|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030710/7/4mx3n.html
AUTHORITARIANS GONE WILD
By Ted Rall
Whether, Not Who, is the Question About the 2004 Election
NEW YORK--He has canceled elections in Iraq (news
- web sites). He will probably cancel them in Afghanistan (news
- web sites). Will George W. Bush put the kibosh on elections in the
United States next year?
Frightened by Bush's rapidly accruing personal power and the Democrats'
inability and/or unwillingness to stand up to him, panicked lefties worry
that he might use the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to declare a state
of emergency, suspend civil liberties and jail political opponents.
People who have spoken out against Bush are talking exit strategy--not
Alec Baldwin style, just to make a statement, but fleeing the U.S. in
order to save their skins. "Do you or your spouse have a European-born
parent?" is a query making the rounds. (If you do, you can obtain dual
nationality and a European Union (news
- web sites) passport that would allow you to work in any EU member
nation.) Those whose lineage is 100 percent American are hoping that
nations like Canada and France will admit American political refugees in
the event of a Bushite clampdown.
To these people, whether or not the 2004 elections actually take place as
scheduled is the ultimate test for American democracy. At Guantánamo Bay
the United States is converting a concentration camp into a death camp
where inmates will be executed without due process or legal
representation. Never before in history has a U.S. president contemplated
the denaturalization of native-born citizens-thus far even people executed
for treason have died as Americans--but Bush has drafted legislation that
would allow him to strip anyone he calls an "enemy combatant" of their
citizenship and have them deported. By any objective standard he has
already gone way too far, but for many it would take the cancellation or
delay of the elections to confirm that we are trading in our wounded
democracy for a fascist state.
Lincoln considered suspending the 1864 election because of the Civil War,
but ultimately tabled the idea. To date nothing has ever prevented an
American presidential election from being held on time.
It's easy to come up with a scenario in which canceling the 2004 election
could be made to appear reasonable. Imagine that, a few weeks before
Election Day, "dirty bombs" detonate simultaneously in New York and
Washington. Government, media and political institutions and personnel lie
ruined in smoking rubble and ash; hundreds of thousands of people have
been murdered. The economy, already teetering on the precipice, is shoved
into depression. How could we conduct elections under such conditions?
Republicans have already floated the don't-change-horses-in-midstream
argument. After Democratic presidential Sen. John Kerry criticized Bush
recently, GOP National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot took him to task
not for his specific remarks, but rather for "daring to suggest the
replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at
war." The White House website's "frequently asked questions" section
indicates that the "war" is expected to continue well beyond 2004: "There
is no silver bullet, no single event or action that is going to suddenly
make the threat of terrorism disappear. This broad-based and sustained
effort will continue until terrorism is rooted out. The situation is
similar to the Cold War, when continuous pressure from many nations caused
communism to collapse from within. We will press the fight as long as it
takes."
The Cold War lasted 46 years; does Bush intend to remain in office that
long?
Our boy president has plenty of reason to worry about his election
chances. A new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll says that only 50 percent of
Americans would vote for Bush over a generic unnamed Democrat--the lowest
number since 9/11. Two-thirds say that Bush lied about or exaggerated the
threat from Iraq's WMDs, and a steady flow of body bags from Afghanistan
and Iraq has made 53 percent aware that the occupations are going poorly.
Pollsters report that most people trust Democrats to rescue the sinking
economy--and few believe that Bush's tax cuts will help them.
Bush may be the kind of guy who sees 99 percent odds as 2 percent short of
a sure thing, but I bet he'll look at his $200 million campaign war chest
and decide to let the people decide. He'll surely want to win legitimately
in 2004--albeit for the first time. Though they're capable of anything,
Bush's people probably know that Americans wouldn't stand for two putsches
in four years. Still, you have to hand it to him: The fact that Democrats
are terrified of ending up imprisoned by an American Reich is the ultimate
tribute to Bush's artful bullying--and sad confirmation of the impotence
of his would-be, should-be opponents.
(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American
Occupation of Afghanistan," an analysis of the underreported
Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project and the real motivations behind the war
on terrorism. Ordering information is available at amazon.com and
barnesandnoble.com.)
...posted by JK, 7/13/03
Top Home
What's New
|