One of the More Dispiriting Things I've Read Lately

[Darryl G. Thomas]

lookout by Naomi Klein
Ditch the Distraction in Chief

[from the August 16, 2004 issue]

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.

[Al in NYC]

I actually liked this piece. A whole lot better than a lot of the other stuff I read in The Nation. It seemed to me a very clear-eyed progressive's assessment of the limited possibilities of a Kerry administration, but also the reasons why Kerry must win and the current horror show must end. So many folks seem almost willfully deluded that Kerry and the present day Democrats are going to make any substantive change to the course of the country or the world, but they clearly are not and an article like this will hopefully remind some progressives that this is true (if living through the Clinton years hadn't reminded them already). The fight is well past Republicans vs. Democrats now, but at least under the Democrats we have some possibility of having a voice.

[Sergio Zamora]

It's interesting because though it still calls for an ABB solution, its line of reasoning seems to diverge from the standard Nation ABB stance.

I still don't buy it, though. The idea that progressives can go back to focusing on attacking the system instead of attacking a person is pretty tempting, but her comparison with the progressive situation during the Clinton years seems off to me. For starters, the main military engagements that took place during the Clinton years didn't elicit the same type of mass demonstrations as Iraq. In fact, they were practically invisible to most Americans. I dare say most liberals actually supported the 'humanitarian interventions'. One area that did gain momentum was the anti-globalization movement, but I don't see a correlation to its growth and decline with who was in office.

Overall though, the problem is you just can't compare the two periods. We're basically in another historical epoch, and the same rules just don't apply. I won't predict what will happen if one or another wins, but I think more people will become even more disillusioned with democrats regardless. And that's a good thing for the Left.

I agree that the piece is disturbing, but it is so because it's a reality check. To me, Kerry is a desirable candidate only because the alternative is so deplorable, but Kerry is not the solution--one hopes that he will right some of the many Bush wrongs, but to think that he will bring happy days here again is delusional.

Oh my!!!!

Chris, thats the most *GASP*.....reasonable post I've ever seen from you.

Nicely said.

[Dr Dave]

I dunno. I don't see anything particularly groundbreaking about this story, other than its appearance in The Nation. George W. Bush is a lightning rod for public opinion precisely because of his obvious deficiencies in the brainbox department. I once posted here--facetiously, but maybe not so facetiously--that John Kerry's record as a do-nothing Senator was exactly what made him so appealing. I don't know about you, but I just can't take another four years of a man so adept at polarizing the electorate as George W. Bush. He's a shallow born-again reformed drunk. How he got to where he is in the first place I'm sure is as much a mystery to him as it is to his more talented brother Jeb.

This is not to be construed as an endorsement of Jeb Bush. I'm much more afraid of him than I am of George W., because he's not a clown. Remember, it's Jeb who is one of the original signatories on the declaration of intent of the "New American Century", not party-boy baby brother.

[jeff54]

Kerry supposedly has the most liberal voting record in the senate. I don't understand anyone claiming that he would not be that different then Bush.
It's pretty much a given that with the system of government we have in the US no one is going to come in and radically change things, but what's so bad about a progressive movement?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Kerry supposedly has the most liberal voting record in the senate. I don't understand anyone claiming that he would not be that different then Bush.
It's pretty much a given that with the system of government we have in the US no one is going to come in and radically change things, but what's so bad about a progressive movement?

From the article above:
"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."

In other words, there won't be a progressive movement until Bush is out of the White House, because progressives at the moment can't focus on anything except demonizing Bush.

[Al in NYC]

Or just getting the hell rid of him.

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

...progressives at the moment can't focus on anything except demonizing Bush.

One cannot demonize a demon anymore than one can wet water.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

In other words, there won't be a progressive movement until Bush is out of the White House, because progressives at the moment can't focus on anything except demonizing Bush.

I don't buy it. The difference will be that progressives will have someone who is like minded in the White House. Maybe the problem is with the way Ms. Klein and I define progressive. I'm Not sure of Ms. Klein definition but mine is: a gradual movement toward reform. Ms. Klein is upset that by electing Kerry we won't solve all our nations ill's in one felt swoop. She's right but that's the negitive side of our political system. The positive side is that there is a stabilty that comes out of a gradual change that prevents the country from sliding into chaos every time there is a change of government. In all the "key areas" she named doing a 180 degree turn would only lead to disaster. We need gradually get to 90 degrees.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

jeff,

What she's talking about is politics as usual. Remember when Clinton got elected? Finally, a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Congress. What's the legacy? Welfare reform and NAFTA.

