USA nærmer seg politikkens absolutte nullpunkt og democrazyets fullstendige
overskyllen av demokratiets vrakrester.
Det står nå enda klarere, hvilket styresett USA utvikler: democrazy eller
evt. moneycrazy, ikke demokrati. Det er som enhver manchesterliberalist
ønsket seg det allerede på 1800-tallet: den med flest penger vinner, og
gjerne mot flertallet av de avgitte stemmene. I noe som minner mest om
lotteri - logisk nok med politiske "alternativer" som er parodiske i sin
apolitiske tomhet og en hån mot enhver sosial intelligens. Da først blir det
jo til fulle bevist, hva det er som teller. Goebbelsmålerne har som vanlig
mest avveket til høyre for det faktiske resultat, og oppnådd sin hensikt med
dette: det "rette" utfall av fraksjonsstriden i USAs herskende klasse og
dens ene parti.
Med Bush II har nå verden etter hans valgkamp å dømme den dummeste og med
våpenteknologien og USAs kolossale verdensdominans in mente den
farligste altdominerende leder noensinne, enda et hakk verre enn Clinton.
Dette er nesten som hvis Wilhelm den andre hadde vunnet i et Tyskland med
atomvåpen og midt i den farligste økologiske krise. Det er samtidig første
gang siden Caligulas og lignende personligheters dager at verden så totalt
vil bli dominert av en så uvitende person, en funksjonell analfabet med makt
over en ufattelig og skremmende destruksjonskraft. Ja, situasjonen er selv-
følgelig - ennå - mindre barbarisk enn den gang, men samtidig langt farligere
på grunn av teknikkens rasende utvikling. TV har vunnet. Med Bush
II er TV-alderens katastrofale resultater for alvor kommet over oss og den
historiske parallell til Vestromerrikets nedgangstid blir stadig mer åpenbar
for dem som vil se, men det er jo selvfølgelig i "offentligheten" her de
færreste.
Måten han har vunnet på bekrefter bare hvor det bærer hen. Det er den demo-
kratiske partifraksjonens forskjellsløse overklassepolitikk i forhold til
den republikanske som har ført til deres nederlag, de velgergruppene som
kunne skaffet et annet flertall ikke bare blåser man i, man gjør tykt narr
av dem med sin linje som er lysår bare fra Roosevelts sosialliberale "New
Deal". Det er samme problematikk som med Ap. og Frp. her.
Samtidig står vi på full fart inn i den verste økologiske krisen i
menneskets historie. Ledet av en person som latterliggjør hele problemet ut
fra ren uvitenhet og bigotte klassefordommer, en tomhjernet og reaksjonær
pappadalt styrt av personlig forfengelighet og umettelig pengebegjær på egne
og sine klassefellers vegner. Og med Gores bistand til dette med hans totalt
upolitiske kampagne kun styrt av skrekk for reklamebyråenes selvfølgelig
reaksjonære rådgivere og deres utsagn om hans image. En total politisk
fallitterklæring synes å ha brakt et absolutt null i ledelsen for verden.
Karsten Johansen
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/d173245.htm
Nader: Gore har seg selv å takke
Al Gore har seg selv å takke, dersom George Bush til slutt stikker av med
seieren i presidentvalget, sier De grønnes presidentkandidat Ralph Nader.
Dersom Nader ikke hadde stilt til valg, ville Al Gore etter alle solemerker
allerede vært utropt som seierherre i presidentvalget. I stedet må både
Gore, Bush og resten av USAs befolkning lide seg gjennom en neglebitende
fintelling i Florida, som trolig ender med at republikaneren George W. Bush
flytter inn i Det hvite hus på nyåret.
Nader fikk 2 prosent av stemmene i Florida, eller 96.698 stemmer. De fleste
av disse stemmene ville trolig ha gått til Al Gore, og ville dermed sikret
han seieren.
Men Nader nekter å ta på seg skylden for et eventuelt Gore-tap.
- Han har seg selv å takke. Han burde klart å seire stort over Bush, som har
gjort en slik elendig jobb i Texas. Gore hadde alle fordeler, men han klarte
ikke å skape entusiasme.
Nader mener både Bush og Gore er to sider av samme sak, av et udemokratisk
system dominert av de rike og av innflytelsesrike lobbyister. De grønne skal
ruske opp i dette systemet, og tvinge de to store partiene til å være
ærligere, mener Nader.
- De grønne lever i beste velgående. Det er det raskest voksende partiet i
USA. Valgkampanjen har etablert De grønne som en levedyktig politisk kraft,
sa han.
De grønne fikk til sammen vel 2,6 millioner stemmer, rundt 3 prosent av
totalen. Målsetningen før valget var å få minst 5 prosent av stemmene, slik
at partiet kunne få rett til offentlig støtte.
(NTB-AFP)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1013000/1013167.stm
Wednesday, 8 November, 2000, 11:59 GMT TV networks behind turmoil
Around the world, viewers wondered what was happening Television viewers
hoping to get an early indication of the US presidential election result
were not the only people to be confused about who was the winner.
