The Left and the Elections

The Left and the Elections

Mon May 10 20:52:35 EDT 2004

Christopher Phelps, Stephanie Luce, and Johanna Brenner

(Christopher Phelps and Stephanie Luce are editors, and Johanna Brenner an associate editor, of Against the Current. All are members of Solidarity. This article is submitted to Portside by the authors.)

Two electoral paths will be taken by those left of center this year, and all the spilled ink in the world won't affect the choices.

Appalled by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USA Patriot Act, wholesale destruction of the environment, contempt for democracy, blurring of lines of church and state, erosion of reproductive rights, right-wing stacking of the judiciary, and tax bonanzas for the rich - appalled, in short, by the most reactionary administration in U.S. history - many on the left this year will vote for Kerry and against Bush, simply to repudiate, if only symbolically, the conservative juggernaut.

A much smaller part of the left, knowing that a tiny stratum of wealthy corporate executives, lawyers, and lobbyists holds the real power in Democratic and Republican circles alike, aware that both major parties are committed to a U.S.-dominated global empire, cognizant of the proximity of neoliberalism to conservatism, and keenly mindful that the rich-poor gap widened hugely under Clinton (who signed NAFTA, welfare reform, and prison-expansive crime legislation), will uphold independent political action. They will vote for Nader, or whomever the Greens nominate, if only to register symbolic resistance to the corporate corruption of mainstream politics. Maybe they'll even vote for one of the miniscule radical parties that linger on the ballot.

Our position is that a reasonable case can be made for either of these left-wing responses to a baleful political situation that will not be resolved electorally.

http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/Week-of-Mon-20040510/005900.html

http://www.portside.org/

That is simply because people got rich under Clintons leadership.
Let's have a reality check here shall we?

Here is some of what happened under Bill Clinton:

Over 21 Million New Jobs. 21.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the economy has added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment Is Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.nemployment is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in March 2000 -- nearly the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5 percent for 33 months in a row. African-American unemployment has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000 -- the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in March 2000 -- and in the last year has been at the lowest rate on record. For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March -- nearly the lowest since 1953.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History. * This also includes the highest number of blacks in the nation to buy homes * In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

There are several other problems with this article, but I thought I'd start with this one.

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/bill-legacy2.html

Yeah, the Clinton years really sucked :eyes:

and how it has created so many jobs.... overseas!

:eyes:

Did we mention welfare reform?

Plan Colombia?

Attack on Yugoslavia?

The million Iraqi children that died due to Clinton's sanctions?

The 8-years of bombings of Iraq under Clinton?

How about Clinton's embrace of the GOP's Cuba policy?

Clinton may look great when compared to the current occupant of the White House, but he sure was not the darling that some liberals see through their rose colored glasses.

thing or two to piss you off?

A few short points, because I lost my long winded reply.

Clinton did not impose sanctions the UN did under the rule of Bush one.

Nafta has many regs that are not currently enforced, so we can't measure it's effect properly.

Welfare Reform had many positive outcomes (I grew up in that system, and had two sisters come off the system under WR.) Bush is returning people to welfare roles. Clinton gave people opportunity to get the hell out of that system of slavery.

There is more but instead, I will leave you with a quote from Granny D.

In that regard, let me urge those who think Mr. Nader is a better candidate than Mr. Kerry not let their high opinions of their own political correctness cause the deaths of thousands of people in the world over the next four years and the loss of our civil liberties, which would be the real result of such selfish narcissism. According to Bruce Ackerman's wonderful editorial in the New York Times last week, Mr. Nader can avoid risking this outcome if he will name the same Electoral College electors as Mr. Kerry. Votes will register for Mr. Nader, but they will apply to Mr. Kerry if Mr. Nader has insufficient votes to win. It is a way Mr. Nader can, in this way, create a sort of Instant Runoff Voting system by a clever use of the system.

If he will not do this, I cannot vote for him, in good conscience. For I do not want to face the survivor of some family whose members were tortured and killed by our forces a few years from now and say, yes, I could have stopped it, but I was too selfish: I wanted the satisfaction of voting for the better candidate, and that satisfaction was more important to me than the lives of your children and your spouse. I cannot do that and call myself a progressive or even an American. I cannot become the kind of ideologue who lets other people die for my precious beliefs.

Yes, we have to be practical if we are to improve the real world. We All have work to do to get to November and to move into the years ahead. Let us make it joyful and selfless work.

On the night of November 2nd we will go to bed, and the next day the World will have gone one of two very different ways. I will be home in New Hampshire. And if it goes right, I will feel like resting. And I haven't felt like I could rest for a long while.

http://truthout.org/docs_04/051604B.shtml

and a voice that mesmerized....notwithstanding that his welfare policies did not give people opportunity as you state it simply threw them off welfare after a stated time limit, sans job training, 4mployment assistance, child care or any sort of rational safety net.

The migration of wealth towards fewer and fewer people was not a Clinton invention by any means but it certainly continued apace under his reign.

Your note of the Nader "situation" contains the same omissions as do most generally. In your request that Nader help Kerry get elected you make two assumptions:

1. That Nader has any respect for, or hope for, a Kerry presidency. He certainly doesnt , nor in fact do many on the left either. Nader would not BE in in the race if he hoped for a Kerry victory.Though, should Kucinich have obtained the nomination Nader wold be campaigning for him.

2. These thousands of deaths of which you speak will abate under Kerry. What has Kerry said to make you believe such stuff? He has refused to entertain a reduction in the military budget, he supports our continued interference in Iraq, he is, after all, part and parcel of a diseased system that supports war, imperialism and profit at all costs.

You said "notwithstanding that his welfare policies did not give people opportunity as you state it simply threw them off welfare after a stated time limit, sans job training, 4mployment assistance, child care or any sort of rational safety net.

This is Bush's version of Welfare Reform.

Clinton's was not about "throwing" people off it was about moving people into jobs. "Welfare to work" was the goal. Not, welfare to the shelter.

Clinton spent billions on this program. It was not about saving $ it was about empowering people.

(Snip)

MOVING PEOPLE FROM WELFARE TO WORK:
WELFARE ROLLS DECLINE AS MORE RECIPIENTS GO TO WORK

Bonuses for Welfare to Work Success. In December 1999, the President announced that 27 states were awarded the first high performance bonuses to reward superior results in moving people from welfare to work.

Millions on Welfare are Going to Work. At the President's insistence, the 1996 welfare reform legislation included both rewards and penalties to encourage states to place people in jobs. According to reports filed by the 46 states competing for the high performance bonus, more than 1.3 million welfare recipients nationwide went to work in just the one year period between October 1997 and September 1998. Retention rates were also promising: 80 percent of those who got jobs were still working three months later. States also reported an average earnings increase of 23 percent for former welfare recipients, from $2,088 in the first quarter of employment to $2,571 in the third quarter...

Independent Studies Confirm Record Numbers of People are Moving from Welfare to Work. Numerous independent studies also confirm that more people are moving from welfare to work. A national survey released by the Urban Institute found 69 percent of recipients had left welfare for work, and 18 percent had left because they had increased income, no longer needed welfare or had a change in family situation. A recent General Accounting Office report found that between 63 and 87 percent of adults have worked since leaving the welfare rolls — results similar to state studies funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. At the same time, the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey shows that between 1992 and 1999, the employment rate of previous year welfare recipients increased by 82 percent.

Mobilizing the Business Community: At the President's urging, The Welfare to Work Partnership was launched in May 1997 to lead the national business effort to hire people from the welfare rolls. The Partnership began with 105 participating businesses, and, has now grown to more than 15,000 businesses of all sizes and industries. ...

Families Win. To reward work and responsibility and ensure that all families benefit from the booming economy, the Administration's budget will include $130 million in new grants to help hard-pressed working families get the supports and skills they need to succeed on the job and avoid welfare. These funds will leverage existing resources to help families retain jobs and upgrade skills, and get connected to critical work supports, such as child care, child support, health care, food stamps, housing, and transportation. Families Win grants will serve approximately 40,000 low-income families, including mothers and fathers, former welfare recipients, and people with disabilities. Within these funds, $10 million will be set aside for applicants from Native American workforce agencies.

Extending Welfare-to-Work Grants: Because of the President's leadership, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act included $3 billion in FY 1998 and FY 1999 for Welfare-to-Work grants to help states and local communities move long-term welfare recipients and certain non-custodial parents, into lasting, unsubsidized jobs. Funds can be used for job creation, job placement and job retention efforts, including wage subsidies to private employers and other critical post-employment support services.

Tax Credits for Employers: The Welfare-to-Work and Work Opportunity Tax Credits encourage more employers to hire welfare recipients and other disadvantaged individuals.

Housing Vouchers for Hard-Pressed Working Families: The Clinton-Gore budget will include $690 million for 120,000 new housing vouchers to help America's hard-pressed working families.

Helping Low-Income Working Families Get to Work: ... The Administration proposes a package of initiatives to help low-income families get to work by making it easier for them to purchase a car and improving public transit solutions.

Improving Access to Affordable and Quality Child Care: Under this Administration, federal funding for child care has more than doubled, helping parents pay for the care of about 1.5 million children in 1998. The 1996 welfare reform law increased child care funding by $4 billion over six years to provide child care assistance to families moving from welfare to work and other low-income families. ...

Providing Health Care to Low-Income Working Families. The President has insisted on maintaining the Medicaid guarantee and has successfully fought to increase low-income families' access to health care. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, states have expanded Medicaid coverage to working families who cannot afford health insurance, allowing Medicaid to be a freestanding health insurance program for low-income families...

Bush in spite of his record deficits, has removed the vast safety net created by the Clinton admin.

Regarding this statement. "2. These thousands of deaths of which you speak will abate under Kerry. What has Kerry said to make you believe such stuff? He has refused to entertain a reduction in the military budget, he supports our continued interference in Iraq, he is, after all, part and parcel of a diseased system that supports war, imperialism and profit at all costs."

Bush's goal is to remake/victimize the entire middle east. Syria is next, followed by Iran (OIL). My question is are you listening to Bush? He has just imposed sanctions on Syria, any thoughts on that?

Kerry has said MUCH to let us know that his foreign policy will vastly differ from that of George Bush.

Now please answer my question. WERE THEY IN A POSITION, WOULD NADER OR CAMEJO DO ANYTHING IN 8 YEARS AS PRESIDENT, TO PISS YOU OFF?

however misguided and inaccurate it may be.

While you cite official and officious propaganda I tell you that I work with welfare recipients almost every week of my life, for many years now. Clinton's welfare "reform" simply did as I stated earlier, threw people off welfare rolls with no job training nor any efforts at placement. These are the hard and cold fact of the matter all your quotes not withstanding.

As to your impressions of Bush agendas well they are not only Georgies plans and the same powers that wish these things to come to pass rule Kerry as well.Why do you think Gore was ousted from the race? Why do you think that a mainstream centrist like Dean was castigated into oblivion? The truth of the matter is that , regardless of which candidate wins in November the ruling class in this nation remains in place. Why does Kerry insist upon remaining in Iraq? Why does he assure people that there will be no change in the bloated military budget?

You may be comfortable lying to yourself, rallying to your party that has betrayed both its heritage and its own membership but I refuse to particiapte in such lies any longer.

As to your rather specious question regarding Nader, Camejo or whoever will be running on third party tickets, well, they are simply not running to win the damn office they are running to keep the truth before the american public, a truth that we never here from our supposed two party system, that we never will hear either as it wouldnt suit the corporate fat cats that run both parties to the detriment of us all......

friends who were recipients and I grew up in the system. So, I'd say I a good grip on the effects of Welfare and it's reform.

Also, the information I supplied showed proof that Clinton funded a safety net for Welfare recipients that you said did not exist.

You may be comfortable lying to yourself, rallying to your party that has betrayed both its heritage and its own membership but I refuse to particiapte in such lies any longer.

You may be comfortable demanding perfection in an imperfect world, but I refuse to participate in such a farce.

Further, I am not the one lying to myself. I am living with the fact that reality is harsh at times, and there are no perfect solutions. As they say, life is full of compromise, and if I have to compromise to rid the world of the Bush regime, I'll gladly do so.

Indeed, by supporting Nader you are "not" participating in the only way to defeat *. But, that's ok, frankly I think we can do it without you.

As to your rather specious question regarding Nader, Camejo or whoever will be running on third party tickets, well, they are simply not running to win the damn office they are running to keep the truth before the american public, a truth that we never here from our supposed two party system, that we never will hear either as it wouldnt suit the corporate fat cats that run both parties to the detriment of us all......

:eyes:

A Gloria Steinem quote comes to mind here: "He (Nader) was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy."

There is a term for this in sports, it's called arm chair quarterback ... I never take them too seriously.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so you are incorrect.

If you want specifics I'd be glad to provide.

No, not quite a fairy tale, but a reality none the less. So, if you insinuate I'm lying, your wrong.

Your incredible silly definition of party loyalty and ignorance of the criminally diseased system make you indelibly part of the problem. As long as Nader speaks the truth and Kerry shills for Bush and the system you are coming off as a blindly loyal neocon and nothing less.

Let's see, I'm a lying, silly, ignorant, criminal, blindly loyal neocon, coward with a problem :eyes:

Nader speaks bullshit, that's what Nader speaks.

Here's some Nader truth:

Nader contended that Bush would not damage the Earth and generally remain popular, but he has pushed arctic drilling and other anti-environment policies ... "There’s no way they’re going to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)."

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." ~ Ralph Nader

"Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy, ... It wouldn't have been any different in ignoring the need to transfer our country to renewable energy and organic agriculture and protecting the small farmer. And it wouldn't have been any different on GATT and NAFTA and the increasing trade deficits and exporting American jobs."

"Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray."

Actually the additude you possess is cowardess. You are doing nothing about the current state of affairs by casting a vote for Ralph Nader. You simply absolve yourself of any responsibility by doing so.

Support a man who enabled the invasion of Iraq if you so choose, support a man who enabled the Patriot Act, who agrees with Bush on Israeli policies, who has stated that he will NOT reduce the military budget, but dont call it anything but what it really is...cowardice and blind allegiance to a myth.

I will support the only man who can take out Bush, that man is John Kerry. I will support the only man who isn't a threat to the rest of the world, John Kerry. I will support a man with a strong environmental record (one that supports The Kyoto Protocol) John Kerry.

I will support a man who:

Will work for Affordable Health Care for all Americans

Supports Reproductive choice

Has long fought for increased funding for the nation's public education

Would fight for fair federal education standards

Would fully fund No Child Left Behind, Head Start, and special education legislation

Will fight to protect social security

Will get our federal deficit under control

Will not ammend the constitution to take rights away from citizens, and who supports civil unions

Supports workers rights, and overtime benefits

You can support a man who makes promises he can't keep, I'll support the anti-Bush, John Kerry. :hi:

the next step is to get help for your problem.

"Let's see, I'm a lying, silly, ignorant, criminal, blindly loyal neocon, coward with a problem"


In San Francisco, Stockton, Modesto and Fresno there is NO funding available for job training or job placement for those on Welfare. That is the experiencial truth and completely verifiable. You are simply a neocon shill for the DLC and truth matters as little to you as it does to Limbaugh, Hannity, From and McAuliffe.......

Clinton got his jollies bombing Iraq as much as the Junior Bush did.

