October 04, 2004
Strange Victory
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |By: John Chuckman
[John's pieces appear in Counterpunch, Online Journal, Yellow Times, Media Monitors, Scoop, and many other sites. This was sent as a guest submission to Uncommon Thought. John Chuckman can be reached at JChuckman@mediamonitors.org
Nothing tells us more about the odd political state of America than the recent presidential debate and reactions to it.
The American debates, of course, are not debates at all. They are more a set of joint press conferences, a staged opportunity for both candidates to repeat memorized lines in a cozy environment, protected by elaborate rules and an always-undemanding moderator. Still, once in a while, something manages to happen.
You cannot look to the prominent members of either major American political party for an honest assessment of how their candidate performed. Despite being regularly trotted out on America's political-discussion programs, these people leave the impression of old Soviet apparatchiks offering spontaneous views on Stalin's latest speech.
If you looked to the mainline press or the small group of people who hold lifetime sinecures on television, you would have concluded the morning after that the debate was a tie, an opinion generated by the same tireless machinery that churns out most of what Americans hear about Iraq. Only the so-called instant polls told you something else, and there was a clue from John McCain, a man desperate to cleanse his conscience of groveling for Bush, who briefly admitted that Kerry had his best night in a long stretch.
If you had read the words of former Vice President Al Gore just before the debate, you might have expected Bush to be a formidable opponent, consistently underestimated. But to credit Gore's judgment required you to ignore the fact that he is the man whose inept campaign in 2000 put Bush into office. Gore does not want to be remembered as the smart man, groomed for decades in politics at the highest level, who let one of the most sniveling and uninformed politicians in American history take the country's highest office, but that is precisely Gore's legacy.
With most of the usual sources of authority discounted, you were left to your own judgment, something with which Americans are not all that comfortable. American television's hazy, synthetic vision of the world, where everything from the best choice of toilet-bowl cleaner to what should be your view of the latest colonial slaughter is appealingly served up to be consumed as directed, makes independent judgment unfamiliar territory.
Still, once in a while, there's no shaking the effect of a stark fact. Any fool could see that Bush is a man who cannot think on his feet, that his responses are those of a toy doll whose same scratchy set of recordings play each time you squeeze him. Winning a debate with a man of his quality would not be an achievement anywhere, except in America. Gore should have landed a string of knock-out punches during the 2000 debates, but he utterly failed to do so. My private guess as to why he didn't is that he thought the audience might judge him harshly for assisting an incompetent to appear incompetent. It reflects the same political sensibility that had the razor-sharp mind of Mrs. Clinton focused on baking cookies. Kerry's wife, an outspoken woman of foreign birth, has only just been asked to make herself a little scarce. She doesn't go down well with the bowling-bag-and-Barbara-Bush set.
Before the debate, Kerry pretty much had followed Gore's script for campaign as light farce. On a few occasions, Kerry indulged an inexplicable taste for the Keystone Cops, making floundering, bizarrely-twisted statements about the war in Iraq. You almost expected to see his eyes crossed while his jaw worked at the words. His audience, not surprisingly, failed to see a Keystone Cop as someone to rescue them from a moron, and the polls marked Kerry down as someone the Political Angel of Death was not going to bypass in November. As for turning instead to a thoughtful, honest man like Ralph Nader, that simply is not on in an America that only buys brands with billion-dollar advertising budgets.
So, Kerry had little to lose in the debate. Still, he offered nothing heroic, nothing startling, only just managing a few pointed comments most of the world takes as common sense, but in politically-asthmatic America even that little wheeze is significant. Judging by Bush's reaction, which (broadcast on split-screen despite a previous understanding not to do so) resembled the movements of one of those old monkey-on-a-stick toys, even these few comments were deeply irritating. It may be that the broadcast of Bush's reactions was more telling than anything Kerry managed to say. Get ready for years of howling cries about a stab in the back from those who await the coming of a new Dr. Goebbels to save them from the sick fantasy of a liberal American press.
