[Peace-discuss] Lesser evilism
Matt Reichel
mattreichel at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 16 12:46:27 CDT 2004
The analysis here is wonderful, though the result is unfortunate.
A Kerry victory would be disastrous from a Leftist perspective for
serveral reasons: the prime one having been mentioned by Phil. The recent
split between Western Europe and the U.S. that Bush has engineered has been
a good thing from the perspective of the oppressed people of the world who
have had to endure several centuries of Western Imperialism. Indeed, the
Washington consensus has even broken down as the IMF and World Bank have
turned into institutions that are ready and willing to call the U.S. out on
being a hypocrite for following fiscal policies that run contrary to what
they dump down the throats of the Developing World.
I am in France right now, and I think it's fantastic being here at a
time when everyone hates America's president. It is more honest. They hate
America's policies and identities, but take it out on Bush. If Kerry wins,
nothing will change, but people might actually think we have a better
president. That would be disaster.
THat said: I will be in Paris in November, and I will not be voting.
Even the "good" candidates (Obama?? Kucinich??...) ultimately have to take
an oath to the U.S. constitution if elected. This ancient, racist and
classist document ought have been entirely overturned in favor of a new
republic long ago. Any government that takes individual liberty as more
important than social welfare and comradery is distasteful from a Leftist
perspective.
Furthermore, the way that the Democrats have run an anti-democratic
campaign to erase Nader from ballots in battleground states is putrid. How
can you support such an awful party that takes your donations of support and
invests them in engineering an American dictatorship (the perfect
dictatorship, where people go and vote and think that it means anything.)
And you needn't worry about the Democrats losing Illinois. They will
steal it again, as they've done consistently since King Daley I brought
Chicago home for Kennedy in '68. This is why the Dems didn't contest Florida
more ferociously in 2000: they didn't want the Republicans to counter with:
"What about Chicago? What about Wisconsin? Michigan? New Mexico?....etc"
Sort of like divorce proceedings where the man doesn't bring up the
woman's cocaine addiction for fear that she brings up his gambling
addiction.
ANd as far as domestic issues go, since I know that everyone's afraid
that Bush will appoint a bunch of christian fundamentalist judges who will
engineer an American police state dictatorship.... Roe vs. Wade will not
be overturned as a result of 4 more years of Bush. The dems and republicans
both need roe vs. wade so that everyone in the U.S.A. can go and vote on the
issue of abortion, instead of (oh, I don't know) a living wage, war and
peace, feeding and clothing the homeless, eliminating third world debt,
stopping union-busting, etc..
I apologize for strong words. I get worked up over this "Anybody but
Bush" disease that's spreading like the plague through the states.
-
matt
>From: "Phil Stinard" <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>To: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Lesser evilism
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:20:47 -0500
>
>Hello,
>
>I've quoted a couple of messages from Mort below on supporting Kerry in the
>Novemenber election. I don't know how appropriate it is to lobby AWARE
>members to support a pro-war, pro-US interventionism candidate like Kerry,
>but we're all adults here and can make our own decisions. In an "ideal
>democracy," people would normally support a candidate who shares their
>views rather than someone who doesn't. It takes convoluted reasoning to do
>otherwise, but then again, we don't have an "ideal democracy". Kerry is a
>pro-war candidate, and he takes minority support for granted. It makes
>more sense for members of an anti-war anti-racism group to OPPPOSE Kerry.
>I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here.
>
>I found the following statement on HIV/AIDS on one of the candidate's web
>site:
>
>"Countries that have struggled for decades to improve are faced with
>weakened economies, debilitated military forces, and a deteriorating
>capacity to govern effectively and cope with rising health care costs.
>These countries could well become the home base for terrorists or criminal
>elements looking for a safe haven or even for those trading in weapons of
>mass destruction."
>
>You know who said this, right? It was John Kerry, of course. No one
>should be surprised. He hasn't shown himself to be anything other than a
>neoconservative, neoliberal lapdog. In my view, the rest of the world is
>equally screwed whether Bush or Kerry wins, and even the God-like Chomsky
>admits as much. I'll go further than Chomsky and say that the world is
>worse off if Kerry wins because we'll have the European Union's support to
>beat up on thirld world countries in a Kerry administration. More people
>may die overall as a result of Kerry's policies, but we just don't know.
>Be that as it may, Chomsky says that Kerry might be better on domestic US
>issues, and he may be right, if you can trust what Kerry says. Let me
>quote Mort: "As Chomsky has emphasized, the differences may be small, but
>they can have very large effects on the lives of ordinary people." Chomsky
>has a lot of faith in the Butterfly Effect and chaos theory, and "ordinary
>people" remains ambiguously undefined. Let me define it for him as US
>citizens, if he's talking about a positive effect, of course.
>
>Here's another one of Mort's points, speaking of Kerry: "In fact, we don't
>know exactly what he will do, and that provides more hope than we can
>expect from Bush et al." I agree with Mort that we don't know what Kerry
>will do, and that's what makes supporting Kerry such a pathetic option.
>The ONLY thing that I admire about Bush is at least you know where he
>stands on every issue. If you don't know where he stands on a particular
>issue, then assume the worst, because that's usually correct. Although
>it's a pathetic point in favor of Kerry, it's something to hold on to, no
>matter how flimsy. I'm only talking about domestic issues now, because
>it's already been well-argued (and accepted by Chomsky, no less!) that
>there's no major difference in international policy.