The bombing of Iraq was a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and a violation of international law, as was Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia or his bombing of the aspirin factory in the Sudan.

Clinton's Plan Colombia is enough reason to haul his ass to The Hague. Clinton can share a cell with the Junior Bush, who is clearly the biggest mass murderer in the 21st century.

...and then came Bush....

Well, anyway, CLinton should be tried for treason in a court of law for the way he set up the decimation of the American economy.

That is a fact, regardless.

I liked Clinton, but that doesn't change the fact that wealth-inequity grew, albeit at a slower pace (but not much slower) during his Presidency.

http://billmon.org/archives/000805.html

"A much smaller part of the left, who remain obstinately bent on keeping Bush in the White House,..."

preferring instead to post the rigid spin that has too sadly overtaken what used to be a liberal party.

do not make for incisive political commentary. Should you have actually rad that rather pertinent article through with brain engaged you might realise the irrelevence of that post of yours.....

If they think that Kerry is the enemy. Kerry is their gatekeeper, their path to the greater political power and ability to communicate and articulate and formulate policy. Nader isn't and never will be. A vote for Nader will ensure that Bush continues to block the political process and pollute the media with lies, for +50% of the country and 99% of the world.

If they think anything will change under a DLC sponsored Kerry presidency. They are simply being led by the nose by a small coterie of neoconservative democrats, just as, by the by, many here are being spoon fed false mantras by the neocons in attendance here.

A vote for Nader may or may not enable a Bush victory, that is , despite the repetitious cries, not so easily decided. Nevertheless a vote is owned by the voter and not to be assumed, or browbeaten out of that voter. A candidate musy earn my vote and that can only be done by giving me something I desire for my nation. All your silly candidate gives me is Bush-lite.

Your vision of Bush as some cartoon character who invented the evil system under which we struggle is both short sighted and childish. Bush hasnt the brains to tie his own shoelaces and his election to the WH was abetted by a Gore campaign so sickeningly ineffective that I cannot assume it not to have been intentional! This system has been sick for a long time and it is long past time to consider options to its perpetuance. A vote for Nader is simply one of those options, one I will not dismiss because you villify Nader and those who like what he says.

I have repeatedly asked people like you to go to votenader.org and find something there with which you disagree. Funny that not one person has yet done so.....

what the Democratic Party stands for/doesn't stand for.

Please also remember that Nader says his number one goal is:

"to retire the Bush Administration."

Only one man can do that, and it's not Ralph Nader.

http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=67

If they think that Kerry is the enemy. Kerry is their gatekeeper, their path to the greater political power and ability to communicate and articulate and formulate policy. Nader isn't and never will be.

Is Kerry going to join us on our antiwar rally on June 5? Or is he going to endorse our call for bringing the troops home now, and for full equality for GLBTs including same-sex marriage and adding the transgendered as a protected class under ENDA?

There is no point in being anyone's "gatekeeper" when we have already left the corral behind.

I suggest you re-read the article in its entirety because the article is not about Nader at all.

EDITED for typing

The rich-poor gap widened under Clinton; it widened more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan and Bush the Preppy or than it has under Bush the Frat Boy, but it widened. Clinton is guilty of signing NAFTA, welfare reform and punitive crime legislation. I feel no differently about these than the writers of this piece do.

I remain one of the less ethical leftists who will vote for Kerry because I am appalled by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, the contempt for democracy, etc. I don't see Bush as just another conservative president or even as just another representative of the plutocratic elitism that pervades both parties. Bush is a threat to the very institutions that make America at least nominally a democracy: constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, free elections, some mechanism to limit the power of the government. Whatever better world we envision, those institutions are part of it. By allowing Bush to return to power, we can only expect more imperial wars, a further erosion of civil liberties and a greater concerntration of power in the hands not just of the elite, but into a particular faction of elitists.

Social change in American history has never resulted from electoral politics, but from social and political movements. Movements are only effective insofar as they mobilize widely and push their demands without compromise, that is, insofar as they stay independent of the major political parties.
Our common activity, therefore, should not be focused on the electoral arena, at least not at the national level, where the left can have almost no effect. Our common activity should be bent upon building movements from below that are not beholden to either of the major political parties, the kind of movements that can fight against either a Bush or a Kerry administration to defend working-class and democratic interests and advance egalitarian-liberatory aims.

I partly agree with this. Rather than say that our activities should not be focused on the electoral arena, I would say that they should not be focused solely on the electoral arena.

The left should lay claim to the teachable moment presented by election season. Since elections focus people's attention on politics, and since this race touches upon myriad issues important to us (war, jobs, health care, immigration, civil liberties, the
environment), let's find ways to engage people creatively.

This was fine in 2000, but this is not the time for the Left to be taking votes away from Mr. Bush's principal opponent.

There are certain things that are difficult imagine Kerry -- or even most Republicans -- doing that Bush has done. Would Kerry have led the nation into war with brazen lies? Would Kerry set up an system of detention for the war on terror that was beyond any scrutiny with the purpose of circumventing the Geneva Conventions? Would Kerry's justice department draft legislation that would provide the President or the Attorney General with the power to strip an American of his citizenship? Against such matters as these, issues such as those that usually divide liberals/progressives from conservatives don't count for much.

The real issue in this election is that in 2000 power was seized -- not legitimately won, but seized -- though fraud and manipulation by a cabal that is hostile to the principles of checks and balances and sees dissent as treason. Their ideology is alien the principles of democratic government on which this country was founded. Bush governs America like a banana republic dictator. We demand a return to constitutional principles.

We who oppose Bush are in the position that the French Resistance was in in the early forties: opposing a regime hostile to the principles on which the state was founded, a regime that was imposed on the state by force. The regime which the French Resistance opposed was installed by a foreign power in an invasion; the regime which we oppose was installed from forces within by a bloodless coup. Otherwise, there is no difference between the Vichy regime and the Bush regime.

The French Resistance was made up largely of socialists, Communists and anarchists. These people knew that to rid France of the regime of Nazi collaborators, they would have to align themselves under the leadership of General de Gaulle, a sober conservative who shared few of the values of most of the resistance. There was no time for the French Left to quibble with de Gaulle about what should be done about Algeria afterward. That was an argument that had to be postponed for more immediate concerns.

Our first line of defense against the Bush regime is the upcoming election. Bush must be turned out of office and not be allowed to again circumvent the will of the people. This may mean that it won't be enough to defeat him; we will have to defeat him soundly so that the election will be beyond fixing.

To accomplish that, Kerry will need every vote he can get. He will get mine. I urge all Leftists to join me in voting for him. This is no time to quibble with him about NAFTA. That is an argument that will have to be postponed while we deal with more immediate concerns.

I can see myself voting for Kerry on November 2, celebrating his inauguration on January 20 and demonstrating against his policies and legislative program on January 21. I see nothing inconsistent about in that vision. As I protest, I will hopefully have cause for thanking President Kerry for one thing: assuring us that our right to dissent in no longer in danger. If Kerry does nothing else right while in office, I still will feel it will be one of the best votes that ever I had cast.

:toast:

but am apalled by your naivete. What leads you to the belief that a man who voted for that war would not have invaded himself? What leap of faith inspires you to believe that a man who voted for the Patriot Act would not himself propose it?

The real war here is a war between the varying ideologies that seek to rule our nation. The duty and responsibility of the left is not to perpetuate a sick and criminal system but to rail against it, to educate rather than to be guilty of collusion with it.

A vote for John Kerry is a vote for the status quo and, in times of great stress and duress it is the duty of those who see it, who are sickened by it to opt out of it and work for change. I frankly do not care if Bush is reelected as long as more and more people are awakened politically. I see no change in the brutal american actions worldwide since I became politically aware during the Eisenhower presidency and the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the United Fruit company.

I refuse to buy into the lie that electing a democrat is some sort of magic bullet and ,miraculously, all our problems will then disappear. It is such thinking that causes a voter turnout of 35% or so and disloutions and disenfranchises more and more every year. It is now time for the left to make a stand, to look to the long term rather than next term, to work for the betterment of our grandchildrens america. I sincerely believe that working for the growth of third party politics is the way to end the false promise of the two party systrem and to tell the DLC that we see through their lies and exclusionary politics.

If the world were as simple as you make it out to be, I might follow your advice and vote third party. However, it isn't so simple that one either supports the system or opposes it. Only a fool who say "You're either with us or with them."

"You're either with us or against us" is the motto of a false dichotomy. The fact is that Kerry is not Bush. He may not be everything I want, but he is better what we have now and far less dangerous.

The system is corrupt, just as you say. However, Bush strives to change that system from one that is merely corrupt into one that is qualitatively different from what it is now. We would have a system of institutionalized corporate tyranny. Were Bush to have his way, things would be far worse than they are and it would be far more difficult to rail against "a sick and criminal system." Under Bush, we are sliding toward a government that more resembles Soviet Russia than Cold War America, even with all its hypocrisies.

Stemming that tide is worth a vote for candidate who is far less than perfect.

What leads you to the belief that a man who voted for that war would not have invaded himself?

First all, I am certain that Kerry would not have lied to get his way and that he would not have thumbed his nose at allies.

That the US went to war against Iraq has as much to do with the low degree of Bush's personality than anything else than with neoconservative ideology. Bush was going to go to war and was not going to allow anyone to talk him out of it. He would heed no sign, no matter how obvious or ominous.

These aren't the hallmarks of a great leader. They are the hallmarks of a fool. While I have concerns about Kerry, I believe him to be wiser than that. I am much less certain than you that Kerry, once seeing that he would be unable to convince allies of the rightness of the cause and weighing the dangers inherent in the invasion (not to mention just looking at the actual intelligence and realizing that Saddam was nothing more than a paper tiger) would have led us into Iraq. He simply would have considered things that Bush would not.

Even if Kerry is every bit as much a colonialist as Bush, he has better pragmatic judgment. He knows that he couldn't tell such brazen lies and get away with it for very long, especially if he demonstrates disrespect for those to whom he is lying for questioning his facts or his wisdom.

That is what makes me think Kerry would not have led us into war against Iraq.

What leap of faith inspires you to believe that a man who voted for the Patriot Act would not himself propose it?

Only one member of the Senate, Russ Feingold, got the Patriot Act right. The bill was rushed through Congress in the heat of September 11 attacks. Very few members of Congress even read it before they passed it.

