[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Ron Paul, Electoral Politics, and the Workers' Movement

Wed Feb 1 17:11:35 CST 2012

I think that deciding what to do in the voting booth, as an individual, is
probably the most insignificant of political acts. It's one tally mark out
of millions, and with the electoral college in presidential races, the act
is often meaningless. Even in local races, a tally mark out of thousands
isn't that much better. There were times when I missed an election and
afterward thought nothing of it, confirming as always that my individual
electoral participation didn't matter one iota in the outcome. Maybe that's
why we need to sanctify voting on election day with one of those little red
stickers - to provide it with some meaning and convince people it is
important.

My view is that it is only through our political interaction in the
electoral process, through our collective political activity in movements,
where elections could at times have some meaning. What is much more
important, I believe, is how we are organizing in groups to support the
ideas and strategies behind what an independent 'movement candidate' says.
So I think our focus should be on the voting decisions of our groups and
organizations - who we are organizing with - and not on who we, as
individuals, happen to do in the confines of the voting booth.

Related to the above point, I want to argue that our groups and
organizations should prioritize, above elections, building (and
maintaining) social movement activity, and if there's a candidate out there
who is a social movement candidate, then electoral activity can be a
complement to that project. I can't imagine any candidate in any of the 2
business parties that would be someone to galvanize around in building a
broad social movement, and am surprised to hear people saying that one
should not abstain from even Republican Party primary participation. For
this to have any meaning for me, we would need to advocate that our peace
and justice organizations enter the Republican Party and work for Ron Paul.
Does anyone think that Ron Paul is going to help build - in the slightest -
the kind of movement we need? Is it merely about having a business
politician say something in the press against the war and for civil
liberties, when he's atrocious on every other issue? I really don't see how
individual or group support for Ron Paul would help get this message out
more, except to tie our message to a backward political program and promote
the idea that we need saviors (in this case, an incompetent, sure-to-fail
savior), not a movement.

On Carl's support for protest voting, I think that's commendable. But
again, if we don't coordinate movement activity in favor of a candidate,
with education and networking, what does it matter if we individually cast
a lone protest vote? Maybe it will register and some notice will be taken,
maybe it won't register at all. I think, generally, we have greatly
exaggerated the importance of our individual ballot, probably
overcompensating for the absence of any real say in political
decision-making.

--- Corey

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Brussel Morton K. <mkb3 at mac.com> wrote:

