-Caveat Lector- January 27, 2001 An Anarchist View of the Presidency of Bush, Jr. By Brian Oliver Sheppard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anarchists have a saying: "No matter who you vote for, the government will get in." For the 2000 Presidential Election this adage needs a little revision: "No matter who you voted for, Bush got in." It is true that anarchists have proclaimed, for centuries now, the folly of humans entrusting themselves into the guidance of nation-states. It is true that we see nation- states as no longer benefiting humanity in any meaningful way; we feel they serve, rather, to impede the free development of humanity's powers, corralling people into regimented lives of misspent energy in the service of more powerful humans. Nation-states are mazes of man-made laws that ensure some powerful people will be able to rule over others, and that an economic system that safely perpetuates this sort of hierarchy will function indefinitely, all at public expense. So it is that when George W. Bush assumed the mantle of President of the USA, to many anarchists it was the coronation of just another figurehead, replacing all the other figureheads of the past, who, like so many inter- changeable parts, simply ensure that the nation-state will lurch forward as a legitimate social phenomenon. What's so remarkable about George W. Bush, then, if he is merely the inheritor of an office that anarchists see as illegitimate no matter how it is won? What's remarkable is that, even by the standards of those who do accept states, and who think rulers are tolerable inasmuch as they are popularly chosen - even by these minimal standards, George W. Bush falls short of the mark of acceptability. With a disarmingly dopey, and even playful, demeanor, the unelected Bush waltzed into the highest political office in the land, serenaded by the vapidity of Ricky Martin, Lee Greenwood, and other symbols of cultural mediocrity, in a showbiz extravaganza inauguration. And while his outward appearances so far have been marked by speeches consisting largely of vague platitudes and vacuous, nice-sounding political buzz phrases, he has been hard at work behind closed doors, signing a flurry of executive orders and appointing reactionary cabinet members. These actions betray his true intentions more than any lip service he has paid to being a "uniter" and a "compassionate conservative." BEDTIME FOR DEMOCRACY Even by the logic that allows American power to credibly refer to the country as a representative democracy - a republic - the Bush presidency represents a step backward. It represents a step backward to a time when coteries of aristocrats installed leaders into power openly, and the public accepted it because such was their lot in life. As people in history became more unmanageable, more "curious and arrogant" about the machinations of the State (to para- phrase a statement often quoted by Noam Chomsky), elites felt compelled to ensure that their representatives were chosen through more indirect, less noticeable means. Campaign finance, saturation of political ads across all kinds of media, control over the Federal Election Commission, the Electoral College - these are some of the indirect ways that elites ultimately retain their power over the country today. The placing of Bush and his big business administration into power shows that the business community feels confident enough to step out of the shadows and openly place into office one of their representatives, even without the public ratification that used to be, at least superficially, necessary. What are some of the reasons that the Bush presidency fails to carry any legitimacy, even given the criteria for assuming power that is inherent to a republic? * Shortly after the election in November, 2000, it was estimated by most that Al Gore, Bush's main opponent, had won the national popular vote by about 300,000 votes. In December the New York Times, Associated Press, and others came out with figures that revealed this to be short of the mark: Gore had actually won the national popular vote by at least 500,000, they reported, after all state returns had been certified. * Bush had the largest war chest of any presidential candidate in history. Wall Street and other sectors of the moneyed elite backed him overwhelmingly. His loss of the Presidency would have amounted to a failed investment for them. As the most well-connected of candidates, and with so much of an investment riding on his success, he had the benefit of society's most powerful as allies, able to pull strings to help him come through when things looked grim. To wit: Business Week's December 11 issue stated that "Bush has hooks everywhere. He has Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who certified his election two weeks ago and who just happened to be his state campaign co-chairman. He has his brother, the governor of Florida, to certify a slate of Bush electors.... He has both houses of the Florida legislature and the US House of Representatives.... And, it seems, he has five justices of the US Supreme Court, all of whom were either appointed by his daddy or by Ronald Reagan, his daddy's old boss." * Recounts that probably would have overturned his victory were halted by the intervention of a Supreme Court stacked with appointees from Bush family administrations. These "justices" said the recount was stopped because allowing it to go forward would cause "irreparable harm" to Bush's chances of winning. Indeed, it would have. * As the newspaper Haiti Progres noted shortly after the election in November: "Fraud, corruption, voter intimidation, confusing ballots, racial profiling, lost ballot boxes, destroyed ballots, incompetent and abusive polling site supervisors, polling sites closing early, and many other irregularities" all played a part in the election. The butterfly ballot alone caused many elderly Jews to vote for anti-Semite Pat Buchanan. * In many states in the US, a criminal conviction means that the State strips you of your "right" to vote for the rest of your life. Florida is such a state. This sort of voter dis- enfranchisement (which acts upon the assumption that the legal process under which one is branded a criminal is fair and just) has resulted in one out of every three African- American men in Florida being unable to vote. Republicans hired Database Technologies Inc., a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, to determine which ex-convicts should not be allowed to vote. A "scrub list" of 173,000 persons was generated. Katherine Harris distributed this to county election officials. It was presumably felt that ex-cons, which tend to be ethnic minorities and poorer white people, would probably not vote for Bush. There are some other failsafe devices built into the process: the fact that a state legislature can override voting outcomes and choose a state's electors itself, electors who will be present in that undemocratic institution, the Electoral College, which really chooses the President. Also of interest is that Bush, who has played up the traditional Republican motif of "giving powers back to