what if he wins?


Well-known member
(assuming Politics counts as a subset of Thought!)

everything's so focused on November 2nd and averting a Bush reelection, but I don't think I've read anything about what the next four years will hold if he actually does win. Bush hasn't actually described anything he plans to do, really, while Kerry talks about four years of "more of the same" (surely that's the best case scenario). Presumably they have lots of nasty plans for us and the world. Anyone care to venture speculations about what might unfold if Bush wins, how the rest of the world will react, and so forth?


i have to fight my absolutist tendencies on this one (it all has to get worse before it gets better etc, 4 more years of Bush would lead to proper US/international upheaval...) because the cost to the rest of the world may be just far too high..

the notion of Bush - who must, in his darkest hours, KNOW he stole the last ballot - now feeling like he does actually have some legitimacy is a terrifying one. if he can pull all the recent shit without really feeling like the population are behind him, imagine what his milleniarist/fundy mind can come up with now...


captain easychord

i'm of the feeling he'll stay the course. really it's not like the arch-conservative faction who've been runnin' tingz for the past 4 years are bothered about any kind of consensus or mandate. they won't be extra-validated by a 'real' electoral victory. (if so they would have honoured the will of the UN/ global protests etc.) i certainly don't think bush will be able or willing to invade any other countries, what with the awful fallout from iraq still in place. (could be wrong of course)

naomi klein's not my favourite (in fact one of my least favourite - i find her really sanctimonious) but she wrote a well-researched piece in the new york times magazine a couple of months ago about how the neo-con plan for iraq was to quickly re-establish some kind of economy and get those contracts flowing and how the whole thing has backfired due to the inability of the americans to maintain order. investors want no part of iraq at this point, so even by neo-con standards the whole thing was a flop. so, given the failed experiment iraq was, i'm dubious of bush continuing on a warpath; he'll probably spend the next 4 years trying to extract the USA from iraq (of course leaving it to the inevitable conclusion of humanitarian disaster/ethnic strife etc.)


Well-known member
Dunno, I think politics is like most things in that too much change destabilises it pretty quickly. The republican agenda is pretty dire, but given another 4 years would probably begin to bear some kind of twisted fruit, at least in an economic sense. At least the Bushies aren't seduced by the ridiculous anti-outsourcing rhetoric peddled by the democrats.

I reckon there would be increased international opprobium, coupled with a domestic economic recovery.

If Kerry wins, likely to be virtually the opposite.


Beast of Burden
simon there was a big piece in last month's vanity fair (not the music issue, the one before that) about precisely this, what a second term would mean. it was fairly clumsy and quite obvious for the most part, but made some pretty salient points, too. worth digging out, especially considering that it's pretty much a one-off piece. if you can't find it i can always xerox it.


Well-known member
perhaps it's moot now

hoping it's all moot now anyway after the Kerry slamdunk in last night's debate

(although joy keeps telling me to not get carried away with hopefulness, being a veteran of election heartbreak since the age of six--her parents were Dem activists in the 60s and early 70s)

still it's all looking encouraging

Kid Eternity

New member
With the recent FBI raids on Indymedia and the potential reason being a vote rigging plan in operation (more here I think this election has already been decided. We've got four more years of that cunt Bush and the thought of it fills me with dread. :(


Beast of Burden
the liberal case for Bush

Has anyone read <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/100704B.html">this</a>?


Well-known member
guten tag tobias

(did i spell that right)

when you say "he" you mean Bush?

i would agree with you then re. the Weltgeist

if not, then elaborate!


