Publish to Newswire
Add an EventWhy I Plan on Voting for Kerry and Opposing Him When He Wins
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.
The Ds are like any predator - they act in their best interest and will only pause when directly threatened. The only threat to Kerry right now is one man (in his 70s?) who has worked his whole life to save lives and expose the transfer of fastastical amounts of wealth from the working class to the rich. But Jesus help anyone who dares to VOTE for him!
Ralph Nader.
What will you do, lie down in the street? Lock down at the Whitey House? Send an EMAIL??? 'Organize?'
NEWS FLASH - When Kerry wins, the entire left just lost half + of all their 'activists.'
"Where are you going? Wait! We need to pressure Kerry now!"
"Me? Oh I was just here to get Kerry in. Right now I've got a party to go to in Stanford. And I need to look at new cell phones tomorrow - mine got run over by a stupid SUV when I dropped it in the road the other day. Maybe another time, okay!"
Give me a break.
The more you participate in this sham, the more you keep JUST ENOUGH OF IT ALIVE TO CARRY OVER TO MORE DESTRUCTION.
And pretty soon it's too late.
Don't cave in to fear.
I guess this is how she's getting the millions to fund her good causes - sell out the left to the corporate war party.
"All this as a precis to the astonishing content of Ms. Benjamin's speech, which had me sitting there open-mouthed, sputtering with disbelief. She wanted to create, she explained, a get-out-the-vote campaign on behalf of ... John Kerry. The only possible purpose of "progressive" politics at this point is to get George W. Bush out of the White House. Sure, she admitted, he has some ... uh, deficiencies. She didn't get too specific. Nowhere did she so much as mention his support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Nor did she deign to acknowledge that he is campaigning on a promise to send more troops, and explicitly and vehemently opposes a U.S. withdrawal. But she held out the hope that we might build a "movement" that could "pressure Kerry." And "if they steal this election," she thundered, "we'll bring people out into the streets!" To the barricades for Kerry! That's Medea's battle-cry.
I sat, and listened, in silence, except for an occasional sputter, as long as I could. Then I began to ... say things. Loudly. When she got to the part about how we must "pressure" Kerry, I suppressed a number of possible (and highly obscene) responses and, instead, let loose with a skeptical laugh. When she admitted that her hero Kerry "isn't perfect" I couldn't help but agree: "You got that right!" And when she looked at me, and complained that she could use some "respect" from me, I again repressed my Rabelaisian instincts and instead pointed out, in a calm and measured tone, that she is nothing but a shill for warmongers in the Democratic party and she ought to be ashamed of herself. Well, she didn't like that, and thought it was "rude" and "disrespectful" of me to say these things, to which my answer was: chill out, Medea, this is the "participatory democracy" you told us you wanted.
That got her off on a tangent, and she went into this whole riff about how we can't really do anything - except, of course, vote for Kerry - until we "reform" the entire electoral process. First, by getting rid of the Electoral College, and then by allowing for proportional representation, "like in Europe." And all of this is to be supported with tax dollars: the parties, the campaign funding, everything. We need "minority voices," she wailed - even as her Democratic party bosses were kicking Ralph Nader off the ballot in Arizona, and challenging his election petitions everywhere in a concerted effort to still that particular minority voice. Is Medea in favor of that? She never even mentioned it.
Ms. Benjamin and her fellow Code Pinkos are worse than political whores. Their strategy boils down to selling out their alleged antiwar principles in pursuit of some vague opportunity to apply "pressure," with no rational expectation that it will have any effect - or any indication of what this "pressure" will consist of. As the peerless Matt Taibbi put it in a wonderful article about how the Greens rejected Nader in favor of some unknown pro-Kerry California lawyer:
"But this line of reasoning doesn't make sense for the Green Party. If you're going to suck a cock in a train-station lavatory, you ought to at least get something for it."
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292172.shtml
Anyone that believes that we have more power during the elections than at any other time has never engaged in direct action. The elections are a sham and the author makes it clear that he believes the elections are a sham. If Tweedle Dee is less nuts than Tweedle Dum and you will get one of the two, casting a vote and then going on to do something else (like organizing direct actions or protests) is not a case of selling out. You've only sold out if your goal is get people to heartfully compete in a slanted game (like putting energy into getting Nader elected rather than putting energy into fighting for a new system).
Wrong.
Nader's participation in the election is landing him on every mainstream media venue (including National Pentagon Radio) with his radical messages about corporate crime and getting out of Iraq.
Millions upon millions will be listening BECAUSE it is a presidential election. No one will give a flying f**k after the election.
Voting for Nader and making a huge effort around the farce of a bogus f**king farce election is because the VOICES of Ralph and Peter will empower the people to know what their options are and what sick people are running the country, and they will be energized to try to make change.
None of this stops or disrupts Direct Action efforts. My opinion on the power of each is just different than yours. Direct Action works. Of course. So does getting on TV and speaking out. Why? Because thousands and millions of people are instantly educated. Like I once was, by Ralph.
And a couple of years later, I got in the streets.
