Gore's Lies, Clinton's Legacies; U.S. Electoral Fraud; Gentlemen, This Is Class War; Putin's Blunder

Class War When a French truck driver said that the British would not take direct action like the French against high gasoline taxes, he called them "lâches." For those of you who failed high school French, a lâche is a coward. Coward? The British worker has come to see himself as neither hero nor coward, but as an orderly unit in a free (sic) market democracy. Strikes are no longer part of political currency, any more than is membership of trade unions. Direct action ended when Mrs. Thatcher crushed the miners and used the police to curb other recalcitrant workers. It is many years since we have heard the street cry, "The workers, united, will never be defeated!" Most Britons settled into squalid comfort, their tranquillity disturbed only rarely by small riots like the one that ended Mrs. Thatcher's hated poll tax. For the most part, the British have come in the last 20 years to look down on disorder, strikes and street demonstrations. Until now. Hearing the Frenchman call him a coward enflamed the beer-swilling Englishman. The bloody French? The army that caved to the Kaiser and capitulated to Mr. Hitler? This was too much. Yet a vague truth nagged at the English working man, beset for the last 20 years by employers and emasculating women. From the primeval forest, he heard ancient tribal war drums beckon. Coward? Hmmm. Yes. Perhaps. But, no. Damn well, no!

The Englishman took to the streets, the natural habitat of his Georgian forebears who so terrified the ruling class that it gradually ceded to the mob rights like trial by jury and, finally, the right to vote. British trucks blocked the country's oil refineries, and British truck drivers told the government to go to hell. These are proud heirs of those who conquered the seven seas and half the globe's landmass, raided the Spanish Main, made their language the currency of world discourse and subjugated the Indians. The English are best as warriors, whether abroad against Johnny Foreigner or at home against other classes. If there is no war with France, as there always was when needed, a class war will do every time. And, gentlemen, this is class war.

We have before us the spectacle of the truck driver, a working-class businessman who must make his books balance at the end of each month. He pays 40p income tax on every pound he earns. He must account quarterly for "value added tax" on all money that comes in and goes out, one of the most futile and stupid exercises imagined yet by the accountants in the Brussels Eurocracy. He pays the highest gasoline tax in Europe, and European gas taxes at their lowest are higher than the U.S. has ever known. And, in the dog-eat-man world of global capitalism, he must make a profit or die. When OPEC put up the price of his fuel, the government put up his tax. How can a businessman compete? He did the arithmetic, and it did not add up. He heard a Frenchman call him a coward for his forbearance, and he rushed outside to tell the government he was not going to take it anymore.

A few days ago, I would have said the truckers, and the many small farmers who share their cause, weren't likely to give up. Kipling's "Young British Soldier" is today's middle-aged British transport worker: "If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,/Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:/So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,/And wait for supports like a soldier./Wait, wait, wait like a soldier..."

The public was with them, and the gas stations were running dry. The government was on the run, Tony Blair assuring the country it would all be over in 24 hours. The prime minister played up the hardship, although for most of us it wasn't all that hard. The streets were suddenly cleaner and quieter with cars staying parked. My friend Adam Shand-Kydd, a novelist who lives around the corner, noticed that the outdoor cafes in Notting Hill were becoming almost as pleasant as Rome's. Another friend, Julie Lynn-Evans, told me gleefully that her children were walking to school?and enjoying it. For the first time I can remember, I am not the only bicyclist on the Bayswater Road. (Someone stole my bike's front wheel, which shows there's a demand. Bicycle sales are reportedly up 36 percent.) Strikes, oil blockades and shortages are, well, fun. Ask anyone here old enough to have survived the Blitz which were the best days of his life.

Our "fun" New Labor government, however, failed to share the popular joy. Tony Blair tumbled in popularity polls. And the people grumbled at New Labor, whose transportation policies have made the public more dependent than ever on cars. All was going the truckers' way, and yet, and yet...the heroes suddenly gave up and went home. Their leaders announced last Thursday that they were giving the government a 60-day reprieve. Not since Bonny Prince Charlie delayed at Carlisle, giving the Hanoverians time to regroup, has a winning army so foolishly stopped the battle. The truckers said that if the government did not make some concessions within 60 days, it will be back to the mattresses. A compromise may be worked out, although I hope not.

