Thing One and Thing Two
Then those things ran about
With big bumps, jumps and kicks
And with hops and big thumps
And all kinds of bad tricks
--Dr. Seuss- The Cat in the Hat
American author Robert Coover wrote a little story back in 1968 called "The
Cat in the Hat for President." This piece lampooned the presidential
election process in the United States, emphasizing not only the overall
emptiness of the men who run, but also how these individuals run at the
behest of various power elites who really govern the country. I mention
this story because the 2000 election has amazing similarities to the 1968
campaign. Not only are the two candidates almost identical in their
shallowness, the ideas they espouse are remarkably similar (no matter what
they may say), just like the platforms of Nixon and Humphrey in 1968.
Benign Fascism
The economic definition of fascism is simple. A fascist government is a
government which serves the corporations. If that doesn't describe the US
government of the past several years, than there is no adequate
description. Bearing this in mind, it is possible to conclude that both
major party candidates for president are ultimately fascist. Not only are
they funded primarily by corporate money, they both come from backgrounds
dominated by corporate investment and exploitation (Al Gore's family riches
came from tobacco and--as activists along the campaign trail have recently
pointed out, investments that include Occidental Petroleum. George W. comes
from a family made filthy rich primarily because of oil and the US
government's servitude to that business.) The fascism Gore and Bush
represent is not the fascism of Hitler, Franco or Mussolini, although some
of George W. Bush's supporters have views that are remarkably intolerant
given how close these supporters are to the candidate (and assuming George
wants to win). No matter how far George W. tries to distance himself from
the intolerance that is preached at Bob Jones University, the fact remains
that he solicited their support along with that of other South Carolina
racists. One assumes, however, that even Mr. Bush is savvy enough to
realize that one does not get elected in the United States in the year 2000
by aligning oneself with retrograde racism.
No, a much better strategy for America's modern authoritarians is to take
the path Mr. Clinton has taken the last eight years. That is, go ahead and
recognize the diversity of cultures in the United States today and give
them lip service (sometimes even without irony) while passing legislation
that further divides the country along class lines--which in America are
also often color lines. This can mean toughening laws against crime while
also making more actions criminal. It can also mean striking laws from the
books that provide economic and other types of support to portions of the
population that are not considered necessary to the corporate game plan.
In Nazi Germany, it was the Left, and Jews and Roma who felt the major
effect of these types of legal actions. In the US, the surplus populations
are poor and usually not white.
In Nazi Germany, various administrative departments drew up legislation
criminalizing certain thoughts and making undesirable citizens
non-citizens, constructed work camps for these "non-citizens" to go to, and
organized local communities into sending away those undesirables. Once at
the camps, the undesirables (that is, Jews, Roma, and political and
religious dissidents) were put to work for German corporations involved in
the Reich's war machine. If one examines the prison industry in the US,
s/he will see a similar dynamic involving criminalization of "undesirables"
and a subsequent removal of their citizenship. Of course, here in America.
there are no crematoria and the newly "criminalized" citizens and
non-citizens are not Jewish or Roma. Now wait a minute, you might say,
this comparison is way out of line. Take a look around you. How many
people do you know who are in jail or on probation or parole? How does one
explain the presence of over two million prisoners in the United States,
half of whom are African-American? I suggest, simply, that the
criminalization (primarily through the "war on drugs") of a substantial
portion of an entire segment of the US population is not an accident. Once
these people are convicted and imprisoned, they are no longer considered
full citizens in most states. Along with other restrictions, they can not
vote, hold certain jobs, or qualify for certain types of educational
assistance. The corresponding aspect of this dynamic is to encourage the
idea among those not criminalized that prisoners and parolees deserve
whatever they get. This is done through a variety of methods, most of them
involving the media and entertainment industry.
None of the Above
So, does this mean there's no point in voting for either of these men? The
reasons to not vote for George W. are obvious, but what about Al Gore?
Well, there's no point in voting for him, either. While some real
differences exist between the two candidates, the past eight years of
Clinton should prove that it is a waste of energy and time to bother with
the Democratic party--especially with its current essentially conservative
approach. In its struggle to gain influence and power, liberalism's
tradeoffs with the corporate boardrooms have rendered it impotent at best
and ruthless and duplicitous at worst. It no longer serves the people, if
it ever did.
Like the protestors in the streets at the World Trade Organization (WTO)
meetings in Seattle and elsewhere, our energies would be better served
organizing people around the country to oppose the institutions both
parties serve: corporations, banks, and international organizations like
the WTO, International Monetary Fund, and the UN Security Council. Ignore
the plutocrats' parties and make democracy real. In 1970, labor writer and
activist Stanley Aronowitz said it this way in his pamphlet Honor America:
The Nature of Fascism, Historic Struggles Against it and a Strategy for
Today (Times Change Press, 1970): "We must learn to act on the collective
recognition that our needs are not met by current social and political
relations. The struggle against fascism begins with the struggle to free
people from their own repressed selves--from the will to surrender
themselves to external forces."
For true progress to be made, we shouldn't be grasping for some kind of
minimal influence in their so-called democracy, but towards a truly just,
democratic era where people count more than dollars and are able to control
their own destinies.
Ron Jacobs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 19:05:00 CUT