. The crucial machinery of any political party is organization, its capacity to rally its supporters on the big day. In this crucial area the Democratic Party is in an advanced state of disrepair. The SEIU wasted $70 million of its members' dues money attacking Ralph Nader. A grotesque amount of energy went into trying to suppress the Nader vote. They did suppress it and this achievement gained them nothing, except, perhaps, the destruction of the Green Party.

It's as grim a day for the Democrats as was 1980 when the Republicans swept the board. What will the Democrats do? You can already hear the Democratic Leadership Council cranking up its message that you can only beat the Republicans by outflanking them on the right. The Nader alibi has gone. The Democratic Party and its leaders have nowhere else to look than in the mirror. They would do well to examine Nader's critiques, but we bet they won't.

http://www.counterpunch.org/

[iyah360]

the republicans are excellent strategists. what they do is tap the pulse of the nation, see what issues are the emotional pressure points(issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and stand up for the side that those who feel strongly about it are steadfast in their resolve in defending. behind these pressure points, hide an agenda that in reality cares nothing for those core people who vote for you soley based on the emotional pressure point issues and holds the interests of the ultra-rich at heart.

it is pure genius.

[Ayinde]

Many of the ‘hidden’ Bush supporters waited until the results came out to express their elation.

“Excellence” and “pure genius” is now being applied to conmen running an unfair system? Exploiting bigotries and racism is pure genius now?

It has always been part of the U.S.’s “excellence” and “pure genius” to PRETEND that they are about free and fair elections, democracy, and human rights.

People have to face it; Bush is the perfect representation of the majority of White Americans who are also IGNORANT and ARROGANT. The Black and White so-called liberals are the real problem today; they try to come over as if they get the issues but they settle for the same things. The only difference is they prefer the corruption and brutality done in a more clandestine manner. That is why most of these so-called liberals do not like Bush; he is more brazen about the same things they support. With all the anti-Bush talk in public, many of them DO covertly support Bush.

The U.S. elections were always unfair. They really cannot have an election system that denies the participation of so many people, especially Blacks, and call that free and fair elections/democracy.

Even when some Whites claim to be resisting the system, they are the same to me. Bush is just a very visible and constant reminder of the ignorance and arrogance of Whites. The few whites who are trying to preach to Blacks are wasting time. There is a huge population of whites that voted for either Bush or Kerry and did not realize there is really NO difference.

[Bantu_Kelani]

Speak the truth brother Ayinde! Also, instead of voting for the lesser of the 2 evils, concerned black American men and women should have been bold enough to make their statement that they have enough of all the Democrats and Republicans wrongs to them and their meaningless presidential elections by NOT VOTING, along with mass political rebellion! Beleive those actions will have made a powerful impression on the majority of the lunatic/bigoted white Americans. It is the only way to make them change their minds..

B.K

[iyah360]

i agree Ayinde.

i do not hold Right and genius in the same category. genius is definitely not analagous to Right in my book. but the kind of evil genius that they use is only relative to the lack of overstanding that the general population has about the "system." many are caught up in left/right polarity - when in reality, the system controls both sides of the frame of discourse.

i will only speak of this from my point of view, because it is all i have. i feel that if one does not overstand how their emotions get played on by master manipulators who introduce issues just to control the frame of discourse, then there really is no hope. those in control of the "system" are very aware of mass psychology and in many ways know how to keep the people in a certain trance. and yes, i am making a differentiation here even though i realize that THEY only exist in as much as the collective MINDSTATE of the people allows. some people have hopes and dreams, some people have ways and means. in this analysis, white privilege is part and parcel of the hopes and dreams of those whites who do not necessarily have the ways and means, even if it goes unrecognized.  

even if some are protesting, the privilege the system gives them makes it very hard for them to correctly assess and create solutions to the problems which are endemic to the system. who can honestly say that after being indoctrinated and "cultured" by living in America they can somehow come to realize and eradicate all the ways in which they were programmed? even the solutions will be wrapped up in a WAY OF THINKING that has been drilled into one since birth.

most people WILL NOT WAKE UP, and this is the TRUMP card that is being pulled at all times. now, is this elitist - or just a realization of the way things are?

Many of the ‘hidden’ Bush supporters waited until the results came out to express their elation.

“Excellence” and “pure genius” is now being applied to conmen running an unfair system? Exploiting bigotries and racism is pure genius now?

It has always been part of the U.S.’s “excellence” and “pure genius” to PRETEND that they are about free and fair elections, democracy, and human rights.

People have to face it; Bush is the perfect representation of the majority of White Americans who are also IGNORANT and ARROGANT. The Black and White so-called liberals are the real problem today; they try to come over as if they get the issues but they settle for the same things. The only difference is they prefer the corruption and brutality done in a more clandestine manner. That is why most of these so-called liberals do not like Bush; he is more brazen about the same things they support. With all the anti-Bush talk in public, many of them DO covertly support Bush.

