Bush's Wars Undermine Democracy

[achtungbaby]

Neve Gordon
Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon0906.html)

I am against the war, the (perpetual) war on terrorism as well as the war against Iraq. I am against empire, the control of nearly 40 percent of the world's resources secured by the deployment of air, naval, and ground forces in over 800 bases across the globe. And I am against deception; the claim that United States foreign policy is aimed at ensuring freedom, justice and democracy around the world, when in fact its overseas agenda is driven by corporate greed, power and domination.

With the Bush administration determined -- rhetoric aside -- to oust Saddam Hussein and gain control of oil resources in Iraq, in what will most likely become an extremely bloody conquest, and the democratic party rambling along without even a murmur of protest, it is high time that ordinary citizens speak out clearly and stridently against Bush's insane imperialistic aspirations.

My claim is straightforward: in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy around the globe -- which is outright propaganda considering the embrace of Pakistan's new dictator -- the Bush administration is undermining democratic processes and institutions within the United States. Put differently, Bush is exploiting both grief and fear to ruin the very essence of democratic life.

Let's look at the facts. In order to fund his wars, Bush is insisting on a $48 billion increase to the current $335 billion military budget, thus designating 53 percent of government spending on the military budget, which is already over twenty-three times the combined military spending of countries identified by the Pentagon as likely adversaries: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Meanwhile, only 9 percent of the budget will go towards education and social services, and 6 percent to health. All this at a time when almost 17 percent of children in the U.S. live in poverty, 44 million people have no health insurance, and 85 percent of public schools need repair. Incidentally, the cost of one B-2 Bomber would be enough to repair over 1,000 aging school buildings.

The intolerance towards the plight of the poor is accompanied by a rapid increase in the authoritarian elements of state power. Not enough can be said on the ongoing attack on civil liberties, which began when the USA Patriot Act anti-terror bill was passed in October of last year. Due process has been suspended in many areas of the criminal justice system, including the right to speedy trial, freedom from arbitrary police searches, prohibition against indefinite incarceration and incognito detentions. Surveillance authority has also been widely broadened, whether through wiretapping or through the federal government's sweeping new powers to investigate electronic communications, personal and financial records, computer hard drives and other individual documents.

In order to justify its foreign policy goals, the administration has been demonizing all perceived enemies and in this way has helped awaken local xenophobic tendencies. Not surprisingly, this jingoistic tactic has had far reaching ramifications for Arabs and Muslims inside the U.S. as well.

Bush's Manichean worldview alongside his attack on civil liberties and utter lack of compassion towards the poor is done in the name of some distorted notion of patriotism. Anyone who so much as questions the rationality of the policies is immediately shut up and ostracized. All of which amounts to a drastic diminution of what political philosopher Hannah Arendt called the public sphere.

Democracy is, after all, dependent on a plurality of views, on the opportunity of people to express their opinions, debate issues, and persuade each other. Without a decent education, access to health, basic civil liberties and an atmosphere of tolerance towards the other, the public sphere -- which is necessary in order to express one's views -- shrinks.

Accordingly, I am against the war not only because it will help Bush underwrite the most egregious acts of violence, which will only increase hatred towards the U.S. and international terrorism, but also because Bush's wars undercut basic democratic practices inside the U.S. One year after the hideous terrorist attacks, U.S. democracy is under assault. The enemy, though, is not Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein; the enemy is within.

Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel, and can be reached at ngordon@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

[wylin]

im for war all the time, it enhances the economy, it makes jobs for lotsa young men, and its cheap population control when our #'s get too high.

is it just me or does wat the US is doing make it into an organization like GDI (global defense initiative) from Command and Conquer. Like were goin about starting wars w/ terrorist. Or maybe we need a organization made up of elite soldiers like GI Joe to go out beat terrorist who are like Cobra!

=X



<!--EDIT|wylin|Sep 6 2002, 12:01 PM-->

[kimpossible]

I'm truly scared guys. I'm not joking - I've got a half-baked escape plan out of America if the poo hits the fan.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

empire abroad and dictatorship at home is what you get when your overseas businessmen running all over the place in search of money demand the "right" to walk the earth protected only by the words "civis Americanus sum."

