[lbo-talk] Re: perot vs nader (or, naderphoba continued?)

Simon Huxtable jetfromgladiators at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 30 09:13:59 PDT 2004


It would be valid to ask how likely it is that some voters decided to go for ... let's say Dean ... rather than vote for no-hoper Kucinich. That is to say that the predominant mode of party politics today is not to go out on a limb and vote for what one wants; to validate a candidate who best reflects one's beliefs, but rather to vote for the candidate who best reflects one's beliefs *within the context of what the voter decides is possible*. It is clear to me that this logic was at play in the subsequent demise of Dean's campaign. Having taken a lot of potential Kucinich votes, Dean suffered the same fate at the hands of Kerry: voters simply didn't believe that he could win. The point is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people think "Kucinich might work but he'll never get elected so I'm voting for Kerry" then, quelle horreur!, Kerry wins. So, in a sense, it's not possible to say that a lot of people don't share our views. There has never been an election fought on who is the best candidate, but who is the most electable.

Don't we see a similar trend in Kerry's depressing candidacy? It seems evident that he is, as the Bush ads have it, a flip-flopper on the issues. The reason he won't give a straight answer on a question is because he is trying to define for himself the parameters of what is possible in the political field (or, more succinctly, the most inoffensive response). Kerry is an empty vessel as far as beliefs are concerned (is anybody else beginning to believe that Kerry really is as bad a candidate as everybody has said he is?) it's not a matter of the best policy, but the most inoffensive.

I am convinced that what GWB is perpetuating in the US is nothing short of a revolution. The Republicans are able to bring it out because of their utter disdain for the rules of engagement. In breaking treaties and the rule of international law they have created their own rules. The fact that they've done it shows that it's possible to do so.

If Kerry loses this election it is because he deserves to. I'm convinced that if he went on the attack then he would have a chance of winning. At the moment, nobody knows what he would do for the world. It's Bush who is the man of action, the man of powerful leadership. Kerry, the opinion poll watcher, should know most of all that what the US seems to want is a leader.

Simon


> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>


> And what about Kucinich? He was in all the Dem
> debates, and got a
> chance to air his views. Why couldn't he get more
> than 1-2% of the
> primary vote - the Democratic primary, where voters
> are to the left
> of the general election? It's easy to blame money or
> the media, but
> the problem is more complex than that.
>
> Doug

____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list