But let's look at what "he's not Bush" means in this context ... These are all big differences.
OK yes. But what I'm thinking just now is that, while these are all very important issues, in the long term, would having Kerry in benefit? You say "would not be so swift", maybe I'm just picking up on semantics but it seems to me (and I could always do with being more informed) that Kerry is playing softer rules of the same game. While this is very good in the short term, (because lets face it, civil rights are a good thing) I can't help but think it's working on the surface without healing the problems below.
Do you think that a term or two of Kerry will properly address how Bush was able to make these fundamental changes and stop this sort of thing from happening again? I'm tending towards the fact it may engender homeostasis. A swing to the left, a swing to the right with each successive one swinging these issues with them. Although Bush would accelerate the downturn in another term, it may also trigger a public kickback that I'll get to in a second.
However, I don't see much evidence to support the idea that there was no distinction between those US citizens who were interested in domestic politics and those who were interested in international politics, or indeed that those split along party lines.
I'm not saying that there was no distinction, or now that there is really more. What I'm saying is these seem me to be more distinct and visible. Bush seems to have become a polarising element for these forces like no other president (save perhaps Nixon but I don't know enough about this to talk with any sort of confidence).
The anti-bush stance seems to unite many politically aligned people who before, worked toward the same goal in a more disconnected fashion. Anti-bush seems to also stand for anti-globalisation in a lot of circles. Although these are different things, they have become connected. Bush seems to be symptomatic of the current global issues which have been accumulating since waaay before he was around.
Again, I'm not sure I get this. The only example I can think of immediately is the process by which the European powers surrenedered their empires. However, a) a Chomsky would say that that is just a different phase of territoriality and b) the US is not disposing of its empire - quite the reverse.
The european empires thing was along the lines of what I meant. What Chomsky says makes sense to me, although I haven't read him enough to really pick at that. The US leadership trying to further it's empire in such a fashion is to me the beginning of acceptance that it's empire is dying. As it sees that it is losing footing as the dominant empire it tries frantically to hold on, exerting dominance where it can. Internationally it is being overtaken by the increasingly consolidated european superstate, which is counteracted by the "lone star" actions toward the Middle East (although this is also for internal political reasons, I think the manner in which it was conducted is telling). From within, the goverment is being challenged by the interconnectivity of its own population through the internet and the free trade of information. This seems to be being counteracted with the Patriot act amongst other things.
I accept what you say about mapping personal development onto political development. Although I wouldn't be too quick to discount it. Somewhat crude and not really precise enough it may be, but I'd say the two processes have more in common than we'd at first imagine.
I'm just not feeling this culture change. Could you explain how it would occur, and what it would entail?
As much as I'd like to, trying to give a definitive answer would be both impossible and foolish. I can try to point out where I think things might head but as with any discussion like this, it is projection. Bear with me, as fitting this into words often involves miscommunication of certain points.
What is pretty prevelant in my generation and in American society in general is a sort of cultural detachment that I'm sure we're all familiar with. Our information comes at us from many different sources and pretty much all of them are distant and intangible. I've certainly found it hard (and there will be others who agree) to find motivation when surrounded by so many conflicting and depressing stories. I'm sure this has been discussed to death.
Clinton was a democrat and to begin with he had promise (he played the saxaphone for chrissake's!) , yet he did some nasty things to other places and all we seemed to be concerned about was whether he got his jollies under the desk or not (This may seem an unfair generalisation, I'm sure there were plenty of people out protesting but I'm talking about overall). This brings to mind the more recent issues over here when we got really hung up on whether or not the BBC had been irresponisble in its reportage, when the real issue was whether we were being irresponsible invading Iraq.
With Bush, things seem a little different. With every slip up that he and his associates make, his opposition (and by this I mean the public, not Kerry) get's a little stronger and more sure of itself. I don't know why this is, but perhaps it's because these slip ups are far more visible and abhorrent. Guantanamo Bay and Enron spring to mind. By putting his cards on the table like this gives a more defined image as to just what it is that needs to be fixed.
I think as a direct result of both the Enron scandal and of the Bush administration's handling of post 9/11, we now have movies like The Corporation and Farenheit 9/11. These are only movies, but are indicitive of a cultural shift by their visiblity and people's willingness to take on board what they are saying. The climate that makes movies like these acceptable also allows movies like Super Size Me, which although off the Bush topic, are addressing and reinforming attitudes of globalisation and personal health while helping people to remember that they are the ones who are in control, they have to take these issues into their own hands to effect change.
Bush may be going backwards on the issues we mention above like pro/anti choice, gay marriage, but is it likely in today's climate of information sharing and protest (brought on in many cases by Bush's prescence and actions) that he would be able to take them back to their draconian conclusions?
I think that personal networks like these are being built now, through the necessity of being under an opressive regieme, that will greatly benefit how the country is run and how the people communicate their wants and needs to those who put into effect those changes.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps this would happen with or without Bush. But with him in it seems that people need to and are remembering that the power lies with them. With less of a hard-liner like Kerry in place, I fear a sort of comfort zone where people feel that they are being catered for and so don't feel the need to get up and make themselves counted by forging these networks that stop this sort of thing happening again. Perhaps if we don't learn the hard lessons now, it'll just make them harder when the inevitabley come round again. |
