• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

CounterPunch needs you. piggybank-icon You need us. The cost of keeping the site alive and running is growing fast, as more and more readers visit. We want you to stick around, but it eats up bandwidth and costs us a bundle. Help us reach our modest goal (we are half way there!) so we can keep CounterPunch going. Donate today!
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Most Important Election Ever!

The Nation magazine recently declared that the 2016 election “may be the most important election of our lives.” This really shouldn’t be surprising, since nearly every presidential election has been accompanied by similarly breathless promises that it will be one of the most important of our lives. In 1888, during a campaign in which Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland feuded over industrial tariffs, the New York Times proclaimed that “The Republic is approaching what is to be one of the most important elections in its history” (the incumbent Cleveland, who lost that election, retook the presidency four years later). More recently, Senator Robert Byrd announced that the 1992 election “may be the most important election of this century,” while Bill Clinton more modestly claimed that it was merely “the most important election in a generation.” Barbra Streisand even announced that the 1998 midterm election was “one of the most important elections in the history of this country” before realizing that it was in fact the 2004 election that was “the most important election of our lifetime.” Al Franken agreed with Barbra, Pearl Jam, and Bruce Springsteen, among others, that the Bush-Kerry election was the most important in memory, while Obama asserted that it was the 2008 election that was the most important in our lifetime (and “not just because I’m running”). During the most recent election Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that the Obama-Romney face-off was the “most important of our generation” while Newt Gingrich declared that the 2012 contest was the most important since the Civil War.

Such feverish pronouncements are accurate only insofar as the next election — as opposed to previous or non-existent future elections — is always the only one that is happening now. That is, the measurement — a meaningless quantitative value revealing the absence of any qualitative value — used to compare elections has no significance outside of a permanent ahistorical spectacle. Has anyone ever said that the next election will be one of the least important of our lifetime?

To be sure, there are all manner of national and international emergencies that make some historic situations more momentous than others. But the election peddlers rarely consider why such crises — including wars and recessions — recur in the first place. Instead of discussing why crises are built into the system, they debate the temperament of the system’s managers. This fixation on presidential temperament was only reinforced with the 2000 election. Blaming George W. Bush’s bipartisan war against Iraq on neither Republicans nor Democrats but on Ralph Nader, liberals have desperately clung to the counterfactual that a Gore Administration would have waged only so-called good wars and merely maintained the status quo in Iraq via the Clinton Administration’s mass murder sanctions program of the 1990s.

However, even this belief in a “presidential difference” ignores that a President Gore would not have been the bearded, environmental “warrior” he has presented himself as since forfeiting the election. Gore (an opportunistic, protean, and militaristic politician flanked by a frothing hawk for his VP) would have been “commander in chief” and steward of the state and would have therefore wreaked havoc on the world as surely as Clinton did in Yugoslavia, Bush did in Iraq, and Obama did in Libya. As Obama’s drone program indicates, presidential differences here are matters of technique, but because liberals are frequently more concerned with presidential management’s form than content, they do not seem to notice that being a good manager is wholly compatible with being a mass murderer.

Nevertheless, liberals, with fear and trauma flowing through their veins, are now ringing the alarm bells over Trump, who, to be sure, makes innumerable repulsive statements (even if Trump himself hardly represents a rupture from the status quo). How it follows that we ought to then support a compulsive liar who has actual blood on her hands in Libya, Honduras, and Ukraine, who has threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran, and who has compared Putin to Hitler while wildly provoking Russia at its doorstep via “the greatest military build-up on the borders of Russia since World War Two,” is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, even if it is surreal that Hillary is accusing Trump of being the “dangerous” one for questioning NATO bellicosity, liberals are right to be concerned about the unbridled racism, sexism, and hateful retrogression of many of Trump’s supporters.

Yet, Trump’s army of malicious stooges will not be disappearing after the election regardless of who wins. On the contrary, this army is actively being produced by an ever more exploitative, brutal, and alienating political-economic system whose politicians are saturated in hypocrisy, venality, and toxic sanctimoniousness. Another President Clinton cannot be expected to meaningfully address, for instance, the rising death rate plaguing poor whites if only because her embrace of global capitalism is largely responsible for it in the first place.

Notably, the election warnings are always a variation on “This is the most important election of our lifetime,” not “The outcome of this election is the most important of our lifetime.” This is more than a semantic point, as election hawkers know that the election’s real significance lies less in its determination of who will take control of the state (a generally parochial contest between sectors of the feuding rich) than in its reaffirmation of the state’s very purpose.