Under those circumstances, what makes you so certain that Kerry would have proposed it? I don't believe he would have.

I refuse to buy into the lie that electing a Democrat is some sort of magic bullet and, miraculously, all our problems will then disappear.

Where do I say anything like that? On the contrary, I am not saying electing Kerry will usher in any kind of Golden Age of human freedom. All I am saying is that it will stem the trend toward the kind of tyranny where dissent is punished, where the Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing. We will be able to continue to advance our agenda without fear that somebody in power thinks it is cause to detain any of us indefinitely, without charge or any access to the outside world.

If I'm wrong, we'll be no worse off than we are now. If I'm right, we will win a small victory and be able to continue to fight for greater ones.

but I do not agree with your basic premise,sorry. Bush and Kerry are, down deep, not really very different at all. This is the sticking point that those who castigate Ralph Nader for his remarking about the merging of the two parties fail to understand or simply will not accept.

John Kerry went from a firebrand reformer directly after his Viet Nam experience to just another corrupt politician. I do not blame him for being seduced by power and privilege , it is simply a human frailty.

Despite your attempts at nuance it really is quite simply a with us or against us proposition. Compromise is concession and nothing less despite your attempts to appease your own conscience by appealing to a lesser of two evil strategy. I understand your lingering loyalty to your chosen party, it took me forty years to throw off my loyalty to the democrats.

We have come to a time and place in our history when it is obvious to all thinking concerned Americans that there must be deep seated change in the way we formulate our policies, in the way we practice systematic exclusions and colonial like powers over most of the world, the way we are thoroughly ruled by corporate interests. The myth of a free America , a free press is quite simply bullshit! Have you seen Mike Moore's latest effort, Fahrenheit 911, no you have not nor will you, some free press huh?

We are murdering people and overthrowing governments and a change in the figurehead leader of our nation will simply be cosmetic and nonsense.Especially when that figurehead has already voted for the desires of the ruling class, again and again. To blame Bush for the invasion of Iraq is to demonstrate no ability at critical thinking, sorry.

Live quite comfortably with your myth should you choose to do so, I can no longer do so.

Sir, I registered Green in 1999, returned to the Democrats last year and reserve the right to change parties again when I damn well feel like it.

I voted for Nader four years ago. This time, I think there is something to be gained by defeating Bush.

I don't need you to lecture me on the state of the free press in America. I have been railing about that some time.

I'm sorry, but you are the one showing no ability to think critically. Again, Kerry is not Bush; the two approach things in an altogether different way. That has nothing to do with one man's ideology or the the other's. If you don't see that, you're not looking.

Kerry wasn't my first choice, but the only practical way to defeat Bush is to vote for Kerry. I shall do so.

I hope we don't have to resume this conversation when we both occupy kennels in Guantanamo.

The Bush administration is qualitatively more dangerous and destructive than a Kerry administration would be. Those who see no difference may call us naive, but in my opinion they are blind. I won't bother enumerating the substantial differences -- you have done so quite capably.

I'll be with you on January 21st calling Kerry to task, and I hope everyone here at DU will continue to work for the REAL change this country so desperately needs -- through grassroots movements, third parties, or whatever it takes.

I acknowledge the two major parties are both beholden to the military/industrial/corporate powers that be, but what must also be acknowledged is that the hard right/fundamentalist/neoconservatives of the current administration in many ways are not representative of DLC Democrats or traditional conservatives, and that they are taking this country further and faster in the wrong direction.

To say a Gore or Kerry administration would have done the same things as that group is at best a willful blindness, and more like a delusion born of long disaffection with the corruption of our government.

Kerry's election may not usher in fundamental change in the way Washington has operated for the last half century, but it WILL change the reckless radical right wing policies of the last three and a half years.

Another four years of Bush would hurt a lot of people in this country and elsewhere, and with the continued erosion of our civil rights and growth of the hard right judiciary, trying to bring about the fundamental change we all want would be made considerably more difficult.

Perhaps another four years of unmitigated disaster might produce a backlash that would open a lot of people's eyes and make them more amenable to fundamental change -- or it might not. That is a gamble I'm not willing to take, especially because lives are stake.

Thank you for the very thoughtful posts.

Half of those eligible to vote do not do so, nor have they for years and years. Wealth is rapidly migrating to fewer and fewer while safety nets are shrinking or simply disappearing, despite mzmolly's sisters mythic experience to the contrary.Jobs are disappearing overseas at alarming rates and unions are being weakened daily.

Unless and until we realise that the two party system has contributed mightily to these conditions we simply spin our wheels hoping that the next corrupt politico will save us all, sorry but it is far too late for such laziness. Your candidate voted for Bush's policies when he should have been the Kerry of old, the one who tossed his ribbons and stood up for the truth. That man is sadly gone, destroyed by his participation in the corrupt system that gives so much priviledge to its politicos that they cannot even comprehend what life is like for the grassroots much less understand our needs.

I believe, should Kerry be installed in the WH, nothing substantial will have been achieved, the power will still be in the hands of exactly the same people and those 50% of whom I spoke earlier will feel just as alienated, just as out of the loop as ever they did.

That third party politics offers no panacea, no instant gratification (which is the be all and end all of american philosophy)is a truism. That working to build a strong third party is the ultimate way to subvert the powerful, to end this status quo is a far better use of my time than believing this continuing lie of a candidate who means anything in the long run.

