It was the most keenly fought election in American history and one that
went truly global. Whether it's George W. Bush or John Kerry, it's going
to land the winner with managing a difficult legacy of anti-Americanism,
says SHELLEY WALIA.





AFP/REUTERS

THE tightest election in the American history with a statistical dead
heat began last Tuesday. Everyone was on pins and needles to see if the
elections went off smoothly and fierce legal battles could be avoided.
The two candidates campaigned till the bitter end.

Plethora of issues


A plethora of issues, both important as well as trivial, have had an
effect on the public opinion. The people in Iraq remain concerned about
hunger and the rising death toll brought to their country by America.
Europe's disaffection for Bush is clear from the opinion polls in
Germany, France and Britain. Surprisingly, Tony Blair who has had a long
honeymoon with Bush will be happy to see Kerry in the White House since
Bush has virtually been his albatross. Europe undoubtedly will support
the French speaking senator, although his victory will bring only some
cosmetic changes in its wake in areas such as foreign policy and taxes,
the removal of conservative judges, pharmaceuticals and energy. Wall
Street would like to retain Bush as he is better in these areas, though
paradoxically Wall Street has always prospered under a Democrat
President. Black votes will matter for Kerry's victory, but as the polls
show, he is not doing too well on this front. And as regards female
votes, Kerry is getting six per cent more than Bush. The score is much
below what the previous winners have obtained. As late deciders have
always voted for change, the polls might all prove wrong. Let us see who
wins in Ohio. No Republican has ever won without Ohio; Bush on the very
last day of campaigning made a concerted effort to begin his last day
sprint across the nation from here. One wonders if the loss of 1,50,000
jobs in Ohio during his tenure might cost him the state. On the other
hand, Kerry's superstitious carrying of the buck eye in his pocket might
just see him through.

The House of Representation and the Senate continue to be in the control
of the Republicans. In the crucial states of Ohio and Florida, the
projections say that Bush is leading. Even if Kerry wins Ohio, Bush
still has the chance to take the Midwest states of Michigan and
Wisconsin. When results last came in, Bush was ahead by two million
votes, but the electoral votes could very well go to Kerry. The public
stands highly polarised owing to a cultural and political civil war on
various domestic and international issues. It is a cliff-hanger with
Bush having the superior hand. Whatever the outcome, the elections
signify the rebirth of American democracy in the 120 million turnout of
voters. Finally one could say that the two aspirants have played their
game and the media has enacted its role.

Power of the new media


It was Nixon who discovered the political power of the new media in his
September 23, 1971, Checkers' speech which created a new complex and
symbiotic relationship between the presidency and the American TV. After
him, Presidents from Ronald Reagan to George Bush became synonymous with
the screen, bringing a strong visual presence along with the vast
outpouring of lies and deception with the sole purpose of manufacturing
consent. This revolutionised the unquestioned role of the nexus between
the media and the state. A time had come when suddenly our intellectual
activities were shaken and traditional rationales which underpin our
daily practices stood discredited. The self-reflectiveness in the public
domain indicated one thing: we are surrounded by symptoms that all is
not well. Our subjectivities found themselves suddenly locked into the
structures of technological dominance, military violence and ideological
legitimation. And more than anything, it was the question of American
imperialism that has been topmost in the minds of people inside and
outside the U.S. Emancipatory politics had come to an end; ideology and
history were undergoing a slow process towards an inevitable demise.
Liberal humanism had let us down. The power of the state and the media
had succeeded in persuading the public to collude with the policies of
the government. The hour had come to oppose all such excessive
oppression of the individual.

This propaganda, full of deceit and misrepresentation, is integral to
the working and the subterranean strategies of the Western state
systems. As Tariq Ali writes, "See no truth, hear no truth, and speak no
truth." The White House propaganda assault on its own people in the form
of the Patriot Act reveals how war is used to bring about an idea of
peace with the aim to cast a hypnosis on the people making them believe
more in fear than in the reality of contemporary international relations
that aim towards geo-political control as well as sucking the natural
resources wherever there are client regimes looking up to you.

This seems to be the essential account of the times that we live in. The
presidential debates that took place over the last few weeks might have
influenced some people in deciding who should rule them. The victory of
the Democrat, it was felt, would mean a victory for the Islamic world
which, in all probability, saw to it that through innumerable terrorist
acts and violence in Iraq and elsewhere, it would crystallise public
opinion in favour of the defeat of George Bush who is single-handedly
responsible for alienating most of the world.