> I have grave concerns for each of the possible mainstream candidates in
> the coming presidential election, or for that matter in the primaries. I
> would have liked other alternatives, but they are not in the offing. I see
> no outlet for those like me in this corrupted system. Hence, in the voting
> booth of the "election", the best I can do is to show a little support for
> one of the "third" parties, assuming they hold important positions that I
> favor.
>
> I think the post by Robert Meeropol is worth considering, even if not
> comprehensive:
>
> *Subj: Why the son of Ethel & Julius Rosenberg is "standing outside the 2
> Parties"*
>
>  Why I won't vote for Obama in November
>
> Submitted by Robert Meeropol on Thu, 01/05/2012
>
> I have no intention of voting for Obama in November. Based on what I’ve
> learned about environmental sustainability and the military industrial
> complex, as well as a series of discussions I’ve had with my wife, Elli,
> about this over the last year, I’ve come to understand that:
>
> 1. We are careening towards a series of environmental catastrophes in the
> next 50 years which will substantially diminish our planet's ability to
> support human and many other forms of life. These disasters we face are
> likely to cut the productive power of the planet by more than a factor of
> ten. (Deep Green Resistance<http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCOI=58322100590170>,
> Aric McBay & Lierre Keith, Seven Stories Press, 2011, Pp 207-211.)
>
> 2. The United States military is the largest single source of pollution on
> the planet. The military is exempt from environmental regulation.
> Tightening clean water and air regulations is fine, but it will accomplish
> relatively little if the military is not subject to these limits. The
> demands of maintaining our empire pose the greatest environmental threat to
> the earth. (The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism<http://www.akpress.org/2009/items/greenzoneakpress>,
> Barry Sanders, A.K.Press, 2009)
>
> 3. In order to prevent the looming planetary climate disaster,
> environmental reality must take precedence over our military and security
> concerns. This shift will never take place unless we pull back from our
> empire and dismantle the military industrial complex.
>
> 4. President Obama will do neither because he is a defender of our empire
> and allied with the military industrial complex.
>
> The next few generations face grave danger from drastic climate change and
> resource depletion. Right now there are seven billion people living on the
> planet. According to the authors of Deep Green Resistance and other leading
> environmental scientists, this number is already well beyond the
> sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. I suspect many of those
> reading this will discount this last sentence, but I fear such rejection
> stems from wishful thinking rather than informed analysis.
>
> This isn't just about politics, it is intensely personal. My granddaughter
> was born in 2008. If this analysis is correct, the lives of over 90% of her
> generation will be jeopardized if we maintain the current primacy of the
> military industrial complex.
>
> Even if Obama appoints better Supreme Court Justices, halts the Tar Sands
> Pipeline<http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/>,
> and extends unemployment benefits, four more years of unfettered domination
> by the military machine trumps it all. Nothing in President Obama's record
> indicates that he will deviate from the dictates of empire. How could I
> possibly vote for someone to run the country whose policy priorities place
> my granddaughter's life, as well as those of your children and
> grandchildren, in such danger? Given this reality, it is of little
> consequence to me if the Republican alternative is worse.
>
> I'm standing outside the two-party system because neither Democrats nor
> Republicans will challenge the military industrial complex and take on the
> direst threat to us all. I hope it isn't too late, and I will act as if it
> is not even if it might be, because despair serves no one. The last year
> has demonstrated the rapidity with which masses of people can transform the
> debate, become ungovernable, and even bring hope of a new world order.
>
> My generation took on the military industrial complex during the war in
> Vietnam. We were the first to recognize the threat to our world’s
> environment. We held the first “Earth Day.” Now, young people all over the
> world are taking action. It is their turn to direct the path of this new
> endeavor to revolutionize our priorities. An innovative effort to change
> the world is underway and it is time for all of us who care about peace,
> social justice and our environment to get re-engaged. Whether it be
> organizing or third party activities, I hope we won't waste this
> opportunity by working, contributing or voting for Obama when there are so
> many better things to do with our time and money.
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:14 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
> Unless you're going to eschew electoral politics entirely - a not
> unreasonable position, but one that entails either quiescence, or
> finding extra-parliamentary ways to oppose the US government's crimes
> - you've got to decide what you're going to do in the voting booth.
> Ron Paul is simply the only major party candidate who opposes Obama's
> murders, bail-outs of Wall St, and violations of the Constitution; all
> the others approve.
>
> It's true that our sham democracy provides us with little chance to
> express disapproval: Illinois' electoral votes will almost undoubtedly
> be delivered to Obama. Given the business parties' tight control of
> the ballot, we'll at best be able to register a protest by voting for,
> say, Jill Stein (Green Party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice Party). But
> in March the primaries will occur, and one can take a Republican
> ballot and vote for the only Republican or Democrat who's calling for
> a reversal of Obama's military, economic, and anti-Constitutional
> policies.
>
>    --CGE
>
>    "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the
> nominating."
>    --William "Boss" Tweed (1823-78), head of Tammany Hall, the
> Democratic Party's machine in New York; the very model of a modern
> major politician
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>
>
> Most of us already know that Ron Paul is a reactionary on economic
>
> policies, essentially isolationist in foreign policy (although I'm
>
> not sure about how he would treat oil and resource extraction
>
> corporations, e.g., how to protect them for our national interest),
>
> and a "libertarian" on certain civil rights, (excepting women's
>
> choice issues)—i.e., let anyone do mostly what they want,
>
> discriminate, carry guns wherever, get rid of public education, any
>
> social or health safety net,  ….  On the other hand, It might not be
>
> a bad idea to advertise/promote his anti-war foreign policy
>
> statements vis-a vis Obama and the other Repubs in the interest of
>
> popular education, but how could anyone with a humane social concern
>
> domestically ever vote for him? The havoc and misery his domestic
>
> policies would entail is inestimable. As Carl's opponent, John
>
> Reimann, in Dave Johnson's program noted, a dying off (call it
>
> murder?) of large segments of our populations could be expected in
>
> such an advent. Like in Russia after the USSR was dissolved. If you
>
> look at the details, it is simply crazy.
>
>
>
> My impressions from that fascinating program.
>
>
> --mkb
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 5:50 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>
>
> And here's an account of what John was upset about: <
> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
>
> .
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 7:43 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday 21 January, David Johnson, Bob Paleczny, Bill Gorrell,
>
> and Tom Thomas hosted a debate - "Ron Paul, Electoral Politics, and
>
> the Workers' Movement" - between Carl Estabrook of News from
>
> Neptune
>
> and labor activist John Reimann on the Illinois World Labor Hour.
>
>
> Thanks to David who arranged it, and Bob, who made it available
>
> online. The first hour of the show is at <
> http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/57180
>
> - the debate begins in the last third; the second hour,
>
> containing
>
> the majority of the debate, is at <
> http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/57182
>
> .
>
>
>
> --CGE
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>    Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/join
>    (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>    sf-core-digest at yahoogroups.com
>    sf-core-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    sf-core-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120201/2fa5ddf0/attachment-0001.html>