|
Bad Choice
Looking at the US election from the outside, makes one wonder about the choices presented. On the one side Bush, elite offspring with deep relations to big money, on the other side Kerry, elite offspring with deep relations to big money. There are some nuances and probably Kerry would be “not as bad as Bush”.
Judging from his speeches, he is as belligerent as Bush, while trying a little longer on multilateralism. He “defended the nation” in Viet Nam and promises to do the same as president – defended the nation in Viet Nam??? His economic points are slightly less to the right than Bushes, but does anybody believe, that whoever paid into his record election funds will not present the bill and will get the contracted payback?
The alarm is sounded that the progressives have to vote for Kerry – Anything but Bush – but then, where is the hope of change? As George Monbiot says in his Guardian column today, the same alarm bells rang in 2000 and the same alarm bells will ring again in 2008, 2012, 2016.
The US needs a deep change, a landslide to the progressive side, IF it does want to survive as a representative democracy. This change will not come through voting for the lesser evil.
There is a need for positive votes. Vote for the political direction you stand for, not against those politics you do not stand for. If the balance is tilted to the far right, put your weight on the very left pan to nudge it back. Voting for the middle can not change the reading on the scale.
As has been seen in many European countries, the introduction of alternative political powers takes years, maybe two or three decades. It will have to start at the local level, scramble into state policy and in ten, fifteen years, it may be able to really compete on the national level. It may falter there, but then it will have done enough damage to the democrats polls, to pull that party back to the left pan of the balance.
If this has the consequence of putting Bush back into the seat for another four years, we will see bad things coming. If Kerry wins the seat, the times will likely be similar uncomfortable. The economics of the next four years will be terrible – no matter who wins this election. There are structural imbalances that will break in an earthquake-like correction. Here one would rather like to see Bush suffer the consequences of his deeds, than see the democrats made responsible for this and be damaged for the next decades to come.
Anything but Bush is like putting the finger on the middle of the scale. It does not change the reading. It´s a bad choice.
Well, sorry. I’m probably one of the most uber-leftist and revolutionary here around, but I beg to differ. As was said, voting for the most progressive on state level is fine and should be encouraged, be it State Congress or Representatives for DC.
In fact, in other conditions I would agree with your point (for instance, in Clinton vs Dole 96). In fact, I think it’s stupid to blame Nader for 2000, clearly. The issue was the electoral college and Florida fraud. Not to mention that no one can be sure that, without Nader, Gore would’ve had 600 more votes.
In fact, I would basically agree with your whole point in another situation, for instance back in 96 with Clinton vs Dole, or 92 or even 88; I would make exceptions for Reagan, Nixon and most of all W. There is a reason why even Chomsky openly calls to vote Kerry to oust Bush, stating it’s fine to vote Nader in sure Kerry states or in massively pro-Bush states – which will allow him to vote Nader -, but it’s safer to vote Kerry in swing states. I can see the point that Bush keeping the presidency would ruin the system and crash it. In fact, I alas don’t expect much differences from Kerry in foreign policies, though imho he’ll be far better in US domestic policies – and I clearly value more foreign change than domestic one -; though on the scientific and environmental issues Kerry is just as progressive as Dean for instance, which matters a lot.
Yet I would have to ask Bernhard if he would’ve preferred to vote Hitler or social-democrat in 1932, and if it would’ve been a good argument to say “I hope Hitler will remain in power a few years to completely screw the Nazi Party, then the Communists will take over.”
There is just one key reason why I don’t think calling for Nader or Bush is wise. If Bush actually rules for an entire 2nd mandate of 4 years, it simply won’t matter who will win in 2008, there won’t be anything to save. By that I don’t mean Earth will have been systematically nuked, but the damages to environment and the poison in international policies and relationship will be so bitter that mankind and a good deal of life on this planet will be doomed, no matter what comes next – that is, even if Nader is elected and Greens take majority of both Houses in 2008, they won’t be able to save mankind after 4 more years of Bush and fundie/neo-con reign.
My personal opinion is very simple: if Bush wins in Novembre, either the American people goes into full revolution mode and ousts him and his fascist party in a few months, or everyone outside the US will be fully legitimised and even morally obliged to actually kill every single American citizen they can lay their hands upon. If Bush “wins”, either the US does a civil war and destroys him and his party, or the rest of the world will have to do the scouring.
Make no mistake, this is the real choice the American people will face in the election.
And believe me, since it’s obvious the current economic-social-politc systems are basically ruining the planet and dooming mankind, I’m all for seeing a major crisis that would swipe them away, and one that should come as early as possible, because the longer we go on like this the lesser our chance of survival, long-term speaking. I also fear that can only be done in a pre-emptive strike because the system won’t fall under its own weight unless it’s too late and people won’t react, rebel and try to find a solution until they’re already dying in droves.
So, as I said in the Annex, if Uncle$cam and others are ready to stock ammos and guns for 3 Novembre and will then take the streets, build barricades, assault TV stations, barracks, govt buildings, GOP offices and the like, more power to them and I have no criticism to make; otherwise, well, it’s just a totally suicidal decision, literally.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 17 2004 16:26 utc | 15
Uncle Scam, yes, reactions against the present US president are so virulent, having them dampened because someone else is sitting may postpone the cataclysm, meltdown, or whatever one wants to call it. The urge to be done with it all is strong. Waiting for doom is dreadful, particularly when the present situation is dire, the threat is formless, and one does not know how to prepare. Clueless Joe mentions the possibility of an American Revolution if Bush ‘wins’.
However, if Bush looses, as anon points out, it is possible that the Republican party as it is now will not survive. I’ve been thinking that for a long time, but I only read about such matters on the internet (more biased, extremist, not in touch with mainstream America, etc.)
