Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

July 14, 2004
“…he´ll ruin you faster”

As a US foreigner, I do ask myself who should win the next US election.

The US is the No. 1 nation. It spends more money on military power than the rest of the world together. There are over 700 military US outlets in over 100 countries. The US dollar, as the reserve currency and commodity currency of world trade, has effects on the economical situation of many foreigners. If the US decides to deliberately inflate the dollar (as it already does to some extend today) this inflation will be exported to other countries. The US has the diplomatic power to bring all others to the table on any issues. As Kyoto, WTO and several other issues show, it decides the ecential outcome of such meetings.

The current Bush foreign policy would not change after a re-election. This should put me decidedly into the Anything-But-Bush-Camp. But if Kerrys foreign policy does not differ from Bushs way, would it not be better to keep Bush? He would definitely be more effective in ruining the US and its world relations. Then, maybe, a point will be reached,

where the US electorate will feel the outcome of such a policy to such an extend, that it will demand totally different concepts.

Josh Marshall has written on Kerry Faces the World in the Atlantic. Stephen J. Sniegoski on John Kerry: Liberal Interventionist in Current Concerns and Mark Hand has “It’s Time to Get Over It” in Counterpunch – all good controversial reads.

All three point to a central policy paper to Kerrys policy. Marshall writes:

Late last year, when Howard Dean was the front-runner, Pollack, Asmus, and … [Greg Craig] signed a manifesto titled “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy”, which aimed to put the Democratic foreign-policy establishment on record against Dean’s perceived slide toward the party’s dovish past.

The paper in question supports:

the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values.
…
We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America’s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy.
…
While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America’s national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough. We need to do more, and do it smarter and better…

Reading further my summery boils down to three points:

  • America is exceptional because we are a, b, c.
  • We do need to spread a, b, c through the world, if not by dictate than by military means.
  • We need to do this multilateraly, because the unilateral way Bush does this, is too expensive

Neocons and neodems, as Hand calls them, PNAC and PPI – is there any essential difference? Is it like Sniegoski says: “In short, expect Kerry’s America to be involved in unending war and occupation.”

In foreign policy, Bush and Kerry look much the same to me. So now should I say “Dear Americans, vote Bush, he´ll ruin you faster”?

Posted by b on July 14, 2004 at 19:46 UTC | Permalink
Comments

International events aside, I must admit I’d rather see the unwinding of the housing bubble and the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac happen under a Bush presidency. But the dictatorial tendencies of this crowd, combined with the message it sends about lack of accountability make it too big a risk not to remove them ASAP.

Posted by: mats | Jul 14 2004 20:35 utc | 1

In their own words…
If I were President – John Kerry speaking on foreign policy in 2003
If I were President – John Edwards speaking on foreign policy in 2003
Kerry and Edwards on proliferation and non-proliferation

Posted by: The horse’s mouth | Jul 14 2004 20:47 utc | 2

mats: I’d be inclined to agree with you concerning the housing bubble if Bush were to be re-elected. I’m in the part of the country where it’s still going crazy and the cheap speculators have just moved in.
The difference with Kerry, tho, is this: I think he would rescind the tax cuts and do it in a hurry. Continuing monster deficits would make a bubble burst a disaster, whereas I think the markets would merely shrug if it came as the deficits were slowing down, on their way to reversing.
That and $1.09 will get you coffee.

Posted by: vachon | Jul 14 2004 21:01 utc | 3

Chalmers Johnson cites 969 military bases in the 50 United States and at least 725 (and 234 military golf courses) sprinkled around the planet, with a presence in 140 of the 189 member countries of the UN, significant deployment in 25, and binding security agreements w/ at least 36.
The US does not plan on giving these up. Today I was investigating the plans to increase ammo (bullet) production to 2 billion rounds per year. No doubt this is to further the protection racket we are running, currently spearheaded by “the executive committee of the American Petroleum Institute” aka bushCo. One advantage, albeit a risky one, in retaining bushCo is that the neocons are insanely greedy and impatient and more likely to self-destruct, plus they don’t seem to learn from their mistakes. The focus on economic imperialism of the Clinton years was more measured than strictly enforcing military might and that is what the strategizers on the Dem side of the aisle are hoping to get back to under the guise of internationalism. Remember though that the Clinton Doctrine was not much different than the Bush Doctrine. Clinton bombed 4 countries in a 7 month period, making it clear that the US will bomb and invade countries whose domestic policies don’t fit into the grand plan.
The problem w/ both Bush and Kerry is that stopping this imperialist drive is not part of the discussion. US intentions are hardly different than those of any other imperialist group : establishing military and political domination over the entire world. We really really need an anti-imperialist candidate right now. Bush and Kerry must not be the only options. Putting the Kerry team in place only allows empire time to catch its breath and adjust.