Indeed, it is no surprise that disparate candidates work so hard to cultivate belief in their supporters. Bernie’s “A Future to Believe in” and Trump’s refrain “Believe me” both herald faith — a la “Hope” — as a political value, while Hillary’s slogan “I’m with Her” embraces unilateral loyalty masquerading as solidarity. Presupposing that the system is merely “broken” or “corrupted” (and therefore fixable) rather than intrinsically exploitative and oppressive, such belief in would-be presidents is invariably redirected to a resuscitated belief in “America” itself, a place where no matter how much your standard of living sinks into the toilet, you are still told to believe that “anything is possible.” The real star of election night is always the flag.

More articles by:

Joshua Sperber lives in New York and can be reached at jsperber4@gmail.com.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

May 22, 2019
T.J. Coles
Vicious Cycle: The Pentagon Creates Tech Giants and Then Buys their Services
Thomas Knapp
A US War on Iran Would be Evil, Stupid, and Self-Damaging
Johnny Hazard
Down in Juárez
Mark Ashwill
Albright & Powell to Speak at Major International Education Conference: What Were They Thinking?
Binoy Kampmark
The Victory of Small Visions: Morrison Retains Power in Australia
Laura Flanders
Can It Happen Here?
Dean Baker
The Money in the Trump/Kushner Middle East Peace Plan
Manuel Perez-Rocha – Jen Moore
How Mining Companies Use Excessive Legal Powers to Gamble with Latin American Lives
George Ochenski
Playing Politics With Coal Plants
Ted Rall
Why Joe Biden is the Least Electable Democrat
May 21, 2019
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Locked in a Cold War Time Warp
Roger Harris
Venezuela: Amnesty International in Service of Empire
Patrick Cockburn
Trump is Making the Same Mistakes in the Middle East the US Always Makes
Robert Hunziker
Custer’s Last Stand Meets Global Warming
Lance Olsen
Renewable Energy: the Switch From Drill, Baby, Drill to Mine, Baby, Mine
Dean Baker
Ady Barkan, the Fed and the Liberal Funder Industry
Manuel E. Yepe
Maduro Gives Trump a Lesson in Ethics and Morality
Jan Oberg
Trump’s Iran Trap
David D’Amato
What is Anarchism?
Nicky Reid
Trump’s War In Venezuela Could Be Che’s Revenge
Elliot Sperber
Springtime in New York
May 20, 2019
Richard Greeman
The Yellow Vests of France: Six Months of Struggle
Manuel García, Jr.
Abortion: White Panic Over Demographic Dilution?
Robert Fisk
From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, Western States are All Too Happy to Avoid Culpability for War Crimes
Tom Clifford
From the Gulf of Tonkin to the Persian Gulf
Chandra Muzaffar
Targeting Iran
Valerie Reynoso
The Violent History of the Venezuelan Opposition
Howard Lisnoff
They’re Just About Ready to Destroy Roe v. Wade
Eileen Appelbaum
Private Equity is a Driving Force Behind Devious Surprise Billings
Binoy Kampmark
Bob Hawke: Misunderstood in Memoriam
J.P. Linstroth
End of an era for ETA?: May Basque Peace Continue
Weekend Edition
May 17, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Trump and the Middle East: a Long Record of Personal Failure
Joan Roelofs
“Get Your Endangered Species Off My Bombing Range!”
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Slouching Towards Tehran
Paul Street
It’s Even More Terrible Than You Thought
Rob Urie
Grabby Joe and the Problem of Environmental Decline
Ajamu Baraka
2020 Elections: It’s Militarism and the Military Budget Stupid!
Andrew Levine
Springtime for Biden and Democrats
Richard Moser
The Interlocking Crises: War and Climate Chaos
Ron Jacobs
Uncle Sam Needs Our Help Again?
Eric Draitser
Elizabeth Warren Was Smart to Tell FOX to Go to Hell
Peter Bolton
The Washington Post’s “Cartel of the Suns” Theory is the Latest Desperate Excuse for Why the Coup Attempt in Venezuela has Failed
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Analysis of Undecideds Suggests Biden’s Support May be Exaggerated
Peter Lackowski
Eyewitness in Venezuela: a 14-year Perspective
Karl Grossman
Can Jerry Nadler Take Down Trump?
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail