[lbo-talk] Tariq Ali Endorses Kerry . . . for the Battleground States

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com, Sun Oct 31 21:04:02 PST 2004:
>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>Changing only the occupants of the White House without changing the 
>>most egregious policies of the present occupant -- the root cause 
>>of much of anti-incumbent (aka ABB) sentiments -- is largely 
>>symbolic.  What's purely symbolic is leftists such as yourself and 
>>Thomas voting for John Kerry in such one-party states as New York 
>>and California, when your votes do NOT even contribute to "evicting 
>>the present occupant of the White House" AT ALL.  Thomas says that 
>>"if Bush wins, in the same manner as 2004, [he] want[s] to be able 
>>to point out that he lost the popular vote" -- "winning" the 
>>popular vote while losing the electoral college is also nothing but 
>>symbolic.
>
>Getting more votes than the other guy is purely symbolic? That's 
>ludicrous, unless you consider popular consent and legitimacy purely 
>symbolic.

It's the candidate who wins the electoral college that actually gets 
to be the occupant of the White House, which gives him real power of 
setting foreign policy and shaping domestic policy.

If you are interested in denying George W. Bush the symbolic power of 
winning the popular vote and gaining an illusion of popular consent 
and legitimacy in case Bush wins the electoral college, you should 
advocate votes for Ralph Nader or other candidates on the left at 
least in the one-party states like New York and California.

For instance, suppose that Bush narrowly wins the electoral college 
with only 40% of the popular vote, with 21% of the popular vote going 
to Nader and other candidates on the left and 39%, going to Kerry -- 
that will be a far more symbolically powerful way of denying Bush and 
Bush's and Kerry's agenda of continuing the wars and occupations an 
illusion of popular consent and legitimacy than pro-war Kerry winning 
51% of the popular vote and pro-war Bush winning 49% of it, with all 
anti-war candidates (Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, Calero, et al.) 
receiving zero votes anywhere.

>The subject heading is really misleading. Tariq thinks it's very 
>important for Kerry to win the election, and he thinks Nader is a 
>"joke" afflicted by "narcissism" with no sense of a national 
>politcal strategy. Did you forget that part?

In his elaboration, it appears that Tariq Ali wanted to retreat from 
his callow judgement on Nader in his radio interview, remembering his 
"[m]any dear friends" who will be voting for Nader, agreeing with 
Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc. who has advocated the so-called "safe 
states" strategy (in Ali's words, "I do not live in the United 
States, but am reassured that Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and other 
veterans hold a similar view"), etc..  If Ali wants to re-elaborate 
on the matter and flip-flop again like Kerry, I'm all ears.

In any case, the question is if those who are supporting Nader/Camejo 
have a national political strategy and organizing at the grassroots 
accordingly, regardless of what Nader thinks.
-- 
Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus: 
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, 
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>