Re: Paul Felton: Open Letter to Progressive Democrats

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>
> At 2:31 PM -0800 4/3/04, Devine, James posted:
> >"I don't have the confidence that the Democrats know how to beat
> >him," he [Nader] said.
>
> Neither do I.  John Kerry -- "electable"?  Kerry will probably prove
> to be a turnout depressor.

My self, I don't believe in having a belief of how an election will turn
out. :-)

One difference between advocating Kerry's election and supporting an
independent candicate or party is that the latter effort generates
serious conversation about the issues that will confront us over the
next decade and longer, while the former is a conversation stopper.
"Bush is so bad that we must support Kerry, even though he isn't any
good," or something like that. Nothing really follows, except in a
forced way. At least I can't imagine myself knocking on a door in order
to deliver that message.

But "I'm campaigning for Ralph Nader" should evoke at least a "Who in
the hell is that?" which could open a more focused conversation. Perhaps
I could even leave behind a leaflet on the BNCPJ, inviting them to check
us out after the election!

Doug repeatedly makes two points.

One is that "mass movement building" or "ABB" is not (or need not be) an
either/or proposition, that one can do both. (He also argues for a
division of labor in which his role is not organizing _either_ for the
election or for the mass movement but economic analysis as a journalist.
I'll accept the legitimacy of that, but then Doug ought to recognize
that that _does_ rather dilute any opinions he might have on organizing
strategy and tactics.) The choice is not _in principle_ an either/or,
but for most people I think it is in practice, and even in principle it
is challengeable. My own position until someone can show me otherwise in
both theory and acheived practice is that for the most part only
campaigning for a third party or candidate is really compatible with
giving a long-range priority to building a mass movement. (I think the
CIO would have done better, as would the CPUSA, to keep itself sharply
distinct from the DP.)

Doug's other argument (repeated, as he says, a million times) is that he
is very critical of Kerry (and will resume his opposition to the DP
immediately after the election). There can be a difference of judgment
here as to what counts as criticism or of the purpose of criticism of
the DP. And that, in turn, depends on the basis of one's opposition to
that party. The basis of _my_ opposition is the belief that the DP (or
its leadership and wealthy supporters) is a principled party, not
lacking in either courage or intelligence, and that the principle on
which it is based is the limiting of direct involvement in politics of
the population at large. If this is so, then there can be only _one_
useful form of "criticism" of the Party or of any of its candidates:
Opposition to their election.

The only persuasive argument, it seems to me, for supporting Kerry is
the conviction that the reelection of Bush (as some conspiracy theorists
hold) will be the last free election in the U.S. -- that this election
is _exactly_ in fact a replay of the German election of 1932. I simply
don't believe that. And any other argument will be just as valid in 2008
and 2112 and 2116 as in 2004.

Carrol