A `global' election



The world keenly watched how the elections in the U.S. would unfold.
This was an election that truly went global especially owing to the
overwhelming popularity of foreign websites, chiefly the British. The
debates on the TV left the people of America all the more perplexed.
Should they back the doctrine of pre-emption, the war on terrorism, or
take serious note of incidents at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo? For the
educated aware citizen, the war on Iraq was a wrong move, taking the
attention and focus away from the real protagonists of 9-11. The U.S.,
therefore has for many become an anti-thesis of freedom and justice. For
the middle-class American, the concern has been the fear under which
they live daily because of the enemy out there and the need to go all
out and wage a war on terrorism. The distinction between war on Iraq and
war on terrorism stands conflated in the eyes of the latter, and thus
their mounting support for George Bush.

The core issue of the elections therefore was the war on Iraq/terrorism.
Foreign policy overtook domestic and social issues. And we saw Kerry
accusing the incumbent of clumsy handling of the war on Iraq as well as
his incompetence in winning international support and goodwill. It was a
foregone conclusion that if Bush was re-elected, the war in Iraq would
continue, which means more instability for the Middle East.

Iraq undoubtedly became a central issue in the U.S. presidential
campaign, with Kerry pointing to the mounting violence as evidence of
bad decisions and Bush accusing Kerry of inconsistency in his views.
Whether it is Bush or Kerry in the White House, the American policies in
the Middle East and the entire Muslim world will not change in
substance. The neo-conservative agenda for the support of greater Israel
would have also remained the political dictum of Kerry's Democrats.

Implications for India


And for the Indian Government, Bush was always the favourite in view of
the deepening strategic partnership with India and access to U.S.
technology and sharing information on terrorism. Whether the U.S.
supports Musharraf or remains reluctant to support us in our bid to get
a seat in the Security Council has been conveniently swept under the
carpet. But, interestingly people in India were as bewildered about
their preference as the Americans.

As a political analyst remarked, "Bush can shoot but cannot aim whereas
Kerry can aim but cannot shoot". The ideological confidence trick by
both the presidential candidates led to nothing but public confusion and
thus a neck and neck fight. It is the age-old affiliations with the
Democrats and their inclination towards putting pressure on countries
like Pakistan to return to democracy and to show some respect for the
UNO that were among the reasons that found favour with many Indians. On
the other hand, Kerry's emphasis on the Human Rights programme being
applied in Kashmir and the nuclear programme in India kept under full
surveillance was seen by many India leaders as a reason for not backing
him. Outsourcing was another area that Kerry opposed and will oppose in
the days to come if he enters the White House. Keeping in view the
rising stature of India in the field of commerce, it really does not
matter who wins; both Bush and Kerry will be inclined fully to support
India in making its contribution to stability, both economic and
political in South Asia. There will be no change in substance, only a
change in style.

The last few months have shown that the American society had come to a
juncture where it was adrift with lack of self-knowledge and memory.
Liberal democracy, the end of cultural relativism, the overwhelming
predominance of globalisation has ushered in an era of homogenisation.
In the new techno-scientific world the absence of the human has led to
the demise of dissent. Paradoxically, the two candidates have debated in
an era of endism when the death of opposing ideologies and thereby of
debate has ushered in the victory of unilateralism and American
triumphalism. Mass unemployment, homelessness, violence, inequality,
famine, economic oppression were conspicuous areas where a battle can be
waged against the failed ideals of liberal democracy. Fundamentalist
Christian Right has to be countered with opposition and Kerry was
certainly not a very stout alternative although, at this juncture, he
seemed the only choice Americans had, considering that he has always
robustly assumed that he had the makings of a successful president
capable of effectively fighting the right-wing conspiracies.

With Bush discredited for a needless war in Iraq as well as the
misrepresentation and infringement of human rights by his state
machinery in the wake of the Iraq crisis, the public deeply felt that
the Democrats could now be given a chance to replace a President whose
rule provoked world-wide recrimination for America. But public memory is
rather transitory. It gets easily forgotten that Bush or Kerry or
Clinton have always stood for a strapping internationalism to maintain
global U.S. pre-eminence. Like the identical political complexion of the
Tory and Labour Parties in Britain, the Democrats are not too dissimilar
from their right-wing adversaries. The international security order has
always been reinvented to remain in line with American interests. More
than the Republicans, the Democrats' Progressive Policy Institute has
often emphasised and reiterated these objectives to warrant more
full-proof safety for the American nation. It is clearly known that all
democrats, including Clinton and Kerry, supported the war in Iraq.
Congress members say that American elections will not affect the drive
for peace in Iraq.

