[Peace-discuss] re: lesser evilism

[Tom Mackaman]

Jen writes:  
 
"We wouldn't BE @ war if Naderites had voted for "the lesser of two 
evils" in 2000.  Duh.  And if Naderites throw the election to Bush again, 
there goes what's left of our democracy.... think Supreme Court 
appointees....".
 
Jen, I must point out that you quite explicitly are laying the blame for the Iraq war at the feet of the Green Party and Ralph Nader.  Do you really mean to do that?  I can think of many culprits, but the Greens are not among them.  The Democratic Party, for example, would be higher up the list.     
 
Your note makes two false assumptions.  First, that Nader, the Greens, and their supporters are responsible for the loss of Florida, and therefore the whole 2000 election.  
 
This is nonsense that the Democrats have been trying to push off on us for four years.  
 
Let me pose to you a series of questions:
 
Why, Jen, do you attack the left, rather than the Republicans, who stole the election?  Do you *know* that the Rs wouldn't have stolen it had the Greens not run?  And why not blame the Democrats for capitulating to Bush and co. without a real fight?  Why not lament the Ds inability to appeal to the millions who decided not to vote in Florida alone, correctly understanding that neither party spoke to their needs?  Why not lament the system that disenfranchised tens of thousands of black voters, both ex-con and not, in Florida?.... This tendency to attack the left, rather than the right, is growing within the ranks of the Democratic Party and the erstwhile liberal millieu that surrounds it.  The recent Public I article by Edwards is cut from the same cloth.    
 
Second, your letter assumes, counterfactually, that a Gore administration would have stayed out of Iraq.  Let's look at the record: (1)  The Clinton administration (Gore had some position therein) enforced the sanctions and bombing that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; (2) The Clinton administration adopted, as official US policy, the concept of regime change in Iraq; (3) The Democratic Party never challenged any of the lies upon which the Bush administration's case for war was made; (4) The Democratic Party reps and senators voted overwhelmingly to authorize the unilateral attack on Iraq, with Kerry and Edwards both voting in favor; (5) Kerry has promised to continue the war as long as it takes--"failure is not an option" he says; (6)  Kerry now says, even knowing what he now knows about the false claims of WMD, that **he would have still voted for the war.***  (7) On foreign policy, Kerry criticizes Bush from the right, promising more doting support of Israel, accusing Bush
 of being "soft" on North Korea, ignoring Latin America, etc.  (8) Kerry promises to maintain the Bush doctrine, that the US has a "right" to make unilateral attacks without the endorsement of the UN.    
 
My apologies to those in the "Anybody" crowd, but it is completely incoherent to advocate peace and call on people to vote for a candidate, and a party, of war.  The turn toward militarism is the shared policy of the two parties, and it is a deep historical problem, not the brain child of this or that politician. 
 
 
Yours,
 
Tom
 
    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20040916/87710a5d/attachment.html