[Peace-discuss] The Supreme Court, and "lesser evilism"

[Morton K.Brussel]

At the risk of having these arguments called "facile", I call your 
attention to an article(on Common Dreams)  by Norman Solomon, also 
facile (?), which brings up the danger to our justice/court system of a 
Bush victory. Some evidently think this of negligible importance, 
indeed diversionary, as long as the capitalist system persists.

I append a few quotes from Solomon's article, which, even if 
repetitious, are worthy of repetition.

For the full article see: 
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0917-05.htm

MKB

"The big media themes about the 2004 presidential campaign have reveled 
in vague rhetoric and flimsy controversies. But little attention has 
focused on a matter of profound importance: Whoever wins the race for 
the White House will be in a position to slant the direction of the 
U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come.…
…
As opponents of abortion rights, civil liberties, gay rights and other 
such causes work to gain a second term for George W. Bush, they try not 
to stir up a mass-media ruckus that might light a fire under 
progressives about the future of the Supreme Court and the rest of the 
federal judiciary. Likewise, those on the left who don't want to back 
Kerry even in swing states are inclined to dodge, or fog over, what 
hangs in the balance. Kerry is hardly a champion of a progressive legal 
system, but the contrast between his centrist orientation and the 
right-wing extremism of the Bush-Cheney regime should be obvious. It's 
too easy to opt for imagined purity while others will predictably have 
to deal with very dire consequences.

  "The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is 
the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is 
huge," Noam Chomsky said in a recent interview with David Barsamian. 
"There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they 
have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they're 
shafting them in their economic and social policies, you've got to make 
them think you're doing something for them. And throwing red meat to 
that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means 
violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means 
harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don't have 
that constituency. They would like to have it, but they're never going 
to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, 
women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference."

  Chomsky added: "These may not look like huge differences, but they 
translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who 
says 'I don't care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and 
working people in the country, 'I don't care if your lives are 
destroyed. I don't care whether you are going to have a little money to 
help your disabled mother. I just don't care, because from my elevated 
point of view I don't see much difference between them.' That's a way 
of saying, 'Pay no attention to me, because I don't care about you.' 
Apart from its being wrong, it's a recipe for disaster if you're hoping 
to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

  Norman Solomon is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of "Target Iraq: What 
the News Media Didn't Tell You." His columns and other writings can be 
found at www.normansolomon.com.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3778 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20040917/645d1c4f/attachment.bin