<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=content-type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 topMargin=0 rightMargin=3>
<DIV>from Scott McLemee.com:<BR></DIV>
<DIV>There was one moment in the debate last night when the real, long-term
stakes of the American ruling class came into the open.<BR> <BR>Sorry to
lapse into such terms again. I try not to do that. It just makes people look at
you funny. Consider it the knot in my stomach talking. (That knot tightened for
a solid ninety minutes, and it was still there when I got up this
morning.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anyway....the moment in question came when Bush made clear that, under his
watch, the United States would never put itself in the position of being subject
to an international criminal court.<BR> <BR>Not exactly what you would call
a breakthrough moment in the history of American policy, of course. At one
level, nothing new at all.<BR> <BR>But yes, indeed, a little glimmer of
fear was visible, for just a moment there, in those beady little frat-boy eyes,
instead of the usual bland twinkle.<BR> <BR>Kerry did not rush in to
dispute the point. Let's put it this way. Suppose that, for the sake of
argument, there really is more than a dime's worth of difference between the
parties, this time. <BR> <BR>Well, that ain't the dime.<BR> <BR>The
formula for determining the specificity of ruling-class interests: First, select
out the subset of issue that the two major candidates do not express
disagreement over. Then (second subtraction) ignore whatever has no direct
consequence for people who lack money or power. The remainder is, so to speak,
the final determining political instance.<BR> <BR>They don't disagree on
<EM>whether</EM> to continue the war, only on <EM>how</EM> to continue it. So
that passes through the first stage. But not the second. If I were an Iraqi
trade-unionist, for example, I might well prefer an internationally controlled
police presence to an American occupation, and certainly would not want to be
handed over to the tender mercies of whatever Baathist/Islamicist hybrid is now
cooking in the countryside.<BR> <BR>No, what the debate last night
suggested is that, at the end of the day, for all the talk of multilateralism
and whatnot, there is a specific interest in making sure that "the indispensible
country" always reserves the right to define itself as being within its
rights.<BR> <BR>Otherwise, certain people might have to measure their
actions against the possibility of personal consequences. And we all know how
distracting <EM>that</EM> can be.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>[....]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- Shane</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>