> Is this irony, Doug. If it is it is misplaced.
> Persuading people to support John Kerry does not sound like winning
anything
> to me.
> It sounds like dissolving your critical voice into the pro-war mainstream.
--------------------------------------
Like Doug and others, I'm less interested in the intentions or electoral
pledges of either Bush or Kerry than in how the outcome of the election is
liable to affect the antiwar movement in the US.
What basis is there for believing that a Kerry victory would, in effect, mean "dissolving" the antiwar movement into "the pro-war mainstream", even if this were the direction in which a new DP administration wished to go?
The antiwar movement, which is still alive and very much a part of the mainstream, expresses itself through the Democrats, so I expect there'll be significant pressure after November 2 on a Kerry administration to enlist the UN and other international agencies as cover for an early US withdrawal (amid obligatory declarations of "victory"). Kerry's platform and public rejection of the Bush administration's plans for permanent Iraqi bases already reflects this pressure, and there is no reason to suppose his administration would have any more success than LBJ's in containing the DP's antwar base in the event of an escalation.
The Republicans, of course, will not have the constraining pressures of an aroused and disaffected party base to contend with, only a demoralized street movement it can safely ignore.
At bottom, the fear of a DP victory expresses a pessimism in the staying power and independence of an already formidable American antiwar constituency which seems unwarranted. I'd like to hear more from James, Yoshie and others on why they think this is an unfair judgement.
Marv Gandall