VOTING INTEGRITY - LOOKING GLASS NEWS | |
Kennedy, Sour Grapes, and the Neolib Order |
|
by Kurt Nimmo Another Day in the Empire Entered into the database on Friday, June 02nd, 2006 @ 14:45:03 MST |
|
The fluffy entertainment magazine Rolling Stone weighs in on the obvious, although
largely ignored (in the corporate media), theft of the 2004 election. Robert
F. Kennedy, Jr. tells us that after “carefully examining the evidence,
I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive,
coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country,
Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal
and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals
that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them
Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes
counted in 2004—more than enough to shift the results of an election decided
by 118,601 votes.” Not that it particularly mattered—John Forbes “Skull and
Bones” Kerry promised, if elected, he would out-Bush Bush, send 40,000
additional troops to Iraq, and pursue in earnest the “war on terrorism,”
that is to say attack “rogue nations” with the gall to go their
own way, rejecting neoliberal mandates and demands (or in the case of Iraq and
Iran, the mandates of the Israeli state). Kerry, who is a traditional neolib,
simply (and foolishly) listened to his advisors, who told him to mimic Bush’s
false machismo. It is, however, interesting Rolling Stone would publish such an article,
as the corporate media has assiduously avoided the issue, and Kerry himself
put it to rest after he refused to challenge the Republicans in the wake of
the election, as Gore did when the Supreme Court appointed Bush. Now Al Gore
is calling Bush a right-wing fanatic—cynically playing right into the
false left-right paradigm, per usual—and there are rumors he will run
again in 2008, maybe with the monstrosity Hillary as his mate. Meanwhile, the background, the Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”
plays at length. Kennedy concludes by stating: “If the last two elections have taught
us anything, it is this: The single greatest threat to our democracy is the
insecurity of our voting system. If people lose faith that their votes are accurately
and faithfully recorded, they will abandon the ballot box. Nothing less is at
stake here than the entire idea of a government by the people.” In fact,
as the founders envisioned, we are not intended to have “a government
by the people,” a form of mob rule, as Plato understood, but rather a
republic limited by a constitution. In fact, our “democratic” system
is wide open to abuse by corporate oligarchy (more accurately, a plutocracy,
or rule by the rich, or in the current context, mega-wealthy corporations legally
designated as persons). It is ironic Mr. Kennedy would criticize the Republicans for stealing
the election when in fact his family has done likewise. In 1960, Kennedy
operatives fixed the election in Texas and Illinois, delivering to John F. Kennedy
those states’ 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College.
“Even before Election Day, rumors circulated about fraud, especially in
Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley’s machine was known for delivering
whopping Democratic tallies by fair means and foul. When it became clear how
narrowly Nixon lost, outraged Republicans grew convinced that cheating had tipped
the election and lobbied for an investigation,” writes David
Greenberg. Now, as the cliché runs, the shoe is on the other foot,
although most Democrats are not lobbying for an investigation, as they will
do the same if given half a chance. In essence, Mr. Kennedy’s article expresses a bad taste from sour grapes.
Liberal Democrats are outraged the Republicans would throw an election while
ignoring the fact such fraud is epidemic. However, during the 2004 election
cycle, the Democratic leadership ignored and even punished the anti-war and
so-called progressive wing of their party and set-up Howard Dean for a rather
embarrassing fall (i.e., his primal scream, looped ad nauseam by the corporate
media) as the plutocrats were not ready for his brand of internet generated
contrived populism, although Dean is a consummate insider, Yale graduate, former
Dean Witter Reynolds top executive, and stock broker. Paul
Street comments: [A Wall Street Journal article, January 5, 2004] provided some interesting
social-historical context. It approvingly noted that “Mr. Dean’s
roots on Wall Street stretch back four generations to Issac Dean, a Manhattan
sugar broker in the 1870s. As a child, Howard Brush Dean III took the bus
from his family’s Park Avenue apartment to the private Browning School,
where one of his classmates was Winthrop Rockefeller, grandson of oil tycoon
John D. Rockefeller Jr. and now Arkansas’s Republican lieutenant governor.”
Dean’s father “thrived on a Wall Street that valued bonhomie and
connections.” It is true, the Journal noted, that Dean angered his father
by choosing medicine over investment banking. Nonetheless, the Journal happily
observed that “Mr. Dean’s upbringing and frugality were evident
when” the new Vermont Governor “adopted “ his Republican
predecessor’s “deficit-reduction” and “austerity program
as his own.” Further: “one of his first acts as governor was a
trip to Wall Street to woo bond-rating agencies. The agencies were ‘pleasantly
surprised,’ says Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, then a top
aide to Mr. Dean.” Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice—won’t get fooled again.
In fact, Howard Dean, generally considered too radical for the Democratic party,
even as he serves as party chairman, is simply a stylistic neoliberal and represents
more of the same, albeit his neoliberalism is of the billionaire financier George
Soros variety, that is to say of the “New Democrat” stripe. Soros
is opposed to the neocon approach to neoliberalism (unabashed and unapologetic
military aggression, while traditional neolibs, such as Clinton, prefer a kinder
and gentler approach with more smoke and mirrors, never mind that bombing the
former Yugoslavia with depleted uranium was not exactly kinder and gentler).