Well-known member
i think it's important to remember, though, that it really isnt all that important who wins...Kerry is basically just a Bush-lite (at least in terms of foreign policy)...the corporate agenda WILL proceed, no matter who wins...if Kerry does win, it will just be more subtle, insidious and wear a friendlier face


Well-known member
i'd agree that the corporate agenda will be served no matter what,but i think it's disingenious to pretend that things are still the way they were 10 years ago as regards the difference between the two parties...

even the most dogged exponents of the it doesn't matter who wins arguement (chomsky and the like) seem to be coming out of the woodwork and saying look,i know we've been going on about that for years,but for fuck sake get out and vote)

i'm sure governement will continue to be a bad thing serving a minority of interests etc,but the whole reason people are worried about bush isn't to do with that-its the genuinely sinister,1984-esque stuff that s the trouble....

not to suggest that it hasnt always been there,but the stakes seem to definitely have been raised...stuff like the patriot act is fairly worrying,and its only going to get worse if bush stays in charge...

the days of campaign 96-america flips a coin seem a long way off


Active member
tech central station?

oliver that piece is pretty disastrous, at least for its papering over of the wilson ww1 years, which make the patriot act look saturnalian.

if bush wins again i think he'll limp his way through one impossible problem after another, all self-created, the largest being the huge drain on america's economy it is to contain iraq. well, that and fellate billionaires.

it's funny, in the period before the war the arguments of both the right and the left seemed in general agreement that the Iraq Thing was possible, that OF COURSE it could be done, and question was should or shouldn't. and now, look!

frankly if i were bush i'd throw the election. let kerry stitch up the bulletholes and make the choices in the coming years that might sink any president, then in another 20 years the gop mints a new liberator dime with reagan on one side and bush fils on the other...


can't be stopped
I really hate the "they're basically the same" argument because i think its quite clear that for all their faults neither gore nor Kerry would have resulted in the disaster that is Iraq right now.

Check out this letter, written by a Wall Street Journal correspondant. I believe she was fired after the letter leaked.


Beast of Burden
ah, religion and politics... two things you never used to be allowed to discuss in pubs for good reason. still, this isn't a bar, so i'm gonna have to wade in and say that viewing kerry as "bush-lite" is crushingly simplistic and pretty dangerous thinking. from a british perspective, it's pretty easy to see big similarities between bush and kerry/republican and democrat at the moment, but does anyone really think, in the current hawkish environment, that kerry actually has the freedom to say <i>exactly what he wants</i>? course not. while few of us would disagree about the increasing convergence of centre-left/right politics in both the uk and us over the past decade, now especially kerry has to play to the mood of the country, get in, bed down and *then* get on with the job. i'm not saying anything new when i state that post 9/11 america is still riven with fear and paranoia and "the war on terror" has only served to intensify this. if he stood up and took a hardline anti-war stance or really pushed the liberal agenda it would alienate a good many voters who have been affected by this; thus virtually guaranteeing another term for bush. it just wouldn't be a sensible thing to do if he wants to gain power

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden

I think this election is bought and paid for.

I think by 2008 we will be

a) used to the fact that dirty bombs aren't that dirty
b) resigned to a new hundred years war of the west against Islam
c) resigned to the fact that whatever contribution renewables could have made to the petro-economy, their window has largely closed
d) we will think back on the liberties and freedoms we used to enjoy with bitter nostalgia
e) the new imperium will have bombed Syria and Iran, and house of Saud will be only precariously supported by US air power...

Personally, by 2008 I will be glorying in the fact that I'll have my life back once the kids have grown up a bit and, at 41, I'll still just about young enough to get a bit more clubbing magic in...


captain easychord said:

please expound.
Afghanistan: still a mess, despite the continuing presence of US and NATO troops. Yet rarely making the news, like how the 91 Gulf War never actually stopped, as air raids continued virtually every day between the medium-sized flare-up of Operation Desert Fox and then until the current full-on war.

It's interesting to me that, for all the "World's Policeman" anti-US rhetoric popular in the 90s, Afghanistan and Iraq show that the US is actually far from capable of invading and reshaping countries ravaged by decades of war and sanctions, despite their defense budget being bigger than that of all other countries combined.

Has Kerry indicated a significantly different approach to Iraq?