Posted by: b real | Jul 14 2004 21:05 utc | 4

Bernard, you can’t possibly be advocating for another 4 years of the shrub!
The things we know about the current administration are:
They are the most corrupt, lying, bunch of crooks to have ever been in power in this country.
While in office they have gutted most of what set the US apart from the rest of the world. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have already been severely damaged by the Patriot Act and other attacks that will only continue the longer they are in power.
The social safety net (welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security) is eroding faster than you can say terror alert. The NCLB and the lack of funding along with charter schools, and teaching to the test are putting the education system into cardiac arrest. The legislation he has signed for “Clear Skys” and “Healthy Forests” not to mention moving all the high level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain, and changing the classification of “low level” radioactive waste so it can be discarded in the local landfill will ensure that we are all on the endangered species list before the end of his next term.
If your idea is to lay waste to the country in order to save it, you can count me out.
The other thing we know about Bush is that he only listens to a little voice that he identifies as “God” and maybe a few other voices, but he doesn’t give a rats ass about anybody else.
What makes you so sure that after another 4 years (or after the coming election) bushco would just pull up stakes and leave office? Because it’s in the constitution? It’s the law? You haven’t been paying close enough attention lately, these guys think that they are above the law and can do whatever they want. And so far the repub congress and house have played along, and so has the justice department.
Whatever has been written about the Kerry foreign policy is conjecture at this point and is not written in stone. Just like what was written about Bush and his foreign policy leading up to the 2000 election was conjecture. We are all witness to how true that was. I remember something about not getting into the “nation building” business, being a uniter, blah, blah, blah.
The things we know about Kerry are this:
He is intelligent.
He can be talked to.
He listens.
He can carry on an intelligent conversation about foreign policy, health care, education, the environment, jobs, outsourcing.
He doesn’t need editors of news agencies to edit and clean up his use of the language.
He speaks more than one language, well.
He’s intellectually curious.
He reads more interesting and challenging books than “My Pet Goat”.
We know much more about Kerry, but based on that alone he is more qualified to be president than the one the supreme court appointed last time.

Posted by: sukabi | Jul 14 2004 21:05 utc | 5

Bernhard,
If it were just a matter of economics and foreign policy, I’d say there’s legitmacy in your argument.
However, a second Bush administration — given its voraciousness for swallowing individual civil liberties whole and crapping them out its hind end all over the Supreme Court and the legislative branches — could well mean that 2004 may be the last free election Americans ever have.
It is, you may recall, “inherent in the office of the president” to set aside laws in times of war, Mr. Bush was advised.
Consider the sweeping changes he’s made in his first term, when he knew he would want to court good will for election to a second. Now imagine how he could destroy the mechanisms of democracy in a second term when he would be unrestrained about concern for re-election.
I honestly believe there would be a 50/50 chance that he would simply refuse to leave office if given a second term. The 2004 election may well be the only shot, the final shot, we have at getting rid of him and his cabal.
Yeah, I’m alarmist. So sue me.

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 14 2004 21:11 utc | 6

SusanG – you said it better than I did.
this is OT, but the guy that broke the Sibel Edmonds story has another exclusive:
Feds knew about 9-11 bribery conspiracy before attacks

by Tom Flocco
ORLANDO, FL — Tuesday, July 13, 2004 Posted 1:30 PM EDT — TomFlocco.com — Homeland Security whistleblower Mary Schneider is naming names, revealing that former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and numerous U.S. senators and congressmen knew before the September 11 attacks that U.S. immigration officials were bribed by an illegal Moroccan Muslim allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden’s half-brother. This according to Schneider, who was told about the illegal alien’s ties to terrorism by outside informant Bonnie Sharrit. …

Posted by: sukabi | Jul 14 2004 21:22 utc | 7

Bernhard, lots to be discussed here, mulled over and hashed out. In a polite way, of course.
But I want to weigh in to thank you for at least opening the door to that discussion and the to the freedom to think and talk about it, anyway.

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 21:26 utc | 8

PS In my opinion talking about it here is one way to try to put pressure on Kerry before the election to sit up and at least take notice, and hopefully respond.

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 21:27 utc | 9

@sukabi
I understand your problems as an US American with Bush. There are 300M US Americans. But there are some 6,000M other human beings many of whom have suffered from US American “we know better” style. If Kerry is like Bush to them, they don´t care about Kerry and you. They are looking for a way to change their problem with US policy, not yours.
If Bush stays the REAL change might come faster. That could be of value for 6,000M human beings.
The policy paper I cite was nearly never mentioned in the media. It is just like the PNAC neocon paper that was nearly never cited before Bush came into office. Bush talked about a soft foreign policy, now Kerry talks about a soft policy. The papers in the background are the stuff that will be done, not the talk.
Is Kerry better in retoric than Bush, may be. Is he different? Is he not an elite millionaire with deep connections and roots within the ruling class?
@SusanG
Maybe the US people would suffer. But they may also build the power to get some FDR back into business instead of a Bush light – by election or other means.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 14 2004 21:36 utc | 10

Is Kerry better in retoric than Bush, may be. Is he different? Is he not an elite millionaire with deep connections and roots within the ruling class?
My real query on this is not about who’s a millionaire and who’s not. My worry is about neocon policies. I want to know how Kerry (and Edwards) are distancing themselves from neocons. My fear is that they are not, because of election politics and AIPAC.
Nonvrai wrote at the Annex site that for him and his family, it may look like no change at all in their plight and in the plight of his people. And that this would lead — this very thing — would lead people to decide that they have no alternative but to take recourse in far more extreme choices and responses to the situation.
And that is something that we all need to take seriously. Anybody thinking or dreaming about the war on terror and what its true solutions have to be better think hard, clear and fast on this one. If we had another terrorist attack like the one on 9/11 the effects to all of us, to our economy and every single other thing would be more devastating than we can imagine. One we handled — more would create a whole different ballgame.