The ridiculous circumstance in America that tends to make an incompetent like Bush seem above scrutiny and criticism starts with the very nature of a Constitution making the President both head of state and head of government. Thus, when you criticize a President for doing something stupid, you are seen to be criticizing the symbol of the country itself, and not merely another politician, which is of course what Presidents are, first and foremost. In the case of war - even a totally illegal, bungled, and pointless war like the one in Iraq - you may be regarded as giving aid and comfort to some undefined enemy or as not supporting the "boyz in hawm's way," perhaps the most unforgivable transgression an American politician can commit.
Less-instant polls at this writing indicate the public-opinion impact of Bush's broadcast reactions may be substantial. If so, it is remarkable that it took Americans four years to see what a pathetic lump their President is, but it is equally remarkable that Kerry, who has said little of anything beyond the obvious, will benefit.
Beyond the Pale of The Presidency:
I believe that powers beyond and above the US Presidency put in motion this war. Iraq seems to be the center of the whole election and I don't see much of a divergant path between the two candidates - it's like Mt. St. Helens about to erupt and not really knowing the full extent of the fallout - all sorts of major issues are at play here - human rights, the credibility and endurance of nations and alliances, energy and environmental issues, the UN, internal security for America, etc. - 9/11 put in motion many 'things' that go way beyond simply lashing out at real and perceived enemies - I don't see any room for compromise either on the extremities with Haliburton/Exxon etc on one end of the polarity and the jihadists/bin ladens on the other end - what a legacy we are leaving to the children of the planet - I simply don't see either Bush or Kerry as a savior
Posted by: goesh at October 4, 2004 11:27 AMThat's because neither Bush nor Kerry are saviors, the only "saviors" are "We the people". As was discussed in previous postings leaders require followers, unless and until the public decides to change, we will continue to eat BHT, BHA, GMO and kinds of other **** on a stick providing it is "branded and properly "packaged" the same as our politcal diet.
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at October 4, 2004 12:39 PM"I believe that powers beyond and above the US Presidency put in motion this war." Whatever basis you have for that assumption, the current president is the one who enacted this war--promoted it, lied about our reasoning for engaging in it, and has continued to lie about the fallout of it.
We can't effect anything against a vague notion of "powers beyond," but we can sure as hell effect a change in our current administration.
"9/11 put in motion many 'things' that go way beyond simply lashing out at real and perceived enemies - I don't see any room for compromise either on the extremities with Haliburton/Exxon etc on one end of the polarity and the jihadists/bin ladens on the other end"--there IS no polarity. There is no equation that factors in these two entities and creates a binary between the two ... so the point really makes very little sense. Particularly in context with the article above. Throwing the complexities of capitalistic corporate culture, with a vastly misunderstood concept of jihad which you have lumped catagorically with Bin Laden (when in fact jihad is a pluralistic term which has been distilled by our culture to mean something like "indiscriminate war against presumed enemies"( (Said, The Clash of Ignorance), is random and moot in relation to Mr. Chuckman's article.
Posted by: Pamela at October 4, 2004 11:50 PMOur culture? You mean that of the West, don't you? A vastly misunderstood concept of jihad you say - then certainly more than your nation is misunderstanding your concept of jihad given vast amount of resources committed by vast numbers of nations in combating this 'misunderstanding'.And, I seem to recall that Congress had no problem authorizing the use of force in Iraq and they quickly voted to authorize the additional expenditures of tax dollars to sustain the war. It would seem Congress is not understanding Iraq, at least according to your take on it, as they simply could vote to cut off the funding for it thus ending the war. That's the problem with misunderstandings - each side thinks they are right and that is a lethal polarity being played out in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Chechnya, Yemen, Sudan, Kasmir, Russia, Pakistan and several other places.... and you think Bush unleashed the dogs of war?
Posted by: goesh at October 5, 2004 04:52 AMWell... I have to say that I do think there is a power elite that finds war and chaos extremely powerful. And I do think they influence the US and other governments. I would also say that it does make a difference who gets voted into office, and that is an area over which we have some control. How much that interferes with the aforementioned power elite is up for debate, but it is clear they want or need to remain "behind the scenes."
