Well, folks, here we are. Good luck to you, and to us all today.
I have an extraordinarily pessimistic view of the stakes and circumstances of this election. I mean, it’s extraordinary for people at large; if you know me at all, my view is utterly unsurprising. Voting for either Bush or Kerry will not bring about the fundamental changes in the American economy and political system that are necessary to provide genuine economic and military security to American citizens, and by consequence, to the world.
But voting for President Bush (or his party’s local representatives) dramatically accelerates the specific economic and military practices which lead inexorably to the practical end of democracy itself in this country. Historically, when a great economy becomes a military empire rather than a commercial one, it presages first the end of representative governmental structures, and then the end of economic vitality and transparency. Political actions taken under these circumstances are met with increasingly repressive measures; in the end, the whole thing collapses with maximum human suffering, slowly.
A vote for John Kerry (or his party’s local representatives) has the salutary effect of slowing parts of this process while at the same time, as we’ve seen, dramatically increasing voter participation. Despite this, artificial boundaries around public political discourse limit the scope and benefit of change. However, a Kerry victory or broad Democratic sweep buys time for Americans of all political stripes.
For people on the left, it’s four years of small-d democratic organizing time. For big-D Democrats, it’s four years to bolt the current campaign architecture to the floor and to learn how to break up the GOP voting blocs so effectively mobilized by the right’s synchrony of church and media. For the GOP, it’s an opportunity to get rid of the truly dangerous PNAC types, whose terrible, egotist failure must be apparent to anyone who thinks analytically. It’s also four years of an anti-Kerry campaign that will make the anti-Clinton campaign look like a high-school rumor.
No-one knows how a Kerry presidency will resolve the problem of Iraq. It’s an issue that is unlikely to be finished in four years, no matter how you slice it. Unless a Kerry presidency manages to better Bill Clinton’s economic track record while at the same time turning that GOP propaganda machine into an icon of shame and laughter, the next campaign for the presidency will strongly favor the Republicans.
I did vote for Kerry, but not because he’s anybody but Bush. Clearly he doesn’t represent my own political opinions. Why, then? Well, largely for the reasons that he is distasteful to the right. His leadership in the anti-war movement in the early seventies is highly important to me, not solely because I agree with that movement’s sentiments. What’s more important in that period of Kerry’s life is the fact that he saw worth in translating a common American sentiment, one seen among the veterans and family of every American war, into the language and currency of power in our democracy. Furthermore, his early investigative work in the Senate on BCCI and the Iran-Contra scandal clearly demonstrate that not only is he under no illusions concerning the mechanisms used to circumvent democratic governance with the goal of projecting corporate power, he is unafraid to confront these mechanisms.
Will a President Kerry have the time and will to confront the parallel mechanisms within our democracy today? Can he do so and take executive leadership of the situation in Iraq, the long-term issue of terror at home and in the world, and provide leadership with regard to our civil liberties? It seems doubtful to me. Yet a Kerry presidency, to secure two terms, must accomplish all of these things.
Things about Kerry’s life and campaign which have bothered me include his reasoning for military service (it was because he felt that active-duty military service was required for a successful political career, as I understand it); his inarticulate defense of his transparently political votes on the Iraq war; his icky, Machiavellian use of the word “kill” in reference to terrorists (it’s not that I don’t think he’s willing do do so, whatever my feelings are; it’s that it’s such a transparent attempt to communicate that he’s a tough guy); his general clunkiness when attempting to present himself as a regular guy. He’s not a regular guy. He’s had an exceptional, extraordinary life, and should he win, we can all expect to benefit from his experience. What’s in question is his willingness to trust his own experience and instincts when communicating with the public.
If Kerry and his campaign see and understand the importance of countering the GOP propaganda mill, it will be crucial for them to reach out to progressive voters for the long run. What form this takes is open to debate; traditional American xenophobia is not the solution to outsourcing, for example. But keeping the people who were alternately engaged and energized by the Bush administration and the Dean campaign active and contributing, for all four years, is crucial.
Have fun watching the results, hope it stays free of violence, and I’ll see you in front of the Daily Show’s Indecision 2004 tonight. May our democracy emerge strengthened from this day.
