Land Of The Blind
"They shifted the statues for harbouring ghosts, reddened their necks, collared their clothes. Then we danced the dance till the menace got out."
Regular readers may remember an essay entitled The Politics Of Weakness that I posted way back in sweaty, sun-blind July. In that particular piece, I took a look at the recent political past and then offered a few opinions of my own about where we were at and where we might be headed. I offer this post in that same spirit. NFADR is not a news and current events blog, and it never will be. Most of what ends up on these pages comes directly from my twisted mind and my little black heart. In that respect, you will not find me referencing 'learned' sources or providing links to related articles. This is all opinion and all speculation. Any notion of objectivity has been shown the door.
Let's start with America this time. Globally speaking, all roads lead to and from the US at this point, and with the world watching a nation stagger toward a Presidential election that could conceivably be even more ridiculous than the last one, this seems like a pretty good time to jump on in and say a few things.
Firstly, I think George Bush will win. History, the current political climate, an existing powerbase, and an incredibly ignorant electorate are on his side. Secondly, it doesn't actually bother me that I think he'll win. A victory for Kerry would make no difference at all to anybody anywhere, except that those who have spent the last couple of years relentlessly bashing the current President would suddenly find themselves at something of a loose end as far as the issues are concerned. Indeed, a victory for Kerry would amount to nothing more than the slaying of the Great American Folk Devil and what amounts to a massive blow to the legitimacy of Western Democracy. Because really, the most important thing about John Kerry is not his stance on the issues or what kind of America he believes in. It's not even how well he can speak or how photogenic he is or how well his campaign machine can throw out soundbites or put a poll-influencing spin on current events. None of these things matter at all. The one thing that could get John Kerry elected as the next President of the United States is that he is not George W. Bush.
That, I think, is why this election is a mockery of everything Democracy is supposed to be about. There are only two votes that mean anything at all. One is for Bush, the other is against him. The struggle for the most powerful office in world politics has, for the past couple of years, been about one man. That this man is clearly incompetent, stupid, and possibly even a power-mad demon of some kind should not be cause for America's disaffected to rise up with flaming torches and pitchforks in order to chase him out of office. What should have happened is that America should have stood back, thought about things for a little while, and then perhaps begun to wonder how it is that its system for electing representatives of the people could possibly have given them the man they call 'Dubya' as their leader.
He was elected President. You can't change that fact or hide from it. Even accounting for situations like the alleged Florida vote-rigging, he was - at the very least - a powerful and legitimate contender for office. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the idea of elected representatives fairly clean-cut? I mean, when you get right down to it, the President is America. You can't really turn around at this point and tell me to hate GWB but not the country that appointed him as its Chosen One, not if you intend to go on voting in elections carried out under these rules and this philosophy. If you're saying Bush doesn't represent your America, then you're not so much attacking the man as admitting participation in a flawed, corrupt, and hugely outdated idea of Democracy. Yet in order to correct this wrong, you intend to go out and use this very same idea to force him out of office.
It isn't my skewed perspective, it really isn't. There is something very, very wrong with this picture.
If I was a Bush-basher, I'd vote for him this November. Voting for Kerry would be a stupid and senseless waste of time. Consider this scenario: Kerry wins a closely-contested election and rides into the White House amidst grand fanfare and much celebration. Then, because much of his thinking isn't all that different from the administration that came before him, he does absolutely nothing of note for a couple of years. The current events radar swings back to more important things, like Janet Jackson's nipple or Britney getting married. Around 2006, those national deficit chickens let loose by Dubya come home to roost. Kerry has neither the time nor the policies to cope with the fact that suddenly everybody's talking economy and taxes. He is ridiculed and destroyed and people start to mention him in the same breath as Jimmy Carter. In 2008, a fat, power-hungry, Right Wing Republican very much in the mould of dear departed Ronnie Reagan...like, say, ARNIE (although more likely candidates are Giuliani or McCain)...stomps the Democrats into an indecisive pulp and storms into office on a wave of popular support in order to re-live the eighties.
Christ, Schwarzenegger is perfect for that. If Kerry wins, I bet that little piece of legislation regarding the rules about foreign-born candidates pops up before too long. It's a stupid, stupid idea. But then we live in stupid, stupid times.
