Tuesday was nothing but a display of how false liberal democracy is. In the eyes of the likes of Mill, representative democracy is supposed to allow the public to choose which experts iare best for the job, and to make the government accountable. as time goes on, the public becomes educated by the dialectical, adverserial nature of representative government and the free media, and society progresses.
However, Bush’s (who has done nothing but show how appaling and imperialistic he is, with quite devastating effects for many americans and of course millions abroad) victory shows this is palpable nonsence. Government (particularly that of the american kind) employs intensive yet subtle propaganda and lies,through speeches, fear mongering, the media and advertising (seeing as that benefits the ruling class, who government is of course in league with), with the result the the public are completely detatched from reality, and vote for either the current incumbents or the opposition who inevitably follow a similar agenda. this is nicely displayed by the countless people interviewed who stated that Kerry is terrifying or a ‘scumbag’, or the innumerous idiotic conservatives who consider the decline of marriages and gay marriage and abortion as the most pressing moral matter in the world today, excluding poverty, environmental damage etc. it is also keenly displayed in the UK by fools who continue to banter on about immigration and terrorism, while understanding nothing. As a result, we continue to vote in those who have done nothing but show their contempt for the environment, human rights etc.
For me, the reason for liberal democracy’s failure is that it is based on idealism, as opposed to materialism, and thus makes the mistake of thinking that ‘ideas’, and forward thinking individuals, change the world, without realising that it is economic, material forces and societal structure that guide society (for example, a liberal would claim that forward thinking individuals caused slavery to be abolished, whereas it was actually done in the interests of the bourgeois, as turning slaves into wage proletarians, thus massively increasing consumption of commodities), and thus keeping this heirarchical, capitalist structure intact means the ruling elite will continue to control the public’s mind, allowing them to pursue their own interests under the guise of ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’. nowhere is this more patantly obvious than the US.
In light of my view, i wondered if anyone (btw i actually don’t) embraced Bush’s victory, as it may further world public opinion against the US, and antagonise class systems and nations around the world, bringing some kind of revolt against the US closer? Becuase it occured to me, and many others no doubt, that if Kerry had won he would still pursue a policy of american hegemony throughout the world, but this may go relatively unnoticed and criticised