| Opinion | Sep. 25, 2008 | 7:10 pm |
Why Americans don’t overthrow the government
By
The president of one of the world’s more prominent countries was recently ousted, kicked to the curb along with the ruffians of his cabinet. By all accounts he was a dismal president – during his two terms he managed to bungle foreign diplomacy, deny millions health care, and ruin his country’s international reputation.
Sound familiar? No, I’m not talking about George W. here. He’s still our standing president. Or sitting president. Or sitting duck president. Take your pick.
The person I’m actually describing is Thabo Mbeki, the now ex-president of South Africa. After serving for nine years and nearly two full terms, he was given the pink slip by his own party last weekend. Part of the reason involved political rivalry, but he also sucked at being president.
In that respect, Mbeki and Bush have a lot in common.
Let’s take a look, shall we? Mbeki denied that HIV causes AIDS; Bush denied that humans cause global warming. Mbeki got international hisses and jeers for supporting Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe; Bush got the same response for invading Iraq. Mbeki never said anything; Bush never said anything intelligent.
So why aren’t we firing Bush? I know, I know, he’s only got a couple of months left - but so did Mbeki. And getting rid of your head of state also seems to be the popular thing to do right now – top leaders from Pakistan, Japan, Thailand, and Israel have been recently squeezed out by their respective governments. All the cool kids are doing it – why can’t we?
Because we love freedom. Wait. No, that isn’t right. Because we love stability. As much as my liberal friends (and family, and neighbors, and pets) have been advocating exiling Bush to French Guinea for the past eight years, it just isn’t a politically smart idea. As we’ve learned from other countries, people don’t like sudden change. Coups lead to backstabbing which leads to some military bigwig being instituted as dictator-for-life.
Alternatively, we have a nice, predictable system for exchange of power in this country that doesn’t cause too much indigestion. Sure, there have been some bumps along the way, (Nixon, anyone?) but for the most part, our system works pretty well. In this country we vote (even if all the votes don’t get counted) for a presidential candidate of our choosing (even if we only have two choices) and then we have to live with the outcome for four years. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than duking it out with spears and other cutlery like we did in the olden times.
The rest of the world sees Americans as impatient, foot-stomping brats. We like fast food, having hundreds of cable channels and high-speed internet. We get cranky when anything takes too long or doesn’t go our way. This is probably why a foreigner once asked me why the Democrats didn’t stage a coup in 2000 after a questionable election; I told her that perhaps our 219-year old political system had something to do with it. We might be the ADD nation, but at least our Constitution is relatively Ritalin-free.
Admit it Americans, you like stability. You enjoy the fact that there’s no famine and that you don’t have to defend your family with an AK-47. Which isn’t to say that things are rosy or that they couldn’t improve, but the fluctuations in an established government change from good (the Clinton years) to bad (the current economic downturn) instead of from devastating to catastrophic (see Exhibit A: Somalia).
In a few short months we’ll have a new president, minus a bloody coup. And because we live in ‘Merica, we know exactly when that will be: January 20th. Of course, no matter who takes office that day, there will be a lot of bitching and moaning. People will either be moving en masse to Canada or going on big, violent hunting trips. But there will be no revolutions. No government overthrows. It’s kind of nice to wake up and know who your president is every morning. That’s a privilege South Africans don’t have.
Unimpressed said,
September 29, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Unfortunately snarky writing doesn’t coincide with political cred. This article is incredibly superficial and while it draws some obvious surface correlations between President Bush and Mbeki it’s unintelligent in the comparison to an entrenched political system to one that’s still developing. So, of course Americans deal with political dissatisfaction in less direct ways than South Africans. Why is this fodder for a column?
At the same time your article seems to underestimate the stability of South Africa’s government simply because it is developing. Throwing in a reference to Somalia further proves your inability to grasp the political landscape in Africa.
Additionally, while Bush has made some major foreign policy blunders his administration’s failures institutional failures finally coming to a head.
My hope is that Northwestern students will know better than to find substance in this article and turn instead to more reputable sources for international news.
Anon said,
September 29, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Nice try at political commentary, but thing is, I found that this article made blanket statements about a complex people and developing young, state that are rather offensive.
Mary said,
September 29, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
And because we might miss the latest episode of ‘Survivor’.
The Rise of Fascism in America
Fascism in America won’t come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street. It won’t come like a storm—but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place. All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns—plenty of bread and circuses. But “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons.
To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among the elite, and a degree of debate will be permitted; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized—usually by “the people” themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.
The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of “national security,” and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of “enemies” selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new “security structures” targeted at the populace. In time, this will be seen as “normal,” as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone. It will all seem normal.
–Chris Floyd, November 10, 2001 Moscow Times (I find that somewhat ironic.) (English edition)
youdontevenknow said,
September 29, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
if you don’t know about foreign politics, don’t write uninformed commentary. for the sake of those poor readers who will take you seriously.