andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> I guess some of us have concluded that for this
> election the GOP alternative is so much worse than it
> has ever been, and so threatening to the country and
> thr world, that thsiu time the marginal advantage
> makes it worth actively supporting the useful
> capitalist slimebags.
What I hear is assertion, not argument, for this. If the DP wins, and continues the occupation of Iraq, the stage will be set for a return of a GOP alternative at least as bad as Bush. So I think you are mistaken if you believe you can make this election an exception.
And, at a practical level this position implies that the election is going to be close (one way or the other), for otherwise it is pointless for the few people involved in this argument to bother: they won't make any difference one way or the other. (By "few people," I mean the very very few people for whom ABD is a matter of real debate. Locally here, of people that I have met through the anti-war activity (several hundred) that boils down to three people: Jan, I, and a local Green Party organizer. Can you seriously argue that the three of us could tip Illinois to Bush. (Understand, _my_ position wouldn't change if I though I did have that potential, but those of you who are arguing on a pragmatic basis _do_ have to consider it.)
> This is not an argument that one
> should always support the slightly better slimebags.
> In normal times,
You expect that a DP victory will return us to normalcy? :-)
> Bush I v. Clinton, the marginal
> difference did not seem to me to be great enough. But
> no-lesser-evilism is not a categorial imperative, it
> is a pragmatic guess about what will work out best.
What will work out best, even in the short run, I believe, is that for all those in the U.S. who see the need at all for an organized resistance _outside_ electoral politics, devote themselves to that effort, and that it may even be especially important to do so when so many of the best and the brightest on the left are opting for a temporary 'alliance' with the DP. (Scare quotes because an alliance that the allies recognize each other. The DP does not recognize us.)
> I
> would support Weimar against Hitler.
That is a diversion. No one (except for various conspiracists) has given any reason whatever to believe such a situtation exists in the U.S. today.
> I voted for
> Modale against Regan because I thought the Gipper was
> going to blow up the world.
And here we still are.
> I don't think the country
> can easily survive another four years of unilateral
> imperialism, mad dog judicial appoints -- especially
> with Stevens in his eighties -- reckless spending, and
> pandering to the hard right unmitigated by any leaven.
WE have to be the leaven. I think we (those who agree with Yoshie and me, or can be brought to agree with us) have an obligation to maintain at least and if possible to increase the organized weight of that leaven.
> I canm think of nothing even remorely acceptable that
> W has done.
Agreed.
> So call me a sell out.
That's a diversion too. The question is not selling out versus "staying true." It's a difference in judgment of what the situation calls for.
> When I get back to
> Chi, I'm volunteering for the Kerry campaign. jks
O.K. That gives coherence to your argument. Those who are merely arguing about how leftists should vote are merely engaged in chat over a beer.
As to one of Doug's argument. There doubtless is a slight edge for leftists (e.g., anti-war organizers) under a Democratic administration, but at any given time that advantage is not enough to compensate for the diversion of political activity that occurs every four years.
Carrol