George W. Bush is Not the Problem. John Kerry is Not the Solution.

by Jonathan McIntosh - Febuary 28th 2004 Personally, I believe representative electoral democracy is a farce and a sham. I believe it is a system intended to keep power out of the hands of the people and to keep wealthy elites in control of our nation. I favor a direct participatory democratic system where each and every member of the society is a member of a nested council, in which each person has say in decisions to the degree that the decision effects them. However, since we seem to be stuck with our curious version of democracy for the moment, it is critical to wield the little power we have been given as citizens in these forthcoming elections. As each of us decides the best way to do this, I feel there are a few important points that we should all keep in mind.



1) George W. Bush not the problem.



Clearly, he is a disastrous menace to our nation and to the world, and must be removed. However, it is imperative that we not make this our ultimate goal. I am increasingly alarmed by the degree to which progressives, liberals, leftists and independents seem to be focusing all their energy, criticism and activism on Bush and Bush alone. Are they forgetting or ignoring America’s bipartisan quest for empire through global economic and military dominance over the past fifty years? Forgetting or ignoring the disastrous effects of bipartisan neo-liberal free trade policies the WTO, IMF and World Bank on the global South? Forgetting or Ignoring our nation’s long history of military interventionist foreign policy that has ravaged the developing world, thwarted attempts at self rule, overthrown elected leaders, installed dictators and conducted all manor of terrorist activity against smaller weaker nations?



The problem social movements face is not embodied in George W Bush; he is simply the symptom of a systemic bipartisan disease. This is the first reason I feel it is dangerous to build a movement on a negation; to define oneself solely as anti-Bush. Second, what happens when the ‘anti’ movement succeeds deposing Bush? An anti-Bush victory implies that the fight is over, that there is nothing left to fight for. Leaving the systemic structure that created Bush in place ripe for the next neo-con darling boy. Third, the anti-Bush stance pushes no specific issue pressures and does little to demand policy directions and goals from the Democratic candidate except that he simply not be George W Bush, a rather easy criteria to meet in my opinion.



2. John Kerry is not the solution.



It looks more and more like it will be a "Bonesman" vs. "Bonesman" election in 2004. Pitting Kerry, a Yale-secret-society-big-money-corporate-free-trade-millionaire against Bush, a Yale-secret-society-big-money-corporate-free-trade-millionaire. Both men are in the deep pockets of mega-corporate power and both want US economic and military empire, though they favor very different tactics in achieving this goal. Bush, is of course, for the unilateral approach while Kerry favors the much-touted multilateral option. We must keep in mind that multilateralism is simply a form of cooperative imperialism and neo-liberalism by the US lead global North that savagely plunders the impoverished global South. For billions of people it is precisely what has underwritten the suffering that corresponds to their dollar-a-day existence. Bush’s departure from multilateralism is not some diversion from a noble past; it is nothing more than a falling out amongst gangsters over the sharing of bounty and turf. By the same token Kerry is not to be commended for his kinder gentler multilateral imperialism.



John Kerry voted yes to the Orwellian PATRIOT ACT. He not only voted yes to, but also was a key figure in the passage of the disastrous NAFTA agreement. He voted yes to war in Iraq, but more worrisome is that he did it by unconstitutionally ceding the power to make war to the executive branch. One wonders if, in so doing, he hoped to be granting that power to his future presidential self. Only after the overwhelming popularity of Howard Dean’s anti-war rhetoric did Kerry change his tune. His current anti-war speechifying is nothing but an electrical charade, designed to collect voters in November.



It is also worth noting that John Kerry (like Gore and Clinton before him) is the handpicked poster boy of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) whose stated goals are to make the Democrats "more like Republicans" and to "work for corporate interests". They are the group behind the NAFTA and the WTO. In short they, and their boy Kerry, are NOT our friends. John Kerry is the epitome of what the anti-corporate globalization movement has been fighting against for the past ten years. Even if we find ourselves holding our noses and voting for him, he is not our ally, he is our enemy and should be treated as such.



3) We should welcome Ralph Nader, the Green party and independent candidates.



There has recently been a dizzying outcry from members of the liberal intelligentsia against even the candidacy of Mr. Nader. This baffles me because there is no chance of a third party ‘splitting the liberal vote’ in 2004. In fact it is a safer year for a third party run than in 2000. In order to understand why, we must remember the history of the 2000 election clearly without giving in to the sound bite media spin that has become the mantra of the mainstream Democrats. We must remember that Bush and Gore agreed on 38 of the 40 major issues that were important to the voters, INCLUDING foreign policy! Bush's election platform was almost totally opposite to his administrations policies today. That is why it was dubbed the Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum election and why so many people said “hell with it” and voted Nader. This time around Kerry and Bush clearly have different policies on major issues, at least in their rhetoric. We must also remember that of those who did vote for Nader in 2000, 25% were registered republicans! Another 30% were independent and largely said they would have voted for bush, or more likely, not at all if Nader were not running.



It is for these reasons that I believe that the inclusion of third party candidates, like Nader or the Greens, will only serve to widen the debate. They will bring valuable and critical issues like the need for IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) to public attention that would otherwise be ignored by the major party duplicity. Whether to actually vote for a third party this year, or not, is a strategic decision we all must make based on our own states. But, I believe, we should all vigorously support these campaigns.



I believe we should always try to remember and articulate what policies and principles we stand for and not be defined by what we are against. We should help get rid of Bush but remember that his ouster is not the end of the battle, but the beginning of the struggle. We must be careful not to let a Democratic victory defuse the popular movements that have been built over the past four years, as has been the pattern in history. We should embrace and support third parties and alternative voices and help spread their alternative ideas and policies. We should also keep looking to the future by continuing to create, discover, debate and act on theories for radical vision and change that offer hope to our movements, such as those developed by Michael Albert ( Parecon ) and Stephen R. Shalom ( Parpolity ). At the same time we must fight for strategic structural reforms that put us closer to our over all vision, such as IRV, democratizing of the media and campaign finance reform. The election of 2004 is a pivotal yet small battle in the overall struggle for equality and justice.