Endless Democracy Inaction

First, take a moment revisit my previous blog entry: MoveOn.org and The Nation Magazine (Democracy Inaction)

Its been frustrating lately: Everyone I talk to buys into the Lesser Evil rubbish (i.e. McCain is terrible, but Obama is not as evil and can create "change"). As soon as I suggest that they should vote for the platform they support instead of candidates who are far to the right of public opinion, they almost fly into a rage accusing me of wasting my vote on candidates who'll never win. By voting for a valid platform instead, I persist in my argument, we make a statement that being a Democrat is no guarantee of getting votes and more importantly, we take a stand that bogus anti-war, health care etc. stances (as co-opted by the Democrats) cannot be condoned at any cost. I've commented on the pathetic Lesser Evil insanity (and I continue to refer it to you ad nauseum) here.

More recently, John Walsh commented on the latest silliness of The Nation magazine in their "open letter" to Obama. Read about it here at counterpunch. Try not to clench your teeth.

For thoughts on voting for a platform, see an excellent article by Manuel Garcia,Jr here. He says we have the following choices:

"So, you have three choices: 1, vote for the empire led by John McCain with a lumbering regressive politics; 2, vote for the empire led by Barack Obama with sophisticated regressive politics; 3, vote against the empire."

Democracy as an "Internal Problem"

Yet another clear example of how the Foreign Policy establishment's conception of democracy is at best a complete travesty. The hypocrisy was recently revealed in official Indian and American reactions to the failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal which failed to gain enough support in India. I've commented on the numerous problems with the deal earlier here.

Although the Indian Congress Party tried its level best to implement the agreement (with little public debate, of course), the Leftist party in India has been opposed to the deal from the start by contending (correctly) that the benefits of signing such an agreement would be limited to the Indian Elite, Arms Dealers and Nuclear Businesses and would have a minimal impact on India's energy needs and more importantly, the extreme poverty that has pushed India down to 127 in the UN Human Development Index (HDI) of 2003 (was at 115 in 2001). Additionally such an agreement would violate India's long-standing Non-Aligned policies by essentially being an offshore arm of US-led imperialism. Failing to win full support for the passage of the bill, the Congress was forced to back down.

Now to anyone who is not a complete hypocrite, this would be considered as the healthy functioning of the democratic process with checks and balances working as they were intended. But, as has been evidenced recently, it is clear that the United States has no such system although it pretends that it does. The most obvious recent example (there are numerous other examples) being that after a year of the American populace voting the Democrats into a majority in the House and Senate, the war in Iraq continues unabated with virtually no intention of any real withdrawal. The system of checks and balances seems to be complete fiction. Both parties are accountable only to corporate power. When the American establishment thinks that the current system is indeed democratic, it comes as no surprise that they wouldn't recognize a real democratic process even if it slaps them in the face. This is evidenced by the reactions of both establishments to the failure of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

India's ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen, who appears to think that such deals can be passed without approval of parliament says (speaking for the Indian establishment elite and claiming that democracy is a problem of 'insecurity')

"It has been approved here by the president, and there it's been approved by the Indian cabinet, so why do you have all this running around like headless chickens, looking for a comment here or a comment there, and these little storms in a tea-cup."

"I can understand such a debate over the deal immediately after India's independence. But sixty years after independence! I am really bothered that sixty years after independence they are so insecure ­ that we have not grown up, this lack of confidence and lack of self-respect."

Not to be outdone, the usual suspect Henry Kissinger spouts more rubbish (basically saying that functioning democracy is an INTERNAL PROBLEM and that the deal getting signed or not is a matter of "prestige" of American leaders)

"Does it reflect an immediate Indian internal problem or does it reflect the fundamental choice which makes it difficult to cooperate with India on these issues"

"It (failure of the deal) would certainly, in an intangible way, affect calculations because when an American leader goes down a certain road, he stakes his prestige on the ability to get it executed. So in that sense, it would undoubtedly be a setback"

References:

Ronen Sen apologises for calling MPs "chicken"
The Nuke Deal is DeadFall of n-deal will affect US outlook on India: Kissinger

The American Century

Some important quotes from key public figures of the "American Century"

George Keenan (The "father of containment", historian, political scientist) in 1948, in 'Review of Current Trends, U.S. Foreign Policy', PPS/23, Top Secret.

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of it's population ...In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction ... We should cease to talk about vague and ...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization."

Henry Luce, the editor of Time Magazine (who in the Feb. 7, 1941 issue of Life magazine, authored and signed an editorial, "The American Century")

"It now becomes our time to be the powerhouse from which the ideals spread throughout the world and do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the Psalmist called a little lower than the angels."

"America as the dynamic center of ever-widening spheres of enterprise, America as the training center of the skillful servants of mankind, America as the Good Samaritan, really believing again that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and America as the powerhouse of the ideals of Freedom and Justice - out of these elements surely can be fashioned a vision of the 20th Century to which we can and will devote ourselves in joy and gladness and vigor and enthusiasm."

"Draft Memorandum to President Truman," in Diplomatic Papers, 1945: The Near East and Africa, p. 45, Vol. VIII, Foreign Relations of the United States, U.S. Department of State, University of Wisconsin Digital Collections.

"In Saudi Arabia, where the oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history, a concession covering this oil is nominally in American control. It will undoubtedly be lost to the United States unless this Government is able to demonstrate in a practical way its recognition of this concession as of national interest by acceding to the reasonable requests of King Ibn Saud that he be assisted temporarily in his economic and financial difficulties until the exploitation of the concession, on a practical commercial basis, begins to bring substantial royalties to Saudi Arabia."