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 21:43 utc | 11

PS again, I’d be willing to bet that there are conservatives out there, and I don’t just mean Pat Buchanan, who so hate the neocon disasters and their influence on Bush and their party that even they’d be willing to vote for a Kerry that clearly distanced himself from this way of thinking and the policies associated with it.

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 21:47 utc | 12

Last autumn, in one of my darker moments concerning Iraq and other things this US admin is responsible for, I posted on one blog (wasn’t that on Billmon’s?) that it would be unfair to let the next president clean up the mess and take the blame for it. My conclusion at that time was: Give them some more time to self-destruct. Only if they drive the car head-on against the wall will there be a chance for a real change.
I don’t remember who firebombed me after that post, but I still stand corrected. Bushco might destruct far more than just their own worldview. It’s clearly different if you have to live under the junta on a daily basis, and I think it’s a luxury that I don’t have to.
Just like you, Bernhard, I will try to take a foreigner’s pov – and just like you, reluctantly, because I have friends in the US, and I would hate to see them come to harm. However, even as foreigners, I think we should realize that these beasts are simply too dangerous for the world; they must not keep their corrupt and power-hungry little finger on the red button. They are playing a very dangerous game, and I for one am not willing to let them take risks that involve my own life. Perhaps Kerry is the proverbial straw, but I prefer clutching at him than to settle for the implosion of the US as we knew it. It won’t be just a matter of watching it on television and then go back to our usual business – as you know, too. We have to hope for ABB, because we cannot take the risk of another four years of that mess. I never thought I would think it, but with these guys in power, we might actually see a nuclear war in the not too far future.

Posted by: teuton | Jul 14 2004 21:47 utc | 13

Both support the US being/remaining in Iraq, the phony war on terror, and the genocide of the Palestinians. We (US citizens) are not just voting for ourselves, which I’d imagine is the point that Bernhard is wanting to make.

Posted by: b real | Jul 14 2004 21:57 utc | 14

x suggests that i should provide this link here:
November Elections Won’t Be Delayed, Official Says

Posted by: x174 | Jul 14 2004 22:00 utc | 15

Wayne Madsen is saying TERRORISM AND THE ELECTION: California is the Target!

Posted by: b real | Jul 14 2004 22:05 utc | 16

thanks x174

Posted by: x | Jul 14 2004 22:07 utc | 17

I’m not sure I believe all these things to be true:
He is intelligent.
Bush aside, the current admin is not exactly a bunch of idiots. We underestimate them at our peril. And intelligence can certainly be applied to evil aims, so it’s not much of a bellwether.
He can be talked to.
He’s not really that accessible, certainly no more so than BushCo. Though if you’ve got his ear, I’d like to know.
He listens.
To his advisors. He’s not listening much to the ‘democratic wing’ of his party, or so it seems to me.
He can carry on an intelligent conversation about foreign policy, health care, education, the environment, jobs, outsourcing.
I believe he can, but I’m sure Cheney or Rice can articulate their insidious viewpoints as well- again, Bush isn’t the issue, it’s BushCo.
He doesn’t need editors of news agencies to edit and clean up his use of the language.
see above. Add to it that some portion of the electorate finds it charming when he misproduces ‘nuclear’. We’re not really a nation that values that sort of thing, sadly.
He speaks more than one language, well.
I’m all for multilingualism, but I fail to see what difference it makes. Anyway, I understand Bush can speak some Spanish. How well I do not know, but again, so what?
He’s intellectually curious.
Alright, you got me here.
He reads more interesting and challenging books than “My Pet Goat”.
rofl. But again, Bush isn’t really the driver here.
Anyway, I guess my point is only that Bush’s personal shortcomings are not the issue to me- they’re fun to poke at, but the real issue is that he appoints people like Rumsfeld and Rice and so forth.
Well, that that I love playing devil’s advocate.

Posted by: æ | Jul 14 2004 22:16 utc | 18

Why Bush might win
Poll reveals American people think Bush has better plan for Iraq than Kerry (God help Iraq)
Poll reveals American people think Bush is better man to deal with terrorism than Kerry
Looks like ‘the Iraq mess’ and the ‘fear factor’ are both running in Bush’s favor. If he can come up smelling of roses from those two piles of horseshit Kerry has got some explaining to do.

Posted by: Just a messenger – don’t shoot | Jul 14 2004 22:28 utc | 19

Bernhard,
I think I didn’t make myself quite as clear as I should have.
Honestly, I don’t worry provincially about the suffering of my fellow Americans — or at least any more than I do about the suffering of any citizen of the world.
As you pointed out though, the world’s fate depends on this powerful country and the world’s economy could be spun into a disaster by America becoming an official banana republic overnight.
There is only one thing I know for certain: Bush has proven himself to be deaf to public opinion (both domestically and internationally); scornful of the rule of law (both domestic and international); determined to push a theocratic one-state agenda down the American public’s throat; and incompetent to implement horribly conceived and truly evil policies (for which, I suppose, we should all be grateful … but it’s hard, damn it.).
At the very least, I have confidence that no one we elect could do any worse. Kerry, I believe, will be more open to being swayed by the true sentiments of this country (and no, I don’t have time or energy right now to go into the details of why I believe this — at a later point, maybe. But not now.).
Frankly, a Kermit the Frog sock puppet would be preferable to four more years of Bush, considering his first term of destruction. And I say this considering the huge impact this election will have upon the world as well.
When (or if) Americans vote in this election, we’re voting not just on our national destiny but also — if I may be so dramatic — on the fate of the entire world as well. If this does become our last free election, this is our last chance as a citizenry to change the course of world events.
This does not mean I view America as the be all and end all of the world. It means I realize its reach, its scope and its depth into the foreign and economic affairs of the rest of the world.
Sobering thoughts, indeed.

