[Marxism] Re: Socialist Worker Online: Yes, Kerry really lost

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As Fred points out, it is pointless to always reference the Democratic
Party. This was the great weakness of the Nader campaign as well. It
was self-contradictory and internally confusing for Nader to defend
himself by insisting that he was pointing out to Kerry what Kerry
should be doing to defeat Bush. In doing so he undercut the campaign
against BOTH parties.

Bill Clinton came out for General Wesley Clark* and then when it
appeared that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was going to win the
primaries Gore supported him, probably to smother him.

The advantage of Clark and Dean over Senator John Kerry and Congressman
Dick Gephardt were that neither had voted for the Patriot Act or the
Iraq War. Of course, they would have had they been in Congress.
Nonetheless, they could claim that they wouldn't have--thus allying
themselves with the war's opponents, while continuing to support the
war. Had they been up to the mark, they could have played the "I
wouldn't have gone there, but now we have to win" card to the hilt.

It became obvious that Clark had no constituency and was an indifferent
campaigner. Plus, a bunch of fellow officers jumped in to say they
didn't like him.

But the problem with Dean was that he was raising expectations. And he
had gone too far to trim his message. The Democratic Party unloaded on
him big time. Gephardt had been around the track once too often, and he
spoiled some of his capital by his strong attacks against Dean.

Without missing a beat, Kerry became the next big thing for the ABBers
as well as rank-and-filers. Kerry's only claim to fame was his
opposition to the Vietnam War, which he opposed while at Yale and then
famously after his service. By the end of the campaign "reporting for
duty" Kerry was the uber-patriot who went to war to protect his
country. More a pretzel than a flip-flopper.

Kerry and his supporters figured that they didn't have to make any
concessions to the DP left at all. Kucinich was the adorable puppy who
growls while playing with you only to lap your face--plus any other
available parts--at the end of the tussle.

Personally, I had thought that there would be an opening to the left to
isolate Nader.** But the DP felt that it didn't have to do this. They
thought it sufficient to reference the results of the 2000 election.
Blame Nader for that. Leading the pack was former president Carter, who
at a rally in Washington, D.C., aroused the ABB crowd with a shameless
attack on Nader for costing the 2000 election.

And the DP felt that it was enough to "hate Bush." That was the whole
program, no matter how many pundits tried to prettify the DP and Kerry
himself.

Brian Shannon
___________________

* "Winning in Fallujah Is Just the Beginning" by General Wesley Clark
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47034-2004Nov12.html?
sub=AR

**ANDREW BIEMILLER: Sam said, "Oh, my God, the fat's in the fire." And
we proceeded to have the issue out. Now, while we were waiting for the
issue to be joined, our old friend Ed Flynn, the leader of the Bronx,
and really the leader of New York State at that time, National
Committeeman, grabbed Hubert and me. He said, "You kids are right, you
know what you're doing. This is the only way we can win this election.
Stir up the minorities." Now he said, "You stay right here with me, I'm
going to send a runner down." . . . Well, in those days at Democratic
conventions nobody really polled delegations, the leader voted them,
and they voted a unit rule. So we got the solid vote of New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey, and we had California already
buttoned up, and that added to Wisconsin and a few other states that we
were putting together, is what carried it; and I have always been of
the opinion that Ed Flynn knew what he was talking about, that it was
that plank that helped carry that campaign, because it did stir people
up among the minority groups in this country.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/biemiller.htm#50

DAVIDSON: . . . I felt that the Humphrey-Biemiller plank was obviously
the one that should be adopted; and also, to revert to the question you
asked a little while ago, I thought it was the best politics. I thought
that it was best to take a firm stand even though it might mean that
the South walked out, because we had indications that some of the
states would. We didn't know it would be that many.
HESS: Why did you think it was the best thing to do if the South was
going to bolt?
DAVIDSON: Because what you lose in the South you make it up in the
North. You would make it up in the heavily populated states.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/davidsn2.htm#109

[This is the Andrew Biemiller of whom Cannon said at the age of 30 had
all the senility of the European social-democracy. Not so senile after
all.]
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism