[lbo-talk] Bush as the lesser imperialist evil

[Joseph Wanzala]

That Kerry is the only feasible 'alternative' to Bush in a way represents 
ultimate expression of TINA, the evil handmaiden of 1990's neo-liberalism. 
'There Is No Alternative' was, and still is the mantra of the day and 
indeed, the rationale behind voting for Kerry is the same. There is no other 
game in town but neo-liberalism/imperialism so we may as well have it dished 
out to us by a Democrat, rather than have an authentic neo-con run the show. 
Kerry is the embodiment of a self-fulfilling defeatism of 
liberals/progressives/leftists about the possibilities of actually forging a 
different path. One of the recurring themes of the 'must-vote-for-Kerry' 
crowd is that Bush has us hanging from the precipice and Kerry represents 
the only lifeline we have. This ignores the fact that the Democrats have 
collaborated in pushing us all to the brink and may do little to keep us 
from all going over the edge in the longue duree. The corrolary idea that if 
we can only stave off Bush and hang on to the Kerry lifeline, such as it is, 
we shall seize the opportunity to win back all the ground we have lost. I 
find this argument uncompelling. It is at best, too little too late because 
the push to the edge of the cliff began quite some time ago and eight years 
of the Demcratic Party did nothing to reverse the process making it fairly 
easy for Bush to come in and push things into high gear.

As to the differences between Bush and Kerry, Christian Gregory wrote: "One 
of them has as his goal to intitiate the Rapture; the other was a garden 
variety humanitarian imperialist."

I doubt that Bush's goal is to 'initiate the rapture'. As hypebole, this 
might pass muster, but in terms of geopolitical analysis, the long term 
strategic goals of the Democrats are fundamentally the same as the 
Republicans, though their methods might differ qualitatively and I don't buy 
the idea that Bush & Co have a Dr. Strangelove complex - any more than the 
Dems do. As to Clinton as the 'humanitarian imperialist' this term is not an 
oxymoron only to the extent that it acknowledges that humanitarianism has 
historically been as much a false pretext for imperialist expansionism as 
latter day WMDs. So your attempt to differentiate Bush from Kerry actually 
masks fundamental similarities.

Joe W.


>From: Christian Gregory <christian11 at mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bush as the lesser imperialist evil
>Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:01:58 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>
>J Wanzala wrote, quoting G. Kolko:
>
>"More important, Kerry himself voted for many of Bush's key foreign and 
>domestic
>measures and he is, at best, an indifferent candidate. His statements and
>interviews over the past weeks dealing with foreign affairs have been both
>vague and incoherent. Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a
>candidate or as someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's
>foreign and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's
>than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely 
>justification
>for wishful thinking about Kerry."
>
>I have myself recently wondered about the virtues of voting for Kerry. John 
>Lacny reminded me of some good reasons to, but I didn't articulate my 
>confusion well. I wonder not if Kerry, as a Democrat, would be in principle 
>better than Bush--he surely would be, from what history tells us. But Kerry 
>himself doesn't seem all that bright about strategy (at least, judging from 
>the campaign), and shows little ability to lead. No big problem: Bush is 
>neither intelligent nor a gifted leader. But then it matters who Kerry 
>surrounds himself with. So, who are his advisors? Rand Beers and William 
>Perry on FP; Jeffrey Sachs, Roger Altman, Gene Sperling, Jason Furman and 
>Sarah Bianchi on economics. Etc.
>
>To say that these are Clinton retreads--which is more or less true--is a 
>compliment, considering the bunch we have now. To say that Bush's foreign 
>policy is like Clinton's is ridiculous on the face of it. One of them has 
>as his goal to intitiate the Rapture; the other was a garden variety 
>humanitarian imperialist. Whatever the baleful consequences of the latter, 
>I'd choose them over the former without hesitation.
>
>As for criticism of Bush not being a reason to support Kerry, I'd suggest 
>Kolko do a thought experiment: What are the reasons that those who vote for 
>Bush will give? His love of Nascar? Jesus? That he's "a good man"? That "my 
>family has always voted republican"? The idea that we should somehow have 
>"better" reasons for voting for Kerry betrays the weird electoral masochism 
>of the left.
>
>Christian
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk