A defeat for Bush would create a different atmosphere in American political culture, to show it can be done. It will make people much more critical. The honeymoon period with Kerry would be much shorter than with Clinton. Whatever Kerry says, most people who vote for him, will do so because they don't like what Bush has done in Iraq, they don't like the way the economy's being handled, they don't like the way the environment is being dealt with. When Kerry is in power, if he carries on in the same way, it would be much easier to build a bigger movement against him.
==============================
This is a killer assessment of the situation. I'm truly feeling Mr. Aziz's point of view here.
Bush must be defeated, not because Kerry will solve all (or any) problems, as some have said the so-called ABB-ers believe, but because failing to remove Bush from office will be a signal to the nation and the world that Americans, by and large, co-sign the Bush agenda.
And while some might say this would be a positive thing, since it might break the spell-of-America's hold over the minds of the global multitude who believe the nation is, at heart, well-intentioned, I think it would be a disaster that would surely lead to unlooked for bad outcomes - big and small.
The imperial right would be emboldened to continue Project Smash-it-up (producing more misery and death) and the left - from the flag saluting, "reporting for duty", Dems to the Kill the State fire-walkers would lose a whole lot of energy and descend into even more light absorbing internal squabbles and debates about purity.
By 2008 we'd all be living in the first chapter of Bruce Sterling novel - nervous, drugged to ease the pain, staring at a monitor and wondering what the hell went wrong.
Yeah, the mighty Mr. Aziz is right: it's more important than important that Bush go.
Just to show it can be done.
.d.