Thursday, February 26, 2004

John Kerry and the Power of Discretion

By Mark Hand

Read full article...

Posted 02/26 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I agree, Mark.

    Chomsky has often said the elites “fired” LBJ in the 1960s and we might see something similar this year. Bush catching Osama during the Democratic Convention, of course, might complicate matters...but that doesn’t change the realities you point out.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  02/26  at  05:51 AM

  2. Mickey-- Thanks for pointing out Chomsky’s take on why LBJ didn’t seek re-election in 1968. It’s possible a similar scenario may play out in 2004. But with a campaign war chest exceeding $100 million, George W. Bush still must be viewed as the odds-on favorite to win in November and is still the preference of legions of executives across Corporate America who are willing to roll the dice on Bush for another four years, hoping he will keep on cutting taxes and rolling back certain regulations without rocking the economic boat too badly. But some of the economic elite who get what Bush is really about are beginning to whisper their concerns about Bush. Over the course of the next few months, I’m sure we’re going to see Kerry’s campaign war chest begin to fill up, although he’ll never catch up to George W.’s obscenely bloated campaign bank account. Kerry probably doesn’t need to compete with Bush on campaign contributions as long as he has enough to pay a large campaign staff, campaign aggressively across the nation, and buy enough television and radio ad spots. And even if Osama is captured during Kerry’s coronation in Boston, I think he still has a good chance of knocking off Bush in November.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  02/26  at  08:51 AM

  3. First of all, I thank Mark Hand for the article; I’m truly impressed by the information gathered, the well-worded, well-meaning expression of our mutual concerns. Secondly, I’m happy that Mickey Z’s contribution came down the pike.  Third, however, I must note that it is NOT “possible” to speak of “discretion and war in the same breath” (if we want to have a chance to change things).  Fourth, I think too many heartbeats are being devoted to the question of the financial war chests for both parties...as it takes away, I believe, from the fundamental point that it doesn’t make enough of a difference who gets in.  (That doesn’t mean the details aren’t fascinating in this particular instance.) Fifth, as far as which way Kerry might be pulled or go...I’d only urge readers to review AN AIR THAT KILLS by Andrew Schneider and David McCumber to get a sense of how little it matters which way any given president goes regarding environmental issues that are highly profiled in the news when less publicized (or virtually unreported) abominations like the spread of asbestos (highlighted in the Schneider/McCumber work)continue to contribute to our planetary demise. Kerry and all the other Dems have been part and parcel of poisoning of America for a long time, and there’s no hope for reversing that kind of momentum unless we spend more time on the daunting task of coming up with new strategies to fight them...and less time on the relatively insignificant nuances that might or might not --theoretically/judging from the latest revelations-- come to pass.  Respecting the Osama issue, I think we all better get ready to do something new to stop our atrocities...outside of the usual approaches...as both Bush and Kerry can easily come up successes or challenges of one kind or another to keep us on our insane, suicidal, homicidal, ecocidal course.  And they will.  Our country --with the leadership shown throughout our history by the likes of them-- has done nothing less; all of our institutionalized leaders have contributed to our raving madness, our ravishing of the planet.  It will not stop with well-reasoned discourses/more proof in the pudding pieces unless we devote many more heartbeats (simultaneously)to strategies we can adopt.  Again, this is not to be disrespectful of the hard work and sweet achievement here of Mark Hand.
    Respectfully, Richard Oxman

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  02/26  at  01:13 PM

  4. Richard-- I think I found myself nodding in agreemennt with your five points plus your take on the Osama issue. The point of the first half of the article was to provide more evidence that Kerry is a status quo candidate who will not make any fundamental changes to U.S. policy. And that’s why the ruling elite think he would make an excellent leader. The second part of the article sought to provide a concrete link to the official merger of equals going on between the Dems and Republicans. As for New Source Review, it’s just one of many band-aid provisions of the Clean Air Act. It shows how far gone the Republicrats are on issues surrounding the environment when they can’t even support a modest proposal to add pollution controls when power plant operators make upgrades.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  02/26  at  02:07 PM

  5. Richard,

    Yours is a comment you make repeatedly, which is entirely reasonable, but perhaps you ought to take the reins of leadership on this.  What are ways to invest the heartbeats?  What strategies can be adopted? 

