[Peace-discuss] Does the election matter?

[Morton K.Brussel]

The whole world, it seems, wants to see the Bush junta repudiated. It 
would be a sign that Americans are not so mean spirited, selfish, 
complaisant, or ignorant as it seems, an admission that our past 
policies have been wrong.

The whole world is implicated and hence would like to vote in our 
election. Kerry would be a sure winner, largely because of our imperial 
actions and designs. So, the importance of the election is vital to 
them, and ought to be so for us.

There certainly are large  segments of our population, working class 
and minority, that have been turned off to voting, feeling that it 
doesn't concern them---the two parties representing the same crooked 
self serving interests---but there is a lot of ignorance as to the 
consequences of the vote. Our culture and the mass media–radio, the 
press, and TV– are largely responsible. Sister Ammons yesterday at the 
progressive get-together told us something about this and of her 
determination to inform her people and then get out the vote. She 
clearly thinks that the election is of great importance.

To deprecate the election is to turn off voters all the more. Do we 
want to encourage this?

The election should also be important to AWARE. Hence we should 
distribute those leaflets Randall is supplying! Despite all of Kerry's 
weaknesses and crass--I would say stupid--stances, and the stark 
deficiencies of our current two-party system, there is still a 
tremendous amount riding on this election. Chomsky, in a rather 
backhanded way, admits this. One need only seriously think about the 
court system and the civil rights decisions it will impose for the next 
30 or so years. There are other issues as well.

We can be anti-war and anti-Bush, and acquiesce to Kerry strategically 
during this time, still keeping our eyes focussed on the ultimate 
objectives that Carl advocates.

MKB


On Oct 11, 2004, at 12:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> [1] That of course is what Chomsky has been saying all along (and I
> agree). E.g., the remark quoted in last week's News notes:
>
>         "...elections are a matter of secondary significance:
>         what's far more important is to build a democratic culture,
>         in which they will be meaningful.  But they are not of zero
>         significance.  In a swing state, anything but a vote for Kerry
>         is in effect a vote for Bush.  Those who want to help give the
>         Bush crowd a mandate can do so if they like, but they should 
> not
>         delude themselves about what they are doing."
>
> Chomsky implies, I think correctly, that altho' elections are not 
> without
> importance, the real task of a group like AWARE is to inform and 
> agitate
> to bring pressure to bear on whoever is in office. Domestic opposition 
> to
> the Vietnam war succeeded (to the extent that it did) not by winning
> elections -- it didn't -- but by pressuring office-holders, whoever 
> they
> were.
>
> [2] I meant to combat the stupid-American-electorate argument. E.g.,
> Chomsky observes that "Years ago it was shown by leading political
> scientists that non-voters -- about half the population -- have a
> socioeconomic profile rather like those who vote for labor-based and
> social democratic parties in Europe, but feel that they are not
> represented in the US. In 2004, more appears to be at stake and 
> interest
> is greater than in 2000, but there is a continuation of the long 
> process
> of disengagement, mainly on the part of poor and working class 
> Americans."
>
> [3] My subject line may have been needlessly provocative. The implied
> answer is "Yes, but you can see how the majority of Americans can 
> conclude
> that the outcome won't affect them much."
>
> Chomsky points out, "On the eve of the year 2000 presidential 
> elections, a
> large majority of the population dismissed it as unrelated to their
> interests and concerns, regarding it as a game played by wealthy
> contributors and the Public Relations industry, which trains 
> candidates to
> focus on 'values' and 'personal qualities,' and to keep away from 
> issues."
>
> Regards, CGE
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Morton K.Brussel wrote:
>
>> ...Chomsky followers, note the quote:
>>
>> "There are some differences between the candidates, but they are not
>> very far-reaching, particularly in foreign affairs. In a system of
>> immense power, however, slight differences can translate into outcomes
>> of considerable significance, both in foreign affairs and on domestic
>> issues."
>>
>> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>