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 14 2004 22:34 utc | 20

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is good for you and anyone who opposes it is anti-American and a supporter of Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups, e.g. the Democrats
Republican rats gnaw away at another Democratic ‘plank’

Posted by: Worried messenger | Jul 14 2004 22:36 utc | 21

I’ll try this again, my last comment got eaten.
What would another 4 years of bush bring? Well, they’ve started research and development of “tactical nukes”, thereby igniting another nuclear arms race, do you think they will want to test them? Who do you think they will test them on? North Korea? Iran?
They have already dumped radioactive waste in Iraq in the form of DU shells. Are there any plans to do a clean up? How about testing and treatment of (iraqi, afghani and other) civilian and military personnel? With bush’s lack of understanding/caring about environmental, health and other issues affecting real people will things get better or get so bad that humanitarian disasters abound?
How bad do you think it has to get before “the powers that be” clean up their act and start behaving like good world citizens?
If the US collapsing in on itself is what you think it is going to take I have to disagree with you. The way world economies are interlinked this would be disasterous worldwide.
When things get that bad people revert to survival mode. They will do anything to survive. There would be a long period of time before anything constructive emerged from a society that crippled, and the crew running the ship would do ANYTHING to protect the sinking ship of state from any aggression either internal or external.
I don’t see how anyone anywhere could benefit from this scenario. Maybe in 500,000 yrs when the radioactive dust settles.
Things we have to do:
1. Recall/remove/impeach from office congress critters and other elected officials that do not represent the people or who have engaged in criminal activities.
2. Enact something like the Democracy Act to empower the people.
3. Term limits on congressional offices. No lifelong “service”.
4. Remove corporate personhood.
Until some preliminary steps are taken to limit (eliminate) the power of corporate/foreign special interests the foreign policy of this country won’t change no matter who is in office.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 14 2004 22:40 utc | 22

that was me @ 06:40 PM

Posted by: sukabi | Jul 14 2004 22:45 utc | 23

@Just a messenger — don’t shoot.
Thanks for the marginally bad news. Personally, though, i do blame the messenger — the Media Whores — they consistently over-play the herrings and overlook the beef. E.g., FBI admits Bali bombing warning delay Wonder when this will show up on the MW’s radar, if ever?

Posted by: x174 | Jul 14 2004 22:46 utc | 24

ot but no so ot as all that
the sate is preparing its murder of mumia abu jamal
he is in extreme danger
there has been a decision anounced to lift his stay in relation to a decision in the supreme court on a mr banks. they say it was highly contested with at least four of them dissenting
but the result are clear
it will allow the sate to kill mumia
as caryl chessman sd before him kill me – kill me if you can
the right is not only reckless it possesses a powerful vengeance on the patrimoine of resistance
whereever resistance has a voice the right will try & kill it whether it is mumia or peltier
the left must not allow it
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 14 2004 22:48 utc | 25

Vote for Zelig!
Kerry the Chicagoan
Kerry the Czech Jew
Kerry the Irishman
Kerry the Frenchman
You ever wondered about Kerry’s tendency to try to be all things to all people? Still trying to locate his Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, North Korean, Russian and Syrian ancestors but when I do he’s toast I tell ya!

Posted by: Genealogist | Jul 14 2004 22:54 utc | 26

But Bernhard…why beat around the bush (so to speak)…you forgot the best reason of all to reselect bush:
You hate America.
Go ahead and admit it…I dare you…
And then I will admit it too…
And there will be a pair of us at least—Shhhh…don’t tell…
They’d banish us you know…
Let’s the both of us can cast our votes for this banana republican…this Texas talibanista…this dreary maintainer of civilization.
And then we can share a beer and chuckle over the joy of watching another Rome go broke…
I’m all for it…
I too am going to vote for the bush frog…
Let’s keep America where she belongs: in an inescapable Mideast bog!
(again…with apologies to Emily Dickinson.)
[Aside: Do you think in the future travel agents will book tours to see the Great Wall of Israel? There is no frigate like a wall to take you miles away…]

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 14 2004 23:04 utc | 27

@ koreyel
Kerry is ahead of you there and he’s already angling for the ‘Great Wall of Israel tours’ American franchise
Kerry supports assassinations by Israel
Kerry to back Israel in Middle East peace negotiations
Kerry takes a stronger pro-Israel line

Posted by: Oy vey! | Jul 14 2004 23:14 utc | 28

Kerry’s brother to visit Israel, meet Sharon
That’ll be to secure the franchise and to receive his orders in a plain brown envelope

Posted by: Oy vey! | Jul 14 2004 23:27 utc | 29

Et tu Brute?
Kerry didn’t read Iraq report before voting – Kerry aides
Before John Kerry opens fire on El Presidente shouldn’t someone make sure that Kerry’s aides are actually on his side? Sheesh! You’d think they’d be fireproofed against blowback by now!