[Shuriken]

I'm really tired of hearing the United States described as a "democracy" and all these references to "the democratic system." etc. The United States is not a democracy. George W. Bush came in second in the popular vote, but he managed to get into the White House anyway. If we were a true democracy, Al Gore — who received more votes for president than any other candidate in history with the sole exception of Ronald Reagan in 1984 — would be in the White House today.

With the lack of a public mandate, is it any surprise that George W. is so indifferent to the wants and needs of the public?

[amietron]

Well, take into consideration that we ARE a republic.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Sep 7 2002, 10:15 AM
I'm really tired of hearing the United States described as a "democracy" and all these references to "the democratic system." etc. The United States is not a democracy. George W. Bush came in second in the popular vote, but he managed to get into the White House anyway. If we were a true democracy, Al Gore — who received more votes for president than any other candidate in history with the sole exception of Ronald Reagan in 1984 — would be in the White House today.

With the lack of a public mandate, is it any surprise that George W. is so indifferent to the wants and needs of the public?
During the Florida court drama, everyone I know who voted for Al Gore wished they hadn't. If Florida was the "sudden death overtime" of the elections, Gore fumbled. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I was very thankful that Al wasn't our President -- we would have been subject to another episode of our pure indecisiveness.

And that statistic of him receiving more votes than any other candidate -- sorry to say, but it's a joke. Al Gore was a horrible candidate. "Anyone But Al" should be the DNP's mantra for 2004.

[SunWuKong]

bah! both al and dubya are bad. al is like a robot and dubya is a daddy's boy.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 7 2002, 12:04 PM
bah! both al and dubya are bad. al is like a robot and dubya is a daddy's boy.
Sure, both are bad, which is why had Al won, you never would have heard me saying, "If only George was our Prez..."

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 7 2002, 02:56 PM

During the Florida court drama, everyone I know who voted for Al Gore wished they hadn't. If Florida was the "sudden death overtime" of the elections, Gore fumbled. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I was very thankful that Al wasn't our President -- we would have been subject to another episode of our pure indecisiveness.

And that statistic of him receiving more votes than any other candidate -- sorry to say, but it's a joke. Al Gore was a horrible candidate. "Anyone But Al" should be the DNP's mantra for 2004.
True dat, AB. Between Bush and Gore, I chose Bush. And came 9/11 and the aftermath, I was glad Gore wasn't in office. Gore has no cajones to stand his ground on issues and not man enough to make decisions. What the hell was his flip-flopping on issues during the presidential elections? Hell him and tipper be out protesting eminem's CD or something.

Don't get me wrong, we didn't have the greatest choices in the last elections. And Dubya isn't the sharpest tool in the tool shed. It was the equivalent of choosing between generic two ply toilet paper to buying brand name single ply toilet paper, either way your ass is gonna pay in some way or another. Just in the state of the nation now, I would rather Bush be in office than Gore.

They both suck, bring back Billy C.! The man I trust to run a war, hold it down and twist out some random intern at the same time.

[kasia]

Originally posted by wylin@Sep 6 2002, 07:59 PM
im for war all the time, it enhances the economy, it makes jobs for lotsa young men, and its cheap population control when our #'s get too high.


and explain to me how these new jobs and increase in supply of resources can make up for the human lives lost...

but back on the topic of the article...i think the author, in making his argument, is implicitly saying that the attack was called for (hence "the enemy is within")? i don't think so. i think there are many approaches in war, and a expensive a bloody one may not be necessary in this case. but i don't think it will rest well with many Americans if we call off our search for Osama Bin Laden right now.



<!--EDIT|kasia|Sep 8 2002, 04:38 AM-->

[wylin]

Kasia,

human lifes cheap, its one of the cheapest comodities our world has.

well my defense stocks go up and we need more people to work in factories that make and manufactuer weapons during war.

and i was being sarcastic about making lotsa jobs for young men i ment the draft =P

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 7 2002, 07:56 PM
And that statistic of him receiving more votes than any other candidate -- sorry to say, but it's a joke. Al Gore was a horrible candidate. "Anyone But Al" should be the DNP's mantra for 2004.
How is this fact a "joke"? I believe that a Democrat who became president after losing the popular vote (assuming that the Republicans would allow him or her to take office) would be reminded of his second-place status everyday in the press and on Capitol Hill.

