Doesn't mean that leftists have to actually _vote_ for the guy, though. Nope, doesn't follow at all. Quite the contrary! They won't have to - not to mention that they shouldn't on the obvious principle that a progressive shouldn't vote for a conservative - because by this definition the progressive vote is irrelevent, statistically and otherwise, in a contest between the two halves of a more or less evil right wing politics with _real_ (note the emphasis, please) internal differences within their own camp.
The real chasm in left thinking about US election has always been that of holding two irreconciliable notions it its head: the it must hope for the victory of the lesser evil _and_ work to push for the nomination of the most progressive, left-liberal candidate possible by the Democrats - a McGovern or (shudder) a veritable jacobin/bolshevik in the present offically sanctioned political spectrum like Kucinich. Oftentimes you hear this described as "returning the Democratic Party to its roots" (!). Nothing describes the persistent immaturity of the US left more than that it still remains almost entirely trapped between these two concurrently-held notions. The result has been the defeat of both, time after time.
The solution is: the progressive left and the "base" should stop wasting its precious time and energy on left-liberal Democratic candidates like Kucinich, Lee and others, leave the Democratic Party entirely, and _hope_ that the Dems run a hardball conservative like Dean, and _hope_ - not work or vote for - that the "lesser evil" fights dirty enough - stuff the ballot box, please! - to win. A win made all the easier when not sullied by the stain of "progressive" support.
The general result is definitely a greater good - for us: a "soft" conservative vunerable to attack from the left. The dwindling band of "official" fake liberal gatekeepers forced into a self-destructive defensive mode. The "base" temporarily disabused of the notion that the Democrats are really an alternative. The progressive left developing its own independent organizational presence in the electoral system in a wide open political space. And so forth..
But, even better, there are special benefits from the present situation, whose defining aspect is the continuing US occupation of Iraq. It is not only that the whole Bush/Cheney loot-pillage-pre-position for an intervention into Saudi Arabia should the royals fall- operation would be derailed. It's not only that the Dems will make an even bigger mess for the US out of Iraq by actually trying to "nation build" because, you know, "failure is not an option". The history of colonial administrations with pretentions to "build" tells us that living healthier, better educated lives will only strengthen the colonized in their capacity to resist, as Sharon and Perle could also tell you.
It's also because, in a symptom of decay and incoherence, the two-party regime has its shoes on backwards in this conjuncture. In Vietnam, the hapless Democrats, having failed in their "nation-building" efforts in the runup to the war, were swapped out for the more murderous Nixon-Kissinger in the exit. This sequence made sense, as you want to lay waste to a territory that you must relinquish because of military defeat. But today, if American ruling class sentiment were to tilt towards exit now, they'd be swapping in the wrong direction, towards a goverment politically _less_ able to carry out the atrocities necessary to at least delay the inevitable defeat. A Dean or other Democratic goverment could open a window of opportunity for opponents of US imperialism worldwide, acting in parallel with Arab and Iraqi resistence throughout the Middle East, to turn defeat into rout. Like France in Algeria, that's the model. And I recall that it was the old pre-Mitterand Socialists who mostly ran the show in that period.
And contained with that is the possibility of a global reversal of Brad Delongs' whole neo-"liberal"/conservative political economic offensive first opened up by the Reagan-Thatcher counterrevolution.
One can only hope here. But I think this explains the relative lack of opposition within the American ruling class to a continuing Iraq occupation, despite probably realizing that the invasion was an obviously stupid move in the first place. They got to stick with Bush post 2004 so they can commit the atrocities necessary to prevent orderly retreat from becoming a rout. And, with the ongoing successful reflation of the asset bubble - that's the "real" US political economy now - combined with some hard-hitting bloodbaths in Iraq spun as Gulf War-style "victories" in the runup to the 2004 election - the kind of red meat many Americans love - odds are Bush wins re-election.
Sorry, but that is the twisted, bloody, sick figure the United States of America paints in the world today.
Dean's going to need all the skills at his command.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Howard Clinton
> > Howard Clinton?
> > By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
> >
> > Howard Dean is a man with strong Clinton-esque tendencies.
>
>
> Gee, and I almost was ready to vote for the guy! But now I know that we
> should wait for a saviour on a white horse, speaking
> political-corecteese in his sleep, and with a Trotskyite boilerplate on
> his forehead to deliver us from the capitalist oppression. Everything
> else is a sellout.
>
> Wojtek
=======================
There you go with your Grand Canyon inferential leaps and either/or isms again.
When you buy a car do you try to find out about what you're buying or is the TV ad enough for you?
Ian
-- /**********************************************************************/ Brad Mayer Technical Support Engineer, DPG CIS Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Sun Developer Platforms Group Home Office: (510) 522-1928 Direct: (650) 786-4884 Fax: (650) 786-8858 Email: bradley.mayer at sun.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /***********************************************************************/