John Kerry doesn't even deserve to inherit the kind of mess that Carter inherited back in '76. Jimmy is remembered as a lame President and little more than a footnote in political history, but it's worth noting that, compared to Kerry, he is both an outstanding orator and a damn fine politician. Kerry is neither, and if he manages to win, he's fucked.
So let Bush win. If you take the long-term view, it's a good thing. If I hold onto that Carter comparison for a little while longer, then GWB is Nixon, and sooner or later, either his policies or his links to various corporations and institutions are going to bring him down. Let him be the one to reap what he has sewn, and you open the door to a White Knight in 2008. Maybe that man (or woman) won't be there when needed, but if you create the opportunity, then the possibility is there. Better that than another four years of a Democrat that knows nothing and does nothing and gets slapped aside by a Republican machine that has always been more powerful and well organised than anything the Democrats have managed.
So yeah, NFADR recommends that you VOTE BUSH, but only if you understand and agree with the kind of scenario postulated above.
I'm going to come home to England now, but before I do, I'd like to look into my red, white, and blue crystal ball one last time and urge you to keep an eye on Democratic Convention hero and rising star Barack Obama. Mark my words, friends, it may not be in 2008, 2012, or even 2016, but I honestly believe that this man will be the first African-American President of the United States. That, I think, would be one of the best things that could possibly happen.
To England then. To a static and empty Democracy with neither the excitement nor the glamour of the race to the White House. Tony Blair is our Prime Minister, and Tony Blair will be our Prime Minister until he stands down after serving his next term. The General Election that will be held in this country over the next year or so is a formality. I believe that the Conservatives are coming back into fashion, and I believe that things will be a little closer the next time we go to the polls. That said, Michael Howard will never be Prime Minister. He's the best candidate the Tories have fielded in a while, but they are so wounded and so lost in the past that the best he will be able to do is bring them into an era that at least resembles the new millenium.
The key element in the future of British politics is (shocking, I know) public opinion. But that isn't as wonderfully Democratic as it may sound. Public opinion in this country is largely dictated by the frighteningly powerful News Corporation, owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which espouses (through The Sun, The News Of The World, The Times, and The Sunday Times, together accounting for an overwhelming majority of England's newspaper-reading public) Right Wing, Euro-sceptic views that have generally been regarded as the dominant perspective in British politics since the whirlwind electoral coup of New Labour in 1997.
I'd like to focus on The Sun for a moment, if I may. While this incredibly popular tabloid newspaper is oft-credited with having a little political clout, I'd argue that it is one of the most powerful forces in British politics. In General Elections since 1979, The Sun has invariably come out in support of the eventual winner, with infamous examples being headlines like (on the day of the '92 election) 'If Kinnock Wins Today Will The Last Person To Leave Britain Please Turn Out The Lights' (followed by 'It Was The Sun Wot Won It' the day after, when the Tories came from behind to claim the win in a photo finish), and 'The Sun Backs Blair' (only days before the Conservatives were comprehensively destroyed in 1997). The Sun's influence cannot and should not be denied, and the headlines and editorials contained within its pages are generally an interesting barometer of where we're headed. In recent times, the paper has shown a marked swing back towards the Conservatives, with its coverage of their recent conference in Bournemouth far exceeding its sidebars about the Labour conference weeks before.
With Blair set to win the next election and a resurgent Tory party claiming the headlines that matter, the joker in this pack is one Gordon Brown. There is much speculation that, following the death of then Labour leader John Smith in 1994, Blair and Brown cut a deal whereby the popular Brown would stand aside in order to allow Blair to become the overwhelming favourite to win the leadership (which lead to the electoral events of 1997 and all that followed). In exchange for this, Blair would eventually stand down and pave the way for Gordon to be Prime Minister. Given all that has happened since, it stands to reason that Tony's announcement of his intention to retire after he has served his third term is an indication that he intends to fulfill his part of the bargain.
