[Peace-discuss] topic of conversation

[Regina Cassidy]

I do not care for the term "self-satisfied" here. It smacks of sneering.

Do peace protesters feel "self-satisfied" if our protests make
Republicans get out the vote?  How about if our protests make our enemy
think we Americans are weak and divisive?

Why do we check our consciences at the polling place?

Kerry is a hawk.  Is AWARE anti-Bush or anti-war?

Gina

>>> Morton K.Brussel <brussel4 at insightbb.com> 04/13/04 6:03 PM >>>
Despite our dismay and anger at the statements emanating from Kerry, we 
should not get sidetracked.

I guess I would go along with with Ricky's  propositions--raise hell, 
criticize Kerry et al. AND Bush et al, exert pressure however we 
can)--, but I believe it to be nonetheless absolutely essential that 
the Bush junta be booted from office.

If, as a result of criticism of the two parties and their candidates, 
some felt vindicated in not voting for either in problematic contests, 
and that resulted in a Bush-Republican victory, then I would say that 
our efforts will have been self defeating, with long range, possibly 
catastrophic, consequences.

A real dilemma.

Suppose the Greens would get 10% of the national presidential vote. I 
wonder the Greens would feel good, self satisfied, if Bush and his 
party win the election. Would the good Green results have been worth 
it?

MKB

On Apr 13, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> Thanks for raising this, Al.
>
> I think you posed the question exactly the right way
> -- not, what are we as individuals to do, but we as a
> movement.  I think the rest follows in a fairly
> straightforward way, if we can think about it calmly
> without letting our (understandable) fears take over.
>
> Because we as a movement support certain principles, I
> think that is how we proceed.  It would be repeating
> the worst mistakes of past popular movements to get
> distracted from our cause by the  elections.  The
> cause always seems to suffer and the politicians
> always seem to take us for granted.  So I think we get
> their attention by raising more hell and expecting
> them all to listen.
>
> They won't, of course, at least not much.  So, there
> must be some consequences for taking us for granted.
> The most obvious consequence is that we continue to
> raise hell.  We criticize the lesser evils, too,
> instead of helping them win.  That's most important.
>
> On the side might write to Kerry and the DNC and
> complain.  I do it whenever they send me one of their
> farcical fundraising letters about all they supposedly
> stand for: I tell them what I want them to stand for,
> and really stand for, not the half-assed way they
> stand for the things in their letter, and I tell them
> they won't get a dime from me until they change.
>
> Letters to the editor are better, though, contrasting
> the Hanoi Jane b.s. with Kerry's real b.s., for
> example.  We can use Kerry's failings as an
> opportunity to further assert and clarify our
> opposition to war and occupation.
>
> And, of course, some of us might want to vote for
> Nader (gasp!) -- especially in those uncontested
> states (if he gets on the ballot).  It's a way to send
> a message that only takes a few minutes on one
> particular day.
>
> But, whatever we do, let me say it again, I think we
> should absolutely not expend a lot of time and energy
> trying to influence the elections or the candidates
> directly.  We can have much more influence by being
> the biggest, noisiest, most stubborn pain in the ass
> that any party or candidate has to face.
>
>
> Ricky
>

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss