Jon Johanning wrote:
>
> On Monday, March 8, 2004, at 09:36 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > 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.
You don't understand my argument, Jon. This supports the point I was making. The case I am arguing against is the case made by those (e.g., both Doug & Justin on this list) who maintain that the DP is absolutely hopeless, the enemy of progress, BUT this election is special. We must defeat Bush this election, _then_ we can go back to fighting the DP.
But what you say here is that the ordinary differences between RP and DP are such as to be a reason for supporting the DP. But this argument will _also_ apply in 2008 and 2012 etc. In other words, if we accept your argument here, then the left must give up permanently establishing a public voice of its own an remain a minor skiff pulled along behind the DP.
I am not engaged in these posts in arguing how people should act (or vote) in this campaign. I am trying, rather, to distribute the argument as it were. I am assuming (and to assume means that one is not going to argue the assumption: those who reject the assumption simply ignore the whole post) -- I am assuming that the DP is hopeless and evil. The argument then is not over the DP but over whatever special conditions apply to this particular election. And there are people who _accept_ my assumption, but _still_ disagree with my conclusions. You deny the assumption, so there is nothing for you and I to argue about.
I write this post not to argue with you (or with anyone who agrees with your assumptions) but to clarify what the basis for argument is.
Carrol