[lbo-talk] Fw: Greg Palast: Bye-Bye Ronnie Reagan -- Killer, Coward, Conman

Jon Johanning jjohanning at igc.org
Wed Jun 9 10:10:28 PDT 2004


On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, at 09:34 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:


> That is, the ABBs are
> increasingly using the same arguments that were used in every election
> for the past 40 years. So if we accept their argument this time, we
> will
> have to accept it into the indefinite future.

Politics, even politics in a capitalist system, are not so mechanical as that. Yes, one can pretty safely conclude from the fact that the sun has risen in the east every day since time immemorial that it will probably do so tomorrow, but when it comes to elections, they have to be considered one at a time.

(By the way, I think it's time to retire the "ABB" designation. We can be pretty sure now of Bush's opponent, unless the DP becomes totally tipsy on Sam Adams -- I suppose that's the intoxicant of choice in old Bean-town.)

The choice of Kennedy vs. Nixon was different from Johnson vs. Goldwater, Humphrey vs. Nixon, etc., etc. Different issues, different economic/political conjunctures, different groups of people likely to staff the incoming administrations -- in addition to different candidates, which often doesn't matter that much, since a lot of the function of the presidency is fronting for the powers that be. Sometimes it doesn't particularly matter who the front guy is, but some of us think that this year it does. You can't dismiss that position out of hand by pretending that capitalism works as mechanically as the solar system.


> Every time they talk about Surpreme Court appointments or
> slightly better NLRB decisions they reveal that they have no faith in
> their own position but have simply lost their nerve and are giving into
> the DP. They aren't arguing against a tyrant; they are arguing for
> Carter vs Ford.

If you think it's not important who is on the SC and lower courts, read your Constitution again. An SC and appellate courts filled with the kinds of stiffs Shrub would be likely to appoint would cause all kinds of hell. Unless you can make a persuasive argument against this, you aren't going to convince any of us who think it's important to get Shrub out of there. (But then, perhaps you aren't really trying to convince us, but just looking down your nose at us from your superior seat of wisdom.)

As for labor issues, I grant that Democrats' record on them would not thrill a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, but again I think there is a fair amount of daylight between their record and Shrub's.

I'm not sure what you conceive "their own position" to be, but the position of at least some of us on the side of the argument opposing yours is not that we have to "give into the DP." But your side continues to blithely repeat this mischaracterization no matter how much we try to explain ourselves, so I will just throw up my hands. Perhaps someone else can do better than I.

In any case, the difference between Carter vs. Ford and Kerry vs. Bush is very clear, at least to voters who care about the specific, concrete issues of the present. If your immediate or sole priority is overthrowing capitalism, of course you can afford to be sanguine about Shrub's re-election. From that remote position, any old President is as good or bad as another one. But some people have different priorities, at least for the next few months.

Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list