Posted by: Oy vey! | Jul 15 2004 1:31 utc | 30

So now should I say “Dear Americans, vote Bush, héll ruin you faster”
I said, “Vote Nader. If Bush wins, so be it. We need to go further into the darkness before we will be inspired to look back toward the light.”
Since homo sapiens seems to be only crisis motivated, then lets get on with it and let the pendulum swing as far as it’s momentum caries it, and then we can start surfing the wave back into our inheritance.
There is a tremendous energy in our young people here in Vermont. (I’ve been out getting signatures for my state rep attempt). They don’t seem to be despondent, although some hope I will move back to Canada and offer them asylum.
We imperial americans do indeed have much to be ashamed about. Some of us are recognizing our folly and pro-actively trying to atone. We know that domination will only lead toward Armageddon in a world of such powerful technology. And we are beginning to sense that the cooperative female principle is what we need to imbue in order to survive.
My optimistic self believes that this is happening here in my community and almost certainly in other enclaves in this country.
Bernhard, teuton, Jerome, and others inhabiting the fringes of our empires reach, I/we want to be your partners and friends, not your competitors and dominators.
You are helping us understand this. THANK YOU!

Posted by: Juannie | Jul 15 2004 1:58 utc | 31

Interesting, thoughtful post, Bernhard….and I’m thinking.
I’ll get back to you after it settles down in there.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 15 2004 2:35 utc | 32

I guess Germany and Europe needed Hitler to make things as bad as they could possibly be — so the German People could be enlightened by the horrors of Auschwitz, and things could be made better by Conrad Adenauer.
But I would bet that all concerned, would forgo the lesson — if given the opportunity. But the 200 million dead cannot speak, and cannot vote.
The way to make things better is to make them better; not to make them worse.

Posted by: ck | Jul 15 2004 3:10 utc | 33

At dKos — a front page diary, describes the video of Iraqi boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib. Sy Hersh tells the ACLU:
“The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking,” the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was “a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher.”
Is that bad enough? How much worse does it need to get?

Posted by: ck | Jul 15 2004 3:24 utc | 34

Terror Terror Terror

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 15 2004 3:37 utc | 35

When I sniff the fetid air in here, I think of
alternative history. What if Iraq 2004 was Europe
1945, and some years before, FDR and George
Catlett Marshall had never been born. Instead
G.W. Bush and Field Marshall Wolfowitz. Sort of
like Frank Capra’s great movie, except turned
upside down. No wonderful life to be.
We would have of course bugged out on nation
building and just left it to “the coalition of
the willing”. Ole Red Army she been fully ready
to take up the slack.
When some suggest that we(USA) need suffer
four more years–with some perverse, severe,
dialectic dysentery–to be purged and clean:
I start wishing for alternative history.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 15 2004 4:51 utc | 36

Hi Harry,
Not to take up the point about whether or not Bush is better than Kerry, but I just want to point out to you that regarding the WoT, Bush et al use that old fear of peace a la “appeasement” and say that anything less than their policies would be like appeasing Hitler.
As I see it, the question here is we need to face a good hard face at how to deal with terror in ways that will really address it, and I’m calling on Kerry to step up to the bat and do it.
The thing that scares me is not so much Bush and not so much even Kerry but whether or not our system, such as it is, will allow it. PACs have so much control, and money has so much impact, and AIPAC has used this so well I’m afraid we stand a chance of disappearing via our own success with this system. We’re threatened by it, because we’re not changing enough because of it to cope with the emergencies we could be facing now. We can’t sacrifice a phony special relationship to save it. The whole world, all of our allies, are asking us to save it.

Posted by: x | Jul 15 2004 5:06 utc | 37

While I agree with those who say that we need to get rid of Bush, I also am very sympathetic to the view that Kerry will not be dramatically better.
Rather than repeating a lot of stuff that has already been said on this thread, let me put in a plug for David Cobb, the Green Party’s candidate for President. Like Nader, he’s running on a peace, social justice, and ecology platform. Unlike Nader, he’s running to build a party that will be around long after November 2. And he’s likely to be on the ballot in many more states than Nader.
At any rate, check him out! He’s a terrific candidate and deserves the consideration of all progressives.
Go Greens!

Posted by: Ben Alpers | Jul 15 2004 5:11 utc | 38

Drat X:
I was going to bed.
Did you read about how we engaged the enemy a Tora Bora?

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 15 2004 5:16 utc | 39

Harry,
No, I didn’t. Could you enlighten?
On the other hand, I have read about how we engaged the enemy children in Abu Ghraib 🙁
Definitely not going to work as promised

Posted by: x | Jul 15 2004 5:19 utc | 40

Actually, what I think the US needs is a paradigm shift and I do not see that coming. As long as the US sticks to its believe or ‘worldview’ of being exceptional the problem will not be solved. So even voting for Dean would not have changed that problem.
I have learned through my work, that our choice of words when talking and writing is not a coincidence, it is guided by our subconscious believes and ideas. Now, if you look at the texts written or the talks by US politicians the words defining the US usually are – the best, the biggest, the greatest. I have observed that people who talk like that cannot hear another opinion. Moreover, they actually cannot hear – even if they are willing to listen. It seems as if their believes act as filter in what they hear.
I first became aware that Kerry belongs to this category too, when I heard him on health care. Now, this is from memory, so it might not be very accurate. He said something like ‘the US has the best health system in the world’ – I was shocked, as not long before that statement I read something to the point, that the US is somewhere like in 20 or 23rd position health wise of the developed nations (as I said this is from memory). Since then I have been paying attention to the use of language of the US politician, and so far, I have found no exception in their use of these words. Thus, I guess even if Kerry is elected their will be no basic change in the world view of the US government, as this way seems to be so basically ingrained in his and also in Edwards thinking.
I do believe, that change in the world, has to begin in the head of the individuals and so far I can not see this change happening in the heads of US politicians. However, I can see it in the participants of this forum, so I have at least a little hope. Maybe it is a beginning and at some point, it will have enough force to actually create that paradigm shift. Then maybe there will be a change for the better world wide.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 15 2004 5:33 utc | 41

