Democracy

In NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan – Britain, Germany, and Italy, especially -- support for immediate withdrawal from the Bush-Obama Afghan War is overwhelming; anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the population, according to recent polls. But the “democratic” governments of NATO states are nevertheless steadfast in their support for the American “counter-insurgency.” It is not entirely clear why; after all, they could band together to counter the imperial hegemon. No doubt, part of the explanation is that, despite economic integration, there remain too many political animosities among European countries for concerted political integration to be feasible, especially in foreign policy. Better, therefore, to accept direction from a super-power above the fray. A more important factor, though, is that the elites of NATO states – and of Japan and other first-world powers – still find it in their interests for their countries to remain subordinate to the United States. Exactly why this is so in particular cases is not obvious, but the general contours of the situation are clear enough.

[It bears comment, in this regard, that, if American power, prevails so thoroughly in countries that, collectively and even individually, rival the United States economically, how much more able the United States is to rule events in countries that depend substantially on American economic, military and diplomatic support. The U.S. could force any Israeli government, no matter how reactionary and chauvinist, to make peace with the Palestinians; it could reverse the coup in Honduras, and so on, if only it wanted to; and, in the Israeli case, if only domestic political considerations were less disabling.]

Meanwhile, according to a spate of new polling date, on the home front, where opposition to the war in Afghanistan, though growing, still lags far behind European levels, support for a “public option” in health care reform already approaches levels of support abroad for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. [I suspect that, had Democrats not taken it “off the table” before the so-called debate began, support for a single-payer system would be equally strong, if not stronger -- if only because the proposal makes vastly more sense than the cowardly mishmash Obama and his Congressional allies are pushing.] Nevertheless, yesterday, all Republicans and, depending on the “amendment” before them, five or three Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee voted to quash the public option. Thus it seems, yet again, that in the Land of the Free, legislation does indeed follow the median dollar, not the median voter. Profiteers in the insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health care industries own the Republican Party, they own Finance Committee Chairman (stoolperson) Max Baucus, and they own many a “conservative” Democrat as well. Thus we should not be surprised with the outcome.

But who cannot be outraged! Who can fail to see that what “democracy” has come to mean – at home and abroad – is that, where elite interests are engaged, elites rule through ostensibly democratic forms? There is only one way to change this – it is to wage a protracted struggle, in and over “democratic” institutions, for democracy’s sake. It is trite, but nevertheless true that, as countless demonstrators have for many decades proclaimed: “the people united, can never be defeated” – not by “pro-American” elites and not even by health care profiteers with deep pockets hell bent on getting the Max Baucuses of the world to do their bidding.

Here, in the United States, where the undemocratic nature of our democracy is particularly egregious, it should be clear to all how much our system of campaign finance works to denude our institutions of any semblance of real popular control. It is because our campaigns are financed as they are that a Max Baucus is possible, and that we have swarms of equally pernicious Democratic legislators. It may even emerge, when this latest “health care reform” effort is finally concluded, that the way not just to genuine health care reform, but even to the piddling reforms the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress are promoting lies through campaign finance reform.

Supreme Court Justices who willfully confuse free speech with political corruption are in the way of course; and thanks to George Bush (and Democrats who acquiesced in his judicial appointments), the problem has become much worse. Needless to say, in time, even Supreme Court justices can figure out which way the wind is blowing; if they couldn’t, we’d still be living under Jim Crow. Meanwhile, though, people are being killed and injured in (or rather not in) our hospitals and clinics – just as people continue to be killed and injured in the Bush-Obama wars. And people are being bankrupted through our health care system, just as we and other NATO countries squander our treasure on a transparently lost – and ill-conceived -- cause. This is why it is more than ever urgent to nudge history along. The Roberts Court does need a weatherman, and the weatherman is us.

Venezuela

It probably won’t become clear for some time just how much the United States meddled in the Venezuelan national referendum where, to the delight of the mainstream media, Hugo Chavez lost – not by very much but by enough. Unlike the 1990 Nicaraguan elections, which unseated the Sandinista government, the vote in Venezuela will not undo what Noam Chomsky would call “the threat of a good example”. It marks a setback for the Venezuelan and Latin American left, not an historic defeat. “Liberals” should regret this outcome. Not many do, at least not if the Democratic presidential contenders are an indication. Thus in the recent Brown and Black Forum in Des Moines, they again displayed their affinities with all other stewards of the American empire, past and present, Democrat and Republican, by bad mouthing Fidel Castro and, of course, Chavez too. As usual, Hillary Clinton was the worst, but the others were not much better. Dennis Kucinich might have been an exception. But he didn’t get much chance to speak and, when he did, it was about more pressing “issues” – like health care and the Iraq War.

Our Democrats, like our Republicans, are (small-d) democrats only when the demos behaves the way they want – witness the consensus view of Hamas’ victory in Gaza, for example. Our Democrats, like our Republicans, outdo themselves with rank hypocrisy – subscribing to double, triple, quadruple standards -- when they “justify” their role in supporting the empire’s interests. Witness how differently they reacted, prospectively, to the Russian and Venezuelan elections last weekend – back when they assumed that Chavez would win resoundingly, as Vladimir Putin did in the election he rigged. Yes, along with Dick Cheney and George Bush, they “regretted” Putin’s turn towards “authoritarianism.” But from the time that George Bush, the right hand of God, looked into Putin’s eyes and saw that his soul was good, no mainstream Democrat has so much as murmured anything more negative about him. Contrast that with how, from the time that Hugo Chavez started openly to proclaim the obvious about American meddling in Venezuelan affairs, they have not had a kind word to say about him.

It bears mention that Chavez was rather shy about proclaiming the obvious, at first. It wasn’t until after the U.S. collaborated with the Venezuelan right in 2002 to try to overthrow his (elected) government that he became emboldened. But, for Republicrats, it hardly matters that he was duly provoked. If there’s one thing an imperialist can’t stand it’s insubordination, especially in the hemisphere which, after all, belongs to “us.” Think of the Kennedys and Cuba. When it comes to keeping our wayward children in line, liberals and conservatives stand arm in arm.

Still, if there is any room for lucidity and honesty in the Democratic ranks, the Democrats might ask themselves who, after all is a better (small-d) democrat – Chavez or themselves? If democracy means “the rule of the demos,” the popular masses, the question answers itself. But even in the most hollow, procedural sense of the term -- the one for the sake of which, we are told, we are laying waste to Iraq -- no Democrat has anything to teach Hugo Chavez. Look how graciously he accepted defeat, just as the Sandinistas did, even though neither he nor they lost fair and square (even by our own dismal electoral standards). Are any of the Des Moines debaters capable of comparable levels of statesmanship?