>replies to R, yoshie, hari, ...
>
>
>R wrote:
> >
> > to imagine that in a nation like the USA, the people should be grateful
> for
> > the crumbs the dems throw us, such as a judge who's not a scalia clone --
> > when those crumbs are less than the barest of minimums of any reasonable
> > standard of govt -- is fatuous and ridiculous.
> >
>
>R(?), aren't you making a bad assumption, here? what you call "crumbs"
>are "crumbs" only to you and me, and our idea what "any reasonable
>standard of govt" is. for "the people" it may be pretty close to what
>they want, within what is possible w.r.t intersecting sets of
>desires/goals (for instance, the vast bulk of americans, irrespective of
>party affiliation, are probably in favour of various forms of
>curtailment of civil rights, especially that of immigrants).
the fact we agree they are crumbs is important. we, also, are "the people." there are many others like ourselves who regard them as crumbs -- not just you and me. i would respectfully suggest you consider expanding your definition of "the people" to include yourself.
i don't think we really know what the vast bulk (assuming there is such a thing) of "the people" want. particularly since the people have next to no input into the system; they are supposed to accept working as wage slaves until their jobs are outsourced or made redundant by technology, while their nation continues its path toward becoming another banana republic.
the people are asked forced choice and manipulated questions in polls and are given forced choice and manipulated candidates at elections. the people live under the most oppressive propaganda machine in US history, possibly in the world -- which keeps the majority mislead, disinformed, ignorant, side tracked by wedge issues, and looking in the wrong places for the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
it truly would be interesting to see what the people wanted if the people were allowed to be an informed electorate, as jefferson said is the basis of a free society. what emerges most obviously from the measly 200 plus years of the existence of the USA is how well the power elite maneuver to stifle -- and if they can't stifle, co-opt -- it each time there is the slightest possibility of democracy breaking out.
i believe people like you and i are obligated not to accept crumbs as anything other than what they are, despite what politicians, media, talking heads, party apologists, etc, tell us we are to think and take on faith. it's important to make our opinions known, and to try to raise the bar of public awareness which the US power elite likes to keep so low for obvious reasons. if we, who are supposed to know better, don't advocate a reasonable standard of govt, ravi, who will?
R
>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> > Ravi wrote:
> > It should be easier for a Green Party candidate (or a candidate of
> > another political party on the left) to be elected for US
> > Representative, US Senator, or Governor than for President. As I
> > mentioned, this year, 57 Green Party candidates are running for seats
> > in the US House of Representatives, and 7, the US Senate. Combined
> > impacts -- in terms of fundraising, new party activists, new
> > registered Green voters, new state parties, new party ballots, media
> > coverage, etc. -- of all of them, however, are smaller than
> > Nader/LaDuke 2000 or a Green Party presidential ticket in the future
> > headed by an intellectual in Nader's league of name recognition,
> > political connections, and fundraising capacity (and few US leftists
> > are -- perhaps no US leftist today is -- in Nader's league in these
> > three respects). That's the truth based upon empirical facts.
> >
>
>perhaps but (a) nader's name recognition can still be used to promote
>the greens and (b) name recognition for the party and its candidates may
>still be the better goal to work towards, than in pushing for an
>impossible nader presidency.
>
>
> > I doubt that John Kerry will be better for the environment than
> > George W. Bush. Each president since Richard Nixon was on the whole
> > worse for the environment than the one before. Bill Clinton was
> > worse than Ron Reagan and George H. W. Bush: e.g.,
>
>
>ok, so as you suggest, bush term 2 should be worse than bush term 1,
>yes? then, the question is, would kerry term 1 be worse than a bush term
>2? i still believe not (btw, thanks for the excerpts of the clinton record).
>
>
>hari.kumar at sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> > Hello Ravi, hope you are well.
> >
>
>most excellent ;-). i hope you are well too!
>
>
> > Let me be clear, I will take such a victory with a whoop if not a
> > glass of champagne. [I vividly recall having a glass of champers for
> > Mrs T's political departure from the stage.. That was a long awaited
> > glass as I recall, as an economic refugee from the UK]. And I do
> > think that victory would be is worth while, largely as Bush
> > & his crew are so utterly & arrogantly despicable.
>
>
>what you write above is pretty close to the assumptions/question i
>started this thread with.
>
>
> > But I remain fearful in the extreme; (i) as to Mr Kerry's specific
> > positions ["Believe me, if we need to get tough with Iran I HAVE A
> > PLAN & I WILL BE TOUGH WITH IRAN"; second debate); & (ii) In a much
> > more generla manner - further perpetuating the myth that the
> > Democrats are a true alternative.
> >
> > If these problems of (i) & (ii) Above are legitimate, how is the
> > pattern of continuing attacks on the peoples of the world - of which
> > Iraq is by no means the first..... to be broken?
>
>
>that's the tough question, isn't it? the treatment of the rest of the
>world may be the issue with least traction among the american public. it
>is this indifference that kerry caters to, when he acts tough about
>other parts of the world i.e., imho, he needs to at least pay lip
>service to those issues/concerns. i do not of course believe that the
>democrats are a true alternative.
>
>
> >
> > Elsewhere I heard Justin say a variation of what Doug recently said:
> > "That Nader is not the man".
> > Yes but - ... Kerry is not the man - surely?
> >
>
>surely not.
>
>
> > Then - who is the wo(man)? & how does such a paragon come into being?
> > If the Nader movement is not a potential third force, what does it
> > take to make one? & why abstain from that task now?
>
>
>which was the second part of the two points i raised in the post that
>initiated this thread: is a national presidential run, with zero chances
> of success, and high chances of alienating left-leaning democrats, the
>best way to grow such an alternative?
>
>when i posted my initial questions, i had no convictions, but i am yet
>to hear a convincing response outlining what is wrong with the reasoning
>i presented.
>
>
> > If the idea of organising outside the Demcoratic Party is such
> > anathema, how will a movement be created within the democratic party
> > that eats' its rebels? & Why should it not do so - it knows what
> > happens if worms enter the apple?
>
>
>sure we can and should organize outside the democratic party. the scope
>of my questions was much smaller and related to the positives and
>negatives of this particular nader run.
>
>
> > Another time I will try to take up your point re Kashmir (with which i
> > think i agree - if W's remarks are the oppostie of yours!)
>
>
>i look forward to your thoughts,
>
> --ravi
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk