THE RHETORIC OF SUPREMACY:
CONTEXT AND MEANING OF AN ELECTION
by A. E.
SOUAIAIA
November 2004
Because of the role the US finds
itself in, and because of its economic and military weight,
American politics is hardly a domestic or “private affair”. For
this reason, countries of the world sometime pay more attention to
elections taking place here than to others taking place within
their own borders. Election results therefore, are the best way to
at least sense the pulse of a nation. How the results are
interpreted and what do they really represent continue to be an
academic and intellectual exercise. In the following paragraphs,
an attempt will be made to explain the outcome and contextualize
its roots and implications.
After being subjected to nearly
one full year of painful political campaigning and debating;
Americans were given their 24 hour taste of power. About 113
million of them exerted it. Subsequently, barely more than 58
millions sided with the incumbent; while 55 million Americans
wanted to fire President Bush. As the rules of democracy have it,
2% of the voters (equaling nearly 3 million people) rendered moot
the choices of 49% of the voters. Technically, a president elected
in such a fashion is not obliged—at least politically—to consider
the demands of the voters who voted for his opponents. Morally on
the other hand, he ought to be mindful of the interests and issues
that propelled them to vote against him just as he ought to be
true to the platform of the people who elected him.
The next four years will tell for
sure how this President understood this razor-thin margin of
victory. However, those who are interested in the practical
aspects of this matter rather than the academic/historical one,
should be able to predict the direction of this administration.
The emphasis in the new government’s agenda, the movement of
personnel and the ideological and philosophical orientation of the
people holding the top cabinet positions are all good indicators.
There is of course the need for
political parties’ leaders to assess their performance and come up
with answers to explain their successes and failures. In that
context, and in the light of exit polls’ findings that showed that
“moral issues” being the deciding factors in this election,
political thinkers and strategists will have to answer questions
such as whether or not America is moving towards the right and
why.
Finally, people would want to
know what will be the social, economic, and political consequences
of this election. Undoubtedly, this is one of the very few times
where voters turn-out reached the 60% barrier in the history of
the country. The large turn out however did not seem to hugely
benefit one political party over the other; it would seem that the
more one party mobilized its constituents, the bigger the reaction
from the other party. In other words, the political parties seem
to have maxed-out during this election. The question will remain:
what is keeping 40% of American eligible voters from voting.
Regarding how this mandate is
seen by the President, all signs now indicate that he is
interpreting it as a validation of his actions, beliefs, and
agenda. He is moving towards consolidating his base in order to
make a final push for “greatness”. Unfortunately, the country is
divided over many issues on which very little compromise can be
achieved. Therefore, the President will necessarily make his
choices and they will be in most cases contrary to the wishes of
the 49% of the voters. He should have no problem whatsoever
achieving his goals given that both the house and the senate are
in conservative hands.
Just as was the case during his
first term, this President remains consistent regarding his
refusal to accept any mistakes. When faced with failed policies
and unfulfilled assumptions, this administration did not hesitate
to appropriate others’ plan and continue to run forward from
issues in the areas that cannot be fixed without admittance of
fault. If this trend were to continue in the next four years; the
economic, moral, and political capital of the United States at
home and abroad will shrink to unmanageable status.
The dismissal of moderates (like
Powell) from the administration and the solidifying of the
neo-conservatives’ grip over key cabinet positions will facilitate
the achieving of Bush’s goals. So if these goals are sound; that
can be a positive thing. However, the consolidating of
institutional powers in the hands of one person or one political
entity represents more harm than benefits. The causes of these are
social phenomena and are universal and they usually signal the
failure of civil society to protect itself from the scared self.
