[Peace-discuss] Kerry-Nader discussion

[Thomas Mackaman]

Those, including Chomsky, who now call for a vote for Kerry, 
will have to answer for it should their man be elected.  
There is not much mystery as to what Kerry will do when 
elected.  He has promised to increase and continue the US 
occupation of Iraq.  While paying lip service to consensus-
making with US "allies" (aka imperialist rivals), he has 
also promised to continue the Bush doctrine of preemptive, 
unilateral "defense."  He has attempted to mark out a space 
to the rigth of Bush on Israel/Palestine.  And so on.  

In terms of social justice issues, there will be no gains or 
small victories with the mega-wealthy Kerry.  At most, 
underlying such arguments is the typical deadend logic that 
Kerry will somehow be "less bad" than Bush.  On the 
contrary, someone with Kerry's "liberal" credentials could 
roll back what remains of the welfare state more effectively 
than Bush Jr.  Clinton showed this with so-called welfare 
reform.  In all likliehood, a Kerry administration would be 
much more effective than Bush at dismantling social 
security.  And who better than Kerry, the war hero and 
former war-protester, to reinstate the draft?

There is understandable disgust and hatred toward Bush and 
the extreme right.  But Bush is a symptom, not the cause, of 
the crisis which is now engulfing the US and the world.  And 
again, recent history shows us that support for the 
Democratic Party in no way slows the rightward drift of US 
politics.  Quite the opposite-- Clinton, Gore, and the 
Democrats offered no serious resistance to efforts by the 
extreme right to undo the results of three elections, with 
success in the last case resulting in the election of Bush 
Jr.  Indeed, the Democrats have assiduously hidden and been 
party to the central danger confronting the American 
people:  the far-reaching attack against democratic rights 
now underway.  

Of course, as defenders of the profit system, the Democrats 
cannot call things as they are.  They are beholden to the 
same financial oligarchy that backs Bush and the 
Republicans.  Ds and Rs share all the major goals in terms 
of foreign policy and the destruction of the welfare state; 
at most what is at stake in the election is a question of 
tactics, and the selection of whichever defender of the 
profit system, Bush or Kerry, the financial elite have 
determined will be more effective in executing its policies. 

Why else does Kerry refuse to tap into the enormous anti-war 
sentiment in US society, with most polls indicating a 
majority of Americans now think Iraq was a mistake, and 
nearly half wishing for the return of US troops? For all 
intents and purposes, after vanquishing Dean, Kerry has 
become Joseph Lieberman, the candidate who did the worst in 
the primaries.  The essential significance of the promotion 
of Kerry over Dean was to deny the possibility that this 
election could, in any remote way, become a referendum on 
the Iraq War.  The Democratic Party nomination shows, more 
clearly than ever, the fundamentally anti-democratic nature 
of the two-party system.

The Democratic party, as an agency of reform in the US, is a 
corpse.  The urgent task facing working class Americans is 
to throw off this suffocating political dead weight.  The 
Socialist Equality Party is intervening in the November 
elections to advance this perspective.  

The most urgent political task is not to beat Bush at all 
costs, but to break out of the straightjacket of the two 
party system and work for the political independece of the 
US working class.  

For those who have tired of the impasse of two-party 
politics, I suggest the articles linked below:  

Best regards,
Tom   

Election statement:  
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/stat-a28.shtml 

Professor Chomsky comes in from the cold
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/chom-
a05.shtml