    I can tell you that I am recovering from injuries sustained in a car accident almost a year ago, just getting to the point of ambulation, and look for March 20th to be my coming out day, so to speak.  The day I plan to get active again, and get out from behind a book or computer screen.  In the me ntime, I have kept myself well-informed, notwithstanding what Kahlil Gibran said about a little knowledge that acts is better than a lot that doesn’t.  And I am in the process of volunteering for the Nader campaign.  I agree, as it’s been pointed out elsewhere, that who is or is not president is a small part of the work that needs to be done.  But what do you think are the strategies?  What do you think are the approaches and the best way to solve problems whose seriousness you have asserted elsewhere as being dire, with which I agree?

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  02/26  at  06:14 PM

  6. Thank you Mark.  Thank you Tracy.  Regarding Tracy’s comments, I feel like I am taking the reins in repeating what’s not being heeded.  It is, obviously, an overwhelming task to actually come up with specific strategies...and you are absolutely RIGHT to call someone like me on WHAT TO DO. The best example I can give at the moment --using the info you’ve provided-- is to underscore (once again) that the March 20th thing is highly suspect...and deserves special questions.  The date itself --as I have pointed out before-- helps to compound ignorance with ignorance; protesting on that day is contributing to the notion that the “war” (in fact, the “escalation") began a year ago. That is NOT a small point.  This ANSWER-organized event deserves some applause, BUT...not if it’s at the cost of clearly looking at the problems the event presents.  As I’ve noted before, there is a huge downside to “marching in circles.” For one, people only have so much time to devote to protests, it would appear.  I believe time would be better spent...if people acknowledged that the time is long past when such marches will produce sufficient positive results to warrant the effort.  Sure, there is value.  However, the value is small when it comes to what has to be done.  The answer to your main question will come from people like you going back and forth on strategy options.  Not asking me for a viable option (I’m working on that daily w people I’m in touch with...on an intimate level, in great privacy...not via email).  And not in the kind of setting that the March 20th event will afford. It’s too public a situation, and,in general, people feel that it’s enough that they showed upto such a thing...and are not motivated to dig deep within themselves for options.  Does that make sense?  There are other questions that have to be asked about the March 20th event.  It’s good that you’re getting better.  It’s good that you’re committed to getting out and meeting with people with the idea of making a difference.  Here’s hoping that you saw my WHAT TO DO?  VIOLENCE RECONSIDERED piece on http://www.dissidentvoice.org.  That seemingly simple suggestions made there are daunting enough.  I’d be curious to know if you think they’re not enough --those suggestions-- or impractical.  Loving best in solidarity, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  02/26  at  08:32 PM

  7. Now I’m more confused than ever.  I had read your assertion about March 20th before, and doubted not its veracity.  Nonetheless, it seemed to me actions such as that were the strongest that could be taken against an admitted avalanche of problems.  To try to regain the momentum of Seattle pre 9/11.  I’ll definitely take a look at the article you’ve pointed to.

    With tail between my legs,

    Tracy

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  02/27  at  09:28 PM

  8. Very sweet of you to respond, T.  No need whatsoever to do “tail between legs” bit as your intentions are what count here; we’re discussing fine points that particularly bother me.  I consider them crucial respecting the so-called movement (which I will no longer capitalize), but...much has to be hashed out.  That’s all that’s truly important at this juncture.  Thank goodness you’re on board with that; wish it were true of many others.  One of he horrid aspects to “celebrating” (acknowledging?) the 20th is that it’s THEIR date, meaning it’s the date of the Powers.  Our date “should be” Feb. 15th; should have been...if there was going to be some acknowledgement of a date this year. The reasons, I hope, are obvious.  But, again, it’s apparently clear that not enough people in the movement feel the horror of the years of sanctions and bombing that preceded the March 20th escalation.  I mean, the organizers must feel something deep, but...setting that date begs the question --at the very least-- of why it was chosen over the Feb. option.  Again, it’s not a small point.  And isn’t it important to make some attempt to go back and forth with the “movement public” on this issue of dates?  Setting something like that down from “above” w/o any such attempt --I think I’m safe on this point of criticism-- is a problem.  All in all, one must ask what’s the best one can hope for with a good turnout...as a low turnout will speak negative volumes.  Organizing for the 20th will help build local solidarity in various localities nationwide, keep the general pressure on and educate the general public, potentially, to some degree. Did I leave something out?  Regardless, I don’t think they warrant such a huge effort.  If the payoff is the routine one, and so minimal, perhaps we’d be better devoting our seemingly little energy available to sweating out...new paradigms for action.  That’s a large part of my point.  Keep up your wonderful efforts and intentions, Trace.  Best, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  02/28  at  06:55 PM
    9. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Sen. Warner Maintains Support for Army Officer

    Previous entry: Trusting Democrats: A Familiar Trap

    [ads]

    Support Press Action