Even though we are told Soros is viscerally opposed to Bush, the so-called “philanthropist”
did business with Bush in 1986 when his Harken Energy bought Spectrum 7, an
oil company that merged with Bush’s Arbusto Energy in 1984. Kennedy may complain about vote fraud. However, he is not likely to
admit the entire system, Democrat and Republican, is but a one party system
essentially representing the same corporate plutocratic financial interests.
“We only have one political party in the U.S., and that is the property
party, which essentially is corporate America, which has two right wings, one
called Republican and one called Democrat,” Gore
Vidal told USA Today in 2003. Vidal takes this formulation from Ferdinand
Lundberg. As Vidal comments elsewhere,
the thesis of G. William Domhoff, a C. Wright Mills disciple, is straightforward. The country is governed by a small elite which knows
pretty much what it is up to and coordinates its various moves in foreign
affairs and the economy. Most academics dispute this theory. They tend to
be Jefferson I types who believe that the United States is a pluralist society
filled with all sorts of domination and powers constantly balancing and checking
one another. To them, anyone who believes that an elite is really running
the show is paranoid. But as the late Delmore Schwartz once said with the
weary lucidity of his own rich madness, “Paranoids have real enemies,
too.” Admittedly, it is difficult at first to accept the proposition
that the owners of the country also rule it and that the electorate is nothing
but a quadrennial chorus who function is to ratify with hosannahs one or the
other of two presidential candidates carefully picked for them by rulers who
enjoy pretending that ours is really government of, by, and for the you-know-who.
In the same manner, Tiberius always respectfully consulted a Senate to who
irrelevant ranks his heir nicely added a race-horse… Domhoff accepts the Ferdinand Lundberg formulation there is only one political
party in the United States and that is the Property Party, whose Republican
wing tends to be rigid in maintaining the status quo and not given to any
accommodation of the poor and the black. Although the Democratic wing shares
most of the basic principles (that is to say, money) of the Republicans, its
members are often shrewd enough to know that what is too rigid will shatter
under stress. The Democrats have also understood for some time the nature
of the American empire. While the Republicans indulge in Jefferson I rhetoric
and unrealities, including isolationism, the Democrats have known all along
that this is a Jefferson II world. Thus Soros, a “liberal” money man who supports the likes of MoveOn.org,
is opposed to Bush, primarily because the Jacobin neocons are “rigid”
and the tension they create “will shatter” the system. Traditional
neoliberals are aghast at the seemingly out of control neocons, who are Straussian
radicals embracing a reformulated version of Leon Trotsky’s “permanent
revolution” with an unhealthy dose of Zionism, as many Straussian neocons
(at least in the rarified air of their leadership) are reactionary Jews espousing
the “clash of civilizations” dogma targeting Muslim society and
culture, an agenda that portends serious problems for the neoliberal order. Vote fraud is of course an organic element of the plutocratic system, as the
neoliberals are running a shell game on the easily duped and distracted masses.
In 1980, Bertram Gross wrote his seminal book, Friendly Fascism, where he argued
that a veneer of democracy is required to obfuscate what is essentially textbook
fascism (Mussolini, after all, defined fascism as corporatism). Elections thus
serve an integral purpose. “Even in the past, national elections have
provided what Murray Edelman has described as ’symbolic reassurance.’
According to Edelman, elections serve to ‘quiet resentments and doubts
about particular political acts, reaffirm belief in the fundamental rationality
and democratic character of the system, and thus fix conforming habits of future
behavior,’” writes Gross. The “subversion of constitutional
democracy is more likely to occur not through violent and sudden usurpation
but rather through the gradual and silent encroachments that would accustom
the American people to the destruction of their freedoms” (see Friendly
Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, Bertram Gross), thus for the
traditional neolibs Bush and crew, establishing the unitary presidency and decimating
the Constitution, are moving too quickly. The traditional neolibs understand such “gradual and silent encroachments”
are threatened by the rambunctious neocons, bandits who have taken over the
government (and of particular importance, the Pentagon) and are now attempting
to implement their destructive “clash of civilizations” agenda and
its attendant Straussian domestic social project. The Straussian neocons came
through the back door of the Republican party and captured the flag, so to speak,
and if the oligarchic or plutocratic system is to remain in place, they will
need be deposed (the hope is this may happen at first during the 2006 mid-term
election and the process will be complete after the 2008 presidential election,
when the “environmentalist” Al Gore, with his running mate Hillary
Clinton, will take back the government and deliver it to a far less wild-eyed
neoliberal faction servicing the corporate plutocracy). Once again, the public will be duped, although the election will likely
not be so obviously hijacked, as the neocons don’t care if the masses
realize they are fascist snake oil salesmen, thus revealing their utter and
poisonous contempt. Traditional neolibs share this contempt, however they go
to lengths to hide it (Bill Clinton, who declared to feel our pain, was a master
at this). If the system is to survive with any semblance of its former, partially
obscured exploitative character and the “gradual and silent encroachments”
are to continue, the neocons, who are unabashed fascists, will need to be deposed
during the next election cycle, that is to say the next time the plutocrats
decide who will fill Congress and the White House. ____________________ Read from Looking Glass News Was the 2004 Election Stolen? The Looking Glass News collection of news articles concerning "Voter
Integrity" |