More on John Kerry
Press Action
Monday, May 03, 2004
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mitchell05032004/
By David H. Mitchell
In my Feb. 9 article critical of John Kerry, I concluded that I, nonetheless, probably would hold my nose and silently vote for him in the November elections. However, a strategic silent vote for Kerry did not mean I could ever work to “support” Kerry, which I feel would not be consistent with my principles and would undermine the long-term efforts to build political alternatives that we so desperately need.
Unfortunately, many “Anybody But Bush” people don’t seem to appreciate the distinction and the serious questions of politics and conscience and principle involved for many of us in even considering a silent vote for Kerry. Some even seem more intent on proselytizing and/or attacking those of us who won’t “support” Kerry publicly or work for him than on pressuring Kerry to better reflect their own anti-war concerns. This is reminiscent of the vehemence of attacks by Democrats against Nader voters after the 2000 election that helped convince me to finally drop my Democratic Party registration a couple years ago. The Democratic Party didn’t own our votes, and, when it thinks it does, we lose all leverage to affect its policies.
Even if I might vote for Kerry in the end, I still have mixed feelings about the 2004 Nader candidacy and also whether or not the Green Party should run a presidential candidate. One thing does not (or should not) necessarily foreclose the other. Answers are not always so clear-cut. We must respect those differences we have within the “movement.” We must think about both the short-term and the long-term. We must keep our dialogue and alternatives open and growing for the future. If we kill ourselves off every four years, we will never build viable alternatives (or even pressure political realignment within the Democratic Party — if that is still the hope of some).
However, despite my prior intention to vote for Kerry as the lesser evil for whatever difference he may offer, even that silent vote is becoming more difficult. I now am not at all sure that I will be able to vote for him in November. We have a long way to go before then, and there is no way Kerry owns my vote. What he stands for still matters. While there may be clear differences on some domestic issues, Kerry is hardly different than Bush on Iraq, Palestine/Israel, Venezuela and other foreign policy issues. In fact, Kerry (with his talk of more troops for Iraq, “failure is not an option”, etc. and his unquestioning support of Israel) could prove to be worse on Iraq and the Middle East. With Bush now faltering and retreating (at least temporarily) in the face of growing Iraqi nationalism and resistance, Kerry seems even more dedicated to “accomplishing the mission” whatever the costs and whether or not he can finesse an international face on OUR occupation (or rather a fig leaf of international involvement without real qualitative difference as to our political, economic and military control and objectives).
Again, perhaps we should take a lesson from history. While I couldn’t support “lesser evil” Johnson in 1964, many did as an alternative to that “madman” Goldwater. We ended up with major escalation in Vietnam, which ended up killing millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans because we couldn’t “retreat” or consider “failure as an option” once we were there. We are hearing the same today, and someday we better learn how to devote ourselves to the hard struggle to build real long-term alternatives to stop these repeated horrors and the madness of it all.
It goes without saying, whether or not we “support” or intend to vote for Kerry, that we must escalate our activities against the war in an attempt to move discussion beyond the military options and maintenance of United States control in Iraq. I also trust that those who are so gung ho for Kerry now will at least keep an open and critical mind and continue discourse about their candidate, what is happening around us on the road to November, and remain open to alternative and/or parallel activities that may actually prove to be more productive in meeting our concerns in the end. “Support” for Kerry (in whatever fashion) should not mean we abrogate conscience and reason no matter what he says and where that may lead in the end. This is a difficult year, but we must keep our options open as we continue to listen critically to what Kerry is actually saying and evaluate the implications. Only by maintaining our independence and not being taken for granted do we preserve some leverage to affect policies and candidates.
As to what Kerry is saying: In my February 9, 2004 article (posted Feb. 22, 2004 on Press Action), I discussed the dangerous direction that Kerry’s primary victories were taking the Democratic Party in reasserting the corporate and centrist control of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the foreign policies advocated by the Progressive Policy Institute. In particular, I discussed his disturbing major speech on Iraq at Drake University in Iowa on Dec. 16, 2003. This was a major attack on anti-war forces within the Democratic Party, as part of the successful campaign to marginalize and defeat them. More recently, in an April 13, 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post Kerry argued that, despite past differences on how we got into Iraq, we must unite with determination now and use whatever resources are necessary (including more American troops) to persevere and accomplish the “mission” in Iraq as a matter of “national honor and trust.” (It is important to know Kerry’s plan and to know that he may not offer the “light at the end of the tunnel” as so many seem to believe.)
In 1946 Winston Churchill gave his “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Mo., with President Truman at his side. This is considered historically to have been the opening declaration and salvo in the “Cold War.” On April 30, 2004 John Kerry went to Fulton and gave his own “Moment of Truth” speech about rallying us and other nations to America’s “mission” in Iraq. (That speech may be read in full at Kerry’s web site, www.JohnKerry.com.) We must really consider if this is what we want for Iraq and the world. Smarter is not necessarily better; it may just facilitate doing what is wrong “better.” How many more dead will that mean?
Whether or not one ends up voting for Kerry or not, it is not as simple a decision as it might appear. The effect on many issues (domestic and foreign, short-term and long-term, etc.) must be considered and balanced — as well as the actual implications and effects on the people of Iraq, the rest of the Middle East and the rest of the world for years to come. We may want to send an anti-Bush, anti-war message. That message may not be sent by voting for Kerry — depending on where we are and where he stands in November. Maybe, we actually get worse as to issues of war and peace. It remains to be seen. Meanwhile, we must continue the major work needed to affect or check the policies of whoever is in power and attempt to build alternative sources of power for the future.
David H. Mitchell lives in Rockland County, N.Y.