[Peace-discuss] McCain, the peace candidate (on Pakistan)

[C. G. Estabrook]

It's not too hard to imagine circumstances (they may even exist now) when the 
peace movement should back a presidential candidate.

First, lesser-evil arguments do work. Second, even if the two business-party 
candidates are equally bad (i.e., so l-e arguments don't work), there's still 
Nader/McKinney/Paul/Barr. (See the excellent -- and authentically anti-war -- 
joint statement that Wayne posted).

It's a prudential (perhaps tactical) judgment as to whether the peace movement's 
support for any given candidate or none will further the anti-war cause, and it 
changes with circumstances. But I've thought for most of the last twenty years 
that support for the Democratic party candidate was a snare and a delusion for 
the peace movement -- a way to bleed off energy -- and I think it is now. (There 
may of course be lesser-evil arguments in favor voting for him in some places -- 
a different matter.) --CGE


Karen Medina wrote:
> Ricky [below] points out the very reason that the peace movement cannot, should 
> not, and must not back a presidential candidate. 
> 
> We, as individuals, can support a candidate, but we as a group cannot.
> 
> -karen medina
> ----
> Ricky Baldwin wrote: >These are the policies we need to oppose, whoever the 
> president is, and let anti-imperialist pressure get narrowed into electoral politrics 
> (sic) alone.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss