A Vote for Arnold is a Vote for War

Members of the governing elite do not talk much about democracy any more.

Democracy in Iraq turned out to be an alliance with the ayatollahs of Iran. Democracy in Afghanistan turned out to be a government confined to its own capitol, a government less powerful and less effective than the warlords who helped America topple the Taliban.

There are many ways to betray democracy.

One way is to launch a global war of hegemony and clothe it in the robes of a democratic crusade. In theory, it is an admirable cause. In practice, it is the height of hypocrisy. We select which despots, dictators, oligarchs and monarchies we will support and those we will oppose. We choose which democratically elected governments we will uphold and those we will decry as terrorists.

Another way is to betray the vote itself by purging the electorate and creating electronic voting systems that lack accountability. It is entirely possible that a free and fair electoral system would have precluded the war in Iraq, the prolonged occupation in Afghanistan and the disgraceful neglect of New Orleans, city of jazz.

There is another less obvious way democracy is betrayed. It is the control of information and a media consortium that informs us what information we are entitled to consider in voting for political candidates.

In state and local elections, for example, they tell use we are not entitled to know a candidate’s position on the war in Iraq. We are told it is not relevant to the decision before us.

Respectfully, they are wrong.

When we vote for our local councils, our mayors, magistrates or state representatives, we are validating a political career. When national issues are so clearly drawn as the Iraq war or the future of New Orleans, we have both a right and a responsibility to know where our candidates stand. Today’s local representative is tomorrow’s member of congress and that member may some day hold the deciding difference between war and peace, between rebuilding a devastated city or erecting a Disney facsimile.

When we vote for governor, we are electing a politician at the highest tier of influence. Governors make presidents. If they do not make the run themselves, they are nevertheless invaluable resources to those who do. A successful governor is an automatic candidate for the United States Senate at the end of his or her term.

When Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides came out with a strong position opposing the war in Iraq, vowing to push for the return of California’s National Guard, it was met with derision by the supporters of Arnold Schwarzenegger. They were quick to point out that a governor has no such power.

Respectfully, they are missing the point.

An alliance of governors against the war, as Angelides proposes, would be a powerful force of protest. A governor can lead his state legislature to pass a proclamation of opposition. A governor can proclaim a day of protest. A governor could conceivably pass legislation creating legal services and counseling for members of the Guard and armed forces who refuse to serve. Governors can speak out and be heard.

We should not forget that Arnold was instrumental in electing this president and his neocon team of warlords to a second term of office. Arnold spoke resoundingly at the Republican National Convention, professing his unwavering admiration for Richard Nixon and boosting the ranks of young Republicans by allowing them to feel cool – the governator was one of them.

If not for Diebold Election Systems and Arnold’s last-hour campaigning in Ohio, the outcome of the election might well have turned the other way and our soldiers might be heading home today.

Arnold has changed his positions on polluting industries, green technology and minimum wage in a transformation that would be derided as pandering if it came from a Democrat but he has not modified his support for the Bush wars.

Watching the gubernatorial debate, it occurred to me that Arnold is consistently evasive, ambiguous and deceptive. He evades his support of the Bush administration. His environmental advocacy is ambiguous, pimping the concept of a "hydrogen highway" but avoiding a major initiative on mass transit – California’s most pressing need. It occurs to me that hydrogen is the perfect vehicle for deception: it is not a source of energy; it is a conduit. While hydrogen vehicles may not poison our environment, if the source is coal, gas, oil or nuclear fusion, then the net result remains environmentally destructive.

Arnold’s commitment to green technology may well begin and end with the green tie he wore for the debate. Similarly, his newfound regard for nurses, teachers, fire fighters, police officers and working people may expire come November 7. His commitment to the war, however, is real and unaltered.

As long as the constitution stands in his way (foreign born are disqualified), Arnold may not be a candidate for president but he is a candidate for Senator and he will in any event be influential in the next presidential campaign.

If you are a California moderate considering a vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, be aware that you are voting for the war.

If you are willing to send California’s children to fight in an ill-conceived, immoral and illegal war in order to have a celebrity at the helm of our government, it is a poor bargain.

Phil Angelides, Peter Camejo (Green) or Janice Jordan (Peace & Freedom) may not have the sex appeal of a fading action-adventure hero, but a vote for them will not stain your hands with blood.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE APPEARED ON DISSIDENT VOICE, THE ALBION MONITOR, BUZZLE, PEACE-EARTH-JUSTICE, COUNTERPUNCH AND LEFTWARD!