Clinton administration. I also provided you with detailed information on Clintons policies that showed he funded a safety net for people exiting Welfare Roles. Bush has removed much of that "net."

You insinuate I perpetuate myths, yet you have provided no proof of anything you claim.

As I said there is no perfect solution. Living on welfare is not easy (as you should be aware) *no such thing as myths* in our world, either way.

I agree it is highly unlikely that anything substantial will be achieved in a Kerry administration. He has become part of the establishment. You say you've been politically aware since the Eisenhower administration; I'm sure it has become painfully obvious that the mainstream Democratic party has very little to offer. You've made it clear there is nothing to be gained by trying to work from within it, and that efforts towards change must come from outside the two-party system.

I agree with this assessment.

You have in mind long term substantial change; I think most of us here do as well. I understand the concept that nothing less than a clean break from the two major parties by a growing number of Americans can ever achieve these long term goals.

Nevertheless, I think it is foolish to ignore the current power structure, especially in this election. The office of the president wields tremendous power, and impacts our lives in many ways. There are important differences between Bush and Kerry, including the environment and judicial appointments. I believe that another four years of Bush will do long term damage, and make our goals more difficult to attain.

I don't believe it is a contradiction to work towards ousting Bush in this election, and also work towards long term progressive goals. I think the contradiction lies in having progressive goals while failing to take action against the most anti-progressive administration in generations.

And like it or not, it's either Bush or kerry in 2004.

As I see it, Kerry is the representative of the old East Coast Establishment. That groups has a lot of things wrong with it, but at least they're fairly sane. They understand that their own power and wealth depend on keeping the country as a whole reasonably stable and affluent. They were willing to support the New Deal when that was the only way to save the economy, they have long-standing ties with Europe, and there is every reason to believe that in world affairs they are more interested in having the US be the first among equals than in being the bully of the world.

Bush, on the other hand, for all his Skull and Bones background, is primarily the representative of the Texas Establishment, with its basis in adventurism, oil and other extractive industries, and wheeling-dealing. These people are far more short-sighted, parochial, and self-favoring than the East Coast Establishment. They see the world around them as something to be exploited rather than maintained, a resource that can be pumped dry and then abandoned. They also have a certain unreconstructed Confederate resentment of any damn Yankees who try to tell them different.

Speaking as a mouse on the battlefield, I'd rather take my chances with the Yankees. My chances of survival are better, and there's even a possibility of genuine reform.

and one of the few rational arguments i have seen to convince leftists/progressives to vote for kerry.

is the implied moral superiority of those on the fringes, either left or right. Those of us who don't subscribe are misguided, ignorant, or... just plain stupid, I guess. The sheep need a shepherd.

It sure wasn't the mushy middle which willingly accepted the rape of our Bill of Rights and the criminal war in Iraq!

The question before the house, however, is whether removing Mr. Bush power is worth giving that power to Senator Kerry.

Those who say No cite Senator Kerry's recent voting record. Those of us who say Yes acknowledge that voting record and concede that it is flawed.

Are we looking for somebody who is perfect or just somebody who is better? If simply better, then how much better? I have concerns about Kerry, even serious ones. Those are outweighed by my fear of Bush.

Kerry is running for President, not Messiah. I have no right to expect him to be perfect, even in his political judgment. Did he vote for the IWR? Yes. Would I have voted for it? No. Could I have been wrong about that and Kerry right to vote for the IWR? Yes, that is entirely possible.

If the IWR were merely a straight up or down support for the war, then holding Kerry's vote against him would carry more weight. However, the IWR was more than that. It put some strings on Mr. Bush; he had to go though the United Nations and seek international support. Bush made a mockery of that. He sent Powell to the Security Council with a pack of lies for arguments and simply went to war when the Security Council indicated that it would reject the enabling resolution that had been proposed. Without the IWR, Bush would simply have gone to war. With the IWR, he went to the United Nations and it was demonstrated beyond any doubt that the war had very little international support. Defeat of the IWR would not have prevented war, but passing it set up some effective points that are now used against Bush.

As for the Patriot Act, it is difficult to hold that against anyone who voted for it. The bill was rushed through Congress while the WTC still smoldered. Few members of Congress read it before voting on it. Only one member of the Senate, Feingold, got it right.

Kerry made a mistake voting for the Patriot Act. So did 97 other senators.

At this juncture, Mr. Bush is calling for the extension and expansion of the Act. While the senator supports some provisions of the Act, such as its anti-money-laundering provisions, Kerry is opposed to the act's most egregious features, those that give the Act a deserved reputation as police state legislation. I am satisfied with Kerry's position on the Patriot Act. I certainly don't believe that the Justice Department in a Kerry Administration would draft legislation that would allow the President or the Attorney General to strip an American of his citizenship.

As far as I am concerned, Bush is so bad that my litmus test is to hold a mirror under Kerry's nose and see if it fogs; I haven't actually done that, but I am confident he would pass that test. The truth is that I would vote for the Devil himself if he were the best way to defeat Bush. At least when the Devil says he talks to God, I have reason to believe that he actually does and that he even listens to what God says back to him.

go beyond the pale, prompting one critic to say that no matter who won the US elections, there will be a US-instigated coup in Venezuela.

