[Peace-discuss] The election is not a choice, but a referendum

[Carl G. Estabrook]

A Romney-Obama presidential election is not a choice between alternate  
policies, foreign or domestic, economic or military. Romney would  
follow the same policies as Obama, who follows the same policies as  
Bush - war abroad, and Wall St. bailouts at home, all in the interests  
of the 1%.

No matter who is president, consistent US government policy in the era  
of Neoliberalism - now some 40 years old- can be altered only by an  
aroused public (cf. the civil-rights and anti-Vietnam war movements).

In these circumstances, the presidential election of 2012 is a  
referendum on the policies actually pursued by the Obama  
administration (in contrast to those he led people to believe he would  
follow). A vote for Obama cannot avoid representing some degree of  
approval and acceptance of those policies, and a vote against him (for  
anyone else) represents a rejection of those policies.

Of course it's best to find someone who stands for policies in the  
interest of the 99%, not the 1%, but neither 'major' party nominee  
will do so, so it's best to vote for a third party (such as the  
Greens). But the importance of the election lies not in the (non- 
existent) 'choice' but in its nature as a referendum on existing  
policies.

--CGE