|
The Meaning of the American
Elections
By Molefi Kete Asante
(First Published in City Press, November, 2004)
When I woke up to the news that
George Bush had been re-elected to the presidency of the United
States I had to re-think the entire campaign. I was not alone in
believing that the Bush presidency would end, that the American
people would not vote for him to lead the country, and that enough
damage had already been done to the global image of the American
nation by Bush that people would reject his re-election bid. Of
course, we were wrong.
Many reasons will be given for
this election results, but in the end, Bush won by putting together
a conservative base, comprised of white males who benefited from
the Bush tax cuts, religious conservatives who believe that Bush
is defending the white Christian world against Islamic terrorists,
and some of the Spanish speaking voters who abandoned their traditional
role in the Democratic Party. Bush gained about fifteen per cent
more of the Spanish speaking vote than he had in the 2000 election.
Thus, while the Spanish speaking voters still went for the Democratic
candidate, John Kerry, it was with less vigor than in the 2000 campaign.
The strong African American vote,
galvanized by celebrities, political leaders, civil rights leaders,
university professors, and labor union organizers, was a major factor
in Kerry winning in the industrial states of the Northeast. However,
the African vote in the southern states was not able to overcome
the strong Christian right-wing voting bloc of the white “born
again” soldiers of the Bush movement.
Bush used his conservative base
to lead a movement. Kerry had a political campaign. The Bush base
stood for a moral vision; Kerry was determined to talk about practical
politics. For example, Bush was against the science of stem cell
research, basically calling it a form of abortion; Kerry believed
that for research purposes this was necessary science. Bush was
embraced by the evangelical Christians; Kerry, a Catholic, was rebuffed
by his own bishops for positions he took on stem cell research.
The Iraqi war, a terrible disaster
for American foreign policy, worked against Kerry because he often
sounded like Bush. Kerry said frequently that he would pursue Osama
bin Laden and kill him. He was trying to out-Bush Bush. This proved
a bad strategy because it did not allow Kerry to generate enthusiasm
in his own base. Most Democrats wanted to see a candidate who would
challenge the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes, global domination,
and lack of international accountability.
George Bush’s political base
was adamant that the United States had to retain its ability to
act for its own interest; Kerry believed that the United States
had to be a part of the rest of the world. But I did not believe
that Kerry was forceful enough in staking out his difference with
Bush. Perhaps he was not that different.
In fact, although many voters wanted
Kerry for president, it was still not clear if he would change the
bad United States policy on the Palestinian question or if he would
lead in the effort to reduce or eliminate the debt of African nations.
We still do not know where Kerry stood on the question of African
trade relations with the United States. Yet he was a better choice
for black voters than Bush. Therefore, African American voters reacted
to Kerry in a positive way because he was much more liberal than
Bush.
In the American context, however,
this difference can often be minimal. A third party candidate, Ralph
Nader, was the most progressive, liberal, and environmentally conscious
of the three candidates, but he only gained about one per cent of
the votes. He had neither the money, prestige of party, nor mobilization
that the Republican and Democrat parties had.
What is so stunning about the Bush
win, however slight it was, is that he was a candidate who had made
some disastrous choices over the past four years and yet was able
to win. He refused to allow Colin Powell to represent the United
States at the Durban Conference Against Racism, he proclaimed a
pre-emptive strike doctrine that threatens to make the world a chaotic
mess, he claimed to have absolute proof that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, he lost more jobs in the American economy
than any president in 75 years, he came into political office with
a surplus in the budget and immediately through bad tax policies,
playing to the wealthy, put the country in deficit.
This does not mean that all of
the wealthy voted for Bush, because they did not. John Kerry, his
wife, a Mozambican born woman of Portuguese origin, is a multi-millionaire,
and they were able to attract the wealthy with a conscience. Those
individuals who believed that they had an obligation to work for
the good of the collective voted for Kerry.
The demographics for Kerry included
the African American voters who went for Kerry by about 92 per cent
of all votes cast by African people, the liberal Jewish vote, the
college educated voters of states like New York, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, California, Washington, and Oregon, and the women
voters.
Nevertheless, the African American
population in the United States is dismayed that the Republicans
captured the presidential seat. George Bush is not looked upon as
a friend of African Americans or Africa. In fact, he recently snubbed
the NAACP, the largest Civil Rights Organization in the United States,
when it asked him to appear at its convention held in Philadelphia.
So the re-election of George Bush
is troubling for the liberals and the African American community.
We believe there will be four more years of the same failed policies,
four more years of the same antipathy toward African interests and
four more years of bad economic policies for our community.
There is something fundamentally
flawed in George Bush’s vision and I believe that the flaw
was most apparent in the election campaign itself. Bush won because
of the heavy turnout of church-going white people who put aside
their economic interest for what is being called the “moral
issue.”
These voters preferred George Bush
to John Kerry because they said they felt that George Bush was a
“man of God.” This is stunning for many African people
in the United States who believes that the killing of more than
100,000 Iraqis, according to some accounts, is immoral. How could
good God-fearing Christians accept as moral a person who has pursued
such anti-human political policies?
This is where bombastic rhetoric
comes into play and recalls for the people of the American heartland
the cowboy character. The image of the tough, individualistic, determined
person who will do what is necessary to achieve his or her purpose
even if it goes against all ethical principles or against the collective
good is a mythical symbol of enormous power for the white American
of the middle states.
Bush used every opportunity to
appeal to the crass arrogance of the American people. He warned
the nation that if Kerry were elected then the United States would
have to get permission from other nations, like France and Germany,
before they could take a decision. He told the American public that
he was the defender of civilization and that he would lead the nation
toward standing up to terrorists anywhere in the world.
Our fear is that with this election,
that is, the election of George Bush the chickens will come home
to roost. There are some standing issues that will need to be resolved
on the domestic and international fronts that will demand different
responses than in the past four years. Bush will not have the fear
factor in his favor any longer. The idea that the United States
was facing an imminent attack, after the September, 11, 2001 terrorist
assault, propelled the Bush strategy. It allowed, in some respects,
Bush to change the agenda from seeking Osama bin Laden to taking
care of what was thought to be unfinished business with Saddam Hussein.
All of this is changed now. We know that Bush got it wrong.
At home President Bush will confront
the growing deficit brought about because of the tax breaks he gave
to the wealthy and the continuing strains on the economy caused
by the war in Iraq. It is estimated that the Iraqi War has cost
more than 200 billion US dollars already and it is far from being
over. It is impossible for the United States economy to sustain
such a cost without international assistance from other countries.
He has also created issues around
North Korea, Syria, and Iran. These are going to be tougher problems
to confront. Where will the policy of preemptive strikes lead the
world? What is the moral ground for attempting to force other nations
not to have nuclear weapons while your own nation creates new categories
of mini-nuclear weapons? What is the ethical base for a nation to
seek to impose freedom, democracy, and free enterprise as the only
way to govern when there are other traditions, values, and ideas
of morality in the world?
I can only believe that the setting
up of one group as All-Good and the other group as All-Evil is a
formula for poor policy. Such a dogmatic stance will lead to many
more disasters, to double standards, and to crimes against global
stability and peace.
If the election of George Bush,
some believe that this is his first election, means anything for
the world, it means that there must be a reinvigorated movement
in the United States for an ethic of justice with mercy, balance
with wisdom, and politics with pragmatism.
I am certain that the African American
people, whose nobility and patience cannot be questioned, will survive
four more years of Bush and remain in the moral leadership of those
pushing for a more just international policy.
Molefi Kete Asante is one of
the most published contemporary scholars, having written more than
sixty books and three hundred articles.
Scholarly Papers |
Book/Film Reviews |
Newspaper/Magazine Articles
|
