As a foreigner in this country, I agree that it is important that a symbolic message is sent to the world that we shall not tolerate Bush, but I would add that siginificant numbers of people in the rest of the world are certainly under no illusions about Kerry - or Blair - or Chirac for that matter. Bush represents an extreme expression of what people in the Third World anyway, have been quite accustomed to for a long time. Cynical would not begin to describe their attitude towards the transformative value of electoral politics in any country (Here I'm referring to people I communicate with personally) It is true that even in foreign policy a Kerry adminsitration might offer some differences, but they would be largely qualitative and would resemble the multilateralism of Clintontme that brought us the war in Yugoslavia and the attendant prevarications of Jamie Shea. I expect that Sudan might become Kerrys Yugoslavia.
I certainly also agree with your view that the left "will [not] regain strength until world events (war, economy, and/or ecology) force people to think things through." What worries me about Kerry and whjat he represents is that he is an expression of a the now dominant neo-liberal mindset that undergirds policy making in all important arenas. It is not as though his current posture is contrived, what you see of Kerry on the campaign trial is the real dude. He is not going to trot out his skateboard on November 3rd. He will remain the sullen, dour, largely humorless fellow he appears to be now, impervious to our protestations.
The Democratic Party has progressives caught in a terrible double bind. My position is not to harangue people who are voting for Kerry, I know many people who are - and were I a US citizen, I might even do the same, who knows. My concern is that the consciousness of people who are voting for Kerry with a view towards pressuring him after November 3rd, do not instead become his tireless apologists.
Joe W.
Michael Dawson wrote:
I'm not voting for Kerry (and I resisted doing that for quite a while) because I buy the idea that the left will turn on him on November 3 and somehow gain a toehold in making policies. Personally, I'm doing it because of the FDR gamble. FDR was elected on a promise to balance the budget, and wound up reacting to deepening trouble with quite a bit of decency and institutional progress, excluding, of course, his shameful imprisonment of Japanese-Americans and his inattention to the demands of African-Americans. I'm not saying Kerry is as likely to turn decent as FDR was, but at least it's an imaginable possibility, and world events are certainly unlikely to go down a smooth path.
I also think it's important to show the world that we won't tolerate Bush.
Personally, I don't think the left will regain strength until world events (war, economy, and/or ecology) force people to think things through. We should be preparing for those possibilities, not expecting access to Kerry. IMHO.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Wanzala Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:06 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Nader and His Detractors/Kerry
What the right would do were Kerry to win shows why he would have to be accomodative to the right, not to progressives. People seem to forget that Clinton spent eight years in office not under pressure from the left (he dealt with the left by cooptation and when that failed, saxophone lullabies did the trick), but from the right (to the extent they actually had to exert
any pressure). Remember the Contract On America and all that - that was 'Clintontime'. Kerry will 'suffer' the same fate, and again, instead of pressuring a Pres. Kerry, the left will be too busy defending him from 'the right'. So much for the ABB strategy of electing Kerry, then getting to work
keeping his feet to the fire.
Joe W.