Even the candidates did not know when to trust what their televisions were
telling them.
And if they were bewildered, the television networks themselves were in a
state of utter confusion, see-sawing between predictions.
At first they said Al Gore had won Florida. Then they changed their forecast
to say George W Bush was the victor. Then they said it was too close to know.
In such a close contest, where the national tallies of votes were only
thousands apart, it became clear that the winner in Florida would be the man
spending the next four years in the White House.
Clearer picture
But as became even clearer, the predictions were based on very incomplete
assessments of the votes cast.
The eventual result would only be known after a full recount.
Mr Gore had reportedly taken the predictions, or "calls", on face value and
rang Mr Bush to concede defeat. Then he reportedly withdrew the concession.
'Shameless'
Professor Allan Lichtman, of the American University in Washington DC, told
the BBC he was disgusted by the media's conduct on election night.
"We don't need this insane rush to judgement," he said.
"I've got three words for the networks. Shameless, shameless, shameless.
"The entertainment culture has engulfed everything. Entertainment,
excitement, keeping the viewers appears to have trumped giving accurate
information."
He said he would be happy to get rid of all "dastardly" exit polls, even
though it would spoil some of the drama of the occasion.
"It would avoid some of the ghastly mistakes we have had this evening."
He added: "I feel like I have been wrenched back and forth simply by the
need of the networks to provide a horse race, to provide entertainment.
"I would say 'Viewer Beware'."
Serious impact
Professor Anthony King of Essex University in the UK said that the
predictions might have had a greater impact.
"The network calls were taking place long before the polls had closed in a
very large number of states. Heaven knows how voters might have been
influenced by the belief that Al Gore had taken Florida."
Elsewhere in the country, other predictions were running into trouble. Three
television networks had to change their predictions in the Washington senate
contest when they said Democrat Maria Cantwell had won, when it is still in
the balance.
Not the first time
But this is hardly the first time the media has got it spectacularly wrong.
Perhaps the most famous upset in American politics came in 1948, when every
pundit expected Republican Thomas Dewey to sweep the Democrats' White House
incumbent, Harry Truman, out of power.
Dewey had staged a campaign carefully tuned to offend no section of the
electorate and reaped the rewards in the opinion polls. President Truman's
hold on power appeared tenuous, what with his party divided and votes
leaking to the third party candidate, Henry Wallace.
As the results came in, Truman retired to bed, perhaps the only person in
the country convinced his last-minute populist campaigning would confound
the polls.
Truman lost both New York and Pennsylvania - the state with the second
largest electoral college - prompting many to hail Dewey the victor.
In the days of the metal press, it was up to newspaper editors to decide
whether to fudge the result on their morning frontpages - or go for broke.
The Chicago Tribune took this seemingly safe gamble and declared: "Dewey
Defeats Truman".
Unfortunately for the Tribune, Truman hammered his rival when all the votes
were counted. He won 303 electoral college votes, to Dewey's 189.
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter had none of Truman's unshakeable
self-belief. The Democrat publicly conceded defeat before the polling
stations even closed on the West Coast.
Although, his rival, Ronald Reagan, was only running a few percentage points
ahead, Carter put his faith in TV reports saying the former actor was
powering towards a landslide victory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1010000/1010145.stm
Monday, 6 November, 2000, 20:09 GMT Arabs apathetic over US vote
Egyptians have taken to the streets in support of the Palestinians By Frank
Gardner in Cairo
The coming US presidential elections are being viewed with weary resignation
by most Arabs in the Middle East.
When it comes to the peace process, they consider that the two candidates -
the Democrat Al Gore and the Republican George W Bush - are both equally
biased towards Israel.
In the coffee shops of Cairo they are unlikely to be waiting up all night to
see who wins.
All across the Arab world there is a sense of fatalism about this ballot.
Strategic ally
They believe whoever wins is not going to push any harder for Palestinian
and Arab rights than President Bill Clinton did - and most Arabs consider
that he has not pushed hard enough.
Eight years of painstaking diplomacy by the world's most powerful leader
produced a proposed agreement at Camp David that was certainly imaginative,
but in the eyes of the Arabs it was still heavily weighted in favour of
Israel.
That perceived bias is not going to change.
There may be nearly half a million Arab Americans in the state of Michigan
alone, but their vote counts for little compared with the huge and wealthy
Jewish lobby.
Both presidential candidates have publicly declared they will stand by
Israel as a strategic ally.
Wary of getting involved
Not surprisingly, most Arabs have ceased to believe in America's claim to be
an honest broker in the Middle East.
After the new president is elected he will probably be wary of getting too
involved too quickly in this region.
But analysts believe that a renewed round of deadly Arab-Israeli violence
could change that.
With Arabs failing to get what they want at the negotiating table, more and
more of them believe that violence against Israel and possibly Washington
may be the only way to bring about a fair peace deal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 10:59:20 MET