[Peace-discuss] John Pilger's article on Kerry

[C. G. Estabrook]

Mort--

First of all, I'm rather close to the ABB position myself: I think it
vital that the Bush administration be repudiated this fall, and the most
effective way to do that in most places will be to vote for the Democrat
nominee.

It seems to me arguable that, in states where one side or the other seems
to have a decisive lead on the eve of the election, one might vote for an
independent or third party candidate, because the differences between the
the two corporate parties (naming them form the the interests they serve)
are small.

In Illinois, a new poll by the Sun-Times shows Kerry leading Bush 52%-39%.
If that holds up in November, I might vote Nader and/or Green for
president (I'll almost certainly vote Green for Senate, etc.).  On the
other hand, it may be worthwhile, even in Illinois, to run up the
Democratic vote to show that Bush decisively loses the popular vote (as of
course he did last time).

I think Chomsky's right: "The people around Bush happen to be an
unusually fanatical, extreme, arrogant and incompetent group, and
they're very dangerous.  But it's a small group, and they barely hold
political power.  And they're frightening people, including the
traditional conservatives, because they're such extreme, radical,
nationalist fanatics.  And Kerry doesn't come from that background, he
leans more towards the normal center.  But they're very dangerous.  I
think that with another four-year mandate, they might do not only severe,
but maybe irremediable damage to the world."

Second, Nader said in the election of 2000 (and I echoed him on this point
in the local congressional election of 2002) -- not that that there was no
difference between the Republican and Democrat parties but that there
wasn't enough difference.  They both respond to their corporate masters
and serve to blunt and turn demands for substantial change.  That's not
new -- the modern Democrat party was formed (in the 1930s) to save
capitalism, not to bury it. It is still true, as John Dewey said at the
time, that "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," and
therefore "attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."

Third, on Pilger specifically, each of the points you raise could be
fruitfully discussed, I think.  I agree that the piece seems
hastily-written and a bit sloppy, but the point is correct: Kerry doesn't
represent a contrast to the Bush administration's goals and methods in
foreign policy (or elsewhere). Again, you won't be surprised to hear that
I think that Chomsky's put it correctly:

"The two candidates both come from backgrounds of great wealth, extensive
political connections.  Both went to Yale.  Both joined the same secret
society at Yale.  That's the range of choices that we have!  But there is
some difference between them -- I don't think a very great difference,
just as there is very little range within the corporate-run political
spectrum altogether.  But there is some difference, and in a system of
tremendous power, small difference can translate into large effects.  So
those small differences do matter."

Regards, Carl


On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Morton K.Brussel wrote:

> Carl,
> 
> I’ve reviewed the Pilger piece on Znet. Although I am sympathetic with
> his sentiments and agree with most of what he says, I am struck by his
> lack of nuance and balance. He too often sounds as Manichean as the
> fundamentalist right: Is that just journalistic license? Consider the
> paragraph below from his article:
> 
> 
> “The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a
> crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety
> nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a
> multibillion-dollar missile "defense" system known as Star Wars II was
> instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved;  
> biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a
> comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an
> international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines.
> Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton
> administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global
> warming.”
> 
> 
> First, I would not agree that Clinton was little different from Bush,
> although I have (always had) less than a liking for Clinton and his
> destructive policies, foreign and domestic. Nonetheless, the
> differences that exist between Bush and Clinton administrations are
> not negligible. Compare: Ashcroft and the justice department, the
> court appointments—guys like Pryor and Pickering wouldn’t have been
> nominated by Clinton, women’s and minority rights, “faith based”
> initiatives, environmental records and appointments (Clinton’s was not
> exemplary, but was far better than Bush’s), general appointments to
> government agencies, even military programs.
> 
> Star Wars ideas came on stage in the Reagan administration, not
> Clinton’s. Clinton unfortunately did not suppress budgeting for them,
> but took a middling, compromising, position, very different from what
> we are now confronting.
> 
> It is not true that “the biggest war and arms budget in history was
> approved” in the Clinton years (Source: CDI-The Defense Monitor, XXXII
> #5); it was higher in the Reagan and Bush II years. Pilger is just
> wrong on this. Biological weapons verification, renunciation of the
> international court of justice, the Kyoto global warming protocol,
> were not rejected by Clinton, although he was not proactive in
> supporting these. There was a lot of opposition from the Congress here
> which he did not seek to fight. This is in contrast to the Bush
> administration positions on these issues.
> 
> To be effective, criticisms from the left have to be reliable as well
> as passionate, and Pilger unfortunately doesn’t always meet the
> challenge.
> 
> Another statement: “the Democratic party has left a larger trail of
> blood
 theft and subjugation than the Republicans”. Pilger is not
> serious, as the French say, in view now of events in Iraq,
> Afghanistan, and what is to come. True, Vietnam can be ascribed to
> Kennedy, Johnson et al, but carried on by Nixon and Kissinger, during
> whose reign, most of the deaths occurred. Similarly, Pilger tends to
> identify the Democrats as synonymous with former Senator Jackson (WA)
> and others on the right wing of the party. Although the left-right
> political spectra of Dems and Repubs do overlap considerably, there is
> no doubt that the centroids of the distributions are quite different.
> There were/are no equivalent Morses, Fullbrights, McCarthys,
> McGoverns, even Durbins, Wellstones, Kucinichs, Leahys, Black Caucus,
> in the Republican spectrum. Someone who is blind to these distinctions
> cannot be taken seriously.
> 
> Pilger in this article is polemical in the extreme. This might be good
> to arouse passion, but subtracts from his reliability. It ought to be
> realized by Pilger that the core of the right wing in the USA is in
> the Republican camp. He doesn’t seem to.  There is enough that is
> wrong about Kerry and his foreign policy positions to criticize
> without going overboard as he does.
> 
> In fact, I could parse much more than is stated above, but I think you
> get the drift of my contention.
> 
> Mort
> 
> P.S. Bill Blum also does a job on Kerry (on ZNet), but he is much more
> solid, if less passionate.
>