On the other hand, I also believe that a Democrat who said in a campaign speech "Families is where wings take dream" (as Bush did) would have been laughed out of the primaries. But in a Republican such slip-ups are seen as humanizing folksiness. In a Democrat, they're seen as signs of incompetence.

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 7 2002, 07:56 PM
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I was very thankful that Al wasn't our President -- we would have been subject to another episode of our pure indecisiveness. &nbsp;

In the weeks after the 9/11 attacks and before the invasion of Afghanistan, Charlie Rose had a troika of journalists from the New York Times as guests on his show. During the interview, Rose asked why the Bush Administration was taking so long in formulating a response to the attacks. One of the journalists (I can't remember her name) said that the public had different perceptions between Republican and Democratic silence in the aftermath of such an attack. She said that if a Democrat had been in the White House during the attacks, his taking so long to retaliate would have been seen as indecision. But since a Republican was in office, it was seen (probably correctly) as due deliberation.

So, it seems that "pure indecisiveness" is in the eye of the beholder.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Sep 8 2002, 11:06 AM
How is this fact a "joke"? I believe that a Democrat who became president after losing the popular vote (assuming that the Republicans would allow him or her to take office) would be reminded of his second-place status everyday in the press and on Capitol Hill.
My bad, I inferred from your previous post that you were drumming up the worthiness of his candidacy ("...who received more votes for president than any other candidate in history with the sole exception of Ronald Reagan in 1984..."), or that you were implying the public overwhelmingly wanted Gore as President. Certainly those in his home state of Tennessee didn't want this.

To add, I don't think the American people are blind to the asterisk next to Dubya's presidency. Only 50 percent believe he won the election fair and square.

Originally posted by Shuriken@Sep 8 2002, 11:06 AM
On the other hand, I also believe that a Democrat who said in a campaign speech "Families is where wings take dream" (as Bush did) would have been laughed out of the primaries. But in a Republican such slip-ups are seen as humanizing folksiness. In a Democrat, they're seen as signs of incompetence.
That's because Democrats are smarter than Republicans, even if they can't beat them in Presidential Debates.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Sep 8 2002, 12:45 PM
In the weeks after the 9/11 attacks and before the invasion of Afghanistan, Charlie Rose had a troika of journalists from the New York Times as guests on his show. During the interview, Rose asked why the Bush Administration was taking so long in formulating a response to the attacks. One of the journalists (I can't remember her name) said that the public had different perceptions between Republican and Democratic silence in the aftermath of such an attack. She said that if a Democrat had been in the White House during the attacks, his taking so long to retaliate would have been seen as indecision. But since a Republican was in office, it was seen (probably correctly) as due deliberation.

So, it seems that "pure indecisiveness" is in the eye of the beholder.
Now it seems like you're just complaining about the negative stereotypes that Democrats have to deal with. Republicans have 'em too. But I wasn't referring to some sense of indecisiveness that seems to accompany Democrats, I was referring to the one that plagues Al Gore.

Personally, I think it's short-sighted to demonize politicians based on party. I don't dislike Gore as a candidate because he's a Democrat.

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 9 2002, 01:12 AM
Now it seems like you're just complaining about the negative stereotypes that Democrats have to deal with. Republicans have 'em too.
What are some of those Republican stereotypes, and how would you say that they disadvantaged Bush in the outcome of Election 2000?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Sep 8 2002, 07:47 PM
What are some of those Republican stereotypes, and how would you say that they disadvantaged Bush in the outcome of Election 2000?
Republicans: gun-toting, right-wing, intolerant, racist, greedy, ad naseum. They're the same stereotypes that disadvantage every Republican candidate for every election, just as negative stereotypes of Democrats hinder every Democratic candidate. In most cases the better candidate is able to transcend those stereotypes.

I'm confused. So you're saying that negative perceptions towards liberals hurt Gore?

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 9 2002, 05:38 AM
I'm confused. &nbsp;So you're saying that negative perceptions towards liberals hurt Gore?
I'm just saying that I see a major double standard between how Republicans in general are regarded and how Democrats are regarded. In the 2000 election, Bush was cut infinitely more slack than Gore was. If you'd like to read more about this (and you probably don't — maybe for good reason), you can check out The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller.

