Title: Was the 2000 Presidential Election Really Stolen? Or was the Union being Preserved at the Expense of African Americans? Author: Adrian Taylor
The idea that "We the people of the United States didn't vote for Bush in 2000--Bush and his people stole the election", is pretty much accepted in the African American community. I think it is time for this idea to be scrutinized, critically. Now, this idea is true, to an extent. This is a country of laws, rooted in a "Constituted Structure", that is not always just. For that matter, what human system does not have people operating it divorced of multiple political values, and political ideologies? Contrary to popular belief, the US does not have the monopoly on injustice. However, a significant portion of the voters of 2000, about half, did vote for Bush and still are going to vote for him in 2004. This fact says allot about the US, and resonates throughout the world. It also says that the rest of this country-- the nonvoters, another significant statistical portion of this country, do not care and/or are apathetic for a variety of reasonable reasons. In one respect, our nonvoting kindred, and really the majority of the country if we include the non-participants with the Bush voters, are willful accomplices to Bush's crimes against humanity-- if we take the UN deemed illegal war in Iraq seriously. Even those who vote(d) against Bush are still Americans, and are culpable for what this government does whether it be Bush or Kerry occupying the White House. The rest of the world sees us as one body, divided, but one. Yet, what nation does not have a similar dynamic? In this sense, Nations are inherently heterogeneous, but are still Nations. Correspondingly, I'm sure the families of the innocent Iraqi's that are being killed by the US do not see the killers as Democrats or Republicans, they see them as Americans. Again, oppression and even imperialistic pursuits have gone on no matter what "party" has been in office. Arguably, Kerry has the potential to be quite oppressive if elected. Look at his foreign policy, it's very similar to George Bush's. It seems that Kerry is just going to garner more international buy-in, and have other countries volunteer their "under-classes" to die alongside America's "under-class". Getting back to this "stole the election" piece, our government is structurally set up to due what it did: (s)elect Bush. Bush is the third president to loose the popular election and still win the Presidency. Similarly, when "problems" do arise, we have it set up in such a "structural" way for our other branches of government to take affect i.e. the Supreme Court and Congress. The Supreme Court-- structurally set up to be a "politically appointed body", selected Bush; a legal action in this country. In the same vain, our country has it set up for Congress to come in and "possibly" overturn the Supreme Court's decision. And you know what? Congress, the Senate especially, did not overturn the decision. Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Edward's, and yes, even John F. Kerry, all Senators, did not protest Bush's appointment. They must be held accountable. They even negated the pleas of the Congressional Black Caucus. In all reality, these "white" Senators came together to save "the(ir)" Union, no matter the injustice, echoing Clintons 2004 Democratic National Convention speech. Thus, the democrats, our elected officials, are culpable, and will save the(ir) Union in crisis. In this fundamental sense, I must submit, Justice appears to be bound, and Bush's selection was structurally sanctioned, not stolen in the strictest sense.