The U.S. elections were always unfair. They really cannot have an election system that denies the participation of so many people, especially Blacks, and call that free and fair elections/democracy.

Even when some Whites claim to be resisting the system, they are the same to me. Bush is just a very visible and constant reminder of the ignorance and arrogance of Whites. The few whites who are trying to preach to Blacks are wasting time. There is a huge population of whites that voted for either Bush or Kerry and did not realize there is really NO difference.

[preach]

Good point B.K.. Not voting and political rebellion would be more effective than strategies taken thus far. I personally refused to vote because neither candidate had our interests in mind. For those of you naysayers who say my vote would have count, I beg to differ. I reside in Illinois, a state that Kerry, who I might have vote for, won without my support. I would love to see the energy and money spent to encourage our communities to vote be used for something more useful and productive. Our brethren with money and influence need to step up.

" Successful Black people, generally do not give back in an organized, systemic, productive way that helps low-income, homeless, or poorly educated Black people improve their lives. Unfortunately many successful Black people feel, " I have made it. Nobody helped me. Why should I help you?" Most of the giving back by Black people is to a church they attend or to scholarship funds that most low-income Black students will never be able to use. This kind of giving, which might be generous, is not going to solve the problems of low-income Blacks."
             Phillip Jackson, executive director, The Black Star Project

[Oshun_Auset]

Speak the truth brother Ayinde! Also, instead of voting for the lesser of the 2 evils, concerned black American men and women should have been bold enough to make their statement that they have enough of all the Democrats and Republicans wrongs to them and their meaningless presidential elections by NOT VOTING, along with mass political rebellion! Beleive those actions will have made a powerful impression on the majority of the lunatic/bigoted white Americans. It is the only way to make them change their minds..

B.K

And mass political rebellion, or rather revolution, takes organization...we'll get there one day...

"Organize! Organize![/i]
-the last words of Kwame Toure

[Ayinde]

In response to iyah360's response:

I disagree with your spin on the meaning of genius, but you are quite entitled to your views on it.

You said: "the republicans are excellent strategists"  
 
You also said: "it is pure genius."  

I don't see any excellent strategies being used by any side of the same U.S. political system. Both sides of the same political 'culture' lie and deceive, and the majority of the people are just foolish for not knowing that and/or how to change it. It also speaks of the weakness of those who CLAIM they want political change (the so-called liberals).  

I see nothing that resembles "pure genius" coming out from that charade of an election.  
 
It is only excellent when people stand on integrity, and challenge the wrongs from there. Neither of the same 'culture' of the U.S. political divide did that. It is only pure genius to 'win' against all odds by standing firm on what is right. No such thing existed in that election. I don't see any real differences between Bush and Kerry, so there is nothing to celebrate or equate with 'excellent strategists' or 'pure genius' if any one of them is the president.  
 
A win for any illusion of a side can be seen as a win for whites, others who so aspire, and those who get their false sense of superiority egos massaged anyhow. So it is not strange to hear a white person use terms such as "excellent strategists" and "pure genius" while trying to describe the white status quo. These terms also serve to keep the illusion of intelligent White masterminds intact. I don't see any of these corrupt people as intelligent, "excellent strategists", or manifesting "pure genius".

[iyah360]

In response to iyah360's response:

I disagree with your spin on the meaning of genius, but you are quite entitled to your views on it.

O.K.

You said: "the republicans are excellent strategists"  
 
You also said: "it is pure genius."  

I don't see any excellent strategies being used by any side of the same U.S. political system. Both sides of the same political 'culture' lie and deceive, and the majority of the people are just foolish for not knowing that and/or how to change it. It also speaks of the weakness of those who CLAIM they want political change (the so-called liberals).  

I see nothing that resembles "pure genius" coming out from that charade of an election.  

agreed. it appears that this is about my use of words then. my use of these words is not the same as yours. perhaps it is time for me to use different words when explaining my point.

i know much of what is seen as choice in the U.S. is actually a fixed game to begin with. if we are coming from the perspective that it is the people who actually decided this election though, then the strategy of the republicans to use pressure point issues to guide this base of support into electing the republicans is something that seriously needs to be looked into. it means people vote with their emotions, and that there are certain issues which were focussed on and used as the trojan horse to keep this "morally conservative" voting bloc's support in tact - in the FACE of so much MORAL and ETHICAL corruption on all levels of the Bush administration. i would forward the proposition then that it is important for people who want radical change to GAUGE the mindset and patterns of American voters - and if we still believe that it is the PEOPLE who are deciding the policies of the government of the most powerful empire ever known, then this is an extremely serious issue to contemplate when formulating a workable strategy.
   

It is only excellent when people stand on integrity, and challenge the wrongs from there. Neither of the same 'culture' of the U.S. political divide did that. It is only pure genius to 'win' against all odds by standing firm on what is right. No such thing existed in that election. I don't see any real differences between Bush and Kerry, so there is nothing to celebrate or equate with 'excellent strategists' or 'pure genius' if any one of them is the president.  

totally agreed. again, this is a matter of usage of words.  

A win for any illusion of a side can be seen as a win for whites, others who so aspire, and those who get their false sense of superiority egos massaged anyhow. So it is not strange to hear a white person use terms such as "excellent strategists" and "pure genius" while trying to describe the white status quo. These terms also serve to keep the illusion of intelligent White masterminds intact. I don't see any of these corrupt people as intelligent, "excellent strategists", or manifesting "pure genius".

well Ayinde, i see your point, and i see how words can be misconstrued, especially coming from a white person on an Africa Speaks board. i remember having a similar misunderstanding with you a while back when i used the word "semantics." this is showing me that perhaps i need to brush up on my definitions and usage of words.

just as a side note - i would also use the word genius and excellent strategy to describe the way that Chavez and Co. are carving out some self-determination in the midst of the global capitalist on-slaught.

[iyah360]

Morality turned out to be a key motivator in an election apparently dominated by the Iraq war, terrorism and the economy. According to exit polls, 20% of voters put moral issues at the top of their list - more than any other issue - and 80% of them were Bush supporters.

"George Bush speaks our language of faith, and John Kerry doesn't," said Carrie Earll, a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family, an influential conservative group.

"Right now, we live in a time when the economy, Iraq and the war on terror are big topics - so the fact that social and moral values took precedence over those, even in wartime, is an indication that this is fundamental to who we are as a people."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1343992,00.html

[Ayinde]

A few comments In relation to your previous response before the thread diverts.

I don't want to end by leaving an impression that I am accepting your premise that it was just about misunderstanding a few words. I do not feel that if you change your words it can fundamentally change anything. I do not believe it is just about your choice of words.

It was very obvious to me that you were unwittingly celebrating White political deception. What I am showing is that even when the White power system is at its worst, Whites can celebrate it. The crap does not impact on them the most (as yet), and they get by, massaging their false superiority complexes. I am showing that despite your attempted 'critique' of the system, it was quite easy for you, a White person, to attempt to raise the worst tactics used by this blatantly corrupt and dangerous U.S. regime to the status of "pure genius" and "excellent strategists". Your comments were more like a celebration of White Power in the face of all the harm it does, and it definitely was a contradiction given the way you appear to be joining Blacks in critiquing the system.

It is not like if I am trying to tell you or anyone else how to speak/write. If I read the same comments posted by a white person on a white focused message board, I would have felt and thought about it the same way.

[iyah360]

A few comments In relation to your previous response before the thread diverts.

I don't want to end by leaving an impression that I am accepting your premise that it was just about misunderstanding a few words. I do not feel that if you change your words it can fundamentally change anything. I do not believe it is just about your choice of words.

It was very obvious to me that you were unwittingly celebrating White political deception. What I am showing is that even when the White power system is at its worst, Whites can celebrate it. The crap does not impact on them the most (as yet), and they get by, massaging their false superiority complexes. I am showing that despite your attempted 'critique' of the system, it was quite easy for you, a White person, to attempt to raise the worst tactics used by this blatantly corrupt and dangerous U.S. regime to the status of "pure genius" and "excellent strategists". Your comments were more like a celebration of White Power in the face of all the harm it does, and it definitely was a contradiction given the way you appear to be joining Blacks in critiquing the system.

It is not like if I am trying to tell you or anyone else how to speak/write. If I read the same comments posted by a white person on a white focused message board, I would have felt and thought about it the same way.

I think you have raised a very valid point - it is true, if I were suffering from the system at its worst, I may very well have not been afforded the privilege to have the point of view I come from. You are correct, I am able to see the tactics of the Bush administration from a distance, in the realm of a theoretical intellectual analysis, rather than direct impact.

So you can understand a little bit about where I am coming from - I express myself at times to be a flea under the collar of these liberal analysis that permeate so much of the "alternative" media. My initial post was a reaction to the ideas that float around in many democrat type liberals circles, they get so caught up in the FRONT that the republicans put up to hide their wicked intent, that many times they miss the heart of the matter entirely - that a strategy underlies the workings.

In so doing, I exposed myself to the privilege which I have in the system which even allows me to have this kind of analysis in the first place.

I will meditate on this and try to properly assimilate it into my actions. Thanks for opening up my mind some more and showing me the heart of the matter which my privilege creates a blindspot to.

[Ayinde]

Cool.