I also agree with Edward Said (and Pamela's quote) that "jihad" is misunderstood. However, if the translation of the bin Laden tapes are anywhere close to accurate, he did declare "jihad" on the US. I am also not sure that he is not a player (or a puppet) in the game of the power elite.
I think that there is much more going on here than the manufactured war against terrorism is a thinly veiled ploy that gained its validity through the absolutist framing of the events of 9/11 and manipulation of public grief and fear (and racism). The landslide vote by the Congress to give war powers to Bush was (in my opinion) a political move - most of those in Congress (dems and reps alike) did not want to be seen as going against Bush (because of the effectiveness of the selling of the lie). In other words, they were afraid they would not be re-elected if they didn't vote for authorization. If you watched the floor debates and maneuvering at the time, it is clear what was going on. There were also those who agreed with the manufacturers of the lie that the US should take out Hussein and take over Iraq for all the usual reasons.
Bush, whether pawn or player, is clearly a willing participant in all that has happened.
Posted by: rowan at October 5, 2004 06:30 AMJihad is self purification, self discipline through which to better enact, and enforce, the will of Allah. The concept is nothing new - note the sun-dance rituals of Native Americans in practice long before the Prophet Mohammed, may he rest in peace, set foot upon the earth. Most systems of spirituality have a mechanism for self purification and redirecting one's life on the 'right path' of thought and conduct.
It doesn't take much to manipulate fear when 3000 people are killed and economic and military foundations of a nation are directly attacked. It didn't take any manipulation for the men aboard that 3rd plane to crash it, which was probably aimed for the White House - talk about Jihad, those men sure enacted it. One can only speculate about the reactions had that plane taken out the White House - would a nuke or two have been deployed?
You mention racism and I don't buy it. If that were the case, there would have been hundreds and hundreds of attacks against Muslims and masjids here in America, post 9/11, and that was not the case, not at all. Given the size of the US and the numbers of Muslims living here, there were very few attacks. There was mean-mouthing and lots of it, of course, but does that same level of rhetoric exist today? It doesn't. When people use the term Jihad in the fatwas that have come out from many masjids in many countries, people are going to react to that term in the context of its intent - a call to arms and that unfortunately applies to both sides.
When a few men can meet behind closed doors and in a matter of an hour or two raise the price of oil and economically impact most of the planet, the US presidency is about at relevant as my pointed opinions are.
Posted by: goesh at October 5, 2004 08:04 AMGoesh, if you and I are going to engage in another of these "debates," I'd appreciate it if you would quote me directly, as I have done with your posts, and not interpret or misquote my posts. For instance, you begin your reply with "Our culture?" In the context of my sentence, I would say it was pretty clear that I was speaking about US culture. Our relations with the middle east have nuances not applicable to Europe's relationship.
Creating a polarity between east and west is another attempt by Olin Institute think-tankers that I don't accept. It is a false attempt at lumping our current issues into a HUGE blanket catagory which falsely assumes that everyone in one section of the world is one way, and everyone in the other is another way. It's ludicrous.
Again, my assertion that our cultural understanding of jihad is skewed is not my original thought, but has been asserted by a slew of intellectuals worldwide. While Bin Laden, and the like, have appropriated a violent interpretation of jihad, it is as relevant an application as the Christian Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition were of Christianity.
And as for your indictment of congress, I was as furious at their cowardice, while recognizing the pressures being exerted by the general shock and fear of our country at that time. I have noted who voted how, and who has reacted differently, and I will vote accordingly. But again, that wasn't what was being discussed here, was it?
"each side thinks they are right and that is a lethal polarity being played out in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Chechnya, Yemen, Sudan, Kasmir, Russia, Pakistan and several other places.... and you think Bush unleashed the dogs of war?"--a simple answer, YES. I've already asserted a zillion times on Uncommon Thought that the current ADMINISTRATION, with loads of spin-doctors, advisors, senators and congresspeople, are all part and parcel of our country's current dilemma. But Bush is who is the topic, and Bush is the figurehead, and he's up for re-election.
You can pose as incredulous that I've made this wild assertion about Bush, but I'm pretty confident that my opinion on this is pretty well concurred with in these parts.