I am as much appalled by these incompetents inabilities tactically in the WAR ON TERROR,as I am by their strategic ineptitude.
Failing at Tora Bora to close and kill when they were massed, it’s all an international police matter now. And there probably will be significant future casualties here.
This country is so large you can’t protect everything. At this point you do the best you can.
And adopt the Sioux attitude at LBH: every day is a good day to die .
And forget about it as a private citizen.
Just thoughts.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 15 2004 5:39 utc | 42

@Fran
Take care. Keep positive.
We need win over here this year.
If we don’t, God help us all.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 15 2004 5:44 utc | 43

@ Flashharry
I agree with teuton, that Kerry is the straw and I would prefer him as president over Bush, but longterm this is not enough. The US needs to rethink its position in the world. It has to become aware that it is one of many and that the US depends just as much on the world as the world depends on the US, maybe even more so.
Also, I do not consider looking at what causes a problem as negative – to me it is the first step towards finding positive solutions.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 15 2004 5:48 utc | 44

@Fran
It’s Incremental change at first.
But I will say this from my heart.
Kerry is light years from Bush in every way.
m The difference is as profound as the difference between a communist and a monarcho-fascist.
This is very serious business for us over here.
Our country is literally at stake.
And if we lose, the whole world suffers MORE.

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 15 2004 6:01 utc | 45

Night All

Posted by: FLASHHARRY | Jul 15 2004 6:06 utc | 46

Fran,
You hit on a peculiar and uniquely American socializing technique. Our public schools and the standardized curriculum that most all absorb is rife with those trigger words; biggest, best, those superlatives. When we hear them, we cue in as we have been programmed to do. Reagan and his spin doctors were masters at hitting the cue words, emitting the shared experiences of childhood indoctrination, then cloaking their message to evoke that nostalgia. The frame was WWII, and we were definitely the heroes, the world saviors. The rest of the grateful world reinforced our rhetoric (what else could they do really) so the American public reached adulthood properly socialize and programmed. It’s one reason the Bush administration tries so hard to tie in to the WWII mythos, they are trying to relive and reconstitute the Reagan propaganda. I believe or actually hope that Kerry/Edwards is capable of analyzing the technique, the Bernays’ PR and using the hot buttons to get their message into the typical American memory. Remember, we are not a nation that embraces critical thinking for all the NCLB dogma.

Posted by: SME in Seattle | Jul 15 2004 6:56 utc | 47

@ SME in Seattle
thank you for your very interesting response. I just do not understand what NCLB means. What does it stand for?

Posted by: Fran | Jul 15 2004 7:19 utc | 48

No Child Left Behind, the Republican policy that virtually dictates what can be taught in American schools because students must pass standardized tests. Supposedly the tests are designed to assess critical thinking, but as with any standardized testing, ease of grading and computerized score sheets make the test typically nothing more than “give the test maker what they want to get a passing score.” Schools are given government funding by the percentage of students who pass the tests. So the impetus is to buy and teach the curriculum that teaches to the test. Hence, a very rigid curriculum with non stop testing and no time or money left over for developing a world view or examining the processes of analysis and evaluation.

Posted by: SME in Seattle | Jul 15 2004 7:31 utc | 49

Bernhard, I hope this is on topic.
Bush and Kerry agree on one thing. They have no place for Clinton.
Bush is abolishing everything Clinton accomplished–down to the most trivial of executive directives. Kerry, a creature of the Northeastern and Washingtonian elites, also wishes to purge the achievements of Clinton from the records.
This isn’t obvious from what he says–it would be suicide to say it directly–but he has no real use for Clinton’s domestic priorities, and for the funding of these by bringing defense costs under control–first by reducing, to the utmost, our misconceived adventures in foreign lands.
The one way Kerry has of avoiding this unwelcome prospect–and I hear nothing whatsoever in Kerry’s speeches to change my view of the thing–is to make sure that we remain in Iraq, “but do it better”. And however you do this, well or ill, it’s expensive.
It’s a point which Northeastern Democrats all deny, and deny by lying, and lying gladly, but they hated Clinton from the start. He’s a redneck from nowhere who stole their precious piece of Real Estate right out from under their very eyes. Their White House, their executive branch.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 15 2004 8:06 utc | 50

