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

[Morton K.Brussel]

Phil

Sorry to say, but I think you're going off the deep end. Reconsider  
your comment:

"To attempt to cajole, delude, or deceive anyone into voting for a  
candidate who does not represent their views is morally bankrupt."

Who is "deceiving, deluding, or cajoling"? On what basis?

Moreover, It's not a question of being pro-Kerry. It's a question of  
"régime change", getting rid of Bush. You seem to willfully ignore the  
difference, one that most people in the world see.

We had an opportunity to discuss our different views last Sunday in our  
presentation on the "Electoral Dilemma". For some reason inexplicable  
to me in view of your current hyper-sensitivity, you remained silent  
when we were eliciting views other than what were presented. Now you  
blow up because you can't take a fairly mild rebuke for use of what I  
consider a inapt adjective.

As to the remark about capitalism, Indeed I wasn't referring to you,  
but to a comment of another intemperate email recently having appeared  
on the list.

Mort

On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:28 PM, Phil Stinard wrote:

> Mort,
>
> Facile?  Did I call the pro-Kerry arguments facile?  Why yes, I did  
> call them facile!...  but I was being polite.  I intended to say  
> morally bankrupt.  To attempt to cajole, delude, or deceive anyone  
> into voting for a candidate who does not represent their views is  
> morally bankrupt.
>
> Let's briefly discuss the topic of the nastiness of the lesser-evilism  
> campaign.  A couple of days ago, after I wrote a very heartfelt piece  
> on why I was voting for Kerry (a position that I'm seriously  
> reconsidering now), Jenifer replied something to the effect that if  
> Naderites had voted for the lesser of two evils in 2000, we wouldn't  
> even have a war.  "Duh."  The "Duh" is a direct quote by the way--the  
> rest is a paraphrase.  Besides being factually dubious, it was just  
> plain nasty.
>
> Now, let's look at what you wrote:  "Some evidently think this of  
> negligible importance,
> indeed diversionary, as long as the capitalist system persists."  I  
> assume that you're not referring to my views, since what you're saying  
> has nothing to do with my views on the issue.  But, it's nasty anway,  
> because you're referring to someone whom you assume exists, obviously  
> some socialist, communist, or anarchist based on the allusion to  
> capitalism (although are we to assume that if the capitalist system  
> doesn't persist, that your views will then receive broad acceptance?).  
>  Maybe it's more incoherent than nasty....  The point is that when  
> confronted with the flaws in their logic and the bankruptcy of their  
> ideas, the desperate Kerry-supporting lesser-evilists get nasty, and  
> sometimes even go ballistic.  I got yelled at over dinner once for  
> sticking up for my views and not being steamrolled by a Kerry  
> supporter.  "What?!?!?!?  It's like voting for Bush!  What about the  
> Supreme Court!?!?!?!?!?"  Oh, the dinner host looked like he wanted to  
> crawl under a table.  I didnt' start the argument, though.  When asked  
> by someone if I would vote for Kerry, I just said no, and the other  
> person got nasty.
>
> Now let's look at Chomsky, he's not quite so nasty:  "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.'"
>
> It's a nice appeal to people's emotions, but it's not a rational,  
> logical argument, and a debating coach would laugh him off the team.   
> I'm surprised he hasn't accused Nader of clubbing baby seals.  Chomsky  
> is using some of the same techniques of manufacturing consent that he  
> decries.  Don't get me wrong, I think that Chomsky is one of the  
> greatest progressive thinkers of our times, but he's not a God.  Even  
> Chomsky can make mistakes.
>
> So, if you want to keep arguing for Kerry, go ahead until you're blue  
> in the face, but if you're alienating me, I'm sure you're alienating  
> others.  I hope that the gashes in the progressive movement (still  
> open and bleeding four years after the 2000 election, judging by  
> Jenifer's comment) can heal after the election is over.
>
> --Phil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -----------------
>
> The Supreme Court, and "lesser evilism"
> Morton K.Brussel brussel4 at insightbb.com
> Fri Sep 17 20:09:01 CDT 2004
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>