THE ELECTION of 2002

Back in the days of Newt Gingrich, I wrote an essay chronicling the Republican
landslide victory of 1994 (see essay, "A Newtered America"). Anyone familiar with this
writer's general philosophical outlook was not surprised by his disappointment with the
success of this wing of American political expression. Unfortunately, here we are 8
years later and it's "deja vu all over again", only worse. In '94 there was a finger in the
dike in the form of a pre-Lewinsky President Ciinton. For any truly progressive thinker,
the '94 scenario was depressing enough, but compared to 2002, it's beginning to look
like the Promised Land. The Bush Gang has now taken over every aspect of the politi
cal apparatus of this country. It is a rabid dog off its leash hell bent on infecting the
whole world with its petroleum agenda.

And to think this all got its start with "Mini-Me" Bush winning the White House
with fewer votes than the less than awe inspiring Al Gore.

In trying to assess why this has happened, I will take the reader through a series
of observations, starting with what I consider to be the least important and working on
up to the most important.


Certainly, in assessing the Carthaginian ruins, the Democrats have to look in the
mirror and come to grips with the cowardly lion staring back at them. They have let the
word "liberal" become a dirty word as the opposition eats up large chunks of yardage
while they lay back in a soft, "prevent" defense. They are committing the cardinal com
petitive sin of playing not to lose instead of to win. This timidity is all the more perplexing
when one considers they are numerically on the right side of a number of key issues:
abortion, gun control, environmental standards, campaign finance reform, health care
reform, etc. All these issues set up well for Democrats. It's as if they are getting medio
cre fastballs right down the middle and still can't hit them. Even with regard to taxes, a
traditional issue of strength for Republicans, it has been shown repetitively that voters
are willing to pay taxes, especially for education, which is another perceived strength of
the Democrats. At the very least, it can safely be said that cutting taxes is not a high
priority for the average voter.

Perhaps the most shameful aspect of the Democrat move to the center is their
abandonment of the millions of citizens who are not interested in killing thousands of
defenseless people for trumped up, politically inspired reasons. This is a segment of the
American public that is far too numerous to deserve such treatment. At first glance, a
less bellicose foreign policy might seem politically suicidal, but with a bit of articulate pa
tience, such a stance could be linked to issues that play well politically. Being that so
much of our military aggression and expenditures are premised upon oil security, a
more pacific foreign policy could be tied to both lowering taxes (or at least balancing the
budget) and the environmental movement. War and oil are linked at the hip. Breaking
this link logically leads to the discussion of alternative energy sources, more energy efffi
ciency, etc., issues that resonate with young people, a traditionally liberal group that has
not been mobilized effectively since the Vietnamese conflict (see essay, "The Volunteer
Army").

As I write, the purge of the Democratic Party has correctly begun. Dick Gephardt,
the long time Party leader in the House, has resigned. If he has done this to devote
more time to a run for the Presidency, he must be stopped as soon as possible. Tom
Daschle, his counterpart in the Senate, can retain his post if his re-election is incumbent
guaranteed, but he must cease and desist from any Presidential aspirations. This Party
is in desperate need of fresh faces that can articulate a progressive point of view that
should not be that difficult to succeed with. The fight for Gephardt's job might shed
some light on the future. The most prominently mentioned name is a Congresswoman
from California named Nancy Pelosi. Although she is a feisty proponent of traditional
liberal values, there are also "moderate" candidates hell bent on magnetically sticking
the Party to that supposedly magical center pole. These cowardly centrist inclinations
have robbed the Democrats of both their issues and their passion. Who ends up with
Gephardt's post should reveal quite a bit.

Another aspect of the latest American defeat of anything vaguely representing an
enlightened position, are developments in the media tip of tt~e "Military-lndustrial-Media"
complex (see essay, "September 11th"). I've already devoted a.goodly amount of time to
Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Network (see essay, "Rupert Murdoch"). Unfortu
nately, it is relevant to revisit this topic in discussing the election of 2002.

Over the course of the last 10 to 15 years, the 24 hour Fox News has become a
powerful force in the dissemination of "information". Although it masquerades as a news
organization, it is no more than a front for right wing interests on a global scale. It is a
gross misnomer (perhaps "lie" would be better) to call Murdoch's news operations just
that. This is not news; this is ideology. This is not information; this is agenda.

Predictably, the people at Fox would say, "no, no, hold on here. We are only pro
viding a response to the traditional liberal media of always." My response would be to
say, "no, no, hold on here." To call news organizations run by the likes of Disney, Time
Warner or General Electric serious voices for liberal ideas is, at best, somewhat of a
stretch. At worst, it is a pure fabrication. A more realistic assessment of the news bur
lesque in America would be to put such organizations slightly to the right of center,
which, compared to Murdoch-Fox, looks bleeding heart liberal indeed.

But even if the liberal bias accusation were true, it is the "modus operandi" of Fox
more than its ideology that makes it the force it has become. One watching CNN et. al.
will not be able to guess the personal ideology of their most prominent analysts. They
are still playing the "journalism" game. Fox has no time for such wimpy journalistic integ
rity (which, in truth, is a liberal idea to begin with). Sportsmanship is not a part of their
game. They are in your face. They trash talk. They know who they are and they want
you to know who they are. Their camouflage as a news organization is, for those of us
paying attention, membrane thin.

Rupert Murdoch is such a powerful player in today's global landscape, it is diffi
cult to say whether he is the spokesman for the Republican-Tories, or they are the
spokesmen for him. Regardless of how this question shakes out, his global media em
pire has become a major cog in frustrating a more rational, altruistic approach to the
world's problems. It has become an incessant water drip slowly eroding the foundation
of progressive thought.

One does not have to be a famous unknown essayist to discover the omnipo
tence of money in our electoral "fandango". I have offered solutions to this dilemma,
most prominently in the essay "Campaign Reform Revisited". Unfortunately (I seem to
be saying this word a lot lately), the election of 2002 was an "up yours" example of how
hollow all attempts to reform a broken system have been. The latest attempt (McCain
Feinstein) looks like the same old smokescreen.

Although the money-controlling-politics issue has been with us for quite some time
now, the campaign of 2002 was the hrst time I could actually feel its effects in flesh
and blood. It was no longer an ambiguous, smoke filled room subtly affecting the bal
ance from some unseen seat of power, but a visible presence that had come out of the
shadows to laugh sardonically at the democratic pretensions of our society.

I live in the State of Florida, famous, amongst other things (palm trees), for its
electoral incompetence. its Governor, President "Mini-Me" Bush's younger brother Jeb,
was involved in a surprisingly close re-election battle with political newcomer Bill
McBride, a cuddly novice with the type of accent that can win elections in Florida. Ai
though Jeb's poll numbers going into the campaign seemed safe enough, one must re
member that if not for the polling place debacles of campaign 2000, he would not have
been able to deliver his own State for his brother. In short, he was vulnerable.

About a week to ten days before Election Day, I began to receive campaign lit
erature in the mail. Every Republican candidate from Meter Maid to Governor was mak
ing their pitch and my box was stuffed every day. After a few days, I began to wonder
where the Democratic response was? When I work, I listen to the radio on a semi
regular basis and heard an incessant Republican drum beat from top to bottom of the
ticket. is it necessary to describe the Republican barrage on TV?

Have you ever been to a sporting event where the crowd was so sparse you
could clearly here a heckler's every word rattling pathetically around an almost empty
stadium? That was the Democratic response to this postal-media onslaught, a Nor
mandy invasion that lasted everyday for more than a week until Election Day. Is it just a
coincidence that Jeb's poll numbers began to move ahead in conjunction with this
propaganda avalanche, until his victory had become somewhat leisurely?

Perhaps true campaign reform would be the following: In order to win an election,
a candidate would have to win as much a percentage of the vote as the percentage of
money such candidate spent on the campaign. For example, if the candidates spent
one million dollars during the campaign, and one candidate spent 600 thousand, that
candidate would have to win 60% of the vote. In this way, the race would be on to
spend less money.

You think the Republicans would go for that?

(Before getting on to the last and most important factor that influenced campaign
2002, there were some peculiar results in Florida that do not flatter the intelligence of
the electorate. A democracy is only as good as its voters.

Unlike the general trend nationwide, which could not seem to find any true focus
--- we can thank those bumbling, cowardly Democrats for that --- the Governor's race in
Florida was a well-defined debate over public education. For a State as Mickey Mouse
rich as the Sunshine State, its performance in educating its rank and file has been de-
plorable. The Democratic challenger, Bill McBride, made his commitment to improve
this situation the foundation of his candidacy.

In conjunction with this focus on education, there were two amendments to the
State Constitution on the ballot: 1) an amendment limiting class size in the State's public
schools, something which has burgeoned out of control lately, and 2) the availability of
pre-school for any 4 year old who's parents want to use it.

Quite logically, McBride was strongly in favor of these amendments, while Jeb
passionately opposed them, claiming they would cost too much, we don't have the
money, we can't, we shouldn't, we mustn't, no, no, no. Much discussion, big debate,
finger pointing, accusations, you're a horse's ass, so's your mother.

Can somebody please explain to me how both these amendments passed while
Jeb won an easy victory?

If they elected you with such illogic, would you want to educate them?)

What really won this election for the Bush Gang?

In spite of the general incompetence of the Democrats; in spite of Rupert Mur
doch and his constant right wing evangelizing on Fox News; in spite of the Republican
financial advantage, it's probable that both Houses of Congress would now be in De
mocratic hands and "Mini Me" could be planning his vacation for two years hence ... if
not for one thing.

September 11th ...

... and its autistic offspring, the issue of Iraq.

This one event completely changed the prism through which the voters saw this
election. It not only gave a floundering Presidency an opportunity to play an '`heroic"
role, it obliterated a host of issues the Republicans would have had to flee from like a
fox in front of a pack of drooling hounds. Unfortunately (not again), the wishy-washy
Democrats never became this pack of hounds and this Administration, to its credit,
played their 9/11 ace in the hole with devilish perfection.

Sometime back in the summer of 2002, I was talking politics with a friend who
was showing some optimism with regard to defeating the Bush Gang in November.
By then, the glow of the Afghani war was growing dimmer, its goals and purpose were
still not well focused, the world seemed as dangerous a place as always and the situa
tion on the home front was (and still is) not too encouraging --- poor economic perform
ance, a vaporized federal budget surplus (even before 9/11), amongst other poorly
staked out Republican positions. Adding to these woes were the corporate bookkeeping
scandals emanating from a segment of American culture the Bush Gang is most asso
ciated with. As if this weren't enough, the high profile Enron scandal was sprung from
the heart of this Administration's inner Texas circle. (It is astounding to think that the
Republicans just about destroyed Bill Clinton for an act of fellatio while the Democrats
seem helpless in the face of such juicy malfeasance.)

I timidly agreed with my friend's optimism, but my enthusiasm was tempered by
one factor:

If the Bush Gang were sufficiently intelligent and diabolical to have conspired in
allowing the 9/11 attacks (and I believe they are neither, though they probably come
closer to the latter), they could not have picked a better date for their own self interest. It
is both close enough and far away from Election Day to be used in the most politically
advantageous fashion. I remember saying to my friend that the first anniversary of the
attack was approaching, thus giving President "Mini-Me" the opportunity to play the
whole patriotic-hero card all over again, close to Election Day, etc., etc.

They did it better than I could have imagined. The 9/11 anniversary is when they
pulled the Saddam rabbit out of their hat. Quite a coincidence, eh? Fred Astaire and
Ginger Rogers could not have choreographed it better. "Mini-Me" had now found his
true groove talking about "turr'ism" and how if nobody else wants to do it, we'll do it
alone.

"Mr. President, has anything really been done to deal with the problems arising
from the Enron scandal?"
"That's a very good question, and I must emphasize that if nobody else will do it,
we'll do it by ourselves."
"Mr. President, the economy continues lagging and tax cuts don't seem to be the
answer. Any thoughts?"
"Of course ... and I can assure you if nobody else will do it, we'll do it by our
selves."
"Mr. President, as a card carrying capitalist, don't you think you are ignoring the
natural effects of the market by giving such massive government handouts to the airline
and insurance businesses?"
"This President ignores nothing. If nobody else will do it, we'll do it alone."

He put on his ten-gallon hat, strapped on his six-shooter, and got ready for the
shoot out at the Tigris and Euphrates. This strategy worked to perfection, not because it
aroused great sympathy for the upcoming Iraqi crusade, but because it overwhelmed
the political discussion. Enron, the economy, the deficit, ecology, education ... what, me
worry?

Is it in poor taste to say that Osama Bin Laden is the best thing that ever happened to
George W. Bush? No. Poor taste is to justify the killing of thousands of defenseless
people with a national security argument that is nothing more than a cover for an
imperial-petroleum agenda.