Why I Plan on Voting for Kerry and Opposing Him When He Wins

Author: Gnat

The American ruling class must be peeing its pants for joy this election season. On the right we have a foaming-at-the-mouth fascist ready to launch the world into war, war and more war and on the "left" we have a kinder-and-gentler fascist willing to fight these pathetic wars and "do a better job at it" than the fascist on the right. What a choice for those of us who despise fascism and see Kerry for what he is - a different flavor of ruthless war criminal (read about his actions in combat during the Vietnam war)! Best yet, for the warmongers, he intends to suck up to the Likud even more than Bush does (and who thought that possible?).

A look back over history will show you that some of our worst war mongers have been Democrats and it looks like things haven't changed much. Even Clinton bombed Belgrade when Belgrade had committed no offense against the US (not to mention, Clinton's "brilliant" bombing of an medicinal factory in the Sudan). In fact, Republicans have tended to be the lesser of the two evils with regard to war, historically - the current president being an exception.

I do not support these wars and I will continue to oppose them no matter who wins the next elections. However, there is a difference in our choices with respect to domestic politics and I believe that difference is the key to changing our direction with regard to our current campaign of war crimes and atrocities against humanity. If Bush wins, we can expect a megalomaniac, profoundly psychotic and delusional, to run further amuck, this time without concern for the next round of elections. If Kerry wins, we can expect a spoiled but sane man to do his best to serve the ruling class in its drive towards war and conquest. The primary difference lies in the mental condition and the susceptibility to pressure from the left of the two. Kerry is less likely to launch a nuclear war than Bush. Kerry is less likely to engage in the systematic violation of basic rights than Bush. However, just as importantly, Kerry needs to worry about being reelected while Bush does not.

For those of you fantasizing about a third party candidate coming into office, I am sorry to inform you that you will not live in a democracy until you either leave the country or have a revolution. The system is rigged and it is Bush or Kerry - NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT. Since a revolution before the end of the year is highly unlikely, I suggest you add to your schedule a few minutes to pass a vote for Kerry in November while making other plans. In no case do I suggest you waste your time campaigning for Kerry, holding a sign for Kerry or putting an ounce of your faith in him. The Democratic Party is not the solution, it's just a banana peel on the road to destruction, upon which a short time slipping on the banana peel might delay arriving at the final solution long enough to figure out how to find (or make) an exit ramp.

I've seen it argued that four more years of Bush would help the class struggle by making more people aware of the true relationship between the ruling class and the working class. In this scenario, an increasingly miserable and oppressive existence under the fascist regime of Bush would provoke rebellion or insurrection, resulting, perhaps, in the overthrow of the government. While I certainly would like to see government swept away, I do not believe in sudden revolutions any more than I believe in fairy god mothers. No revolution has ever succeeded for which a cultural revolution did not already pave the way. Revolutions only succeed when they confirm what is already true. For example, the French Revolution succeeded (in so far as it ended the aristocracy) exactly because the aristocracy was no longer really in power. The Russian Revolution was not truly a revolution - it was a coup organized by a small group of individuals. It succeeded in ridding Russia of the aristocracy but failed to rid Russia of authoritarianism. This failure was not a failure of Marx, for Marx predicted revolution in a society far more advanced than Russia in 1917, it was a failure for Russia and the Russian people. The groundwork of a cultural revolution had not been laid before the actual "revolution." The American Revolution succeeded only because the independence of the colonies was already a fact. The "revolution" merely confirmed the fact and made it clear. Should we have a revolution in the United States right now, it would be nothing more than a restructuring of the system by which the ruling class rules. For the lot of us it may be no better than it is right now. In fact, it might be worse.

If you are an anarchist, as I am, you desire an America WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. We currently live in a culture that believes in government and any revolution at this point in time will result in some other government. Thus, while a revolution is highly unlikely an anarchist revolution in the near future is impossible. We cannot have an anarchist revolution until Americans are already anarchists.

There is an ethical defect in the utilitarian argument for permitting Bush four more years to make things worse. Let me begin by an example. A small number of Zionists that had already transported themselves to Palestine argued, during World War II, that Hitler's outrage against the Jews would, in the end, hasten the foundation of the State of Israel. Technically speaking, they were correct. Moral outage at the crimes of the Nazis hasted world acceptance of the State of Israel. However, was the price worth it? The question is not whether Israel would have come to exist in the absence of Hitler's crimes, for we will never know the answer to that question. The question is whether the slaughter of millions of human beings is a worthy price to pay for the establishment of some political order in some location to be enjoyed by individuals not included in that slaughter. While some individual living in Tel Aviv might think it was (though I doubt such an individual exists), I guarantee you that without exception no father or mother seeing their daughter or son carted off to a death camp would agree. The argument in favor of four more years of Bush in the hope that it will be the last straw that brings on some hypothetically better political state is equal in all its flaws to the twisted argument that slaughtering Jews during WWII was worth the price of creating Israel. The life of each individual is unique and precious and NO ONE has the right to exchange that life for their own plans or desires. Bush is Hitler's psychological twin. Given the opportunity there will be millions slaughtered to make way way for his mentally twisted concept of God's will. Given the preceding, I cannot support the idea that we have no moral call to oppose Bush. All the evidence points to massive crimes against humanity should Bush remain in power. Given that fact, it is our duty to oppose Bush, even if it is to exchange him for a saner fascist against whom we can more productively organize an alternative over the years to come.

I've seen the arguments against my position before, but I believe that they are hollow arguments. Most arguments against this position including assumptions that I reject. By opposing Bush one does not support Kerry. By opposing Bush one does not support the liberals. Yes, for a short time opposition to Bush boosts the fortunes of liberals, but that is the price we must pay to get to the next step - opposing the liberals. As one ages and looks back over directly experienced history, one learns that it is sometimes impossible to fight every battle at the same time. Ordering one's battles is as important as fighting them. The order in which you choose your tasks has a great effect on the outcome of those tasks. It is strategically important to oppose Bush now and then to oppose Kerry when he is elected. This is the order of tasks before us. Those who look at opposition to Bush as support for Kerry make the same mistake that liberals and conservatives make: they believe that there are only two choices. Those who support a third party candidate in a two party system make the mistake of believing that this third individual is actually a candidate. He has no chance of winning - therefore he is not a candidate. To achieve a third party victory, you would need to take up arms. Nothing short of that would bring it about.