During an Election Season
collection of fragments, some obviously quite recent, that arenít
full-length article material. I would have preferred to call this
and Loathing in Fall of 2004, but I donít want Hunter S. Thompson
to sue me.
before the Bush-Gore match-up in 2000 I penned my worst
and least popular column. Iíve received plenty of negative email
about that piece itís still coming. I have gotten more than a few
embarrassing reminders over the past four years about Homeland Security
and the federalization of airport security, the USA Patriot Act,
No Child Left Behind, and expansionist Medicare. We have seen the
revival of calls for national
ID, and without the kind of organized opposition that existed
in the 1990s and stopped a stealth measure that would have gone
into effect in 2000. Bush II and the present Republican-controlled
Congress working together have probably expanded the reach of the
federal government more than any president and Congress since the
Nixon era, and certainly more than any real conservatives would
was behind my momentary lapse into insanity?
admit it: I was temporarily panicked at the thought of an Al Gore
presidency. Iíd forgotten these words by a writer I myself had cited
in earlier columns and who almost assuredly knew what he was talking
chief problem of American political life for a long time has
been how to make the two Congressional parties more national
and international. The argument that the two parties should
represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the
Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable
only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two
parties should be almost identical, so that the American people
can Ďthrow the rascals outí at any election without leading
to any profound or extensive shifts in policyÖ. [E]ither party
in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and
vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four
years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of
those things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
the same basic policies.
words, from Tragedy
and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time by the late
Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University political historian, are
key to understanding the central dilemma of our time: the fact that
the two dominant parties are more alike than they are different.
So regardless whether Bush is re-elected or Kerry is elected, Rome
on the Potomac will pursue a relentlessly interventionist foreign
policy (Kerry is slightly more of a globalist than Bush). Kerry
has criticized Bushís war on Iraq, but said little to indicate an
alternative (other than wait for UN approval). Neither would do
anything to stem the tide of illegal aliens streaming across our
borders. Neither seems motivated to address the ongoing devaluation
of our currency or the approaching economic disaster this portends.
Neither Bush nor Kerry, that is, will do anything keep the U.S.
economy from tanking
a few years down the road when the rapidly growing mountain of accumulated
debt catches up with us. Both are big-government spenders; both
fit perfectly into a government accumulating well over $1 billion
in new debt every day.
horse sense says that nothing significant will change this go around
despite the horror stories being peddled by each candidateís followers
about the other which is not to say that this is probably the most
animosity Iíve ever seen during an election season. Iíll say it
just once: a vote for either Bush or Kerry is a vote for the Establishment
(Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, and so on). Regardless
who wins, the Establishment wins. In accordance with Quigleyís observations
above, the country will pursue essentially the same policies, both
foreign and domestic. A President Kerry may take us down the road
to globalist socialism slightly faster than President Bush has,
although in light of the past four years, even that is debatable.
I doubt a President Kerry would scrap No Child Left Behind or any
other of the current variants on educational social engineering.
I doubt he will derail the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which
despite the name is not a real free trade agreement. Either way,
if the Demopublicans remain in charge, globalist socialism is on
may rest assured that on November 2, I will be voting for someone
else probably Michael Peroutka
of the Constitution
Party. Peroutka is pro-U.S. sovereignty and anti-UN; he is unequivocally
pro-Christian and pro-life; he stands for Constitutionally limited
government. One can look at matters like this: if you do not identify
with the Establishment you have two options: you can either stay
home, or you can vote your conscience. Although a number of writers
on this site have made a case for simply sitting this election out,
that has never sat well with me. Therefore I choose the latter.
You can let up on those negative emails now.
note: Patrick J. Buchanan who bolted from the Republican
Party back in 1999 to run on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, now
says he plans to vote for Bush! I imagine his email contains
a few unpleasant surprises.
am sometimes asked, "Do you really believe in Ďconspiracy theoriesí?"
I always answer, "Only the true ones."
do not intend to vote for John Kerry for President partly because
I cannot see myself voting for a man who, every time I see him,
makes me think of Herman
about the Libertarians? Here we come to a post thatís liable to
garner some hate mail. But as Morpheus tells Neo in The
Matrix, "all Iím offering is the truth."
have sometimes wondered if the Libertarians secretly wish to fail
as a party. At least, that they have a surprising blind spot on
what it is going to take for a Libertarian to get on the national
their national convention in Atlanta last spring, they had an opportunity
to nominate a man with millions of dollars of his own money to spend:
Russo. Russo, easily the most experienced and outgoing of the
three Libertarian candidates this go around, had
worked in Hollywood and had a lot of connections in the entertainment
industry. He might have become a Libertarian Ross Perot (minus Perotís
penchant for nuttiness), capable of buying airtime on national television
to promote the Libertarian message on his own infomercials.
they nominated a computer programmer and consultant from Texas named
Michael Badnarik. Now donít get
me wrong. Badnarik is doubtless a smart guy. He is knowledgeable
about the Constitution, having written
a book on the foundations of our freedoms and designed an eight-hour
course on the subject. Under better circumstances he could have
been the right candidate. But when all is said and done, he doesnít
have any money. Not compared to what is needed to run a campaign
capable of garnering attention outside late night talk shows. He
wasnít the right candidate. Russo was. Thus once again, on Election
Day the Libertarians will end up invisible. This time they will
have done it to themselves. They donít seem aware that writing books
and simply waiting for the public to read them and wake up to arguments
doesnít cut it. The public isnít that literate. Most people most
are government school graduates, after all need someone to lay the
issues out for them, preferably in a way that is lighthearted and
entertaining, or doesnít seem to be too demanding. Russo, I am convinced,
could have done that. Badnarik hasnít.
does not win elections. Money and powerful connections do. Which
is why I do not expect to see a Libertarian president in my lifetime.
