Does Blair Fear or Favour a Kerry Presidency?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Does Blair Fear or Favour a Kerry Presidency?

Ruling Class Rats Abandon Bush Ship – Will It Be Too Little Too Late?

Financial Times and Economist Speak of Bush's Lack of Credibility

Openly Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been the main US ally in Iraq, is not openly endorsing Bush or Kerry for the US Presidency. However, it was impossible to consider the re-positioning of the Black Watch further north in Iraq at the US request as being unconnected with the re-electing of George W Bush. Some members of the Labour Party, however, think a Kerry win could assist Blair. One Labour MP who voted for the Iraq war is reported as saying, "A Kerry win would be good news for Britain and make it easier for Labour to win because it will change the terms of the debate of what we're doing in Iraq and the world."

            When Bush came to power by virtue of the Supreme Court in 2000 replacing Bill Clinton, it was questioned how Tony Blair would relate to a Republican rather than a Democrat President. This questioning could be said to reflect lingering illusions regarding the “centre-left” character of Blair’s positioning. While under Clinton, Tony Blair saw Britain’s role as the bridge between the US and Europe, the alliance with Bush has represented for Tony Blair the championing of Anglo-American interests in Europe and globally.

            What seems certain is that whether Bush or Kerry, Tony Blair will continue to champion those interests and values, despite the fact that the legitimacy of representative democracy, and in particular the US electoral system, is in unprecedented crisis and its fraudulence has become a by-word. In this, the double standards of the British ruling class will be revealed – while there is every demand that elections in what the government labels “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe be monitored, and that Anglo-American values be imposed by force, the US is still being presented as a great democracy.

            On the face of it, it is not unnatural to think that Blair would favour Bush, while at the same time recognising the tactical consideration that Kerry’s election would give a veneer of legitimacy to the values of “western” democracy and the conflagration that is spreading in Iraq and threatens to engulf ever greater swathes of the world. Whatever the outcome, the working class and people can have no illusions about how Britain will position itself to further monopoly economic, political and strategic interests. They must continue to fight for working class power in order to empower the whole people as the decision-makers.

from Voice of Revolution*, October 31, 2004

At a time the crisis of US-style democracy is deepening – as once again the elections are showing themselves to be a fraud and people here and worldwide are rejecting this fraud – the ruling circles are abandoning the Bush ship. They are fervently hoping that Senator John Kerry will win the election and that the victory will be a decisive one. Whether at this 11th hour their attempt to create a Kerry sweep is too little too late is what we will see in the days between now and when the results of the vote are announced. If they do succeed, whether or not this will somehow salvage their sinking system will then become the next issue requiring attention. 

            The evidence of the abandonment of Bush is seen in the editorials of nearly all the main monopoly media across the country favouring Kerry. Most of Europe, which the US seeks to force into providing more funds and troops for its war, is also favouring Kerry. This includes editorials from two key financial publications, Britain’s Financial Times and The Economist.

            In addition, Wall Street is letting it be known that they want a “quick, clean election”. In 2000, with the disputed election, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 700 points. The Dow ended November 2000 with a 5.1 percent loss and ended the year with a 6.2 percent loss, the largest annual drop since 1981. The uncertainty from the elections was one factor. Wall Street does not want a repeat. 

            One of the main concerns being expressed by the ruling circles is their desperate need for legitimacy and stability. The editorials speak to how Bush has destroyed the image and authority of the US abroad and squandered the opportunity to unite Americans behind the US drive for world empire following September 11. As one foreign policy specialist from the Brookings Institute put it, “How can we run a foreign policy arguing that we are the shining example of what it means to be a democratic government when on the most basic element of democracy, the casting and counting of votes, we get it wrong twice in a row?”

            Peoples everywhere are rejecting US-style democracy and the election itself is being exposed as a complete fraud, again. The rulers are faced with growing resistance movements, not only in Iraq but the Philippines, Colombia and elsewhere, a massive and growing anti-war movement and broad opposition to the attacks on rights. 

            Bush has lost any credibility to contend with these problems and restore US standing with its allies. As the various editorials bring out, he is being abandoned as “incompetent”, “dangerous”, presiding over a “disastrous tenure”, putting the country in an “untenable economic and military” position and so forth. He is opposed as a “divider” and “polariser”, at a time when the ruling circles require at least a “quiet” homefront.

            Kerry is being favoured as the candidate that still has some credibility, both abroad and among the people, if nothing more than the hope that he will be better than Bush. While still expressing doubts about Kerry, the ruling class is now scrambling to put him forward as the candidate best suited to restore legitimacy and rally both Americans and allies to the US drive for empire. 

