<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>The Politics of Fear</title></head><body> <div>Marv wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">Yoshie wrote:<br> <br> > Even if you think it a great idea to vote for John Kerry, there<br> > still is no reason not to challenge him to answer the question now:<br> > when will you bring the troops home?<br> ---------------------------------------------</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">I agree with you: he should be challenged. But the issue, as we both recognize, is how he can best be challenged - by organizing the ranks within the Democratic party, which are to the left of Kerry on Iraq,</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Some ABB intellectuals appear to imagine that the ABB intellectual chorus has negative impacts only on the Nader/Camejo campaign, the Green Party, and other forces that organize in opposition to the bipartisan consensus on the wars, occupations, and empire.  If that were the case, we would be much better off than we are in reality, where the ABB chorus practically silenced and squelched all challenges _inside the Democratic Party_.  The anti-war rank-and-file Democrats' inability to take issue with the pro-occupation agenda of the Democratic Party leaders that is reflected in the John Kerry campaign -- which I discussed in "Why Support Nader/Camejo" at  <<font color="#000000" >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040712/<span ></span>015358.html</font>> and<font color="#000000"> C. G. Estabrook</font> unpacked in "<font color="#000000">Dissolute Dems</font>" at <<font color="#000000" >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040712/<span ></span>015394.html</font>> -- demonstrates that it is more difficult to dissent from the Democratic Party from within than without.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">You don't believe people like yourself with your understanding, experience, and energy would not make a difference in helping fashion an effective Democratic left in conjunction with the Dean and Kucinich supporters?</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>It costs too much money to fight in the Democratic Party caucuses and primaries for a presidential election -- see "<font color="#000000">Dollars Per Vote: Green vs. Democratic</font>" at <<font color="#000000" >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040315/<span ></span>005922.html</font>>.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">Ah well, we could rerun this old historical debate indefinitely, which ultimately depends on whether you think the mass of the population is ready to break with its traditional party, or still has confidence in it - or at least confidence that it is reformable.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>About half of the eligible electorate do not bother to vote -- some because they do not have time, some because they don't think elections matter.  Some non-voters, however, do not vote because neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party addresses their needs and concerns, desires and aspirations, and it is important to at least try to give them a reason to participate in politics.</div> <div><br></div> <div>As for those who still regularly vote , I'd say that many of them are not ready to break with the Democratic and Republican Parties at all, but others are ready to give serious thought to an alternative to them, and that is in fact the reason why the Democratic Party operatives use their political power through elected and unelected offices and mount legal campaigns to keep anyone who may remotely have a chance of getting the attention of masses of people (like Ralph Nader) off the ballots (not only in the presidential election but also at all other levels of election), and the ABB intellectuals try to achieve the same goal through their ideological campaigns.  They would not do any such thing, wasting money and time, if they thought that no one would vote for any alternative to the Democratic and Republican Parties.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Doug wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">And, after Jan 20, if Kerry wins, the case will be easier to make than it is today, because all hopes will be dashed by his inevitably miserable performance.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Jenny Brown has a very well written essay that makes precisely the same argument -- i.e.,  third-party organizers find it easier to make their case under the Democratic White House -- in the latest issue of the publication of the Independent Progressive Political Network.   The argument would make at least some sense if 2004 were the first year when the United States made a transition from feudal monarchy or dictatorship or something like that to bourgeois democracy.  Then, without sounding apologetic, you could make an argument that people need to learn through their own experiences of the limits of bourgeois political parties before getting to the stage of building the political party of the working class and our allies.  We are living at the dawn of the 21st century, not of the 20th century, however.  By now, the Americans have had more than enough direct experience of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.  By now, so many Americans have had all their hopes dashed by the inevitably miserable performances of the past Democratic administrations that nearly half the eligible electorate do not bother to vote in a presidential election year!  Richer strata of the working class and petty producers -- to which many of the ABB intellectuals belong -- have yet to have their hopes dashed, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that others have not.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Chuck0 wrote</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">We could have buried the Democratic Party over the past four years and then proceeded to bury the Republican Party (which is imploding by the  hour).</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>It's a great lost opportunity indeed.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Carl wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">I will of course vote for Kerry, heir to the proud boast, "There Is No Alternative!"  But I don't want to make it easy for that fucker simply to  pick up where Bush left off, catering to Ariel Sharon's every insane whim.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Some ABB intellectuals claim that they will be fighting against Kerry from Day One of his victory, but, as long as they remain mostly silent in public about why the hell people need to do so from Day One, they only serve to give reasons to people to work for the Kerry campaign and then go home after the election day.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Jon wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">Hence, Nader voters, who want the war to end, will in fact be voting to continue the war, which Bush will undoubtedly do.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Both Bush and Kerry will continue the wars and occupations.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Simon wrote;</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">For a start Nader won 2.9m votes in 2000, compared to 11m (est.) for Moore, making Moore four times as popular.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>For comparison, you have to take differences in denominators into account.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Yoshie</div> </body> </html>