This leaves us with some interesting questions. Blair wins the next election (for that not to happen would require a fuck-up of inconceivable proportions), perhaps fulfills his ambition of bringing Britain into Europe, and then stands aside with a huge endorsement to his potential successor. At that point, I'd imagine that the Conservatives would be at or at least close to a point where they could challenge the current electoral dominance of Labour. Such a scenario leaves us with Gordon Brown versus whoever is Tory leader (nobody presents themselves at the time of writing). I see Brown winning, though I have absolutely no evidence to back that claim up except for my feeling that the British public will undoubtedly be looking for a change of leadership though perhaps not a change of party at that point.
The question, I suppose, is what Brown will do if he does become Prime Minister. His politics are undoubtedly more in line with Rupert Murdoch's than Blair's, yet we know nothing of his reaction to or relationship with News Corp. Ultimately, I lean towards a retention of the status quo as the most likely outcome. That said, the next few years will be interesting, if only for the inevitable decision on the question of Europe. With News Corporation firmly against, Blair's government firmly in favour, and an electorate caught between a general fear of Johnny Foreigner and a sense of inevitability about the whole thing, a referendum (if it happens) will be key.
As a last amusing and diverting sidenote, Gordon Brown is actually blind in one eye. How did that old axiom go again? Oh yeah, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
As for British Democracy, well, stifle a yawn, folks. Nothing's changing. In this country at least, apathy still seems to be the most attractive policy.
NB: If, after reading this junkpile of thoughts, feelings, hunches and vague predictions, you feel interested in pursuing the train of thought boarded by The The Politics Of Weakness and ridden to various locations by the essay above, then I can only recommend overdosing on Hunter S. Thompson, Bill Hicks, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Matt Skiba, Chris Cornell, David Fincher, Thom Yorke, Niccolo Machiavelli, George A. Romero, Albert Camus, Franz Kafka, Hubert Selby jr., Henry Miller, Rene Magritte, Frank Black, and Don Delillo. Also, the not inconsiderable archives of this very page. In the absence of some kind of bibliography, or the derivative, link-happy, second-hand thoughts found on the many political blogs I've read over the last three months, that's about the best I can do. It isn't everything, but it is something.
Comments and e-mails are, as always, welcome.
Regular readers may remember an essay entitled The Politics Of Weakness that I posted way back in sweaty, sun-blind July. In that particular piece, I took a look at the recent political past and then offered a few opinions of my own about where we were at and where we might be headed. I offer this post in that same spirit. NFADR is not a news and current events blog, and it never will be. Most of what ends up on these pages comes directly from my twisted mind and my little black heart. In that respect, you will not find me referencing 'learned' sources or providing links to related articles. This is all opinion and all speculation. Any notion of objectivity has been shown the door.
Let's start with America this time. Globally speaking, all roads lead to and from the US at this point, and with the world watching a nation stagger toward a Presidential election that could conceivably be even more ridiculous than the last one, this seems like a pretty good time to jump on in and say a few things.
Firstly, I think George Bush will win. History, the current political climate, an existing powerbase, and an incredibly ignorant electorate are on his side. Secondly, it doesn't actually bother me that I think he'll win. A victory for Kerry would make no difference at all to anybody anywhere, except that those who have spent the last couple of years relentlessly bashing the current President would suddenly find themselves at something of a loose end as far as the issues are concerned. Indeed, a victory for Kerry would amount to nothing more than the slaying of the Great American Folk Devil and what amounts to a massive blow to the legitimacy of Western Democracy. Because really, the most important thing about John Kerry is not his stance on the issues or what kind of America he believes in. It's not even how well he can speak or how photogenic he is or how well his campaign machine can throw out soundbites or put a poll-influencing spin on current events. None of these things matter at all. The one thing that could get John Kerry elected as the next President of the United States is that he is not George W. Bush.
That, I think, is why this election is a mockery of everything Democracy is supposed to be about. There are only two votes that mean anything at all. One is for Bush, the other is against him. The struggle for the most powerful office in world politics has, for the past couple of years, been about one man. That this man is clearly incompetent, stupid, and possibly even a power-mad demon of some kind should not be cause for America's disaffected to rise up with flaming torches and pitchforks in order to chase him out of office. What should have happened is that America should have stood back, thought about things for a little while, and then perhaps begun to wonder how it is that its system for electing representatives of the people could possibly have given them the man they call 'Dubya' as their leader.