As I've said before, I can't imagine a Democrat with Bush's poor communication skills and relative political inexperience making it through the primaries, much less to the White House. I thought that Gore blew Bush away in the third and last debate — I thought that Gore — breaking out of robot mode — eloquently and passionately outshone Bush's mumblings and tortuous turns of phrase. (I still think that the Republican's could have put forward a stronger, more commading candidate.) But when I watched others respond to the debate on TV, all I heard was how likeable Bush was and very little about what the candidates said. Maybe I'm just missing something.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Sep 9 2002, 10:45 AM
I'm just saying that I see a major double standard between how Republicans in general are regarded and how Democrats are regarded. In the 2000 election, Bush was cut infinitely more slack than Gore was. If you'd like to read more about this (and you probably don't — maybe for good reason), you can check out The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller.

As I've said before, I can't imagine a Democrat with Bush's poor communication skills and relative political inexperience making it through the primaries, much less to the White House. I thought that Gore blew Bush away in the third and last debate — I thought that Gore — breaking out of robot mode — eloquently and passionately outshone Bush's mumblings and tortuous turns of phrase. (I still think that the Republican's could have put forward a stronger, more commading candidate.) But when I watched others respond to the debate on TV, all I heard was how likeable Bush was and very little about what the candidates said. Maybe I'm just missing something.
A double standard in how they're regarded by whom? Certainly not the press. And definitely not the public, who by anyone's measure had given President Clinton's tenure, though tumultuous, a big stamp of approval. I haven't read Mark Miller's piece but if it was anything simliar to Rolling Stone's portrayal of how the press and media turned on Al Gore, then you're right, I'll skip it. Because the press didn't reject the Democratic candidate, they rejected Al Gore. It's no secret that the Vice President was routinely written off as the most boring candidate in history -- this wasn't because of his party affiliation, but because he had about as much charisma as Clinton's pinky -- maybe.

Republicans also complained in '92 of near-zero coverage of George Sr., when TV cameras instead pointed to the more telegenic Clinton. Same for '96 -- no one in the press took Bob Dole seriously.

Dubya enjoyed a relatively free ride from the press about a year before the election. Up until then, the early buzz on him was that he was the pragmatic businessman who "reformed" education in Texas and had new conservative ideas for dealing with social ills: essentially, flawed perception of the compassionate conservative, similar to Clinton's heralding in '92 as the New Democrat. During the election, particularly after the bruising primaries, Dubya definitely took his licks, from weekly reports and jokes about unintended speech gaffes, to speech gaffes that were intended (remember him referring to a reporter as an asshole while his mic was on?), and definitely, to criticisms of his intelligence and shallow comprehension of public policy. How did he survive? Money. Lots of it.

How else did he survive? Because Al Gore will never even be Clinton's pinky when it comes to campaigning. Whereas Clinton's near-mythical '92 campaign was lauded for its insistent focus and discipline, Gore's was anything but (one might use the term "indecisive" here). Was Al Gore going to embrace his precedessor, foibles and all, or keep him at bay during critical moments of the campaign? Would Gore ever really capitalize on the fact that he was part of an administration that enjoyed the most economically prosperous era in American history? Was Gore going to reject an irresponsible tax break like the one proposed by Dubya, or would he later shift, offering his own patented version? Would he cease the campaign finance scandals by the horns or let them linger throughout the campaign, along with Clinton in the corner? Most of all, would Gore project a single, unwavering message throughout the Florida recount...?

Re: the debates...going into them, Gore was the overwhelming favorite. I watched Gore beat the crap out of Dick Gephardt in the '88 primaries, appear calm and in control against Dan "I-Can-Show-You-How-Much-Trash-I-Can-Talk" Quayle in '92, and make Ross Perot look like a fool over NAFTA. I don't think I was the only one who thought Gore was going to wipe the floor clean with Dubya's bumbling ass. The Gore camp was supremely confident of this, floating out trial balloons that Bush was afraid to debate, that he wouldn't be able to carry a substantive conversation.

