Re: [OPE-L] a comment on John's answers

[John Holloway <johnholloway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [OPE-L] a comment on John's answers

> Jerry,
>
>     I do not support López Obrador, or indeed any other professional politician. To engage in professional politics is to dedicate oneself to the construction and consolidation of a sphere of politics separate from society, that is to the exclusion of people from the processes of social decision-making. López Obrador in particular is a left-of-centre politician dedicated to the pursuit of political power.
>
>     I marched against his desafuero (exclusion from the political process) because it represented a sharp turn towards an even more authoritarian state in Mexico. I marched in Puebla but did not go to the march in Mexico City because López Obrador’s campaign was based upon converting the very widespread opposition to his exclusion into support for him.
>
>     Although I do not support him, I may possible vote for him, because I think there are some exceptional cases where it makes sense to vote and because I think he would probably be significantly less bad than either of the alternatives. I assume that many of the people who voted for Kerry in the last US election did so to exclude Bush and not because they supported Kerry.
>
>     I do not see why this argument should be considered inconsistent.
>
>     John
>
>
>
>
> Hi John:
>  
> A quick question.
>  
> Yesterday you wrote:
>  
> > [...] Firstly, I do not support Lopez Obrador.  I said I opposed his 
> > exclusion (desafuero), a very different matter -- if all politicians
> > had been excluded, I would have been delighted, but obviously that
> > was not the case.
>  
> Last Thursday (the 19th) you wrote:
>  
> >   I think that the reduction of poverty is desperately urgent, especially 
> > and palpably in Latin America (elsewhere too, but more obviously here). 
> > For that reason I would probably support any government that I thought 
> > was seriously committed to achieving this. I marched against the exclusion 
> > of López Obrador and I may possibly vote for him next year. At the same 
> > time, I recognise that any government that does not seek to eliminate 
> > capitalism will probably achieve very limited results in the reduction of 
> > poverty and will be forced to take part in promoting conditions favourable 
> > for the accumulation of capital, with all the very real violence that that entails. 
> > If, then, I decide to vote for López Obrador, it would be very much on the 
> > basis of supporting the lesser (but possibly significantly lesser) of two evils. 
>  
>  
> I don't understand how your comment yesterday was consistent with what
> you wrote last  Thursday:  aren't you suggesting in the latter that you 
> *might* support Obrador in the election by voting for him?  The reason you
> are suggesting (that he might be a lesser evil) is different from saying that
> you oppose his exclusion, isn't it?
>  
> In solidarity, Jerry