>
>Before I say how I'm going to vote in the election, let me make the
>following prediction: Kerry will lose to George W. Bush, and he may even
>lose Illinois, unless something major happens to tilt the balance in favor
>of Kerry. The average US voter doesn't seem to care about deaths in Iraq,
>not even of US soldiers, doesn't care about the economy, doesn't care about
>education. US voters seem to care (and I say "seem", because it's
>inexplicable and alien to me) about image, and about being reassured, and
>Bush is better at that than Kerry. Kerry looks like he doesn't want to
>win. He only gives half-hearted replies to Bush's lies and
>distortions--maybe deep down he believes them and even shares them.
>
>So, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by choosing between Bush and
>Kerry doesn't sound like an appropriate topic for AWARE, and as an anti-war
>anti-racism group, AWARE members should really try to support candidates
>that support those ideals. The decision that I've made for this election
>has nothing to do with either candidate's position on war or racism. I
>despise Bush's policies and think that he is evil, and I think that Kerry
>will also be an evil president. I SHOULD vote for a third party candidate
>who accurately reflects my views and who supports world peace. I had been
>planning to do so all along. Only by voting for good third-party
>alternatives will the two-party stranglehold be broken. Both parties are
>beholden to corporate interests, and those interests are incompatible with
>individual liberties. To make this short and end my agonizing and
>equivocating in print, I'm going to vote for Kerry because a Bush victory
>could mean the death of a loved one with HIV. The quote from the Kerry
>website about weapons of mass destruction is from the beginning of a mostly
>appalling statement on HIV/AIDS in which the Kerry campaign goes out of its
>way to not actually mention helping anyone with HIV/AIDS until near the
>end, where it speaks of increasing funding for the ADAP program, which
>provides funding for the exorbitantly expensive HIV medication. Under
>Bush, money is running out, and people could be cut, which means that they
>will develop AIDS and die. Kerry provides a glimmer of hope, and I think
>that he will follow through, because the cost of ADAP is a drop in the
>bucket compared to the defense budget. Bush just doesn't care--all
>assistance programs are dying. So, call me selfish and hypocritical. I
>admit it, and I feel sick and awful about the choice I have to make in this
>election.
>
>This email is a journey in self-discovery, so I apologize to Mort for
>taking him to task when the end result is the same--I'm voting for Kerry.
>My disagreement is in the facile manner in which the arguments are made,
>when no one really knows whether a Kerry victory is better for world peace.
> Voting in this election is a leap of faith. I think that each person
>should analyze the issues and the candidate's positions. Check their
>websites--they're very informative in what they say and in what they DON'T
>say. Then decide whether you believe them, whether they have reasons to
>lie about what they are saying. Decide what's at stake for you personally,
>for the US, and for the world, and then decide what's most important, and
>make the appropriate decision.
>
>--Phil
>
>
>>Message: 2
>>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:36:19 -0500
>>From: Morton K.Brussel <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] here's an opinion that might interest
>>To: Susan Davis <sgdavis at uiuc.edu>
>>Cc: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>Message-ID: <22BFF6CD-0746-11D9-B4B6-000502314E22 at insightbb.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>>
>>It seems to me that Jacobs isn't saying anything new about what the
>>anti-war movement wants; his demands are quite congruent with those of
>>the "movement", as, e.g., represented by UFPJ. What he is saying is
>>don't worry about the election, since it will make no difference
>>insofar as war and peace is concerned; capitalism is the culprit.
>>
>>Is promoting the revolution a feasible/reasonable policy now?
>>
>>That he sees no difference between the Dems and the Pubs shows to me
>>that he doesn't see very well. As Chomsky has emphasized, the
>>differences may be small, but they can have very large effects on the
>>lives of ordinary people. Kerry I believe does offer us some respite
>>from cowboy madness, and a slight change in direction. In fact, we
>>don't know exactly what he will do, and that provides more hope than we
>>can expect from Bush et al.
>>
>>My 2¢, MKB
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 3
>>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:05:32 -0500
>>From: Morton K.Brussel <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Petition from former Nader supporters.
>>To: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>>Message-ID: <991C15F0-0752-11D9-B4B6-000502314E22 at insightbb.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>This petition/letter, from former Nader supporters, is circulating
>>around. It will not be well received by Nader, St. Clair, Cockburn,
>>Harrison, Arnove, and others.
>>MKB
>>
>>I hope you will join me in signing this petition calling on
>>progressives to vote to defeat George W. Bush in this year's
>>presidential election:
>>
>> http://www.Vote2StopBush.org/join.html
>>
>>Many progressive activists are urging voters this year to support
>>Kerry/Edwards in all swing states. Progressive votes for Kerry in swing
>>states may prove decisive in attaining the vital goal of defeating
>>George Bush. While progressives disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq
>>and other issues, I believe that removing Bush from office should be
>>the top priority in the 2004 presidential election.
>>
>> This approach is endorsed by leading progressive activists, including
>>most of the public endorsers of Ralph Nader's campaign for president
>>four years ago -- people such as Noam Chomsky, Phil Donahue, Barbara
>>Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Bonnie Raitt, Tim
>>Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Cornel West and Howard Zinn. The "Vote to
>>Stop Bush" website lists more than 70 members of the "Nader 2000
>>Citizens Committee" who this time around are urging voters to vote for
>>John Kerry in swing states. You can read the full list here:
>>
>> http://www.Vote2StopBush.org
>>
>>Every vote matters, and this is a crucial election. Please join me in
>>working to defeat George W. Bush.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>>------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list