I'm a member of the ABB crowd. I'm pissed because of the 900+ needlessly dead American troops , the hundreds of billions pissed away in Iraq and what I feel is a steady march to another Guilded Age.

[clinthopson]

There won't be a progressive federal agenda until the repubs are the nminority in congress and then I'm not sure because of the whorishness of all pols.

[Dr Dave]

NAFTA was good. Is good. Will continue to be good. Sorry. I'm still a free-trader.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by No Logo Klein

From the article above:
"The main difference will be that as Kerry pursues these brutal policies, he will come off as intelligent, sane and blissfully dull.

I like the "come off." Klein is right. Kerry will pursue the same pro-American policies that Bush does, but the reporting and commentary will be radically different. What was bone idiotic will become nuanced in the extreme. Always does.

I insist that I will be happier with a Kerry administration, God preserve us, than any of the Bush haters on this board.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I like the "come off." Klein is right. Kerry will pursue the same pro-American policies that Bush does, but the reporting and commentary will be radically different. What was bone idiotic will become nuanced in the extreme. Always does.

I insist that I will be happier with a Kerry administration, God preserve us, than any of the Bush haters on this board.

I could not agree more.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

jeff,

What she's talking about is politics as usual. Remember when Clinton got elected? Finally, a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Congress. What's the legacy? Welfare reform and NAFTA.

I'm a member of the ABB crowd. I'm pissed because of the 900+ needlessly dead American troops , the hundreds of billions pissed away in Iraq and what I feel is a steady march to another Guilded Age.

I tend to agree with you on those two issues Darryl, although I'm still not sure about NAFTA to be honest, but on a host of other issues Clinton was progressive from the environment to abortion rights.

Let me ask one question, does anyone honestly think that if Kerry had been President these last 4 years that we would have gone to war in Iraq? And would the war in Afganistan been managed so badly? I mean other then making Afaganistan safe for a pipeline what was really accomplished?
One group of thugs removed for a slightly less thugish version of the same thing. Osma wasn't caught and given all the terror alerts it doesn't seem like the Afgan invasion actually did anything to make us safer.
Does anyone think there would have been a tax cut for the rich.
Does anyone think the reversals in the evironment would have taken place. (see todays ny times for article on give backs to the coal industry).

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Let me ask one question.

I will gladly answer one question.

Originally Posted by jeff54

Let me ask one question, does anyone honestly think that if Kerry had been President these last 4 years that we would have gone to war in Iraq?.

Kerry could not have been President under any known scenario, but we may have gone to war in Iraq. It was the express policy, since 1998, to accomplish regime change in Iraq.

Originally Posted by jeff54

And would the war in Afganistan been managed so badly? I mean other then making Afaganistan safe for a pipeline what was really accomplished?

I don't know that the war in Afghanistan has been managed badly or that a pipeline has been safegained.

Originally Posted by jeff54

One group of thugs removed for a slightly less thugish version of the same thing.

Please. We have a group of thugs in charge, at least, who do not chop women's heads off in soccer stadiums. Would you measure that as progress? Forget it. You'd measure the opposite as progress so long as the US was not calling the shots. I see your "progress."

Originally Posted by jeff54

Osma wasn't caught and given all the terror alerts it doesn't seem like the Afgan invasion actually did anything to make us safer.

"Osma" has not been caught, but the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, has been. As have other jihadists. And reading the WSJ today, I note that allies like France are working harder than we are to detain, deport, and destroy Islamic fundamentalism. So evidently our "unilateralism" detracts from the war on terror not a pork rind.

Originally Posted by jeff54

Does anyone think there would have been a tax cut for the rich.

Or a tax cut at all!

Originally Posted by jeff54

Does anyone think the reversals in the evironment would have taken place. (see todays ny times for article on give backs to the coal industry).

No. If Kerry was President, the Kyoto Accord that was rejected by all Senators and not signed by Clinton would be American law.

[jeff54]

Kerry could not have been President under any known scenario, but we may have gone to war in Iraq. It was the express policy, since 1998, to accomplish regime change in Iraq.

I know full well Kerry could not have been President the last 4 years the queston was rhetorical.
But anyway, first of all just because that has been the policy doesn't mean it would have continued to be the policy. Secondly even it had remained the policy that doesn't mean it would have been realized via a war.

I don't know that the war in Afghanistan has been managed badly or that a pipeline has been safegained.

see this - then you'll know

Please. We have a group of thugs in charge, at least, who do not chop women's head
s off in soccer stadiums. Would you measure that as progress? Forget it. You'd measure the opposite as progress so long as the US was not calling the shots. I see your "progress."

I guess that is progess, but it has to be measured against how many innocent women, children and, what the hell even men, were killed to acheive it. If progress in Afganistian was the intent, we sould of taken a big chunk of the change we are spending in Iraq and spent it fixing up Afganistian. That actually might of been an accomplishment.

"Osma" has not been caught, but the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, has been. As have other jihadists. And reading the WSJ today, I note that allies like France are working harder than we are to detain, deport, and destroy Islamic fundamentalism. So evidently our "unilateralism" detracts from the war on terror not a pork rind.

He was arrested in Pakistian by the Pakestani's what evidence do you have that the war in any way lead to his capture.

Or a tax cut at all!

I rather not have the deficit. I don't mind paying myfair share

No. If Kerry was President, the Kyoto Accord that was rejected by all Senators and not signed by Clinton would be American law.

That would be fine with me.

Originally Posted by Jeff54

Let me ask one question, does anyone honestly think that if Kerry had been President these last 4 years that we would have gone to war in Iraq?.

Hmmm....well, he made many statements about Saddam and his WMD. And he ultimately voted for the war.

So.........

What does that tell us?

And would the war in Afganistan been managed so badly?

What was so bad about the way it was managed? Iraq I'll give you. Things certainly don't seem to have played out as favorably as initially thought. And the post war plan was *ahem*.....lacking. But Afghanistan?

One group of thugs removed for a slightly less thugish version of the same thing.

The women there might disagree. Fuck the chopping off of their heads bit that my barbaric brethren brought up. They are living better lives in general.

Osma wasn't caught and given all the terror alerts it doesn't seem like the Afgan invasion actually did anything to make us safer.

According to one of our more poetic posters here, "Osma" is now living a comfy life right here in the states. No need to dig into the veracity of that statement, but I'll tell you this: "Osma" ain't going to live too comfortably in Afghanistan anymore.

Long lib the Taliban, Brother 54.

Oh, did I say "lib". I meant "live".

Does anyone think there would have been a tax cut for the rich.

Absolutely not. Because Kerry comes from such a poor background, he would have certainly stuck it to them dirty rich bastards. He HATES them fuckerz.

Originally Posted by Satan

No. If Kerry was President, the Kyoto Accord that was rejected by all Senators and not signed by Clinton would be American law.

Well, you got to admit, when he's right, he's right.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I don't think Gore/Kerry would not have gone into Iraq because Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz wouldn't have been part of their administration. I think we would've seen a continuation of talking about regime change but keeping sanctions in place. We certainly wouldn't have had the Bush Doctrine proposed.

There probably wouldn't have been a tax cut even though at the time of the election we had a budget surplus. I may have been hallucinating, but I believe I heard on the radio yesterday that for the first time Bush admitted that his tax cuts may have helped widen the budget deficit. The follow up tax cuts definately wouldn't have flown, not with a growing deficit.

I don't know about the Kyoto Agreement, but I'm pretty sure the domestic environmental rule changes Bush has proposed wouldn't have been brought up.

Restrictions on stem-cell research? Probably wouldn't be an issue. It wasn't during the 2000 elections. It was a blip on the radar screen.

Would the economy be better? Probably not. No one has the guts to tell all the folks that lost manufacturing jobs that those jobs aren't coming back. I don't think a Gore or Kerry administartion would've put into place policies that rewards things like outsourcing, but I don't see them making a big fuss over it other than as an election issue.

No one's speaking honestly about the baby-boomers needs concerning Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. I figure they'll wait until we reach a crisis in those areas, then scramble.

So in the end, even if Kerry beats Bush changes (in the big picture) will be marginal. But I figure Kerry will do less damage.

[frank m]

You guys who say there's no difference between the candidates and their parties really tick me off. Let me merely remind you of 3 little words:The Supreme Court. Then there's abortion rights.Stem cell research.Gutting Pell grants. Gutting the environmental acts. Chopping away at the separation of church and state. The Kyoto accord.Trying to junk the Hubble. and in general trying to bend the Constitution to fit their philosophy. And their false fatuous piety.I could go on and on, but it just raises my blood pressure.

[moneyp]

I love the article, except that I think she overestimates the "Progressives" ability to focus on the issues. When their team is in power they become apologists.

Originally Posted by Frank M

Then there's abortion rights.

Is abortion still legal?

Stem cell research.

Which is still receiving government funding.

Chopping away at the separation of church and state.

I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere.

The Kyoto accord.

Um, see Monte's post above.

Trying to junk the Hubble.

How do you junk, junk?

and in general trying to bend the Constitution to fit their philosophy.

Oh, you mean like going to war in Yugoslavia even though Congress voted against it?