The White House Horrors: Why a Kerry Vote
is the Only Rational Option
August 27, 2004
By Bernard Weiner, The
is a short list of positively frightening power-grabs by the Bush
Administration that will curl your hair - and, I hope, provide reasonable
justifications for a Kerry vote by those still undecided or those
leaning toward Nader or other alternative candidates.
But, in the interest of transparency, let's get the personal history
out of the way first so you'll know where I'm coming from. I voted
and worked for Ralph Nader in 1996. Up until the last minute, when
it became clear how close the election was going to be, I was going
to vote for Nader in 2000. Going back even further, in 1968, unable
to support the pro-war Democrat Hubert Humphrey, I became a state
official in The New Party - the radical party founded by the likes
of Benjamin Spock, Barry Commoner, Marcus Raskin.
In short, I hold no brief for the current two-party system; it
must either be drastically reformed - starting from how campaigns
and parties are financed, and how decisions are made at the top
while ignoring the rank-and-file base - or a viable third party
must come to the fore, perhaps aided by an instant-runoff election
Now, having said all that, I enthusiastically support John Kerry's
candidacy and am working vigorously toward moving him into the White
House, and ejecting the current squatter regime.
I have no other realistic option; voting for a third-party candidate
who cannot win - even a pure-as-snow one (assuming one could be
found) - is a luxury for another time, not in 2004.
Will John Kerry significantly change the way politics is done
in Washington? Probably not as much as we'd like, of course, but
to charge that there is "not a dime's worth of difference" between
the Kerry Democrats and the Bush Republicans - while it may sound
clever in rarefied intellectual circles - is to ignore the great
difference nine cents can make in peoples' actual lives.
We've endured nearly four years of Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft
rule since 2000, and it's crystal clear that this reckless, corrupt,
incompetent, extremist crew are a disaster for our country and for
the world. They have to go.
THE WHITE HOUSE HORRORS
If the American citizenry were to give Bush&Co. four more years
in power, we would be approving all the current White House horrors
- wars of choice, torture as official policy, shredding of Constitutional
guarantees of due process, giving dictatorial power to the president,
turning over environmental law-making to the polluting industries,
appointment of extreme-ideologue judges and Supreme Court justices,
and on and on - and providing a mandate for even more such policies,
with no restraints operating on a second Bush term, since they would
be lame-ducks, with nothing to lose.
Kerry does come from the same class and shares many of the same
interests as the Bush clan. But we can be certain, given his history
and inclinations, that his policies would be significantly different,
and better, in almost every area of concern you can think of. Certainly,
this is true with reference to domestic policy: environmental law-enforcement,
the kinds of judges nominated, tax and monetary policy, job-creation,
health care costs, Social Security, civil liberties, respect of
Constitutional due-process, women's right to choose, racial equality,
and on on.
In foreign/military policy, things aren't quite so clean cut.
Kerry hints that his policies in this regard would be different
enough - no "preventive" wars, no arrogant unilateral bullying,
rebuilding our alliances with the European allies humiliated by
Bush, and so on - but there's still Kerry's vote that gave Bush
(despite caveats) authority to launch war on Iraq, his "stay the
course" rhetoric about that conflict, and his unwavering support
for Israel with no comparable support for a viable Palestinian state.
Now, maybe Kerry feels he has to fuzz up his Iraq and other policy
stands in order to lure uncommitted voters in the swing states;
perhaps he will be more sensible once he gets into the White House.
FORWARDS OR BACKWARDS?
But even if Kerry were as bad as many on the Left claim - and
I don't believe that for an instant - I would still support his
candidacy. That's how high the stakes are this time around. With
Kerry, we move forward with a president who's correct on many issues,
incorrect on others, but someone who is open to reason and scientific
evidence, someone we progressives can lean on to affect change in
his positions (our work, money and energy would have been instrumental
in getting him into the White House, after all).
Or we can get self-righteous and self-destructive and vote for
Nader or someone else more "pure," and watch our country move further
into a militarist police-state, and send more of our young men and
women to kill and be killed in other countries on the neo-con hit
list - in sum, permament war abroad, and a tightening of the authoritarian
net at home. (Many leftists in early-'30s Germany actually didn't
mind Hitler's ascension to power, since they believed his extreme
policies would so horrify the population that their left parties
would be the beneficiaries in the next election. There was no next
election, and they wound up in the concentration camps.)
You may think that, in order to get you to vote for Kerry, I'm
exaggerating about what might happen if we sit on our hands this
election, or vote for a third-party candidate, and Bush gets four
more years in power.
PARTIAL DIRTY-LAUNDRY LIST
But all one has to do is objectively view the Bush&Co. record
of the past four years, and what they've begun to do to prepare
for their next four years. It's all right out there, in public statements
and internal documents - a good share of which have been buried
by the conglomerate-owned mass media that shares the Bush&Co. mindset.
Just a few examples:
In secret memos, some of which worked their way into the
public realm during the first revelations of the Torture Scandal,
Administration lawyers came up with interpretations of law designed
to place Bush outside the reach of the courts. In this legal reasoning,
as long as Bush says he's operating as "commander-in-chief" during
"wartime" - remember, he has proclaimed that he is a "wartime President"
in an endless "war on terror" - he can do whatever he deems necessary.
End of argument. (See articles in "Is
Bush Above the Law?")
Richard Nixon tried this rule-by-executive-fiat dodge - he maintained
that the very fact that the President ordered an action meant it
could not be illegal - and was slapped down by the courts. Bush
is dealing with a much friendlier judicial system, with a great
many jurists appointed by him. (And, don't forget, Bush was installed
as President by the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Once he was selected President, Bush worked feverishly
to make sure that U.S. officials and soldiers could not be charged
with war crimes by any international body or court. Later, after
he and Cheney/Rumsfeld launched their war-of-choice against Iraq,
and authorized "harsh interrogation methods" (read: torture) against
suspected terrorists at Guantanamo, and then suspected insurgents
in Iraq, we came to understand why he sought the exemptions for
U.S. officials and troops.
Earlier this year, Bush set in motion actions that would
give legal sanction to the "postponement" of the November presidential
election. As usual, whenever these guys want to get something, they
invoke the magic words "war on terror" and "national security" as
rationalization for their action. Presumably, if Bush's poll numbers
keep sliding in the toss-up states, they might well use a terrorist
attack or "credible threats" of a major terrorist attack to "postpone"
the election. (Note: Never in our country's history, not even during
the Civil War, has a presidential election been postponed.)
Even more nefarious than a wholesale "postponement" of
the election, a new memo has been revealed that provides legal rationalizations
for certifying the November 2 election results even if parts of
the population are prevented (by a "red alert" terrorist threat,
for example) from voting. You can guess which states might not have
their votes counted, and which ones would. Under this scheme, a
president could be elected by truncated democracy - that is, put
into power by his supporters, while the opponent's supporters would
be prevented from having their votes counted.
Here are the key portions of the July 14th memoradum prepared
for the Congress; for more on this, see Ritt Goldstein's article,
'Terror' Election Barring Voters Could Stand."
The State Department's July 14, 2004 legal memo, "Executive
Branch Power to Postpone Elections" [pdf], examines the mechanisms
the Bush administration might use to disrupt the November ballot.
It explicitly states that if the Congress were to give the Executive
the requisite power, "the executive branch could make decisions
that would make it impossible or impractical" for an election to
The memo elaborates on how the administration could "limit the
movement of citizens under its emergency powers," further finding
that "exercise of such power would not appear to have the legal
effect of delaying an election."
Reading that last sentence makes my hair rise: using its state-of-emergency
powers granted it by the GOP-controlled Congress, the Bush Administration
could "limit the movement of citizens" on Election Day, and doing
so would not invalidate the selection of a president by partial
vote. That kind of thinking reminds us of the three times Bush has
as saying, "in jest," that he would much prefer to rule as a
The so-called USA PATRIOT Act, which was rushed through
Congress in the days following the 9/11 attacks, in effect vitiates
a number of Amendments to the Constitution (the "Bill of Rights")
protecting the home and privacy of citizens. Under these draconian
laws, the Justice Department is permitted to engage in sneak-and-peek
"black bag" jobs - entering your home secretly to rifle through
your papers and computer files; monitoring your personal email without
your permission; requiring librarians to disclose what materials
you're reading (and forbidding those same librarians from discussing
the matter with others); removing the lawyer-client privilege of
confidentiality, and so much more. Those who raise questions about
these, and other such matters, said Ashcroft, are aiding terrorists.