John Pilger, in a recent article is of the view that the "American
Democratic Party comes from a tradition of liberalism that has built and
defended empires as `moral' enterprises. That the Democratic Party has
left a larger trail of blood, theft and subjugation than the Republicans
is heresy to the liberal crusaders, whose murderous history always
required, it seems a noble mantle." He continues to argue that the
Democrats have been as much of "crypto-fascists" as George Bush: under
Clinton we saw the biggest war budget being passed in the history of the
U.S.; the Star Wars II programme took off during his regime. It is well
known that Clinton's government rejected any global move towards the
verification of biological weapons or the world-wide ban on landmines.
Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was
reinforced and the blockade of Iraq led to the deaths of more than a
million people.

Thus, whatever case the Democrats put forward or whatever account the
Republicans preach about "democracy building" or a policy of
"humanitarian intervention", the world knows that these are ways of
gaining international backing for the so-called motives of peace, or in
other words, strategies of camouflaging lies to hide the inherent
American obsession with imperialistic adventures through the last couple
of centuries. Destabilising governments or labour unions and all else
that comes in opposition to American interests is met with a harsh set
of American values and American power which is a psychological
justification of a nation in the throes of fear. It is the fear of
vulnerability that has led to a nation asserting its invulnerability
constantly.

A gladiatorial fight


The whole country has been pumped up during the last few days of the
elections. And most certainly, the elections have been exceptionally a
referendum on George Bush. Do people want Bush? That is the question.
The battle is to unseat an incumbent in wartime which is not an easy
task. Both candidates on the last day before the elections galvanised
the activists. The TV debates had brought out a gladiatorial fight to
the end leaving the public clear on at least one issue. If Bush wins,
America goes on accumulating the hatred that has been rising through the
post 9/11 years. If Kerry wins, the people around the world will at
least heave a sigh of relief and delude themselves that it is the end of
aggressive unilateralism. A handful of swing states like Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Florida will make all the difference. Selling the idea
of hope and change might help Kerry. The recent threat by Osama bin
Laden can work both ways: it can help Bush who has given the impression
that he can fight terrorism and that Kerry is not decisive enough. Or it
can help Kerry, as it shows the threat of bin Laden and terrorism
looming larger than ever which is symbolic of Bush's failure.

By the time this article appears, the people of America would have made
their choice. The success or failure of one over the other cannot be
predicted at the moment. But the only thing that can be predicted is
that if state institutions do not try to eliminate the tyranny of
systems, the economic injustice, the questions of race, and the foreign
policy of intervention and war, nothing good will come out of any
presidential election.

The future



Whether George Bush wins or John Kerry, it is going to land the winner
with a difficult legacy of anti-Americanism, proliferation of conflict
zones particularly the old rivals like China and Japan, the question of
global warming, international law and trade. It was an inescapable
conclusion that nothing was going to make much difference to the idea of
free markets and the status of democracies around the world. In spite of
the American obsessions with human rights and international peace,
nothing concrete has been achieved to counter the ethnic violence
especially after the ushering in of free-market democracies.
Disproportionate wealth in the hands of an ethnic minority has led to
nothing but resentment. The springing up of these "market dominant
minorities" in the erstwhile Yugoslavia, among the Chinese in South East
Asia, and the Indians in East Africa, has all led to bloodshed.
Democracy only helps to unleash the taking over of land, of propagation
of revenge, and provocation of the impoverished masses. As long as the
disturbing negative aspects of globalisation are not checked, it does
not matter who wins. What remains clear is that the key tenets of
American political faith have resulted in a backlash against not only
markets but also against faith in the reality of liberalism and freedom
under the American system that has bred nothing but global instability
and ethnic hatred.

A narrative with jarring notes of lies and deception as well as of
action-filled overdose of perpetual war is not what the world wants. The
tragedy of the last few years of blood and violence has shown no signs
of a peaceful ending. Hamlet's Denmark is as unstable and unhinged as
ever.

damn u r long winded.

Duffy, you often crack me up.