            The problem now, for the rulers, is can they secure a decisive Electoral College win for Kerry? This would require a Kerry win in all or at least most of the battleground states, including at least two of the three largest, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, or two of them and either Minnesota and Wisconsin. It is certainly possible for Kerry to sweep the battleground states, but it remains questionable if the rulers can pull off this result.

            These states are also the areas where dozens of legal disputes are already in motion, many still unresolved. Literally thousands of “poll watchers” from both Democrats and Republicans and the federal government and international groups, are going to be present at the polls. All of this narrows the usual space for the rulers to manoeuvre and ensure the state party delivers the vote desired for the result needed. 

             A main difficulty for the ruling class is that the disputes are mainly being waged by the state level Republican and Democratic parties. In the US system, reflected directly in the Electoral College, the states, and correspondingly the state parties, have significant weight and power. These state parties have long played a key role in deciding whether or not to deliver the vote to the national party candidate. Given the intense disputes, will these state parties and their armies of lawyers and poll watchers now back off? What secret deals will be required and just who can deliver them? One thing is certain, the “ship” of US-style democracy is still going down fast. 

            The dangers posed with a failure to secure a decisive win are brought out in an October 25, Los Angeles Times article. The report states, “If the race between President Bush and Senator John Kerry stays close, the risk is growing that, as in 2000, millions of Americans – and millions of people around the world – will see the result as tainted or even illegitimate.” The article raises the concern that the existing broad discontent among the people with the whole electoral process “could flare into outrage”. It also warns that storm clouds, in the form of the numerous disputes and potential for a close Electoral College win without the popular vote, are gathering. It says “All these clouds could dissipate if either candidate generates a strong enough tailwind to win conclusively. But if neither does, turbulent weeks are approaching. Like a hurricane that skirted the shore, the disputes of 2000 shook but did not shatter faith in the fairness of American elections. The nation may not be so lucky if another storm reaches land next month.”

            Various editorials also raise that the intensity and bitterness of the current court disputes could well get out of hand altogether, openly speaking to the looming threat of civil war. As the Detroit Free Press, put it, “The Free Press believes the nation will be better served by electing Democrat John Kerry as the next president of these United States, and we emphasise united.” Or as the Bush forces themselves have said, “Let us hope for a wide victory by one of the two; the alternative is too awful to contemplate.”

            Clearly the people need to be prepared for either possibility and to occupy that space which enables them to advance their own agenda of securing empowerment and rights. Clean victory for Kerry or not, US-style democracy has no place on the planet. The only ship capable of sailing today for the benefit of humanity is that of political empowerment of the people.

            * Voice of Revolution is a publication of the US Marxist-Leninist Organisation.

Two leading financial publications, the Financial Times and The Economist, recently endorsed Senator John Kerry for president, expressing many of the same concerns as the US monopoly press.

            The Financial Times said that Bush is “a polariser, exploiting the war on terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the world into Them and Us”. “Mr. Bush’s flaw is his stubborn reluctance to admit mistakes and to adjust personnel and policy. Blind faith in military power as a tool for change has too often influenced decision-making,” The Times added.

            The Times continued that Kerry “Owes his rise more to opposition to Mr. Bush than loyalty to his own cause. But on balance, he is the better, safer choice.” Expressing the concern of the financial markets for the current instability Bush actions have generated, it adds, “President Kerry would probably revert to the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years.... Coupled with the need for international economic policy cooperation...this could be a recipe for success.”

            The Economist, which itself has a weekly circulation in the US of about 450,000, spoke to the damage to the US standing abroad from the mistreatment of prisoners at the US Naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It said, “Today Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America’s hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation.” It adds that Bush’s credibility has also been undermined by his “sheer incompetence” in Iraq and “the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq”. 

            While supporting the war in Iraq, The Economist said Bush has created a situation where “The eventual success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy. So has America’s reputation in the Islamic world, both for effectiveness and for moral probity.”

            In backing Kerry, the magazine raises concerns about his “oscillation”. It also favours his “instincts as a fiscal conservative”, and his promises to cut the budget deficits. According to the magazine Kerry is a “more tolerant, less divisive figure” than Bush. The Economist concludes by emphasising that it thinks Kerry will be “better suited to meet the challenges America is likely to face during the next four years. Those challenges must include the probability of another big terrorist attack, in America or western Europe. They must include the need for a period of discipline in economic policy and for compromise in social policy, lest the nation become weak or divided in the face of danger. Above all, they include the need to make a success of the rebuilding of Iraq as the key part of a broader effort to stabilise and modernise and yes, democratise the Middle East.” The Economist adds, “After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America’s moral and practical authority...John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America’s great tasks.”