[Marxism] Final thoughts on the U.S. election before the polls close

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most of the outspoken participants on the Marxism
list seem to be supporting Nader. That's not my
perspective. This morning a long commentary about
the US election by James Petras was posted to the
CubaNews list which supported Nader. Here are the 
comments I sent to the CubaNews list in response 
to the Petras piece. The link to his follows.
==============================================

I'm leaving soon for the home of a U.S. citizen
friend and long-time resident who has satellite TV
and is watching the election results, but a few
last-minute thoughts from your man in Havana...

Here in Cuba, the results of the U.S. presidential
election isn't yet known as the polls aren't as yet
closed. Here in Cuba, the subject of the election in
the U.S. is something which nearly everyone I know 
of has on their minds. One friend wrote a short time
ago to say she needed an update because she was having
what she called "electoral anxiety". I cannot imagine
ANYONE in Cuba who would want Bush to be re-selected,
other than perhaps James Cason and the U.S.-financed
opponents of the Cuban government. Even most of the
opponents have spoken out in one way or another to
say they're against the newly-imposed bush measures.

It's about 7:30 in the evening here and Cuba's daily
news magazine program, the Mesa Redonda (Round Table)
is giving its viewers an explanation of the ins and
outs of the U.S. electoral system. We're also getting
clips of scenes from polling stations around the U.S.
(Cuba isn't on daylight savings time, as an energy-
conservation measure which some of the countries of
Central America I understand are also following.

I'm soon going to close up the computer for several
house and go visit with friends who have a satellite
dish where we can spend the evening watching the news.

There will be people from the U.S. and Cubans, too, 
all of whom will be rooting for Kerry's success in
this race. No illusions that I can see as these are
all experienced people who don't think Kerry is any
kind of friend of Cuba, but everyone here seems to
think that Kerry would either pull back from if not
discontinue the worst of the Bush measures.

On another list where I participate, which is not
Cuba-focused, I made the point that Bush's measures
are the harshest attacks ever against this island
and its revolution. Someone retorted sharply: What
about the Bay of Pigs? I replied that the Bay of Pigs
was over in three DAYS. The United States wasn't in 
a position to try to strangle the island's economic
ties to the world, as most of these had by then been
transferred over to the Soviet Union which had by
then become its leading trading partner. And not only
was the Bay of Pigs over in three DAYS, Cuba was able
to trade the defeated soldiers for baby food and for
medicines. 

The Bush administration's acts have lasted far longer
and dealt serious blows to Cuba through cutting down
on Cuban-American visitation. I don't know how much
the remittances have been cut, but there has to be
a significant amount of that, too. Not to make any
reference to or comment on those significant facts
seems to me a serious weakness of any commentary as
far as readers whose interests on Cuba is high. 

As Cuba is not a central issue in U.S. politics, we
have to be clear to differentiate our own interests
and thoughts from those of most people in the U.S.
for whom Cuba remains a relatively minor factor.
Leaving Cuba out of the equation would also miss a
factor of great importance, when trying to assess
things on the bigger scale. Because of the Cuban
Revolution, and ONLY because of the Cuban Revolution,
this island nation of eleven million people has made
a name and a place for itself a hundred times its 
specific numerical or economic weight. 

Cuba's influence is being felt across the continent as 
Chavez supporters defeat the rightist opposition in 
Venezuela, and in Uruguay where the leftward trend has 
broken the rule of the status quo parties after over 
170 years. These are reflections of the crisis of 
neo-liberal capitalism on the one side, and of the 
influence of the Revolution in Cuba on the other. 
Why else would these countries make closer ties with 
the island a key plank in their political programs?

Earlier this morning a commentary was posted to CubaNews
list by James Petras, the noted Latin Americanist who
has come to Cuba often and whose works are regarded
quite favorably here. There's a Cuban edition of one
of his books which came out in January at the Book
Fair. I'm sorry to say that Petras' commentary on the 
US election omitted a number of important elements of
interest to readers of CubaNews and other Cuba oriented
lists. 

The word Cuba is only mentioned once in this rather
lengthy commentary. As far as Cuba is concerned, he
has surprisingly nothing to say. 

It seems to me that Petras unaccountably omits the
obvious differences which divide Kerry from Bush on
Cuba. In this respect Petras mirrors the approach
of Nader which likewise fails to recognize the big
differences between them. While both candidates do
share a broad capitalist, imperialist outlook on
today's world, Bush has campaigned vigorously and
relentlessly against Cuba, and has taken measures
which are harsher than any US president has taken
against Cuba in the history of the Cuban Revolution.

Kerry likewise is an opponent of the Revolution here
in Cuba, but his opposition has mostly been talking
and his voting record on Cuba issues is a mixed bag.

