Friday, October 22, 2004

For Kerry, It’s Not Easy Pretending to be Green

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 10/22 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Thanks as always to Josh for his studious reportage. It’s like deja vu all over again. Remember how Gore was going to be the next hope to the environment as Veep? As soon as he was in office he reneged on a pledge to clean up a toxic waste incinerator to some of his voters (suckers!). Greg Bates had a column today at Counterpunch pointing out an interesting fact: income disparity between workers and CEOs skyrocketed under Clinton and a greater pace than under Bush I (that is, CEOs came out on top, duh). Can you imagine what they are going to get away with with everyone thinking Kerry is better than Bush II? The Beltway Greens will be laughing all the way to the bank. Josh’s and Greg’s articles are good companion readers to refute all of the ABB/NBK rhetoric.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/23  at  07:07 AM

  2. Rhino Rick is correct to note Bates’s contribution to the “Hello? people . . . Kerry does suck” argument. (Bates’s article reminded me slightly of the line Tom Frank pursued in “One Market Under God” . . . i.e., the claim that those economic policies that engender massive disparity of wealth hoodwink the public with the language of slick talk policy-marketing) But as far as I can decipher all this, the charges boil down to Kerry is not a leftist . . . and any leftist already knows that. I would like to discuss something that’s on my mind: I do believe there is a misconception that antiwar/anticapitalist forces that want to topple Bush as a symbol of choosing war ALSO think that Kerry is listening to them, on their side or conversely, that they are on Kerry’s side. Hogwash! I look at all this election thusly: (a) there is no lesser or better of two “evils”, just “evil” (I would further say that we are just looking at two methods of enforcing an agenda for capital, one is called neoliberal, the other is called neoconservative, and both are anti-environment). (b) both candidates oppose our not-for-capital agenda. (c) we should play them against one another, i.e., divide and conquer. OK: Let’s imagine Bush wins and things continue souring for both the American people and the world. Will this not bolster Democratic credibility? They will revert to their old mainstay: “If only we were in charge this would never happen. We put people first!” If Kerry is elected and things continue souring for the American people and the world, then recourse to this exculpating trope will be empirically disallowed. There remains the possibility that a Kerry administration would pursue pacification of the American populace with some minor amelioration of their material conditions, seeking to disarm radical and socialist claims that the people are getting screwed and stave off mass action. It’s a tough call, as a Marxist, I am thinking of the ramifications for class struggle, not the puerile proposition that an election can change anything.

    Posted by Theo Papathanasis from  on  10/23  at  09:48 AM

  3. Hi Theo, Nice to make your acquaintance. Just for the sake of argument, David Krieger has an article at CounterPunch today as well, about the difference between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum regarding nuclear weaponry issues. Although he does not come out and endorse Kerry, he clearly shows that Bush flunks every test to make the world a safer non nuclear place. Not a meaningless point to raise. No doubt Kerry would improve slightly on Bush’s abysmal record of improving nuclear checks if elected, while carrying on merrily as a slave to the Global Monetocracy, the Zionist lobby, etc., and toward global suicide/ecocide/omnicide, albeit in a kinder, gentler, liberal way. I guess. Would Kerry call for an environmentall friendly for of Depleted Uranium to be used in future imperial wars? The Beltway Green lobby would jump for joy if he did. Reminds me of Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute fame (and he has done many laubable things regarding energy conservation) calling for a leaner US military that uses less energy to accomplish its missions!

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/23  at  08:22 PM

  4. Hey! I agree that Krieger does not openly endorse the bloodstained goose blaster, but he’s piled heaps onto the already formidably large “Yet, people, Bush does remain outright dangerous!” argument. Yes, on this particular (and clearly momentous) issue Kerry cannot possibly do worse. (A couple months ago, after putting down Helen Caldicott’s very anti-Bush “The New Nuclear Danger”, I can remember my not so revolutionary reaction was to drink myself into a stupor.) Environmentally friendly armaments? That’s sickeningly sort of funny! However, it’s very reasonable to ban DU; as I’m sure you are aware, there is wide consensus, running the gamut from anticaps to military officers, that this should be done . . . Of course, I would never suggest that modern warfare is not an ecologically borderline criminal act. I was unaware of Lovins’ comment: an outright laughable statement. Do I have this right? Let’s be militarily more fuel efficient waging resource wars (Klare), thus ensuring our ability to continue being commercially fuel inefficient and—and I am so happy to see this word gaining usage daily—ecocidal. Anyway, the disillusioned (and I mean that in the positive sense of the word) progressive take on this election can only be that it’s a determination of who our next enthroned political adversary will be. Nothing more. Nice to meet you too.

    Posted by Theo Papathanasis from  on  10/24  at  10:33 AM

  5. I was being sarcastic (sometimes doesn’t make it through the cyber space, even at a cynical old site like pressaction) about an environmentally friendly armament (in fact, I remember reading about some kind of “green:” bullet being developed by weapon makers in order to improve PR or something). I have posted a number of comments here in the past about Leuron Moret’s research (please look her up on the web) that showed that deadly DU radioactive particles now contaminate the entire planet to some degree, and forever! Ban DU (mis named, nothing depleted about it) and all of the pentagon’s other evil plans (take HAARP for example, Earth as the ultimate weapon).

    Regarding Michael Klare of the Nation magazine, I didn’t know that was his closet or open agenda but not surprised. Thanks for the wake up call.

    Anyway, looks like Kerry will lose and the Dems will be really really happy since they can blame it all on Nader.

    PS, Theo, keep up the radical critiquing and as Richard Oxman says, let’s figure out a way to turn our anger turn into positive action. Best, Rhino

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  10/26  at  04:02 AM

  6. Very interesting blog!

    Posted by Donny from UK  on  09/16  at  02:41 AM
    7. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: C-SPAN Steps 'Outside the Ballot Box'

    Previous entry: Hey Irshad, Your 15 Minutes Are Up

    [ads]

    Support Press Action