MIM Notes #226    January 15, 2001

Election fiasco fall-out: all "healing" and no "war"

By MC12

Many Amerikans were beside themselves with pride at how well "the 
system" resolved the election fiasco resulting from the close vote 
between Al Gore and George W. Bush in November. To hear them tell 
it, the conflict was very, very fierce, the issues at stake were 
life and death, and yet the firm democratic principles of Amerikan 
democracy allowed a peaceful resolution.

MIM urges readers to remember that the issues that divide the two 
major parties are dwarfed by the overwhelming agreement between 
them on the necessity of preserving Amerikan imperialism and world 
domination (to put it plainly). When the fundamental nature of the 
system is not at stake, violence is much less likely in resolving 
conflict. On the other hand -- and this is a reminder to the 
peace-loving anti-capitalists who also cherish this "democratic 
model" -- when the fundamental nature of the system ITAL is END at 
stake, the conflict is ITAL never END bloodless.

A nuclear electoral battle

How bad was this conflict? It was very bad, to listen to the 
pundits. In one article, the contested election was actually 
compared to nuclear war. As it went to the courts, the reporter 
grimly reported: "In effect, both sides have exhausted all of 
their conventional weapons. Unless Gore concedes, all that is left 
are nuclear options: intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 
Florida Legislature or the U.S. Congress for Bush; or another move 
by the Florida State Supreme Court to reopen the process for 
Gore."(1) This "nuclear option" is exactly what happened. But to 
what effect?

Immediately upon the election's resolution, the celebrations took 
off. In a New York Times opinion piece, two prominent Republicans 
and two prominent Democrats, crowed, "America ... has weathered a 
storm that would have sunk less stable ships," and praised the two 
candidates for speeches that should set the tone for a time of 
healing."(2) The Atlanta Journal and Constitution agreed in their 
editorial: "That process of healing began in earnest last night 
with cordial speeches from the two principal combatants of the 
2000 election."(3) That "process of healing the wounds" was made 
necessary "by the closest and most bitterly contested election in 
modern American history."(4)

Fortunately for these patriots, the wounds will be healable, 
because there was no violence despite the apparently catastrophic 
nuclear nature of the contest. As diplomats around the world 
watched, according to a Los Angeles Times news story, "the 
emergence of a peaceful resolution to a political crisis that 
would have brought tanks and troops into the streets of other 
countries has bolstered confidence" in the stability of the 
U$A.(5) In their editorial in late November, the L. A. Times 
bragged that "no tanks menace the streets of Tallahassee, no 
pronunciamento has been issued from the vice president's residence 
in Washington."(6) That self-congratulatory tone was picked up by 
the partisans, including this Gore activist quoted in the New York 
times two weeks later: "This is awesome. History in the making. 
Look, there are no tanks in the street."(7)

Lies their nation told us

To hear them tell it, in other words, even when the most serious 
conflict and the most bitter struggle over the most important 
issues can be resolved peacefully and even on schedule if "the 
process" is allowed to work.

We know, but were not often reminded here, that violence has often 
been necessary in the resolution of conflicts that "the process" 
could not handle. The Civil War is an obvious example, and the 
electoral conflict around the elections in the 1870s and 1880s 
were much more serious, as the North was engaged in a military 
occupation of the rebellious Southern former slave-owners. This 
was actually a class struggle, involving as it did the mass 
mobilization of thousands of former slaves, and real-life 
bloodshed between capitalists whose economic survival was at 
stake.

Similarly, when the revolutionary nationalism of the Black Panther 
Party led to the mass mobilization of Blacks across the country in 
the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was bloodshed and violence 
first, "the process" a distant second.

Note also that Al Gore specifically chose not to invoke the issue 
of Black disenfranchisement that clearly was a much bigger issue 
than the one he chose, the so called "undercounted ballots." This 
strategic decision, which fundamentally weakened his legal case, 
has been described as a matter of "image." The New York Times 
reported, "at key moments he [Gore] consistently chose to 
safeguard his image, sometimes at the expense of legal 
aggressiveness."(8)

But what really drove this decision was not a simple "image" 
issue, but rather Gore's much deeper allegiance to Amerika than to 
his own victory. That comes off as good "image" in news media 
speak. But what it means is that the disenfranchisement of almost 
one-third of Black men in Florida -- more than 200,000 -- because 
of their felony convictions (9) is strictly off limits. To 
challenge that is not good for the "image."

No revolution -- in which one class is overthrown by another -- 
has ever been accomplished by peaceful means. And no major 
capitalist power has refrained from violence in the face of a 
genuine challenge to its existence. Don't let defenders of "the 
process" talk you into participating in the "healing process" as 
if the election -- no matter what its outcome -- could have had 
anything to do with the real war that is being waged by 
imperialism against the oppressed nations of the world. This real 
war, World War III, is the project of all the major candidates 
this year, as it is every year.

And that's why the tanks aren't yet in the streets.

Notes:

1. Los Angeles Times, 27 November 2000, p A1.

2. New York Times, 16 December 2000, p. A19.

3. Atlanta Journal and Constitution 14 December 2000, p. A26.

4. Washington Post, 13 December 2000, p. A30.

5. Los Angeles Times, 15 December 2000, p. A1.

6. Los Angeles Times, 27 November 2000, p. B6.

7. New York Times, 9 December 2000, p. A12.

8. New York Times, 15 December 2000, p. A1.

9. Human Rights Watch report at 
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/elections/results.htm.