So what happened? Americans like to root for the underdog, and after all the horrible press that Bush was receiving up until the debates, people were frankly stunned that he could form complete sentences, much less spar with Al. The climate was such that Gore had everything to lose, Dubya everything to gain, and the reality was this: Gore should have beaten Bush in every debate. I agree with you, as do many other political pundits, that Gore trounced Bush in the third debate. But it was too little, too late.

As someone who loves political campaigns (dirt, filth, lies, corruption and all), I base my judgment of candidates partially on how effectively they ran their campaign, which is, quite often, the candidate's initial public venture out into leading an administration. Philosophically, it's a very cynical approach, since all candidates lie, but so do Presidents; it's usually a matter of how effectively and efficiently those lies are administered.

[Shuriken]

Thanks for taking the time to write this. It gives me a different perspective on the Realplotik that I wasn't getting from other sources. However, there are still a couple points that I have trouble with:

During the election, particularly after the bruising primaries, Dubya definitely took his licks, from weekly reports and jokes about unintended speech gaffes, to speech gaffes that were intended (remember him referring to a reporter as an asshole while his mic was on?), and definitely, to criticisms of his intelligence and shallow comprehension of public policy. How did he survive? Money. Lots of it.

Money was certainly a huge part of how GWB was able to finance what he did. But it couldn't be the whole story. The press kept telling me that this guy was presidential material, but my eyes and ears kept telling me otherwise. I kept hearing how wonderful the emperor's clothes were, but I saw something completely different. I don't think that "money, and lots of it" can entirely account for this.

Americans like to root for the underdog

Oh, yeah, like the way they rooted for Mondale in '84 and Dukakis in '88. Thanks for setting me straight on that...

And — sincerely this time — thanks again for taking the time to reply to my post at such length.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Oct 7 2002, 04:53 PM
Money was certainly a huge part of how GWB was able to finance what he did. &nbsp;But it couldn't be the whole story. &nbsp;The press kept telling me that this guy was presidential material, but my eyes and ears kept telling me otherwise. &nbsp;I kept hearing how wonderful the emperor's clothes were, but I saw something completely different. &nbsp;I don't think that "money, and lots of it" can entirely account for this.

I agree, I don't think money was the only factor. Gore's ridiculously un-telegenic demeanor and lack of charisma certainly had a part to play. He's a nice guy, but boring; intelligent enough to not make dumb statements, but not smart enough for good soundbites.

Originally posted by Shuriken@Oct 7 2002, 04:53 PM
Oh, yeah, like the way they rooted for Mondale in '84 and Dukakis in '88. &nbsp;Thanks for setting me straight on that...

Interestingly, going into mid-summer, Dukakis was ahead of Bush by 17 points, mostly due to luck I guess and the Duke's string of primary victories -- I dunno. But what later killed him wasn't the press, it was Willie Horton, that and that ridiculous commercial showing the Duke in the tank with a helmet.

[kimpossible]

For what it's worth, Dukakis didn't have a great rep on the east coast overall. Even ppl outside of Mass at the time had a pretty bad image of him.

[Shuriken]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 8 2002, 03:43 AM
Gore's ridiculously un-telegenic demeanor and lack of charisma certainly had a part to play. &nbsp;He's a nice guy, but boring; intelligent enough to not make dumb statements, but not smart enough for good soundbites.

It's one thing for voters not to be taken with "Gore's ridiculously un-telegenic demeanor." But what is it that drew them to Bush? Was it just his talk of how we could enjoy a thriving economy, pay for all of our social programs, and have a massive tax cut — and how any argument to the contrary was only "fuzzy math"? (And by the way, how is everyone enjoying their tax cut? If it meant my stocks not taking a nosedive, Bush could have kept the $300.) Why were so many voters so drawn to such a substandard standard-bearer? From your arguments, I'm getting the idea that if the Republicans had run a chimpanzee against Gore, just as many voters would have gone for the chimp.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Oct 8 2002, 01:57 PM
From your arguments, I'm getting the idea that if the Republicans had run a chimpanzee against Gore, just as many voters would have gone for the chimp.
Well...a monkey wouldn't have been able to beat him, that's for sure.

I think you give voters too much credit. They're rarely swayed by issues, and if they are, it's only the thin veneer of. Gore would definitely be able to go toe to toe with the press on policy forever, but that's the thing -- forever would get them asleep. Bush talks about "evildoers" and you can't help but eat it up.