states" and away from the federal government, decided not to respect the decision of the Florida State Supreme Court, but went over its head to the federal Supreme Court. He also came out against hand recounts despite his having signed legislation approving hand recounts while governor of Texas. Ironically these moves, which run counter to his professed ideals but which were the only options left if he wanted to be President, ultimately saved him. This simply shows that those who make their careers by ruling others have very flexible, supple ideologies that tend to accommodate, above all else, their desire for power. This isn't particular to Bush or to Republicans in the least. It is the nature of all rulers, no matter their affiliation. NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR... Truth be told, Gore would not be much better than Bush. They are both men dedicated to preserving the basic framework of our system, which is a system that depends upon class division, exploitation, and varying degrees of racism and sexism, simply to exist. With Gore we would have gotten this same old program, albeit swathed in political correctness and an occasional bone tossed to the poor. With Bush we will have the same program of state-subsidized capitalism without any of the sugar coating. Gore did contest the election up to a certain point. But he held back from taking the fight in a direction that would "irreparably damage" the country, he and his officials told us. And this says it all - because what constitutes "irreparable damage" to elites and their institutions is what is actually in the public's best interest. The irreparable damage would have been the tarnishing of the sanctity of some of America's most entrenched political institutions. The nearly mystical aura that surrounds such processes as the electing of "the leader of the free world" would have been dragged through the mud; perhaps these institutions would never have been able to recover their credibility in the eyes of the American people. However, it is precisely such a thorough examination that needs to happen if we are to take notions like "freedom" and "democracy" seriously. Politicians like Gore would rather make sacrifices in their own careers than shine too bright a light on some of the ways in which our system is inherently corrupt. Taking a fight for the White House too far would damage the eventual winner's ability to govern effectively - and this ability to govern, above all else, must be preserved. Because it ultimately matters not so much who governs, as that someone is allowed to govern, and is able to do so in a manner that is meaningful to the wealthy. A "crisis in governance," in which elites cannot command the obedience necessary to push forward their agendas, would be destructive from their point of view. From the point of view of the governed, however, averting a "crisis in governance" merely guarantees that the old order continues - an old order that means there is still ruler and ruled, employer and employed, rich and poor, and all the other changeable, man-made disparities in society that people have let themselves become too apathetic to challenge. There are many people that know Bush lost the national popular vote; they know that his victory in Florida was questionable - but they simply don't care. For some, he was their man, and so if he won, no matter how, democratically or not, it is welcomed. His victory, for them, is more important than the integrity of any process used to boost him into power. And, from their standpoint, if you have a problem with Bush being an unelected President you are simply a "whiner" or a "sore loser" or any other thing that implies that a political victory, no matter how unjustly attained, is something you should just shut up and accept. For others, for perhaps the vast majority of the American public that didn't even vote, a Bush win or loss is not worth any fuss because it doesn't matter. They know, perhaps only on an intuitive and inarticulate level, that no matter who assumes the office of the President of the United States, the President will act as he has to act in such a role, and that nothing substantial, nothing fundamental, will ever really change. They will still wake up in the morning and have to go to work, they will still have bills, and they will still have the same day to day worries and concerns they have always had. Anarchists are often told that eliminating positions of authority, while a "nice idea," is dangerous because people are too dumb to manage things for themselves. Bush is an excellent response to this objection. With Bush we see that, as an alternative to dumb people running their own lives, we can have an exceedingly dumb person as our leader, vested in all the raiments of statehood that will enable him to magnify and extend the power of his stupidity the world over. Copyright (c) 2001 Brian O. Sheppard. All Rights Reserved. [IMPORTANT NOTE: The views and opinions expressed on this list are solely those of the authors and/or publications, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official political positions of the Black Radical Congress (BRC). Official BRC statements, position papers, press releases, action alerts, and announcements are distributed exclusively via the BRC-PRESS list. As a subscriber to this list, you have been added to the BRC-PRESS list automatically.] [Articles on BRC-NEWS may be forwarded and posted on other mailing lists, as long as the wording/attribution is not altered in any way. In particular, if there is a reference to a web site where an article was originally located, do *not* remove that. Unless stated otherwise, do *not* publish or post the entire text of any articles on web sites or in print, without getting *explicit* permission from the article author or copyright holder. Check the fair use provisions of the copyright law in your country for details on what you can and can't do. As a courtesy, we'd appreciate it if you let folks know how to subscribe to BRC-NEWS, by leaving in the first seven lines of the signature below.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRC-NEWS: Black Radical Congress - General News Articles/Reports -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe%20brc-news> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20brc-news> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20brc-news-digest> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=brc-news> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.mail-archive.com/brc-news@lists.tao.ca> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/brc-news> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive3: <http://archive.tao.ca> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <www.blackradicalcongress.org> | BRC | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________ EcoNews Service - Always online for Ecology, Consciousness & Universe Exopolitics. EcoNews http://www.ecologynews.com/ Prague http://mujweb.cz/www/ecologynews/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/Vancouver, BC V6M 1V8 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
