Friday, October 08, 2004

Bush the Lesser Evil? For Some Issues, It Is Worth Considering

By Glorious Revolutionary Federation

Read full article...

Posted 10/08 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I think there are many reasons to believe that Bush would be better on Israel/Palestine. The Saudi factor, for one may be a bittersweet silver lining, but one assumes that he will make good on his promise to the Arab elite that supported his Iraq adventure for profit,promising them he would create a neoliberal Palestine for them to invest in.  I am not being facetious whatsoever.  Bush is not a doctrinaire free trader, but he is very much an oil industry man, and oil needs a Palestinian state (mid-east security, Pax Americana, etc.)

    Kerry, there is reason to believe, could respond to Pro Palestinian pressures from the two remaining Pro Palestinian Dems, Jim Carter and Jess Jackson.  But I don’t think he offers any hope, while Bush offers a sort of grim, sleazey capitalist hope.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/08  at  11:51 PM

  2. Good article; lays it all out in one place. While I wait to see if Nader will be on the Ohio ballot, I’m down to this element for making the choice: the belief that fewer people worldwide will die under a Kerry presidency than under another Bush presidency, whether stolen or elected. Simply because Kerry would want to, one assumes, prove himself to the world and perhaps be more subject to suasion by progressives. Also, at one point in his life, Kerry took an important and unpopular moral stance. Perhaps he might be moved to do so again. Bush has never taken such a stance, so far as I know. Would like to hear others’ responses. If you think my thinking is naive, please say so.

    Posted by catherine from  on  10/09  at  10:14 AM

  3. “Naive” would be a relief. It’s more frustrating, more frightening than that, Catherine. Bless you, but you are not the only one who is missing the point that none of us have four more years to wait for any of the candidates to get into office and do something. It is not at all a question --to take one of your examples-- of how many people will die under this or that administration. It’s more frightening than that. The planet is in its death throes because of the electoral system that keeps people in denial, etc.  If you’re going to play the electoral game, then at least put your electoral energy into someone who represents a significant concern about The Death Knell I speak of.  If you’re going to cite “silly” PR positions that the Kerryites throw out (citing his personal history) about moral stances you’re going to hold yourself back from making a worthy contribution.  This goes for all readers who cannot get themselves to call the two major candidates murderers, cannot acknowledge the history of both major parties, cannot embrace the fact of our mutual ecocide in progress and who...as per my article this week on Press Action ("Paul Simon’s Ballpark Figure")...do not have hope for a better day.  Blessings in solidarity, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/09  at  10:41 AM

  4. Ox, I don’t deny at all. I don’t expect the human species to last much longer and only hope we don’t take the rest of life with us. But in the meantime, I want to act in a way that makes it possible for as many people (not the powerful, but the rest of us)as possible to survive and work for change or resist occupation, etc., in whatever time is left. Therefore I have three choices, it seems to me. Vote for Nader - a vote both for a person who has contributed to the common good in ways that most politicians no longer can or desire to imagine, and a vote for a new kind of non-corporate electoral system - or,
    vote for one of the two corporate nominees (see previous post), or, a third choice: don’t vote for president at all, making the statement that the system no longer works in any way that sustains life and lives (both of people and the other life in the environment), and one doesn’t want to be a part of it (though I suspect that’s a fairly self-absorbed choice). I guess what I’m looking for is a choice that makes sense in case we do manage to turn it around. Australia didn’t turn their small part around today, which is very bad news indeed.

    Posted by catherine from  on  10/09  at  05:35 PM

  5. Thanks for responding, C. Another option is to vote for Nader as a peripheral activity (even getting others to do the same w minimal effort, if possible)...and...devote most of one’s energies to undermining the structures you speak of, etc.  In an effort to a) make a statement or two AND b) force certain changes and/or confrontations.  Aussies never had a chance, did they?  And that situation is repeated worldwide; it’s getting worse, clearly.  That’s why those Down Under, hopefully, did not extend themselves too much, expend too much energy on the electoral sleight of hand.  Ditto --with prayers-- for those Up Above.  Sleep and hang w the angels, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/09  at  06:58 PM

  6. First of all, to J Cummings, why do you think Bush would be better re Palestine. If he’s made promises to the Arab leaders, wouldn’t he have carried some of them out by now? And why should they continue to trust him with no action so far. I was actually looking forward to that issue to being marginally better under Bush 2, because I thought that Poppy used to speak severely to the Israelis once in a while, at least that’s my memory.

    And to Ox, we’re working here in Cleveland to support Muslim and Arab victims of the 9/11 - PNAC policies. But things are bad, really bad, as a recent poll shows - vis a vis non-Muslim Americans’ view of Muslim Americans. Thanks for responding.  Cath

    Posted by catherine from  on  10/09  at  10:16 PM

  7. Good work on several counts, Cath.  You are dead on with your “skepticism” regarding Bush, of course.  Your direct experience with the non-Muslim community is something I would rely on more than polls.  Regardless, it certainly IS bad...all over respecting what you’re talking about.  And we must be more forceful with...educating the public.  Would like to know what comments you might enter adjacent to my PAUL SIMON’S BALLPARK FIGURE piece of this week...which is being ignored.  I’d like to know what anyone is doing to “force” issues.  Or why they have faith that more time will turn the trick.  Or from whence comes the notion that intense confrontation is not called for.  And so on.  People here have a calling, and it is not to talk more...only.  Blessings in solidarity, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/10  at  01:51 AM

  8. I raised the issue to make a point, though my skepticism goes in many directions.  Bush has been an asshole, called Sharon a man of peace, etc.  I think conjunctures may force him to change his mind.  Certainly there are more vocally Pro-Palestinian conservatives than “liberals.”

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/10  at  10:28 AM

  9. Just for “fun” let’s think about what kind of different picture we paint if we call Bush an “asshole” versus calling him a genocidist or, to avoid unnecessary talk at this turn, a murderer.  Dwell on that for a moment, if you will.  All readers.  Whatever the stats and “conjuctures” may provide at a given moment, I think one of the most fundamental issues here is the question of whether or not a given reader is willing to give up the notion that something satisfying can be worked out under the present framework of operation.  Pass the scalpel, please.  Best, Doctor Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  10/10  at  01:05 PM

  10. Re: Someone, perhaps Ox, recommended reading DN’s interview with the “other” VP candidates. I never knew the abolitionist movement declined to vote for either party as long as they both supported slavery. What a clear and principled decision. I think I’m closer to making my decision about 11/2.

    Posted by catherine from  on  10/10  at  02:15 PM

    11. Next entry: Hey Mr. Turkey, That’s a Fancy Way to Walk

    Previous entry: Of Icebergs and Islands: Captain David Cobb Aids the Collapse of the Left

    [ads]

    Support Press Action