|
March 1, 2004 THE SILLY SEASONWhat has been dubbed "the silly season," namely the quadrennial circus of presidential election campaigns is in full swing. Sordid charges and countercharges fill the airwaves as well as the print media, while the real business governments are elected for has to take a back seat. Neither side wants to offend its core constituencies, which leads to the postponement of unpopular decisions. This may not be so easy this time because America can hardly afford in this day and age to waste practically the rest of the year on internal squabbles, which will become progressively more vicious and each side will blame the other for "negative" campaigning and "dirty tricks." The world will, however, not take a vacation until Americans have decided who is going to lead them for the next four years. On the contrary, America's perceived turning inwards is likely to encourage others to take advantage of this seeming vacuum at the top and may make the rest of this year one of the more dangerous ones for the world. The Middle East is in turmoil. Sharon has a green light to do whatever he wants until the end of next January, or possibly beyond if Bush wins, and he will surely use this once in a lifetime opportunity. He is building his wall on occupied land, raids Palestinian banks and as a matter of policy assassinates leading Palestinians all under the name of fighting terrorism. Iraq's occupation, with concomitant loss of lives and property will have to continue even if we stick to the July deadline of turning power over to the Iraqis because a nation, especially one based on tribal loyalties, can't be rebuilt in a few months or a year. The real problem is that America's 9/11 catastrophe was a Godsend to certain circles because President Bush turned what was a crime immediately into a war. This was a fundamental mistake and has opened the door to all the disasters that have already followed and will continue to come to pass. Even if there were to be a "regime change" in Washington next January the clock cannot be turned back to September 10, 2001. Events have been set in motion that can no longer be undone. I have always maintained that the 9/11 tragedy was a crime rather than an act of war because private organizations cannot make war. They can rob, kill, maim, and destroy property on a previously unprecedented scale but war has always been the final outcome of a dispute between states. A state has to commit aggression for war to ensue. The pretext for invading somebody else's country because it harbored terrorists has in the past been regarded as a prerogative of empires run by an aristocracy, or after their demise that of totalitarian dictatorships. "Democracies don't make war" has been the slogan dutifully recited at least since Wilson and this is why the "world has to be made safe for democracy." The Bush administration has taught us that this was merely rhetoric and that whoever has the power in a given arena will use it for perceived gain, regardless of what the electorate wants. While the rationale for even the Afghan invasion was not quite as lily white as administration supporters made it out to have been there was no question that the Taliban government did indeed harbor Osama and his Al Qaeda fanatics. But as subsequent information has proven Afghanistan was a sideshow. The goal had always been Middle East oil. This was one of the reasons why Saddam had to be removed from power by the Bush administration even if there had never been a 9/11. Israel's security and a personal hatred by Bush jr. for Saddam were the other two essential ingredients. It was a personal vendetta against the man who had retained his power in spite of a devastating defeat while the victor, Bush senior, lost his job. This was not allowed to go unpunished as Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty. Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush tells us. Weapons of mass destruction and atrocities by Saddam were excellent pretexts for the war but not the cause of it. The coming together of these three ingredients: Oil, Israel and Personal Revenge made the Iraq invasion foreordained. Although 9/11 was the catalyst, it was neither the necessary nor sufficient cause. In the process of writing these lines another war against a country which harbored terrorists came to mind. It was none other than the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As mentioned in War and Mayhem private secret nationalistic terrorist groups in Serbia, the Narodna Odbrana and the Black Hand, dedicated themselves to the destruction of their powerful neighbor in the north and were responsible for the assassination of the Archduke and his wife on June 28, 1914. But the ruling circles in Vienna used this crime as a pretext to declare war on Serbia although the government of that country had not been involved in the crime and had actually made wide-ranging concessions to cooperate with the investigations to bring the culprits to justice. We know the outcome of that pre-emptive war against a state harboring terrorists and all our current troubles can be laid at the feet of the decision makers in the summer of 1914. But the war could have remained limited to Europe, had England stayed out of it. Although Germany's invasion of Belgium was officially proclaimed as the reason for England's entry into the war, it was not the real cause, and her overseas empire made it into a worldwide war. As Niall Ferguson writes in Empire. The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power: "[Germany's invasion of] Belgium was a useful pretext. The Liberals went to war for two reasons: first, because they feared the consequences of a German victory over France, imagining the Kaiser as a new Napoleon, bestriding the Continent