informage

I wasn't at any point convinced that Kerry was going to be anything particularly inspiring, except in being "not Bush" and the slight difference in tone that would bring. Historically Democratic administrations have been at least as belligerent in their foreign policy, if not more, than Republican administrations, and as a non-US citizen this has to be my primary area of concern. (I recognise that for US citizens the difference may well have been less superficial).

I believe that there is a fairly consistent belief amongst those I regard as peers that the change we are looking for is on a much more profound level than the change from Republican to Democrat, from Bush to Kerry. A US ruling elite that believes it has the right to violently impose its will on both its own citizens and the citizens of the world is unacceptable to me. Unacceptable whether the figurehead appears to be an incompetent monkey or a sophisticated technocrat.

This article I regard as relevant because it highlights that a leader like Bush is a consequence of the systemic pressures on the politics that governs us. I don't believe too much blame can be laid at the hands of the people that elected him when their cultural context demands that they judge individuals as either worthy or unworthy of the mantle 'president' on very superficial criteria. When I try and 'redirect' to the kind of assessments the average middle American is making, I can see why they vote Bush. They know who he is, they understand him, they are familar with him.

So, although there is a feeling of defeat and depression around what seems a reactionary election result, I don't believe and don't feel that we should be too demoralised in the struggles and projects we are dealing with day-to-day. I believe they have the same chances of success as they had a week ago, and that those chances are high.