Kerry spoke out against the Bush travel restrictions
and has made something of an issue of his opposition
to these restrictions. He hasn't endorsed the Bush
plan to overthrow the Cuban government, though he 
also hasn't opposed it either. I feel, as I think a
lot of other people do, that Kerry is far less likely
to try to obstruct Cuba's growing economic ties with
the United States, as Bush has actively worked to do.

As regards Cuba, Nader has been basically silent
in an area where he could have made a positive and
useful contribution. Had Nader campaigned strongly
and outspokenly against the Bush travel restrictions
and the rest of the blockade, he could have drawn a
more serious amount of media attention, in my view.
Here's a report from the Miami Herald on Nader now:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/front/10066625.htm 

His record on Cuba, when he came to the island two
years ago and spoke positively, was an admirable one.
But Nader seems to have forgotten all that this year
and left Cuba off of his agenda. There isn't even a
statement on it buried on Nader's web page. Nader
doesn't even call for the immediate withdrawal of
the US occupation army from Iraq, so he's hardly a
serious alternative. There are other smaller protest
candidacies, such as that of the American Indian
movement leader Leonard Peltier, on the ballot in my
home state as Peace and Freedom Party candidate, or
John Parker of the Workers World Party, or Roger
Calero of the Socialist Workers Party, and others.
These candidacies are useful as general propaganda
efforts for a better society, for socialism in one
or another form. 

As a student of the history and the reality of the
Cuban Revolution, I'm primarily an activist, a news
collector and disseminator, a researcher and also a
critic of news coverage. I don't belong to a political
party and express my own considered opinions.

I very much enjoyed a comment earlier today on another
list by a man named Lou Paulson, a Chicago activist who 
said this about the prospect of a Kerry victory:

-------------------------------------------------------
LOU PAULSEN wrote
I don't know if the following observation will advance
things for not, and I apologize if it doesn't, but: part of
the issue is that there is a big difference between
"preferring" Kerry over Bush, all other things being equal,
and actually encouraging people to go out and vote or
campaign for Kerry.

It may be that the Cuban government would prefer Kerry to
win. In fact, you know what? Personally speaking, I myself
would prefer Kerry to win. I think we socialists who didn't
join the ABB current will have an easier time of it if
Kerry actually wins. Furthermore, considering the elections
as a barometer of sentiment, I think we are better off if
the workers with false consciousness of the Bush variety
are outnumbered by workers with false consciousness of the
Kerry variety, and I hope it works out that way. I'm aware
of Joaquin's argument that the incompetent Bush is actually
better for the world struggle, but that's somewhat
speculative.

There is a big difference, though, between hoping that
Kerry wins, on the one hand, and actually going out and
lying and spreading Kerryish propaganda in the
"battleground states" in order to bring about that result,
on the other hand. Just as there is a big difference
between preferring to have money, on the one hand, and
going out and stealing some worker's money, or wasting my
time looking in the mud for discarded lottery tickets, on
the other hand.

If a plain bagel and a raisin bagel are offered to you on a
plate, and you prefer the raisin bagel, you can reach out
and choose it. But we cannot just reach out and "choose" to
have Kerry win the election. To begin with, this is the
ruling class's election, not our election; it is a mistake
to buy into the idea that we can "choose" the winner
ourselves at all. We could only have some very modest
influence at most, and least of all by being honest. (You
can imagine the effect of going into Wisconsin with
leaflets saying "Socialist Cuba would prefer Kerry!") By
contrast, our control over other matters - whether there
will be anti-war demonstrations today or tomorrow, whether
socialist campaigns, or the Nader campaign for those of us
who have gone that way, will continue through the end,
whether we lie to our class or tell them the truth - is
very direct.

Yes, I will be more pleased if Kerry wins, but there is
nothing that I could have done, or encouraged others to do,
to bring about this result that wouldn't have done more
harm than good. (Except, for example, to organize against
the war, oppression, and the capitalist program in general,
which of course we all HAVE done, which has perhaps
undermined Bush's support and (because of people's
illusions) increased Kerry's support.) (And, perhaps I
should add, to be prepared to combat the racist vote fraud
schemes of the Republicans when they come to light.)

Nothing that I have read proves to me that the Cuban
government has a different approach than I do myself. I
haven't read them complain that Nader should get out of the
race, for example. So I'm not sure that the Cubans and I,
or Walter and I, really have a difference of opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------

WALTER RAPS UP:
I'm off to watch the boob tube and hang with friends.
We'll continue our discussion of this matter tomorrow.


Walter Lippmann
CubaNews list
===========================================================

US Presidential elections: a view from the left 

James Petras
Rebelión
October 22, 2004
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=6751



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