BUSH VERSUS KERRY: FOR THE RECORD
As I expected my interview with Doug Henwood on the US elections has resulted in a flurry of e-mails and not a few distortions, which one has come to expect from sections of the US Left. Not a single e-mail from friends/comrades/acquaintances on any other continent. Outside the US few progressives get agitated when one hopes in public that Bush is defeated. Before the more virulent sectarians begin to choke in their own bile let me set the record straight on what my views are and what they are not. Soon the elections will be over and we can get back to uniting against the war in Iraq and adventures elsewhere.
(1) A defeat for Bush would be a defeat for a war-monger President who invaded Iraq and whose policies have left 100,000 Iraqi civilians and over a 1000 US soldiers dead. Tens of thousands have been severely wounded. Defeating a regime that has waged this war is not an abstract question. It is real and should be a priority for everyone who was opposed to the war in Iraq. A victory for Bush could have a demoralising impact globally and in the US. In Iraq and Venezuela, Afghanistan and Cuba, South Africa and China, people will think Bush has been re-elected because a majority of the US electorate support his policies. The defeat of the incumbent has to be de-linked from the political character of the available alternative. Why? Because a defeat for Bush will mark a defeat for his policies.
(2) Defeating Bush, alas, means voting for Kerry in the swing states. His policies, except on abortion and some other social issues, are virtually indistinguishable from those of Bush. We can all wish there was a better candidate, but there ain't one. And we do need a candidate to defeat Bush. I agree with many of Alexander Cockburn's criticisms as expressed in the latest New Left Review, while disagreeing with his conclusions. Despite the pathetic nature of Kerry and his cohort Edwards, the Left has no other choice IF it wants to defeat Bush. If it regards the outcome of the election as irrelevant, then of course, I understand the anger directed against myself. Rage from outer-space leaves me unmoved.
(3) A significant proportion of Democratic voters are opposed to the war and if Kerry continues on the same trajectory in Iraq as he promises to do then a section of his own base will detach itself and fight against him from Day One. That is why I have argued that the Inauguration should be an occasion for the largest national antiwar gathering possible demanding the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. There is no question of 'sowing illusions' in Kerry or the Democrats. The last chapter of the paperback 'Bush in Babylon' makes my views on the US Democrats very clear. So we will carry on fighting the incumbent if the incumbent carries on the war in Iraq. And if he does then surely at the end of four years he will go down as well and an intelligent third party could have an impact. But four years is a long way away and the US Empire is not as strong as it imagines. If they do not withdraw from Iraq they will be humiliated. Which is why some real nutters privately speak of nukes and killing a million Iraqis to calm the situation.
(4) I feel exactly the same regarding our local war-monger Tony Blair. I am for his defeat, despite the backing he has received from the labour movement. If a Liberal-Democrat candidate can defeat a pro-war New Labour ghoul, then I will vote for the Liberal-Democrats, despite their Kerry-like weaknesses. The reasons are the same. Politicians who deserve to be tried as war-criminals should not be elected.
(5) Many dear friends are committed to voting Nader/Camejo. On the West Coast and in New York this registers a vote to the left of Kerry and could add to the pressure but only if Kerry were elected. If the dynamic duo help Bush win in the swing states, you can say farewell to the chance of creating a meaningful Third Party for many, many years. I do not live in the United States, but am reassured that Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and other veterans hold a similar view.