He was elected President. You can't change that fact or hide from it. Even accounting for situations like the alleged Florida vote-rigging, he was - at the very least - a powerful and legitimate contender for office. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the idea of elected representatives fairly clean-cut? I mean, when you get right down to it, the President is America. You can't really turn around at this point and tell me to hate GWB but not the country that appointed him as its Chosen One, not if you intend to go on voting in elections carried out under these rules and this philosophy. If you're saying Bush doesn't represent your America, then you're not so much attacking the man as admitting participation in a flawed, corrupt, and hugely outdated idea of Democracy. Yet in order to correct this wrong, you intend to go out and use this very same idea to force him out of office.
It isn't my skewed perspective, it really isn't. There is something very, very wrong with this picture.
If I was a Bush-basher, I'd vote for him this November. Voting for Kerry would be a stupid and senseless waste of time. Consider this scenario: Kerry wins a closely-contested election and rides into the White House amidst grand fanfare and much celebration. Then, because much of his thinking isn't all that different from the administration that came before him, he does absolutely nothing of note for a couple of years. The current events radar swings back to more important things, like Janet Jackson's nipple or Britney getting married. Around 2006, those national deficit chickens let loose by Dubya come home to roost. Kerry has neither the time nor the policies to cope with the fact that suddenly everybody's talking economy and taxes. He is ridiculed and destroyed and people start to mention him in the same breath as Jimmy Carter. In 2008, a fat, power-hungry, Right Wing Republican very much in the mould of dear departed Ronnie Reagan...like, say, ARNIE (although more likely candidates are Giuliani or McCain)...stomps the Democrats into an indecisive pulp and storms into office on a wave of popular support in order to re-live the eighties.
Christ, Schwarzenegger is perfect for that. If Kerry wins, I bet that little piece of legislation regarding the rules about foreign-born candidates pops up before too long. It's a stupid, stupid idea. But then we live in stupid, stupid times.
John Kerry doesn't even deserve to inherit the kind of mess that Carter inherited back in '76. Jimmy is remembered as a lame President and little more than a footnote in political history, but it's worth noting that, compared to Kerry, he is both an outstanding orator and a damn fine politician. Kerry is neither, and if he manages to win, he's fucked.
So let Bush win. If you take the long-term view, it's a good thing. If I hold onto that Carter comparison for a little while longer, then GWB is Nixon, and sooner or later, either his policies or his links to various corporations and institutions are going to bring him down. Let him be the one to reap what he has sewn, and you open the door to a White Knight in 2008. Maybe that man (or woman) won't be there when needed, but if you create the opportunity, then the possibility is there. Better that than another four years of a Democrat that knows nothing and does nothing and gets slapped aside by a Republican machine that has always been more powerful and well organised than anything the Democrats have managed.
So yeah, NFADR recommends that you VOTE BUSH, but only if you understand and agree with the kind of scenario postulated above.
I'm going to come home to England now, but before I do, I'd like to look into my red, white, and blue crystal ball one last time and urge you to keep an eye on Democratic Convention hero and rising star Barack Obama. Mark my words, friends, it may not be in 2008, 2012, or even 2016, but I honestly believe that this man will be the first African-American President of the United States. That, I think, would be one of the best things that could possibly happen.
To England then. To a static and empty Democracy with neither the excitement nor the glamour of the race to the White House. Tony Blair is our Prime Minister, and Tony Blair will be our Prime Minister until he stands down after serving his next term. The General Election that will be held in this country over the next year or so is a formality. I believe that the Conservatives are coming back into fashion, and I believe that things will be a little closer the next time we go to the polls. That said, Michael Howard will never be Prime Minister. He's the best candidate the Tories have fielded in a while, but they are so wounded and so lost in the past that the best he will be able to do is bring them into an era that at least resembles the new millenium.
The key element in the future of British politics is (shocking, I know) public opinion. But that isn't as wonderfully Democratic as it may sound. Public opinion in this country is largely dictated by the frighteningly powerful News Corporation, owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which espouses (through The Sun, The News Of The World, The Times, and The Sunday Times, together accounting for an overwhelming majority of England's newspaper-reading public) Right Wing, Euro-sceptic views that have generally been regarded as the dominant perspective in British politics since the whirlwind electoral coup of New Labour in 1997.
I'd like to focus on The Sun for a moment, if I may. While this incredibly popular tabloid newspaper is oft-credited with having a little political clout, I'd argue that it is one of the most powerful forces in British politics. In General Elections since 1979, The Sun has invariably come out in support of the eventual winner, with infamous examples being headlines like (on the day of the '92 election) 'If Kinnock Wins Today Will The Last Person To Leave Britain Please Turn Out The Lights' (followed by 'It Was The Sun Wot Won It' the day after, when the Tories came from behind to claim the win in a photo finish), and 'The Sun Backs Blair' (only days before the Conservatives were comprehensively destroyed in 1997). The Sun's influence cannot and should not be denied, and the headlines and editorials contained within its pages are generally an interesting barometer of where we're headed. In recent times, the paper has shown a marked swing back towards the Conservatives, with its coverage of their recent conference in Bournemouth far exceeding its sidebars about the Labour conference weeks before.
With Blair set to win the next election and a resurgent Tory party claiming the headlines that matter, the joker in this pack is one Gordon Brown. There is much speculation that, following the death of then Labour leader John Smith in 1994, Blair and Brown cut a deal whereby the popular Brown would stand aside in order to allow Blair to become the overwhelming favourite to win the leadership (which lead to the electoral events of 1997 and all that followed). In exchange for this, Blair would eventually stand down and pave the way for Gordon to be Prime Minister. Given all that has happened since, it stands to reason that Tony's announcement of his intention to retire after he has served his third term is an indication that he intends to fulfill his part of the bargain.
This leaves us with some interesting questions. Blair wins the next election (for that not to happen would require a fuck-up of inconceivable proportions), perhaps fulfills his ambition of bringing Britain into Europe, and then stands aside with a huge endorsement to his potential successor. At that point, I'd imagine that the Conservatives would be at or at least close to a point where they could challenge the current electoral dominance of Labour. Such a scenario leaves us with Gordon Brown versus whoever is Tory leader (nobody presents themselves at the time of writing). I see Brown winning, though I have absolutely no evidence to back that claim up except for my feeling that the British public will undoubtedly be looking for a change of leadership though perhaps not a change of party at that point.
The question, I suppose, is what Brown will do if he does become Prime Minister. His politics are undoubtedly more in line with Rupert Murdoch's than Blair's, yet we know nothing of his reaction to or relationship with News Corp. Ultimately, I lean towards a retention of the status quo as the most likely outcome. That said, the next few years will be interesting, if only for the inevitable decision on the question of Europe. With News Corporation firmly against, Blair's government firmly in favour, and an electorate caught between a general fear of Johnny Foreigner and a sense of inevitability about the whole thing, a referendum (if it happens) will be key.
As a last amusing and diverting sidenote, Gordon Brown is actually blind in one eye. How did that old axiom go again? Oh yeah, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
As for British Democracy, well, stifle a yawn, folks. Nothing's changing. In this country at least, apathy still seems to be the most attractive policy.
NB: If, after reading this junkpile of thoughts, feelings, hunches and vague predictions, you feel interested in pursuing the train of thought boarded by The The Politics Of Weakness and ridden to various locations by the essay above, then I can only recommend overdosing on Hunter S. Thompson, Bill Hicks, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Matt Skiba, Chris Cornell, David Fincher, Thom Yorke, Niccolo Machiavelli, George A. Romero, Albert Camus, Franz Kafka, Hubert Selby jr., Henry Miller, Rene Magritte, Frank Black, and Don Delillo. Also, the not inconsiderable archives of this very page. In the absence of some kind of bibliography, or the derivative, link-happy, second-hand thoughts found on the many political blogs I've read over the last three months, that's about the best I can do. It isn't everything, but it is something.
Comments and e-mails are, as always, welcome.
posted by Michael at 7:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home