Saturday, April 24, 2004

A Realistic Election Strategy the Left Can Really Get Behind

By Stephen Gowans

Read full article...

Posted 04/24 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. “As between the racists and the integrationists, I highly prefer the racists. I’d rather walk among rattlesnakes, whose constant rattle warns me where they are, than among those Northern snakes who grin and make you forget you’re still in a snake pit.” - Malcolm X

    Posted by Justin Felux from  on  04/24  at  12:01 AM

  2. Looks like I’m not writing THAT article...Steve, did you download my brain? As a supporter of Ralph Kushberry Goodman, unfortunately I can’t vow support for Bush. However, I agree with the thinking entirely. And Justin’s X comments are very relavent…

    Posted by Kap Fulton from  on  04/24  at  03:30 AM

  3. Glad to make the acquiantance of pressaction and their wonderful writers (everyone, really, I just keep nodding my head in agreement, one writer after another). Yes, I am way behind the times but I live over here in Tokyo (even though we beat you Americans into the future, technically). It’s just nice to know there are at least five other people in the world who think like I do (or I think like they do).

    I agree with Stephen and Malcolm X, better to walk among the rattle snakes rather than be bitten by a silent and inert Gila monster (I think they are poisonous, they are definitely slow moving).

    I prefer the obvious Hitler clone #1 (Bush jr.) over Hitler clone #2 (Kerry), for many of the reasons we already understand. I mean, does anyone pay attention to empirical data these days, besides Stephen? If someone can offer a different view on Kerry, please present it, but they cannot, so they do not (just vapid New York Times rhetoric about Kerry being “strongly progressive” and the like: don’t make me puke!). Other than Kerry’s press secretary, David Corn, of the Nation magazine, noone has really tried to show any proof that JFKII is any longer a liberal (as opposed to killing babies in the 1960’s, a very liberal stance in those days). Ruth Coniff wrote a pretty good article answering the question I had long had about his voting record (see The Progressive or commondreams.org, the unofficial Kerry website, haha). According to her, the last time Kerry took a liberal stand was in 1996, since then he has become a firebrand militarist (worse than Hitler clone No. 1). This makes him the ideal candidate from the point of the ruling class: he has populist credentials--no matter how irrelevant--but has matured into a full blown Naziesque leader.

    As a friend of mine noted, Kerry will do for Bush what Clinton did for Reagan: legitimate the predecessor’s reactionary agenda. This is the way the US political system has worked (according to Pete Camejo and Don Fitz, two Green sages), throughout history. The Dems are a proven false alternative.

    Gab Kolko and Bill Christison at Counterpunch have also argued that Bush jr. may be better than Kerry for complex reasons of geopolitics. I just prefer to have the obvious moron Bush on full view of the world to show what a ghastly fraud, and vast flowing stream of nitrogen rich detritus our political system has become.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  04/24  at  04:57 AM

  4. “Kerry has more layers of blood to scrape away.”

    LOL

    I think we need Bush to concentrate more on the “do not call” list he signed into law. No other use of state power has ever played such a positive role on the immediate level in my life.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  04/24  at  06:16 AM

  5. Sheesh! Glad I’m not alone in my thinking wrt this election. I’ve been contemplating a vote for Bush for some time now for just the reasons you’ve mentioned.
    Sadly, I live in NY, and my vote counts for very little, (see the Electoral College). Yet I will still vote for Bush.

    Posted by ed from  on  04/24  at  08:26 AM

  6. Ed, I also live in NY and with Kerry guaranteed to win our state (barring a truck bomb at the convention or Osama turning up at a matinee of “The Producers"), why not Nader?

    A vote for Nader is not necessarily a statement of solidarity with all his stances, but it’s one way to announce that what you want isn’t on the menu...and you’re getting mighty hungry.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  04/24  at  12:57 PM

  7. Useful article as it frames the absurd nature of the ABB arguement in more visceral terms – not useful however if people have misinterpreted it and decided to use it as real justification to actually cast a vote for Bush – which it appears some people have. As I’ve said before I think it’s a grave mistake to be brought into an arguement which attempts to quantify, in any meaningful, the presidencies Reagan/Bush1vs. Clinton. I suspect convicing arguments could be made for either case – but can the former though (the so-called overt threat), particulary in respect to activists or progressives (keeping in mind too that the former directely lead into the the latter) be considered more fruitful? So to any progressive argument for Bush over Kerry ultimately resorts to the same mealy-mouther ‘faith based’ assertions that plague the ABB one: “Kerry…maybe…might…possibly…be WORSE…” (Actually I personally think the ABB argument has the ‘slight’ advantage in moral and logical terms—albeit a ignorant one, based on delusion factor X, wheras the the Bush presidency is a known quantity – an abomitable one.) But anyway lets please put this argument out to pasture. And to answer any concerns about the advantages of the more ‘overt threat,’ I pose this question - any people that would essenitally be ‘put to sleep’ by a Kerry presidency (therby necessitating a Bush one) – are they really of any use at this moment anyhow?

    Apparently some of you didn’t read Stephens’ other recent article from 2 days ago, “My What Would Chomsky Do? Penpals” which closes with the following lines I much much prefer, and suspect (and hope) are more in line with Mr. Gowans own thoughts…

    “Bush is dangerous.
    Right.
    Don’t vote for Bush.
    Couldn’t agree more.
    Be realistic.
    Good point. We should realistically acknowledge that Kerry isn’t going to be any better than Bush, much as we might wish him to be. Realistically speaking, the only option is to vote for neither.”

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/24  at  02:02 PM

  8. You may be correct there Mickey Z. I’ve thought about the Nader option too. There’s plenty of time to decide. I’ll think some more on it.

    pax

    Posted by ed from  on  04/24  at  02:15 PM

  9. BruceA,

    Speaking only for myself, I was not serious.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  04/27  at  03:00 PM

  10. Mr. Gowans, since you are a “writer and political activist living in Ottawa, Canada,” and don’t have to live with the consequences of another four years’ worth of Bush (unless, of course, he decides to declare all Canadians “enemy combatants” and send his new, all-conscription army up to the frozen north), it must be very amusing to you and your friends to smugly suggest that leftists should vote for Bush.  It’s too bad that as an American, I can’t afford to join in the hilarity.  You see, I happen to value my constitutional rights, such as they are.  I happen to enjoy being able to write an internet post with the words “#### BUSH!” and not have to worry about being sent to Gitmo as a result. 

    Thanks for the suggestion, but all the same, I think I’ll vote for Kerry.  Personally, I’m tired of tilting at windmills.  You may continue to do so, from the safety of your Canuckian hideout, but don’t expect too many American lefties to go along with you.

    Posted by commie atheist from  on  04/29  at  03:46 PM

  11. For the record, since Stephen Gowans continues to spout off his peurile bullshit without checking his facts, I am not in the Communist Party and I am not endorsing an elect-Kerry strategy.

    Just in case facts matter to him.

    I’ve written to him to ask him to quit misrepresenting me and my positions, but apparently he finds fact-checking and verification to be too tedious.

    Stan Goff

    Posted by Stan Goff from  on  05/01  at  03:24 PM

  12. I hope Stan Goff writes directly to Gowans...requesting a response...as Stephen may not notice the “objections” lodged here.  For the self-described “commie” above, please note that in this day and age it matters not a bit that Stephen is from Canada...in voicing his opinions...as more years for Bush will affect everyone in the world...as will years in office for Kerry.  It would really be productive if people could make Mickey’s point of departure THE point of departure for stances vis-a-vis the upcoming election...as Nader is the bare minimal form of protest one can put forth; all talk of action should be --ideally- coupled with something about what illegal action and/or new forms of pressure can be implemented/asserted...to force change.  Arundhati Roy’s words on ZNet today are an example of what I’m talking about here.  Although her starting point is India...it applies to us all with regard to November...the time leading up to November.  Blessings, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  05/01  at  08:00 PM

  13. Stan,

    If your views have been misrepresented, it’s not a consequence of malice, but of your (deliberate?) ambiguity.

    Based on your recent articles, we can conclude that you believe:

    1. That the Democrats are different from, and preferable to, the Republicans.
    2. That the Left should pressure the Democrats.
    3. That the Left has a role to play in electoral politics.
    4. That the 2004 election matters.

    To be sure, it need not follow as a necessary conclusion from these views that you’re endorsing Kerry. And neither does it follow necessarily from the way Chomsky has stated his views that he endorses a vote Kerry strategy.

    But your views (as Chomsky’s and the Communist Party’s) are hardly inconsistent with the idea that the Left should throw its weight behind Kerry. Indeed, anyone endorsing a vote Kerry strategy would make—and have made—exactly the same points as you. 

    Nevertheless, you say you’re not endorsing a vote-Kerry strategy. Okay, fine. That’s good to hear. But the question arises, If not a vote for Kerry, what voting strategy are you endorsing? It’s clear you’re endorsing some kind of voting strategy. You’ve told us what it isn’t. Now, tell us what it is.

    Steve

    Posted by Stephen Gowans from  on  05/02  at  10:53 AM

    14. Next entry: The American Way of Life

    Previous entry: Stopping the Wars That Be With a Free Mickey Z

    [ads]

    Support Press Action