But a few Russo infomercials could have made a few people think,
and kept the LP from the invisibility now guaranteed to it.
me to go out on a limb here. Iím going to make a prediction. If
Iím wrong, so much the better.
is going to go amiss on Election Day, November 2. Itís in the air.
Grassroots Democrats pulling for Kerry are practically salivating
at the mouth; in mainstream-media pseudo-pundit land, writers are
predicting that the Bushies will try to steal the election.
These people never accepted the outcome back in 2000. They are spoiling
for a fight. To some extent, this explains the protests in New York
City at the Republican Convention a few weeks back, along with much
of the rest of the animosity between Bush loyalists and Kerry disciples.
A recent Gallop
Poll has Bush ahead by 8 percentage points; but other
polls suggest a much closer race. The truth is anybodyís guess.
But if this election is as close as the 2000 election was, expect
there to be trouble. And along with whatever fallout ensues, expect
a mounting challenge to U.S. sovereignty.
wonder how many people realize that UN-backed "observers"
will be monitoring this election in several states, almost as if
the U.S. had already become a third world banana republic. They
were invited by thirteen Congressional Democrats led by Eddie
Bernice Johnson (D-Tx). Initially, the UN turned down the request.
took her case to Colin Powell. The State Department acted, and
the "observers" here. The outfit doing the monitoring
is the Vienna, Austria-based Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). One of the OSCEís
partners is the UN. The "observers" arrived
in late September, and are preparing to monitor five states:
Florida (obviously), Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Georgia. In Florida,
they are already offering
their two cents worth. It is fortunate that South Carolina does
not appear to be on their radar screen (at least not yet). Two South
Carolina Election Commission members I recently spoke to had no
idea anything like this was going on. Needless to say, no national
mainstream media outlet has breathed a word of it to anyone, so
if you do not read WorldNetDaily.com
or LewRockwell.com you
are not likely to have heard of it.
then again, as our domestic culture continues to disintegrate, even
if this election goes smoothly we will eventually arrive at a day
when one side (most likely the Democratic wing of the Establishment)
will refuse to concede defeat possibly taking to the streets
in mass protest instead of accepting a Supreme Court action like
they did four years ago. Then we will face the worst Constitutional
crisis of our time, especially with these globalists breathing down
Derrida died a couple of weekends ago after losing a battle with
pancreatic cancer. He was 74. Derrida was associated with the academic
movement known as deconstructionism, an even more nihilistic offshoot
of postmodernism. According to deconstructionism so far as I can
tell everything around us we can describe in language can be construed
as a "text," not just works of literature, economics and
philosophy but architecture, restaurant interiors, everything. Thatís
all there is, just "texts." (There's a phrase associated
with Derrida: "Nothing exists outside of the text.")
never mean what they seem to mean. The point of deconstruction is
to unmask authorial biases. Authorial intent is irrelevant, since
authors are seldom aware of their own biases. As for restaurant
interiors, one can ask questions like, What pictures are on the
walls? What flags are displayed? Do the waitresses wear skimpy,
revealing outfits? And so on. The point is, "texts" can
be deconstructed in order to reveal biases or just hidden, contextual,
or new meanings. This point of view was a gold mine for latter-day
Marxists who still see "capitalist class bias" permeating
Western institutions, for radical feminists who want to see "masculine
bias" everywhere, and for so-called critical race theorists
who want to see "Caucasian bias" or "Eurocentric"
bias. If a restauranteur displays, say, a Confederate battleflagÖ
Well, weíve seen enough right here to know what the deconstructionists
would do with that. What they would not do is back up their views
with logic. Thatís "logocentrism."
wrote 40 books. They have cryptic titles like On Grammatology,
Glas, and The Postcard. I have a copy of the first
around here somewhere. I think I picked it up in a second-hand bookstore.
I read maybe ten pages into it. I didn't think it made an ounce
of sense. Few people outside of Derridaís cadre of academic followers
claim to be able to make sense of his stuff. Casting aside all the
usual cautions about speaking ill of the dead, I've long been working
under the assumption that the guy was a grade-A nut. However, he
had a skill that is extremely valuable in American academia today:
he knew how to work the system, and how to play to the current mainstreamís
predilection for sensationalism over substance. He had a reputation
for flashy clothes and general flamboyance.
never had the following in his native France that he achieved here.
Derridaís death did come to the attention of Franceís President
Jacques Chirac, however. The other day a reader sent me the following
tongue-in-cheek comments made by the French President: Jacques Derrida
died the other day "if indeed Ďdeathí can be said to mean anything
beyond the biases of culture, language, religion and philosophy."
continued, "Of course, we canít assert anything positively
about Monsieur Derridaís recent failure to exist. We canít even
state that he ever did exist, since he may have been a mere metaphysical
projection of our own prejudices against absolutes. However, in
as much as we may categorically claim anything Monsieur Derrida
will not likely be showing up for work tomorrow. Although, who is
Derrida bequeathed a magnificent legacy to the global intellectual
community. He has provided us all with the intellectual infrastructure
to prevent us from seeking after truth. Thanks to him we know it
is fruitless to assert anything with conviction, or to say that
any ideology is less true than any other. They are all equally trifling.
Their value, if any, lies only in the sport they provide for college
of college professors, American academia is continuing its free
fall into the bottomless pit of political correctness, leftist rage,
and downright silliness. For example, countless professors this
election season are openly proselytizing for John Kerry in classrooms
supposedly devoted to academic subjects. That in itself isnít surprising;
the same crowd proselytized for Al Gore four years ago, and for
Bill Clinton before that. But what happens to professors who openly
promote George W. Bush even on their office doors? Based on my knowledge
of the few who have, anyone tempted had better make sure he has
the perfect job security of tenure first.
latest stories of fear and loathing in American academia this fall:
psychology professor at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg,
Va., Denis Nissim-Sabat, was one of those people who opposed the
Iraq War for a lot of questionable reasons, and hates George W.
Bush because he is not statist enough, and hasnít offered
enough entitlements. According to faculty senate records
as reported in the schoolís student newspaper, "Nissim-Sabat
said the war would result in more cutbacks for faculty and less
student scholarships and loans." It is no surprise that Nissim-Sabat
also injects leftist and globalist politics into his psychology
classes. Some of his remarks, however, are bizarre non-sequiturs.
For example, "Nigeriaís power plant was built on a tectonic
plate and rendered useless. We should forgive the debts to all third-world
nations." Huh? One brave student dissented: "When a country
defaults on its debt, their credibility in the world market is reduced
to zero. Who would ever lend them money again?" The psychology
professorís response: the student must be "the son of a rich
isnít just the students who need courses in elementary logic. In
our age of declining academic expectations, so do the professors!
then thereís the case of Professor Rula Abisaab, originally from
Syria and teaching history at the University of Akron in Akron,
Ohio. Her specialty is supposedly the medieval Islamic world. Apparently,
however, her "lectures" quickly dissolve into the usual
leftist attacks on Western culture. A student identified as Lenny
Edwards, both black and conservative in his views, once interrupted
her asking, "Excuse me, but what does this have to do with
the course we signed up for? This is all your personal opinion,
when itís supposed to be a history course where we focus on facts."
Professor Abisaabís response to Edwardsí exercise of academic freedom:
to give him a D+. (This was a guy with a 3.9 GPA.)
the way, surely youíve noticed that some of these names border on
the unpronounceable. Welcome to the late affirmative action era.
Diversity is our strength, remember?
there is Professor Clifton Snider of the University of California
at Bakersfield. When he assigns papers to his elementary English
students, it is understood that certain points of view are off limits:
"Topics on which there is, in my opinion, no other side apart
from chauvinistic, religious or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science
(for example, female circumcision, prayer in public schools, same-sex
marriage, the so-called faith-based initiative, abortion, hate crime
laws, the existence of the Holocaust, and so-called creationism)."
Quite a potpourri, there almost as if the topics had equal
epistemic standing. Would Professor Snider, for example, contend
that opposing so-called hate crime legislation is morally equivalent
to denying the Holocaust? (Talk about lapses in logic!) But according
to recent posts by students on some of the rate-your-professor websites
that have sprung up over the past few years (recent here
being September of this year), Professor Sniderís primary classroom
topic is leftist politics permeated with promotion of the homosexual
agenda: in contemporary academe-speak, Queer Theory. When he is
not also bashing George W. Bush on grounds similar to those of Professor
our final exhibition of Academia Fall 2004ís finest, there are cases
of academic leftists who completely lose it when exposed to persons
or ideas they donít like. Consider Professor David McCally, listed
as an adjunct instructor at both the University of Florida and Santa
Fe Community College in Gainesville, Fla. McCally punched out a
life-sized cardboard statue of President Bush, and when confronted
by the chairman of the Alachua Co. (Fla.) Republican Party, socked
him in the kisser, provoking a fist fight. The police had to haul
the professor away. McCally is apparently an enviro-wacko. Supposedly
heís written several books on the environment, but only one item
came up when I searched the Amazon.com site.*
least I can pronounce the guyís name.
am grateful to Malcolm Kline of Accuracy
in Academia for his generous supplying of these and many other
horror stories of contemporary campus life via his emailed Campus
October 23, 2004
Yates [send him mail]
to publish a new short book entitled Worldviews: Christian Theism
versus Modern Materialism through his new Worldviews Project. Email
© 2004 LewRockwell.com