Bruce Antonio Laue Feature Putin's Blunder Since the fall of Communism in Russia nine years ago, the United States and the peoples of Europe have watched intently as that great nation assembled and reassembled its version of representative democracy. We witnessed the tensions between the executive and legislative branches of government, which resulted, not in votes of no confidence or presidential vetoes, but in tanks firing at point-blank range into the Parliament building. We saw the reemergence of the Communist Party, and the appearance of nationalist demands for the reconquest of those countries that had freed themselves during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Through it all, the Russians said that these were just the growing pains of a new democratic society. Then, as if back from a summer vacation, the old Russia returned. On Aug. 12, the nuclear submarine Kursk sank with all hands. Foreign military observers knew that this would be a telling episode not only for the Russian military, but also for Russian society in general. President Vladimir Putin was on holiday, but released a statement that everything that could be done was being done. Other countries were incredulous as their offers of aid were politely declined; everything, they were told, was proceeding smoothly. "Very Stalinist," I mentioned to Col. Frederick Schauffler, an American Army liaison officer to many former Soviet military officials. "No," he said, "very Russian."

While this drama unfolded, the Russian Orthodox Church announced that Nicholas II, the last czar, and his family, were to be canonized for the manner in which they met their deaths during the revolution; a revolution caused by the methods, not the motives, of a war that seemed unending. Almost 100 years ago, the Russian Empire stumbled into the First World War. Naturally, no one in authority would admit that severe miscalculations had been made. Nicholas felt personally misled by his cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II; letters and diaries depict huge misunderstandings, compounded by poor communications. The first great battle was Tannenberg. The Russians lost over 30,000 and 90,000 were taken prisoner. This German victory, so soon after the beginning of hostilities, was an acknowledged catastrophe. Nicholas was telegrammed thanks by the Allies, for it took many German divisions diverted from the Western front to accomplish this feat.

To the men who fought that battle, and the battles to follow, the cost could not be assuaged by any amount of thanks or appreciation. It is difficult for us, in this age of "pinpoint" bombing and "surgical strikes," to comprehend the military tactics employed. Vast numbers of the finest infantry, led by their officers, charging entrenched positions only to be mowed down by the thousands. Unlike other European powers, Russia did not possess the industry and transport necessary to sustain a modern war for a prolonged period. The only resources Russia possessed in abundance were land and people. It used both liberally. Again and again, friend and foe alike were astounded by the losses this nation could endure. When one considers that this degree of carnage was repeated less than a generation later, the subject enters the realm of extraordinary phenomena. John Keegan, the noted British military historian, now contends that 40 to 45 million people perished in Russia during the Second World War, not the 20 million previously thought. In the battle of Stalingrad alone, one million men are now thought to have died.

It is in this context of sacrifice that the 118 crew members of the Kursk are now regarded, not only for the service they rendered and the honor they upheld, but for the waste of their lives and the bitterness Russians now feel toward their government and military. In the West, Nicholas II is seen as either an arrogant, unfeeling tyrant or as a weak, ignorant incompetent. He was neither. Nicholas was a 19th-century man faced with 20th-century social change. He was raised to believe, and he did believe, that democracy?he had studied its processes in other countries?was ill suited to the complexities of Russia. The politics of negotiation and compromise could never, in his view, ensure the domestic tranquillity necessary for the population's survival, let alone contentment. Under democracy, the Imperial center could not hold.

President Putin probably feels the same way. However, if Russia's leaders have not changed their attitudes, perhaps their people have.

For most, except the relatives, this terrible episode is over. But there are lessons to be learned; certainly for the Russian navy. The Russian political establishment, for sure, has understood the increased influence of the media, not only within Russia, but by how the world perceives "personal engagement." It was not required that Putin be more involved in the operations for the rescue and salvage of the Kursk, only that he appear to be. Private vacations during crises are no longer acceptable. Words of encouragement or solace cost nothing but give great comfort to the living and the dying. That is a page Putin should have borrowed from Nicholas, who would stand on the railway platforms in St. Petersburg for hours, handing out prayer cards and blessing the troops heading for the front. As Robert Massie said in Nicholas and Alexandra, "They were ready to give their lives, for a smile."

  Taki LE MAÎTRE Lies & Legacies Although I say so myself, I did warn people about five weeks ago that after Labor Day the media would show its true colors and go after George W. Bush as if Donald Duck were running for president. Talk about character assassination. Gail Sheehy has come up with a long and excruciatingly boring piece in Vanity Fair claiming George is after Bud Selig's job, not the Draft Dodger's. Sheehy, who is married to Clay Felker, my mentor once upon a time, has learned her lesson well. Look for a hook?better yet, invent one?and then hang the nonstory on it for all it's worth. If this is serious political journalism, I'm Monica Lewinsky. Actually, it's the esthetic equivalent of the semi-naked picture of that egregious rentboy vulgarian, David Geffen, that appears in another part of the magazine. If Geffen is the new establishment, I'm moving to Grozny. Where I differ with Bush is in the Adam Clymer brouhaha. Being called an asshole was a compliment to the asshole. Did any of you get to see what that bum looks like? If I were Clymer I'd be flattered. He certainly looks far worse than an asshole. Bush should have said, "I meant what I said," and the people would have cheered. Clymer is no reporter; he's a propagandist, just like I am, just like Sheehy is. The difference is that I am open about it and they're not. Talk about hypocrisy.

And speaking of the H word, what about Gore's lies? Why hasn't the press shown outrage about them? He lies even more than Clinton, which makes him somewhat unique. (He even lies when he's kissing, for God's sake!) His latest whopper is the $100,000 quid pro quo from the Texas trial lawyer. Mind you, I'm not surprised. Why should Gore, a man who shamelessly cried about his sister's death from lung cancer caused by cigarettes, while he continued to receive funding from tobacco companies, tell it like it is? His boss survived scandal after scandal by lying again and again, with all the media in on the lying. So what's so bad about a few more lies?

In the meantime, back in the White House, fatcat contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign have been staying overnight at the White House. Also in Camp David. It's not a bad state of affairs. The Clintons use taxpayers' money to host potential contributors, give them rides on Air Force One and in general make them open up their wallets. If it's not exactly cricket, who cares? Fair play went out when the Clintons and Gores came into power. Bernard Schwartz donates $750,000 to the Gore campaign via the Democratic Party, while his company, Loral Space and Communications Ltd., illegally (without State Dept. approval) sells sensitive missile technology to China. Al Gore continues to accept the tainted moolah. It used to be called treason, and the penalty was death. Now it's called soft money from Al's friend Bernie.

I imagine the blow-dried types of the media are much too busy blow-drying to have read Bob Bennett's warnings about immorality in high places. And I don't mean the blowjobs. Lowering the bar in the manner the Clintons have is bound to have consequences, and very bad ones at that. (In the meantime, a clown and arch bullshitter like Anthony Summers?an Irishman posing as an Englishman?invents a whole book about Richard Nixon's tricks in Vietnam, and throws in a few asides how Nixon beat up Pat, and the media gobbles it up as if it were the Sermon on the Mount. What utter, unadulterated crap.) In the current American Spectator, Bob Tyrrell has hit the proverbial nail on the head. It's all about the Clinton legacy, and it's a brilliant piece of work. If I had the space I'd quote word for word, namely, that the Clintons have contaminated political debate, with terms and formulations that in earlier times would have been seen as the squawks of self-pitying hysterics and political extremists. "In the 1990's the Clinton Administration coined them, and mainstream political commentators use them without blush. A Clinton critic must be a 'hater'; and two or more in a room amount to what Hillary has identified as a vast right-wing conspiracy."

Talk about corrupting standards. And it gets better. "The impact of a presidency is felt everywhere, bearing upon tastes, styles, normative standards, humors, even the average citizen's use of language?as when said citizen appears in a court of law to defend himself against yet another charge of indecent exposure."

Incidentally, Al Gore, while being interviewed by federal investigators about his fundraising, made a similar issue over the meaning of the word "raising." Clinton's legacy will be one of permanently campaigning to stay in office, of bombing innocent people to divert public opinion, of lying when one doesn't have to lie and of corrupting the system. Tyrrell does a hell of a job, and I strongly recommend it.

And I recommend Sobran's Newsletter, and the monthly Chronicles, among the best and most gracefully written culture magazines anywhere. And, it goes without saying, National Review. Reading the right stuff, pun intended, is the only way to stay sane. Clinton used the White House and the country to promote himself, he ignored its traditions with his moral vacuity and by wringing the last drop of celebrity from his office. Both Clintons hungered for credit for things they never did. Both were self-absorbed and believed all laws were made to be broken. Sports and Hollywood stars were the be-all and end-all of their copresidency. It was all posturing, curling the lip, all style without a scintilla of substance. Clinton's legacy will be a lousy one, if sanity, decency and morality ever return. But with Gore waiting in the wings, I sincerely doubt it.

