Press Action ::: A Reply to Michael Moore

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

A Reply to Michael Moore

By Don Gurewitz

I certainly understand Michael Moore’s hatred for Bush and his criminal gang, and wanting to see them thrown out on their ear. They should be thrown out: in fact, they should be put before an international war crimes tribunal.

As Kerry clearly demonstrated, though, throwing the Bush gang out by putting Kerry in will not fundamentally change the U.S.’s increasingly aggressive and war-like foreign policy, not in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. Nor will it fundamentally change any of the U.S. government’s reactionary policies: not the attacks on democratic rights here in the U.S.; not the attacks on social welfare policies in the U.S.; not the attacks on the rights and living standards of working people here and abroad.

How could any one against this war, and against imperialism in general, possibly vote for someone who said, as Kerry did: “I will double the special forces...I will strengthen the military...I won’t rule out preemptive military strikes against other nations...Bush has bogged us down in Iraq when we should be confronting Iran and North Korea...I am not talking about leaving Iraq, I am talking about winning in Iraq.” (my paraphrase, my emphasis).

One doesn’t just vote against Bush and his policies; at the same time one votes for someone else and their policies. It is just sophistry to say “I’m voting for Kerry but not his policies.” If Kerry wins (with the help of Moore and other antiwar activists) he will implement the policies he has so vigorously espoused and defended in the debates—and Moore, and every other antiwar activist, will have put him there to do it with absolute foreknowledge.

I have heard some say, “Kerry is just saying things like that because he has to win.” In one sense I think this is dangerously naive and self-delusional: Kerry voted for the war; at every juncture Kerry has spoken in favor of the war (as Bush accurately quoted over and over again); Kerry still says today that the war must be won. What basis is there to believe that he doesn’t mean what he consistently says? Do his “only saying what he has to” apologists have some inside dope that no one else knows about?

In another sense, I think it is correct to say, “Kerry is just saying what he has to”: the war in Iraq—and Bush’s policies in general—are not simply the policies of some extreme right wing cabal. They are not just George Bush trying to avenge or outdo his daddy. They are not just “cowboy politics”. They are the policies of a class, and they are broadly agreed on by both major parties.

The war in Iraq is a product of the intensified competition between the major imperial powers. The U.S. is seeking to strengthen its control of the international economy, and the strategic resources to protect that control, at the expense of its imperial competitors. The British and French and German governments know this: that is why the Germans and French “opposed” the war (to resist U.S. efforts to deepen its control of the world economy at their expense), and that is why Tony Blair supported the war (to throw in his lot with the expected “winner” to get some crumbs from the hoped-for booty).

As Bush has accurately pointed out: Kerry (and all the other Democrats and Republicans) saw exactly the same intelligence reports that Bush saw. You and I, and millions of others, without the benefit of those reports, knew that the whole rationale for war in Iraq was a lie. Kerry (and the other politicians) did too. They were not fooled by Bush: they knew exactly what they were doing.

There is a reason why Kerry—and virtually every other Democrat and Republican—voted for this war (as the Democrats and Republicans have for every one of U.S. imperialism’s wars): finding a substitute client state in the Middle East has been a goal of every U.S. administration, Democrat and Republican alike, since the overthrow of the Shah in the 1979 Iranian revolution robbed U.S. imperialism of one of its two major pillars in that region (the other being Israel).

The goal of overthrowing the Hussein regime in Iraq was set as official U.S. policy by the Clinton administration, long before Sept. 11, because the U.S. ruling class perceived then that the weakening of the Iraqi regime as a result of the first Gulf war and its aftermath, combined with Hussein’s brutality toward his own people, made Iraq “ripe for the picking.” The murderous economic sanctions against Iraq, the establishment of so-called “no fly zones,” and the constant military assaults on Iraq aimed at degrading its defenses, were as much as the Clinton administration deemed they could get away with at the time. Then came Sept. 11.

There is absolutely no basis for assuming that things in the U.S. would look much different now if a Democrat—Clinton, Gore, or Kerry—had been in office when Sept. 11 happened. Sept. 11 provided the rulers of this country an opportunity to greatly step up all of the policies they had been pursuing through both Democratic and Republican administrations for years: more aggressive foreign policy; more aggressive use of U.S. military might; attacks on social programs and democratic rights; attacks on the rights and living standards of working people.

How can one possibly ignore that every major policy of the Bush administration from war to tax credits for the rich to attacks on women’s rights, to the patriot act, etc., etc. has been accomplished with significant support from the Democrats? In fact, much of the “Bush agenda” was “begun” under Clinton. It was the Clinton administration that set up the first military command for North America in U.S. history, long before Sept. 11. It was the Clinton administration that launched the first military assault on Afghanistan. It was the Clinton administration that set the goal of overthrowing Hussein. It was the Clinton administration that “abolished welfare as we know it,” throwing millions into a social crisis which continues to unfold today, and setting the stage for the increasing attacks on other social welfare programs that are now in the works.

The “drift to the right” in U.S. policy is a bipartisan shift, consistent now for at least a couple decades, that is the result of the deepening competition between the major imperial powers caused by profound economic factors. Clinton went as far as he could, given the conditions at the time. As George Bush has said, “Sept. 11 changed everything.” Sept. 11 opened a huge space for the ruling class in this country to take big steps forward on every front in their attack on working people here and around the globe, and to greatly step up their efforts to strengthen their position vis a vis their imperial rivals.

Of course, there are constant differences between the parties, candidates, factions, etc. in the Democratic and Republican parties, just as their are in all large groups trying to decide how best to pursue and protect their interests. There were and are debates about how best to establish a stable client regime in the Mideast, how to overthrow the Cuban revolution, how to protect U.S. investments in Latin America, how to cut back on social benefits, how to whittle away at social security, etc. But these are debates about “how far can we go...can we get away with going this far...is this the best way to implement these policies?” These debates take place in Democratic and Republican party circles with fundamental agreement on the basic objectives: promote, pursue, and protect the interests of the Enrons, General Motors, General Electrics, Texacos, Citibanks, Wall Street, etc. John Kerry stands on exactly the same principles in these discussions as does George Bush and every other Democratic and Republican party politician.

I am sometimes asked, “Do you want to be responsible for Bush’s election by not voting for Kerry?” Of course i do not want to be responsible for Bush’s reelection: that is why I will not vote for him and will instead vote for a socialist candidate for president.

For those who claim to be fighting so hard for democratic rights that they’re even considering voting for someone they don’t like (Kerry), it seems to me to be a shocking betrayal of the most elementary of democratic principles to hold someone responsible for electing a candidate that they voted against.

It seems to me that a much fairer question is: “Do the Michael Moore’s want to be responsible for ousting Bush by putting Kerry in? Will they take responsibility for Kerry’s policies because they actually voted for him?” What will they tell the Iraqi people—“you have to understand, Kerry’s war against you is much better than Bush’s”?

Those who do not vote for Bush are not responsible for his policies if he is elected. Those who vote for Kerry are responsible for his if he wins.

I also don’t agree with the “logic”: “Well, even if Kerry doesn’t end the war, at least his policies at home will be better.” I think it is an illusion to believe that the war of aggression in Iraq (and those that will come whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House) can be fought while things are “at least not so bad” here at home. This war (these wars) have to be paid for: paid for in lives and blood, paid for in treasure, paid for in suppression of rights of those who will inevitably protest, paid for in “increased sacrifice” for the war effort. It has always been thus, and thus it will always be. Whatever line Kerry is mouthing to try and garner votes from a disgruntled electorate, he will be as compelled to “tighten up” at home in the face of his wars exactly as every other war president has been.

And even if it were true that “Kerry might not end the war, but some things will be better in the U.S.,” what would those who vote for Kerry tell the Iraqis: “you have to understand, I gave Kerry my vote even though I knew he would continue the war against you because I was hoping that at least the air I breathe in the U.S. would be a little less polluted?”

We’ve been down this road before. I, and those in my age range, were urged to go “part of the way with LBJ” to stop the right-wing “Goldwater cabal” that supposedly would go to war in Vietnam and threaten to use nuclear weapons. Remember that? And what did we get when the “fascist, warmonger Goldwater” was beaten and Johnson won? The Vietnam War! And remember when we had to “stop Nixon” and then “dump Nixon” to stop the war in Vietnam and the right wing assaults on our liberties? And what did we get when Nixon won? He stopped the war. Certainly not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to—by the Vietnamese people and their echo in the antiwar movement in the U.S. and the U.S. military and around the world. That has been, and remains, the only way a U.S. (or any other) imperial war will end short of imperialism’s victory: if the resistance in the occupied country, and a mass international anti-war movement, become so strong, and, consequently, the morale of imperialism’s troops becomes so low, that it becomes the lesser of two evils for imperialism to withdraw.

That is how the U.S. war in Vietnam ended. That is how the French war in Vietnam ended. That is how the French occupation of Algeria ended. That is how the war in Iraq—and the war in Afghanistan—and all the other colonial wars to come—will end: not by the act of any U.S. president, be it Kerry or Bush, but only by the resistance of the occupied and those who mobilize in solidarity with them in the U.S. and around the world.

And that is the tragedy, in my opinion, of the “Anybody But Bush” (i.e. “vote Kerry") campaign being waged by many opponents of the war in Iraq and many veterans of the 60’s. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the patently aggressive and rapacious and predatory nature of U.S. foreign economic and political policy; the looting of the economy by giant corporations; the destruction of medical plans and pensions for millions of working people; the declining living standards of millions of working people in the U.S.; the deepening attacks on labor unions and workers in general; the rapidly expanding assaults on civil liberties; the increased police violence—all these things are having a huge impact on millions of people, particularly millions of young people. Look at the antiwar demonstrations, look at the labor battles, look at the labor solidarity efforts by students.

Millions of young people are waking up to the shocking reality, the horrifying truth, about the “American Way.” These young people are our hope for the future. They are the ones who can transform the lessons they are learning today into a movement to fight for a better future, a future fit for humankind. But at the moment that they have begun to see the inhuman reality of American capitalism, and have demonstrated their desire to take action against it, so-called “antiwar leaders” and many with the authority of the “60s generation” are telling them: “Anybody But Bush. Vote for Kerry. Don’t pay attention to what Kerry says, just throw everything you’ve got into this desperate attempt to beat Bush in the so-called swing states. We’ll be better off if we just get rid of Bush.” This is urging them to renew their faith in the very system they are just learning to despise. It is a terrible disservice to them—to us—and to the future of our children and the entire human race.

I cannot vote for one imperialist politician to oust another. Eugene V. Debs once said, “It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.” Even more today, when millions of young people are looking for something to believe in, I couldn’t agree more.

Sorry to be so long-winded (and not nearly as funny as Moore), but you know I take these things very seriously.

Don Gurewitz lives in Somerville, Mass., and can be reached at dgurewitz@juno.com.

More from Don Gurewitz