[Marxism] " the journey of a thousand miles..."

[Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx]

Published on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the <A 
HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/";>Guardian </A>/ United Kingdom 
    
The Bad or the Terrible?
Those Who Insist Nader Supporters Should Vote Kerry are Holding Back US 
Democratization

    
by George Monbiot 
    
    
This is the question which people ask themselves before almost every 
presidential election: why, when the United States is teeming with brilliant 
and 
inspiring people, are its voters so often faced with a choice between two 
deeply 
unimpressive men? I would have thought the answer was pretty obvious: because 
deeply unimpressive men continue to be elected. 
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/index.html";>More News & Analysis from the 
Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace</A> <A 
HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/iraq.html";>Iraq</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/palestine.html#latest";>Palestine</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/afghanistan.htm";>Afghanistan</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2004.htm";>US Bombing Watch</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#local";>Local Colorado 
News</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#resistance";>Resistance</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#racism";>Racism</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#analysis";>Analysis</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#civil";>Civil-Liberties</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#history";>History</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#humor";>Humor</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/pictures.html";>Photo - Video</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/poetry.html";>Poetry</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/#pdf";>Fact Sheets & 
Posters</A> 
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/080102_Cartoons.htm";>Anti-War 
Cartoons</A>
<A HREF="http://www.ccmep.org/ccmep/main.html";>CCMEP In the News...</A>
    

This year, the American people have been instructed to elect one again. 
Almost every powerful progressive voice has told them not to vote for the 
progressive candidate, but to vote instead for The Man Who Isn't There. 
Ralph Nader may stand for everything the Guardian, the Nation magazine, even 
Noam Chomsky, claim to support, but all these voices - indeed just about 
everyone on the left - have been urging the voters in swing states to choose 
John 
Kerry. 
Their argument, of course, is that Kerry is the only candidate who can knock 
George Bush off his perch. He might be about as inspiring as a parking lot on 
a wet Sunday in Detroit, but his vacuity is better than the president's 
aggressive certainties. 
The contest is so close that if even a few thousand people vote for Nader 
rather than Kerry in the swing states, it could win the election for Bush. This 
is why Republicans have been giving money to Nader. 
So Americans should vote for the Democrats in 2004, and worry about the wider 
failings of the US political system when the current president is safely out 
of the way. 
And their argument has merit. Bush has already launched two unnecessary wars, 
threatened 40 or 50 nations with armed aggression, ripped up international 
treaties and domestic regulations, granted corporations a licence to cook the 
planet, waged a global war against civil liberties and sought to bury that 
old-fashioned notion that the state should tax the rich and help the poor. The 
world would certainly be a safer and a better place without him. 
As a result, a Guardian leader told us last week, these are "exceptional 
circumstances Mr Kerry's flaws and limitations are evident; but they are put in 
the shade by the neo-conservative agenda and catastrophic war-making of Mr 
Bush". 
In an open letter to Ralph Nader in January, the Nation magazine claimed: 
"This is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W Bush has led 
us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical." 
The problem with this argument is that both publications said the same thing 
about the 2000 elections. The Nation's columnist Eric Alterman blames Al 
Gore's defeat on Nader's "megalomania". Three days before the vote, the 
Guardian 
argued that "... the marginalized Mr Nader cannot win ... Exciting [Al Gore] 
ain't. A visionary he is not. But he is the safe, wise choice." 
And similar warnings have been issued during almost every presidential 
election in modern times. Under the US electoral system, which is constructed 
around 
patronage, corruption and fear of the media, there will always be exceptional 
circumstances, because it will always throw up dreadful candidates. 
Only when the Americans choose a man or woman who is prepared to turn the 
system upside down and reintroduce democracy to the greatest democracy on earth 
will these exceptional circumstances come to an end. In choosing the bad rather 
than the terrible in 2004, in other words, Americans will be voting for a 
similar choice in 2008. Whereupon they will again be told that they'd better 
vote 
for the bad, in case the terrible gets in. 
Any president who seeks to change this system requires tremendous political 
courage. He needs to take on the corporations which have bought the elections, 
and challenge the newspapers and television stations which set the limits of 
political debate. Kerry, who demonstrated plenty of courage in Vietnam, has 
shown none whatsoever on the presidential stump. 
Last week, when the Republicans were questioning his commitment to defense, 
he announced that "even knowing what we now know" he would have voted to give 
President Bush the authority to attack Iraq. 
Ten days ago his national security adviser James Rubin told the Washington 
Post that if Kerry was president he would "in all probability" have launched a 
military attack against Iraq by now. Kerry's ability to raise almost as much 
money as the Republicans is seen as a triumph for American democracy; but his 
corporate backers are funding him not because they believe in democracy, but 
because they believe that he will do what they want. And they are unlikely to 
be 
wrong. When Kerry gets his orders, he reports for duty. 
The idea that this frightened, flinching man would oversee the necessary 
democratic revolution is preposterous. 
He has made the system work for him by working for the system. He knows that 
as soon as he turns against it, it will destroy him. What else does he have to 
fall back on? Charisma? Popular enthusiasm? 
He's no Hugo Chávez. A vote for Kerry is not just a vote against George Bush. 
It is a vote for the survival of the system which made Bush happen. 
I'm not an unhesitating fan of Ralph Nader's - I believe that some of his 
positions on trade, for example, are wrong - but no one could deny that he 
possesses courage. 
His decision to stand in November, when even his former supporters are 
telling him not to, is as brave as it is foolhardy. He has spent his working 
life 
fighting the corporations and being attacked in the media. 
This month he did something no other US politician has dared to do, and took 
on the Anti-Defamation League, the organization which smears opponents of 
Israeli policy as anti-semites. 
He won't be elected in November, of course, but that's not the point. The 
point is that if you want to change a system, you have to start now, rather 
than 
in some endlessly deferred future. And the better Nader does, the faster the 
campaign for change will grow. 
The Nation claims that Nader would have "a far more productive impact" as "a 
public citizen fighting for open debates and rallying voters to support 
progressive Democrats". 
But what possible incentive would the Democrats have to listen to him? He has 
influence over these cowering creatures only while they are afraid that he 
might take their votes. 
None of this is to suggest that there is no difference between Kerry and 
Bush. Where Bush is active, Kerry is passive. 
He wants to maintain massive levels of defense spending, but, despite his 
efforts to assure the media that he is as mad as Bush, he would probably be 
more 
reluctant to attack other nations. 
He wants to cut taxes, but he is less willing to wage war on health and 
education. He wants to hold down the price of oil, but doesn't want to help the 
corporations open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. 
The question is whether this difference is sufficient to justify the 
abandonment of the only current electoral attempt to democratize the US 
political 
system. 
I don't believe it is. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic are asking 
American voters to sacrifice liberty for security, and democracy for 
expediency. The voters should ignore them. 
    
    

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism