> (Assumption here: The controlling purpose of progressives in the u.s.
> at
> the present time is the grpwtj of a mass anti-interventionist
> movement.)
I don't think that's the only or even the main issue. The public is not well educated on a whole range of issues, foreign and domestic, and they all need to be tackled. A big agenda, but the left always has a big agenda.
> The argument for campaigning for Kerry has nothing to do with the
> differences between the DP & the RP. The argument has to be a variation
> of that expressed in the Declaration of Independence: The threat that
> Bush if reelected will create an irreversible trend to tyranny. If that
> is not the case, it makes no difference whatever how much "better" (or
> "less evil") Kerry & the DP may be.
On the contrary, there are a lot of differences between Bush and the DP nominee (Kerry or whoever) which are much less serious than "an irreversible trend to tyranny" but which still recommend the latter over the former. Judicial appointments is only one such issue.
> In my judgment Bush does not represent such a threat, and analogies to
> Germany 1932 do not hold. The U.S. is obviously moving towards a far
> more authoritarian society, but that movement has little or nothing to
> do with who is in the White House.
You don't have to make an analogy to Germany 1932 to support Kerry, for Pete's sake. And I think fighting vigorously against the Bush administration, rather than sitting back and looking with disinterest on the contest between Bush and the person who will in fact replace him (i.e., the DP candidate) if he is replaced, will help to combat the trend toward the more authoritarian society. What makes you think it would proceed as rapidly with a Dem president as with Bush?
> What is crucial in respect to this campaign is that our debates not
> threaten our ability to work together in the anti-intervention movement
> after November. That means no challenging of motives of those who take
> one side or the other in this debate.
Sure, I agree. Challenging the motives of people you are arguing with is always a dishonorable move, unfortunately all too common in political arguments. Usually, I think, it's because the motive-challengers are too uninformed or unintelligent to come up with valid arguments.
> I'm not an admirer of Nader
> personally, but the personal attacks on him being made by ABBs are an
> outrage, and a real threat to the future unity of the left when it will
> be needed most.
Hey, I thought you were the one who was always challenging people who make unwarranted generalizations about "the left," etc. What's with the generalization about "ABBs"? Sure, there are some personal attacks, but there are also a lot of people pointing out characteristics of Mr. Nader which seem to make him less than an ideal candidate for president. Anyone who puts her/himself foward as a candidate has to expect that his qualifications, including personal ones, for the office will be vigorously contested.
> P.S. I said "campaigning" not "voting." Progressives as I use the word
> are not passive in their politics. They put the hours of the day where
> their politics lie. I don't give a hoot one way or the other how an
> isolated individual votes or doesn't vote.
But advocating that people vote for the DP candidate on forums such as this list counts as "campaigning," it seems to me. It doesn't take too many hours a day to do this, but it's still campaigning. Would you say that people who intend to vote for the DP candidate shouldn't say so, and give reasons for doing so, on forums such as this?
> P.S. 2 The traditional virtue (post-w.w. 2) of the RP has been its
> cowardice in foreign affairs when it is in office. Very nearly
> archetypal was Reagan's turning tail and fleeing Lebanon after the
> death
> of 200 marines there. On this basis, Bush _may_ be the lesser evil in
> this election.
Bush hasn't shown any such cowardice so far; in fact, his whole mission (says he) after 9/11 has been ranging around the world wiping out the bad guys. What is restraining him is the finite size of the U.S. military, not any inclinations on his part.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile