"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."
JW: Nader and Camejo represent the consciousness of millions of Americans who consider the Democratic and Republican parties and their stranglehod on the electoral process as irellevant to their long term aspirations for a more equitable society (forgive the cliche). Voting for Nader/Camejo is a self-conscious expression of hope for some other kind of social and political reality. It is not an expression of hope that he will win this or any election.
Marv Gandall wrote: 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."
JW: You are making an assumption without any empirical data about a widespread 'ABB mood' in the US polity. Voting patterns or lack thereof indicate that many American voters find the entire electoral process to be irrelevant to them and beholden to corporate interests and so do not vote. Those who draw attention to the serious problems with Kerry (rather than 'shortcomings') are invaluable to understanding the implications of a Kerry victory and will only become more so as we try to antipate Kerry's policy imperatives should he win. The problems with F911 are just as important to point out, the problems with the movie will only become more important to pay attention to and become more evident with time.
Marv Gandall wrote: "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."
JW: I do not see the question about the war in Iraq as the one that lies at the heart of American politics. Such a question, if it could be articulated, I imagine would be multivalent and profound.
>From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall at rogers.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Americas Leftists, Michael Moore, and Ralph Nader
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:43:24 -0400
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk