I've been browsing, with great unease, some of the neocon sites discussing what they should do after the upcoming US election.
One of the most frightening thing about Bush's first term has been his
massive deregulation by deliberate neglect -- simply ignoring and not
enforcing social and environmental laws and regulations put in place by
previous administrations, giving carte blanche
to corporations and security forces to simply ignore existing laws with
impunity. This is easily accomplished by starving the authorities and
agencies responsible for enforcing these laws of budget and
information, and by putting zealous hands-off neocons in charge of them.
All this is likely to change, one way or another, after the November US
elections. If Kerry wins, which is looking increasingly unlikely, the
corporations will have to deploy their armies of lawyers to entrench
the de facto deregulations
and discourage the 're-enforcement' of social and environmental laws.
The strategy for this would appear to be to argue that what Bush giveth
away, rightly or wrongly, Kerry has no right to take back.
But if Bush wins, the strategy will be to permanently entrench the
gains made by non-enforcement of the laws by either eliminating the
laws entirely or, even better, eliminating the social and environmental
regulatory authorities or agencies. The new mantra of the neocon
corporatists is self-policing. In Bush newspeak that means, of course, no
policing. We all saw how effective this approach was with the
spectacular corporate frauds of the last decade, led by Bush buddy Ken
Lay's Enron. Nevertheless, we should not be surprised to see a flurry
of eliminations of laws, regulations and regulatory authorities,
positioned as cost-cutting, streamlining and 'self-policing'
initiatives, in the early days of a second Bush presidency.
The second thrust of the new neocon agenda is indemnification of
corporations against consumer litigation. Bush will be encouraged to
use a few big-headline egregious abuses of contingent-fee and
class-action litigation to ban these recourses outright, to put strict
caps on individual settlements, to provide corporations with more power
to intimidate consumers with devastating countersuits, and to put
certain privileged industries and groups out of the reach of the courts
entirely. The test case for this is the California ballot initiative entitled Limitations on Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition
Laws.
This initiative, if successful, will prohibit consumer groups from
suing corporations to prevent fraud, false advertising or other
deceptions. Business groups have poured millions into this, led by
Nike, which failed in its earlier attempt to establish a legal right to
lie to consumers about its sweatshop operations.
Next on the agenda is expansion of the war in the Mideast with a
'pre-emptive' attack on Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons capability.
Financing such a war will require severe cuts to government services.
Services of a regulatory nature will be replaced by self-policing.
Other services will be privatized to corporations that will have free
rein to make them profitable. Services that can't be offered privately
at a profit will be simply eliminated. More important than paying for
the war, however, will be manning it. There are no countries willing
and able to provide significant numbers of troops for a long war
against Iran and then Syria and, inevitably, Saudi Arabia. And US
voluntary recruits are maxed out, so a reinstatement of the draft is
clearly in the cards. Of course, those with money, power and
connections will be able to avoid active duty, as Bush did in Vietnam.
Patriot Act II
will certainly be back on the agenda if Bush is re-elected. Kerry is so
terrified of alienating moderate 'swing' voters that he is not making a
big issue of this draconian, terrifying legislation, which would
effectively suspend many civil liberties that Americans take for
granted, and, worse, would give Homeland Security vast new powers and
immunity from disclosure or justification of their actions. Those
powers would be applied arbitrarily at the absolute and unrestricted
discretion of individual officers, with no recourse to the victims.
This is a flagrant abrogation of the US Constitution and of the
fundamental rule of law. Just as in Latin American and Asian countries
under juntas with similar unrestricted powers, American citizens who
dare oppose or protest the actions of the government of the day will
simply 'disappear'.
And finally, the neocons are furious at the suggestion that the UN
should have suprarnational authority over acts of misconduct carried
out by Americans, including war crimes (under the International Court
of Justice) and execution of foreign nationals for crimes committed in
the US. The US has exercised its executive veto in the UN so often in
the last four years that it has become a laughing stock, and these
vetos completely undermine the credibility of the UN as well. The
simple solution, in the eyes of the neocons, is to withdraw from the
UN, to make it clear once and for all that the US does not recognize
its authority and considers itself above international law. Expect a
re-elected Bush to conveniently present this as an ultimatum to the UN
when it invades Iran -- join us or we quit.
Repeal of social and environmental protections, prohibition of consumer
litigation against corporations, massive elimination and privatization
of essential government services, more hugely expensive and dangerous
wars in the Mideast, reinstatement of the draft for the poor and middle
classes, abrogation of civil liberties, and withdrawal from the UN.
This is the worst case scenario if Americans are foolish enough to
re-elect Bush. If it comes true, America will have alienated itself
from the rest of the West, and evolved into a corporatist state, a
rogue nation. If we ever needed proof that the political and economic
systems of society are incapable of solving the problems that threaten
the survival of our planet, we will have it.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