PPI and PNAC are two sides of the same imperialist coin, Jack!

William Kristol at PNAC and Will Marshall at PPI share a weltanshauung in which global capitialists based in the global North know best how to manage economies in the global South and that his will benefit the common people of the global South while creating profits for transnational corporations. In case you missed it, I think that view is nonsense.

If this election were only about Bush's brutal PNAC colonialism and Kerry's kinder, gentler PPI colonialism, I would probably sound exactly as you do and give serious thought to voting for Nader or Camejo or some other candidate who is not going to win.

There is still a difference between Bush and Kerry that would translate into qualitatively different worlds. The fact is that if Kerry isn't inaugurated on January 20, then Bush will be. If your one unnamed critic is right (I'm not saying he isn't), then there is nothing we can do to prevent a Us-instigated coup in Venezuela. I don't like that any more than you do. However, for now, it's a battle we can't win; for now, we have to consider those that we can. Although the weltanshauung of the two men shares many of the same flaws, Kerry's still has some that Bush's does not. Moreover, Kerry has some personal virtues independent of any weltanshauung that Bush simply does not possess.

Bush will never get the US out of Iraq. Yet getting out of Iraq isn't just the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do pragmatically. Kerry and Bush may both be colonialists, but Bush is still a foolish ideologue and Kerry is still a pragmatist. They may share some silly rationale about the the purpose of the occupation is to bring democracy to Iraq and some bizarre idea that neoliberalism is beneficial to the common people, but Bush's reasoning (if it can be called such) stops there. Even if that point of view had any validity, the fact is that the occupation cannot achieve the desired results. Bush is incapable of comprehending that; Kerry is. The result will be that Kerry will get the US out of Iraq while Bush would never consider getting out.

Between now and the time the US gets out of Iraq, I will join you in demonstrating against the occupation. I will also join you in denouncing any US-instigated coup in Venezuela, just as I rail along with you against the US-instigated coup in Haiti. I will do that whether the occupant of the White House is a the beneficiary of electoral fraud and judicial manipulation whom I oppose or a legitimate holder of power for whom I voted. The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry will tolerate dissent against his policies, as an American leader should. We should expect that dissent will not result in being put on a no-fly list or in visits to local public librarians by a federal gestapo inquiring about the reading habits of certain patrons; there will be no drafted legislation giving the President or his cabinet officers the right to strip an American of his citizenship prior to holding him in custody without charges.

Beyond the shared idea that global capitalism is beneficial to mankind, with which I disagree, there is a difference in the weltanshauung of the two men. While Kerry may be a colonialist, he is not going to govern the US like a banana republic. We know Bush will. He has.

Again, the French Resistance agreed to follow de Gaulle in order to rid France of Nazi occupation and a government of collaborationists. The Leftists who made up the bulk of the Resistance knew very well that de Gaulle favored the retention of French colonies in Indochina and Algeria by a post-war France. The Nazis, too, held to a weltanshauung in which Europeans had some natural right to rule over other people in their own countries. Thus, sober conservatives like de Gaulle and Churchill were the one side of the coin while the European fascists were the other. Did that mean that there was absolutely no difference between the weltanshauung de Gaulle and Churchill on the one hand and that of Hitler and Mussolini on the other? Did that mean that as push came to shove, one would not have followed Churchill and de Gaulle to defeat Hitler and Mussolini?

I believe the situation today is analogous. I will therefore vote for Kerry, who is a more sober man than Bush even if I see some of the same serious flaws in his weltanshauung. That sobriety, Kerry's pragmatism, the fact that in many other respects Kerry's weltanshauung is quite different from Bush's and the fact that only Kerry can defeat Bush, make Kerry the man to side with in this fight.

This does not mean that Kerry's weltanshauung is not like Bush's in many ways. Of course, that can't be a good thing. When Kerry is President, I will oppose many of his policies and initiatives. I will take to the street when he instigates a coup in Venezuela. My vote for Kerry should not be construed by anyone, least of all Kerry himself, as a pre-approval for all that he might do. For now, however, Kerry is the best tool available for removing the tyrant from power. We would be foolish not to use it.

so a vote for Nader is a vote for bush. While I agree that the establishment of the democratic party decreed Kerry the winner when they became alarmed that Dean might actually change things for the good of the people, it really doesn't matter. Bush has nearly ruined this country and I have faith if he is given 4 more years, he will totally destroy it. The logic is just as faulty to be a black and white thinker on the left as it is on the right. The world is shades of gray....

The world is shades of gray....

The world may well be in different shades of gray, but some issues are clear cut and in black and white. For example, genocide is always wrong, as is torture. It is also always wrong to subjugate another nation, as it is to invade another country in an unprovoked attack.

In practical terms, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is totally wrong and evil, as it is Israel's occupation of the Golan, the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab Jerusalem.

From a religious and philosophical point of view, murder is always wrong. Some will argue that the death penalty is also wrong, for it cheapens the value of human life and it gives the state power of life and death over its citizens.

There are no shades of gray when it comes to life, whether it is the death penalty or abortion. One side or the other in these issues is either right or wrong, there is no "gray area"!