>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
>>The main point (which you appear to have missed) was that action is
>>more likely under Bush
>
>There's just no precedent for this position in U.S. history. Periods
>of disruption from the left came in the 1930s, 1960s, and to a
>lesser extent the 1990s - all under Democratic presidencies. The
>1920s, 1950s, and 1980s were relatively quiet, and the Nixon years
>marked the end of the 60s. So what are you basing this on other than
>your own feelings?
Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect? It is arguable that these reformist Democratic administrations are a reaction to the threat of leftist activism, designed to co-opt it into less radical channels. Whereas you seem to assume that the leftist activism was inspired by Democratic administrations and would not have happened without the election of Democrats.
Anyhow, what I was pointing out there was that the thrust of the article was that resistance is more likely under Bush. I wasn't making any point of my own, simply correcting someone who was misrepresenting the article itself. Its point was that progressives are more likely to rally against an open reactionary, than someone who gives lip-service to progressive causes. I believe its a point well worth noting and it disturbed me that people might miss it.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
Here is part of what the original article said:
>So the questions should now be raised: Is Bush, now that he has won,
>better equipped to rally and unify opposition to U.S. policy than
>was Kerry had he pulled it off? What about on the home front? Will
>liberals who backed Clinton despite his gaffes be tougher on Bush
>now that Kerry is covered in ashes from his electoral burn? Will
>minorities fare better under Bush than Kerry simply because there
>will be more pressure on his administration, where they would have
>caved to Kerry as they did under Clinton? We can safely assume that
>Kerry would have continued what Clinton began. For he was a staunch
>proponent and favorite of the Democratic Leadership Council, which
>he helped found.
>
>For those hoping a national uprising is in the making, Bush is will
>certainly be the rallying point. Although disenfranchisement would
>have continued under either administration, the popular upheaval, we
>can hope, will be the greatest under Bush. Sadly, Bush has perhaps
>proven to be the left's best organizer. His policies brought record
>numbers into the streets prior to the Iraq invasion. Even though
>more Iraqis perished during Clinton's first four years in office
>than on Bush's watch thus far, and Clinton didn't inspire even a
>fraction of the uproar, global or otherwise.
>
>Depressing, yes, but all too true.
>
>As historian Gabriel Kolko argues in Dimes Worth of Difference:
>Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, Bush may well be the better man to
>destroy the reaches of the U.S. Empire. He believed that keeping
>Bush in office could make old alliances such as NATO obsolete,
>humbling American foreign policy by forcing us to deal with our own
>arrogance. We cannot pursue a go-it-alone strategy forever. Kerry,
>as he's admitted, would have done his best to stop this trend of
>U.S. isolation in foreign hostilities -- and reestablish America as
>the unequivocal global menace. Bush's go-it-alone policy is
>unsustainable. Kerry planed to make the war sustainable by leaning
>on allies.
>
>Now that Bush is reelected, Kolko explicates, America's allies and
>friends will have to confront such stark choices, a process that
>will redefine and probably shatter existing alliances. Many nations,
>including the larger, powerful ones, will embark on independent,
>realistic foreign policies, and the dramatic events in Spain have
>reinforced this likelihood. This, he says, will force the U.S. to
>become a more tolerant member of the global community.
>
>Had Kerry been elected, postulates Kolko, the Senator would have
>done his best to bring back the global alliance that has caused
>insurmountable problems for so many around the world. A Kerry
>victory, then, would have stifled our unified anti-capitalist
>resistance to empire while four more years of Bush could
>inadvertently strengthen our cause by broadening the anger of
>resentment towards the U.S.'s global supremacy.
>
>Of course this rationale goes against virtually all lefty/liberal
>discussion about the dark election of 2004. But now that Bush has
>won, why not look at the possible bright side?
>
>Let's keep up our movements. For it is social movements that have
>historically been responsible for radical social change in this
>country. We are the force behind those principled tides. Not
>presidents. Not political parties. Perhaps we can use Bush to our
>advantage and continue our fight against global injustice with him
>in the Oval Office.