During times of wars and economic
hardships, a country that is based on popular mandates tends to
slide towards the right. More alarming, it also tends to allow the
political leaders to grab more power. Once this trend reaches the
point where the ruler has control over all branches of government,
and in the absence of strong civil institutions and with the
alarming rise of partisan or timid media outlets; the country
would slowly fall under tyrannical control. As the violence is now
worldwide, one can easily see that countries that are effected
most by these conditions are moving towards the right. Israel
moved to the extreme right as a result of the on-going war and
occupation. Russia’s Putin is grabbing more power as he deals with
the on-going military crisis in the Chechen republic. The entire
Muslim world is embracing conservative movements and conservative
parties. And most recently, the US has shown signs of embracing
conservative rhetoric.
The US politics is especially
important, not just because of its role policing the rest of the
world, but also because of the specifics of the internal policies
and politics and its military standing in the world. With little
global influence on US election outcomes; it becomes essential
that US citizens take seriously their civil obligations. If it is
true that the American voters primarily voted their religious
convictions; then, it follows that this administration is
therefore unguided as far as the war is concerned. However, the
war will continue to weigh heavily on the national economy and
financial welfare of the future generations. Whatever the case may
be, more Americans will need to participate during election years
in order to provide a more representative agenda for local and
federal governments.
By all accounts, the conservative
elements who needed to vote voted during this election.
Admittedly, the Bush campaign strategists knew that as long as
voters’ turnout remains under 120 million; they reckoned that they
stand a good chance of the results going their way. They were
right. In other words, almost every voter in the rural “red
states” who wanted to vote could have and did vote. There were
virtually no long lines in voting locations.
In contrast, in the swing states
especially, and in major metropolitan centers in general; voters
had to wait four to six hours before they were able to cast their
ballot. It is highly possible then that many who wanted to vote
could not do so due to the long lines. Given that elections take
place on a work-day; not all people can afford to take a day off
or go to work late. Given the implication and the importance of
this year’s election; it is only reasonable to conclude then that
at least the majority of the 40% of the voters who did not vote
are from large metropolitan areas who could not afford the long
wait. Florida and Ohio are especially good cases in point.
The responsibility for these
disparate conditions falls on the shoulders of the federal
government which had failed to fund and undertake election reforms
and establish national standards. It is true that since most
states allow absentee balloting, busy citizens ought to take
advantage of that option; but given the importance of voting in
democratic systems; it remains the responsibility of the
government to make sure that every citizen can vote without any
undue inconvenience. It is legally and morally wrong that people
in different areas have different standards and different
conditions for casting a ballot in the same political campaign.
Regardless of the outcome of any
election, the elected leaders are expected to govern in the name
of all: those who voted for and those who voted against them are
equally important for the direction of the country. When candidate
A is elected by 51% of the voters; A ought to be mindful that 49%
of the voters also preferred a different approach and A ought to
govern from the middle to reflect the political makeup of all
constituencies not just half of them. Doing otherwise is poor
governance, unwise choice, and down-right political opportunism.
The outcome of elections like the one we just had is humbling to
politicians and that is how they should interpret it.
If the choices of the rest of the
population are not understood in this context; four years from
now, the victors of today will realize that it was a hallow
victory. After all, this administration is the one that decided on
deep tax cuts, the deficit, and the war; they will need the next
four years to reap their harvest. If their policies are sound,
then they better deliver in the next four years because they have
no excuse: after all, the same political party is now in control
of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and of course the
White House. Moreover, the executive branch is now monolithic, in
that the very few so-called moderates were replaced by
neo-conservatives. In short, the American voters will not forgive
them if they do not succeed; since this is one of the very few
instances—if not the only one—where all branches of government are
in the hands of one political entity. It is in a sense, poetic
justice: 49% of the voters think that this administration has
broken the country; their minority voice is then telling the
President: YOU broke it, now YOU must fix it.
Sadly, the individuals associated
with this administration do not seem to recognize this reality.
The head of the Defense Department for instance does not
understand that one cannot win a war of ideas with big guns. He
stubbornly insists that overwhelming force and military might can
and will defeat any enemy. A good example of this trend is his
attitude (that of Donald H. Rumsfeld), the man in charge of the
War on Terror and his assessment of its outcome. When invited to
congress to explain the Abu Ghrayb scandal; and after more than
four hours of testimony, which began with a prepared statement
offering a ''deep apology" for the torture of Iraqi prisoners, he
showed his real position which is far from contrition. When Rhode
Island Democrat Jim Langevin asked him how the United States can
''restore our credibility" on human rights matters, Rumsfeld
asserted that America was already superior: ''I mean, why do
people line up to get into this country year after year after
year? I read all this stuff—people hate us, people don't like us.
The fact of the matter is, people line up to come to this country
every year because it's better here than other places, and because
they respect the fact that we respect human beings."
The secretary of defense is
either out of touch with reality or he is simply incapable of
distinguishing between the economic opportunities that our country
presents (which is the real motive behind the influx of workers)
and human rights standing. There are many other great Western
states that show equal respect to human rights and civility as we
do here; but they lack the economic opportunity. That is why even
citizens of those countries flock to America. Human rights are
intrinsically linked to economic opportunities and America has
been superior because both human rights and economic
opportunities were honored. If anyone of these two is omitted, it
will not take long before the second vanishes.
The mentality of supremacy is
detrimental to the wellbeing of this country. And this country
cannot afford to not know that humility and respect for dissent
are good road-signs on the path to greatness; not military power
and arrogance. The laws of nature and the lessons of history show
us that no superpower could ever defeat ideas by brute force. The
simplistic framing of the military conflict as a war against those
who “hate us” is fatal. The wars that are won are against other
military forces. No military power has ever defeated an idea no
matter how potent, simple, or ridiculous it might be. The minute a
state resorts to crushing ideas by the use of brute force; such a
state has automatically put itself on a course of defeat.
The handling of the war is
central to an economic recovery and to the US standing around the
world. There is no logic that can ever make the war acceptable
morally. That is because any logic that is embraced by one group
party to a violent conflict could be easily claimed and
appropriated by the opponent. Continued violence in the form of
war ultimately risks either legitimizing violence or creating an
opponent who is just as committed to it. Either way the logic of
violence is a losing one when taken in its broader context.
The characterization of this administration’s approach to war and
to the world as being one that is arrogant is not one that stems
from ideological differences. In fact many voices from the
neo-conservative camp are now saying the same thing. Just last
week, William Kristol, the neoconservative editor of The Weekly
Standard magazine, circulated a surprise demand for Rumsfeld’s
dismissal. “What remains to be done is to announce new leadership
for the department of defense,” wrote Kristol. “I am allergic to
Rumsfeld,” said another champion of the war on terror, Ralph
Peters. “We did a great thing in Iraq, but we did it very badly…
He is an extremely talented man but he has the tragic flaw of
hubris. His arrogance is unbearable. My friends in uniform just
hate him.” Not to adopt the flawed logic of guilt by association;
but the fact that people like Powell are gone while Rumsfeld and
Rice are still around can only suggest the strong affinity between
Bush and them and his approval of what they represent.
Unless the declining capital of the US around the world is blamed
on the State department; there is no other way to interpret the
early dismissal of Powell. Not only is the military solution is
failing to win the war, but it is also causing more damage to the
country’s image. Again, this is not a judgment stemming from
political dissent; rather, it is one that is supported by the
findings and recommendations of an advisory board that is working
for the Defense department and that is supposed to guide Rumsfeld.
In a detailed report released this thanksgiving week, the Defense
Science Board (DSB) concluded that al-Qaeda is essentially winning
the propaganda war. How could an organization whose leadership is
on the run win, you might ask; simple, we are winning it for them
every time this administration take the wrong step. For instance,
and as argued by the authors of the report, the US-led invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually increased anti-American
sentiments across the Muslim world:
"US actions appear... to be
motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in
order to best serve American national interests at the expense of
truly Muslim self-determination."
The report also concluded that
the US government had failed to adapt its Cold War communications
strategy to deal with the threat of extremism in the Muslim world.