  George Szamuely The Bunker

Closed Ballots The news that Michigan Gov. John Engler and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are seeking to keep Pat Buchanan off the ballot in their states in November barely caused a ripple. While the United States keeps a watchful eye on electoral fraud all over the world, it appears to take a much more benign view of ballot rigging here at home. Every election is fixed to ensure that interlopers are kept out. There are four prominent candidates running for the presidency. But the presidential debates?generally agreed to be the most important event in the election calendar?will feature only the nominees of the two major parties. The Commission on Presidential Debates has ruled that to get into the debates a candidate must be able to enjoy at least 15 percent support in the polls. Fifteen percent is well beyond the reach of any politician who lacks the financial resources to buy saturation media coverage the way Ross Perot did in 1992. Moreover, the reliance on opinion polls is absurd. The purpose of any opinion poll is not to elicit information but to pressure people into falling into line. The "majority" opinion is obviously the correct one and must therefore be adopted. This "majority" is invariably an artificial creation, the product of carefully crafted questions. Polls are, remember, quite expensive, and they are paid for by interested parties who want to see certain results. The questions are usually devoid of meaning. A Mori polling handbook instructs interviewers who are asked what a question means to reply, "Whatever you want it to mean." Thus, "Is Bill Clinton doing a good or a bad job as president?" rather depends on what the job of president entails. The opinions of those who refuse to take part?people sensible enough not to drop everything to start chatting with a complete stranger on the phone?do not register in the poll results. Those who refuse to answer a pollster because they find the question silly will have their opinions remain unregistered. There is no possibility of a more complicated reply that does not fit into the multiple-choice quiz format of the questioner.

It is hard also to take seriously the requirement that a candidate must achieve a minimum poll number. The polls are often wrong. They vary widely, and they fluctuate so wildly as to render them almost totally devoid of credibility. How can George W. Bush be up by 17 points one week, and down by as much as eight points a few weeks later? The American electorate simply is not that volatile. Since no dramatic events are taking place, and no hotly contested issues are being debated, the poll numbers reflect little more than responses to the poll numbers. The polls generate stories about the "Gore surge," which in turn serve to boost the Gore numbers, thereby leading to more stories about the "Gore surge" and so on.

While the United States is perpetually concerned about "opposition figures" getting media access in places like Yugoslavia, the cozy relationship here between the media and the political establishment is rarely up for discussion. The millions that the two major political parties raise from their donors, as well as the federal matching funds they collect, are largely spent on advertising. The money goes directly into the pockets of the giant media corporations. Thus the media has every interest in flattering the two major parties and neglecting the minority parties. The media also conducts the opinion polls. It is instructive how often they ask respondents whom they intend to vote for, Bush or Gore, without so much as hinting that there might be other alternatives.

It is very unlikely also that the United States would be particularly understanding toward another country if it imposed electoral hurdles on independent parties as numerous and as terrifying as the ones on the statute books here. Most states require third parties to gather tens of thousands of signatures for a petition to be on the state ballot. There are also often strict deadlines on the gathering of such signatures. A candidate for president running in the Democratic or Republican primary can get on the ballot simply by paying a filing fee, although some states do require that a primary candidate submit a petition signed by a not especially large number of voters. By contrast, a candidate running as an independent in the general election will have to collect thousands of petition signatures in each state to be on the ballot.

Independent presidential candidates and third-party nominees need approximately 750,000 valid signatures to be on the general election ballot of all 50 states. For Democrats and Republicans, access is virtually automatic. Democratic Party candidates require 25,500 signatures and Republican Party candidates 54,250 signatures. Thirty-two of the 41 states that hold presidential primaries require no signatures from the major-party candidates. Candidates who, amazingly, manage to get on 50 state ballots end up exhausted and penniless, very much like Pat Buchanan. Were it not for the federal matching funds, his campaign would be more or less over today.

These ballot restrictions were enacted for the sole purpose of denying third parties and independent candidates access to power. In 1924, only 50,000 petition signatures were required to place a new party on the ballot in 48 states. During the 1930s, laws were passed to make ballot access increasingly more difficult. New parties had to gather more and more signatures and to file for application earlier and earlier in the campaign year. In the aftermath of George Wallace's remarkable run, ballot-access became extraordinarily difficult.

Perhaps Milosevic should send over a Yugoslav observer mission to monitor November's election.