No wonder you anarchists have such a big "movement". LMFAO!
The radical community has a similar economic demographic to liberals. Some of the most radical antiCapitalists I know have upper middle-class jobs and identify with the workingclass in a strange way thats a combination of guilt and desire not to feel guilty at the same time. Aside from ideology, the main difference between liberals and radicals comes down to whether one claims to feel sorry for the working class or one claims a rather cartoonish workingclass identity. Thats not to say all radicals are wealthy, but neither are all liberals.
Liberal bashing seems to have become amazingly common place on the radical left and its always based around the straw-man version of liberal that was created in the 80s by the radical right (liberal meaning "cultural elite"). If you actually polled the population I think you would find that more workingclass African Americans and Hispanics consider themselves liberal than middle-class whites. Part of that is probably because the Reformist vs Revolutionary debate is easier when one is living in a comfortable living situation where reform is theoretical rather than something that has a personal impact. Free healthcare may seem like a reformist goal not worth fighting for until you need treatment and can't afford it. Public housing may seem like a bone being thrown to the opressed but if your at risk of becomming homeless, the reformist vs revoluionary debate doesnt really matter.
Kerry has decided to run to the right and figures if he can say everything Bush does he will win since the left can't not vote for him. If he wins and governs as Bush has been governing there really wont be any gain by a regime change. Depending on his stands on various issues during the election, there will likely be just as many radicals holding their noses and voting for Kerry as there are liberals who can't stomach his stands on gay marriage, Iraq, the Palestinians or other such issues. Single issue voting is hardly a liberal phenomena; Arab Americans went for Bush over Gore four years ago but many of those who voted Republican now sound liberal to radical when they speak out against Bush (Al-Arain sounded like a radical when he spoke in Berkeley several years ago but in 2000 he helped Bush get elected http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA78MA4HCD.html).
Where I disagree is that this started in the 1980s. Liberals have long opposed totalitarians and authoritarians whether of a right-wing or left-wing color. Look at liberal opposition to communists in the unions during the 30s and 40s and liberal disgust with the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s. Liberals have been taking b.s. from the hard left (and dishing it out) for decades. What is ironic is when the extreme leftists get busted for their beliefs or engaing in various forms of criminal behavior, they come running to liberal attorneys in the ACLU, etc. for protection.
The Republicans have a pretty solid base in the cultural conservative working-class which at times seems to make up a majority of the voters in the US. The cultural divide will probably determine voting patterns more than the economic divide and poorer communities are on average more religious.
Your article makes very little sense. Kerry will bring us closer to destruction than Bush ever will, so why not go with the lesser evil there? How do you rationalize with yourself over voting for someone you won't support anyway?
At least with Bush, we know where we stand. Kerry is a fickle little bug, one that I hope will get squashed come election time.
unfortunately, it's probably not possible for people to internally reform the United States, as the imperial, expansionist impetus is just too deeply ingrained
of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, as I could be wrong, but it does mean that the US is much more likely to be forcibly transformed by people outside the US than by people within it
for example, regardless of what you think of their ideology, assuming that you can define it, given its fractured nature, the Iraqi resistance has done more to stall the American drive to dominate the Middle East, and indeed, much of the world, than any American social movement of the last 100 years
planned overt and covert US operations against other countries like Syria, Iran and North Kora, have been put on hold while the insurgency continues in Iraq, and the insurgency may well prevail, thus successfully rolling back US influence in the region, and setting an example for others around the world (see, for example, recent articles about Haiti, where pro-Aristide protesters, with faces concealed by bandanas said, "It's going to be just like Baghdad")
likewise, in a different respect, the conjunction of the global justice movement in places like Seattle and Cancun, with the increasing clout of what Wall Streeters call "emerging markets", China, Brazil, Venezuela and South Africa, for example, have done more to slow the process of globalization through American finance capital than any purely domestic political action, certainly more than any electoral process, which has been completely useless in trying to address this issue
indeed, the invasion of Iraq can also be viewed as 'globalization by force', necessitated by the loss of American economic influence, with 9/11 as the backdrop that made this escalation possible
in the future, the prospect of effective boycotts of US products around the world is a distinct possibility if the US intensifies the level of violence around the world
so, as far this election is concerned, how do we make it easier for people around the world to take control of their own destinies?
what can we do to give these people more room for manuever?
people who don't just get thrown into jail for 2 or 3 days for civil disobedience, but indefinitely detained, tortured, shot and killed for their dissidence?
as far as the election is concerned, leaving other actions aside, for me, the answer is obvious, and its the same answer that you get from people all over the world: vote Kerry to get rid of Bush
with the exception of George Monbiot, I haven't heard anyone from abroad saying, "Vote Nader"
Kerry's liberal imperialism, with all of its obvious evils, creates larger spaces for people to resist, partially by persuading people that even greater resistance is possible, while Bush's fundamentalist kind is based upon the principle of hunting down and eradicating all resistance
realistically, that's all we can do right now
--Richard Estes
Davis, CA
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.