“In stark contrast to the Cold
War, the United States today is not seeking to contain a
threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad
movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure
of Western Modernity—an agenda hidden within the official rubric
of a “war on terrorism”… Today we reflexively compare Muslim
“masses” to those oppressed under Soviet rule… This is a strategic
mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-US
groundswell among Muslim societies—except to be liberated perhaps
from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the US so
determinedly promotes and defends."
More damning is the suggestion
that the US is also losing the "war of ideas" in the Muslim world,
referring to all attempts by Washington to convey information
crucial to the so-called war on terrorism the report asserts:
"In this war, it is an essential
objective because the larger goals of US strategy depend on
separating the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the
radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists… But American efforts have not
only failed in this respect. They may also have achieved the
opposite of what they intended…”
During the past four years, the
administration consistently took one step forward and two steps
backward due to the unsynchronized action plans undertaken by the
state and defense departments. Even outside observers could see
that Powell had spent more time putting out fires started by the
defense department than on fulfilling the normal diplomatic
mission of the State Department. From the treatment of POWs, to
the justification of Iraq war, to the handling of the Palestinian
conflict; the State department spent all its energies on the
defensive. The National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, whose
job was to articulate a coherent and comprehensive national
security policy, was herself caught in the ideological and
academic theories and failed to pay attention to the reality on
the ground. May be giving her the task of “making friends” with
other countries will give her a steady dose of the hard reality
when she realizes that no one will share a cafeteria table with
her with that kind of arrogant attitude.
The moral and legal dilemma in
which the US finds itself is that while it is preaching to the
rest of the world that armament and the development of weapons of
mass destruction are losing propositions and are bad for the
world; its military civilian and uniformed leaders are bragging
that it is because of the military superiority that America is
superior to everyone else. In other words, it is the use of force
that will ultimately be accredited with any emerging democracies
in Iraq and Afghanistan. That in itself is a validation to
amassing weaponry instead of books and channels of communications
between the citizens of the world.
Until four years ago, the
military leadership was hardly seen on TV screens and newspapers’
pages. Thereafter, Rumsfeld and the generals became daily TV
stars. They became prominent and their role and function was not
restricted to their area of responsibility. Rather, they answered
questions related to defense matters as well as matters of
diplomatic and even domestic nature. In a sense, they even set the
tone for the homeland departments as well as the foreign policy
leadership. A good example that shows this alarming trend is the
tone and content of remarks made November 29 by Army Gen. John
Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command.
"We
can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else
on Earth, and everybody knows it… If you ever even contemplate our
nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear
understanding that there is no power that can match the United
States militarily."
These are the kind of statements
that are made glorifying brute force and nuclear capability at a
time the US is telling North Korea, Iran, and the rest of the
world that weapons of mass destruction are bad. Either nuclear and
chemical weapons are tools of the uncivilized and they ought not
exist in a world yearning for peace; or they have a positive
function that is the basis why civilized and advanced nations
ought to pursue them. But the logic of “good for us bad for them”
will not and cannot stand regardless of how superior the entity
that subscribes to it is.
The reliance on military power to
spread democracy is flawed and shortsighted. It is already
producing the opposite results of the intended ones. Recently,
there were reports that even Saudi Arabia was in the market for
“ready-to-use” nuclear gadgets as a security backup plan in case
its alliance with the US were to fall apart. North Korea sped up
its production of nuclear weapons immediately after the Iraq war.
Iran is on the brinks of acquiring nuclear capability and its
legislature passed laws prohibiting the executive branch from ever
giving up its right to nuclear technology. Russia’s Putin bragged
about his country’s possession of nuclear weapons and programs
that no other nation around the world has. In short, the cold war
is in phase two, and the world is more dangerous because of the
glorification of wars, tools of murder, and violence. The world is
not safer because of the rhetoric of superiority that takes
weapons of mass destruction, war, violence, and “democracy as a
foundation. The situation shall become inveterate if this
election’s results are used to embolden this trend and give free
reign to those in power.
Professor A. E. SOUAIAIA
teaches at the UI.
