The Election Of Our Discontent

by Larry Everest

(PNS) -- Millions of people wanted this election to be a referendum on the Bush agenda and the Iraq war. Yet that choice isn't even being offered. Instead, the 2004 elections have been turned into a referendum on who's the best "Commander-in-Chief." So no matter who wins on Nov. 2, these elections will not reflect the sentiments of many millions.

People do -- and should -- deeply fear a Bush victory. But even the "anybody but Bush" crowd still doesn't realize just how dangerous the whole Bush agenda is, where it is going, and, more fundamentally, what it springs from.

The "war on terror" launched by the Bush administration is an unbounded war for greater empire, in which Iraq is merely phase two. Which country might be next? Simultaneously, the Bush team aims to reshape American politics, economics, culture, and social relations, instituting new forms of repression and imposing traditional morality and religion -- through the power of the state if need be. To do so, Republicans seek permanent control over the Supreme Court, Congress, the presidency and the military corps for generations.

Meanwhile, Kerry and the Democrats have basic agreement with core tenets of the Bush agenda, epitomized in the "war on terror," the Patriot Act and prevailing in Iraq. Thus, Kerry is trying to out-macho Bush -- hunting geese in a camouflage jacket -- and competing for the mantle of toughest warrior. In Wisconsin, he declared, "We will hunt down, capture, and kill the terrorists wherever they are." Meanwhile, as Robert Collier points out in the San Francisco Chronicle, neither campaign is addressing crucial questions like America's petroleum addiction.

Even if he wanted to, it's unlikely that Kerry and company can oppose the Bush program, because the right is so powerful. Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich brags, whether Bush is re-elected or not, "We have the governors of the four largest states, we have the House, we have the Senate." He could have added the courts and top tiers of the military. Should Kerry win, he'll be hounded and hemmed in -- like President Clinton -- from the moment he takes office.

Finally, because they represent the status quo, the Democrats are afraid to rouse the one force that could stop the right-wing juggernaut -- the many people who deeply despise the direction Bush is taking the country. This fear of upheaval from below, which could threaten the whole establishment, was amply illustrated by Al Gore's response to the 2000 election. Why didn't he call his followers to the streets to demand that all votes be counted? Instead, he gaveled down Congressional opposition to ratifying the stolen election.

So rather than giving us a real choice, the election is instead designed to ratify choices already made by the powers-that-be. Whomever wins, a mandate to keep America "safe" and to continue the "war on terror" will be declared. No wonder millions feel outraged and/or terrified at the prospect of a Bush victory, but profoundly alienated by the Kerry campaign and the whole electoral process.

Where are things heading, and why have they gotten to this sorry and very dangerous state of affairs? At times like this, it is crucial to dig for truth, in many quarters.

Author and scholar Noam Chomsky writes that the Bush administration has enacted an extremist foreign policy centered on resorting to "force to eliminate any perceived challenge to U.S. global hegemony." Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has opposed Bush actions for stripping citizens of freedoms and civil liberties and for "lack of allegiance to basic U.S. constitutional principles."

Revolutionary communist Bob Avakian argues compellingly that the actions of the right are fundamentally rooted, not in partisan politics or the personality of George W. Bush, but in the dynamics of global capitalism and in particular the compulsions it faces in a rapidly changing, post-Soviet, 21st century world. In short, he argues there is a consensus among the most powerful elements of the establishment that the United States cannot maintain its pre-eminent position globally without "reshuffling the whole deck" to deepen and extend American dominance.

Domestically, the right-wing agenda recognizes that globalization and profound social and demographic transformations could rip the social fabric -- unless traditional relations and morality are forcefully reimposed. There are deep connections here to the whole rightward trajectory of U.S. politics. Thirty-some years ago, arch-Republican Richard Nixon was a firmer defender of welfare and affirmative action than the Democrats are today. The Republicans feel they are the only legitimate stewards of the empire, willing to break with legal precedent and bipartisan tradition to get power and retain it.

All this raises profound questions -- about what people should do now, and, more fundamentally, whether it is possible to create a better system than our current corporate-capitalist democracy. We urgently need a conversation on alternative futures while we build resistance, a resistance that refuses to be bound by the parameters dictated by the political establishment.

This means reviving the experience of movements past -- from the anti-Vietnam war struggle to the sanctuary movement of the 1980s and more. Already, areas of the country are becoming "Bush/Ashcroft free zones," beginning with many cities and librarians refusing to implement the Patriot Act and other imperial dictates of war and repression. Given popular discontent and anger, this vision has the potential to become a reality and turn back the ominous rightward tide.