Coastal Post Online










(415)868-1600 - (415)868-0502(fax) - P.O. Box 31, Bolinas, CA, 94924

The Founding, Funding And Fraudulent Fathers
By Antonio R. Serna

Puffing up his feathers like a Peacock, President Bush, alongside his friend and collaborator, Tony Blair of the U. K., held their first news conference, together, in the wake of his surprise victory in the recently concluded US presidential election.

The two state leaders took turns in defending, as well as promoting, their war effort in Iraq. Both heads of state wanted the world to believe that the underlying reason behind the loss of lives and money spent in that senseless, bloody mess is to give the Iraqis their freedom.

Following the beaten down path of championing the cause of freedom and democracy by crushing despotism and tyranny, the duo emphasized the need for Iraq as well as Palestine to embrace peace as a price for freedom. They argued that in view of the elimination from the scene of Saddam Hussein, (America's Frankenstein of the Middle East) and Yasser Arafat, ( Lord of Palestine's suicidal martyrs), the path is clear for the two Arab countries to gain their freedom and embrace democracy.

This is all well and good, except for the fact that no one is asking the Iraqis and Palestinians if they want democracy. And if democracy is a pre-requisite to the attainment of their freedom? The British and other colonial powers have been pursuing such an approach in the area for almost a century now but all the Arabs can see as a result of the same is the establishment of well entrenched despots and tyrants, serving the interests, not of the Arabs but of the super powers that are protecting them.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, to mention a few, are good examples of such a democratization. These countries are living proofs that foreign colonialists have mastered the art of ramming "democracy" down the throats of those that are not "democratic," in the name of peace and freedom.

To have a better understanding of what democracy really is all about-the whole world in general, and the Arabs in particular, are looking up at the United States of America for guidance and direction. They for instance know that America's Founding Fathers defined democracy as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. The whole world has been watching us closely and are particularly interested in one aspect of democracy: How do we choose our leaders? Do the American people really choose their leaders?

To their dismay, they saw in the year 2000, a presidential election that was stolen from the people. They gave us the benefit of the doubt by concluding that such an anomaly could be a rare exception.

Then, just recently, they saw another presidential election that requires a lot of faith in our system, not to conclude that the results were machine produced rather than the reflection of the people's will. In other words, it was rigged and no one is the smarter. In this last election, not only the Americans were participating but the whole free world as well, at least in spirit. If the ballots were cast worldwide, the candidate running against the incumbent would have won a landslide victory.

It is difficult to understand why non-Americans will see what is best for America better than the Americans themselves. But is this true? Not if you watched the presidential debates. Not if you have analyzed the performance record of the incumbent. Not if you carefully followed the results of the exit interviews. Not if you will compare the president's performance evaluation with the performance evaluation of any CEO in any American corporation.

It is clear that this president has failed to serve the American people and the American people share the rest of the world's assessment of their president. But why then did he win? Because besides the American people, there is another authority that Americans have to reckon with. It is Corporate America. It is the country's engine of power from where the it draws its strength and often times is the power behind the people. The incumbent has obviously served Corporate America well. How else can it do so well in an election where it is not the American people's will that prevailed? Our Founding Fathers may not be in total agreement with the means we took but Our Funding Fathers are happy with the results that achieved their ends.

The Arabs are a bit confused now with the democracy that we are trying to sell them. They have a question that we need to answer to their satisfaction. In the democracy that we want them to embrace; whose philosophy should always prevail? Their Founding Father's? Or their Funding Father's? How can they differentiate these fathers from Saddam Hussein and Yasser Araffat? Until we can give them the clear answers, they have no choice but to resist the intrusion and occupation of what they may call their Invading Fathers who are spending a fortune and destroying innocent lives to achieve an end that is not necessarily theirs. If democracy cannot seem to survive in America, as evidenced by the way we conduct our elections lately, how can the Arabs embrace it as a form of government that is supposed to work for them?

They will expectedly be wondering who their Founding Fathers will be? If the Afghanistan version of democracy will be their model, who are the Afghan's Founding Fathers? Are the current, US picked officials who obviously ran and won the elections considered the Afghan's Founding Father's? Who really elected them in office? Will this pattern be followed in Iraq? Who will elect Iraq's Founding Fathers come January, 2005?

Will the current insurgents, resisting the armed intervention of a foreign power elect their Founding Fathers? If they are the insurgents in their own country, who are the people in authority that they are currently fighting? Who gave these people that authority? The Americans fought the British who were colonizing their country in the service of the British Queen and were therefore the insurgents in that conflict. America's Founding Fathers came from those insurgents. Doesn't it follow that we should teach the Iraqis to do the same? Could we ever imagine the USA to be the world's bastion of democracy had we chosen our Founding Fathers from the British collaborating, bootleggers that abounded then?

President Bush and his side kick, the Prime Minister of the UK should start to understand that before they get too enthusiastic about the democratization of the Middle East, they should first give the countries that have supposedly, already done so, a closer look. Are these countries currently democratic or is it simply a reflection of how hypocritical and discombobulated these two leaders are about the true meaning of democracy? If they continue to pursue their current course of thinking, they will make the world believe that democracy is born through the efforts of three kinds of Fathers: The Founding Fathers, the Funding Fathers and the Fraudulent Fathers.


Coastal Post Home Page