2004-Year of Decision

…You (O Muhammad!) might think that (your foes) are fully united-but (in reality) their hearts are divided: that is because they are an unwise people.
(TMQ: Surat ul-Hashr, ayah 14)

The mainstream US media are getting one thing right: in 2004 C.E., the American political system is at an important crossroad, faced with decisions that may well affect the world for generations to come.

That does not mean, however, that ordinary people heading to the polls on November 2nd actually will have the last word. Pay attention to the man-in-the-street interviews in the press, on TV, or on NPR, and you will observe that the voters don't seem to think much at all. The Bush supporters regurgitate the talking points from their man's TV ads: they like the President because, "He stays the course, and he's spreading Freedom throughout the world." In the case of the Kerry people, they'll mutter angrily that, "Bush is just plain crazy, if not stupid." It's safe to say that both sets of voters, as the campaign ends, are mostly at the mercy of their fear, greed, and pride. With their ballots, they merely reveal their hot buttons, which their masters will happily push over the next four years, the better to keep them under control.

The critical choices of 2004 will not be made by voters, but by this country's elites, who will remain on top whatever way the numbers go. Throughout American history, the top dogs seldom have been a united force; but this year especially, they are bitterly divided. Today, the United States is at the height of its power so far, master over vast wealth at home and abroad that it can plow into research & development to stay ahead. It also has, for now, an unrivaled military reach, though China and to some extent, the European Union, are running as fast as they dare to catch up. Moreover, the USA is attracting large numbers of immigrants, refugees from a world that Washington itself is helping destroy, whose numbers more than make up for the decline in native birth rate, the slow disaster that is decimating Europe. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the question is: how should the influential people, who do most of the thinking for the citizens, use these tremendous advantages to maintain America's wealth and might forever?

Two major camps-"Democrats" or "Republicans" are meaningless labels here-offer greatly different answers. The camp now in power, roughly corresponds to what Salon.com calls "the military and industrial elite" (the neo-conservatives are just their drum-beaters). Its members are not a secret society; they are found easily enough among the top executives at energy, aerospace, and military-related corporations, among others. September 11, 2001 gave them their big opportunity. They say that it is high time for the Last Superpower to get away with everything it can. Having won the Cold War, Washington must "push the envelope" against all constraints at home and abroad-it would be stupid not to. There must be new rules-due process of law and the Geneva Convention belong to the dead past. "Pre-emptive war" (the new name for capitalist jihad) keeps potential rivals, including former "allies," in their place, and allows the multinational companies to plunder the loser countries-the Islamic World in particular-freely.

They are opposed vociferously by second camp of the "intellectual elite," based mainly at the great universities, but joined by some military types as well. Its partisans say that smashing Iraq has only convinced Iran and North Korea that they should build their nukes faster, and that breaking old rules only makes China, India, Europe, and even hapless Russia wonder why they shouldn't discard them as well. Even worse, fear of an openly belligerent America could well force new coalitions against it. For the intellectuals, America must be loved as well as feared, and use the UN and the rest of the international system to pull the world's strings.

Harsh friction exists between the two sides. It is not so hard to imagine the Vice President (a hard-core military-industrial guy) sneering at the Secretary of State after a cabinet meeting, "Stop being a girly-man, Colin! For fifty years we were scared of the Russians and wasted all that effort and money trying to contain them. But it took Ronald Reagan finally to put some real pressure on, and they ran home screaming to their mommas. If we're just as tough to the Frenchies, the Chinese, and the rag-heads, they'll know who's boss."

No matter what the official results are, the world won't really know which side won, even well after November 2nd, maybe not even before 2008. President Bush in a second term one day might somehow soften his actions, and the mainstream press would proclaim that only a tough guy like him could have the moxie to rebuild a new compassionate international order. On the other hand, a President Kerry, forced by circumstances not yet revealed, might end up adopting the neo-conservative agenda, while the press applauds his realism, saying that only a liberal from Massachusetts could carry it off. In the USA, politicians of all parties flip-flop and do the old bait-and-switch regularly. Voters never can truly know what they are getting-think of the Muslims who voted for Bush in 2000!-but the Movers and Shakers will persuade them to go along "for their own good."

Meanwhile, Washington preaches to the entire Muslim world, including the small part that lives right here in the USA, that the road to capitalist paradise begins with holding and participating in "free elections." We all know about the problem with the recent balloting in Afghanistan; but what does it say about America when we see that elections there do not bring about governments that are accountable, responsible, or even worth following. Muslims must see that the current political system is not something that they can improve or change with their votes; indeed, the system is far more likely to enslave their minds and their bodies. (Submitted 10/25/2004)