McGeorge Bundy (United States National Security Advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1961–1966) in "The End of Either/Or," Foreign Affairs, Volume 45, No 2, January, 1967, pp. 189-201.

"There are people who understand that we have to be in Indochina and just differ on the tactics, and then there are the wild men in the wings who think there’s something wrong with carrying out aggression against another country."

Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence (a document produced in 1995 as a "Terms of Reference" by the Policy Subcommittee of the Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) of the United States Strategic Command (current USSTRATCOM, former CINCSTRAT), a branch of the Department of Defense)

"The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

Apocalypse Soon (by Robert S. McNamara who was U.S. secretary of defense from 1961 to 1968 ) wrote in 'Foreign Policy' in 2005.

"It is time—well past time, in my view—for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high."

Dean Acheson (United States Secretary of State in the Truman Administration during 1949-1953) speaks on the Panel: Cuban Quarantine, Implications for the Future, 57 Proc. Am. So. Int'l (Apr 1963)

"I must conclude that the propriety of the Cuban quarantine is not a legal issue. The power, position and prestige of the United States has been challenged by another state and law simply does not deal with such questions of ultimate power - power that comes close to the sources of sovereignty. I cannot believe that there are principles of law that say we must accept destruction of our way of life .....No law can destroy the state creating the law. The survival of states is not a matter of law."

Arthur Schlesinger, Historian and Kennedy aide (see "On the Brink: The Cuban Missile Crisis", John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, October 20, 2002)

"The Cuban Missile Crisis was the most dangerous in the Cold War. It can be argued further that it was the most dangerous moment in human history. Because never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to blow up the world. This was an unprecedented moment in the history of humankind, and we’re lucky to have survived it."

Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now

Noam Chomsky interview on Democracy Now where he comments on Democracy Deficit, Iraq Troop Withdrawal, Haiti, Democracy in Latin America and the Israeli Elections

Audio
Video
Transcript

Illusion of Democracy

By now, you're probably rejoicing over the fact that the Democrats are doing better than usual and those Republicans are getting what they deserve. And your natural instinct would be to expect things to change for the better. So lets look at the following example issues and contemplate the possibility of any substantial change actually being made by the Democrats.

• Oil
• Iraq/Afghanistan
• Defense spending (apparently someone thinks defense spending is going to slow down. US defense stocks take a hit
• Anyone with less than a billion dollars in their bank having a fair shot at being a senator/congressman
• Health Care
• Military Commissions Act (OK, torture, martial law, whats not to like ?)
• National Space Policy 2006 (aka renewed Star Wars, aka America's war on the Universe)
• Patriot Act(s)
• Prison Population (closely related to War on Drugs)
• Income inequality 
• Organized labor (I mean lack of)
• Gun Control
• GWBs signing statements
• "Tax Breaks"
• Global treaties on Global Warming, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and international law in general
• Apocalypse Soon
• Corrupt Lobbyists
• Corporate financed electoral candidates
• Elections being essentially an exercise in Public Relations (did you think democracy ?)
• Media Concentration

What are the chances that any of these (vital) issues are going to be tackled seriously (other than lip service) ? If you believe things are going to change significantly within the existing power system, keep dreaming. You think your vote counts ? Democracy as it exists currently is just an illusion. An election that fields candidates hand-picked by corporations isn't my idea of a democracy.

Lesser Evilism

The Lesser Evil argument is incredibly lame. Voting Democrat will do virtually nothing to improve the situation (and the situation is indeed very bad). We'll have the same policies under under a different label. Consider this: Do the Democrats have a coherent strategy on Iraq ? (supposedly the most important issue in this election). The strategy of the Democrats appears to be as follows: Do absolutely nothing and let people vote for us because they're probably sick of that other party and its not like there is anyone else they can vote for. People are going to vote for us no matter what policy we follow because they are suckered into the Lesser Evil argument. So why should we change ? We'll continue to be war-mongers and people would still vote for us because they believe in the twisted lesser-evil bullshit.

The Democratic party will not change any major policies even if they gain a majority. If the Republicans are incredibly genocidal (also insane), then the Democrats are only very slightly less genocidal (and only very slightly less insane). The Democrats will follow the Republican policies every step of the way with some very minor variations (the minor variations and tactical differences lead to the so-called range of debate between the 2 parties -- very convenient).

There is no compelling need for Democrats to change because the anti-war faction of the Democratic party is in the minority. It's not like the overall Hawkish Democrats are suddenly going to start giving credence to its anti-war minority. The bottom line is: Voting for Democrats will change very little as far as key policy decisions go. Both parties are subject to the same absolute power -- the power of the corporations.

Do you understand the Democrats position on foreign policy, health care, social programs etc. ? It is never presented in a way that people can understand. So what exactly is it that people are voting on ? When people vote Democrat, they're assuming that Democrats share the same views as they do. The sad reality is that Democrats will almost certainly have positions that are radically different from the people who vote for them (as a simple example ... people are anti-war, dems are pro-war). So why do people continue to vote for them ? Because they have no fucking clue what the Democrat position is. The Democrats intend to keep the policy positions that way. Completely fucking incomprehensible to the general public.

So what is the option ? Possibly for all the anti-war groups (or groups with some semblance of sanity that are not hell bent on destroying the human race) to unite outside of the equally hawkish Democrats and Republicans. And my vote would go to such a third party that is actually in sync with the populace.