Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >votes for Nader/Camejo, whether the ticket wins or loses, registers
> >American dissent from the bipartisan consensus for wars,
> >occupations, and empire
Doug Henwood replied:
>
> Loses is as certain as tomorrow's sunrise. Regardless of that, isn't
> it a bit risky to view the Nader/Camejo vote as a referendum on
> "wars, occupations, and empire"? Those unpleasant things are likely
> to get a 97% endorsement from the U.S. electorate, since you find it
> impossible to believe that anyone who votes for Kerry is against
> wars, occupations, and emipre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point. In fact, the 2004 election is not an election in the conventional sense at all, but a referendum -- on Bush and the war in Iraq, and not only are Nader and Camejo irrelevant to the process, so too, in a lesser sense, is Kerry, who stands to become the incidental beneficiary of the process. The DP donkey could be the presidential nominee in present circumstances. Democratic strategists are evidently operating on that assumption, hence their adoption of a rope-a-dope strategy on the sidelines, waiting for the Bush administration to exhaust itself -- much to the consternation of a large part of the Democratic base. When Yoshie and others to the left of the party complain about the "ABB crowd", they do not seem to appreciate that they are referrring to half of the US electorate, for which "ABB" translates as a No vote to the question: "Do you approve of the Bush administration's decision to unilaterally invade Iraq after having misled the American people?" The intensity of the ABB mood within all strata of the population is such that those who try to draw attention to the shortcomings of Kerry (or F911) are seen as irrelevant and risk getting trampled in the process. Of course, for those who think that a Kerry administration would likewise have broken with the UN and its European allies and sent ground forces into Iraq, it is logical to counsel the public to, in effect, abstain from the referendum. But it is hard to see how a Bush victory could be interpreted as anything other than a Yes vote to the question which currently lies at the heart of American politics, notwithstanding the state of the economy come November.
Marv Gandall