Let's get rid of Bush and then the Left can get on with the real agenda of fighting global poverty and injustice. That was Naomi Klein's argument in a recent, widely publicised article, where she revealed that she had 'reluctantly' joined the 'vote for Kerry' position.
Her argument reflects the widespread view that American politics has been hijacked by a small group of fanatics - the 'neocons' like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz - through fraud in Florida in the 2000 elections. This view severely underestimates the scope and character of the turn in the strategy and orientation of American imperialism, one which has been accumulating for more than a decade.
Naomi Klein the zealots in Bush's White House openly serve the interests of the corporations that put them in office with bloodyminded efficiency. (1) All true. But as left-wing vicepresidential candidate Peter Camejo points out, Democratic candidate John Kerry and the whole leadership of the Democratic Party have supported Bush on everything that matters (2).
We should not underestimate the elements of continuity of the brash Bush team with previous governments. The accelerating 'new militarism' started with Reagan in the 1980s. Now the US political elite all share a similar vision: the "neoliberal, antiterrorist state", replacing the anticommunist state of the 1950s and 1960s.
Key elements of that political consensus include the massive use of military firepower and a regime of political mobilisation in the United States centred on the danger of terrorism and the need to suppress civil liberties in the name of 'security'.
The US in November will be a strong indicator of the mood of the minority that votes, but the fundamentals of the new political orientation won't change.
The war on
terrorism is also a
hugely powertul
weapon of political
mobilisation and dominance, in the US
and internationally.
What lies behind the new orientation is the (realistic) impression among US rulers that they are embattled and under threat, economically and politically, and the determination to use the one asset in which they have overwhelming superiority the military. Look at the key factors which triggered the 2003 • invasion of Iraq.
First was the desire to get control of Iraq's oil. The oil is running out, and will be exhausted finally sometime in the next century. The exhaustion of secondary areas like the North Sea and the United States itself will make control of Middle Eastern oil even more important.
Direct control of Iraqi oil and a permanent military presence in Iraq give the US a huge advantage.
Second was the Saddam's plan to start denominating Iraqi oil in Euros and not dollars, giving a massive boost to the credibility of EU currency, and reinforcing the project of making the EU an economic and political unit capable of competing with the United States on the world stage.
Third was the desire to give to give all potential rivals a demonstration of the military and political dominance of the US.
Awareness of the strategic dangers facing the Us are shown in the elaborate Pentagon plans for how to deal with the consequences of ecological catastrophe, seize a huge portion of the world's energy and other resources and manage the danger of internal 'subversion'.
However behind much of this thinking is the danger posed by China. The US has to do business with China, given its huge internal market, which the United States does not want domiNow the US political elite all share a similar vision: the "neoliberal, anti-terrorist state" replacing the anticommunist state of the 1950s nated by European or Japanese imports.
But at the same time China is being surrounded militarily. New US bases in Central Asia and incredibly Vietnam, together with the re-introduced military presence in the Philippines, complement existing bases in Pakistan, India, Japan and of course Taiwan.
The use of US military power to reinforce economic and political clout is widely understood. But the 'war on terrorism' is also a hugely powerful weapon of political mobilisation and dominance, in the US and internationally.
In the Cold War period, roughly from 1950-90, antiCommunism played a major and politically administering its empire - in contrast to the British policy of directly administering its old empire.
America won't copy the British because it can't. The anti-colonial struggles of the 20th century cannot be wished away or the conditions for old-style colonialism rebuilt.
The US ruling class wants to dominate the world for sure. But today they have difficulty dominating Fallujah, Samarra or Sadr City.
Defeat in Iraq will strike a devastating blow at the new imperialism, just as defeat in Vietnam did 30 years ago. Notes 1. The Nation, 28 July 2004. Available at www.guardian.co.uk 2. Interview with Peter Camejo, Ralph Nader's running mate, at www.socialistresistance.net 3. US Senator Joe McCarthy chaired the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which witch hunted and imprisoned alleged communists.