[Peace-discuss] Apology to Jenifer on lesser-evilism

[Phil Stinard]

Jenifer,

I berated Mort on lesser-evilism and caught you in the crossfire.  I'm sorry 
about that.  I thought that you were just being nasty at the time, but now I 
see that you wrote what you wrote out of frustration.  Let me give you a ray 
of hope on people voting for who they believe in rather than the lesser of 
two evils.  If progressives support Kerry blindly as the lesser of two 
evils, Kerry will have no reason to change or moderate his views.  He is 
taking progressives for granted while at the same time, the Democratic Party 
is trying to silence Nader's electoral power by keeping him off the ballot 
wherever they can get away with it.  If progressives don't cave in to the 
blackmail and scare tactics and vote for someone supports progressive 
ideals, the Democratic Party will have to take our views into consideration. 
  If he wants our votes he'll have to earn them.

I think we have honest disagreements about the effects of a Kerry win on the 
rest of the world.  I believe that Kerry still has an interest in 
restructuring the Mid-East, and that having European support for his 
policies might not be the best for the rest of the world either, but the 
bottom line is that we really don't know, so I respect our differences on 
that issue.

A lot can happen before the election, so although I feel doubtful about a 
Kerry victory, it could still happen.  Kerry doesn't seem to be budging on 
his approach to the war, though, and I doubt that he'll change, because if 
he comes out against the war now, he will appear weak.  He also can't appear 
to support liberal social values.  He's backed himself into a corner that 
will take a lot of courage and moral strength to get himself out of.  Either 
that, or Bush will have to implode, but personally I'd rather see Kerry win 
for the former reason.

Again, I'm sorry for sniping at you.  I'll be the first to sign up for a 
progressive post-election healing and therapy session :-)

--Phil

-------------------------------------------------------------

jencart jencart at mycidco.com
Sat Sep 18 07:11:54 CDT 2004

I'm sorry, Phil... yes, I was responding to the article, not to you 
personally.  The 2000 election was close, but Gore DID win the election.  If 
Nader hadn't been on the scene, the Bushites, couldn't have stolen the 
election, only FL.  I know I need to move on, but I'm stuck on "if only..."  
Hell will freeze over (w/ all the neocons, rt wingers, lotsa Demos, etc in 
residence) bef American voters will EVER elect a Nader-type -- they had a 
chance w/ Kucinich (whom even Nader calls "the real deal") and didn't take 
it, it wasn't even close.  Depressing, but a lesson in reality..... I think 
it's always gonna be a choice betw the lesser of two evils -- prob always 
has been -- assuming the world lasts that long.  W/ Bush in power, there's a 
real chance that it won't. Kerry has a better position on nuclear stuff, is 
less hated around the world, doesn't seem to want to restructure the Middle 
East.

Ken's right, Kerry's losing the election all by himself, or rather, by 
himself w/ the help of the rest of the dreadful, spineless, pro-Iraq war 
Demos.  But the comparison betw Bush and Kerry in the Sept FCNL (Friends 
Committee on National Legislation) newsletter shows a HUGE difference in the 
two candidates.  (It apparently went to press before Kerry (why? why? why?) 
said we were right to attack Iraq even w/o WMD, bec that bit of info is 
missing.)

And I also agree that if we can defeat Bush, we need to redouble our efforts 
in moving twds peace and justice globally.

Jenifer C.





--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenifer,

If Gore and Kerry could prove that they were better than George W. Bush,  
maybe people would vote for them on their own merits, and Ralph Nader's  
candidacy would not be an issue.  If Kerry wants the support of Naderites,  
he'd better start supporting their issues, don't you think?  Personally, I  
think it would be wonderful if all of the Kerry voters supported Ralph  
Nader, and if Ralph Nader beat Bush.

Every four years, people say that THIS election is the most critical one in  
history, and they throw away their principles.  They say that the NEXT  
election, things will be different, but of course, things remain the same.   
They will continue to remain the same until people are willing to take the  
risk of calling for a real change.

If you truly support progressive values, it doesn't make sense to insult  
Nader supporters who share the same values, does it?  It's very easy to  
torment one's friends.  It's much more difficult to convince your enemies,  
and the only way that Kerry is going to win is if people who currently  
support Bush change their minds.  There are a lot more Bush supporters who  
could be convinced to vote for Kerry than there are Nader supporters.  I  
think it would be more effective (and less destructive) to focus energy on  
them.

I already said that I'm voting for John Kerry for personal reasons, and I  
enumerated those.  It was a painful decision.  Maybe you didn't read what I  
wrote in its entirety, or maybe you're just callous.  Comments like "We  
wouldn't BE @ war if Naderites had voted for 'the lesser of two evils' in  
2000.  Duh," are probably meant to reinforce my decision to vote for Kerry,  
but it comes off as antagonistic.  I hope that this election doesn't cause  
deep wounds in the progressive movement that can't be healed.

--Phil



>Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:12:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>From: jencart at mailstation.com
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>

>
>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....
>
>Jenifer C.
>