and menacing the Channel coast." Ferguson then goes on to state that even if the fear was legitimate both political parties of the time, the Liberals and the Conservatives, should have acted earlier to prevent a potential German menace. But the second reason, and this is where we enter familiar territory, was that: "By 1914 Herbert Asquith's government was on the verge of collapse. Given the failure of their foreign policy to avert a European war, he and his Cabinet colleagues ought indeed to have resigned. But they dreaded the return to Opposition. More, they dreaded the return of the Conservatives to power. They went to war partly to keep the Tories out." These are some of the real reasons why countries went to war then, why they do so now and why the rest of this year is potentially so dangerous. To understand this danger we need to look at the men behind Bush. I do indeed mean men in the sense of male because although "Condi" had influence in the past she seems to have at best been a reluctant player and has already announced that she will be leaving the administration in January regardless of who wins the election. Prior to July 2002 there was another woman in the White House to whom Bush listened and who ran the show for him. She was Karen Hughes who had guided, together with Karl Rove, his election campaigns in Texas and for the White House. She got high marks from everyone who had been in contact with her but she left the administration at the mentioned time. The ostensible reason was that her husband and teenage son were quite unhappy in Washington and everybody wanted to get back to Texas. These are noble sentiments which probably did play a significant role but my clinical mind suspects that there may have been another reason. She must have seen the inexorable push toward the Iraq war which was hyped by Karl Rove for winning the November midterm elections. If she was indeed as smart as people report, she may well have had second thoughts about the wisdom of this enterprise and quietly left the scene before shouldering part of the blame for this experiment in first ruining a nation and then putting it back together in whatever fashion. In July 2002 Ron Suskind published an article in Esquire (available on the Internet): "Mrs. Hughes Takes Her Leave," which is well worth reading. The caption states in bold print: "The single most influential adviser to the president of the United States is going home to Texas with her family to live a simpler life. Perhaps Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, says it best: Oh, God.'" The reasons why her departure was regarded by knowledgeable people with such a sense of foreboding are as follows. Suskind quotes Card: "She's irreplaceable. The cost of her absence will be huge. . . . Listen, the president's in a state of denial about what Karen's departure will mean, so is the First Lady, and so is Karen herself. The whole balance of the place [the White House], the balance of what has worked up to now for George Bush is gone. My biggest concern? Want to know what it is? That the president will lose confidence in the White House Staff. Because without her, we'll no longer provide the president what he needs, what he demands. Karen and her family, will be fine. It's the president I'm concerned about. . . . She's leaving when the president has one of the highest approval ratings on record. From here it can only go down. . . . The key balance around here has been between Karen and Karl Rove. . . . That's what I've been doing from the start of the administration. Standing on the middle of the seesaw, with Karen on one side, Karl on the other, trying to keep it in balance. One of them just jumped off. . . . Karl will miss Karen. He may not want to admit it to the level he should, but he'll miss Karen a lot. . . . It's like she's a beauty to Karl's beast." When the "beauty" resigned the "beast" was left in charge. Suskind explains the difference between these two people who were: "the president's right hand and his left. Rove is much more the ideologue, a darling of the Right, who often swings a sharp sword of partisanship on matters of policy and politics. Hughes always more pragmatic, mindful of how to draw the most support across a balkanized political terrain, somehow figures how to beat that sword into a plowshare. That is at the core of what has worked so well politically for the president. Both have been with Bush for many years - Rove first met the president twenty nine years ago - and are ferocious personalities." Well, Card was correct. Karen Hughes was irreplaceable. Karl Rove was now in complete charge of policy and although he won the November 2002 elections for Bush the subsequent downhill slide in the president's approval, shortly interrupted by the early Iraq success, began and is likely to continue. Suskind's article also explains the difference between the president's rhetoric during the campaign of being "a uniter and not a divider" and his subsequent actions in office, which polarized the country even further. It seems that Karen Hughes was actually the uniter, rather than the president, and it was she who smoothed out the sharp ideologic bent of Rove. Which brings us to the next question. Who is Karl Rove? There are two recent books about him: Boy Genius. Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush by Dubose, Reid and Cannon; and Bush's Brain. How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential by Moore and Slater. The portrait which emerges from these books is that of a political consultant who is highly intelligent but also totally ruthless in pursuit of his goal. This can be summarized in the desire to create a conservative political majority in the country which will outlast a given president and endure for at least a generation. It is to be achieved by handpicking personable, conservative candidates for public office, be it on the state or federal level, and overseeing their election to the desired job. The borders of Congressional districts may be redrawn to maximize his candidate's chances and no effort is spared to annihilate the opposing candidate even to the point of character assassination. His guiding light is Machiavelli's The Prince and since he is in charge of the current election campaign he will do anything whatsoever to ensure the president's victory. In as much as this may even include starting another "preemptive" war his dealings must be exposed and should be legitimate targets for the Democrats. To focus on Bush who is a likeable person but a political lightweight is, in my opinion, mistaken. The opposition should instead concentrate on the people who really run the show. Their conduct should be scrutinized in a non-malicious but thorough manner. Democrats should: expose Rove's dealings and dirty tricks; expose Cheney's current connections to the oil and military procurement magnates; expose Rumsfeld's early and relentless push for war regardless of justification; and expose Wolfowitz's as well as Perle's connections with the state of Israel. If all of this were brought to the attention of the general public not just in books, which only a few people read, but on the TV talk shows, the Bush presidency would be finished. But who has the courage to do so? Are the Democrats really capable of defeating Rove? One may wonder. The field of candidates has narrowed down to two since last month. Lieberman, Clark and Dean have called it quits and although Kucinich and Sharpton are still theoretically in the race they have no chance of winning and they know it. Even Edwards is not likely to get the nomination because Kerry has won so far all but two primaries or caucuses while Edwards won only once. Although he denies it, he may be running for the Vice-presidency. Conventional wisdom has it that Kerry will be the nominee at the Convention in Boston and will give Bush a run for his money. This will be difficult because Bush has already twice as much as he could possibly need and Karl will spare no effort to dig up whatever dirt he can on the gaunt senator. One effort to smear him as a Clinton clone with an intern scandal has already failed but that will hardly be the last. We are just warming up for the "silly season." Although Kerry will have the votes of all the "progressives" this may not be enough to get him over the top, especially since Ralph Nader has rediscovered his indispensability for the welfare of the American people. The Bushies could not be more delighted and Karl may buy him a dinner in November. There is potentially another scenario if Kerry were made to stumble or implode. Gore has committed political suicide by first endorsing Dr. Dean, without even telling his former running mate Joe Lieberman beforehand, and then by putting on, in all seriousness, an imitation of Dean's Iowa performance which was painful or hilarious to watch depending on one's political viewpoint. This leaves us with the junior senator from New York our former First Lady. No one has any doubt that a return to the White House with Bill as First Husband in tow is Hillary Clinton's abiding dream and she, like Karl Rove, will do anything to make her dream a reality. Right now it is assumed that she will be running for the presidency in 2008 when after eight years of Bush the country will be ready for her. On the other hand if there were to be a major stumble by Kerry she might "consent" to being "drafted" during the Democratic Convention. This would be a desperation move by the Democrats, because she can't win this time around. On the other hand the Democrats might want to write this election off and give her a chance to test the waters for the real event in 2008. This is how politics are played in our country and the article by Günter Nenning in Vienna's Kronenzeitung, supplied to me by my brother, entitled "Three Cheers for America!" (Hoch Amerika!) is premature. Nenning, an old Social Democrat in both senses of the word, congratulated us to the self correcting powers of democracy. He told his readers that Americans first elected the wrong guy but now comes Kerry, the new hero, to the rescue. This is his hope anyway. But not so fast Dr. Nenning: remember Stalin; both of us do. One of his classic statements was: "It doesn't matter who votes what matters is who counts the votes." As we have seen in the fall of 2000, no truer words were ever spoken. Vote counting is likely to become a major issue in the upcoming election. There are no uniform standards across this vast country of ours how the votes are being cast in the first place and then tallied. It'll all be high tech in most states where you merely touch the name of your candidate and/or your party of choice on a computer screen and presto your vote is registered. What senior citizens' trembling fingers and poor eyesight will really accomplish in this way is a good question. What glitches will there be in the computer programs that can either invalidate your vote or send it to some other candidate? Let us remember Miami in 2000 where an inordinate number of Jewish voters endorsed Pat Buchanan whom they regard as anathema. The issue of the actual voting process and who the company is which writes the software has not yet been publicly addressed to the best of my knowledge. Nevertheless, it is likely to become a major point of contention. Unless Karl Rove sends us into another war this election may well turn into another cliff hanger and might again be resolved by judicial fiat rather than the will of the people. |
| Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you. |
