![[FSF
Associate Member]](http://www.modspil.dk/images/fsfMembergetButton.png){kind=small}
Det amerikanske præsidentvalg - rent spil for galleriet
I hvilken forstand spil for galleriet? I den forstand, skriver journalisten Allan Nairn, at det allerede er fastlagt, hvilke elleve millionærer, der kan kappes om at føre den grundlæggende samme politik:
The plausible candidates -- Bloomberg, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Gore, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, Rice, Romney, and Thompson -- differ in many ways, including differing marginally in their likely body counts, and differing in whether they have already in their lives facilitated gun murders (Bloomberg, Huckabee, and Romney may not have, since they haven't yet held national office).Nuvel, der kan måske være en forskel på et ansvarligt redskab for store økonomiske interesser som Clinton og en ren slyngel og tyveknægt som Bush. Men det er primært en grads-forskel.
But they all oppose even-handed enforcement of the murder laws, and they all oppose shifting enough wealth now to prevent all preventable deaths.
These should not be controversial goals. Most decent people would support them. And even the US rulers themselves often support them -- though only on paper, in principle.
Regarding murder, President Bush told the United Nations on November 10, 2001: "We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them ... No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can every justify murder of the innocent...The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice."
But as Bush spoke, sitting in the audience, as part of his delegation, was Elliott Abrams who was, and is, one of Bush's top policy makers on Israel/Palestine, and who ran the '80s US support for terror killings of civilians in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua (where, as US General John Galvin put it, they went after "soft targets," like farmers' coops).
Yet the President did not cap his speech by asking UN security to slap shackles on Mr. Abrams.
(...)
If the US had wanted to do it, millions now dead would be alive. But they didn't, either during the Republican administrations or the presidency of Clinton/Gore.
Indeed, if Michael Bloomberg, personally, had wanted to do it -- if he had chosen otherwise -- the roughly 5 million kids who died malnourished last year could have been fed, and kept alive, with his own personal money, since, according to Forbes magazine, he's worth 11.5 billion dollars.
Such is democracy in America.
You get a vote, but not a choice, at least if you want to vote against murder and for keeping hungry kids alive and thinking.
No choice, that is, unless you force it. Americans have yet to get that.
Tilbage står, at det "demokratiske" valg mellem to præsidenter først og fremmest handler om, hvem af to hovedrige mænd eller kvinder, der skal stå i spidsen for den samme politik. I denne forstand er Nairns analyse lige så spot-on, som den er deprimerende.