But the zealots in Bush's White House are neither insane nor stupid nor particularly shady. Rather, they openly serve the interests of the corporations that put them in office with bloody-minded efficiency. Their boldness stems not from the fact that they are a new breed of zealot but that the old breed finds itself in a newly unconstrained political climate. ....
This madness has to stop, and the fastest way of doing that is to elect John Kerry, not because he will be different but because in most key areas--Iraq, the "war on drugs," Israel/Palestine, free trade, corporate taxes--he will be just as bad. The main difference will be that as Kerry pursues these brutal policies, he will come off as intelligent, sane and blissfully dull. That's why I've joined the Anybody But Bush camp: Only with a bore like Kerry at the helm will we finally be able to put an end to the presidential pathologizing and focus on the issues again.
- Naomi Klein
Klein is half right. The Bush team is not stupid, insane (perhaps a closer call in some cases), and Kerry leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, she exaggerates the problems of one side (Kerry is not "just as bad") and downplays the problems of the other. Their "bloody-minded efficiency" is particularly dangerous and should be underlined -- it is an efficiency that believes in giving no quarter. Also, the power has shifted firmly into the hands of the "zealots" ... they were around for years, but they have key roles now. This is quite troubling.
Klein is right that the distaste those out of power and internationally have with the Bushies is a handicap. It hinders a successful attack, partly because of a too emotional focus on Bush, seen as a moronic sort. I was somewhat guilty of this back in 2000 -- how can this idiot win, etc.? Putting aside his political savvy, the true problem is those behind him. John Nicols, who also writes for The Nation, discusses a primary actor, Dick Cheney, here, here, and here (audio, discussing his book on the subject).*
Furthermore, they are assisted by a conservative trend in society (Clinton was so aggravating to them in part because he co-opted their message), which liberals ignore at their peril. This is the sort of thing that Klein is concerned with when she suggests that Kerry would allow us to focus on the issues again. Kerry would allow progressives (and others?) to have a real shot to take some control of the conversation and establish a true challenge to some of the most troubling aspects of the conservative leaning mindset of the current era.
The problem now is that the "blissfully dull" qualities of John Kerry (where's Edwards in all of this? it is distressing that he hasn't been better used to preach their message) are holding him back. The numbers suggest the race is close, but close games are dangerous, especially when it looks like one side (Kerry's) is disorganized. This is not just a game, but I've seen too many of these sorts of things while watching the Giants and Mets ... so it goes, I guess.
---
* Cheney's Halliburton connections, including its connections to Iraq and his opposition to sanctions would be good counterattack material for Kerry. Also, Nichols notes Cheney's opposition to Nelson Mandela and the Iran/Contra investigations. His opposition to the same weapon systems Kerry allegedly opposed also has been noted elsewhere.
Nichols also notes that Cheney is a true believer, so it is misguided to suggest he only acts in a cynical political fashion. Finally, this true believer status makes him a favorite of the party's base. Cheney (according to Paul O'Neil's book) was a prime mover of the administration's use of ideology as its primary policy, so blaming Bush alone is ill advised.