From this distance, it looks like some considerable % of Bush supporters are not Republicans, although they may like to claim that identity, as a badge of support for the incumbent. They are fundies (religious..), racists, warmongers, people who are left out and require a strong, agressive leader who they feel “is one of them”, people who care nothing for politics but are habituated by the TV and deal with insecurity by adhering to authority. In their own way, some of these people –I guess– have exactly the same underlying opinion as you express. They know (or suspect) that the world is FUBAR, and the only thing to be done is to move forward agressively and see what falls out. They also hope to be on the winning side, and one can hardly blame them for that. That explains (to me) the surprising contradiction that many working-class people, who are being royally screwed over, vote (voted, plan to vote..) for a leader who does not represent their interests in any way (unions, schooling, medicare, taxes, etc.) These people, in my imagination, are people who have checked out of the political process that supposedly exists in a democracy and prefer, rather than withdrawing completely (the percentage who do that is large as well..) to give allegiance somewhere. That means, as well, that they will blank out criticism, will not perceive lies, will behave like dumb ‘groupies.’ There is nothing else left for them. Nor by the way is there for the staunchly progressive, the radical green, etc. (They may cast a vote, but only in the perspective that Bernhard describes – slow change.) Some Bush voters expect doom (though they will not express it), and react as best as they can. I think the fundie Christians, although they have been manipulated to vote for Bush, are particularly sensitive to the present horrors, and so — to stretch a point — they are ready to vote for someone who will push forward to Armageddon. The final Rapture, say, will put a stop to all these earthly problems and ensure victory of a kind.
If Bush loses, the rag-tag collection of Bush supporters will split. If any coherent alternative presents itself, many will go for it, and the religious right would melt like ice on the North Pole, that is, slowly and steadily. Republicans will devolve into smaller units, and the divisions will make things clearer. If that happens, it would be a good thing, as it would be a shake-up…( = Today’s optimistic, indeed somewhat fantastical, predictions..hope burns eternal…)
The choice between Bush and Kerry is no choice, as all the discussion shows: it concentrates on calculation, interpretation, prediction of future behavior; mechanics of elections, such a fraud; considerations about world problems that are apparently related to the political agenda only with difficulty (energy, climate..)
There is no strong, whole-hearted support for either of the two candidates. Imho.
Compare with Chavez, for example.
Link of interest: Republicans for Kerry:
Link
Posted by: Blackie | Aug 17 2004 18:22 utc | 23
btw, that was me, again with the Novak quote above.
The US needs a deep change, a landslide to the progressive side, IF it does want to survive as a representative democracy. This change will not come through voting for the lesser evil.
There is a need for positive votes. Vote for the political direction you stand for, not against those politics you do not stand for. If the balance is tilted to the far right, put your weight on the very left pan to nudge it back. Voting for the middle can not change the reading on the scale.
Bernhard- you state this as fact, when in fact in America we have the example of another rich Ivy League man, who was enamored of war, even, who changed things in major ways.
Teddy Roosevelt broke up the monopolies of the gilded age. He ran as an independent, but he had the background support to run as an independent in a way for it to matter.
So I do not think that your certainty that nothing can change with what exists is true, while the American electoral system has shown time and again in the last few decades that third party candidates are usually vote spliters, like Perot was with Bush 1.
In addition, the electoral college system makes politics a near requirement in American voting…we have no instant run-off, and the reality at this moment in time is that one of two candidates will win, and who you vote for or against will determine this if you live in a swing state (assuming Diebold will be kept from further fraud.)
Yes, people should absolutely vote for their choice, when their choice is on the ballot..and when their perfect candidate is not on the ballot, if they choose not to vote, as Bernie Sanders said in a documentary I saw recently about the 2000 election, then there’s nothing to talk about with that person because they are taking themselves out of the process…Bernie Sanders said he simply does not listen to those people because they don’t care enough to vote, so why should he waste his time caring what they have to say.
makes sense to me. politics is about the nasty struggle for power. it’s not about how great it would be if only we had saints running for office or all could suddenly turn off our lizard brains and our primate hoarding instincts.
But what Bernie said is the thing…if you don’t vote for someone you expect to represent you, then too bad if you don’t get the representation you want. And if you don’t work for a candidate that you want to win before the vote, then the chances are that you aren’t going to have someone to vote for that you precisely want.
those here who talk about voting for Bush…obviously, you’ll do what you’ll do. But those of us who cannot so cavalierly give more power to fascists find it hard to play nice sometimes when that is others’ way of dealing with abuse of power…by giving them more.
And, yes, as Jerome said, Kerry is playing to the middle. He’s working to fight off the constant attacks from Otis Rove, the drunk with power Mayberry Shithead. That, again, is the dirty world of politics.
If you voted for Bush based upon what he said while he was campaigning, rather than looking at where he came from, who was running with him, and who was the base that got him elected, boy, were you in for a surprise…
Alabama- the Christian reich IS a huge part of Bush’s base. He needs them to get elected, and he’s played to them with Ashcroft and his judicial appointments…he’s placated the very rich with welfare for the rich, by not making them pay a fair share to be a part of this nation.
But the fundies think Iraq/Saddam is the whore of Babylon from the book of Revelations, and much of the south fundie base is closely aligned with military, so I don’t see how the Iraq invasion is a problem for them.
But those middle american conservatives who are deficit hawks hate Bush, and have for a while. And then the way Bush has not planned, realistically, to pay for that war, not to mention the other ones he and his gang bellow about.
Apparently, new polls say the country is evenly divided on the Iraq war issue…but again, that’s also because the American media has done such a good job sucking down every lie Bush told them, and then failing to look at the reality.
/rant off.
Posted by: fauxreal | Aug 18 2004 2:18 utc | 30
|