We're returning to something approaching Nixon's "enemies
list." In Bushland, it's a black and white world; if we're not with
them, we're obviously enemies to be dealt with. The FBI knocks on
doors of non-violent dissenters from Bush policy, for a little Q&A;
Senator Edward Kennedy and Congressman John Lewis, and hundreds
of other opponents of Bush policies are placed on airlines' "watch
lists" and harrassed at airports; amendments by Democrats are sometimes
not permitted on Congressional bills, and they are rousted from
their own caucuses by Congressional police; outrageously sleazy
lies are encouraged, or at least not discouraged, against opposition
candidates and leaders (and their spouses) - see what was done to
John McCain, Max Cleland, and now John and Theresa Kerry; and on
and on. As Robert Kuttner and others have
put it, a Bush victory would accelerate America becoming a one-party
NEO-CONS READY TO ROLL
There are more "evil" countries out there targeted for
"regime change" - those states that might want to question America's
aggressive moves to control energy resources, weapons of mass destruction,
and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. The neo-conservatives
in the Bush Administration - led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Feith, et al. - continue to operate on the belief that as the sole
world superpower, the U.S. should take what it can take, control
what it can control, shape the world they way it wishes, as long
and as forcefully as it's able to do so. (See "How
We Got Into this Imperial Mess: A PNAC Primer".)
In order to properly prepare for the coming invasions of
these "evil" regimes, the U.S. military needs bodies. It is stretched
perilously thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so it has instituted
a "backdoor" draft - by using National Guard and Reserve troops,
stopping those who have fulfilled their obligation from leaving
the service, calling back long-retired soldiers, by beginning prelim
inary moves to restaff local Draft Boards.
And, of course, it has announced that it is recalling 100,000
troops from Europe and elsewhere for eventual deployment to hot
spots around the globe. You believe these 100,000 troops will remain
in the U.S.? You're dreaming.
DROWNING THE ECONOMY
Spending (and wasting) hundreds of billions of dollars
in its Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, it is effectively bankrupting
scores of popular social programs, and moving to privatize others
such as Social Security, thus rolling back the social gains made
by American citizens over the past 50 years. All in the name of
"fighting terrorism," of course.
And, to ensure that the budgetary system will be SNAFU long after
they're gone, they have placed the country into a humongous deficit
hole - trillions! - that ensures an enormous tax and interest burden
on our children years and years into the forseeable future.
A byproduct of all this shrinking of funds is that states are
not receiving the normal amount of federal funds for their mandated
programs, so they put the squeeze on cities and counties, which,
of course, affects programs at the lowest levels. This means mandatory
cuts of social programs, infrastructure upkeep, libraries, police
and fire, public education, college availability, etc. etc. Citizens
get angry at their local officials and governors, and forget that
the cutbacks originated at the top, in the White House. (And, of
course, we haven't even mentioned the stagnant economy, the "jobless
recovery," the enormous offshoring of hundeds of thousands of good-paying
THE BEST OPTION
Well, I could go on forever listing the scores and hundreds -
and some have even compiled a list of a thousand-plus - reasons
why a Bush second term would be a catastrophe for our country.
Given all this evidence, many of us on the left have concluded
that the best chance for moving this country back toward a more
sane, rational government - one that respects its citizens and the
Constitution, and has an affinity for the glories of democracy -
is to support John Kerry for president.
He was not my first choice (Kucinich), nor my second (Dean), nor
my third (Clark) - and I still have sharp disagreements with some
of his policy positions - but I believe he is a good, solid, intelligent
man who may well grow into a fine president, one open to listening
to the diverse American people, and especially to us progressives,
as he shapes his new administration and initiatives.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D, has taught at various universities, worked
as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and
currently co-edits the progressive website The
Crisis Papers. He is a contributing author to the recently-released
book Big Bush Lies.