We’re still talking about representative government, correct? Representative of whom, seriously? You? Me? The latter, not by a long shot. The former, I dare to wager that all we differ on is details.
“People” – this is my rather uninformed conclusion, want to be able to provide for their families or simply themselves, number one. A little Maslow goes a long way… Food on the table, and not too many worries about tomorrow. Predictability. Ah, number two! Worries, let’s not: about aliens (foreigners, that is) threatening the homeland (now, there’s an UGLY word), about having to pay more bills than the bi-weekly paycheck brings in, about being laid off, about someone in an ivory tower commanding their behavior. And then, what’s next? Securing a “better” future? I’m talking education, self-actualization…
Before I start writing a book here, let me conclude the conclusion. The NASCAR moms and dads in this world worry about their children’s grades, about a 10-cent price increase for a can of baked beans, about their car needing repairs, about their dog being sick, about the $25 late fee on their Visa bill… TANGIBLE “stuff.” The world should be simple and controllable! (And that’s just the ones whose lives are somewhat predictable: no diseases, no layoffs, available housing, education and food!) Obviously, when you don’t feel that you’re getting your “fair share” you can always pray to the G-D (the mirror, the ceiling, whatever) above. And sometimes, when you’re the WH resident, the guy (or whatever you identify that voice with) actually talks back to you.
REPRESENTATIVE (ahum) government, consists of:
a) those enlightnened/self-absorbed to the point that they feel they should serve as an example (holier than thou)
b) those who crave control beyond their NASCAR family nucleus
c) those who believe that they can enrich themselves on the shoulders of their electorate
d) for good measure, the odd ideologist/philantrophist (chuckle)
I dearly wish that I could be less cynical. That’s because I have learned to respect the voices that I associate with each one of you when I read your comments. I spoke (wrote) of some sort of passion and communality that I find here.
As a non-american (aside from my personal connection with people and and subjective feelings towards certain aspects of the US culture) looking in from the outside, to me the political situation in the United States looks fucked beyond repair. Kerry-Edwards or Bush-Cheney, really, who gives a damn? You have got a modern Caligula in power, and an ash-grey corpse (wannabe Nero?) as a challenger. Should I go into detail? AIPAC, Iraq, Taxes, Environment, Education, TIA, Patriot, Nuclear proliferation, please let someone name ONE difference! I look forward to the criticism, I look forward to be proven wrong because that would give me a smattering of hope.
What the USA needs now is what Tom Peters used to call a CDO, a chief destruction officer. Someone who will tear out the foundations from beneath the Wall Street Imperialist Consumerist TV Culture, and lead by example in rebuilding the country. Someone here proclaimed to be a “Leveller” – that’s exactly what I mean. Helas, this isn’t anything but a pipe dream. To do anything this drastic would take a modern day Robespierre…

Posted by: fiumana bella | Jul 15 2004 8:09 utc | 51

Insightful and honest, alabama. I hear “big defense” and “big domestic” as well from Kerry and I wonder why he leaves himself so open to the usual criticism from the Republicans. Clinton’s big historical attempt at change will always remain for me the attempt to create a peacetime economy by at least trying to slash that defense budget. It seems to me, intuitively, that keeping that defense spending budget high is part of what is buying Kerry his place on the ticket.

Posted by: x | Jul 15 2004 8:14 utc | 52

Bernhard, teuton, jerome and others beyond the shores– i promise to vote for Bush if you guys promise to storm the beaches next Spring to liberate us. (Atlantic City NJ has a nice beach, and gambling too – maybe you could start there.)
😉
[/snark]

Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 15 2004 11:08 utc | 53

Echoing Bernhard and others:
The chances of people rising up against their Gvmt. and the possibility of a military coup, or anarchy, are higher under Bush.
What good either of those would do is moot. However any historical break occurring as soon as possible while there is still room for movement, for negotiation, for settlements would be a good thing. Hopefully, the outcome would be surprising – a fork in the road, off in a better direction. (Same point as that made by teuton and others..)
Kerry is not fundamentally different from Bush, and he isn’t Bush Lite. Kerry’s agenda is the same as Bush’s – to control a large part of the world’s energy resources and expand US hegemony. His means and methods differ, though. He is determined to get the West on board and will try diplomacy before using bombs. He is a better strategist than Bush (BushCo), who with their stupidity and arrogance have upset just about everyone.
This point of view, here stated baldly, without nuance, is quite common in some sets of people around me: Older people who know their history and/or were affected by WW2; un-reconstructed communists of the intellectual type; young people who are quite ignorant and are driven by gut-feelings, melded together from dislike of America, hate for Zionists, green considerations, sympathy for Arabs, disgust at the Yugoslav fiasco for which they (incorrectly) blame only the US (in Switzerland, one person in 19 is from ex-Yugo); other groups such as Colombian refugees, second/third generation Vietnamese immigrants, etc.
The points made that such opinions are in some way selfish (US citizens are to suffer under Bush bis or because of desperate upheavals, while others continue their happy way) don’t really apply. Several arguments can be made (see some above) .. one has to add in the following:
If one believes (I don’t entirely, but this post is already long enough) that the slow slide to fascism will be but slightly changed under Kerry (new rethoric), that Kerry will continue war-mongering (e.g. strike Iran), that Kerry will make only minor or even purely symbolic moves towards a progressive agenda (minimum wage, Medicare, taxes, etc.), that Kerry’s energy policy is snake oil whipped together to haul in credulous voters, then obviously Americans can only benefit from a crash or systemic change soon as opposed to a police state with starving people in camps, down the road aways.
My own slogan right now is: Americans, watch out. Watch out for yourselves, first!

Posted by: Blackie | Jul 15 2004 11:35 utc | 54

@ Blackie
interessting comment. But isn’t one problem that Americans often look out for themselves first, without being aware of how their choices will affect the rest of the world?

Posted by: Fran | Jul 15 2004 13:37 utc | 55

To me this has been a somewhat satisfying thread; I appreciate very much the contributions of you Europeans with your possibly-less-fettered perspectives.
Fran has pointed out the obvious, that so many of us have been steadfastly unwilling/unable to acknowlege: it can’t be fixed without a crash. Fiumana b’s last graf is just about right on, but I think I heard a hint there that such fundamental tear-down/rebuild is impossible because we can never find, or empower, a leader to make it happen.
The argument over how we should best use our last free election is like clinging to the upturned keel as the ship slips beneath the surface. There is no return now. I for one don’t want a return; its too much trouble and it wouldn’t work anyway. But to relax and go with the flow is a bad option too.
As with most here, I can’t come up with a solution, but I do have faith that the reptiles are running into serious trouble in the NWO scenario, and can eventually be defeated. It will take a lot more than the 04 election, however that turns out.
My favorite projection is that the truth, which is peeking out from everywhere now, will finally be acknowleged, that the current gang of perps will be eliminated for good, and the mysterious beings behind the cutain will…?
Is is too early to tell whether the controllers will be finally defeated and destroyed, but I have hope. Plenty of faith and energy is required.

Posted by: rapt | Jul 15 2004 14:14 utc | 56

@ rapt
what I said is that a paradigm shift is needed. Now I do not know if it will happen without a crash. Most people consciously or unconsciously try to avoid shifts until there is no more choice as everything crashes around them. However in theorie you are right a voluntary shift is possible – if that is the realistic version, I do not know.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 15 2004 14:48 utc | 57

It’s a point which Northeastern Democrats all deny, and deny by lying, and lying gladly, but they hated Clinton from the start. He’s a redneck from nowhere who stole their precious piece of Real Estate right out from under their very eyes. Their White House, their executive branch.
Geez…why don’t you just say those “damn yankees”? Although one might prefer “cadilac liberals.”
Which is all to say Alabama: I think you’ve stretched a little bit of truth into a wall-to-wall rug. Nothing wrong with that of course: the floor was bare and wanted sweeping.
Unless of course your point was to demonstrate to others how demonizing the South feels.
In which case: touche.

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 15 2004 15:40 utc | 58

As a person who is concerned with avoiding unecessary suffering (that of myself and of others), I’m not really in the crash and burn is better camp. I think crash and burn is still a disaster, even if it opens up some kind of possibility of change. It also opens up the possibility of worse–police state, etc.
So my way, at this immediate juncture is to put pressure on Kerry for a different agenda. I think there’s hope for that but it takes people to do it. I fear what will really happen is that the neocon policies will create such disasters that we’ll be doing bandaids and fear-mongering and avoiding worse disasters based on current disasters for a long, long time.
Otherwise, we don’t need to crash and burn. We desperately need extreme campaign finance reform. It’s the PACs that are the problem. It’s inside the Beltway that’s the problem. At least the way I see it. And there are plenty of Democrats as well as Republicans who are chafing at this system. I think it was Byrd (or was it Hollings?) in one of his speeches recently who asked why it was that the only position they can have on Israel is AIPAC’s position.

Posted by: x | Jul 15 2004 17:10 utc | 59

fair enough, koreyel. And let me share with you the context of my intemperate exasperation….
I spent the first twenty years of my life in California; the next twenty-five years in Manhattan; and the last twenty years in Alabama.
So far as I can tell–and I visit around a fair amount–people in these places don’t differ a lot in their thinking. In their preferences, yes, but in their ways of framing things, not at all.
And we are, if you will, provincial. That’s our great common denominator–attaching a great value to the home address, and holding other places in varying degrees of fear and contempt.
So yes, my passion for Clinton is overdetermined by my take on this absurd provinicialism which cannot accept genius for what it is–astonishing, instructive, and momentous (for Clinton has changed things, I have no doubt about that).
And I remain unappeasably enraged at the petty injustice of the “Lewinsky affair”. I believe to this day that Clinton was persecuted for being a poor boy from the South who just wouldn’t mind his place. I find it all very unfair, and therefore his slightest triumph feeds my gleeful malice.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 16 2004 2:55 utc | 60

OT-
As a Californian transplanted to NY for nearly all of her adult life, I’m now afeared I may wind up in Alabama for the rest of it, somehow.
And we are, if you will, provincial. That’s our great common denominator–attaching a great value to the home address, and holding other places in varying degrees of fear and contempt.
I agree. And that includes Manhattanites, no matter what they may think about themselves.

Posted by: x | Jul 16 2004 5:21 utc | 61

Well, x, if my life is any example (any “x-ample”), you’ll experience a bit of culture-shock when moving down here (as with the accents and all). But it’s nothing that can’t be processed, and it can be very instructive in a benign sort of way. Character building.
This place has civilized me in ways that I never could have imagined, and that’s a debt that I can never repay. It’s not something I could easily explain to folks down here: they’d mostly wonder what the hell I was talking about.
The awful fate of the Manhattanite who never leaves is that he or she can never know the meaning of the word “provincial”. Some of the most sophisticated, the most cosmopolitan people I know are hopelessly, blindly provincial–suffering all the disabling fears that come from being provincial.

Posted by: alabama | Jul 16 2004 16:13 utc | 62

suffering all the disabling fears that come from being provincial.
I have seen this too. And, they suffer, imo, I might add, from all the prejudices. Maybe in a big place like NYC, which is so conscious of its bigness, those prejudices are more tempting than elsewhere. How many people have I heard tell me they have no need to travel anywhere else, because New York is so diverse? That attitude shocked me when I first arrived. At least out in the “provinces” people tend to understand they may be missing something, and would like to go out into the world and look around for it for themselves.

Posted by: x | Jul 16 2004 16:28 utc | 63

Back to Main